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.

Freshmen members of Congress represent lots of farmers — but most of them do not grow corn.

But, the Washington Post perpetuated some long-held myths by presuming that Congressional leaders are worried that farm and food policy reforms will hurt freshmen legislators representing corn and soybean farmers.

In fact, many more freshmen members of Congress represent fruit and vegetable producers than represent the producers of subsidized crops.

In particular, districts represented by Reps. McNerney (D-CA), Mahoney (D-FL), Giffords (D-AZ), McCarthy (R-CA), Sali (R-ID), Kagan (D-WI), Carney (D-PA), Arcuri (D-NY), Hall (D-NY), Gillbrand (D-NY), Sestak (D-PA), Murphy (D-PA), Heller (R-NV), Buchanan (R-FL), Shuler (D-NC), Welch (D-VT), Hodes (D-NH), Shea-Porter (D-NH) and others are dominated by farmers who do not grow subsidized crops but are seeking a larger share of federal farm spending pie.

In fact, as the Ruminant reported, farmers represented by 36 of 55 freshmen members of the House would be better served if Congress cut subsidies to help pay for conservation programs. In addition, farmers in 12 districts would see little or no change.

Farmers in only seven districts in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana would receive modestly less federal support if Congress cut "direct" payments to share the cost of clean water — mostly corn and soybean farmers who have seen farm prices double in recent years in response to the ethanol mandate.

The Post points to Rep. Zack Space, who represents part of eastern Ohio, as an example of a Congressman who may pay a political price for subsidy reform. Certainly, Space thinks that his farmers are happy with the status quo.

But, not all of his Rep. Space's farmers are well served by farm subsidies that flow to a handful of larger commercial farmers.

Most of the farmers in eastern Ohio do not crops that are eligible for costly, depression-era subsidies. Most of his farmers grow fruits and vegetables, raise livestock, or produce trees. There are certainly corn and bean farmers, but most collect about $70 a month in direct payments.

Of course, a few very large commercial farmers in Ohio's 18th district collect almost $3,000 a month in direct payments – driving up the price of land and squeezing their smaller neighbors out of business.

Those must be farmers Space considers "generally satisifed."

Here's the thing: cutting direct payment to fund voluntary USDA conservation programs would actually help more farmers and bring more resources to the 18th district. Cutting direct payments by $10 billion over five years, for example, would increase farm spending by almost $5 million in Space's district and allow many more farmers to participate in conservation programs like EQIP.

But, such cuts — which could be achieved through reasonable payment limits — would reduce direct payments for the very large, very successful commercial farmers who just saw their profits double and who, according to Space, are "generally satisfied."

Most of the farmers represented by Jerry McNerney, Heath Shuler and Tim Mahoney are generally "not satisfied."

Farmers in their districts do not grow subsidized crops — they take their cues from the marker, not from the government — but they do want more support USDA, including more funds for research, rural development and conservation.

In combination, all of the farmers represented by Tim Mahoney — whose central Florida district is dominated by fruit and vegetable producers — collected about $380,000 between 2003 and 2005.

A single farmer in Space's district collected almost as much during the same period.

Taken together, farmers in Space's district collected more than $52 million between 2003 and 2005. No wonder they are satisfied.

The Ruminant knows that congressional leaders are as worried about freshmen like Mahoney, McNerney and Shuler as they are about Space.

But, we worry that leaders will forget that fruit and vegetable farmers represent half of agriculture — and dominate the districts represented by freshmen.

We also worry that leaders will forget that rural voters overwhelmingly support reasonable subsidy reforms like payment limits and that rural voters are for more concerned about America's hunger, health, energy, and environmental challenges than they are about a few very large "satisfied" farmers.

The Ruminant doesn't spend much time in the kitchen.

But when we heard House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson warn that writing the Farm Bill on the floor of the House would be a "recipe for chaos," we decided to help legislators by creating our own farm subsidy "calculator."

It's sort of a like a calorie counter for large subsidized farmers with household incomes greater than $200,000 a year. Who is in better need of a diet?

Here's how it works: just change the direct payment rate for any of the subsidized crops that account more than half of all farm spending and — presto!! — the calculator tells you how much money could instead be used to feed hunrgry kids, help the environment, promote healthy food choices, or expand the production of energy on farms.

Consider this tasty recipe.

Reducing the direct payment rate for corn from 28 cents a bushel to 20 cents a bushel would produce nearly $3 billion in savings but would reduce the expected direct payment for most corn farmers by about $50 a month.

As the Ruminant has noted, "direct" payments were created to wean farmers off subsidies but have now become a sort of entitlement. Some farmers don't like the payments because they drive up the cost of renting and buying land, squeezing out smaller producers.

Now, thanks to the federal ethanol mandate, corn and soybean prices have roughly doubled in the last few years. So, there's no better time to cook up a new Farm Bill that will help meet America's hunger, health, energy and environmental priorities.

Farmers who produce fruits, nuts and vegetables account for roughly half of all farm sales but get virtually no support from USDA.

For the first time, fruit and vegetable producers producers have sought a relatively small slice of federal farm spending.

These growers — who take their cues from the market, not from the government — are not even looking for a fair share. They are not looking for income subsidies. They just want a small slice of the pie.

The EAT Healthy America Act introduced by Rep. Dennis Cardoza on behalf of fruit and vegetable growers would increase USDA conservation, research, rural development, and marketing programs — initiatives that boost the profitability of all farmers but that do not provide direct subsidies. In particular, the Cardoza bill — which has 118 bipartisan co-sponsors — would expand links between farmers and consumers, take steps to improve food safety, and reward farmers who use their pesticides with greater care.

The "specialty crop" provisions of the EAT Healthy Bill would cost about $1.6 billion a year. But, so far, the House Agriculture Committee has provided just $465 million over five years for initiatives support for fruit and vegetable farmers — and roughly $33 billion in direct subsidies over five years for the producers of corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and other beneficiaries of depression-era subsidies.

That's not a slice. That's not even a crumb.

No wonder Rep. Cardoza, quoted in today's Congress Daily, is angry.

He told reporters that the Chairman's bill, which also shortchanges, conservation, energy and nutrition spending, "needs substantial work" and could not "sustain a floor vote at this time." While Cardoza would not support proposals to replace subsidies with risk management accounts, as proposed by Reps. Kind and Flake, he does supports efforts to cut subsidies. "The bill does not need a total overhaul, but it could use a different direction," Cardoza said, and he warned that reformers will get "traction if we don't make changes."

Chairman Peterson has said writing the Farm Bill on the floor would be a "recipe for chaos." But a Farm Bill that continues to send half of all farm spending to just 20 congressional districts will leave a lot of members of Congress with less than crumbs, including most members from New York, California, and Florida.

Here's hoping the Chairman works with leadership to cook up a pie that feeds more than a few fat cat farmers in a few states and districts.

There's only one group of Americans that generates more sympathy among congressional leaders than hungry kids, African farmers, struggling farmers, angry energy consumers, or the rural poor.

I refer, of course, to freshmen members of the House of Representatives.

The Ruminant is constantly touched by the outpouring of concern that our congressional leaders have for these new members of Congress.

Of course, these brave men and women don't go to bed hungry, or face starvation from low cotton prices, or face greater risk of diabetes.

But, they do have to face the voters. Imagine the anxiety!!!

So, the Ruminant, always a patriot, asked: how well would farmers respresented by Freshmen members of the House be served by USDA if Congress shifted some subsidies to help pay for USDA conservation programs.

The answer, in a report to be released at noon today, is that farmers in 36 of 55 districts represented by freshmen members would receive a fairer share of federal farm spending if Congress shifted direct payments to share the cost of clean water or wildlife habitat. Farmers in 12 districts would see little or no change. Many of these districts are located in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio — large farm states that currently receive little support from USDA.

So, farmers in 48 of 55 districts would receive more support from USDA or see little or no change if Congress reformed farm subsidies to help the environment. Overall, many more more farmers would be able to participate in USDA programs.

There are seven districts where farmers would farmers would receive slightly federal spending — you know, the districts where corn and soybean prices have nearly doubled over the last two years in response to surging demand for ethanol. You know,the districts where large commercial farmers receive the lion's share of farm subsidies and generally vote for one party.

The Ruminant wonder whether Congressional leaders are making a big mistake if they throw consumers and the hungry under the bus to pander to a few fat cat farmers and their lobbyists. Rural voters overwhelmingly support reasonable subsidy reforms, like subsidy payment limits, because subsidizing fat cat farmers has hurt more farmers than it has helped.

And, what about those poor, suffering Freshmen members who represent farmers in California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? For some reason, fat cat farmers growing corn and soybeans in the square states are "real farmers" and the farmers who grow the food we actually eat are forgotten.

The Ruminant wonders whether they will be forgotten by the voters.

There are 93 million reasons to provide incentives for farmers to use fertilizer with greater efficiency.

USDA announced that farmers actually planted 93 million acres of corn — 3 milion more than predicted and 13 million more than last year.

That's the most corn planted in America since World War II.

Growing corn to produce ethanol requires more fertilizer than other crops, and even the best farmers will "lose" some fertilizer into the air, water and ground.

So, more fertilizer will wind up in America's rivers, lakes and bays this summer, fueling the production of algae that will die and rob our waters of precious oxygen.

Too bad more farmers aren't using off-the-shelf technologies to apply their fertilizer with greater precision. Less than 40 percent of our farmers conduct basic soil tests, according to USDA.

Using fertilizer with greater efficiency would not only protect the environment — using fertilizer with greater efficiency would also protect farmers from rising fertilizer costs.

As farmer Bill Horan notes, potential spikes in the price of natural gas (which is used to make fertilizer) should be encouraging our farmers to find new ways to fertilize their fields.

Horan says we need a "national fertilizer strategy" to make sure we can keep the biofuels boom going. Clearly, spreading the manure is something Congress can appreciate, right?

Much of our natural gas imported. Unless we reduce our dependence on fertilizers made from natural gas, we run the risk of replacing our dependence on imported oil with a new dependence on imported natural gas. That's better for the earth's changing climate, but that doesn't do much for America's energy security.

Something to ruminate over.

Subsidies don't make people fat. People make people fat.

The Ruminant needs to put to rest the notion that farm subsidies are making people fat.

The theory goes something like this: farm subsidies encourage farmers to grow corn, contributing to an abundant supply of high fructose corn syrup that is so cheap that soda makers basically have no rational choice but to include the stuff in their products.

As a result, the theory continues, soda and snack prices have fallen so low, when adjusted for inflation, that soda and snack companies are practically giving the stuff away, according to the New York Times.

What's more, according to a recent report, fruit and vegetable prices have increased by 40 percent between 1985 and 2000.

So you might think the Ruminant isn't the only one being fattened up for the slaughter.

Not so fast.

With corn prices as high as they are — thanks primarily to a national ethanol mandate Congress is poised to increase — corn farmers are responding to the market, not to farm subsidies. Farm subsidies only impact planting decisions when market prices are low. Even then, corn farmers will have plenty of reasons to grow corn.

Fruit and vegetable prices and production are driven by many factors, including the weather, market orders, pests, concentration, energy prices, import restrictions, and labor shortages, just to name a few.

What's more, roughly 80 percent of our fruit and vegetables producers are in the path of sprawl — especially in places like California and Florida — so the rising cost of land is a factor as well. In recent years, the number of farms harvesting vegetables fell by 11 percent and the number of farms with orchards fells by 6 percent.

What about laws that prohibit subsidized farmers from planting fruits and vegetables on lands now used to grow subsidized crops? Letting farmers plant fruits and vegetables on these lands would have little impact on production or prices, according to a USDA report.

So, lots of things impact the price of a potato, but farm subsidies is not one of them.

Here's the thing: farm products make up a small fraction of the cost of the food. The cost of growing and harvesting the "food" reflects just 16 percent and 19 percent of the price you pay at the store for fresh and processesed fruits and vegetables, respectively. Unless you shop at a farmer's market, most of your food dollar goes to transport, process and market what you eat, not grow it.

Here's something else you probably won't read in the New York Times: Americans are eating a lot more fruit and vegetables than we did 20 year ago. We 're still not eating 5 to 10 servings a day, as the Ruminant recommends, but we're doing better.

That's not to say there aren't things USDA can do help promote healthier food choices, especially among children. As Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Dennis Cardoza have proposed, USDA should dramatically expand programs to provide healthy fruit and vegetable snacks in schools, build more farmers markets, and increase other links between consumers and local farmers.

Too many low-income Americans lack access to healthy food or can't feed their kids. And, cutting subsidies for corn to help feed the hungry and expand healthy food choices will certainly help address America's rising rates of obesity-related illnesses, such as diabetes

But, writers like Michael Pollan who blame farm subsidies are using the same sloppy logic as farm subsidy supporters: that is, that farm subsidies keep certain foods cheap (and make people fat).

So, why are so many American's struggling with obesity? It's not just because we're couch potatoes. It's because we make bad food choices and because we're couch potatoes. The only people getting fat from farm subsidies are a few big farmers who collect the lion's share of farm subsidies and their fat cat lobbyists.

Restructuring and reducing farm subsidies will help fight obesity — by providing new resources to promote healthy food choices, not by changing the price of chips.

The Farm Bill sets farm and food policy for all Americans. And the impact of the bill doesn't just stop at the border. The Farm Bill, as the Washingon Post noted, impacts everyone from American taxpayers to African farmers.

So, it should be no surprise that an unprecedented number of Americans (and even a few Canadians) are trying to shape a bill that dramatically impacts our health, hunger, energy, environmental, trade and rural challenges.

Doctors fighting obesity, black farmers fighting a legacy of USDA discrimination, environmentalists fighting sprawl, CEOs fighting retaliatory tariffs, county executives fighting rural poverty, pastors fighting hunger — a broad and unprecedented alliance has formed to make sure the farm bill meets the needs of all Americans.

But the House Agriculture Committee — which largely represents 20 congressional districts that collect more than half of all farm spending — is concerned that ordinary Americans might have something to say about how their food is produced. The nerve of those people!!

One member of the Committee recently said he was "frightened" that a majority of legislators might actually decide the future of farm and food policy. Letting a majority of legislators make such decisions would be "a real phsyical threat" to Americans. What's more, reforming farm subsidies to help more farmers and meet other pressing challenges, such as feeding the hungry or helping the environment, would be "a threat to rural America, a threat to every consumer, a threat to the nutrition of the whole, entire world."

The Ruminant can imagine King George saying the same thing about those crazy American revolutionaries.

Fortunately, the framers did not include Committees — not even the House Agriculture Committee! — in the Constitution. A lot of those framers were farmers, and they somehow managed to declare independence, fight a revolution, and launch the Republic — all without farm subsidies. And they had to do all that while wearing funny wigs!!!

The framers actually made it the job of the whole Congress to decide the future of farm and food policies — and for good reason. Many of the framers were the men who risked their lives to declare their independence from tyranny. So, they thoughtfully crafted a system of government that would prohibit tyranny by a few special interests.

Here's hoping the Congress will declare its independence from lobbyists who claim to be the "voice of agriculture" but advance policies that support less than 10 percent of America's farmers.

There's a Chinese saying that "good things come in pairs." But, the Ruminant imagines that saying refers to shoes, oars, or ears, not farm bills.

Apparently, the House Agriculture Committee thinks two farm bills are better than one.

Last week, Chairman Collin Peterson announced that he would bring two farm bills to the floor of the House:

• one that largely extends the current Farm Bill, which was crafted before the ethanol mandate, before the energy crisis, before WTO challenges to our subsidies, and before the launch of this blog.
• a second that includes "reserve" funds to help fruit and vegetable producers and to meet America's hunger, health, energy and environmental challenges — but which makes those "reserve" funds contigent upon cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

In this case "reserve" means "not real."

But as one legislator told the Ruminant, some advocates for the hungry, healthy food choices, and habitat are easily distracted by the false promise of "reserve" funds — sort of like a bass distracted by a shiny lure.

Despite record prices for corn and soybeans caused by the ethanol mandate, Chairman Peterson's proposal would still provide $13 billion in direct payments over five years to the producers of feed grains.

Considering the fact that that 20 districts collect half of all farm spending — and that most of those districts are represented on the Agriculture Committee — it's no suprise to the Ruminant that Committee members would "circle the wagons" to defend depression-era subsidies, as one committee member said.

What is suprising to the Ruminant is that House leaders would permit Chairman Collin Peterson to bring a Farm Bill to the House floor that throws hungry kids under the bus so soybean farmers can get an extra 44 cents per bushel. Even former Democratic legislators like Tom Daschle and Charlie Stenholm — who crafted the 2002 Farm Bill — say direct payments should be cut to meet other priorities and to keep soaring land prices from driving small producers off the farm.

As the Des Moines Register and Washington Post recently noted, time is running our for House leaders to craft a farm bill that reflects the real needs of farmers, including our fruit and vegetable farmers, and that meets America's other big challenges.

So, the Ruminant asks, why stop at two?

By failing to craft a farm bill that can earn the support of a majority of House members, Chairman Peterson and House leaders have paved the way for reformers to craft a farm bill thathelps farmers weather the ups and downs of agriculture but that also meets America's energy, environment, health and hunger needs.

Farmers manage roughly 70 percent of the American landscape, so it's no suprise to the Ruminant that farmers, ranchers and forest landowners dramatically impact the facte of rare species or the quality of our rivers, lakes and bays.

The good news, according to a report to be released this week, is that farmers have dramatically improved their stewardship of private lands in recent years. There's more work to be done, but America's farmers are obviously very eager to share the cost of a healthier environment.

The problem, it seems, is that Congress is not willing to do its part.

Two out of three farmers offering to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat are turned away by USDA — and a proposal by the House Agriculture Committee would not do much to change that sorry statistic.

No wonder the Washington Post and other opinion leaders are urging House Democrats to pass a Farm Bill that meets the needs of more farmers and the environment.