The Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network is designed to provide basic behavioral health care for agricultural workers. The care, primarily in the form of telephone hotlines such as the Iowa-based Sowing the Seeds of Hope, would be a first-line of defense against rural violence, mental illness and suicide.

Although the program won congressional approval in the last farm bill, it has not yet been granted funding through the appropriations process.

“Originally we thought this program was already obtaining money through other sources, but when we found out that was not the case, we began to work with leaders in Congress and specifically ask for funding,” said Katherine Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition.

While nearly all Americans are feeling the pinch of a downturned economy, farmers, who have suffered through recent natural disasters and low product prices, are now also facing economic hardship. The stress has become so great that some hopeless farmers have taken their own lives.

Members of the U.S. House went on August recess shortly after passing an agriculture appropriations bill that had no funding for the Stress Assistance Network. Funding was also stripped from the appropriations bill that is making its way through the U.S. Senate.

Members of the Senate are expected to bring their agriculture appropriations bill for a vote on the floor either later today or tomorrow. If it passes without funding for the network, proponents are concerned that it might be too late.

“We would really like to see some movement in the Senate today or tomorrow,” Ozer said. “While there remains a chance that something could be mapped out, as a far as funding, during conference of the bill, it isn’t nearly as likely as it would be if one or the other appropriations bills already had provided funding.”

From the Farm Bureau’s release listing some takeaway points from their candidate survey responses:

When asked about the farm bill, Obama said it was important to implement the 2008 bill as passed by Congress. McCain, who did not support the bill, instead focused his answers on expanding foreign markets and reforming the crop insurance program.

According to the survey, both candidates support creating a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. McCain goes a step further by saying he would exempt farmers from greenhouse gas caps.

Both candidates pledge to cut the estate tax, with McCain promising a lower tax rate and higher estate value exemption (15 percent and $10 million) than Obama (45 percent and $7 million).

To read the questionnaire in the newsletter, click here (pdf) and go to page 3.

U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., was at the Iowa State Fair on Friday speaking in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Voters concerned about federal agriculture policies will gravitate toward Barack Obama, said Nebraska senator Ben Nelson at the Iowa State Fair Thursday.

In an interview with the Iowa Independent Thursday afternoon, Nelson said that there are many important differences in the two major presidential candidates on farm policy.

The key difference, said Nelson, is on biofuels.

“Senator Obama supports corn-based ethanol and moving to other bio-based ethanol products as well,” Nelson said. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., “has fought against, and does not support corn-based ethanol and has resisted it and voted against it.”

The Nebraska Democrat, who serves on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, played an important role in crafting the new farm bill that was passed into law earlier this year. He worked alongside Iowa’s senators, Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley, to bring the bill out of committee and ultimately to passage through an override of a veto by President Bush.

“Senator Obama comes from a state that’s rich in agriculture — Illinois,” said Nelson. “He understands agriculture and is willing to work with farmers and ranchers to find better ways. And he supported the farm bill.”

McCain, said Nelson, voted against the farm bill and is “still opposed to the farm bill and to any kind of government support for ethanol.”

He said voters in Iowa and in Nebraska who are concerned about agriculture will have a clear decision. “It’s a matter of what people decide to support, and what their agenda is, that will cause voters to decide who to vote for. Either in favor of the farm bill, in favor of supporting agriculture — or in favor of the positions of Senator Obama’s opponent, which in my opinion certainly should not be attractive to Nebraskans or Iowans or anybody in agriculture.”

Nelson went on to speak in support of Obama at the Des Moines Register building, where he discussed how he believes Obama’s health care proposals will benefit rural areas.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said that the technical error is just a minor problem and that it will be solved soon. “I just want to make sure that there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind now, 14 of the 15 titles of this farm bill are now the law of the land. We don’t require anybody else’s signature,” said Harkin on the Senate floor. “We do have one little glitch. I think (it’s) probably an innocent mistake, a clerical error, that Title 3 was not included and we’ll deal with that at some other point.”

Harkin said he has been in contact with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and USAID (Agency for International Development), one of the programs that falls under Title 3 of the farm bill. “They tell me, have told my staff, that basically they could get by [for] two weeks without us having to do anything,” said Harkin.

Congress will be on a two-week recess for the Memorial Day holiday starting next week.

Just hours after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to override the veto of the farm bill by President Bush, lawmakers were scrambling to fix a clerical error that could derail any hopes of seeing the bill become law this week.

The Associated Press is reporting that 34 pages of the farm bill were inadvertently omitted from the copy that was sent to President Bush. The delays stemming from the fiasco may cause Congress to further extend the 2002 farm bill, which expires on Friday.

From the AP story: 

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, leaving leaders scrambling to figure out whether it could become law.

Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for unopposed legislation. Lawmakers also probably will have to pass an extension of current farm law, which expires Friday.

All current farm programs, including the food stamp program, will expire on Friday, May 23, putting Congress in the position of needing to act quickly to override the veto.

The National Farmers Union announced Wednesday that a coalition of more than 1,000 agricultural groups and organizations was working together to urge Congress to quickly override the president's veto of the farm bill.

UPDATE: The U.S. House of Representatives successfully voted to override the presidential veto of the new farm bill Wednesday afternoon.

The House approved the veto override by a vote of 316-108. The Senate is expected to hold a veto override vote later this week.

The current extension of the 2002 Farm Bill, which covers a wide variety of federal agricultural and nutrition initiatives, including the food stamp program, will expire on Friday, May 23.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., issued a statement Tuesday urging Bush to sign the bill into law. “I hope that President Bush will seriously consider the many positive steps this bill takes to improve nutrition programs that are important to so many Americans, particularly during these difficult economic times; to expand and improve conservation programs that help farmers protect the environment; to continue and improve the safety net for farmers; to support fruit and vegetable producers and to encourage renewable energy production from cellulosic sources,” said Peterson.

“We made every effort to work with Administration officials throughout the Farm Bill process, even when they showed no interest in coming to compromise on these important issues,” Peterson said. “While the President has pledged to veto the bill, I hope that the strong, bipartisan votes in the House and Senate will demonstrate its importance to the American people and lead him to sign it into law.”

The bill was passed by the House Wednesday by a margin of 318-106. The overwhelming vote of support in both houses of Congress virtually ensures that the bill will soon become law, despite the Bush administration's veto threats.

All three of the senators currently running for president – Barack Obama, D-Ill.; Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; and John McCain, R-Ariz. – skipped Thursday's vote on the bill. McCain has publicly stated that he would veto the bill if he were president, placing him squarely in the small minority of Congress that opposed the bill.

Officially titled the "Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008," the farm bill covers a wide range of agricultural, conservation and nutrition programs. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that the bill will cost $288.97 billion over five years.

One of the most contentious issues that has sparked criticism of farm programs involves subsidy payments to wealthy landowners under the commodity title of the farm bill. The new bill will eliminate the "three-entity rule," a loophole in the previous farm bill that allowed individuals to claim payments under three different corporations or entities. Under the new bill, all payments will be made directly to individuals only. Adjusted gross income caps were included that will exclude from farm program payments anyone who has made more than $500,000 a year in non-farm income. Anyone with farm income that exceeds $750,000 will no longer be allowed to receive direct payments.

Mandatory country-of-origin labeling of retail food products will, after many years of delay, finally be implemented. The labeling provision was originally passed in the 2002 farm bill, but was never implemented by the Bush administration. Several changes to the law will allow it to be fully implemented later this year.

The bill will also change the law regarding the shipment of state-inspected meat products. It will authorize interstate shipment of meat that has been processed in state-inspected facilities, a change that is seen as a major victory for small, independent processors of specialty meat products.

More than two-thirds of the spending in the entire bill will go toward food stamps and other nutrition assistance programs. Approximately 16 percent will go to commodity, crop insurance and disaster programs. All of the approximately $10.4 billion in "new money" that was added to the bill over the previous 2002 farm bill was used to increase nutrition programs. A program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schools will be expanded under the bill, taking the program to schools all around the country.

Conservation and environmental protection programs will also get a big boost. Approximately $4.4 billion in new funding has been authorized for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program over the next 10 years.

Two all-new titles in the farm bill were also added, one covering livestock and the other covering specialty crops and organic agriculture.

The bill will authorize significant new spending, more than $1 billion, to provide incentives to expand the production of biofuels from crop residues and cellulosic sources other than grain.

President George W. Bush has promised to veto the bill, but the healthy margin of affirmative votes in the House suggest that a veto override is likely.

"Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion," stated Schafer. "At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs."

Schafer cited farm program payment caps that had been recently agreed upon in the conference committee as a failure to reach necessary reform. "Americans appreciate our farms and ranchers and understand the uncertainties and risks that farming presents," he stated. "However, they do not understand why their taxes should be used to provide payments to individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 and higher, some of the wealthiest people in America."

Schafer also stated his concern about a "lengthy list of extraneous provisions that are not related to farm programs and have no place in this legislation. For a year and a half, the administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the president can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face-to-face with our president and he was direct and plain. The president will veto this bill."

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, shot back with a response to Schafer's statement Thursday afternoon. "“Farmers in Iowa and around the country are beginning to plant for the season.  Here in Washington, Congress is fulfilling its promise to enact a farm bill that’s good for all America – farming families and rural communities, nutrition assistance for low-income Americans, fresh fruits and vegetables for school children, more sources of renewable energy and conservation of our natural resources and a disaster program," stated Harkin.

“Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect.  But no piece of legislation is.  It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances," stated Harkin. "It deserves the President’s signature. Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."