Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Maybe the Conservation Reserve Program? (CRP)
$3.1 billion farm aid package
- Thread starter Washington Hunter
- Start date
MarlandS
New member
I haven't heard for sur but they have enough of them to choose from http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/conservation_fb.html
I thought this was interesting. Does anybody know exactly what the conservation program the money came from was supposed to do? It doesn't really mention it in the article.
Oak
Friday, February 14, 2003
Congress writes new farm aid package totalling $3.1 billion
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Billions of dollars in aid will be paid to farmers with crop and livestock losses caused by drought and flooding, but the money will be taken from funds that were originally intended for land conservation.
The $3.1 billion in farm aid is "the best bill possible under very difficult circumstances," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Thursday. "At least this is not an across-the-board payment to farmers whether they needed it or not."
The package is tied to a $397 billion spending bill that Congress plans to send to President Bush to pay for most domestic programs through September.
Congressional negotiators rewrote the drought provision after lawmakers and farm groups criticized the Senate-passed version, which would send payments to farmers living in declared disaster areas, even those with healthy crops. The White House also insisted the money come from farm programs.
To finance the aid, Congress will divert money designated in the 2002 farm bill for land conservation spending from 2003 to 2013.
"Just nine months ago, President Bush praised the farm bill's increased investment in conservation, but behind closed doors he and his Republican lieutenants have turned their backs on their own environmental promises," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, author of the conservation measure.
Farmers are eligible for aid if they lost 35 percent or more of their crops in 2001 or 2002.
The measure provides $365 million for livestock farmers, $53 million for tobacco growers, and $15 million for ranchers whose cattle were infected with bovine tuberculosis, an animal lung disease.
The plan also includes $60 million for sugarcane farmers whose fields were destroyed by hurricanes last year, $50 million for cottonseed growers and $60 million for sugar beet farmers.
The package is an improvement because it is aimed at farmers who suffered great losses, said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
But he argued farmers need even more money and criticized the use of conservation dollars.
"The farm bill was not designed to respond to weather disasters," Stallman said.
The overall spending bill includes a provision that would lower the standards for organic food, which is grown by farmers who do not use conventional chemicals, biotechnology, antibiotics or growth hormones.
Under the Agriculture Department's standards, farmers should feed animals organic meal in order to label the meat as organic. But Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the provision would allow meat and poultry producers to raise animals on feed that is not organic and still apply the label.
"The provision being pushed by the House would be a setback to this vibrant industry and to American consumers," Leahy wrote colleagues, urging them to reject the proposal.
Oak
Friday, February 14, 2003
Congress writes new farm aid package totalling $3.1 billion
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Billions of dollars in aid will be paid to farmers with crop and livestock losses caused by drought and flooding, but the money will be taken from funds that were originally intended for land conservation.
The $3.1 billion in farm aid is "the best bill possible under very difficult circumstances," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Thursday. "At least this is not an across-the-board payment to farmers whether they needed it or not."
The package is tied to a $397 billion spending bill that Congress plans to send to President Bush to pay for most domestic programs through September.
Congressional negotiators rewrote the drought provision after lawmakers and farm groups criticized the Senate-passed version, which would send payments to farmers living in declared disaster areas, even those with healthy crops. The White House also insisted the money come from farm programs.
To finance the aid, Congress will divert money designated in the 2002 farm bill for land conservation spending from 2003 to 2013.
"Just nine months ago, President Bush praised the farm bill's increased investment in conservation, but behind closed doors he and his Republican lieutenants have turned their backs on their own environmental promises," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, author of the conservation measure.
Farmers are eligible for aid if they lost 35 percent or more of their crops in 2001 or 2002.
The measure provides $365 million for livestock farmers, $53 million for tobacco growers, and $15 million for ranchers whose cattle were infected with bovine tuberculosis, an animal lung disease.
The plan also includes $60 million for sugarcane farmers whose fields were destroyed by hurricanes last year, $50 million for cottonseed growers and $60 million for sugar beet farmers.
The package is an improvement because it is aimed at farmers who suffered great losses, said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
But he argued farmers need even more money and criticized the use of conservation dollars.
"The farm bill was not designed to respond to weather disasters," Stallman said.
The overall spending bill includes a provision that would lower the standards for organic food, which is grown by farmers who do not use conventional chemicals, biotechnology, antibiotics or growth hormones.
Under the Agriculture Department's standards, farmers should feed animals organic meal in order to label the meat as organic. But Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the provision would allow meat and poultry producers to raise animals on feed that is not organic and still apply the label.
"The provision being pushed by the House would be a setback to this vibrant industry and to American consumers," Leahy wrote colleagues, urging them to reject the proposal.
Similar threads
