After months of political wrangling both houses of the United States Congress have passed the latest US Farm Bill, overriding a veto by President Bush. The Bill's critics, most prominent among them President Bush himself, complain that the Bill promises another five years of massive subsidies for farmers at a time when farm incomes are at record highs.

Most of the Farm Bill was passed into law on 22 May, when the Senate voted overwhelmingly to override President Bush's veto. The House of Representatives voted the same a day earlier. A mistake made by the Congress - inadvertently leaving out the final chapter of the Bill in the documents sent to the President - means that the chapter covering international food aid, among other things, remains in legal limbo until Congress reconvenes on 2 June.

The Farm Bill has been a polarizing piece of legislation, pitting farmer's groups and farm-state politicians against the Bush administration and a range of international opposition. At issue are the billions of dollars in annual payments that the US provides to farmers under various subsidy schemes.

One particular bone of contention between the Administration and the Congress was a proposal made by President Bush to cap the maximum annual income of farmers receiving direct payments at US$ 200,000. Congress instead opted for a US$ 750,000 cap for single farmers and US$ 1.5 million for married ones.

Another heavily disputed part of the Bill is the new Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program. Farmers electing to join the ACRE program are guaranteed a minimum of 90% of their farm income in the past two years, in return for giving up some of their traditional subsidies. The Bush Administration warns that this program could result in "tens of billions of new government outlays in future expenditures" if crop prices drop even slightly from the current record highs.

President Bush has also argued that the Bill is inconsistent with US "objectives in international trade negotiations, which include increasing market access for American farmers and ranchers."

David Orden, a senior fellow with the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), echoed the views of many in civil society by saying that the Bill lacks reform. Dr. Orden said that the Bill seeks to maintain high levels of farm subsidies by creating the ACRE program to offset the losses in traditional counter-cyclical payments due to high commodity prices.

Dr. Orden also said the Bill "doesn't take a single step to signal compliance with the WTO for future negotiations." He pointed out that there were no significant changes made to cotton subsidies which have been at the core of WTO disputes, nor to the exclusion of fruits and vegetables from farm subsidies, which Canada and Brazil are currently arguing prevent certain US farm subsidies from falling in the allowable ‘green box.'