Like other members of the House Agriculture Committee, South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is a big winner when federal crop subsidies are distributed.
Or, at least, her rural constituents are.
The Democratic representative and her congressional district -- the entire state of South Dakota -- ranks fifth in a study of farm-subsidy distribution by congressional districts from 2003 through 2005. The nonpartisan Environmental Working Group compiled the list, which shows that congressional districts represented by the 46 members on the Agriculture Committee -- not quite 10 percent of the full House -- received more than 42 percent of total crop subsidies.
Critics say that's an unfair distribution of federal funds reflecting the influence of large agricultural interests in a farm policy that benefits wealthy farmers over small and mid-sized farms. But Herseth Sandlin and her communications director, Russ Levsen, argued Thursday that South Dakota's high ranking in crop assistance is a reflection of the dominant grains produced in South Dakota.
"South Dakota receives a higher amount of farm payments because we have a very high number of agriculture producers and production acres. It's as simple as that," Levsen said. "Trying to make an apples-to-oranges comparison of differently sized congressional districts is intellectually dishonest and doesn't hold water."
South Dakota is the fifth-largest congressional district in the nation by area.
The Environmental Working Group study showed that the state received $1.06 billion in crop subsidies from 2003 through 2005. Congressional District 3 in Nebraska, represented by Republican Rep. Adrian Smith, led the list, with $1.74 billion.
District 1 in Kansas was second, with $1.32 million, District 19 in Texas fourth, with $1.23 billion, and District 5 in Iowa is fourth, with $1.15 billion.
Midwestern states dominate the subsidy list, a fact that isn't surprising to Larry Janssen, a professor of agricultural economics at South Dakota State University in Brookings. Because grain crops covered by farm programs -- particularly corn, wheat and soybeans -- are so dominant in South Dakota fields, government payments are naturally quite plentiful as well, Janssen said.
In addition, South Dakota is on the border between the generally reliable crop production of the Midwest and more fragile production potential of the Northern Great Plains. Janssen said that geographic reality makes grain producers in South Dakota more likely to be part of government farm programs, rather than try to rely on the dicey weather and unpredictable crop yields.
"We happen to be in an area that has traditionally produced most of the program crops, so it's not surprising, not at all," Janssen said. "We have very high participation rates in the Northern Plains. We're in an area with relatively higher production risks than in many, such as the central Midwest. That leads to higher percentage of participation.
"It's safe to say that three out of four farms in South Dakota are enrolled in some kind of federal program," he said.
Herseth Sandlin said those programs -- which include crop subsidies, conservation payments and disaster assistance -- shape a safety net that is essential to the well-being of farmers and all of rural South Dakota. Although the proposed Farm Bill that she and other members of the House Agriculture Committee produced would still provide the most benefits to the biggest farmers, it also would end payments to farmers with adjusted gross incomes of more than $1 million. The current limit is $2.5 million.
A husband and wife could double that $1 million limit to $2 million if they both qualified in income and involvement in the farming operation. But that's a loophole that exists in the farm program and allows a doubling of the $2.5 million cap in certain instances.
President Bush wants the income limit set at $200,000, and a move in the House would lower it to $250,000. Bush has threatened to veto the bill as proposed by the House Agriculture Committee.
The proposed bill also aims to end provisions that allow individual producers to collect double the current limit on farm-program payments. And it would lower the payment cap for commodity program and conservation payments to a single farmer from $210,000 to $125,000.
It might be possible to further lower the income limit as debate on the Farm Bill continues, as long as it doesn't remove the safety net South Dakota farmers deserve, Herseth Sandlin said.
"I think it can come lower, but I don't want to pull the rug out of any of our producers in this country," she said. "I would favor it being lower, and I think the Senate may even come up with something lower. This is as far as the House Agriculture Committee can go, and it's going pretty far in the right direction."
Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., both favor lower income limits for farm-payment eligibility.
"The million-dollar cap in the House is a step forward and an improvement," Thune communications director Kyle Downey said. "He (Thune) hopes the Senate will adjust the thing and bring the cap down more."
In a prepared statement, Johnson said he has consistently supported common-sense payment limitations and will again when the Senate debates the Farm Bill this fall.
"As far as I'm concerned, giving gigantic payments of scarce taxpayer dollars to millionaire absentee farmers doesn't make fiscal sense," Johnson said. "And it also turns urban America against the entire Farm Bill, which certainly isn't in the interest of South Dakota family farmers."
The full House was debating the Farm Bill on Thursday afternoon.