From The Talk Radio News Service today.

Responding to a question on the Farm Bill [White House briefer Scott] Stanzel said that the president has said that he wants a Farm Bill that is reform-minded that does not raise taxes. Since farmers are doing very well we think this is a good time to reform our agriculture policies. The president would veto a bill that is not reform-minded, or one that raises spending. Stanzel mentioned that the next deadline is April 18th, instead of relying on extensions the Congress should work to pass new legislation and not extend current law piecemeal.

Sue Kirchoff of USA Today and Jeff Martin of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader teamed up on a terrific story in this morning's paper. Datelined De Smet, South Dakota, the article's headline says it all: "America's grasslands vanishing amid agricultural boom.".

In case anyone wonders why conservationists are pressing hard for a minimum $5 billion increase over baseline funding for conservation programs in the farm bill, this story provides a big part of the argument.

The USA's open plains and prairies are threatened by soaring grain prices that have increased their value as cropland. Grain prices have been driven up by a seemingly insatiable worldwide appetite for food and by federal energy policies promoting corn-based ethanol that are working at cross purposes with government programs designed to conserve open spaces.

As a result, landowners in South Dakota and across the USA's Farm Belt are converting to cropland marginally productive acres that for decades — in some cases, centuries — have remained uncultivated because farming them wouldn't have been profitable or because of their environmental value. . .

. . .Long-term benefits are being overtaken by short-term incentives, however. Farmers chasing near-record prices are coaxing higher yields from current acres and putting more land into crops.

Kevin Baloun, a farmer-rancher near Highmore, S.D., is among them. He's plowed up several pieces of virgin prairie in recent years to plant crops. Land values in his area have tripled in the past five years, which makes it harder for farmers to expand production by buying more cropland.

"The bottom line is what makes you go that direction," Baloun says of his conversion of prairie to cropland. "Wheat was $4 or $5 a bushel a couple of years ago, and now it's up to $10 or $12 a bushel."

Conservationists warn that the current commodity and ethanol frenzy could undo years of hard work and undercut the investment of taxpayer money that has bankrolled federal land- and water-protection programs.

"A generation of conservation accomplishments could be rolled back" if commodity prices remain near historic highs, warns Ken Cook, head of the non-profit Environmental Working Group.

Also worth noting, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner's continued resistance to allowing Conservation Reserve Program contract holders out of their contracts without penalty.

Food processors, livestock producers and other businesses want even more CRP land released to blunt the huge price increases for corn, wheat, soybeans and other farm commodities. They are pushing the government to waive hefty penalties on farmers who opt out of CRP contracts early.

The American Bakers Association this month even held a march on Washington. Industry has "been warning government officials about the pending crisis for the past year. Any further delay could have extremely serious consequences," said Robb MacKie, American Bakers president.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said no to the early release of acreage from the CRP, but it has also decided not to allow new land into the CRP except for the most highly sensitive acres.

U.S. Agriculture Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner says that the situation remains under review but that his agency will proceed cautiously. "We don't see it (CRP) as something where you dial it up or dial it down," says Conner. "It's too important an environmental and conservation program."

Both policy and personal history are at work here. Conservationists, myself included, testified before Sen. Richard Lugar in 1985 to make the case for including the CRP and other historic conservation provisions in the Senate version of that year's farm bill. Lugar, who chaired the relevant conservation subcommittee, turned to his staff director after the hearing and said "make it happen."

And that's exactly what his staff director, Chuck Conner, did. For as long as he worked for Lugar, Chuck was among a handful of key congressional staffers who stood up against bi-partisan efforts to gut the conservation title--notably in the 1990 and 1996 farm bills.

Today, Scripps Howard columnist Deroy Murdoch questions the logic of subsidy payments to profitable farm operations in times of record farm income and record prices for crops in the marketplace.

But as today's farmers enjoy sky-high incomes, this bill's advocates soon may explode into laughter while pleading for the perennially doomed "family farm." In fact, agricultural prices, profits and property values all are up dramatically, some at all-time highs

Mr. Murdoch also references a previous Wall Street Journal piece reporting on what some in farm country are doing with the dividends from a robust farm economy.

"Farmers have a lot of money to spend," said corn and soybean farmer Jerry Carder, who bought a 2008 Mercedes-Benz ML 350 for $40,000. Corn and soybean farmer Brad Beckwith purchased a $339,000, 4,000-square-foot house last August. He added a flagstone patio, a hot tub and a 65-inch TV.

Go here to read the full piece.

Lauren Etter from the Wall Street Journal has a fine front page piece today that clearly lays out the narrative of the 2007-2008 farm bill debate. One of the more striking points was the reporting of a dollar figure spent by the farm subsidy lobby to keep status quo subsidy payments in place:

The agribusiness industry plowed more than $80 million into lobbying last year, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks spending on lobbying. Much of that was focused on the farm bill.

That's a fairly decent return on investment even if you only consider the retention of direct payments in their current form, projected to pay out $5 billion per year. There are several mentions of reform efforts in the article as well.

To shore up support for the bill, especially among urban lawmakers, Chairman Peterson -- with the speaker's blessing -- made sure more money was added for nutrition and conservation, among other things. A Pelosi spokesman described the House bill as a "good first step toward reforming the farm bill."

Increasing funding for critical nutrition and conservation programs are laudable efforts. Stemming the flow of billions of dollars in taxpayer monies to profitable plantation-scale operations and wealthy absentee landowners, however, is true reform.

Read the whole story here.

On Friday, March 21, EWG and a host of environmental, conservation, and public interest groups sent a letter to congressional leadership and pertinent chairmen and committee members. The letter urges the members to support the proposed $4.951 billion increase in new funds above baseline for voluntary, incentives-based conservation programs.

Read the full letter after the jump.

From Senator Grassley's office:

For Immediate Release

Thursday, March 6, 2008
Grassley Payment Limits Amendment Clears Budget Committee

WASHINGTON – An amendment to allow a hard cap of $250,000 on the amount of farm payments an individual can receive passed the Senate Budget Committee today. Grassley introduced the amendment with Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado.

“The farm bills that passed the House and Senate have loopholes that make the farm payment system worse than what we operate under now. So, despite the fact that we’re in the middle of conference negotiations, I’m looking for ways to address the problems that weren’t taken care of,” Grassley said. “The majority of the Senate gave its support to payment limits during the farm bill, so it seems only right to keep pushing for passage.”

The amendment would save $641 million over five years and $1.401 billion over 10 years. The amendment also specifies that the savings be applied to nutrition.

Grassley has been the leading advocate to ensure that farm payments are directed to small and medium sized farmers to help them get through the lean years. During the farm bill debate in December, Grassley's payment limits amendment was required to reach a 60 vote threshold for passage. The amendment received 56, and did not pass. Only an adjusted gross income cap for farm payments was included in the Senate farm bill that is currently in conference committee between the House and the Senate.

Our preference is for the original administration proposal combined with the payment limits in the Dorgan-Grassley Amendment. This latest proposal is better than current law or the sham reforms that passed the House and Senate. But a $500,000 AGI alone will do little to keep rich people from receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal farm subsidies every year for the next five years. In terms of directing help to those who need it most, it doesn’t compare very favorably with the recently enacted economic stimulus package that cuts off a one-time tax rebate of $1,200 to married couples with an AGI of $150,000.

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.