House Proposal Shortchanges Conservation


Contact:

Scott Faber, sfaber@environmentaldefense.org , (202) 230-1899

Sharyn Stein, sstein@environmentaldefense.org , (202) 572-3396


(Washington-July 17, 2007) — Environmental Defense said today that a conservation proposal by the House Agriculture Committee falls short of meeting the needs of most farmers and the environment.

 

The proposal would increase USDA conservation spending by less than $3 billion over five years — far less than conservation proposals by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the Bush Administration.

 

“This proposal will fall far short of what’s needed to clean up our rivers and bays, save rare species, and preserve our open spaces,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director at Environmental Defense.

 

New analysis by Environmental Defense shows that farmers and ranchers in the districts of more than half of the Committee members would be eligible for more benefits if Congress cut some subsidies to reward stewardship. Constituents in 24 of those districts would get more funding if Congress shifts $10 billion or more from direct subsidy payments to conservation programs.

 

The House Agriculture Committee is expected to finish work on the 2007 Farm Bill this week.

“Many legislators who vote for the status quo this week will be voting against the needs of their farmers and against the environment,” said Scott Faber. “There has never been a better time to reduce and restructure our subsidies. Farmers are eager to address environmental challenges, but are routinely turned away when they seek USDA conservation assistance. “

 

Faber applauded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for working with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) to begin debate on needed reforms such as payment limits and means testing.

 

“We hope that Speaker Pelosi will continue to work with Chairman Peterson and reform leaders to strengthen farm subsidy reforms,” said Faber. 

 

See the chart below for more information on all 24 districts.

                            

  Redirecting Portions of Direct Payments to Working Lands Conservation
 ExtensionRedirect $10 billionRedirect $15 billionRedirect $20 billion
Name Annual AverageAnnual AverageAnnual AverageAnnual Average
John T. Salazar (D-CO-3)$45,215,972$80,581,870$98,264,819$115,947,768
Terry Everett (R-AL-2)$40,124,689$56,073,833$64,048,405$72,022,977
Bob Etheridge (D-NC-2)$18,309,153$27,722,026$32,428,463$37,134,900
Mike McIntyre (D-NC-7)$22,236,991$30,626,366$34,821,053$39,015,741
Lincoln Davis (D-TN-4)$14,593,059$22,164,049$25,949,544$29,735,039
Jo Bonner (R-AL-1)$15,522,277$23,069,453$26,843,040$30,616,628
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-6)$9,586,779$17,010,035$20,721,662$24,433,290
Zachary T. Space (D-OH-18)$17,276,752$22,074,258$24,473,011$26,871,764
K. Michael Conaway (R-TX-11)$48,871,625$53,167,256$55,315,071$57,462,886
Mike Rogers (R-AL-3)$8,173,659$12,309,650$14,377,646$16,445,642
Jim Marshall (D-GA-3)$29,522,207$33,535,454$35,542,077$37,548,701
Tim Mahoney (D-Fl-16)$4,027,599$7,758,551$9,624,028$11,489,504
Virginia Foxx (R-NC-5)$5,646,342$9,170,218$10,932,156$12,694,094
Dennis A. Cardoza (D-CA-18)$16,424,169$19,298,513$20,735,684$22,172,856
Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY-20)$5,969,691$8,700,209$10,065,467$11,430,726
John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr. (R-NY-29)$8,379,000$10,959,030$12,249,045$13,539,060
Robin Hayes  (R-NC-8)$8,573,013$10,815,331$11,936,490$13,057,648
Jean Schmidt (R-OH-2)$7,294,328$8,560,915$9,194,209$9,827,502
Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28)$7,289,850$8,336,789$8,860,259$9,383,728
Tim Holden (D-PA-17)$4,384,011$5,171,955$5,565,927$5,959,900
David Scott (D-GA-13)$313,727$574,283$704,560$834,838
Steve Kagen MD (D-WI-8)$18,624,364$18,841,977$18,950,783$19,059,589
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-22)$9,884,165$10,006,330$10,067,412$10,128,494
Joe Baca (D-CA-43)$60,069$116,685$144,993$173,301

 

For more information, go to Scott Faber’s blog, “The Ruminant,” —

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/healthyfarms/

One of the world’s leading international nonprofit organizations, Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org) creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. To do so, EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships. With more than 3 million members and offices in the United States, China, Mexico, Indonesia and the European Union, EDF’s scientists, economists, attorneys and policy experts are working in 28 countries to turn our solutions into action. Connect with us on Twitter @EnvDefenseFund