Kind legislation would shift money from crop subsidies to conservation

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER

Associated Press Writer

Published Sep 30 2001

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Congress takes up a new farm bill this week, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., will offer an amendment that would drastically change the federal government' s agriculture priorities.

Kind wants to shift about $2 billion a year from traditional commodity payments for such goods as wheat, rice, cotton and soybeans to voluntary conservation programs, raising conservation spending to more than $5 billion a year. The current farm bill expires next fall.

Kind argues that farm policy now encourages overproduction of a few crops, driving prices down. At the same time, he said, it doesn' t do enough to encourage conservation of the nation' s open spaces, wildlife habitat, wetlands, grassland and forests, much of it owned by farmers.

Kind' s legislation, which has 140 co-sponsors, got a boost recently when the Bush administration issued a report that supported its general philosophy. While not mentioning the legislation specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture criticized subsidies for big grain and cotton farms and proposed putting money into conservation programs that benefit more growers.

On Tuesday, Senate Agriculture Committee chairman, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and ranking Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, issued a policy statement that echoed the USDA' s position.

Kind' s amendment, which has been endorsed by several environmental groups, would increase the number of acres in the conservation reserve program to 45 million from 36 million. That program pays farmers to idle environmentally sensitive land.

Kind also proposes increasing spending on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $1 billion a year, targeting the money to managed grazing systems, protecting drinking water supplies, water conservation, pesticide reduction and manure management.

Spending for wildlife habitat also would increase, by $200 million a year, gradually increasing to $500 million a year by 2004.

Kind does not have many allies on the House Agriculture Committee, which endorsed an expansion of the subsidy programs for grain and cotton farmers in its 10-year, $170 billion farm bill. The committee also calls for increased conservation, but not as much as Kind and environmental groups seek.

Richard Peterson, who farms 1, 300 acres of corn and soy beans in Mountain Lake, Minn., said he supports the bill as it passed the committee.

" With commodity prices the way they are, we need all of the income we can get it from a farm bill, " he said. " We think conservation is taken care of" in the original bill.

But Karen Bumann, who farms 30 cows on 60-acre dairy farm in Menomonie, Wis., supports the Kind amendment.

" If there are more incentives for conservation, farmers would be in a better position to manage resources more carefully and not be wasteful, " she said.

Current farm policy encourages overproduction, she said, forcing farmers to treat the land as a commodity rather than as a living organism.

Rep. Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat who sits on the Agriculture Committee with Kind, warned that the amendment would doom the farm bill for this year.

" If this amendment passes, there will be no farm bill, " he predicted. " It will be dead. It will be pulled."

A spokesman for Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas, also criticized Kind' s legislation.

" This amendment would decimate the farm programs, " said spokesman Keith Williams.

Peterson, who represents northwestern Minnesota, also pushed for an expansion of the conservation program, but not one that would take money away from current farm payments.

" These supposed big farm operations are a major part of the food supply in this country, " he said.

Kind said that isn' t always the case.

" There are those who aren' t even producing who are getting huge government paychecks, " he said.

An Associated Press review of federal farm subsidies found that almost two-thirds of the $27 billion doled out last year went to just 10 percent of America' s farm owners. Some subsidies went to real estate developers and absentee landowners in cities such as New York and Chicago.

Kind said his legislation would reverse bad economic policy and improve environmental policy in one swoop.

" Not only can we provide economic assistance to farmers, but you get the societal benefits, " said Kind, whose district is in western Wisconsin. " Better watershed management, quality drinking supplies, the protection of wildlife habitat, and ultimately, the protection of valuable farm land itself."

Scott Faber, an attorney with Environmental Defense, said the amendment would help farmers who don' t receive much in federal support -- such as those who raise dairy, livestock, and fruits and vegetables.

Kind said that was one of his goals.

" The current farm bill benefits a few but very large commodity producers out west, " said Kind. " There are farmers -- family farmers in a lot of different regions -- that get virtually nothing under the current farm bill. That' s what we' re trying to change."