Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company The New
York Times
February 14, 2002, Thursday, Late Edition -
Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 26; Column 1;
National Desk
LENGTH: 1083 words
HEADLINE: Senate Passes $44.9 Billion Farm Bill Limiting
Subsidies
BYLINE: By ELIZABETH BECKER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Feb. 13
BODY: The Senate passed a farm bill today that
increases basic subsidy programs, doubles spending for conservation programs and
puts strict limits on how much money a single farmer can receive.
By putting $22 billion into expanded conservation programs
over a decade, the farm bill could become the most sweeping environmental
legislation since the Clean Air Act of 1990.
The
five-year, $44.9 billion bill also doubles the administration's request for food
stamps, ensuring that the Agriculture Department's nutrition program is the
second-largest federal program combating poverty.
The
measure passed 58 to 40 with nine Republicans joining the Democrat majority, and
it stands in stark contrast to the House farm bill approved last fall. That bill
gives less money to conservation and nutrition programs, places no limits on
individual subsidy payments and gives an additional $9 billion to commodity
subsidies over a decade.
Lawmakers will try to
reconcile the two versions in conference, which is expected to last several
weeks.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the
majority leader, had pushed to pass a bill before midterm elections, and today
he praised the Senate's version of the farm policy.
"This bill provides certainty for producers, an increased commitment to
conservation, expanded nutrition, provisions making farmers and ranchers more
competitive, and needed assistance for rural development," Mr. Daschle said.
For his part, Senator Trent Lott, the minority leader,
portrayed the Senate farm bill as "the most partisan" in his memory. But many of
the votes seemed determined as much by geography as by politics.
Western senators of both parties worried about restrictions on water
and packing houses. Southern senators complained about restrictions on subsidy
payments.
Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of
Arkansas, voted against her party to protest payment limits that fell most
heavily on rice and cotton farmers.
The two Republican
senators from Maine broke ranks with their party leaders to support the bill's
conservation measures and a $2 billion dairy program that replaces the Northeast
Dairy Compact.
Finally, the senators from Iowa seemed
to be acting in tandem even though they sit on opposite sides of the aisle.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, a Republican, wrote the amendment to limit subsidy
payments and another to prohibit meat packing companies from owning their own
livestock.
That provision is intended to protect small
hog farmers, many of whom live in Iowa. Mr. Grassley's fellow Republicans said
his measure would hurt the big meatpacking companies and cause an upheaval in
the pork and beef industries.
Senator Tom Harkin,
Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, paid a rare tribute
to his colleague today, thanking him for his "courage in representing Iowa
farmers." Mr. Grassley voted with the Democrats.
Congress agreed last year to set aside $171 billion for a new 10-year
farm bill to replace the Freedom to Farm law that expires in October. That
policy was intended to wean farmers from subsidies but triggered emergency
payments that now cost $20 billion each year, a greater amount than proposed in
both new farm bills.
The House bill uses all $171
billion and covers the entire decade. The Senate's version, however, is a
five-year plan that spends $6 billion more than half of the available funds.
Democratic senators said the problems in rural American
were severe enough to warrant their strategy, but Senate Republicans objected.
President Bush said in a statement tonight that he strongly disagreed with the
Senate bill.
"This bill front loads spending into the
first five years, leaving vital programs under-funded in the years that follow,"
the president said. "I am committed to sound farm policy that supports America's
farmers and ranchers and am disappointed that the Senate-passed bill doesn't get
the job done."
At the center of both bills is the
Depression-era program that pays farmers to grow corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton
and rice. The Senate version would limit each farmer's annual subsidy to
$275,000 -- cutting in half the amount of money the biggest farmers receive in
the House version.
The size of farm subsidies came to
the national forefront last winter when a nonprofit group opened a Web site
listing every federal subsidy payment received by every farmer in the last five
years.
Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana
and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, refused to vote for the Senate
farm bill, saying it did not go far enough in limiting subsidies.
"The egregious inequity of the farm program is that sixty
percent of farmers receive no subsidies whatsoever," Mr. Lugar said.
The new conservation programs were written to remedy that
inequity, and payments can be made to farmers who raise fruits and vegetables or
ranchers who raise cattle or pigs. In current law and the House bill, the vast
majority of conservation programs are available only to farmers of commodity
crops like corn, rice and wheat.
The new farm bill also
underwrites extensive conservation programs to clean up city drinking water,
protect forests from urban sprawl and help protect wildlife and their
habitat.
Every major conservation group set its sights
on the farm bill this year, from the Sierra Club to the Environmental Defense
Organization.
"In its scope and in the significance of
its programs, there hasn't been a environmental measure of this importance since
the Clean Water Act," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working
Group.
But several conservative organizations
criticized spending billions of dollars for what they called corporate
welfare.
"Taxpayers continue to underwrite corporate
agriculture," said Joe Theissen, executive director of Taxpayers for Common
Sense. "With passage of this bill, incentives to overproduce still plague farm
policy and will haunt family farmers for years to come. Huge farms aided by
these subsidies will continue to produce more products than the economy can
absorb."
The Senate bill also contains new provisions
covering animals. It prohibits interstate shipments of dogs or roosters for
fighting; requires puppies raised on puppy farms to be let out of their cages to
play with dogs and people; and it bans the interstate trade in bear
parts, a provision intended to prevent poachers from killing bears to
sell their gall bladders for use in Asian medicine.
http://www.nytimes.com
GRAPHIC: Chart: "ADDING IT UP -- Two Versions of One Farm
Bill" The Senate passed its farm bill yesterday. Below, some
differences between it and the 10-year bill the House passed in October, which
will have to be worked out in conference committee.
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR: THE ENVIRONMENT above $20 billion for basic
programs SENATE BILL*: $22 billion HOUSE BILL: $16
billion
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR: COMMODITIES above
$70 billion for basic programs SENATE BILL*: $41 billion; limit of
$275,000 per farmer HOUSE BILL: $40 billion
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR: DAIRIES to replace the Northeast Compact SENATE BILL*: $2 billion HOUSE BILL: none
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR: FOOD STAMPS AND NUTRITION above
a $200 billion entitlement not included in the bill SENATE BILL*:
$7.8 billion HOUSE BILL: $8.3 billion
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR: RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS like ethanol and wind
farms SENATE BILL*: $500 million HOUSE BILL: see next
category
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR: RURAL
DEVELOPMENT SENATE BILL*: $1.7 billion HOUSE BILL: $2.15
billion; with money for renewable energy
*The
Senate bill covers only five years, but the totals are based on 10-year
projections.
Document 22 of 37. 