News: Former USDA chiefs call for increase in 'green' payments

	Former USDA chiefs call for increase in 'green' payments ALLISON A. FREEMAN, E&E DAILY, 05/09/06 Two former Agriculture Department secretaries joined farmland conservation advocates yesterday in calling for an overhaul of the farm bill that would favor environmental programs, with more "green" payments and fewer crop subsidies. The American Farmland Trust -- a nonprofit that has focused on preserving farmland at risk from development -- yesterday called for the green payments as a new kind of crop insurance in a report outlining suggestions for the next farm bill. The report, drafted after meetings with 400 farmers and ranchers, also backs increases for farm conservation programs. The proposal received the endorsement of two members of Washington's agriculture policy establishment. The first is Dan Glickman, who was Agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration, served on the House Agriculture Committee for 18 years and now heads the Motion Picture Association. The other endorsement came from Clayton Yeutter, the Agriculture secretary during the George H. W. Bush presidency and U.S. Trade Representative in the Reagan administration. Sweeping changes to the farm bill are in order in light of tighter federal budgets, ongoing international trade negotiations that call for fewer direct subsidies and a changing landscape for U.S. farmers, Glickman and Yeutter said yesterday. The 2002 farm bill, drafted in a time of budget surplus, kept commodity payments intact and increased conservation programs by 70 percent. "I lived in the 1930's when the current farm programs were put together, and I can guarantee that American agriculture does not look like it did in the 1930's, yet our programs do," Yeutter said. "Isn't it about time for an update?" But at least some of the congressmen tasked with drafting the new farm bill, which is due in 2007, have indicated a desire to stick with the status quo. Farm commodity groups and several legislators in the House and Senate have called for an extension of the current bill. Most recently, House Conservation Subcommittee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) indicated he is leaning toward tweaking current programs rather than overhauling the act at a field hearing last week in Harrisburg, Pa. Lucas said he has heard more support for the current farm bill than ever before. "We know this will not be the easiest thing in the world," Glickman admitted, in reference to his proposal. When asked about his chances in the face of some momentum to maintain the status quo, American Farmland Trust President Ralph Grossi maintained a sense of optimism. "Any time you're talking about a major change, you have to put the best ideas out on the table," he said. The proposal floated yesterday calls for a farm bill with three pillars -- environmental stewardship, a farm safety net and support for new markets, including energy production. The farm safety net would overhaul the current $20 billion-per-year system of income supports, counter-cyclical payments and subsidies for grain, cotton and soybean farmers. And it would provide some crop and revenue insurance and $5 billion per year in green payments for farmers and ranchers who have high standards of environmental and wildlife conservation. "What is laid out here is a lot of ways we can legitimately justify the flow of taxpayer resources to rural America for a lot of years to come," Yeutter said. The green payments would be in addition to a stewardship title that would double the funding for the existing farm bill conservation programs on working farms, like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which gives cost-share payments for farmers to make environmental improvements on their land. Grossi said the proposal would cost about the same as the current farm bill but spread payments out across more farms. Two-thirds of American farmers do not receive any direct support under the current farm bill, according to the report. Farmers of fruits, vegetables and other "specialty" crops receive little federal support, while some large grain farms receive millions of dollars a year. The reallocation would leave some farmers as "losers" under the proposal, Grossi admitted, especially some rice and cotton growers. He recommended business counseling or possible buy-outs for the farms. "One of the political realities is that government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul," said John Hardin, the past President of the National Pork Producers Council and a supporter of the plan. "As American agriculture folks look at where the options are and can discuss more where we're headed, then we've got a chance to begin to make change."