New York Times | JULY 25, 2001 | By ELIZABETH BECKER
WASHINGTON, July 24 - House Democrats, joined by moderate Republicans, said today that they would offer amendments to alter the new farm bill this week, seeking to double spending for conservation and to trim direct crop subsidies.
Conservation programs in this alternative bill would account for $70 billion of the $171.1 billion agricultural bill, making environmental issues the battleground in the debate that determines how the government supports farmers over the next decade.
The last effort to change directions in farm policy was the 1996 Freedom to Farm act, which was intended to phase out crop subsidies. Instead, it led to the doubling of subsidies through emergency payments to farmers.
The House Agriculture Committee begins voting on a farm bill this week that would reinstate the subsidy payments at current levels, with the provision that they would be reduced when the market improves.
Lawmakers presenting an alternative bill said today that while farmers needed subsidies, the payments had grown too large and lopsided.
For instance, farmers in 10 states receive more than 70 percent of the subsidies for planting basic row crops like corn, wheat and soybeans.
That subsidy formula was established during the Depression, when the nation had trouble feeding itself.
The majority of farmers are ineligible for those crop subsidies. They have applied for money to support their farms and ranches through voluntary programs intended to protect the environment, conserve wetlands, improve water quality and wildlife habitat.
But those programs have had to turn away two of every three applicants because there is not enough money to go around.
"Farmers are the best stewards of the land, but we have not given them the resources they need for conservation," said Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin.
Mr. Kind and a co-sponsor, Representative Wayne T. Gilchrist, Republican of Maryland, said they would offer their legislation as amendments on Thursday when the committee began debate on the main farm bill.
They are seeking $35 billion in increased financing for programs to improve water quality, preserve farmland in the path of urban sprawl, protect wildlife habitat, manage manure and conserve grazing and grass lands.
For his part, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Representative Larry Combest, Republican of Texas, held hearings around the country before drawing up the farm bill.
His measure includes a more modest $15 billion increase, a third of which would go to livestock producers trying to cope with huge piles and lagoons of manure that threaten water supplies.
While focusing on measures intended to preserve forests, returning land to wilderness and helping small farmers stay on the land, Mr. Kind said he was also appealing to legislators from cities and suburbs who tend to ignore the farm bill.
By staying out of the debate, he argued, these lawmakers were costing their districts millions of dollars in environmental cleanups.
"Half of the land in this country is owned by farmers," Mr. Kind said, "and if they want clean water in their city water supply and clean rivers running through their districts they should demand money for these conservation measures."
Among the bill's 78 co-sponsors are some of the moderate Republicans who have challenged other Republican measures.
They include Representatives Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Connie A. Morella of Maryland, Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania and Sherwood L. Boehlert of New York.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times CompanyNew York Times:
