House Rejects Conservation Shift 
in Farming Bill
$170 Billion Measure Set for a Vote Today

By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 5, 2001; Page A02

The House yesterday rejected a move to shift billions of dollars from traditional farm subsidy programs into environmental conservation over the next 10 years, clearing the way for a vote today on a sprawling $170 billion farm bill that the Bush administration does not support.

The proposal, the main vehicle for reformers pressing for a fundamental change in decades of farm policy, would have allocated $19 billion to farmers and communities that reduce pollution from agricultural operations or set aside more acreage for wetlands, wildlife, hunting and conservation.

But members from big grain and cotton states, the principal beneficiaries of increased subsidy payments to growers of staple crops under the terms of the bill before the House, mustered enough support to defeat the amendment, 226 to 200.

The vote set the stage for final action today on the overall farm bill, and demonstrated the power of the House Agriculture Committee and traditional farm interests in the face of a last-minute request by the Bush administration to defer action on the legislation.

On Wednesday, the White House budget office said it did not support the measure and urged that action be deferred. It said the bill was too costly and "would limit our flexibility to address the rapidly changing agricultural sector over the next decade."

Ignoring the administration's entreaties, the committee's bipartisan leadership pressed ahead with the bill, named the Farm Security Act, until the House recessed late last night.

Overall, the bill provides $73 billion in increased payments to farmers and hundreds of agricultural interests over the next 10 years.

With that leverage, committee leaders were able to defeat a series of moves to revise the bill. An amendment that would have trimmed a penny a pound from the government support price for sugar was defeated 239 to 177 despite support from consumer groups, food manufacturers, candy companies and some refiners.

Before yesterday's vote on the major environmental amendment, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest (R-Tex.) warned he might pull the entire farm bill from the floor if the amendment passed.

"They pulled out all the stops," said Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (N.Y.), the amendment's main GOP sponsor. "It was basic hardball." He said urban members had been warned that food stamp funds might have to be cut to cover the costs of the Boehlert amendment.

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) testily reminded reformers that "this is a farm bill, not an environmental bill," and warned that the amendment, which attempted to shift some money from commodity programs to conservation, would cut subsidy payments to his state's corn growers by two-thirds.

"It's the best compromise we can have to please all the competing interests," said Rep. Charles W. Stenholm (Tex.), ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee. He noted that the bill boosted spending on conservation, wetlands and other environmental programs by 78 percent.

Privately, however, members and aides acknowledged that the vote indicated growing pressure to expand the base of farm subsidy programs, to help farmers left out of the payment system as well as rural communities coping with environmental problems.

Under current farm programs, thousands of small farmers, as well as producers of fruit, vegetables and livestock raisers, are ineligible for subsidies. But they would have been eligible for the proposed conservation payments.

While most conservation payments go to farmers for idling land, the proposal defeated yesterday would also have enabled farmers to receive payments on acreage they were still using if they could show they were reducing pollution or making other environmental improvements.

Fifty-four Republicans joined 145 Democrats and one independent in support of the measure. The entire House delegation from New York, a state that garners a relatively small share of farm subsidies, supported the amendment.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) said the amendment "is about the stewardship in this century of America's land. . .It's about the sustainability of farming."

In a separate matter, the House late last night failed to settle a dispute between regional dairy interests over milk pricing policy. A compromise amendment would have enabled upper Midwest dairy farmers to share the economic benefits of a national dairy pool, but it was defeated.

Representatives of dairy states in the Northeast and South who want to expand an interstate agreement that sets price floors for local dairy producers said they will continue their efforts.