Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act (H.R. A motion to close debate and move forward to a vote on the a bill which would make permanent the repeal of the estate tax, thereby seriously jeopardizing funds at the federal and state levels for education and other priorities. The motion failed 57-41 (needed 60 votes) on June 8, 2006. (Senate Vote # 164 )

Senator McCain: Yea               Senator Obama: Nay

Tax Package (H.R. 5970) This vote was essential to stopping passage of the “trifecta” bill, which would have deprived the federal government of billions of dollars of revenue necessary to continue to support human needs programs. A vote to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) would have brought the bill to the floor for a vote. The motion failed August 3, 2006, 56-42. (Senate Vote #229)

Senator McCain: Yea                  Senator Obama: Nay

2007

The Earned Income Tax Credit Amendment to S. 1348, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Amendment 1234 to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (CIRA) bars two CIRA-created categories of legally authorized immigrant workers-temporary workers with Y visas and formerly undocumented immigrants on the path to legalization with Z visas-from receiving the EITC until they are granted legal permanent resident status, a process that could take eleven years.

Created in 1975 and expanded during the 1990s, the EITC is critical to the efforts of low-wage workers to escape poverty and to make ends meet. This amendment would prolong the impoverishment of immigrants and their families even after they have an established legal right to live and work in the United States. Passed June 6^th, 2007, 56-41-2, but died as a part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. (Senate Vote #192)

Senator McCain: Yea                Senator Obama: Nay

Estate Tax Amendment (S.A. 583) to S. Con. Res. 21 The estate tax is a progressive feature of the U.S. tax code. Under the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the estate tax exemption has steadily risen from its pre-Bush administration level of $675,000 and will reach $3.5 million in 2009 with a 45 percent maximum tax rate. Senate Amendment 583 to the budget resolution raises the estate tax exemption to $5 million per estate with a top rate of no more than 35 percent beginning in 2010. Nearly all of the benefits of this change would go to estates valued at $5 million or more due to the lower tax rate. Without estate tax revenues, federal programs such as health care and education would lack crucial funding and inevitably face cuts in the years to come. Failed March 23^rd, 2007, 48-51-1. (Senate Vote #102)

Senator McCain: Yea                      Senator Obama: Nay

2008

Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 3996) This bill amending the Tax Code includes a provision that greatly benefits low-income families by expanding the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC is a partially refundable tax credit aimed at offsetting some of the expenses of raising a child. Under current law, families must have earnings above $12,050 to qualify for the refundable CTC; this bill lowers the threshold to $8,500. This change in the CTC would benefit the families of thirteen million low-income children, including three million whose families would become newly eligible for the CTC and ten million whose families would see their credit increase. The Senate cloture vote was the decisive vote on whether the Senate would approve an expansion of the CTC. Motion to invoke cloture failed December 6^th, 2008, 46-48-6 (57 votes needed) (Senate Vote #414)

Senator McCain: Not Voting                 Senator Obama: Not Voting

Craig Amendment S.A. 375 to AgJOBS H.R. 1268: To provide for the adjustment of status of certain foreign agricultural workers, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reform the H-2A worker program under that Act, to provide a stable, legal agricultural workforce, to extend basic legal protections and better working conditions to more workers, and for other purposes. The Motion to Invoke Cloture failed April 19^th, 2005, 53-45-2. (Senate Vote #98)

Senator McCain: Yea                         Senator Obama: Not Voting

2006

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S.2611). A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. Analysis by the National Immigrant Law Center. Passed May 25^th, 2006, 62-36-2. (Senate Vote #157)

Senator McCain: Yea                         Senator Obama: Yea

Border Fencing (H.R. 6061) Although the Senate had previously desired a more comprehensive immigration reform, they agreed to go along with the House’s piecemeal approach to immigration in clearing the House legislation known as the “Secure Fence Act.”  Passed 80-19, September 29, 2006 (Senate Vote #262)

Senator McCain: Yea                         Senator Obama: Yea

2007

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.1639). This bill would have provided legal status and a path to legal citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States; funded miles of vehicle barriers, camera and radar towers and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents; and, restructured visa criterion around highly skilled workers. The failure of the cloture vote effectively killed the bill. Analysis by the National Immigrant Law Center. Passed  June 28^th, 2007, (Senate Vote #235)

Senator McCain: Yea                         Senator Obama: Yea

The Earned Income Tax Credit Amendment to S. 1348, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Amendment 1234 to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (CIRA) bars two CIRA-created categories of legally authorized immigrant workers-temporary workers with Y visas and formerly undocumented immigrants on the path to legalization with Z visas-from receiving the EITC until they are granted legal permanent resident status, a process that could take eleven years.

Created in 1975 and expanded during the 1990s, the EITC is critical to the efforts of low-wage workers to escape poverty and to make ends meet. This amendment would prolong the impoverishment of immigrants and their families even after they have an established legal right to live and work in the United States. Passed: 56-41-2, but died as a part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. (Senate Vote #192)

Senator McCain: Yea                         Senator Obama: Nay

DREAM Act (S. 2205), Motion to Invoke Cloture: This bill creates a path to permanent residency and citizenship for law-abiding undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and have completed at least two years of college or military service. This legislation affects the fifty to sixty thousand undocumented immigrant teenagers who graduate from high school yearly and whose access to higher education and legal employment is severely limited. The DREAM Act has appeared in many forms since 2001. This is the Senate’s cloture vote on a stand-alone version of the bill. Failed 52-44-4, October, 24^th, 2007. (Senate Vote #394)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Yea

Bond Amendment, (S.A. 1934) to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1639). To prohibit green cards for Z(work) visa holders. Passed June 27, 2007, 57-40-3. (Senate Vote #231)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Yea

Dodd Amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1639). To increase visas for parents of U.S. citizens. Passed June 27^th, 2007, 57-40-3 (Senate Vote #232)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Nay

Menendez-Obama-Feingold Amendment (S.A.1317) to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1639). In the un-amended bill, adult children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), U.S. citizens, and siblings of U.S. citizens can only enter the U.S. if they have enough points under the new merit system; they could not get any points until they reach a 55 point threshold. This amendment removes the 55 point threshold, increases the number of points family members would receive, and rewards additional points to those who filed their family petition after the May 2005 cut-off date. Passed June 27^th, 2007, 55-40-5 (Senate Vote #233).

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Nay

Lugar-Lautenberg Farm Ranch Equity Stewardship and Health (FRESH) Amendment (H.R. 2419) This amendment would have reformed the commodity subsidy payment system to provide a more equitable safety net for all U.S. farmers and brought U.S. farm policy into compliance with international trade rules. It would have effectively redirected several billion dollars from subsidy payments to conservation and nutrition programs, including 10-year funding for the food stamp program. Failed 37-58, December 11, 2007. (Senate Vote # 417)

Senator McCain: Not Voting             Senator Obama: Not Voting

Dorgan-Grassley Payment Limits Amendment (H.R. 2419) This amendment would have lowered the limit for annual farm subsidy payments per individual from $360,000 to $250,000 and invested the savings in conservation and nutrition programs. Southern senators forced leadership to make a deal that required 60 votes for passage. Failed 56-43, December 13, 2007. (Senate Vote # 424)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Yea

Farming, Ranching, Equity, Stewardship and Health (”FRESH”) Amendment (S.A. 3711) to the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, H.R. 2419: To broaden the agricultural safety net by making a free revenue insurance program available to all farmers and saving billions of dollars to invest in nutrition programs, specialty crop programs, critical conservation programs and the McGovern-Dole international school feeding program. It made a strong showing but was defeated 37-58 on December 11, 2007. (Senate Vote #417)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Not Voting

Klobuchar Amendment (S.A. 3810) to the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, H.R. 2419: To reform income eligibility rules of the commodity payment system to prevent farm couples who clear $750,000 annually in household income [and part-time farm couples-those who earn more than one-third of their income off the farm-who clear $250,000] from receiving commodity payments. Savings would be redirected into conservation, rural development, healthy foods and energy programs. A procedural agreement worked out between Democratic leadership and the bill’s sponsors required 60 yes votes for passage. On December 13, 2007, it won the support of a majority-48 yeas to 47 nays-short of the 60-vote requirement. (Senate Vote #428)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Not Voting

Dorgan/Grassley Amendment (S.A. 3695) to the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, H.R. 2419: To establish a hard cap for commodity payments at $250,000 per household per year, helping ensure that payments are targeted where they are needed; to require payments to flow to working farmers rather than their landlords. Savings would be redirected into nutrition and conservation programs. Bread for the World supported this amendment. Under the same procedural agreement as above, the Dorgan/Grassley amendment received majority support, 56-43, but failed to receive the 60 required votes. (Senate Vote #424)

Senator McCain: Not Voting              Senator Obama: Yea

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)/Funding Distribution (S. 2320) This bill shifted funds from FY 2007 to FY 2006, providing $500 million to be distributed to eligible low-income households for heating and cooling assistance. Another $500 million was placed in a contingency fund for the same purpose. NETWORK supported this effort. Passed 68-31, March 7, 2006. (Senate Vote #34)

Senator McCain: Nay Senator Obama: Yea

Pension Protection Act (H.R. 4) Changed the rules governing private sector defined benefit plans. The bill imposed financial and administrative burdens that could discourage private sector employers from offering or retaining defined benefit pension plans. The negative impact on the private sector participation rate in defined benefit plan systems could be so great that it could impact whether states continue to offer defined benefit plans for public employees. The bill passed 93-5 on August 3, 2006. (House Senate # 230).

Senator McCain: Yea Senator Obama: Yea

2008

Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act (S.1871) A bill to provide funds to States to promote improvements in State unemployment compensation laws. No Vote.

Senator McCain: No Position Senator Obama: Co-sponsor

FY2006 Budget Amendment: S.Amdt. 173 to S.Con.Res. 18 Vote #56 to increase discretionary health and education funding by $2 billion.

Senator McCain: Nay Senator Obama: Yea

FY2006 Budget: The fiscal year 2006 budget agreement (H. Con Res. 95). The budget establishes a blueprint for how federal funds will be spent in the next fiscal year. The budget agreement cut $35 billion over five years from programs such as student aid and Medicaid that provide assistance to those most in need, provided $70 billion over five years in tax cuts targeted primarily to those with the highest incomes, and failed to make needed investments in public education. This Resolution specified $10 billion in Medicaid cuts and a $15 billion cut from the Food Stamp program, resulting in 300,000 children being cut from the Food Stamp program. Thousands more children were to be without any healthcare options as State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) were part of this cut. The budget agreement passed 52-47 on April 28, 2005. (Senate Vote # 114) .

Senator McCain: Yea Senator Obama: Nay

Budget Reconciliation (S. 1932) As instructed in the Budget Resolution agreed on in April, the Senate Budget Reconciliation package cut $35 billion over five years. Cuts included reductions in federal spending for prescription drugs, student loan programs, and decreases in agriculture subsidies. The cuts to Medicaid and Medicare included did not directly harm beneficiaries. Passed 52 - 47, Nov. 3, 2005 (Senate Vote # 303)

Senator McCain: Yea Senator Obama: Nay

Budget Reconciliation: a budget reconciliation measure (S. 1932), which made massive cuts to entitlement programs, including $7 billion in cuts to student aid that were projected to increase the average student loan debt by $5,800. The bill passed 50-50, with Vice President Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote, on December 21, 2005. (Senate Vote # 363 ).

Senator McCain: Yea Senator Obama: Nay

2006

FY2007 Budget Resolution/Health and Education Programs (S. Con. Res. 83) An amendment offered by Senators Specter (R-PA) and Harkin (D-IA) to the Senate budget resolution for fiscal year 2007, which would add $7.1 billion for health, education and training, and low-income programs. The Senate allocation of increased funding for programs was a rejection of the administration’s proposed belt-tightening budget, which would have undercut human needs and entitlement support. Passed 73-27, March 16, 2006 (Senate Vote #58)

Senator McCain: Nay Senator Obama: Yea

2007

FY2008 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 21, as amended) A resolution setting forth the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008. This budget proposal would have raised funding levels for many human needs programs severely cut in the previous six years. It also reinstated “Pay-go” rules to bring about a balanced budget. Although the budget resolution was agreed to in both House and Senate, legislators subsequently cut proposed funding for these programs due to their inability to override vetoes of the appropriations bills. Passed 52-47, March 23, 2007. (Senate Vote #114)

Senator McCain: Nay Senator Obama: Yea

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 3043). A bill to fund hundreds of programs that support low-income families, elderly persons, those with special needs, and children. Although this funding bill passed in both the House and the Senate, the President vetoed the final bill. Passed 56-37, November 7, 2007. (Senate Vote #405).

Senator McCain: Not Voting Senator Obama: Not Voting

Dorgan-Grassley Payment Limits Amendment (H.R. 2419) This amendment would have lowered the limit for annual farm subsidy payments per individual from $360,000 to $250,000 and invested the savings in conservation and nutrition programs. Southern senators forced leadership to make a deal that required 60 votes for passage. Failed 56-43, December 13, 2007. (Senate Vote # 424)

Senator McCain: Not Voting Senator Obama: Yea

Engineered by global elites in to the advantage of monomaniacal corporations, our current economic order is predicated on systemic inequality, and the exploitation of laborers and the environment. The benefits of our current economic and financial systems disproportionately accrue to corporations, share-holders and the developed elite while laborers and farmers in the global south are relegated to the indignity of poverty.

Unfair trade agreements and subsidies, lack of environmental and labor protections, intractable debt burdens, inadequate development assistance, and the primacy of profit above all other considerations contribute to the chronic poverty and inequality which divides humanity along the lines of the healthy and wealthy and the sick and indigent.

Catholic Social Teaching
“Trade and investment systems that safeguard the global commons, natural resources and biodiversity, place a high premium on sustainability, account for environmental and social costs in the pricing of goods and services, and acknowledge that every form of life has intrinsic value and belongs to our global heritage.”
IWG on Trade and Investment

“Peace must be born of mutual trust between nations rather than imposed on them through fear of one another’s weapons. Hence everyone must labor to put an end at last to the arms race, and to make a true beginning of disarmament, not indeed a unilateral disarmament, but one proceeding at an equal pace according to agreement, and backed up by authentic and workable safeguards.”
The Church in the Modern World, Pope Paul VI, 1965, #82

“The solidarity which binds all men together as amembers of a common family makes it impossible for wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger misery and pverty of other nations whose citizens are unable to enjoy even elementary human rights. The nations of the world are becoming more and more dependent on one another and it will not be possible to preserve a lasting peace so long as glaring economic and social imbalances persist.”
Mother and Teacher, Pope John XXIII, 1963, 157

“If development is the new name for peace, war and preparations for war are the major enemy of healthy development of peoples. If we take the common good of all humanity as our norm instead of individual greed, peace would be possible,”
On Social Concern, Pope John Paul II, 1987, 10

Learn More:

NETWORK on Development
USCCB & Catholic Relief Services Campaign to End Global Poverty

USCCB’s Backgrounders:

Trade
Aid
Debt Relief

Jubilee USA Network
An alliance of more than 80 religious denominations and faith communities, human rights, environmental, labor, and community groups working for the definitive cancellation of crushing debts to fight poverty and injustice in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Jubilee calls for a definitive cancellation of international debts and the restoration of right relationships between nations.

The One Campaign
ONE is a campaign that raises public awareness about the issues of global poverty, hunger, disease and efforts to fight such problems in the world’s poorest countries. ONE believes that allocating more of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world’s poorest countries.

The increasing sense of economic insecurity brought on by the rapidly changing global economy highlights the critical importance of a sturdy social safety net. For the 35 million Americans living in poverty, and the 13 million low-income working families facing economic uncertainty[1], the need for a strong social safety net is apparent now more than ever.

There must be adequate funding and support for safety net programs such as welfare, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security to make them effective. We seek a social safety net that provides for the most vulnerable in our society without imposing punitive provisions on recipients.

Since 1995, a movement began to shrink and transfer responsibility for the country’s largest social service programs to the states. An array of conflicting state and federal governmental regulations resulted. This devolution of federal responsibility will lead to a loss in revenue over time and threatens needed services such as housing assistance, health care, nutritional foods, and child care.

Learn More:

NETWORK on Social Safety Net
A Commitment to All Generations: Social Security and the Common Good, USCCB
U.S. Bishops and Background on Social Security

Families USA
Families USA is a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization working at the national, state, and community levels to achieve high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Research areas include Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, and Healthcare Reform.
Economic Policy Institute
Detailed studies, briefings, and analysis on Social Security, Welfare, and Unemployment with an emphasis on the conditions of low- and middle-income Americans. The EPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.
The Urban Institute
The Urban Institute gathers data, conducts research, evaluates programs, offers technical assistance overseas, and educates Americans on social and economic issues - to foster sound public policy and effective government. Research areas include Healthcare, Welfare, Employment, and Income.

Most fundamentally, NETWORK believes that tax revenues must be sufficient to provide the necessary conditions for the common good. This collective responsibility must be distributed according to the ability to pay.

The Catholic Social Teaching principles of progressivity and distributive justice underlie the Catholic understanding of just taxation. Economic Justice for All, by the U.S. Catholic Bishops, states: “The tax system should be structured according to the principle of progressivity so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation”. (#202)

Distributive justice refers to the relationship between society (the state) and the individual. It states that the goods and burdens of society should be distributed according to one’s need and one’s ability to contribute. The disbursement of tax monies should be applied to programs in a way that benefits those most in need, and the collection of taxes should come from those most able to pay. The principles of social justice direct us to the priority of caring for those who are poor and vulnerable in our society.

A Just Tax System

1. Raises adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society.
   Taxes must raise enough revenue to promote the common welfare of the nation by enabling payment of current expenses and interest on debts from the past, as well as providing funds for future needs.
2. Is progressive.
   People with greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxes while the rate of middle and lower income people is at levels proportionate to their income. Those at or below the poverty line are exempt from income taxes. Taxes levied at the same rate for all people are considered regressive in that they place a proportionately higher tax on those with lower incomes.
3. Offers incentives for behavior which clearly benefits the common good.
   These would be things such as tax credits for hiring those who are disadvantaged, education of low-income youth, home mortgages for low and middle income families.
4. Redistributes wealth to make a more equitable society.
   The foundation of distributive justice is the redistribution of income from those who are wealthy to those who are less wealthy. This is accomplished through the levying of progressive taxes and includes incentives that benefit the common good.
5. Does not tax the income of those living below the official poverty line.
   Those who are struggling to provide for their most basic economic needs are exempt from paying federal income taxes and receive credits for taxes they have paid (i.e. payroll taxes.)
6. Is efficient and simple to administer.
   Loopholes are eliminated and all pay their fair share. The complexities of the system are reduced.

Learn More:
NETWORK on Taxes
NETWORK on the Estate Tax
USCCB on Budget & Taxes

Tax Policy Center
A joint project by The Brookings and Urban Institutes, the Tax Policy Center provides timely, accessible analysis and facts about tax policy to policymakers, journalists, citizens, and researchers. Check out their 2008 Election site for comprehensive look at the presidential candidates’ tax policy proposals.

The Tax Foundation
The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan tax research group whose research is guided by the following principles: Simplicity, Transparency, Stability, Neutrality, and Growth-Promotion. The Tax Foundation provides research and analysis of current tax policy and tax policy proposals. Check out the Presidential Tax Comparison for a comprehensive look at the candidates’ tax policy proposals.

NETWORK’s Vision and Values
NETWORK envisions food and farm policies that ensure:

• Healthy food for all families
• Conservation of our land, water and air
• Vibrant rural communities

Fairness for U.S. and global farmers.

• Our vision comes from principles of Catholic social teaching, which call us to:
• Care for people who are poor and vulnerable
• Be good stewards of God’s creation
• Promote the common good
• Be in solidarity with our neighbors around the world.

NETWORK’s Position on Farm Subsidies
There are many different types of subsidies that fall into three general categories: trade-distorting (based on market price), non-trade distorting (e.g. direct payments, based on historical production), and conservation payments. Most of the subsidies are structured to favor large farms, because the more farmland you have, the more money you can get. Most of the subsidies go to producers of certain crops: corn, wheat, soy, rice, and cotton. There is relatively little support for fruit and vegetable growers and organic farms.

NETWORK does not advocate elimination of farm supports, we advocate fair supports for all farmers. The groups we work with who are concerned about global trade and development want to phase out trade-distorting subsidies and replace them with some other kind of safety net. Most people would also like to phase out direct payments, which are paid whether you grow anything or not. We advocated for caps on the amount an individual farmer can get and limiting payments to farmers who make under a certain amount of income. These would be steps to target payments to those who really need them.

Background Information
Congress first enacted the system of price supports, subsidy payments and supply controls that we recognize as the farm bill with one of the earliest pieces of New Deal legislation in 1933.

Farm income and commodity price support policies are at the heart of every farm bill, but recent iterations have typically included titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment, domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), and rural development.

What’s in the Farm Bill?

Nutritional Assistance
The farm bill usually includes funding the for the food stamp program, nutrition assistance block grants to states and some territories, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), Community Food Projects, and some rules governing the provision of federally acquired food commodities to domestic feeding programs such as school meal programs. The 2002 bill created a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program, a fruit and vegetable pilot program for schools, a program to increase domestic consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, and provisions to encourage schools to purchase locally produced foods.

Price supports
These are concentrated on “food grains” such as wheat and rice, “feed grains” such as corn, barley and oats, “oilseeds” such as soybeans and canola, and “upland cotton.” Other crops, including peanuts, wool, mohair, honey, chickpeas and dry beans, are eligible for some assistance, but not direct price support.

Supply controls and import quotas
These apply to milk and sugar in the current bill, and they act to maintain prices for these commodities above what the market might otherwise dictate. Given the cost to maintain the programs and the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for fair trade, these are at risk in the new bill. However, past efforts to significantly alter or phase out these programs have not been successful.

Green Payments
The 2002 farm bill included a Conservation Security Program aimed at encouraging integrated whole-farm planning and rewarding producers who conserve resources across their entire operation. Tight requirements and relatively low financial incentives have combined to limit participation in this program.

Trade and Export Promotion
Export credit guarantees for commercial agricultural sales, export subsidies for grains and dairy products, and funding for promotion of U.S. farm products in overseas markets.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that certain aspects of U.S. support to cotton farmers are illegal subsidies and must be removed. This development may cause legislators to question the effect of every new U.S. farm policy proposal on trade commitments to the WTO.

Payment limits
In 2005, 6.2% of the farms receiving payments got 36% of the payments. Over $5.7 billion went to farms with annual sales over $500,000. Congress will be under some pressure to reduce the outflow of money to these larger farms and to address concerns that these subsidies are contributing to the absorption of smaller family farms by larger corporate operations.

Green Payments
Replacing some existing subsidies with environmentally focused incentives may be a more attractive option in this farm bill than in previous bills because farm supports that are focused on conservation and environmental improvement are viewed more favorably under WTO rules.

Energy
Current interest in renewable energy is likely to spark debate on incentives for producing biofuels such as ethanol.

Export Promotion
These face a real bang-for-the-buck challenge in this round of farm bill debate. They are increasingly limited, due to international trade agreements, and legislators may be less likely to commit funds to a program that may cause more harm in terms of international trade protests than good in terms of benefits to American agriculture.

Rural Development
The bulk of rural development funding in past farm bills has focused on crop subsidies that improve the lot of farmers living in rural areas as the key to improving rural economies–a sort of rural trickle-down concept. But there is growing support for the concept that farmers actually depend on a healthier and more diverse rural economy as a predecessor to the success of the farm. Several development issues may be in play for 2007, such as developing new sources of economic growth for rural areas, stemming rural population out-migration, and conservation and environmental restoration as rural employment opportunities.

Sources[i]

Learn More:

NETWORK
NETWORK on the Farm Bill
NETWORK’s Messages for U.S. Food and Farm Policy
NETWORK’s “Farm Subsidies 101″

International Food Aid
Catholic Relief Services

Advocates for Better Farm Policies
Oxfam America’s Farm Bill Campaign
Bread for the World
National Catholic Rural Life Coalition
Farm & Food Policy Project
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
National Family Farm Coalition
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture
Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill

Anti-Hunger Advocates
Food Research and Action Center
America’s Second Harvest
The Alliance to End Hunger

Congressional Research Service, “Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill,” Order Code RL33037, available online from the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas School of Law Website, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33037.pdf.

Senator Tom Harkin’s Summary of the 2002 Farm Bill http://harkin.senate.gov/agriculture/farm-bill-summary.cfm

Take the Food Stamp Challenge on Catholic Charities USA’s Web site: http://povertyinamerica.typepad.com/campaign/hunger/index.html

Background
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth graphically displays our collective failure by showing to the devastating effects of increased CO₂ and its partner: increased global temperatures. Our modern conveniences produce increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” which thicken the earth’s atmosphere, trapping too much of the sun’s radiation, causing air and water temperatures to warm dangerously.

Production of greenhouse gases is escalating. The air and the waters are warming. Mounting evidence can no longer be avoided. In January 2008, an Antarctic ice shelf considered to be stable for hundreds of years to come crashed into the sea. Already, some coastal villages have had to relocate to higher ground, due to rising water levels.[i] Numbers and intensity of hurricanes, typhoons and tornadoes have increased dramatically in the last ten years. Desertification, exemplified by the disappearance of Lake Chad (once the sixth largest in the world), escalates famine and leads to war. The crisis is now.

The Faithful Respond
In the Judeo-Christian traditions, our ecological responsibility is rooted in the creation story which gives us three critical messages: “God saw everything that he had made and indeed, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). “So, God created humankind…, in the image of God, God created them.” (Gen. 1:27). And, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Since God was pleased with God’s good work, certainly human beings are charged to keep it as God would. The psalmist reminds us that, “the earth is the Lord’s and all it holds” (24:1). In each generation we are given the gifts of our environment as a trust for generations to come.

The faith community is beginning to recognize that, “It is about protecting both ‘the human environment’ and the natural environment.”[ii] It is about our stewardship of creation. As Christians, our beliefs and actions are grounded in principles such as the dignity of each person, the common good, solidarity, and particular care for those living in poverty. “There is only one Earth, it belongs to the rich and the poor, and its protection is the responsibility of all.”[iii]Pope Benedict XVI makes explicit the mandate of concern for those in poverty, in his call to care for creation which is “exposed to serious risks by choices and lifestyles that can seriously degrade it… environmental degradation makes the life of the poor intolerable.”[iv]

Catholic Social Teaching
The United States Catholic Bishops call us to keep our trust of caring for the earth, with special attention to the impact of global warming on those who are poor, both in the U.S. and throughout the world.

Those who live in poverty contribute very little to global warming, yet are those most frequently devastated by its effects: flooding, drought, famine, loss of species. They also have the least means to adapt to the devastation caused - as we saw through the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.

Those of us who relish our electronic gadgets, eat at the high end of the food chain, drive inefficient vehicles, and live in grand surroundings are responsible for the greatest amounts of CO₂ entering the atmosphere- we leave the largest carbon footprint. And, we have greater means to adapt to the effects of climate change.

It is imperative that we attend to, and take action, concerning the danger. Below is a sampling of means to meet our moral mandate concerning climate change and the future of Earth.

• Reducing our individual carbon footprint, simplifying our own lifestyles by limiting our use of energy consuming products [v]
• Calling on our family, parish, and community to learn and preach about our moral responsibility to reduce the amount of green house gases for which we are responsible.
• Investing only in corporations which work to hold down their carbon footprint
• Supporting development of new technologies to help communities adapt to climate changes.
• Ensuring availability of resources to support those in poverty (in the U.S. and globally) who are most affected by climate change
• Calling on our government to accept, and monitor adherence to, environmental standards which will protect our Earth from further harm

A life of dignity for all humanity demands that we place the health of Earth and the needs of others - especially those in poverty - before our own wants. Let us respond as co-creators with God, of the future of the universe. “Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it.” [viii]
Adapted from Marge Clark, BVM. “An Inescapable Truth”, BVM-SALT, Spring 2008.

Learn More:
Catholic Coalition on Climate Change
In partnership with the U.S. Bishops, CCCC is a consolidated source for Church teachings on climate change and materials for reflection, faith formation, education, and action.

National Catholic Rural Life Conference
Catholic social teaching and other materials on environmental justice including: climate change, water and natural resource depletion, ecological sustainability, and agriculture.

USCCB’s Caring for God’s Creation
The U.S. Bishop’s Environmental Justice Program (EJP) calls Catholics to a deeper respect for God’s creation and supports parishes in activities that deal with environmental problems, particularly as they affect the poor.

League of Conservation Voters: The Heat is On
A website to raise the debate on global warming and make it a priority issue during the presidential primaries. The campaign educates and organizes concerned citizens in early caucus and primary states.

[ii] .John Paul II, On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum (Centesimus Annus) (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1991), no. 38.

[iii] Alcino DaCosta, UNESCO Courier (July-August 1992).

[iv] Benedict XVI, Angelus Address, Aug. 27, 2006.

[v] Carbon Footprint Calculator. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html

[vi] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/2860.php

[vii] 11 Multinationals to Assess Their ‘Carbon Footprint.’ Washington Post, January 21, 2008.

[viii] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 302,