Foes Say Farm Bill Too Costly, Not 'Green' Enough 
Reuters 1oct01

WASHINGTON - The House is to shift its attention this week from national security to a $73 billion farm bill, which is criticized as too costly for a time of crisis and too skimpy on environmental conservation.

Written every few years, farm bills tie together agriculture subsidies, public nutrition, export, conservation, food safety and agricultural research programs totaling tens of billions of dollars annually.

Conservation of land, water and wildlife has become the premiere issue in overhauling U.S. farm policy this year, overshadowing calls for a stronger farm safety net after four years of low grain prices.

Debate could begin as early as Wednesday. Heated exchanges are expected over how much to boost farm conservation programs, with one environmentalist describing it as a "a nasty, divisive fight".

The bill was controversial on other grounds too. It would authorize a 78 percent increase in agricultural spending -- too much, skeptics say, even if it is defended as a stimulus to a sector vital to national security. The bill also seems out of step with Bush administration views on farm policy.

New York Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert says he will try to shift $19 billion out of crop subsidies to pay for a vastly larger environmental portfolio, including a new program to protect wellheads and public water supplies from farm runoff.

That would be roughly half of the $43 billion earmarked by the House Agriculture Committee for new farm supports over the next 10 years. Committee leaders might withdraw the bill if Boehlert's amendment was approved.

FARM SPENDING MAY RISE $73 BILLION

The House version of the farm bill would provide additional agricultural spending of $73 billion through 2011 on top of $94.5 billion in ongoing programs.

Farm bills traditionally are measured by the amount of new spending.

Critics stress the overall total, $168 billion, as a sign that spending was excessive at a time when the federal budget was in flux, farm income was at record levels and grain prices finally showed signs of an upturn.

The Bush administration has not taken a position on the bill although it recently issued farm policy "principles" that warn against over-dependence on subsidies and endorse conservation payments.

Boehlert, a prominent House supporter of environmental programs, says the proposed farm bill "short-changes conservation programs... while vastly increasing subsidies for large grain and cotton farmers."

HOUSE VOTE ON FARM BILL UNCERTAIN

Agriculture chairman Larry Combest says his committee's bill provides an 80 percent increase in conservation spending -- $1.65 billion a year -- while improving the safety net.

"We feel quite confident that the bill in its current form or something very similar will pass the House," Combest said.

Analysts were less certain. Private consultant John Schnittker said leaders were presenting "a flawed bill with a good chance it will be defeated."

Agriculture Committee leaders tried to remove one objection -- that farm subsidies might violate world trade rules -- by adding a "circuit breaker" to the bill. It would pro-rate payments to farmers to stay within the $19.1 billion limit on trade-distorting subsidies.

Agricultural economist David Orden of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, who suggested that approach last summer, said he was "sort of surprised" the farm bill was scheduled for debate.

"It doesn't seem like the time to be spending a lot of money on agriculture," Orden said. He was referring to shrinking federal revenues and demands to step up national defense following the Sept. 11 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. The attacks left nearly 6,000 people dead or missing.

SENATE HAS YET TO WRITE VERSION

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, Republican leader on the Senate Agriculture Committee, suggested new funding for agriculture had evaporated altogether.

"We better wise up," Lugar told colleagues, to the idea of considering larger farm subsidies "in the middle of a war."

The Senate Agriculture Committee had planned to write its version of the farm bill later this month.

The Boehlert amendment to the House bill would boost conservation spending, now about $1.8 billion a year, to $5.4 billion a year.

Along with the new $100 million a year program aimed at reducing runoff in watershed, it calls for a three million-acre grassland reserve and an 8.4 million-acre increase in the Conservation Reserve, which pays farmers to idle fragile land.

The committee bill would expand the Conservation Reserve to a maximum 39.2 million acres, create a two million-acre grassland reserve and put an additional $1 billion a year into controlling manure, pesticide and farm field runoff.

Combest says committee members "fully addressed the conservation side of this."