Clinton's Ag Insurance Talk
Not Matched By Budget Walk

WASHINGTON —(AP)— After urging Congress to repair the federally subsidized crop insurance system, President Clinton failed to put any money in his proposed 2000 budget to make the improvements.

Lawmakers said the omission will make it harder to overhaul the system in a way that would make it more attractive to farmers. The reforms are expected to cost $1 billion to $2.6 billion.

``The administration is saying it needs to be done, but we'll let Congress do all the heavy lifting and figure out how to pay for it,'' said House Agriculture Committee chairman Rep. Larry Combest, R-Texas.

Democrats also were disappointed. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said the budget ``does not adequately address our nation's agricultural crisis.''

Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed interest in revamping the program this year so that it provides better protection to farmers, making them less reliant on emergency aid programs, like the $7 billion deal passed last year to help farmers.

In his State of the Union message in January, Clinton said he was ``ready to work with lawmakers of both parties to create a farm safety net that will include crop insurance reform and farm income assistance.''

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said Monday that it was important for the administration to work with Congress to get a consensus on the issue. ``In working with Congress I am confidant we will find the money,'' he said.

Glickman said he plans to hold three regional public meetings in the next few months to talk about ways to improve the farm safety net.

``We want to make this an effort that cuts across the political spectrum. We do not want to prejudge where or how this initiative should be funded,'' he said.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said Clinton's chief of staff, John Podesta, has assured him that the administration is committed to finding the money for crop insurance reform.

The 1996 farm law, which ended Depression-era support programs, made insurance more important than ever to farmers. However, 30 percent of the acreage eligible for insurance is not covered. And many farmers who do have insurance say it's too expensive and inadequate.

Taxpayers fund about 60 percent of the insurance program's cost; farmers' premiums provide the rest.

In the northern Plains, where the growing season is short and farmers have little chance to replant if their first crop is destroyed, virtually every producer has coverage. But in the South, farmers are more likely to take their chances with crops other than high-value commodities.

Farmers complain that the catastrophic policies provide too little coverage, and buyup insurance can be very expensive in some areas, especially in the hail-prone southern Plains, where $100 worth of coverage can cost $30.

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said the system should be scrapped and replaced with insurance that would be tied to lost income rather than production.

However, after spending $7 billion on disaster relief last year, he fears lawmakers will be unwilling to provide the money needed for major changes in the system.

``I've been telling people ever since they did that that this was going to come back to haunt us,'' he said.

Criticizing the administration, Rep. John Thune, R-S.D., said, ``It is frustrating to see the gap between the rhetoric and the follow-through.''

But Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., said the administration could not find the money for crop insurance reform without cutting the annual ``market transition'' payments that farmers are guaranteed under the 1996 farm law.

``The fact is that the price tag the administration has in mind for their reforms went beyond their ability to find the funds in the agricultural functions of government,'' he said.