It seems inevitable now that the Republicans will have to wrap up
the reconciliation package as fast as possible, so that it can go to the
President and be vetoed, leaving some time for things to be worked out.
When Nov. 13 arrives (end of the continuing resolution, C.R.), the Congress
will send up another C.R. with a 10% across the board cut in all programs
and other nasty items. They will make Clinton's choices as unpleasant as
possible. The ultimate deal will probably not happen until December.
Recognizing this, Sen. ag committee leaders are cobbling together their
farmbill (research, conservation, rural development, export titles) so
that they can be added into the mix after the veto. This is a good
strategy, and one the House will have to go along with, since the odds
are good that the Senate will complete this process, marry the bills
during November, and assure passage of both budget and farm legislation
in one "must pass" bill.
The important new development on the fiscal and policy front is
that USDA has decided to try to get involved in the process. Their goal
is to re-direct some of the "windfall profit" to commodity program
participants under Freedom to Farm to conservation, research and rural
development programs. Recall that Freedom to Farm locks in current
payments to program participants at this year's levels, less a few percent
cut. But since market prices are so high, under current policy they would
get little or no payments, and indeed many wheat growers may have to pay
back advanced deficiency payments. Roberts wants growers to be able to
keep all the money; USDA will take the position that part of this windfall
should be invested in longer-run needs -- long-term safety net accounts;
resource conservation and environmental protection; and research to
enhance competitiveness.
If about one-third of the windfall under Freedom
to Farm were re-directed to conservation, research and rural development,
unpopular cuts in these programs could be turned into modest increases,
and in some cases, large increases. The political appeal for such
increases crosses party lines, and has the potential to emerge into
something members from both parties can be for. This is critical --
history shows that ag interests and programs thrive only when supported by
a coaltion that comes together because of regional economic interests, not
partisan idealogy. And so out of this chaotic process a flower may yet
bloom, or so it seems this Saturday morning.