Bush on spot as Dems strip ag from bill

The decision by House Democrats to strip agriculture disaster aid from the Iraq supplemental spending bill and hold separate votes on the measures is intended to put House Republicans and President Bush on the spot.

By holding a separate vote on disaster assistance for ranchers and farmers, House Democrats hope to win a convincing victory on the disaster aid package and show that some Republicans who have criticized the Iraq bill as pork-laden actually support the funding for farms.

{mosads}“It will put Republicans on the spot who have been calling it pork,” a Democratic leadership aide said. The aide said many Republicans critical of the Iraq supplemental support the farm assistance, which President Bush and taxpayer groups have criticized.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has acknowledged that the Iraq supplemental and farm assistance could be married during a conference with the Senate, the aide said. Democrats believe it will be more difficult for Bush to veto the combined package if a House vote showing bipartisan support for the agriculture bill is on the record.

“It definitely calls his hand on whether he’s for rural America,” said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, a group seen as leaning toward Democrats that has consistently lobbied for the farm aid.

Bush criticized the agriculture spending provisions when he vetoed the Iraq supplemental bill approved by Congress earlier this month, saying the bill was “loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with the war on terror.” Bush said those spending measures should be considered on their own merit and not as part of the Iraq funding bill.

Democrats have stripped some measures from the bill, including assistance for spinach growers and funds for peanut storage.

Senior Democrats like Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.), who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, originally hoped that tying disaster aid to the Iraq supplemental would win votes for the Iraq measure, particularly from conservative Blue Dog
Democrats worried the bill would constrict President Bush’s powers as commander in chief.

In hindsight, that did not turn out to be the case. Peterson, a member of the Blue Dog caucus, told The Hill last week that the disaster assistance did not appear to win or lose the Iraq supplemental any votes. “I don’t think anybody was voting for or against this bill because of disaster aid,” he said.

Peterson released a statement the evening of May 8 supporting the decision to strip the agriculture disaster aid from the Iraq supplemental, and to hold separate votes on a new Iraq funding measure and agriculture aid. “I appreciate the House
Leadership for recognizing that agriculture disaster assistance is a must-pass priority during the supplemental appropriations process,” the statement said.

Splitting the package in the House also could make it easier for farm groups to lobby hard for the agriculture aid. While groups like the National Association of Wheat Growers have been steadfast in supporting the agriculture assistance bill, other groups had been reluctant to twist the arms of lawmakers to support the money for farmers as long as it was tied to the Iraq bill.

“It was a little uncomfortable when it was tied to the supplemental,” said Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which has been calling for aid to ranchers hit by a number of disasters, including last winter’s blizzards in Colorado. Officials with NCBA and the Farm Bureau previously had indicated they would not lobby aggressively for the agriculture disaster aid when it was tied to the controversial Iraq bill.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which opposes the agriculture bill, suggested supporters of the agriculture bill would not want to see it sent to the president separately from the Iraq bill. He speculated that longtime supporters of agriculture disaster aid such as Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who have been pushing the issue for years, would be reluctant to risk a presidential veto if the bill was sent separately.

A source with the National Association of Wheat Growers, which has also consistently lobbied hard for the measure, said her group would prefer to tie the farm assistance to the Iraq bill in the measure sent to the president’s desk. She said she would “rather not take the chance” that Bush would veto the bill.