Senate OKs farm bill
WASHINGTON — Congress moved a step closer toward completing a sweeping five-year, $500 billion farm law on Monday, with the Senate approving legislation that would cut farm subsidies while expanding crop insurance.
The Senate voted 66-27 in favor of the package, which includes food stamps, rural economic development programs and international food aid. The attention shifts to the House, where the bill could reach the floor for debate as soon as next week.
Food-stamp funding is expected to be a key sticking point.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, confirmed the chamber would begin discussing the farm bill later this month and vowed a “vigorous and open debate.”
“If you have ideas on how to make the bill better, bring them forward,” Boehner told his colleagues.
Last year, the Senate passed a farm bill by a wide margin in June followed by approval of legislation in the House Agriculture Committee a month later. But GOP leaders in the House were reluctant to call for a vote on either bill because they did not think they had the 218 votes necessary to pass either plan before the November election. Congress failed to pass a bill and instead voted to extend the 2008 farm law until Sept. 30.
The Senate bill passed Monday would collectively reduce overall spending by about $24 billion over 10 years, compared to about $38 billion during the same period in a House measure. Much of the savings would be realized from the consolidation of conservation programs, reductions to the food stamp program and the elimination of subsidies by $17 billion.
Senators looking for further cuts in subsidy payments have been largely unsuccessful.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Kentucky firefighters recovering from ice stunt shocks
- White House ricochets in nonprofits’ birth control coverage fray
- Charities reconsider fundraising activities
- NASA expected to hire private rocket
- Oklahoma City officer accused of sex assaults
- Scientists hope tiny robotic bee’s big dreams take flight
- Obama pressured to obliterate ISIS as attack risks rise
- Ferguson residents fear return of rioting, looting
- His murder-arson conviction overturned, man walks free 24 years later
- Grand jury to hear evidence in Missouri shooting
- Police say couple wanted Amish girls for slaves