05-11-2002

CONGRESS: Farm Bill Winners and Losers

In a divided Congress with few significant domestic policy
accomplishments, many lawmakers-and President Bush himself-hailed this
week's final bipartisan approval of sweeping new farm legislation. But a
closer look reveals that the legislative process produced definite
winners-and definite losers.


The Bush administration falls into the latter category. It had little
input into the farm bill, even though the president belatedly embraced it
and has pledged to sign it. Congressional conservatives and budget hawks,
for their part, are unhappy that the new six-year farm program will
feature permanent spending increases, plus added federal controls on farm
owners and operators. And environmentalists complain that the legislation
doesn't sufficiently promote conservation.


On the other hand, farmers and their staunch patrons in Congress by and
large were big winners. Most of them got what they wanted, even if they
had to compromise a little, or if they find parts of the bill distasteful.
And party leaders tucked numerous goodies into the legislation that will
boost incumbents running in key re-election contests this November. The
following is a look at who won and who lost in the 2002 farm bill.


Losers


Bush administration: For decades, farm bills have been inherently
parochial. Congress dickers and dithers on how to divide the rural
largesse, and the executive branch just signs the check. "Farm
legislation has been largely congressional, and results from a diverse
group of eclectic interests" of crops and livestock, said Dan
Glickman, who served in the House for 18 years and then was Bill Clinton's
Agriculture secretary.


For this farm bill, however, the administration was remarkably uninvolved.
"This administration was even more out of the way," Glickman
said. "Early on, they courageously came in with positions. But they
backed away in the face of congressional pressures."


The House Agriculture Committee charged ahead and approved a farm bill
last July. It wasn't until September that Agriculture Secretary Ann M.
Veneman issued a glossy report titled Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking
Stock for the New Century. The report bolstered the hopes of would-be
reformers by criticizing how current federal farm subsidies
disproportionately benefit commercial farms and by arguing for greater
spending on conservation and rural development. That same month, Veneman
gave congressional testimony that spoke elegantly of her reform
principles. But she adamantly refused to answer specific questions about
the farm bill's future, saying she wasn't "prepared."


In October, when the House debated its farm bill, the administration
issued a statement saying it did not support the legislation because it
was too expensive and did not comply with the administration's free-market
economic views. Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E.
Daniels Jr. said that the bill "misses the opportunity to modernize
the nation's farm programs."


Meanwhile, in the Senate, Republicans failed to make the farm bill more
amenable to Bush during committee markup in November or during the floor
debate that began in December and ended in February. The administration
issued a statement saying that it did not support the Senate's farm bill
either.


But by the time conference committee negotiations began this spring, Bush
had thrown his support behind the House version of the bill and its chief
proponent, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas,
whose Panhandle district includes Bush's original hometown of Midland. And
the president praised the recent compromise conference agreement, even
though administration officials played little role in crafting it, and its
terms largely ran counter to Bush's earlier principles.


"The administration's public stances were very curious throughout the
whole farm bill," said an aide on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
"They did an about-face on the House bill and came back saying not
only were they opposed to our bill, but they liked the House bill
better." A well-placed House GOP aide added: "The White House
was flat-footed from the start and didn't have anyone ready to deal with
the issue. Larry Combest moved quickly into the void."


In response to such criticisms, Kevin Herglotz, a spokesman for Veneman,
took a pragmatic approach. "Not everybody got everything they wanted
out of the farm bill, but that's compromise," Herglotz said. Bush
himself said on May 2: "While this compromise agreement did not
satisfy all of my objectives, I am pleased that this farm bill provides a
generous and reliable safety net for our nation's farmers and ranchers and
is consistent with the principles I outlined."


The administration did jump in on two controversial issues during the
conference: It succeeded in expanding the food stamp program to include
some legal immigrants, and in preventing U.S. lenders from financing trade
with Cuba.


One of the reasons that Bush belatedly endorsed the House version of the
legislation may have to do with his quest for presidential
trade-negotiating authority. Combest had earlier threatened to oppose the
trade measure. But after Bush signaled he would support the House farm
bill, the chairman lined up behind the trade legislation, which the House
passed by one vote last December.


Conservatives: The enactment of the previous farm bill-the 1996 Freedom to
Farm Act-was a hallmark of the Republican revolution led by then-House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. The measure was supposed to replace federal
subsidies to farmers with a market-oriented approach. But because of weak
international markets and low commodity prices domestically, Congress has
approved emergency bailouts for farmers every year since 1998. The new
farm bill formally reverses the 1996 law, and that has brought caustic
criticism from conservatives.


Conservative stalwarts, including Sen. Phil Gramm, House Majority Leader
Dick Armey, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, all R-Texas, opposed the
farm bill conference report. Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking
Republican on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee,
complained about a lack of "careful economic analysis, or maybe even
careful stewardship of the funds for which we are responsible." He
said the new farm bill creates "a huge transfer payment from a
majority of Americans to very few."


In the House, Rep. Cal Dooley, D-Calif., a leader of the "New
Democrats," and Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, unsuccessfully sought
to scuttle the conference agreement. In the process, they emerged as the
new renegades on the Agriculture Committee, and it's quite possible that
one or the other will chair the panel during the next major farm bill.
"Compromises were made that were much different than Boehner or I
would have been willing to accept," Dooley said.


Budget hawks: Perhaps the crucial step in crafting the farm bill was a
little-noticed action during last year's debate on the fiscal 2002 budget
resolution. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, the
current chairmen of the Budget Committees, inserted a provision in the
budget allowing $73 billion in additional farm spending during the next 10
years. "At the time, nobody had any idea of the significance,"
said a key House GOP staffer on the farm bill. "Once that number was
settled, there was no turning back on the amount. Then, the money drove
the debate."


As has lately become a regular pattern on Capitol Hill, the farm bill
flaunted budget discipline. Two days before the Senate voted final
approval on May 8, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the
$73.5 billion farm bill would actually exceed its budget ceiling by at
least $10 billion during the next decade.


Environmentalists: Environmental groups typically have opposed large
federal farm subsidies, particularly to sprawling agri-businesses, and
they have encouraged funding for conservation programs. So it's no
surprise that the new farm bill's large production subsidies left
environmentalists bitter.


"Agri-businesses that hijacked the conference committee stole
[conservation] reforms" that solid majorities of both chambers had
favored, complained Ken Cook, the president of the liberal Environmental
Working Group. On its Web site, the group even mockingly morphed a photo
of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, into a photo
of the Republican Combest.


Winners


Farmers and their congressional patrons: The nation's agricultural areas
have suffered significant population declines and steep economic woes, and
now they are getting a cash infusion. The cornerstones of the plan were
laid by two of the country's most troubled farm regions. At the northern
end, Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., and Conrad
advocated the interests of the grain-dependent Dakotas. At the southern
end were less-productive cotton- and rice-growing West Texas districts
represented by Combest and Rep. Charles W. Stenholm, the ranking Democrat
on the House Agriculture Committee.


With last year's budget deal, there was enough money to meet just about
everyone's needs. The commodity growers got their subsidies back into the
budget, which presumably means they won't depend on annual
"emergency" payments to make up for low market prices. The
ranching industry got funds to clean up manure problems. And even the
environmentalists, despite their anger over the production incentives in
the bill, did score major gains in conservation funding.


Candidates in key competitive races: It wasn't just the farmers who got
what they wanted. In the Senate, Daschle made sure to accommodate the
political imperatives of several of his members in farm-sensitive states
who face difficult re-election challenges in November. Sen. Max Cleland,
D-Ga., won a new peanut subsidy. Sen. Timothy P. Johnson, D-S.D., got an
expansion of country-of-origin labeling. Harkin created the new,
conservation-based entitlement and added several energy-related measures.
And farm-state senators won expanded ethanol mandates for automobile
fuels.


"This has probably been the most political farm bill I've seen,"
said Randy Russell, a veteran farm lobbyist who was a senior Agriculture
Department official on two major farm bills during the Reagan
administration. Russell added that because "neither party got the
upper hand" from the farm bill, other issues will prove more crucial
at election time. And Glickman voiced a similar conclusion on the
political fallout: "Because they got a bill done, most members will
argue on other issues."


Richard E. Cohen and Corine Hegland

National Journal