It means the issue breaks through the haze over the subsidy lobby's 'reform' bill, gets the attention of conservatives (a tax increase to fund a farm bill they already oppose), and generates a flurry of midday press that emboldens reformers (like EWG). Because Secretary Johanns also said favorable things--short of support--for the Kind-Flake Fairness Amendment ("We see that as a real step towards reform").

Here's AP's Mary Clare Jalonick.

Veto of House Farm Bill Threatened

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House issued a veto threat against a multibillion-dollar farm bill, complicating passage of the legislation as House members scrambled Wednesday to find $4 billion to pay for food stamps and other nutrition programs.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said the House bill, which extends government agriculture and nutrition programs, doesn't do enough to reduce subsidies to growers.

``We believe the bill put forth by the committee misses a major opportunity,'' he told reporters.

The chamber is expected to begin consideration of the five-year farm bill Thursday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has backed the legislation but has faced criticism from groups who say it doesn't go far enough to trim government programs.

The bill, approved unanimously by the House Agriculture Committee last week, contains modest attempts at reform. It would ban federal subsidies to farmers with incomes averaging more than $1 million a year and stop farmers from collecting payments for multiple farm businesses.

Pelosi called the legislation a ``critical first step for reform.'' But Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Wednesday that the millionaires proposal would only affect about 7,000 farmers, noting that the administration has suggested limiting subsidies for those with incomes of more than $200,000. That proposal would affect 38,000 farmers, Johanns said.

``There is a point at which people graduate from receiving government cash subsidies,'' Johanns said.

Johanns also criticized a proposal by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, to pay for $4 billion in nutrition and food stamp programs by taxing overseas businesses that have subsidiaries in the United States. Doggett is on the Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with finding the nutrition money before debate begins Thursday.

``I find it unacceptable to raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no reform,'' Johanns said.

Republican officials said their members - even those from rural states that would benefit greatly from the farm bill - were loath to support what they viewed as a massive business tax increase that could invite retaliation against U.S. firms that establish operations abroad.

``It is bad policy and bad politics,'' said Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. ``Democrats are trying to sneak a far-reaching and potentially destructive proposal through the House without proper consideration. Any fair-minded person who cares about the U.S. economy will oppose this bill.''

With many Democrats already uneasy about the agriculture measure, which leaves in place and in some cases increases subsidies for major crops, Republican defections could spell defeat for the bill.

Without the additional $4 billion for nutrition programs, however, Democrats would lose substantial support for the measure among lawmakers from urban districts that draw heavily on those programs.

A statement of policy issued by the White House said the House bill ``moves backward'' and could compromise international trade negotiations.

The administration also expressed concern that the bill includes Davis-Bacon Act provisions on paying prevailing wages on ethanol plant construction projects. The requirement typically gives an advantage to unionized companies bidding for federal contracts.

Johanns praised a proposed amendment by Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and others to further cut back on subsidies and steer more money toward conservation, aid for specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, and nutrition and rural development programs.

``We see that as a real attempt at reform,'' Johanns said.

Kind's effort, which he said could cost $13 billion less, has divided Democrats and caused concern among farm-state lawmakers who argue it would devastate agricultural programs and cost the party its newly won majority.

Kind said Wednesday his amendment was ``still very much in play,'' and another proponent, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said he was ``modestly optimistic'' it might have the votes to prevail.

Scott Faber of Environmental Defense said the group was disappointed with Pelosi for blessing a measure that leaves in place the vast majority of subsidies for big producers and contains less conservation funding than even President Bush has proposed.