New York Times | September 20, 2001 | By ELIZABETH BECKER
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration called today for a major shift away from the current farm policy, arguing for more conservation and international trade over an existing approach that it said was too generous to wealthy grain and cotton farmers.
"A new farm policy must be tailored to reflect the wide difference in farms today," said Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman as she unveiled the new program.
After months of debate in Congress over the shape of farm policy in the next decade, the 120-page platform unveiled today was a blow to several farm-state lawmakers who had argued for increased commodity subsidies and an unexpected boost to those from both parties who had argued for greater conservation efforts. Such efforts would include maintaining wetlands.
The policy statement was a general idea of the direction the administration would like for legislation to take. While Ms. Veneman stopped short of choosing between rival programs being considered in Congress, the report showed precisely how the current $20 billion annual subsidy program distorted the market, pushed land prices to artificially high levels and jeopardized current as well as future trade agreements.
The administration's policy argues that all farmers would benefit if federal farm aid shifted from its singular focus on commodity subsidies and instead helped underwrite greater access to foreign markets, more conservation programs, expanded research into pest and disease control and better infrastructure.
That will require an overhaul of today's Depression-era policy that largely rewards only farmers of cotton, wheat, corn, soybeans and rice. Eight percent of American farmers receive almost half of the federal subsidies. Those subsidies, according to the report, have helped big farmers to expand their acreage and increase production without losing any benefits because subsidies are not based on need. Indeed, their average household income was $135,000, the report said.
"We want to reorient programs to help not just big wheat or corn farmers but all farmers," said J.B. Penn, the undersecretary of agriculture.
Administration officials said it was uncertain whether Congress would spend $171 billion for a new 10-year farm bill given the increased military and economic demands on the budget.
In what is shaping up to be a battle in the Republican Party, the administration's critique of the current farm policy undercut much of the House farm bill sponsored by Rep. Larry Combest, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
Under Mr. Combest's measure, current subsidies would be increased and new ones added. But in a statement today, he said the administration's policy goals were consistent with his bill.
A Senate bill being drafted by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the senior Democrat and Republican on the Agriculture Committee respectively, is much closer to the administration's plan and places greater emphasis on conservation.
Other supporters of the administration's policy include moderate Republicans and urban lawmakers who want farm aid spread to their constituencies, as well as conservative Republicans who have always considered these subsidies misguided welfare.
Conservation and environmental groups praised the administration's new policy.
"We're all very pleasantly surprised," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization promoting conservation in agriculture. "This could be a watershed in agriculture policy if the administration follows through with specific proposals for the new farm bill."
Agriculture Department officials said they were not advocating an abrupt end to subsidies. They said they recognized a need for a safety net, or cash subsidies, to help farmers and ranchers during "unexpected events beyond their control."New York Times:
