The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 12, 2002, TUESDAY, FINAL EDITION By: Carolyn Lochhead DATELINE: Washington California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have had a change of heart on capping subsidies to rice and cotton growers, saying that limiting payments to $275,000 for each grower and spouse will hurt family farms in the Central Valley.
The two Democrats instead want to ban payments to farmers who earn more than $2.5 million for three consecutive years and don't actually farm.
The payment limits are an attempt to contain the costs of the giant farm programs and make the distribution of the subsidies more equitable. The move by the two Democrats angered lobbyists who fought for the limits to free more money for conservation and nutrition programs in the proposed five-year, $45 billion farm bill. "I guess this is to try to establish their support for big cotton farms, but their arguments are just really almost desperate," said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group.
Separate versions of the farm bill passed the House and the Senate. The Senate -- with Boxer and Feinstein voting yes -- approved the payment limits, but the House has much more generous subsidies. House members and senators are negotiating the bill in a conference committee.
More than 90 percent of California farmers, mostly those who grow vegetables and fruits, receive no direct subsidies. Cotton and rice growers, by contrast, are among the biggest beneficiaries of the Depression-era programs.
In a letter Thursday to top senators negotiating the bill, Feinstein and Boxer said they originally voted for the payment limits "because we believe millionaires who do not live on a farm and do not work the land should not receive government assistance."
Now, however, they are "concerned about the impact payment limitations will have on family farmers in California."
". . . The $275,000 limit will hit rice and cotton growers first and would hit them hardest," they said.
The reversal came after Feinstein met with California cotton lobbyists and growers, one of whom argued that his $10 million operation earns him a salary of just $50,000. The lobbyists also contended that the payment limits might encourage cotton and rice farmers to switch to fruits and vegetables, depressing prices in those markets.
"We were showing the senator that you can have a multimillion-dollar farm operation and be a family farmer, and basically at low prices have a hard time holding your head above water," said Dan Haley, a lobbyist with CalCot, a Central Valley cooperative.
It is unclear how Feinstein and Boxer's reversal will affect the final outcome of the bill.
A Texas A&M University study commissioned by Congress estimated that a 2,365-acre California rice farm would lose $91,000 under the Senate bill but earn a $173,000 profit under the House bill. A 2,000-acre cotton farm would make a $190,000 profit under the Senate bill and $230,000 in the House version.
Haley said Feinstein and Boxer's reversal could help generate wider opposition to the payment caps. "I believe there will be other senators taking a second look at it, in fact we know that," Haley said.
Although California is the biggest agricultural producer in the nation, its representatives have not traditionally been key voices in farm legislation because so few of the state's farmers receive subsidies.
But environmental lobbyists put a big effort into the current farm bill debate, arguing that shifting money from traditional subsidies to conservation would aid the environment in states like California and help all farmers, rather than those who grow a handful of crops.
"What's disturbing to us is (Feinstein and Boxer) seem so willing to completely toe the line of about 3 percent of farmers in California," said Cook of the Environmental Working Group, which built support for payment limits when its Web site disclosed how much individuals collect in farm subsidies.
"One reason they gave for this is that we have to continue massive subsidies to the largest agribusinesses in California because if we don't they'll grow other things," Cook said.
The payment limits have been calculated to save $1.3 billion in the farm bill, much of which was budgeted for nutrition programs such as food stamps, which are operated by the Department of Agriculture.
"If this letter translated into a defeat (of payment limits)," Cook said, "they'll almost certainly have to take almost $800 million out of the food stamp program."Chronicle news services contributed to this report. / E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at [email protected].
Copyright 2002 The Chronicle Publishing Co.:
