Friday, April 25, 1997

House panel votes to reduce idled farm acreage

By PHILIP BRASHER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite warnings that the issue could slow disaster relief, a House panel voted Thursday to roll back the amount of farmland idled under a popular conservation program.

The House Appropriations Committee voted 26-22 to retain a provision in an $8 billion emergency spending bill barring the Agriculture Department from enrolling more than 14 million acres this year in the Conservation Reserve Program.

CRP contracts on about 22 million acres are due to expire this fall. Farmers have offered to enroll about 26 million acres, most of which already are in the program.

"The farmers in the rest of the country have not benefited from this program," said Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., who wants to shift CRP land from the Plains states to the East. "What we're trying to do is spread the wealth."

Aides to Walsh say the acreage cap would force USDA to tighten the program's eligibility rules in a way that would benefit the East.

The committee's senior Democrat, David Obey of Wisconsin, argued that the conservation issue could slow passage of the bill, which includes $5.5 billion in flood and other disaster relief for more than 20 states.

The Agriculture Department opposes the acreage cap, and President Clinton this week warned Congress against loading the bill with controversial provisions. He did not mention the CRP issue specifically.

Obey said Congress should leave the conservation program alone. "I don't think this committee has any business upsetting the apple cart and scaling back the acres at this point," he said.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., called the cap "a debacle" and predicted the Senate would reject it. Farmers in his state have offered 2.5 million acres for the program.

The program pays farmers not to put certain land in production for 10 years and helps them plant grass and trees on it to control erosion and provide wildlife habitat.

About 33 million acres are currently idled under the program.

In a letter to Walsh on Wednesday, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said that the cap would "unduly sacrifice the program's ability to achieve immediately substantial environmental benefits."