Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company  
The Boston Globe
May 3, 2002, Friday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A2

LENGTH: 764 words

HEADLINE: HOUSE OK'S FARM BILL THAT LEANS BACK TO SUBSIDIES

BYLINE: By Sue Kirchhoff, Globe Staff

BODY:
WASHINGTON - The House approved a massive farm bill yesterday that would boost federal spending by $45 billion over six years, as lawmakers brushed aside complaints the measure would provoke a trade war with Europe, subsidize corporate farms, and cost far more than forecast.

The legislation, which passed 280-141, is part of an $73.5 billion increase in farm and nutrition programs that will bring total spending in the next decade to $180 billion. The farm bill moves the government away from a brief free-market experiment in agriculture and back toward guaranteed crop subsidies rooted in the Great Depression.

   President Bush, who came into office advocating less government interference, announced he would sign the legislation, on which the Senate is expected to give final approval next week. The administration last fall issued a bulky document that said farm subsidies had inflated land values and benefited large farms.

"While this compromise agreement did not satisfy all of my objectives, I am pleased that this farm bill provides a generous and reliable safety net for our nation's farmers and ranchers," Bush said in a statement.

The bill would increase nutrition aid, including food stamps; expand funding for land and water conservation by 80 percent; and create a national dairy program based on the now-defunct Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. But, as in past years, the vast majority of the subsidies would go to cotton, corn, wheat, and rice farmers in the Midwest and South.

The debate has been politically supercharged, given Democrats' one-seat Senate majority and a tight margin in the House going into the November elections. Bush has been campaigning for Republican Senate challengers in Iowa, South Dakota, and other agricultural states.

House Agriculture Committee chairman Larry Combest, a Texas Republican, said the higher spending was vital to farmers who have been buffeted by bad weather and low prices. He shrugged off complaints by the European Union that the measure would violate trade agreements.

"This is for rural America, not for rural Mexico, not for rural Canada, not for rural Europe," Combest said.

Critics called the measure an election-year spree, pointing to billions in special payments to peanut producers, new subsidies for honey, lentils, and apples, and a $1.3 billion national dairy program. Wool and mohair subsidies, once killed by Congress, are back. The bulk of the subsidies would go to crops like cotton, rice, wheat, and corn in the form of higher support payments. An earlier Senate version of the bill included a $275,000 cap. After a revolt by Southern growers, the final version raises the limit to $360,000 and includes loopholes that critics said would allow large farmers to get much more.

"This farm bill is going to hasten the demise of the family farm. It is going to subsidize the large producers. It breaks all our trade agreements," said Tom Latham, an Iowa Republican.

The Environmental Working Group, which has lobbied for increased conservation aid, said the bill would be less effective than hoped, due to last-minute changes that favored corporate farms, in particular giving large livestock operations access to a water quality program.

"[The lawmakers] took three weeks to riddle the conservation title with holes, so now most of the environmental benefits have leaked out," said Susanne Fleek, director of government relations for the environmental group. "Essentially, they opened the door wide to the largest factory farms and said, 'You get to go to the front of the line for your checks.' "

The Northeast would benefit from $100 million a year to protect endangered farmland and ease urban sprawl.

The measure is a major change from the 1996 farm bill, written at a time of high prices and strong markets. That legislation was designed to gradually decrease crop subsidies and move farmers toward the open market. The 1996 law never worked as planned. Congress has approved nearly $30 billion in emergency farm spending in the years since the bill was passed to help farmers hit by low prices and bad weather.

On the new farm bill, the all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation split down the middle. Voting for it were Representatives Stephen Lynch of Boston, James McGovern of Worcester, Martin Meehan of Lowell, Richard Neal of Springfield, and John Olver of Amherst. Opposed were Representatives Michael Capuano of Somerville, Barney Frank of Newton, William Delahunt of Quincy, Edward Markey of Malden, and John Tierney of Salem.

LOAD-DATE: May 3, 2002