Wapokoneta Daily News - "Seeking changes"

News Article

Wapokoneta Daily News - "Seeking changes"

For the second time this month an Ohio Congressman voted against the 2007 Farm Bill because he does not support direct payments to wealthy farmers or earmarks included in the legislation.

The freshman legislator also would like to see Congress take advantage of current high commodity prices and move farmers to a more market-oriented program. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, voted against the five-year. $290 billion 2007 Farm Bill when the measure first hit the floor earlier this month and again Thursday when a revised version of the bill came up for a vote because a 34-page section was omitted from legislation initially passed by House members.

"It is appropriate that the Democratic leadership do it this way because you cannot have one bill pass and the president veto something that wasn't the same legislation because part of it was missing," Jordan said Thursday during a teleconference with Ohio media. "It is a very serious Constitutional concern and the only way to fix it is to go back and do it right — and that is what I believe the Democratic leadership is going to do."

The initial House vote was 316-108, with Thursday's veto override vote at 306-110.

Jordan blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for the mistake, which she accepted.

The first-term representative said he is less concerned about the mistake and more concerned with the tact Democrats wanted to take after learning of the gaffe.

"We understand mistakes are going to happen, but the way they were trying to do it after the mistake is the bigger problem," Jordan said. "They knew about it, but they still tried to go with the veto override. I think they wanted the headlines, and they wanted to be able to say before they returned home for the Memorial Day weekend that they overrode the president on farm bill legislation."

Approximately 66 percent of the Farm Bill is to pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps, which would see increases of approximately $1 billion per year.

Approximately $40 billion of the bill is for farm subsidies and nearly $30 billion is directed at farmers to idle their land as well as for other environmental programs.

Jordan objected to Congress making only small cuts to direct payments, which can be distributed to some farmers regardless of the amount of a commodity they grow. The provision would eliminate some payments to individuals with more than $750,000 in annual farm income — or married farmers who make more than $1.5 million.

Individuals who make more than $500,000 or couples who make more than $1 million jointly in nonfarm income also would not be eligible for subsidies.
Under current law, there is no income limit for farmers, and married couples who make less than one-fourth of their income from farming will not receive subsidies if their joint income exceeds $5 million.

Jordan said he supports a basic safety net with movement toward the average crop revenue election (ACRE) program, based on concept developed by The Ohio State University agriculture economist Dr. Carl Zulauf. The concept bases government payments on revenue and not production.
"I think that in a good policy you want some kind of a basic safety net, which is an overall recognition that we understand the importance of our food supply, that we understand the importance of our farmers and farming families," Jordan said. "If there is a tough year out there in certain parts of the country, we don't want families to lose their farms."

With commodity prices in excess of when most farm payments or programs would be activated, the Urbana Republican said Congress should seize the moment to develop a more market-oriented poilcy.

"Now is the time to move in that direction, particularly when you think about the fact our commodity prices are at record highs — when you have $6 corn and $12 soybeans," Jordan said. "Now is the time to move in that direction, instead this bill still gives direct payments to farmers when the price is still high.

"It still says to those families making $750,000, you are still eligible for direct payments," he said. "In addition to those things, it still had earmarks, specifically for one timber company in Montana and an earmark for the fishing industry in the San Francisco area, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's area."
The Senate voted 82-13 Thursday to override Bush's veto and enact the farm bill.

Source