Despite veto threats from the president, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a new and improved version of the multibillion-dollar farm bill, the core of the country's government farm program that sends subsidies to U.S. farmers.

While not perfect, the updated version of the bill appropriates funds to many good, important programs and shows the U.S. might finally start making better decisions regarding agriculture. It appropriates money to a diverse set of programs, including land conservation, fruits and vegetables, and alternative energy research. Best of all, it took the first steps toward reducing large farm subsidies.

Farm subsidies are intended to give farmers a financial safety net to protect against market fluctuations and to give domestic producers an edge over foreign food suppliers.

However, the current working farm bill, which expires Sept. 30, focuses too heavily on grains, sugar and cotton. Although grains, like corn, are wildly overproduced in the U.S., cotton is very environmentally unfriendly to grow, and farmers in the tropics can grow sugarcane much cheaper and more efficiently than in the southeastern U.S.

Right now, about two-thirds of the tens of billions of dollars taxpayers pay in subsidies go to the top 10 percent of eligible farmers, mostly grain producers, even as the prices of grains rise as the U.S. focuses more on grain-based biofuels.

The new bill would ban subsidies to farmers making more than $1 million a year. Right now, farmers making more than $2.5 million a year can't receive subsidies. The new bill also closes subsidy loopholes that allow farmers with multiple farm businesses to receive more subsidy funding and sets the path to reduce farm subsidies in the future.

The legislation sets aside a record amount of money, about $1.7 billion throughout five years, for specialty crops like fruit, vegetables and nuts. The money would go toward research programs, organic farming and promotion of farmers markets - areas that deserve more attention from the government.

The bill also supports biofuel production and renewable energy, nutrition programs for low-income families, land conservation and rural economic development.

However, President Bush said he would veto the House's version of the bill because it comes with a tax increase for foreign corporations that operate U.S. subsidiaries. But the extra money in taxes would help support food stamp and nutrition programs for low-income families - programs that, when operated correctly and honestly, have the opportunity to give the nation's poor access to healthy food.

Although this would be only the second time in history a tax hike was included in a farm bill, no farm bill has been vetoed in more than 40 years. Unfortunately, the bill passed 231-191, and House Democrats, the primary supporters of the bill, don't hold enough support right now to override a presidential veto - they were responsible for 212 of the 231 votes in favor of the bill.

It's a shame one of the most progressive and far-reaching farm bills in decades may not see the light of day because of a small tax increase that doesn't even affect U.S. citizens or companies.

Michigan, with its diverse, $60 billion agriculture industry, would benefit greatly from many of the bill's new appropriations. On July 10, several members of the Michigan Farm Bureau traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with legislators and their staff to show their support for the proposed farm bill.

The Senate will begin working on its version of the farm bill in September, and the two legislative bodies should have a final bill completed before Sept. 30, when the previous farm bill expires.

Hopefully, the Senate's version of the bill will be as progressive as the House's, keeping fruit and vegetable farmers in mind and supporting a large base of agriculture-related health and research programs.

Farmers are some of the most important people in the nation, and they affect everything in our lives, such as food, fuel, clothing and health. It's great the House finally stepped up and recognized a more diverse group of farmers, researchers and public programs. The only thing that will keep the country from taking these first steps toward greater sustainability would be a presidential veto.

Liz Kersjes is the State News opinion writer. Reach her at kersjese@msu.edu.