Lines in the dirt drawn for farm bill

A food fight is brewing in the House.

Lawmakers are set to debate a farm bill Thursday that would cut subsidies to wealthy farmers, expand a healthful snack program to all 50 states, and make an unprecedented investment in fruits and vegetables. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has lauded it as a “first step toward reform” that would provide a safety net for farmers, promote conservation initiatives and encourage healthful eating.

But Pelosi and the Democratic-controlled committee that produced the bill are facing opposition from a bipartisan group of liberal Democrats and fiscally conservative Republicans who see the legislation as a boondoggle with misplaced priorities. They point out that the bill would funnel multibillion-dollar subsidies to crops, including some like corn that are bringing record prices. And that farmers who earn as much as $1 million a year would still be able to collect subsidies, an income level five times higher than the Bush administration recommended.

This band of lawmakers, backed by a coalition of advocacy groups, is seeking to tip the bill’s emphasis from crop subsidies to conservation and nutrition. And they are promising a fight.

“American agriculture cannot afford another status quo bill concentrating more resources in the hands of those who need it least,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.).

The lawmakers introduced an amendment Tuesday that would redirect some $12 billion in crop subsidies and direct payments to farmers toward conservation, rural development and nutrition programs that fight obesity.

Rep. Ron Kind (R-Wis.), the amendment’s lead sponsor, said the bill “virtually had no reforms” on crop subsidies. Kind pointed out that direct payments originally intended to be phased out would be increased from $40,000 to $60,000. “The loopholes are so large you can drive a combine through them,” he said.

Kind, who raises corn and soybeans, has stressed the need to reduce subsidies for economic and health reasons. “How can we justify tens of billions of dollars going to these grain producers when they’re getting near record prices?” he asked. He pointed out that the top 10% of eligible farmers get two-thirds of the subsidies and that most of those farmers live in congressional districts heavily represented on the agriculture committee.

But Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said the bill marks a departure from the past: “This is a very good bill for agriculture. It signals a new direction, but also maintains the safety nets that are so crucial.”

At a news conference Tuesday, where he and other committee members were flanked by dozens of representatives of the farm lobby, Peterson warned against attempts to change the bill. “Any element that is changed in this is going to make the whole thing tenuous,” he said.

The $90-billion farm bill sets policy on conservation, energy, trade, forestry and farm subsidies every five years. Since its origins in the 1930s, the bill has been controlled by a handful of Midwestern lawmakers on the agriculture committees who steer subsidies and direct payments to their constituents who grow row crops: wheat, corn, cotton and soybeans. Backed by the farm lobby, these lawmakers have ensured that the bill’s funding priorities have gone largely unchanged.

Currently, farmers with adjusted gross incomes of up to $2.5 million can receive subsidies. The Bush administration had proposed the limit be reduced to $200,000. But the bill, largely written by Democrats, would set a limit of $1 million.

“This is the biggest change we’ve had in payment limits ever,” said Peterson. He said that “wheat, cotton and rice are not in support” of the change and that neither were many of his committee members. Nine of them are freshmen Democrats who defeated Republicans in rural districts. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have made protecting those Democrats a priority to ensure that they keep their seats.

In the past, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) had supported similar measures introduced by Kind.

“We have pushed them beyond where they feel comfortable,” Peterson said of the freshmen as he explained why he would oppose any move to further lower the cap on subsidy payments. “Their constituencies do not support what we have done.” Advocates who expected Pelosi to push for deeper reform were frustrated.

“It’s very disappointing that Pelosi is supporting a bill that doesn’t go as far as the Bush administration’s calls for reform,” said Kari Hamerschlag, with the California Coalition for Food and Farming.

The bill would give farmers of specialty crops -- the fruit, vegetables and nuts grown largely in California -- a slice of the farm bill pie for the first time, though they would not get direct payments. The bill grants $1.6 billion for specialty crops over the next five years, a victory for Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Atwater), who fought hard for the money.

The bill allocates $215 million for research related to fruits and vegetables, such as better pest control, and $365 million for block grants for projects in research, education, marketing and food safety. About $32 million will be set aside to promote farmers’ markets. A program to encourage schoolchildren to eat more fruits and vegetables would get $350 million, and research on organic farming would receive $25 million. About $150 million has been set aside to pay farmers to reduce air pollution, much of which could go to the San Joaquin Valley.

Kind and his amendment co-sponsors, who include Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), would boost spending on specialty food crops by $1.2 billion. Spending on conservation would rise $3.1 billion. Domestic programs to address hunger would increase by at least $5.6 billion, and international food aid, at zero in the bill, would get $1.1 billion.

They would also limit subsidies to farmers whose incomes are less than $250,000 and gradually reduce direct payments to farmers.

Kind said he hoped Pelosi and the bill’s authors would allow an hour’s debate on their amendment and was upbeat about its chances. An analysis by the nonprofit Environmental Defense found that the amendment would increase federal farm spending in 348 congressional districts.

“Anything can happen on the House floor once this proposal is better known,” Kind said, “and that’s going to be the challenge we face for the next 48, 72 hours, to help bring our colleagues up to speed on what fair reform really looks like rather than the token reform we’re getting from the committee.”

--

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com