Farm Conservation

House Roll Call Vote 100

2002 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

265

Votes Against

158

Not Voting

11

Farming and ranching operations cover more than half the land in the 48 contiguous United States. Good stewardship of this land is vital to keeping our water clean, preserving our open spaces, maintaining local sources of food, and protecting wildlife habitat. The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers several conservation incentive programs that encourage agricultural producers to voluntarily preserve their natural resources. While these programs are popular with landowners, the vast majority of farmers who seek to enroll in them are turned away due to lack of funding.
In stark contrast to these conservation funding shortfalls are the liberal sums of money spent on federal crop subsidies. Originally created to cushion farmers from the ups-and-downs of the market, crop subsidies, for many years, have disproportionately favored large agribusinesses and landlords over small farmers and ranchers. In 1999, for instance, 45 percent of all crop subsidies went to the largest 7 percent of farms. Meanwhile, according to the latest annual statistics, 60 percent of U.S. farmers receive no crop subsidies at all.
During its consideration of the 2002 farm bill, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a provision to cap the amount of crop subsidies for any single farm operator. That provision, however, was in danger of being gutted by the conference committee charged with reconciling the House and Senate farm bills. In response, Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) offered a motion to instruct House conferees that the farm bill should contain a reasonable cap on crop subsidies and the resulting savings should go to boost funding for agricultural conservation and research programs.
On April 18, 2002, the House approved the Smith motion by a vote of 265-158 (House roll call vote 100). YES is the pro-environment vote. Despite this approval, the farm bill that emerged from House-Senate conference set crop subsidy caps so high and created so many loopholes as to render the caps meaningless. This left no savings to be allocated for conservation and research.
When the farm bill conference report (H.R. 2624) came to the House floor for final passage, Representative Ron Kind (D-WI) offered a motion to send the bill back to the House Agriculture Committee with instructions to restore the crop subsidy cap and dedicate much of the savings to conservation programs. On May 2, 2002, the House rejected the Kind motion to recommit the bill by a 172-251 vote (House roll call vote 122). YES is the pro-environment vote. The farm bill passed the House later that day, passed the Senate on May 8, 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush on May 13, 2002.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%