| The Bush administration unsuccessfully sought to delay House action on a
$170 billion farm bill, saying this was no time to pledge that much money
to agricultural programs.
In a statement that angered farm-state lawmakers, the White House also
said Wednesday that the legislation would encourage continued
overproduction of crops and benefit the nations largest farms.
In the context of the current state of the nation, consideration of
large new financial commitments that do not require immediate action are
not timely, the statement said.
The bill would guarantee a steady flow of money over the next decade to
the grain and cotton growers that have traditionally received most federal
farm payments. It also provides new subsidies to peanut farmers and
revives honey and wool supports that were abolished in the 1990s.
The legislation would replace farm and nutrition programs set to expire
in September 2002.
The House began debating the bill Wednesday. A final vote is expected
Thursday.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., felt it was important to get
on with the nations business, and the farm bill is an important part of
the nations business, Hasterts spokesman, John Feehery, said.
Farm groups are counting on House approval of the bill to pressure the
Senate to act on legislation of its own this year.
The House bill counts on using $72 billion from a budget surplus
projected this spring. The surplus is fast disappearing because of the
countrys slowing economy and new spending that resulted from last months
terrorist attacks.
The White House said the House bill misses the opportunity to
modernize the nations farm programs and ensures that the farmers who
least need federal assistance continue to get most of the money. Nearly
half of all government payments go to the largest 8 percent of farms.
The statement, which echoed a farm-policy analysis that the Agriculture
Department issued last month, also urged lawmakers to shift money into
conservation programs that reward farmers for improved environmental
practices.
A vote Wednesday afternoon indicated that the administration was
failing to sway a significant number of lawmakers in its effort to limit
payments. The House rejected 238-187 an amendment that would have imposed
strict $150,000-per-person limit on crop subsidies, which would have saved
$1.3 billion over 10 years. A program begun by the Clinton administration
sets no limit on benefits that large farms and corporations can collect.
A limit of $150,000 is not only reasonable, its plain generous,
said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Groups representing grain, cotton and soybean farmers are fighting off
all attempts to make significant changes in the House bill, including
another amendment that would shift $19 billion from crop subsidies into
conservation programs.
Farm groups so dislike that proposal that the chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee, Rep. Larry Combest, R-Texas, has threatened to
shelve the bill if the amendment were to be approved. Aides expressed
confidence that it would not be.
The bill would replace a 1996 law that was supposed to wean farmers
from government payments. Grain prices subsequently collapsed, however,
and Congress has since approved billions in additional aid. |