• Federal farm programs should provide a safety net for all farmers in all regions of the country, regardless of farm product or farm size.
• Federal farm programs should comply with our trade agreements.
• Federal farm programs should reward producers when they help meet our environmental challenges.
• A voluntary, incentive-based approach to environmental stewardship will help solve many problems before they result in regulation.

2) The Combest Farm Bill (H.R. 2646) help only the largest farmers in a few states, violates our trade agreements, and fails to reward good environmental stewardship.

• HR 2646 does not provide a safety net all producers and discriminates against most farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners and many regions. HR 2646 continues to dedicate most federal farm spending to commodity crop producers, excluding 60 percent of America's agricultural producers. The largest 10 percent of commodity crop producers receive two-thirds of commodity subsidies, and three-fourths of these payments are concentrated in 15 states.
• According to FAPRI, the most respected agricultural think-tank in the nation, HR 2646 runs a 37 percent chance of violating caps on agricultural subsidies in our trade agreements.
• HR 2646 would provide only $3.2 billion in annual conservation payments to farmers who provide clean water and wildlife habitat, which is less than current demand and far less than expected demand. Because HR 2646 misses an opportunity to reward good stewardship, HR 2646 invites new regulation.

3) The Combest Farm Bill (HR 2646) is filled with anti-environmental provisions.

• H.R. 2646 will wipe out our few remaining small dairies and livestock operators. H.R. 2646 would subsidize even greater concentration in the livestock industry by eliminating federal law that prohibits the nation's largest feedlots from receiving federal funds to build large manure lagoons and instead giving large livestock operators highest priority for funds from EQIP, the main USDA water quality improvement program.
• H.R. 2646 will gut the Conservation Reserve Program. By allowing haying and grazing -- even during the bird nesting season -- of lands enrolled into the Conservation Reserve Program and by prohibiting USDA from using environmental criteria to select lands for enrollment, H.R. 2646 would undermine the basic goals of the nation's most successful private lands conservation program.
• H.R. 2646 will gut the Wetlands Reserve Program. H.R. 2646 also undermines basic goals of the Wetlands Reserve Program by limiting the use of permanent easements and by allowing land uses that undermine the benefits provided by restored wetlands.
• H.R. 2646 undermines the nation's network of conservation experts by capping CCC reimbursements for Natural Resources Conservation Service administration costs.

4) The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment would provide a farm safety net that helps all producers. H.R. 2646 does not.

By shifting $1.9 billion into USDA conservation programs, the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment would provide $5.1 billion in annual conservation payments, which are available to all producers, and would provide more than $10 billion in annual commodity crop subsidy payments to commodity-crop producers -- which reflects an 11 percent increase over average commodity crop spending levels and twice as much funding as commodity crop producers received in the 1990 and 1996 farm bills.

5) Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment rewards producers when they meet our environmental challenges. H.R. 2646 does not.

Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment will reward farmers, ranchers and foresters who help protect and improve the quality of our rivers, lakes and bays, help create wildlife habitat and save rare species, help protect the safety of our food supplies, help reduce global warming, promote urban greenspace, and serve as the frontline against sprawl. Many landowners want to solve these environmental challenges, but face costs, risks, and lost income when they take steps to help us.

6) Today, most farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners are rejected when they seek agriculture conservation payments.

Because conservation funding levels are so low, most farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners are rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance:

• 70 percent of farmers and ranchers seeking federal funds to improve water quality are annually rejected due to inadequate federal funding.
• More than 3,000 farmers offering to restore more than 500,000 acres of wetlands are currently being rejected due to inadequate federal funding.
• Nine-out-of-ten farmers and ranchers offering to preserve open space by selling development rights are currently being rejected due to inadequate federal funding.
• 3,000 farmers and ranchers offering to create habitat on their farms and ranches are currently being rejected due to inadequate federal funding.
• Half of the farmers and ranchers seeking basic technical assistance are annually rejected due to inadequate federal funding.

7) Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment will help farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who protect and improve water quality, and it is supported by all of the nation's major water utilities.

More than 100,000 farmers and ranchers who have offered to help protect and improve the quality of our rivers, lakes, and bays have been rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance due to inadequate funding -- even though report after report concludes that agriculture has a critically important role in water quality protection.

Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment will meet expected demand for USDA water quality financial assistance by gradually increasing annual funding for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program to $1.7 billion annually. The amendment also reforms the program to share the costs of basic conservation practices, such as better soil testing, and managed grazing. The amendment also reforms EQIP to further engage state and local officials, including drinking water utilities, in USDA decision-making of EQIP priorities. The amendment also reforms and expands the nation's two major easement programs, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, to help share the cost of buffers and wetlands that intercept and filter farmland runoff.

By contrast, HR 2646 provides only $1.2 billion annually for EQIP and gives priority to the nation's largest livestock operators, encouraging even greater concentration in an industry that has already lost half of its operators in the last two decades. While the Conservation Amendment would increase CRP to 45 million acres, HR 2646 would increase CRP to only 39.5 million acres. While the amendment would increase WRP to 250,000 acres annually, HR 2646 increases WRP to only 150,000 acres annually and does not make funding for WRP mandatory.

8) Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment will help farmers, rancher, and forest landowners who create habitat for wildlife, and groups like Ducks Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation support it.

Like farmers trying to improve water quality, most farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners are rejected when they seeking USDA conservation assistance to restore wildlife habitat. For example, more than 3,000 farmers have offered to restore more than 500,000 acres of wetlands -- or as many wetlands as the nation destroys in a decade. But, these farmers have been rejected due to inadequate funding.

Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment will reward farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who restore lost habitat by:

• Providing sufficient funds to enroll 45 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program and reforming the CRP to work better in states like California and Florida.
• Providing sufficient funds to annually restore 250,000 acres of lost wetlands through the Wetlands Reserve Program.
• Gradually increase funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program to $450 million annually and focusing more funding on habitat for rare species
• Creating a new 3 million acre Grasslands Reserve Program and providing $20 million in annual incentive payments for grazing lands habitat restoration

9) Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment will reward farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who serve as the frontline against sprawling development and is supported by local and national land trusts, including the Land Trust Alliance and American Farmland Trust, and is supported by National League of Cities and the Conference of Mayors.

More than 170 million acres of farmland and rangeland is threatened by sprawl - we lose more than 1 million acres every year to urban development. Right, now farmers offering to sell development rights are facing a $280 million backlog - they have a 1-in-10 chance of receiving any federal help.

Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment would expand an existing program, the Farmland Protection Program, to $500 million annually, to buy development rights from farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners whose land is in the path of sprawl so that they can continue to work their land but give up the right to build homes and shopping malls. The amendment would also create two new programs to buy development rights from ranchers and forest landowners. By contrast, HR 2646 would only provide $50 million annually for the Farmland Protection Program, creates a less ambitious Grasslands Reserve Program, and does not expand efforts to purchase development rights from forest landowners.

10) Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment does NOT:

• Subject farmers to new regulations our subordinate USDA programs to the Clean Water Act.
• Reduce commodity crop subsidies. In fact, the amendment increases commodity crop subsidies over current levels by 11 percent, and doubles commodity crop payments when compared to the 1990 and 1996 farm bills.
• Earmark conservation funds for a few states. Instead, the amendment more evenly distributes conservation funds across the country.
• Reimburse NRCS for past costs. Instead, it makes sure that NRCS is fully reimbursed for future program administration costs -- unlike HR 2646 -- so that NRCS can provide adequate technical assistance to farmers.
• Hurt existing organic farmers. In fact, the amendment would help both existing organic farmers and provides $5,000 a year for 3 years to help farmers make the switch from conventional to organic production. That's why organic farmers support our amendment.
• Waste CRP acres. Any acres that are not enrolled as permanent easements or as part of Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program projects can be used for short-term contracts.