WASHINGTON – An estimated 3.5 million children younger than 5 are at risk of hunger in the United States, according to government numbers provided by an anti-hunger group.

That’s more than 17 percent of children who could suffer cognitive and developmental damage if they are not properly fed.

The not-for-profit advocacy group Feeding America based its findings on 2005-2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Agriculture Department. The study, released Thursday, is the first to look at these numbers for children under the age of 5, according to the group. Feeding America runs food banks and feeding centers around the country.

The study also shows that in 11 states, more than 20 percent of children under 5 are at risk of going hungry. Louisiana has the highest rate, with just under a quarter of children at risk, followed by North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas.

Arizona ranks No. 5 in the nation for children younger than 18 at risk for going hungry at 20.2 percent.

According to the Agriculture Department, 11 percent of households lacked enough food for an active, healthy life before the economy worsened late last year.

The study looks at a range of children who are at risk, from those who have low quality or variety of food to those who regularly experience hunger.

A lack of nutritious food, especially in the earliest formative years, can have a lasting impact on physical and behavioral health, along with development and academic achievement.

“These children without the availability of nutrition don’t have the chance to spring back,” said Vicki Escarra, president and chief executive of Feeding America.

Escarra said the group is lobbying Congress and the White House for more federal funding for food bank programs that target young children. President Barack Obama has pledged to expand food aid and end childhood hunger by 2015.

Dr. John Cook, the lead researcher on the report and an associate professor of pediatrics at Boston Medical Center, says hunger varies by state based on two main factors – the level of employment and poverty, and the extent of food and income assistance programs in the region.

Anne Goodman, executive director of the Cleveland Foodbank in Ohio, says there are several successful programs to feed school-age children, but beyond government nutrition programs, infants and toddlers can be harder to help.

The study was paid for by The ConAgra Foods Foundation, a charity arm of the large food company.

———

ON THE WEB

Feeding America: www.feedingamerica.org/

WASHINGTON – Almost 12 percent of the deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives are alcohol-related — more than three times the percentage in the general population, a new federal report says.

The report released Thursday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found 11.7 percent of deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives between 2001 and 2005 were alcohol-related, compared with 3.3 percent for the U.S. as a whole.

Dwayne Jarman, a CDC epidemiologist who works for the Indian Health Service and is one of the study’s authors, said it is the first national survey that measures American Indian deaths due to alcohol. It should be a “call to action” for federal, state, local and tribal governments, he said.

The researchers obtained their statistics by analyzing death certificates over the four-year period.

The two leading causes of alcohol-related deaths among Indians were traffic accidents and alcoholic liver disease, each of which cause more than a quarter of the 1,514 alcohol-related deaths over the four-year period.

Also listed are homicide (6.6 percent of alcohol-related deaths), suicide (5.2 percent) and injuries in falls (2.2 percent).

There may be many more alcohol-related deaths than the study shows, in part because the CDC analysis did not count deaths related to some diseases for which alcohol is believed to be an important risk factor, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and colon cancer.

The greatest number of tribal alcohol-related deaths — about a third of the total — occurred in the Northern Plains, where reservations are remote and often destitute, the study said. The lowest number of deaths were in Alaska.

Jarman said the study did not look at why there may be more deaths in the Plains but said it is consistent with previous studies.

“It may be a function of social perceptions of alcohol in that particular region,” he said. The report did not break down the numbers by tribe.

The study said more than 68 percent of the Indians whose deaths were attributed to alcohol were men, and 66 percent were people younger than 50 years old. Seven percent were less than 20 years old.

The study recommends “culturally appropriate clinical interventions” to reducing excessive drinking and better integration between tribal health care centers and tribal courts, which often deal with alcohol-related crimes.

Donovan Antelope, a spokesman for the Northern Arapaho Tribe, said alcoholism has been a problem for more than a century with many Indian populations.

“It has had a very negative impact on our day-to day life,” he said, adding that the tribe has started promoting alcohol-free events.

In general, American Indians suffer much higher death rates of most leading causes than the rest of the country. Besides alcoholism, drug use, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and suicide also are high.

WASHINGTON – Congress sent the White House a huge election-year farm bill Thursday that includes a boost in farm subsidies and more money for food stamps amid rising grocery prices.

Bush has threatened to veto the $290 billion bill, saying it is fiscally irresponsible and too generous to wealthy corporate farmers in a time of record crop prices.

But Congress disagreed, passing the bill by overwhelming margins in both chambers — enough to override a veto. The Senate vote was 81-15, a day after the House approved it with 318 “yes” votes.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic 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.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer again criticized the bill after Tuesday’s House vote, saying it has the wrong priorities.

“It does not target help for the farmers who really need it, and it increases the size and cost of government while jeopardizing the future of legitimate farm programs by damaging the credibility of farm bills in general,” he said.

Congress has only overridden one veto, on a water projects bill, during Bush’s two terms.

Congressional negotiators met for weeks in an effort to come closer to the White House on the amount of money to be paid to wealthy farmers — one of the chief sticking points with the administration. But drastic cuts to subsidies were not possible, lawmakers said, because of the clout of Southern lawmakers who represent rice and cotton farms that are more expensive to run.

“This bill has reform in it,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “Could we have done more? Perhaps. But if we’d done more we wouldn’t have gotten a bill.”

The legislation would make small cuts to direct payments that are distributed to some farmers no matter how much they grow. The farm bill also would eliminate some federal payments to individuals with more than $750,000 in annual farm income — or married farmers who make more than $1.5 million.

Individuals who make more than $500,000 or couples who make more than $1 million jointly in nonfarm income also would not be eligible for subsidies.

Under current law, there is no income limit for farmers receiving subsidies, and married couples who make less than one-fourth of their income from farming will not receive subsidies if their joint income exceeds $5 million.

The administration originally proposed a cap for those who make more than $200,000 in annual gross income, but later indicated it could accept a limit of $500,000. Previously, negotiators were considering a $950,000 income cap on farm income.

The bill also would:

• Boost nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food aid, by more than $10 billion over 10 years. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.

• Increase subsidies for certain crops, including fruits and vegetables excluded from previous farm bills.

• Extend and expand dairy programs.

• Increase loan rates for sugar producers.

• Urge the government to buy surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol producers for use in a mixture with corn.

• Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

• Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.

• Stop allowing farmers to collect subsidies for multiple farm businesses.

• Reopen a major discrimination case against the Agriculture Department. Thousands of black farmers who missed a deadline would get a chance to file claims alleging they were denied loans or other subsidies.

• Pay farmers for weather-related farm losses from a new $3.8 billion disaster relief fund.

• Provide the first-ever infusion of federal farm dollars — more than $400 million — to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

The bill also includes a few home-state provisions inserted by lawmakers, including tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners and additional aid for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.

Despite the overwhelming vote, the bill does have some farm-state critics.

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a former Republican chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, voted against the bill.

“I do not believe our nation is best served by this farm bill that continues to make payments that defy common sense, snubs our trading partners, and balloons taxpayer spending,” Lugar said.

WASHINGTON – A $300 billion farm bill contains a little something for everyone, including tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners, extra help for farmers in Hawaii and Alaska, dollars for salmon farmers in the Pacific Northwest and more food stamps for the needy.

Supporters of the bill are hoping that such goodies will bring in enough votes to send the White House a strong message when the House and Senate consider the bill’s final version this week. President Bush has threatened to veto the five-year bill, saying it is too expensive and too generous to wealthy farmers.

The House is expected to take up the politically popular, bipartisan legislation Wednesday and the Senate should follow by the end of the week, when current farm law expires. A two-thirds majority in both chambers — a harder feat in the more urban House — would neutralize the administration’s threat.

“My goal is to get over 300 votes tomorrow,” House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said Tuesday. “We have the possibility of getting that done. Three-hundred votes seals the deal.”

Two-thirds of the massive bill would pay for the nation’s nutrition programs, including food stamps. Most of the rest of the legislation would provide subsidies for farmers and conservation programs that protect the land.

Also buried in the bill are incentives for various regions designed to garner votes. A tax break for horse owners was included by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Money for salmon farmers affected by the collapse of the salmon fishing season in California, Oregon and Washington was included by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif. Another provision would give extra money to “geographically disadvantaged farmers” in Alaska and Hawaii.

The legislation also includes language by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., that would allow state and local governments to issue bonds to help conservation organizations buy private lands. The provision that would provide incentives for non-profits to buy land from Montana’s Plum Creek Timber Co.

Though the language appears to be tailored for Montana, Baucus said the provision is a “model for other states” that would help keep pristine private lands out of the hands of developers.

The bill also contains $3.8 billion by Baucus that would pay farmers who lose crops to weather-related disasters — a priority for farmers in Montana and the Dakotas.

Bush again criticized the bill Tuesday for sending too much money to wealthy farmers. He noted that married farmers who make up to $1.5 million can still collect subsidies.

“I believe doing so at a time of record farm income is irresponsible and jeopardizes America’s support for necessary farm programs,” he said.

It’s not a good year for a farm bill.

Crop prices are sky-high. President Bush, who thinks the nation’s farm program is bloated, is leaving office and doesn’t need to court voters in rural America. There is less budget money to work with.

The leadership in Congress doesn’t exactly hail from farm country, and those lawmakers who do also must grapple with bigger election-year problems – such as mounting job losses and a deepening foreclosure crisis.

“When you don’t have enough budget, the fights become more intense over those precious resources,” said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union. “You kind of have this perfect storm, all coming together at the same time, and you add in a lot of new players to the farm bill process, people that just say, ‘Oh, farmers are greedy’ or ‘Farmers don’t need this.’ ”

Things were different in 2002, when the last bill to expand agriculture and nutrition programs was written. Back then, rural America was recovering from hard times and there was more federal money to be spread around.

Bush was never a fan of the bill, but he signed it anyway with lukewarm praise. He still faced a re-election campaign, and his party was eyeing a Senate takeover.

“It’s not a perfect bill, I know that,” he said then.

This year, as Congress struggles to rewrite a new farm bill, Bush has less to lose. His administration has taken a hard line on multibillion-dollar farm bills passed by the House and Senate that would expand farmer subsidies even as crop prices skyrocket.

Congressional dynamics have also changed since the last farm bill. Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader from South Dakota who brokered the negotiations six years ago, lost his seat in 2004. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, also hailed from a farm state, Texas.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have not traditionally been involved in farm debates. Reid’s home state has little agriculture and Pelosi is from urban San Francisco.

Bush has threatened to veto both the House and Senate bills. That opposition and congressional infighting have stalled the bill, and negotiations are in disarray.

Negotiators face several obstacles. The Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate agriculture committees, Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, have lost control of the legislation as tax packages were added to both bills to help pay for them and win votes.

That has brought into the mix House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, who represents few farmers in his New York City district. He and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., are charged with finding an extra $10 billion for the bill but have agreed on very little.

At a farm bill meeting in Rangel’s office Thursday, shouting could be heard behind closed doors. Several senators, including Baucus, left angrily.

“Let’s just say it wasn’t good,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said afterward.

Members of the House say the farm bill is not the only thing widening the gap between the Baucus and Rangel. Contentious negotiations between the two tax committees on economic stimulus and other issues have left hard feelings on both sides, and the farm bill may bear some of the brunt of that.

“This is not the first time horns have been locked,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who sits on both the Agriculture and Ways and Means committees and is trying to help find a compromise. “I don’t think there is any question that the farm bill encountered some of the scarring that occurred in earlier legislative battles.”

Both sides traded offers Friday and a deal could still come together by April 25, when the bill is now set to expire after Bush reluctantly agreed to extend current law for a fourth time. If a deal doesn’t happen, the law may have to be extended for a year or longer.

Farm-state lawmakers say an extension is not ideal and the new legislation is still needed, even if it isn’t needed now. Gas prices are high, hurting farmers and ranchers who use a lot of fuel. And crop prices could always drop.

Farming, like writing a farm bill, is a volatile business.

Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press regional reporter for Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, is covering the farm legislation this session.

WASHINGTON – The Senate approved legislation Tuesday designed to ease health care problems on American Indian reservations by boosting screening and mental health programs and increasing tribal access to Medicare and Medicaid.

The legislation, approved 83-10, would boost programs at the federally funded Indian Health Service, prompt new construction and modernization of health clinics on reservations, and attempt to recruit more Indians into health professions. It would cost about $35 billion over 10 years.

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said the bill is a first step in addressing a crisis in American Indian health care. The system is underfunded and inefficient, Dorgan said.

Rates of most leading causes of death for American Indians are much higher than those for the rest of the country. Rates of alcoholism, drug use, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and suicide are especially high.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said American Indians have access “to some of the least adequate health care in America.”

“Far too many native children are diagnosed with diabetes, suffer from abuse and neglect, or die prematurely because of accidents or illness that could be prevented or cured,” he said.

The bill also contains a resolution sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, that formally apologizes to American Indians for centuries of government mistreatment. The resolution acknowledges a long history of government misconduct against Indians, including forced relocation from tribal lands, theft of tribal assets and the breaking of treaties and covenants.

Earlier this month, the Senate adopted an amendment removing some sections of the bill that faced strong objections from the Bush administration. The White House issued a veto threat in January, objecting to expanded labor provisions in the legislation.

Some say the bill doesn’t go far enough.

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican and a doctor, called for a much broader overhaul of the system and labeled the legislation “morally bankrupt.” He argued that the money may not be there for new programs, saying the bill is like “taking out a new loan on a car when you can’t afford food for your family.”

Coburn offered an amendment that would have given American Indians more latitude in choosing clinics. That amendment was rejected, 67-28.

“Why are we putting off fixing the system?” he asked. “So we could tell everyone that we did something when in fact we did nothing.”

The Senate adopted amendments to the bill that would limit abortion funding for Indian health clinics and ensure that the health dollars do not pay for gun prevention programs.