By Jim Stafford
Business Writer
As printed in The Oklahoman, May 23, 2008.

A philosophical clash between a forward-looking President Bush and a Congress looking in the rear view mirror resulted in a farm bill unacceptable to the administration, a U.S. Agriculture Department undersecretary said Thursday.

Speaking to an audience at the 17th annual Langston University Farmers Conference at Langston's Oklahoma City campus, Thomas C. Dorr said the President proposed a very "forward looking" farm bill.

The administration's farm bill wish list provided initiatives for renewable energy, conservation, rural infrastructure and health care, as well as an income cap on eligibility to participate in farm subsidy programs at $200,000 of adjusted gross income.

"If the president looked forward, Congress very clearly decided to look backward," Dorr said of the farm bill that was passed earlier this week.

"For example, at a time of record farm income, record farm equity and strong prices and average farm income well above the national average, the Congress actually chose to increase the farm subsidies."

No compromise on income cap
Instead of heeding the President's call for an income cap of $200,000 or even a compromise $500,000 limit, Congress chose to set the income limit for farmers receiving subsidies at $1.5 million, Dorr said.

Bush vetoed the bill, but the veto was overridden by Congress. The version that Bush vetoed was missing 34 pages on international food aid and trade. That will require Congress to send another bill to Bush.

"One result we have already been seeing from reading the newspaper editorial pages, is an egregious erosion of support among the broader public for a farm safety net," Dorr said. "And in my view, Congress is playing a very dangerous game in this arena."

In addition, Congress restricted the way that food aid is distributed and produced a farm bill that was $20 billion over what Dorr called the "baseline."

So, the president decided the legislation was unacceptable, even if his veto didn't stand.

"These policy differences ... are really a debate between those of us who are willing to look forward with confidence to a world with rising living standards, rising trade and stronger demands versus those who are essentially looking inward and backward and seeking to erect barriers against competition, against change and against any foreseeable threat."

Food versus fuel
The same issues also apply to the issue of renewable energy and the debate over "food vs. fuel," Dorr said. Academic research has shown that corn-based ethanol has contributed very little to increased food costs, he said.

In fact, the demand for ethanol as an alternative fuel has spurred research into switchgrass and other cellulosic sources for ethanol.

"The work they are doing at the Noble Foundation in Ardmore is some of preeminent work in the country on switchgrass, and there are others doing similar things," Dorr said. "This is going to move ethanol beyond the corn belt, and it's ultimately going to make it truly a national resource."

But when Dorr's speech was over, Sherman Lewis, a former Langston administrator, questioned Dorr about ethanol's effect on food prices.

"Ethanol is, in my opinion, causing an increase in the cost of food and that's impacting low-income people and also impacting small farmers raising beef," Lewis said.

In reply, Dorr said that corn-based ethanol has been "disruptive" but that strong demand for it has created a market for all ethanol products.

"It has created a body of product that in effect is literally subsidizing the development of cellulosic ethanol, subsidizing it now that venture capital and research people and others who are interested in it — whether it's switchgrass or wheat straw or forest products — know that there is literally a market out there for large volumes of ethanol," he said.

This article appeared in The Oklahoman, www.newsok.com, on May 23, 2008.