The five-year, $286 billion farm bill that passed the House on Friday angered Bay Area food and environmental advocates who hoped to make the farm bill into a food bill, but they now turn their aim to the Senate to try to shift billions of dollars in crop subsidies to conservation, organics and local farm markets.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat torn between her urban constituents and vulnerable rural Democrats, praised the bill at length as a "critical step toward reform that eliminates farm payments to millionaires" and boosts spending on the environment, biofuels, nutrition and the fruit and vegetable crops that have made California the nation's largest farm producer.

"More needs to be done," Pelosi said, "but we have gone in the right direction."

The bill, which passed 231-191, calls for $42 billion in crop subsidies for the next five years and limits payments to farmers earning more than $1 million a year -- $2 million for a couple. Pelosi has indicated more reforms could come in 2012 with the next farm bill.

Back home, progressives lashed out at the speaker, saying her reforms would lavish $1 billion on 13,000 California rice growers over the next three years -- 10 times more than the $100 million allocated for conservation in the state.

Just limiting payments to the top 10 farm subsidy beneficiaries in California -- including San Francisco arts patron Constance Bowles, who collected $1.2 million in cotton payments from 2003 to 2005 -- would save $7.5 million.

That is more than the House bill's entire budget for research to help farmers make the costly transition to pesticide- and herbicide-free crops, said Kari Hamerschlag, policy director for the California Coalition for Food and Farming, a Watsonville group.

"Why aren't the Democrats doing the math on this?" Hamerschlag said.

Environmentalists and food activists have taken aim at crop subsidies because they represent an enormous pot of money, cover millions of acres and distort farming and food production, affecting the rural landscape and American diets.

At a time of near record prices, reformers argued that lowering crop payments to wealthy landowners and agribusinesses would curb these distortions and free up money for conservation and food programs that would benefit more farmers and improve the health of Americans.

They are turning their effort to the Senate, where the Agriculture Committee, as in the House, is dominated by those who support the status quo that benefits subsidized crops. But its chairman, Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, is friendlier to conservation and nutrition programs than his House counterpart, Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and supports tougher payment limits.

Farm politics usually break along regional, rather than party lines. But that has begun to shift, with many farm-state politicians beginning to rebel against the decades-old crop support systems. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, proposed a radical change in farm subsidies this week, dismissing the "old-time religion" of crop price support.

Others such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat running for president, supports aid to the local farm-to-consumer movement that has caught fire in farmers' markets across the country.

Some farm-state Republicans, led by Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a former Agriculture Committee chairman, have spent decades battling what they see as the bloated spending and market distortions caused by crop subsidies. Lugar ripped the House bill on Friday, saying it "will send more money to a few select farmers, while continuing to ignore the vast majority of American farmers."

Lugar vowed to build a Senate coalition of taxpayer activists, environmentalists and overseas development advocates such as Oxfam America to push for changes.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a conservative Iowa Republican, has teamed with populist Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to eliminate payments to farmers earning more than $250,000 a year, in line with the Bush administration's demand for a $200,000 limit. The administration promised to veto the House bill.

But other Republicans, especially committee stalwarts such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, have made clear they will resist radical changes in farm programs.

Harkin has delayed action on a Senate version until after the August congressional recess, telling colleagues he did not want to see a bill sit for a month to allow opposition to foment.

The Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, predicted that public opposition to the House approach would build.

"Wealthy special interests can only plug the leaks in the dam for so long," Beckmann said. "A lot of politicians had to hold their noses and check their parties' fundamental values at the door of the Capitol building when they sided with the (House) Agriculture Committee's bill."

House Democratic leaders plugged a lot of leaks to pass their bill -- scrambling to assemble 231 votes after losing most Republicans over a tax increase on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies to fill a financing gap. They had hoped for a rousing bipartisan show of support to send the bill sailing over to the Senate.

House leaders also fended off an effort by Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin that would have slashed the subsidies that go to just five crops -- cotton, corn, rice, wheat and soybeans -- and redirected the money to environmental and nutrition programs. Most of these crops and a handful of others such as dairy, peanuts and sugar have received federal support since the 1930s Dust Bowl.

Most farmers, including fruit, nut and vegetable growers and livestock producers, do not receive direct subsidies.

Kind said many of the dairy farmers in his Wisconsin congressional district oppose the current programs.
"I know, like many of my farmers do, that these programs aren't working," Kind said, adding that he had hoped with the ethanol boom driving farm income and grain prices to near record highs, Congress would have had "the stomach" for reform.

The vote on Kind's amendment demonstrated the ambivalence many urban Democrats felt about the bill, drawing support, for example, from Bay Area Democrats such as Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek and George Miller of Martinez. But after that challenge failed, all the Bay Area delegation -- except for Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont, who opposes crop subsidies -- fell in line with their party on final passage for the leadership's bill.

Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson, a staunch supporter of crop subsidies whose district benefits from corn payments and sugar tariffs, struck deals with the Congressional Black Caucus and urban liberals concerned about feeding poor children overseas to tamp down internal party opposition. Peterson credited Pelosi with lending vital support.

"She deserves a lot of credit for us getting to where we're at," Peterson said. "She got a lot of flak from people ... but she hung in there and she trusted me and she trusted the committee and stood behind us, and came in and helped us when we needed help."

Highlights of the House farm legislation

The House on Friday approved a $286 billion, five-year renewal of agricultural programs to replace the current legislation that expires Sept. 30. The Senate is expected to consider its version of the bill in September.

• Farm programs were begun in the 1930s to help farmers devastated by the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, when a quarter of Americans lived on farms. Today, less than 1 percent of the population lives on the farm.
• The programs are renewed every five years in a giant farm bill, the bulk of which now covers food stamps and other nutrition programs as well as farm aid. Crop subsidies cover corn and other feed grains, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice; a handful of other products such as dairy, peanuts, sugar and wool get other forms of support.
• California is the nation's largest farm state by sales. The state has many cotton, rice and dairy farms that receive federal aid, but the bulk of its farm revenue is generated by fruits, nuts and vegetables, which receive no direct crop subsidies.

The House measure includes:

• $190 billion for food stamps, school lunches and other food programs.
• $42 billion for crop subsidies and other aid to federally supported commodities. It limits payments to farmers earning more than $1 million a year, or $2 million a couple.
• $25 billion for conservation to help farmers improve watersheds, provide wildlife habitat and similar measures.
• $29 billion for research, marketing programs, energy and rural development.
• The research portion of the bill includes $1.6 billion for various research, disease and pest programs and marketing aid for fruits, nuts and vegetables, and other horticulture. The money is considered a breakthrough for California agriculture. It also includes $55 million for research into organic farming and technical assistance for farmers transitioning from conventional to organic crops. Organic sales are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. market, rising nearly 20 percent a year on average.