[Hee Haw]
[NYT]
SEP 01, 2001
Some Who Vote on Farm Subsidies Get Them as Well
By ELIZABETH BECKER
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 - At least seven members of Congress receive
thousands of dollars in farm subsidies each year, and all but two sit
on the agriculture committees that are writing the new farm policy.
Although most have not sat on a tractor in years, they all said their
farm backgrounds helped them understand the complicated legislation
that will be debated in coming weeks.
Indeed, Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on
the Agriculture Committee, who received $48,464 in subsidies for his
family farm in the last five years, has consistently argued that the
subsidies should be reduced in favor of conservation programs.
Among the biggest recipients is Representative Marion Berry, Democrat
of Arkansas, whose family enterprises received $649,750 in farm
subsidies in the past five years.
At the bottom of the list is Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of
Kansas, who received $16,913 over the same period. Mr. Brownback does
not sit on an agriculture committee.
The information was released under the Freedom of Information Act to
the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that promotes
agricultural conservation.
Over the years, members of Congress who receive the subsidies have
asked the Congressional ethics committees about them and were told
there was no conflict of interest. Since farm subsidies affect an
entire class of citizens rather than a group of select individuals,
legislators were told they could receive the subsidies and still vote
on the farm subsidy provisions.
In essence, the committees said, these members could vote on farm
subsidy legislation for the same reason that all members could vote on
a tax measure that would affect their individual tax burdens.
But watchdog groups say that with a limited number of farmers
receiving subsidies, there was at least the appearance of a conflict.
Ten percent of farmers received 61 percent of the $32.2 billion in
subsidies last year.
"The fact that they can personally benefit from their vote, that their
farms will be helped or hurt by the subsidies, is a classic conflict
of interest," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for
Responsive Politics.
Representative Charles W. Stenholm of Texas, the ranking Democrat on
the Agriculture Committee, is one of the four senators and three
members of the House who receive subsidies. He has been one of the
principal authors of the $171 billion farm bill that the House will
vote on soon.
Mr. Stenholm, who received $39,298 for family farm operations in the
past five years, said they kept his farm from going out of business
long ago and helped him as a lawmaker.
"Working a farm and relying on subsidies has been a plus for me," Mr.
Stenholm said in a telephone interview from Texas. "I know a little
bit about the subject, and it gives me credibility with my colleagues
who don't have a clue about what's going on on the farms."
The two Democratic lawmakers from Arkansas who receive subsidies - Mr.
Berry and Senator Blanche Lincoln - said their family farms were a
part of the larger goal of ensuring food security for the United
States through subsidies.
"This is going to be an issue for all Americans," Ms. Lincoln said.
"Do we want to support American agriculture and ensure our food
security and independence, or do we want to lose control eventually to
the global marketplace as we have with our energy policy?"
A seventh-generation Arkansan who was raised on a farm, Ms. Lincoln
owns a one-ninth share in her grandfather's farm, which received
$351,085 in subsidies in the last five years. The farm provides her
with about $10,000 in income every year.
"It's not critical to my sustenance or my sustainability," she said,
"but subsidies are critical to most gentlemen farming in Arkansas."
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, still spends some
time cultivating his fields and harvesting his own crops, although his
son does the lion's share of the work. Mr. Grassley, who does not sit
on an agriculture committee, said he has received subsidies since 1961
and sees them in roughly the same light as the $600 tax rebate check
he received this year.
"I'm sitting right here on my family farm, and I can say that I
participate in the government program because it's the safety net of
farming," he said in a telephone interview from Iowa.
For his 710-acre farm, Mr. Grassley received $110,935 in subsidies
from 1996 to 2000.
In that same period, the family farm operations of Representative Cal
Dooley, Democrat of California, received $306,902 in subsidies.
In a recent Senate debate, Mr. Lugar of Indiana called upon his
experience as a corn farmer, as he often does, to explain why he
thought farmers already received generous protection against adversity
through the subsidy program.
"I know I am going to get 85 percent of a higher price than in fact is
the market now," he said. "That is a safety net that is very
substantial any way you look at it."
