Cox News Service March 12, 2002 By BOB DART
PINEHURST, Ga. _ David Reed warmed his hands at a heater in a nearly empty equipment shed. After losing $300,000 last year on his cotton and peanut farm, Reed auctioned off tractors and other implements. He cut his debt enough to qualify for a bank loan, but this year will cultivate 1,800 acres rather than 4,000 and will employ one worker rather than five. Despite receiving about $314,000 in federal subsidies since 1996, Reed has been forced to sell a pecan grove and other Dooly County fields that his family has farmed for generations. This will be the 33rd annual crop for the 51-year-old farmer, whose son is studying to be a music teacher. "I'm the last Reed that's farming," he said. "And if I lose money this year, I'm quitting." Across rural America, farmers like David Reed are watching Capitol Hill as a conference committee races to agree on a new farm policy this month, before planting season reaches full swing. Different farmers prefer different parts of the two bills passed by the House and Senate. But nearly all agree that farmers need more federal support after a series of hard years. "My two worst enemies are government and the markets," said Patricia McCarthy, a pine tree grower in Ware County, Ga. "We're losing Main Street stores in the small towns. What Wal-Mart didn't get, the farm depression is getting," said Terrell Hudson, a Dooly County commissioner and grower. "I don't know a farmer anyplace who wants to receive a check from the government. But I also don't know a farmer anyplace who wants his family to go hungry or to have to move off their land." Down on the farm and up in the nation's capital, it wasn't supposed to be like this. In 1996, Congress approved a "Freedom to Farm" law designed to ease American agriculture into a worldwide free market by ending federal subsidies and production controls. It didn't happen. Domestic overproduction and inexpensive imports drove down prices, hurting healthy farmers and crippling those who suffered from floods and droughts. Far from letting federal subsidies fade away, Congress approved emergency measures pushing them to new heights. Critics say the money helped big farmers at the expense of small ones. >From 1996 to 2000, farmers received $71.5 billion in federal payments, according to a study by the Environmental Working Group, a conservation group. But two-thirds of the subsidies went to the biggest 10 percent of the farms. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last month that the number of farms nationwide had fallen by nearly 33,000 since 1996. Dooly County, despite receiving nearly $45 million in federal assistance over these five years, lost several family farms. "If it hadn't been for the ad hoc disaster relief and what there was of farm programs for the last four crop years, I doubt you would have a farm left in Dooly County producing food and fiber," said Hudson. Forward to the past Now, with the new farm bill that will take effect in October, federal policy is returning to a system of price supports and regulated cultivation with legislative roots in the Great Depression. "This is the economic recovery package that rural and small-town America needs," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, author of the Senate bill. By joint agreement, both Harkin's bill and a House version by Rep. Larry Combest, R-Texas, provide $73.5 billion in new farm spending over the next 10 years, raising the total for farm programs to $578.5 billion. Farmers like the new support, but many are urging the negotiators to pick and choose what they see as the best parts of the two bills. Many like the fact that the Senate bill front-loads relief for the ailing farm economy. It packs $45 billion in new spending into the bill's first five years, compared to $36 billion under the House bill. But the Senate version was dealt a blow this month when the Congressional Budget Office, which officially "scores" the cost of proposed laws, said it had made an error and the Senate bill was $6.1 billion above the agreed limit. The announcement sent Senate staffers scrambling to find offsetting cuts. Southern farmers are adamantly against another feature of the Senate bill _ a $275,000 "cap" on the federal subsidy that any farmer can receive each year. The House version is double that, $550,000 per year. "We can't live with that," said Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a conference committee member. "That's a non-starter." "With 600 acres of cotton, you would limit out," said Billy Griggs, who grows cotton and peanuts near Unadilla, Ga. With the Senate cap, he said, "You can make it sound logical until you get out here and try to make a living off the land." Annual operating costs are between $750,000 and $1 million on the 1,800 acres that he farms with his son. A six-row cotton picker costs about $300,000, Griggs said. A 240-horsepower tractor can run $140,000. With cotton selling for less than 50 cents a pound, about the same price that it fetched a century ago, farms needed such equipment to get bigger and more efficient in order to survive, he said. "There's about a quarter's worth of cotton in a $50 shirt," he said. "It ain't going to the farmer." A boost for conservation Over the next decade, the Senate bill also provides about $4.3 billion a year for conservation programs, compared to about $3.1 billion a year in the House version. The difference means more farmers could receive federal payments for practicing sound environmental policies, say supporters of the Senate bill. Mack Carter, who grows peanuts, cotton and soybeans in Coffee County, Ga., said he has been practicing conservation tillage, rotating crops and planting cover crops for years, but "not one penny ever flowed across my desk to encourage it." Federal incentives will help other farmers convert, predicted Carter. Pine tree growers would also welcome federal conservation incentives, said McCarthy, who has 2,200 acres of woodland in Ware County. She supports federal programs that help growers capture rain water _ by providing money to dig ponds, for instance _ rather than having to dig wells to tap underground aquifers. The Senate bill provides $1 billion over five years for water conservation incentives, while the House version has no comparable provision. Where power lines cut swaths through her forests, McCarthy plants food plots for deer and leases hunting rights to her land. The Senate bill allocates $1.23 billion over five years to encourage conservation of wildlife habitat, compared to $155 million in the House bill. Environmentalists fear funding for these programs may be cut to correct the Senate's budget scoring mistake. "Congress must not 'find' the money for this unfortunate cost overrun at the expense of conservation and nutrition programs," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. Pine tree growers also crave consistency in federal policy. "It takes 35 years to grow trees to maturity," McCarthy said _ during which Congress would vote on seven farm bills. "People don't understand how you come to love the land," she explained. "It's not like an heirloom that you pass down, because the land is alive." Across the state, Billy Griggs watched a tractor plow a distant field and expressed a similar sentiment. "My son _ he's just as crazy as I am _ wants to farm," he said. "When he told me, one side of me was extremely proud. But one side felt fear that keeps me awake nights wondering how he's going to make it.":
