Staff and wire reports

Failure to reach agreement on a new farm bill before the old one expires March 15 would be “catastrophic” for most agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy, a top USDA official said.

But Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey also said he’s increasingly optimistic Congress and the White House will strike a deal after lawmakers initially refused to take seriously the administration’s insistence the legislation include no tax increases.

“I think the odds are pretty good,” Rey told The Associated Press after a speech to National Association of Conservation Districts. He urged members to press their representatives to ap-prove a new five-year bill before the current 2002 law expires.

U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., a member of House Agriculture Committee, said Tuesday from Washington, D.C., he, too, is optimistic something can be worked out.

“The consequences of not getting a bill would be catastrophic for agriculture,” Rey said. “We would be reverting back to 1940s legislation. Almost all of our conservation programs would be lost. Many of the modern day agriculture programs would not be funded.”

Going back in time

Democratic leaders of the agriculture panels in the House and Senate have suggested if negotiations come to a stalemate, Congress might bypass an extension of the current law and allow farm policy to revert to permanent statutes last updated in 1949.

That could cause major problems for the dairy and soybean industries, among others, and would eliminate newer programs designed to protect environmentally sensitive land and extra dollars for the fruit and vegetable industries.

Reverting back to 1949 would have a major effect on farmers, Lucas said.

They would lose the flexibility to raise what they wanted and would have to go back to the allotment system used in 1949, when farmers grew what the federal government allowed.

In essence, “the government would let you raise what you raised in 1949,” Lucas said.

‘The world has changed’

Of course, a lot has changed since then. A lot of land in Oklahoma used to raise cotton in 1949, he said, now is used to raise wheat.

Then, there is the land that wasn’t farm land in 1949 but now is used for agriculture. That land would be left out of the equation.

Agreeing with Rey, Lucas said conservation programs would be eliminated.

For instance, he said, farmers with land enrolled in Conservation Reserve Program would be allowed to continue in the program, until it came time to re-enroll. Then, they couldn’t because technically CRP wouldn’t exist.

The change would be a nightmare for Farm Service Agency employees, Lucas said, who would have to dig up the old records and figure out what things were like back in 1949, then try to explain it to farmers and ranchers.

“The world has changed dramatically in the past 60 years,” Lucas said. “It’s like the Middle Ages compared to now.”

Don’t roll back those years, yet

Despite of the dire predictions, Lucas said he doesn’t think we will reach that point.

“I don’t think we will see 1949,” he said.

House and Senate negotiators will be chosen to craft a bill from the versions passed by the respective bodies. The Senate has named its members of the conference committee, but the House has not, said Jim Luetkemeyer, Lucas’ press secretary. Lucas is expected to be named to the committee.

President Bush threatened to veto the farm bill if it contains new taxes and did not include reforms of some farm programs.

The House version of the farm bill includes nearly $5 billion in tax increases to pay for expansion of food stamp and other nutrition programs, which Lucas said were placed in the legislation by Democrats after the Agriculture Committee passed the bill.

The White House also said neither version of the farm bill does enough to limit payments to wealthy farmers, arguing Congress should adapt an administration proposal that would ban subsidies to farmers whose gross income exceeds an average of $200,000 a year.

Rey, undersecretary for national resources and the environment, said prior to last week he had been pessimistic about an agreement being reached but the political climate changed when President Bush threatened Thursday to veto any farm bill that raises taxes.

“Up until last week, I think a lot of people thought, ‘Well, the administration is just blowing smoke,”’ Rey said.

“I think last week the president sent a pretty clear message that is not the case,” Rey said.

Lucas said House ag leaders, including Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., have been working on a bill that would be acceptable to the president.

Associate Editor Kevin Hassler and The Associated Press contributed to this story.