| WASHINGTON -- Despite strong opposition from the White House and many
fiscal conservatives, the Senate on Wednesday began debate on a five-year
farm bill that would dramatically increase crop subsidies and spending on
environmental programs. Some senators argued lawmakers faced more pressing
issues than farm policy as existing programs don't expire until next fall.
But others said producers and bankers need to know as soon as possible
what the rules will be.
"We can't afford any longer to have farmers on a downward
track," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who heads the Senate
Agriculture Committee.
The Senate voted 73-26 to start working on the bill, a process that may
include several attempts to make major changes. Oklahoma's senators split
on the vote: Sen. Don Nickles, R-Ponca City, voted against proceeding to
the measure, while Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, voted to take up the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is pressing to finish the
legislation before the end of the year, although the chances for doing so
are fading fast. Senate leaders put off votes on the bill until Tuesday.
Farm groups worry that less money will be available for agricultural
spending next year.
The House in October passed its own farm bill overwhelmingly, despite
Bush administration objections. That was a Republican bill, but the White
House made it clear Wednesday it doesn't favor the Democratic version in
the Senate either.
A statement released by the White House budget office said the Senate
bill "would expand the government's role in agriculture in a way that
threatens the financial health of the farm sector, compromises our efforts
to expand markets abroad for American farm products, and harms American
consumers, especially those with lower incomes.
"The administration supports a generous safety net for producers
who encounter unavoidable financial stress while the farm economy
improves. However, (the Senate bill) attempts to address the vital needs
of America's producers with policies that exacerbate current problems of
overproduction and low commodity prices."
The White House made nearly identical comments about the House bill, a
10-year measure that would add more than $73 billion in new federal
spending. The Senate bill is a five-year measure.
Both would continue the fixed payments that were part of the 1996 farm
bill. They also would increase so-called counter- cyclical payments that
are government guarantees of prices for certain crops such as wheat,
cotton and corn. More than 43,000 Oklahomans have received the fixed
payments and the emergency bail- out payments in the last three years that
flowed through the same formula.
Supporters say government-set target prices exist only as a safety-net
to protect farmers when market prices fall below the actual cost of
production. Opponents say the targets lead to overproduction because the
guaranteed government price becomes an incentive to plant crops.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said American agriculture is in a "deep
crisis," and without the safety net proposed in the legislation
"we will likely see tens of thousands of farm families forced off the
land."
But Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said federal farm programs have "no
socially redeeming value. ... America would be greatly benefited if we
could eliminate the bulk of the farm program."
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said he would try to change several
sections of the bill, including sections linking payments to crops.
The White House endorsed a proposal by Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and
Pat Roberts, R-Kan., that includes the fixed payments but lower
counter-cyclical payments. They also have proposed tax- deferred savings
accounts for farmers.
Whether the Senate can pass a bill that can be reconciled with the
House version before the end of the year is uncertain. Congressional
leaders still are negotiating over a defense spending bill and an economic
stimulus package. |