August 22, 1978
Page 27282
BILL HATHAWAY'S LEADERSHIP HELPS RESTORE MONEY FOR KEY AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, my friend and colleague, BILL HATHAWAY, took the lead in the Senate last week in restoring money cut from this year's agriculture budget for the agricultural conservation program, the only major farm program in our region. I was happy to support his effort. His success in restoring $105 million for the program was responsible in terms of the congressional budget and in terms of sound farm policy. The careful, low key way he built support for his amendment is only the most recent example of why his legislative ability is so valued in the Senate.
I congratulate him for his leadership, and ask that an article on the subject from the Bangor Daily News of August 21 be printed in the RECORD.
The article follows:
MAINE AGRICULTURE — HATHAWAY SUCCEEDS IN RESTORING FULL FUNDING FOR AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
(By David Bright)
On Friday, July 28, Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton came to Portland to boost the campaign efforts of Bill Hathaway. Eagleton was one of many in a long line of political types who've been to Maine for Hathaway. The list is topped by President Jimmy Carter. It includes, among others, Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland and Ohio Senator John Glenn.
But less than two weeks after Eagleton was in Maine he and Hathaway were locked in strong debate on the Senate floor. On Eagleton's side were Carter, Bergland and Glenn. Rooting for Hathaway were many of the nation's farmers and a number of farm and conservation groups.
The issue was $105 million for conservation cost-sharing funds which Hathaway wanted restored to the Senate agriculture budget.
In the end Hathaway prevailed. How he did it is a story conservation and farm groups are still wondering about.
The money is for the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) of the USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). ASCS handles many of the cost-sharing, subsidy, emergency loan and similar farm programs. In the Northeast the ACP program is the only major farm program. It provides cost sharing from 50 to 90 percent for a number of conservation practices on farms. The program will give a farmer a maximum of $2,500 a year for such things as waterways, manure storage facilities, establishment of cover crops, assistance in strip-cropping and contour plowing.
Despite its popularity with farmers, the program has never been very popular among bureaucrats, presumably, says Hathaway staffer Charles Peck, because it's run by locally-elected farmers and not by the government.
Last year Carter recommended funding at $190 million for ACP and he became the first president since Truman to place ACP money in his budget. Every year since then Congress has been adding funds on its own.
The budget passed at the $190 million figure last year but this year Carter cut ACP to $100 million.
The House of Representatives rejected the Carter plan, however, and restored the full $190 million. But when the bill got to the Senate Appropriations Committee the ACP funds were cut back further to $85 million. Eagleton is the chairman of the subcommittee on agriculture.
The bill was still bottled up in the subcommittee when Hathaway's office began to hear concerns about it while making routine monthly calls to Maine farmers.
Private attempts to move the subcommittee failed and the Hathaway staff then began working with the staff of South Dakota Senator George McGovern, the Democrats' 1972 presidential nominee who had picked Eagleton as his running mate.
McGovern's office was also hearing complaints from farmers but decided not to go out front with the issue because McGovern had some other business he wanted to bring before the Senate and didn't want to get into a fight over ACP.
On July 27, the day before Eagleton was to come to Maine, Hathaway wrote to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Magnuson, urging that the committee restore the $190 million.
The next step was meetings with the staff of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a dairy farmer who serves on both the Senate Appropriations and Agriculture committees. When the Eagleton cut got to the full appropriations committee, Leahy tried several times to restore the $190 million. But the only other vote he could muster was that of Massachusetts Sen. Edward Brooke.
At that point Hathaway decided a gamble was in order. The bill was obviously going to a conference committee. If he left the issue alone the Senate conferees would be able to give ground and perhaps the funding could be raised. A halfway split would have funded ACP at $137 million. If Hathaway brought up his amendment and it failed, there would be a record of Senate disfavor and it would be a hard point to negotiate in conference. On the other hand, if Hathaway won, the budget would be secure as it could not be changed in conference.
In the balance was an extra $1.1 million for Maine.
It was determined that the gamble was worthwhile. With the assistance of Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, another who has campaigned for Hathaway in Maine, the amendment was scheduled for first thing in the morning, a time, aides say, when senators are more prone to be agreeable.
By the time the voting day arrived, most of the senators had been made aware of the controversy. The National Association of Conservation Districts had been lobbying hard on behalf of the program, as were other farm groups.
During the debate, Eagleton threatened that passage of the Hathaway amendment would result in a sure veto of the entire agriculture appropriations bill by President Carter. But Hathaway, using information he had requested from USDA as well as backup from Maine Senator Edmund Muskie's budget committee, showed that the budget could handle the increase and managed to ward off the arguments.
As the debate progressed, more and more senators added their names to the Hathaway-sponsored bill. By the time of the vote, Hathaway had been joined by McGovern, the only original cosponsor, as well as Mississippi conservative John Stennis, Republican leader Robert Dole, a former vice presidential candidate, and eight others.
The final vote was 55 to 26 in favor of Hathaway's amendment. His staff, as well as lobbyists for some conservation groups, doesn't expect any presidential veto, especially since other cuts in the agriculture budget have made up the difference..