Ledger | October 4, 2001 | By CORY REISS, Ledger Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Adam Putnam led a charge Wednesday to dissuade Florida House members from supporting a massive shift toward conservation in the next farm bill, surprising environmentalists with his defense of large dairy and poultry farms.
Until this week, the Bartow Republican was considered on the fence about an amendment that would divert $1.9 billion a year from commodity supports to environmental programs.
"This is the farm bill, not the environmental bill, not the conservation bill," he said Wednesday as debate began on a $170-billion, 10-year farm bill.
His position befuddled environmental groups that estimate his district would receive nearly $12 million a year more under the amendment than the bill he has decided to defend. Putnam responded by challenging those estimates, which give Florida $580 million more over 10 years, by saying many of the state's farmers wouldn't qualify because they are too large.
"I'm trying to tell our guys this is not helping our environment," Putnam, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said in an interview.
He said many family-owned Florida farms have too many cattle or chickens to receive money under the conservation proposal, which draws most of its support from House members in the Northeast. Putnam also complained that the amendment eliminates a provision he sponsored that would help Florida farmers take advantage of existing conservation programs.
Putnam took his arguments to other Florida House members, who are seen as pivotal in a battle that could turn on a handful of votes. The Environmental Working Group defended its estimates, saying Putnam's argument is mainly limited to large poultry and livestock farms, particularly dairy farms, that should pay for their own pollution.
Fruit and vegetable growers could take advantage of increases proposed in the amendment, environmentalists said.
"There are many more conservation programs on the table," said Scott Faber, a water resource specialist with another group, Environmental Defense. "This is a case of Florida cutting its nose to spite its face."
Congress is working on a rewrite of 1996 farm legislation. The proposal supported by Putnam and House leaders would increase spending by more than $73 billion. The conservation amendment to be debated today would shift spending from crops to environmental programs and add substantially to acreage allowed in land and wetland reserve programs.
The Agriculture Committee chairman, Texas Republican Rep. Larry Combest, has threatened to pull the bill off the floor if the conservation amendment passes.
The bill's defenders say it already increases conservation funding by $1.6 billion a year, or 75 percent over levels set in 1996. The conservation advocates want another $1.9 billion on top of that.
Florida has become a key battleground in the debate because its farmers receive relatively little money in crop supports under the current farm bill or the revision advanced by the committee. Conservation programs are seen as large conduits for farm money to Florida, and the state tends to be environmentally conscious.
Florida also is expected to take centerstage with an amendment by Rep. Dan Miller, R-Bradenton, that would cut supports for sugar growers. Miller is expected to vote for the conservation amendment.
Late Wednesday, as lawmakers prepared for a showdown today on the conservation issues, lobbyists said the environmental faction had about half the Florida delegation on their side, with some undecided. They cautioned that the vote will be close and tallies could shift by morning.Ledger:
