Members of the House Agriculture Committee have a chance to vote for their farmers — and for the environment — when the Committee completes its work on the 2007 Farm Bill this week.

It turns out that farmers and ranchers represented by slightly more than half of the legislators who serve on the House Agriculture Committee would benefit if Congress shifted $10 billion or more from "direct" subsidy payments to conservation programs that share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat.

In particular, farmers and ranchers represented by Reps. Bonner, Everett, Rogers, Baca, Cardoza, McCarthy, Salazar, Mahoney, Marshall, Scott, Gillibrand, Kuhl, Etheridge, Foxx, Hayes, McInteyre, Schmidt, Space, Holden, Davis, Conaway, Cuellar, Goodlatte and Kagen would be eligible for more USDA funds if Congress cut "direct" subsidy payments to fund USDA conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Overall, farmers and ranchers represented by 24 members of the House Agriculture Committee would fare better — one more than is needed for a majority.

According to analysis by Environmental Defense, the biggest winners would be farmers represented by Rep. John Salazar (D-CO), a seed potato farmer who has been a leader in efforts to better serve fruit and vegetable producers. His farmers would be annually eligible for more than $30 million in additional USDA funding if legislators shifted some subsidies to help address environmental challenges in Colorado.

Other big winners include farmers represented by Reps. Terry Everett (R-AL), Bob Etheridge (D-NC), and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who is the committee's senior Republican. Farmers in all three districts are eager to address environmental challenges — including many of the challenges posed by animal waste — but are routinely turned away when they seek USDA conservation assistance.

As the Ruminant has noted, direct payments — which are not linked to market conditions but to past production — will cost about $26 billion over the next five years. Once created to wean farmers off subsidies, direct payments have now become an entitlement that the Agriculture Committee has so far refused to reduce — despite soaring prices for some commodities.

There has never been a better time to reduce and restructure our subsidies. Reducing direct payments forn corn farmers by just 3 cents a bushel would produce more than $1 billion in savings over five years — or enough funds to protect 5 million acres of grasslands from conversion to corn or condos — but would cost most corn farmers less than $2 a day.

Many legislators who choose to vote for the status quo this week will be voting against the needs of their farmers — and the environment. The Ruminant will remember. So will their farmers.