Submitted by Tom on Wed, 2011-06-22 19:54
You know something is wrong when Latham supports a bill that even Steve King thinks is too radical:
Among members of Iowa's congressional delegation, only Tom Latham voted for a bill cutting funding for federal conservation, nutrition and food assistance programs while rejecting a cap on farm subsidy payments.
The bill, which passed on a 217-203 vote, cuts more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending from the budgets of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration. Reps. Bruce Braley, D-Waterloo; Dave Loebsack, D-Mount Vernon; Leonard Boswell, D-Des Moines; and Steve King, R-Kiron, all voted against the bill. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames, voted in favor.
In a surprising slap to rural Iowa Latham voted for:
- $337 million reduction to the rural economic development programs;
- $99 million less for conservation programs; and
- $354 million reduction to the agricultural research programs
From the WCF Courrier:
Local lawmakers rail against ag, ethanol cuts
WATERLOO, Iowa --- Members of Iowa's congressional delegation split Thursday on a bill cutting funding for federal conservation, nutrition and food assistance programs while rejecting a cap on farm subsidy payments.
The bill, which passed on a 217-203 vote, cuts more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending from the budgets of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration. Reps. Bruce Braley, D-Waterloo; Dave Loebsack, D-Mount Vernon; Leonard Boswell, D-Des Moines; and Steve King, R-Kiron, all voted against the bill. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames, voted in favor.
Braley said in a call with reporters that the bill was a "direct assault" on Iowa's farm economy.
"Even though I firmly believe we have to all work together to reign in our spending and get our deficit under control, the bills that are being passed and considered in this Congress threaten Iowa's farm economy and the thousands of jobs that depend upon it," he said.
Among the cuts are:
- $337 million reduction to the rural economic development programs;
- $99 million less for conservation programs; and
- $354 million reduction to the agricultural research programs.
House Republicans also made money more available for some food and nutrition programs by adding additional funds or authorizing the agencies to use carry-over funds. The bill also blocks payments to Brazilian cotton growers as part of a trade deal caused by the farm subsidies.
Republican leaders argued the funding cuts are necessary as part of the effort to reduce the national debt and deficit.
"As is the goal of all our appropriations bills this year, this legislation reflects hard decisions to cut lower priority programs, reduce spending in programs that can be scaled back and target funds where they are needed most so that our nation continues on the path to fiscal recovery," said House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., in a statement before Thursday's vote.
Meanwhile, an amendment limiting eligibility for direct payments to farmers making more than $250,000 in adjusted income failed to gain support. Braley also said he supported restricting how much money landowners and farmers receive based on income.
Braley pointed to an amendment that overwhelmingly passed the Senate Thursday that would end a 45-cent-a-gallon ethanol tax credit and the 54-cent-a-gallon import tariff.
"Today's vote is just another example of Washington politicians siding with big oil companies and foreign interests instead of standing up for a clean, domestic fuel source and the family farmers who produce it," Braley said.
Both of Iowa's senators criticized the Senate vote. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, called the vote a "fruitless exercise" and "political theater" that wouldn't create jobs or lessen the dependency on foreign oil.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the vote was the wrong way to address the policy debate over biofuels.
"We can reform biofuels tax policy, we can achieve deficit reduction and we can strengthen our commitment to alternative fuels," he said. "But these amendments here today are not the way to do it."
Because of scheduling issues, Latham's office said he wasn't able to comment on his vote on the bill. A call to King's office seeking comment was not returned.