Opinion	E-mail PagePrint Version

Rarely do Republican leaders lambaste the World Trade Organization. More often they have dismissed claims about WTO's undemocratic action as whining by those on the losing end of trade negotiations.

How remarkable, therefore, to suddenly hear congressional leaders asking publicly whether the United States should continue as a partner in the WTO.

The change of heart comes because the WTO ruled two weeks ago that U.S. cotton subsidies are an unfair barrier to trade and thus in violation of WTO rules. Brazil had contended in its challenge to these subsidies that U.S. taxpayer-funded payments encourage overproduction, forcing the price down for countries worldwide. Many have editorialized on the havoc wrought in developing countries by U.S. crop subsidies.
 
The WTO agreed with Brazil. It's obvious that our subsidies for corn, rice and other export crops are each just one challenge away from being in precisely the same noncompliant status.

Crop-growing commodity groups nationwide are understandably upset. But what's less clear is why so few people have prepared themselves for this. The WTO has been saying for years that U.S. crop subsidies are a barrier to trade. Nevertheless, Congress ignored it. In writing the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress set aside $19 billion of taxpayer money each year for these very subsidies.

Fortunately, an embattled but growing constituency fought hard over the 2002 Farm Bill and in every appropriations year since then to ensure the Conservation Security Program, a viable alternative to these subsidies. The Conservation Security Program does not pay farmers and ranchers for the crops they grow. Rather, it uses taxpayer money to pay farmers and ranchers for their stewardship in protecting resources important to society, including the soil, water, air and wildlife affected by production agriculture.

Like the highly challenged crop subsidies, this innovative program is an entitlement, which means that all farmers and ranchers who are eligible can be funded through it. Congressional Budget Office estimates suggest that even over the seven years of the farm bill, this program wouldn't cost as much as the $8.8 billion the United States spent last year on its commodity subsidies.

Not surprisingly, the Conservation Security Program has consistently encountered opposition from the Bush Administration. However, the administration heard an earful from a wide variety of supporters nationwide, 14,000 strong, when it proposed rules in January that sought make this program as insignificant as possible. Administration officials now are waffling on actually implementing the program this year. This has to stop.

The WTO rules make it imperative that the Bush Administration act quickly to get this program up and running as fast as possible. Trade experts have made a strong case that the Conservation Security Program is the nation's one major farmer and rancher payment program that isn't considered a barrier to trade.

It may be that commodity programs will find ways to modify their form of payments to pass free-trade muster, but previous efforts in that direction haven't succeeded. In the meantime, it is essential to get on the ground and working the one program that does pass trade muster. The Conservation Security Program works to protect society's resources in the long term, and it both rewards producers already practicing stewardship as well as encouraging new producers to begin such practices.

The Bush Administration says it is unsure how to implement the program without its final rules complete. Get real. It's done all the time with programs that use what's called a Notice of Funding Availability, which allows programs to disburse funding without final rules. The Administration should allocate money to states, which would allow them to experiment with the program so that next year it would be ready for full implementation. It's not hard.

There's really no good excuse. It's time for the Bush Administration to push ahead with the Conservation Security Program.

Go back, or read the latest opinions:

''On the Waterfront – Still''

John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 09/17/06