cityslickers_inset.jpg

ABOUT KEN

Ken Cook is president of Environmental Working Group, a public interest research and advocacy organization known for its Farm Subsidy Database. The author of dozens of articles, opinion pieces and reports on agricultural, public health and environmental topics, "[Cook's] fingerprints can be found on nearly two decades of U.S. farm law" (Omaha World Herald). Read more about the authors.

Stay connected

Get our monthly eNewsletter, farm policy updates, & the latest farm news. [Privacy policy]


Search the database

Search by city


Search by zip code

Search by beneficiaries's name
(last)
(first)

Search by business name

MULCH VIA EMAIL

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

« Farm Bill: Center for Rural Affairs
Rips "Engineered" Defeat of Payment Cap Amendment
| << Back to main page | Farm Bill Rip-off Passes Senate, 79-14 »

Farm Bill: Oxfam Hammers
"Senate Rules Rigged To Kill Reform"

From Oxfam's release:

“The Senate voted this morning to drive a stake in the heart of farm bill reform and to continue current federal farm subsidies largely unchanged”, said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. “By a vote of 56-43, Senators rejected a key reform measure -- the Dorgan-Grassley Payment Limits amendment -- which would have established a $250,000 limit for federal farm subsidy payments to agricultural producers. Should other farm reform amendments be defeated, the Senate farm bill will largely keep intact the existing rules for payments to farmers which have often been sidestepped in creative ways leading to million dollar payments for many large, wealthy farmers.”

Full release in the jump.

SENATE RIGS RULES TO KILL FARM BILL REFORM

Washington, D.C. – “The Senate voted this morning to drive a stake in the heart of farm bill reform and to continue current federal farm subsidies largely unchanged”, said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. “By a vote of 56-43, Senators rejected a key reform measure -- the Dorgan-Grassley Payment Limits amendment -- which would have established a $250,000 limit for federal farm subsidy payments to agricultural producers. Should other farm reform amendments be defeated, the Senate farm bill will largely keep intact the existing rules for payments to farmers which have often been sidestepped in creative ways leading to million dollar payments for many large, wealthy farmers.”

How could the payment limits reform amendment lose despite a vote of 56-43 in favor of the amendment? Under rules agreed to by the Senate leadership, key amendments that would have reformed a broken farm safety net system required a 60 vote margin for passage.

Offenheiser criticized the Senate’s decision to change the rules for this and other key reform measures. “Despite the fact that a majority of Senators voted for reforming a bloated and unfair federal farm subsidy system, no reform was adopted.”

“Opponents of farm policy reform are out of step with Americans and even with the majority of their colleagues. So, they rigged the rules for this key vote to ensure that despite majority support, it would not be adopted. This decision to change the rules speaks volumes about the real commitment to change by the Senate Democratic leadership. It is all talk but little action.”

“The consequences of this vote and the Senate’s decision yesterday to reject the larger reform measure offered by Senators Lugar and Lautenberg, mean that US farm policy will continue to benefit the rich over the poor, both in the United States and abroad.”

“Relatively few US farmers participate in farm programs. Yet, for those who do, the benefits flow largely to a small minority of producers in states whose elected officials fiercely protect their handouts from their seats on the agriculture committees in the House and the Senate. While few would have expected reform to come from these committees, it was reasonable to believe that the new Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate would have advocated reforms consistent with their message of change. Sadly, we have seen that this is not the case in either body of the Congress.”

“Just as the US has rigged its trading rules to benefit large corporate farms at the expense of developing countries and farmers who struggle to survive on a dollar a day, the Senate elected to rig the rules for voting on essential farm policy reforms so that no reform was possible. Family farmers in the US, impoverished families abroad who are dependent upon agriculture to survive, and American taxpayers who foot the bill for unnecessary US farm subsidies will ultimately pay the price”.


For more information, please contact Maura Hart at (202) 496-1196 or via email at mhart@oxfamamerica.org.

###

Background on Oxfam America
Oxfam America is an international relief and development organization that creates lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and injustice. Together with individuals and local groups in more than 120 countries, Oxfam saves lives, helps people overcome poverty, and fights for social justice. Oxfam America is an affiliate of Oxfam International.

Comments

I'm really starting to get depressed about the farm bill :(

GREEN LA GIRL:

1) I adore you.
2) Don't get sad, get mad--and even.

COOK

I'm just a mom who writes letters to the editor. Report from the working class: Marie Antoinette is alive and well and living in the soul of Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a member of a 7th generation Arkansas farm family. (Do I smell slavery?) By leading the fight to continue $40,000,000,000 (that's 40 billion to us workin' folks) in government subsidies for agribuisness in cotton,rice, corn,wheat,and soybeans she has virtually assured her re-election. By none other than those farmers making in excess of $750,000 profit a year, while 80,000 poor blacks remain unemployed. What about balancing the budget, Blanche? Even the democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California voted to limit payments to rice and cotton farmers to support smaller, more labor intensive produce farmers. These are depression era subsidies, and these two Democrats voted against them? the times sure are achangin'. At least in California.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)