In order for farmers to protect themselves from bad weather and poor prices, the House Agriculture Committee has approved a five-year farm and nutrition bill and slices about 2% off the US$80 billion the government spends every year on food stamps.

 

The 35-11 committee vote comes three weeks after the Senate passed its version of the half-trillion-dollar bill and shifts the focus to the full House as Congress seeks to come up with a consensus bill before the current farm bill expires at the end of September.

 

House Republican leaders have shown little enthusiasm for taking up legislation that faces opposition from conservatives who say it is too expensive. Democrats, meanwhile, don't like the cuts in food stamps.

 

The bill costs nearly US$100 billion a year, with 80% devoted to food stamps - the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme.

 

While the House legislation, like its Senate counterpart, envisions major changes in farm safety nets, the most heated debate during the 15-hour committee meeting was on food stamps. Amendments by both Democrats to erase reductions and Republicans to increase those cuts failed.

 

The House bill also differs from its Senate counterpart by preserving a price support programme that pays farmers when prices fall below certain levels. The target price system is favoured by Southern rice and peanut farmers, who objected to the elimination of price supports in the Senate bill.

 

The House measure gives farmers a choice between the price support programme and a taxpayer-paid revenue protection programme included in the Senate bill that compensates farmers for modest revenue losses before subsidised crop insurance kicks in. The need for a strong safety net programme became more pronounced as heat and drought threatened to seriously damage the Midwestern corn crop.

 

The committee also defeated, by 36-10, an amendment by Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., that would have brought changes to federal sugar policy that for eight decades has protected beet and sugarcane growers and sugar refiners by controlling prices and limiting imports. Goodlatte argued that government supports drove up prices, forced food companies to move overseas and cost jobs. The amendment was pushed by beverage companies, confectioners and consumer groups. Supporters of the current policy said it did not cost the government anything and protected producers from a surge in Mexican or Brazilian imports.

 

Rejected, by 29-17, another amendment by Goodlatte and Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., that would have removed a requirement for dairy farmers participating in a new voluntary risk management programme to also agree to be subject to supply management controls where they would have to cut production when surpluses drive down prices.

 

Approved, by voice vote, an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would bar states from regulating how agricultural goods are produced so as to restrict access to goods from other states. Examples cited were how states might set rules for the treatment of poultry in egg production.

 

Defeated, by 25-20, an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., that would have eliminated a proposed Agriculture Department catfish inspection office. Opponents of the new office said its real goal is to protect US catfish growers from imports. The Senate approved a similar proposal.