By MARY CLARE JALONICK

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The House passed a $290 billion farm bill Wednesday with a strong veto-proof majority, offering more subsidies for farmers, food stamps for the poor and special projects that lawmakers can bring home to voters this election year.

The 318-106 vote for the five-year bill came despite President Bush's promised veto. He says the measure is too expensive and gives too much money to wealthy farmers.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

Senators planned to begin debating the bill later Wednesday. A rejection of a Bush veto may be even easier in the Senate, where farm states have greater representation than they do in the House. Congress has only overridden one veto, on a water projects bill, during Bush's two terms.

State members

Most Wisconsin members voted against the bill.

Five House members in the Wisconsin congressional delegation voted no, while three voted yes.

The Wisconsin no votes included Democrat Ron Kind and Republican Paul Ryan, who helped lead reform efforts against the legislation. They were joined by Democrat Gwen Moore and Republicans Tom Petri and Jim Sensenbrenner.

Democrats David Obey, Tammy Baldwin and Steve Kagen voted for the bill.

Kind and Ryan say the bill continues to subsidize wealthy farmers at a time of rising food prices. Petri calls it a "bloated disaster."

Obey says he reluctantly voted for the bill because he considers it an improvement over current farm policy.

Wisconsin comment

Calling the bill a "mixed bag," Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection secretary Rod Nilsestuen said changes to the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program would be beneficial to Wisconsin dairy farmers but said he was disappointed by Congress' "failure to recognize the need to put some substantial reforms into the process."

"Some of the late additions to the bill ... weren't necessarily helpful to us in the Upper Midwest," he said. "There were a number of improvements in the bill for conservation programs that were widely supported by Wisconsin agriculture, and those were reduced to accommodate additional provisions for disaster relief that some in Congress wanted for the West."

Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives president and CEO Bill Oemichen applauded the strengthening of MILC and several other programs that he said would be beneficial to Wisconsin.

"The fact that 60 percent of the farm bill's spending is geared towards nutrition programs like Meals on Wheels indicates that this farm bill will benefit rural and urban Wisconsin alike."

But Oemichen said the bill overall was only a small improvement.

"Going into the farm bill debate there was much talk about reforming some of the programs contained in the farm bill. Congress took some baby steps to accomplish this but also missed some opportunities, including the opportunity to reduce program payments to those not actively involved in agriculture," he said.

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation president Bill Bruins, who runs a dairy farm in Waupun, said the farmers in his organization were pleased that the House passed the bill and hoped that the Senate would pass it soon as well.

"Farmers need the certainty of a farm bill this spring to make informed marketing and financing decisions," he said.

Ben Miller, associate dean of the UW-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences said he was excited that the bill would increase research spending for specialty crops, as well as support for bioenergy, specifically cellulosic energy provisions which would help the university's Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center.

He said he was also pleased to note that provisions were included in the bill that would for the first time allow interstate shipment of locally produced meats.

"Wisconsin leads the nation in the number of small meat facilities," he said, so this provision, "means new markets for an industry that is still very important to our rural communities."

Republican criticism

The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee believes the bill is balanced. "We've put a bill together that I think addresses what people are concerned about in this country," said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn.

But Republicans criticized the mostly bipartisan and popular bill because of home-state projects added in an election year. The bill includes tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners, extra help for farmers in Hawaii and Alaska, and dollars for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.

"This bill has been under consideration for a long, long time, and yet still we have earmarks that have been 'air dropped' into the legislation," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Ahead of the House vote, Bush made his objections clear, noting that married farmers who make up to $1.5 million still could collect subsidies under the new farm bill. "I believe doing so at a time of record farm income is irresponsible and jeopardizes America's support for necessary farm programs," Bush said.

State Journal reporter Nick Heynen contributed to this story.