By JILL ZEMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 22, 2007; 5:15 AM
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Two members of the U.S. Senate's agriculture committee vow to fight proposed cuts in farm subsidies, despite resistance from urban lawmakers and other countries.
"The fact is, there are fewer and fewer members of Congress representing rural states or districts that depend on an agriculturally based economy, not to mention fewer and fewer members of Congress that actually have a direct relationship with production agriculture," said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
Lincoln, a farmer's daughter, and Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, whose son-in-law is a farmer, spoke Wednesday at a farm bill forum sponsored by the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.
Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said the renewal of the farm bill might entail a battle with the Bush administration, but that Congress ultimately will decide what to fund.
The current farm bill, written in 2002, expires Sept. 30.
A proposal released last month by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns would cut agriculture spending by $18 billion over the next five years.
The Bush administration's plan would cost $87.3 billion over the next five years, not counting food stamps and other nutrition programs, compared to $105 billion spent on farm programs over the past five years.
Most payments go to growers of five major crops _ corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton.
Lincoln said many nations oppose subsidies for U.S. farmers, arguing that they make trade between countries unfair. Lincoln said the U.S. market is open to foreign agricultural goods, but that "changes must occur in places other than just the United States."
The U.S. needs to deal with trade issues with foreign countries before cutting subsidies to farmers, Lincoln said. Otherwise, the U.S. would have no leverage in trade negotiations, she said.
Under the Bush proposal, anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income wouldn't be eligible for farm payments. The cap is now set at $2.5 million.
Cecil Williams, former executive vice president for the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, said the administration's "idiotic proposal" to lower the income cap "would kill this area up and down the Mississippi River."
Chambliss and Lincoln said they will fight moves to lower the income cap, noting that crops grown in the South cost more to produce than other commodities.
"Two hundred thousand dollars to the average guy is a lot of money," Chambliss said. "But what we in agriculture know is, $200,000 in adjusted gross income means once you get to that point, then you've got to pay for that $250,000 combine, that $100,000 tractor that you've got to have to operate your facilities."
Chambliss said reducing the income cap was "intended to strike at Southeastern agriculture."
"I don't know of a farmer in Georgia that has 500 acres in cultivation that probably wouldn't have hit that threshold, and that's a small farm in Arkansas or Georgia. Unfortunately, some of these policymakers have no concept of what it's like when you're out there having to get dirt under your fingernails and driving a tractor.
"We have to remind those policymakers and those bureaucrats sometimes that there are real people out there farming every single day that have to face these practical problems."
___
BOSTON (AP) _ Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is asking the federal government to declare that increasingly onerous fishing rules have created an economic disaster for Massachusetts fishermen.
The designation of a "fisheries resource disaster" by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce is the first step in obtaining emergency relief that could help fishermen survive until stocks rebound.
Rules passed last year to protect vulnerable groundfish stocks such as cod and flounder left Gloucester-area fishermen with about 24 fishing days annually. New Bedford-area fishermen have about twice that.
Patrick said Wednesday that the disaster designation is justified because new regulations are having a disproportionately negative effect on the Massachusetts fleet.
Last year, the state sued in federal court over the new rules, arguing they were unfair because fishermen from nearby states can catch the same fish stocks without the same restrictions as Massachusetts fishermen.
"Everyone agrees that the stocks of groundfish in the waters off the coast of Massachusetts need to be replenished," Patrick said. "But recent regulatory actions have come down unfairly hard on our fishing fleet, and what I'm hearing is that immediate relief is in order."