Lawmakers Criticize Clinton's
USDA For Ag Budget Reductions

WASHINGTON —(AP)— GOP lawmakers lashed out at the Clinton administration for failing to come up with a way to pay for a proposed crop insurance overhaul, but vowed to move forward anyway to help struggling farmers.

``Your language in the State of the Union and your budget don't come together,'' Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, told Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing recently. ``American agriculture at this moment is having some severe difficulties.''

Several hearings are scheduled on Capitol Hill on crop insurance, including two in coming weeks in the Senate. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman also plans to hold several hearings across the country.

But lawmakers made it clear they were irked that President Clinton issued his budget with no proposals on how to fund crop insurance changes — even after mentioning them in his State of the Union address.

``I'm a little like Jerry McGwire: `Show me the money','' said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., referring to a movie character.

Glickman said it will cost $1.5 billion to $6 billion to reform crop insurance. Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed support for the idea, maintaining that it will provide a stronger safety net to better protect farmers from the low prices they've endured in the last year.

Currently, many farmers don't have crop insurance and those who do complain that it is too expensive and inadequate.

Agriculture Committee Chairman Dick Lugar, R-Ind., acknowledged it will be hard to push for crop insurance when there are pressures to use budget surpluses for Social Security and Medicare.

``To base all of this on the hope that ... in the dark of the night someone runs out with $1 billion to $2 billion for agriculture is a long shot,'' Lugar said. ``Discussion of improving crop insurance has raised farmers' expectations about what Washington can accomplish this year.''

Glickman defended the administration, saying the White House wanted to work with Congress to draft the proposal, similar to the way the 1996 farm law was crafted.

``This is a mutual effort,'' Glickman said.

Just this week, USDA lowered U.S. farm export projections by $1.5 billion to $49 billion — lower than last year's $53.6 billion. The agency predicted that farmers face another year of low prices and lagging exports this year.

Roberts also contended that the Clinton administration's agriculture spending plan jeopardizes upcoming trade talks, slashing $1.5 billion from foreign farm programs.

Administration officials called the figures preliminary estimates, saying Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has authority to spend more if needed.

Roberts called the plan ``a blueprint for disaster.'' Figures in the administration's budget proposal are about $1.5 billion less than current levels, including $772 million less for the ``Food for Peace'' program and $616 million less for foreign food donations.

``The export enhancement programs provide valuable ammunition as we go into a new round of trade talks with the European Community,'' Roberts said. ``These cuts send a clear message to the Europeans that we are not tough or serious about negotiating new markets for American agriculture products.''

Other reductions include $56 million from the Export Enhancement Program and $15 million less for the Dairy Export Incentive Program.

August Schumacher Jr., USDA undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services, said the law hands Glickman, a Kansan, discretion to spend more than the estimate if funds are needed. But Roberts asks why, when the outlook in farm country is so grim, the estimates plunged from current spending levels.

The hearing followed USDA's outlook conference, a two-day forum at which the 1996 Freedom to Farm law written by Roberts was criticized by Glickman and others.

Crop prices were at record highs and grain surpluses nonexistent when lawmakers passed the free-market reforms; today, many commodities are selling at half the 1996 price — or lower. Analysts predict prices will continue to plummet.

On a related note, U.S. Rep. Tom Ewing wants to forbid the federal government from imposing any trade embargoes that would restrict the sales of American agricultural products to other nations.

The legislation introduced last week by the Illinois Republican would prevent the administration from ever unilaterally imposing sanctions that include agricultural products. His measure would not apply if a group of nations announced an embargo together.

Ewing's effort would prevent a repeat of such sanctions as the 1980 ban on shipments of U.S. wheat and corn to the former Soviet Union after that country invaded Afghanistan. That effort had little or no effect on the Soviet Union's actions and devastated American farmers. Other grain-producing nations simply took up the slack, and in doing so secured much of what had long been U.S. market share.

He acknowledged no current embargoes fall into the category he describes and that he sees none coming in the near future.

``We feel it is important to send a message to show the agricultural community that we support markets for agriculture,'' Ewing said. ``It doesn't make it any easier to sell your beans for $4 ... but it's a debate that ought to be had.''

American farmers are still struggling from last year's lagging exports and low prices for commodities and livestock. Farmers have become increasingly reliant on exports since the phase-out of government subsidies began as part of the 1996 farm law.

Late last year, Congress passed a $6 billion bailout and the government last month gave $50 million to hog farmers who are getting their lowest prices in four decades.

And the U.S. Agriculture Department released figures last Monday showing that farmers face another year of lower exports. Farm exports are projected to be $1.5 billion lower next year, at $49 billion.

Another less sweeping Ewing bill would require congressional approval before the administration can impose an embargo on farm products. That measure passed the House last year but got bogged down in the Senate in the last, hectic days of the session.

Ewing's new bill is similar to one introduced earlier this year by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. Ewing's differs in that it proposes leaving any current sanctions, such as those against Iraq and Cuba, in place.

Ewing was hoping to smooth his bill's passage by removing the controversial issue of existing sanctions from the debate. He also has the support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

But he is unlikely to get the White House to agree to being hamstrung so severely on a trade matter. And Ewing must successfully shepherd his bill through three powerful House committees before it can pass.

_AP-CS-02-25-99 0354EST<