Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company The New
York Times
December 20, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition -
Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 24; Column
6; National Desk
LENGTH: 721 words
HEADLINE: Senate Vote Rejects a Bid To Increase Aid
to Farms
BYLINE: By ELIZABETH
BECKER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 19
BODY: Senate Republicans effectively
killed the $171 billion farm bill today, blocking the
Democratic measure for this session.
The wide-ranging
bill, which covers food stamps, rural development, and conservation programs as
well as crop subsidies, would have added billions to the current subsidy system.
Those federal payments act as a safety net for thousands of American farmers,
providing over $10 billion in direct payments every year.
A similar measure passed the House in October over the objections of
the Bush administration, which had warned it was too expensive and gave too much
money to commodity subsidies and not enough to conservation efforts.
In response, the Democratic-sponsored measure in the
Senate offered an additional $22 billion for conservation and environmental
programs over the next decade.
But Democrats failed
three times this week to win enough votes for their bill, underlining the deep
divisions in Congress over how best to support American farmers who have been
struggling with depressed crop prices and increasing competition in the global
market.
After the vote today, the Senate majority
leader, Tom Daschle, said he planned to bring up the measure again next month.
But he warned that the deficits in next year's budget could mean there would be
far less money for farm programs.
"The real losers
today are not Democrats or Republicans," Mr. Daschle said, "the losers are
hard-working family farmers and rural America."
But
Republicans themselves disagree over how to recast farm policy that dates from
the Depression era. Especially contentious is how to alter the system that
rewards a fraction of American farmers, those with large grain and cotton
operations, with most of subsidies.
Senator Richard G.
Lugar, Republican of Indiana and ranking minority member of the Agriculture
Committee, rejected the accusation that Republicans were blocking the bill and
hurting farmers.
Instead, Mr. Lugar argued, there was
ample time to replace the current law, which will not expire until next October,
with a bill that he said should cast the safety net of subsidies far wider to
help all farmers.
"This bill was crafted to benefit a
fairly small number of farmers in America," Mr. Lugar said. "It is not in the
best interest of a large majority of farmers."
During
the debate, lawmakers from both parties argued for payment limitations, spurred
by growing complaints from smaller farmers. Farmers can now learn which of their
neighbors are receiving subsidy money, and how much, on a Web site opened last
month.
Republican and Democratic senators also disputed
whether the measure provided enough money for the food stamp program.
With unemployment rising and welfare benefits running out
for many families over the coming year, food stamps will become critical,
lawmakers said.
The Senate bill would increase
financing for food stamps by $6.2 billion. The House measure would add about
half that amount, or $3.6 billion, to a program that suffered deep cuts in the
effort to overhaul welfare in the Clinton administration.
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who is chairman of the
Agriculture Committee and sponsor of the bill, said these differences paled in
comparison to problems in rural America that he said needed to be addressed
urgently by the passage of a new farm bill.
"This is a really sad day for farmers and ranchers," Mr. Harkin said.
"We've essentially said to them, Go take a hike -- we'll deal with you
later."
But Democrats are as divided as Republicans
over subsidies. Midwestern lawmakers like Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North
Dakota were pushing for a ceiling on payments that would allow more farmers to
receive smaller payments. But Southern Democrats opposed limitations because
they would hurt large rice and cotton farmers who are among the biggest
beneficiaries of the current system.
The administration
has criticized both Senate and House measures, saying many of the price supports
under consideration would encourage overproduction, which keeps prices low and
pushes up land rents.
Those subsidies, in turn, could
be in violation of international trade agreements and undercut American farm
exports. Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman has said the best hope for farmers
is to increase their exports overseas.
Document 37 of 420. 