KIND'S CONSERVATION MEASURE RESISTED
Conservationists fight Ag Committee on farm bill

Oct. 2, 2001

Setting the stage for a fissure in the wall of bipartisanship that has prevailed in the House since Sept. 11, several members outside of the Agriculture Committee plan to introduce a controversial conservation amendment when the farm bill comes to the floor Wednesday, even though Committee Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas, and ranking member Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, oppose it.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, noted Tuesday that the House conservation measure was similar to a package presented by Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and him.

"They're trying to upset the apple cart of the current committee," Lugar said of those introducing the conservation measure.

Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, who has a one-term temporary seat on the Agriculture Committee, is one of four leading co-sponsors of the measure, along with Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., and Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md. None of the others are members of the committee.

Combest has threatened to pull the $170 billion bill if the conservation amendment is adopted, according to several aides to members who oppose Combest on the issue, but an Agriculture Committee spokesman said the chairman had several options if it were adopted.

"If that amendment were adopted then it would no longer be a farm bill," the committee spokesman said, adding that 40 percent of the programs in the farm bill would be "gutted" under the conservation amendment. "Members would be forced into a position of voting against a bill that would only be a farm bill in name."

But Kind, who said Tuesday the amendment would be introduced if the rule allowed for amendments, said the debate would depend on the tone set by the leadership on the bill.

"That's what you do in a democracy - you have different viewpoints and you debate them and then you vote on them," Kind said. "This doesn't have to be anything nasty and personal and vicious."

The conservationists' bill would raise conservation spending by more than $5 billion overall and shift $1.9 billion away from commodities to increased conservation programs. While the committee bill is heavy on crop subsidies, it would still increase conservation funds by $1.65 billion, which would be an increase in conservation funding by 80 percent from the last farm bill, according to the committee spokesman.

The current farm bill expires next year, and while many agriculture lobbyists and members of Congress think the debate can wait for now, some environmentalists and other members argue that conservation programs will have to be shut down if they are not funded now.

In addition to the Senate version that has a greater emphasis on conservation, the Bush administration released a report last week that generally supported the conservation plan offered by those not on the committee.

Lugar said Tuesday that debating the committee version in the House was "inconceivable and irresponsible." Lugar noted that the surplus budget numbers committees were working with in the spring no longer exist, or are at least significantly altered.

"What I was trying to say to my colleagues in the House is that the money is not there," Lugar said. "Their feeling is: 'If we don't claim it, pin it down...it will be gone. This is sort of the last time around.'"

But Susanne Fleek, director of government relations for the Environmental Working Group that strongly supports the conservation measure, said that three conservation programs, the Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program and Wildlife Habitats Incentives Program, are faced with huge backlogs and would be forced to shut down if they didn't receive funding this year.

"For the conservation programs, they can't wait, and Congress has to address them some way this year, whether it be in the farm bill or in some other way," Fleek said. "They will cease to exist if Congress doesn't deal with this and recesses."

Lugar was also highly critical of the timing of the bill and the clamoring for money now that the Social Security lockbox was disbanded.

"All I'm saying is, at a time in which we are appropriating routinely tens of billions of dollars for emergencies with the war to have a business-as-usual farm debate," Lugar said. "Why restrict farmers from largesse which now almost every other lobbyist in Washington is claiming for clients as you try to do work through a stimulus package or a supplemental tax rate?"

But Kind said that passage of the farm bill now would assuage concerns of farmers over the economy. "The sooner you can move a farm bill the sooner you can bring certainty to those farmers out there."

Other supporters of the conservation amendment said they are confident they have the votes without the full committee support and that momentum in favor of the amendment was on their side.

Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to members of the Hispanic Caucus that supported the conservation measure and said that Hispanic farmers and ranchers stood to benefit from the provision.

"A disproportionately large number of Hispanic farmers produce specialty crops like fruits, nuts and vegetables - 24 percent, or three times the national average," Napolitano wrote. "None of these agricultural products, despite their national importance, are eligible for traditional income subsidies....By shifting $1.9 billion in commodity crop subsidies into USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] conservation programs -- which do not discriminate against non-commodity farmers and ranchers -- Hispanic farmers and ranchers would be eligible for a larger share of federal farm spending."

Noelle Straub contributed to this report. Melanie Fonder is a staff writer for The Hill, a weekly newspaper that covers Capitol Hill and Washington correspondent for WisPolitics.com. A version of this column also may have appeared in the Green Bay News-Chronicle. Write to Melanie care of WisPolitics at info@wispolitics.com