Farm Bill Renews Fight Over Subsidies

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns speaks during a roundtable discussion on the Beginning Farmers Title of the Administration's Farm Bill proposals, in an, April 17, 2007 photo, at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Tuesday, July 3, 2007 that he is content with the pace of negotiations for the new farm bill, even if it isn't sorted out as quickly as some would like. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergal, file) (Charlie Neibergall - AP)

In an interview with The Associated Press, Johanns said Kind has approached him two or three times about his proposal. While the Bush administration has put forward its own ideas and does not endorse Kind's plan, Johanns said the Democrat makes a compelling case.

"He certainly has ideas that I think everybody would like," Johanns said. "If the approach is let's just do it all over again like we did in 2002, those who want reform have nothing to lose by battling on the floor of the House."

A House Agriculture subcommittee took just that approach last month. It unanimously rejected Kind's proposal and approved a bill that would extend the 2002 law.

Despite that vote, one of the panel's members, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., agreed with Johanns that the committee must do something to please the wider House membership, many of whom represent urban districts. But Pomeroy also called what Kind and Flake want to do "death by reform."

In an effort to cut back, some lawmakers want to reduce or eliminate direct payments, subsidies that are not based on current crop production or prices. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, has supported this approach and encouraged spending more money on conservation programs.

Johanns, Bush and others have argued for a stricter limit on the maximum payment a farmer can receive and said payments are not distributed equitably. Southerners traditionally have balked at the idea, citing the costs of producing their rice and cotton crops.

Nonetheless, some reduction in payment levels is inevitable, said Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the senior Republican on Harkin's committee. "We don't have the funding we had in 2002 so there are certain reforms that are going to be necessary," Chambliss said.

International trade talks also could affect the debate because the United States is under pressure to reduce farm subsidies.

Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a member of the Agriculture Committee, said proposals such as Kind's would not be helpful.

"Cutting support payments today would further undercut food production in the United States, but also undercut the United States' bargaining leverage when we go into trade talks in other countries," Baucus said. "We won't let it happen."

Despite continued disagreement, the House Agriculture Committee intends to act on the bill this month. The chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., intends to skirt the money problems by presenting two separate bills: one would stay within current budget limits and one would have extra money.

Tensions over how to renew the law could become an election-year problem. Presidential candidates are seeking to woo voters in farm states and supporters of overhauling farm policy are trying to capitalize on public scrutiny of federal spending.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., whose first bid for the Senate fell victim to the last farm bill debate, suggested Congress may turn to a two-year extension of the 2002 law to keep the election out of it. He said there is growing concern that Kind's and Flake's legislation might prevail.

"If there's a vacuum there, that proposal will fill it," he said.