Clinton Vetoes Ag Spending
Bill For Lack Of Subsidies

WASHINGTON — Facing likely impeachment in the House and desperate to shore up support among core Senate liberals who could hold the key to his removal from office, President Clinton last week followed through on threats to veto the entire agriculture appropriations budget.

In addition to a broad array of routine ag-related expenditures, the Clinton veto cancels a multi-billion dollar disaster relief measure.

The White House spin is that Clinton wielded his veto pen because the measure did not provide enough aid to producers beset by weather disasters and a market meltdown exacerbated by worldwide economic crisis.

"I have repeatedly stated that I would veto any emergency farm assistance bill if it did not adequately address our farmers' immediate needs, and this bill does not do enough," Clinton said in a veto letter to lawmakers last Thursday.

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman praised Clinton’s veto. "They (farmers) deserve much better than this bill provides," Glickman said.

But critics contend the veto has little to do with money — by rebuffing the bill, Clinton risks leaving producers with no relief at all — and everything to do with returning U.S. agriculture policy to one of subsidies and government control.

After more than half a century, that policy ended with the 1996 "Freedom to Farm" bill. Big-government liberals, bureaucrats and some left-leaning farm groups fought bitterly against the market-oriented reform measure, and some like-minded senators sought to use the disaster bill as a vehicle for overturning it. Their plans were dashed when the Republican Congress refused to include language in the disaster bill that would have laid the groundwork for resuming subsidies and controls, hence their intense lobbying for a veto.

Clinton is privately thought to be ambivalent about farm policy, but he desperately needs the backing of those senators should the upper chamber eventually vote on his removal from office.

Democrats were quick to downplay the danger the veto poses to hard-pressed producers.

"Nobody should be nervous that this means we get nothing," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "This means we have the leverage to get a stronger package."

But Republicans weren’t buying it, and neither was the nation’s largest agriculture organization.

"It is a disgrace the president chose to abandon American farmers in their hour of need," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Rather than offering support in these uncertain times, the president has offered partisan politics and callous disregard."

Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind. and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, called the veto "irresponsible."

"It is a high-stakes game of poker being played by the president because of his political troubles," Lugar said. He accused Clinton of vetoing the bill to gain favor with Democrats.

Dean Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, also offered criticism, saying the veto "represents a lost opportunity for the administration to help farmers."

"The package addressed these dire problems from a reasoned perspective," Kleckner said. "The president could have made a real difference at a difficult time for American agriculture."

Meanwhile, the entire $60 billion agriculture bill is on hold until lawmakers reach a compromise. In addition to disaster relief and true agriculture programs, it includes spending for school lunch, food stamp and food safety programs as well as for agencies like the Food and Drug Administration.

Some governors were criticizing the threatened veto before Clinton made it a reality.

North Dakota Gov. Ed Schafer compared the debate to last year's congressional hangup over flood aid to the Red River Valley. Democrats then were clamoring for fast approval of flood relief, but they are now willing to risk holding up necessary assistance, the governor said.

"When Grand Forks and the rest of our state was crying for assistance a year and a half ago, Democrats demanded quick action. And they said, don't delay this bill," Schafer said just hours before the veto. "Well, I have to say to you, Mr. President, don't delay this farm bill."

By Friday, a coalition of Republican governors was urging a compromise — but with limits.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad released a package of farm proposals developed by the governors and said there is momentum to negotiate a deal on emergency legislation Clinton has vetoed.

"The seeds of a compromise exist," Branstad said.

At the same time, Branstad said there can be no compromise on Clinton's insistence that caps on commodity loan rates be lifted. That is the proposal at the heart of the issue, the one that could mark a return to old policies.

Branstad rejected Clinton’s claim that removal of loan rate caps is necessary, saying increasing loan rates encourages farmers to hold onto crops and can lead to a glut of grain, which can further depress prices.

Each side insists its position is non-negotiable, but Branstad said there are indications a compromise may be coming in the closing days of this Congress. There have been suggestions that Congress could up the ante by $1 billion in the emergency package, and that would be enough to win over Clinton.

The GOP package focuses heavily on exports, arguing for traditional positions designed to open foreign markets. It calls for funding of the International Monetary Fund and approving fast-track trade legislation as part of the long-term solution for farm troubles.

But the GOP governors conceded there is a short-term problem facing farmers, and they called for "immediate indemnity payments" needed because of low prices and bad weather.

For their part, Democrats are rejecting any talk of meaningful compromise. Despite a crippled president and minority status in both houses of Congress, they are insisting that the agriculture appropriations bill will be done their way or no way.

The White House is "adamant" about having things its way, said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin.

Harkin said there are areas where compromise can be sought in the measure, but there will be no compromise in other areas, principally his demand that loan rates be uncapped.

"Those are the principles that we're not going to back down on," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters.

Asked if the White House agreed, Harkin said: "Yes, they do and they are adamant on that."

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry, a Republican, has been denounced by his opponent for Lieutenant Governor as hopelessly partisan, but he offered a measured response to Clinton’s veto last week.

"Assistance from Washington, in whatever form," Perry said, "is still desperately needed by our farmers and livestock producers looking to recover from a devastating drouth.

"Any delay in getting that assistance to them," he concluded, "is a risk to Texas agriculture."

U.S. Rep. John Cooksey, R-La., summed up the frustrations of many in Congress.

"I am only a freshman," Cooksey said. "But it is amazing to me this president would veto this bill. He's clearly deferring to his liberal roots by begging for more money, more money, more money instead of trying to help fix the basic long-term structure.

"This man is facing an impeachment inquiry and quite possibly impeachment, and yet he wants to play politics with the lives and livelihoods of America's farmers because he didn't get what he wanted."