Thread: Update:Immigration Won't Be in Senate Farm Bill, Harkin Says

This is just one report, let's see if we can determine what is exactly going on. Does anyone else have any other info? Is this confirmed or not? Weren't they talking about AgJOBS on the Senate floor this morning?
-------

Immigration Won't Be in Senate Farm Bill, Harkin Says (Update1)

By Alan Bjerga and Peter Cook

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- A plan to legalize as many as 1.5 million undocumented immigrant farm workers won't be included in this week's debate over a $283 billion farm bill, according to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin.

Some farm-state lawmakers said they were concerned that Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is sponsoring the ``AgJobs'' legislation, would add it to the farm bill, possibly derailing the measure that governs issues including subsidies and food aid to the poor.

``I have assurances from Senator Feinstein that she is not going to offer it on this bill,'' Harkin said in an interview before debate on the bill began on the Senate floor in Washington. ``I really don't think that we're going to have any amendments on immigration.''

Gail O'Connor, a spokeswoman for Feinstein, said she had no immediate comment on Harkin's assertion.

Harkin said he hopes the Senate will approve the farm bill drafted by his committee by the end of this week. The House of Representatives in July passed a $286 billion bill over a veto threat from President George W. Bush, who said it is too costly.

Subsidy Limits

The Iowa Democrat also said an attempt to amend the bill to limit the amount of subsidies a single farm could receive to $250,000 ``has a reasonable chance of passing.'' Harkin stopped short of saying he'd vote for the amendment, backed by Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, noting that in 2002 he'd backed a $275,000 cap that passed the Senate and didn't make it into the final law.

``I will support stricter caps than what we have in the committee,'' Harkin said. The panel's plan would end payments to recipients with taxable income over $750,000 and who receive less than two-thirds of their income from farming, down from the current limit of $2.5 million. As with current law, there is no firm cap on how much money a farmer may receive.

After the Senate approves a bill, a compromise will need to be negotiated with the House before the legislation is sent to the White House.

Farm bills are usually enacted once every five years. The previous law, passed in 2002, expired Sept. 30. Funding for programs such as food stamps is continuing under congressional spending extensions. Subsidies are set through the ends of current crop years.

Last Updated: November 5, 2007 14:56 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... o&refer=us

If true, this is GREAT news!!!

All the public information about Harkin and AgJobs with respect to inclusion into the Farm Bill, is that he does not want it included within it (as amendment). Instead, he wants it introduced and handled as a stand-alone bill. That, in itself, is probably a good thing for our side.

I hope this is true, if so, it is wonderful news!

I definitely thought Feinstein would try to add it into the Farm Bill. Maybe all the emails and phone calls made her skeptical to add at this time. As a stand alone bill we can give it our all to make sure it does not pass.

Originally Posted by Cakers

I definitely thought Feinstein would try to add it into the Farm Bill. Maybe all the emails and phone calls made her skeptical to add at this time.

I am sure it made a difference. We have giving them heck for days now! They are real leery of us and should be, we are not going to take it ANYMORE!!!!

As of this time, there has been no information of this sort posted on either FAIR's or Number's site. Still checking for other sources to verify or refute.

This report does not specifically pertain to AgJOBS, but helps illustrate the politics of the Farm Bill itself:

----------

Conner promises veto of Senate farm bill
Monday, November 5, 2007, 4:31 PM
by Peter Shinn

Just minutes into the U.S. Senate’s debate on the next farm bill, acting U.S. Ag Secretary Chuck Conner held a press conference to blast the measure that emerged from the Senate Ag Committee on October 25th. And Conner made clear he can’t advise President Bush to sign the Senate farm bill in its current form.

"The President's senior advisors will recommend a veto of the combined Senate Finance Committee and Senate Ag Committee and farm bill," Conner intoned.

The timing of Conner's announcement made for an odd justaposition of public farm bill events. At almost the exact same moment that Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa was describing the Senate farm bill as a "kind of a grand compromise... so that the entire country benefits from this," Conner was chacterizing the Senate Farm bill as a measure that "continues a defective safety net, contains little real reform and uses tax increases and budget gimmicks that deserve to be funded in an honest fashion."

Farm bills almost always enjoy bi-partisan support, and Ranking Senate Agriculture Committee Republican Saxby Chambliss described the bill Tuesday as "a good legislative proposal." Harkin himself said he'd "never seen a partisan fight on a farm bill.

But the veto threat may change that. Lawmakers may have to choose between loyalty to the President and support of the current farm bill, which many mainline ag and commodity groups see as generally favorable. Still, Conner told Brownfield his goal isn't to scuttle the farm bill process, but to force Congress into essentially re-crafting the measure.

"I believe we do still have the opportunity, both in the Senate floor aind in conference, to change this bill to reflect good farm policy," Conner asserted. "The changes, I will tell you, do need to be significant changes, because these are major problems."

Specifically, Conner said the Senate farm bill had to address the issue of beneficial interest in commodity program payments, further tighten farm program payment limits and must not raise target prices or loan rates. And Conner reiterated several times his desire to work closely with Congress to produce a bill that President Bush could sign.

Harkin, in a statement issued after Conner's remarks, said he was "concerned" about Conner's remarks. Harkin added he hoped "the White House will work cooperatively with the House and the Senate to craft a farm bill the President will sign."

http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestal ... A7DA4D0501

This statment alone makes me worry, I'd keep up the calling until we get a firm confirmation!
Sounds like Feinstein has not made up her mind! "assertion " Sounds like he is coming to his own conclusion without word from Feinstien!

Gail O'Connor, a spokeswoman for Feinstein, said she had no immediate comment on Harkin's assertion.

UH OH Grassley want to up amount of H!B visa's!! Ok his reforms don't sound so bad!!