House Refuses to Shift Farm-Bill Funds

October 5, 2001
By Philip Brasher
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - The House yesterday rejected a potentially historic shift of billions in grain and cotton subsidies to conservation payments. It would have benefited states in the East and West that traditionally get little farm assistance.

A proposed amendment to a $170 billion overhaul of farm programs would have moved $19 billion from planned crop subsidies into conservation programs. The measure was defeated 226-200.

"These programs could and should help many more farmers work the land, care for the land, and protect water quality," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R., N.Y.), arguing for the conservation measure.

But groups representing grain, cotton and soybean growers saw the proposal as a major threat to their government support and had secured a pledge from the House Agriculture Committee to shelve the bill had the amendment been approved.

The farm bill would boost commodity programs by $50 billion, or 65 percent, over the decade and conservation spending would grow by $16 billion, or nearly 75 percent.

Environmental groups say the extra conservation spending is inadequate, and they oppose a rise in payment limits that would allow large livestock operations to qualify for assistance in cleaning up manure problems.

Congress revises farm and nutrition programs every few years. This bill would replace a 1996 law that was supposed to wean farmers from government payments. Grain and cotton prices collapsed, however, and Congress has since approved billions in supplemental payments.

A final vote on the bill is expected today.

The debate over conservation spending levels isn't over. The Senate has yet to write its version of the farm bill. The leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Chairman Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) and Richard Lugar of Indiana, the panel's senior Republican, want to boost conservation programs.

Harkin is pushing a plan to make special incentive payments to farmers who make improvements in farming practices.

The White House gave a temporary boost to environmentalists on Wednesday when it sharply criticized the farm bill, saying it raised crop subsidies too high and provided too little for conservation.

"Over 80 percent of farm bill funding goes to 15 states in this country," said Rep. Ron Kind (R., Wis.). "There are 35 other states that would like to have a say in the crafting of farm policy."

But critics said the amendment would have taken too much land out of production, harming rural businesses in the process.

"We don't need the federal government controlling more land," said Rep. Tom Osborne (R., Neb.).

Under the amendment, a program that pays farmers to idle environmentally sensitive land would have been expanded from the current 34 million acres to 45 million acres, 5 million more than the bill allows. The amendment also would have provided up to $500 million annually - 10 times what the bill permits - to farmers near urban areas who pledge not to sell land to developers.