House Democrats Vote Extra Loan Guarantees of $1 Billion for Farmers

House Democrats, continuing their assault on Reagan Administration farm policies Thursday, overwhelmingly approved up to $1 billion in additional loan guarantees for the most debt-ridden farmers.

The bill is essentially a fall-back position from broader legislation that passed both houses a day earlier but which President Reagan has threatened to veto.

House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, skirted what could have been tricky negotiations over conflicting provisions of the main House and Senate agricultural aid bills passed Wednesday. The move is aimed at ensuring that President Reagan will be forced to veto--or sign--the popular farm legislation.

Shun Customary Route

Rather than take the customary and sometimes time-consuming route of arguing their differences in a House-Senate conference committee, the leaders arranged through the Rules Committee to give the full House an opportunity next week to vote on the Senate bill and send it to the White House.

“We’re going to give (Reagan) a chance to do it,” House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. said, referring to Reagan’s veto threat.

However, keeping in mind that the Senate bill also contains aid for famine-stricken Africa, the House separately approved up to $880 million in aid to 20 African countries--more than triple what the Administration had requested in food and other assistance. Thus, if the Administration kills the farm legislation as expected, Congress still will have a vehicle for famine aid.

Agriculture Secretary John R. Block, in testimony before the House Budget Committee, said that even if the Administration accepts the congressional package, the bill would do nothing to help farmers who need cash to begin spring planting within the next few weeks.

“The legislation is not going to be of any real benefit,” Block said. “I don’t think we’d have time to make it work, even if it were good legislation.”

$650 Million Called Ample

Block insisted that the Administration’s offer of $650 million in loan guarantees to farmers who meet what some have criticized as overly stringent qualifications is ample. The Administration contends that the congressional packages, which combine as much as $3 billion in additional loan guarantees with various types of direct loans, amount to “budget busters.”

“The government getting into the act in more and more ways . . . hurts the family farmer more than it helps,” Block said.

The fall-back bill that would add $1 billion to the Administration’s loan guarantee plan passed the House, 294-115, Thursday. Its chief sponsor, Appropriations Committee Chairman Jamie L. Whitten (D-Miss.), noted that it added no new authority to the existing program, but is “merely a message by the Congress to let the secretary of agriculture proceed with the authority he has now.”

The bill would grant the additional guarantees on loans to farmers whose debts exceed 75% of the value of their farms--farmers who presumably would find it difficult to qualify under the guidelines of the present plan.

However, Rep. Silvio O. Conte of Massachusetts, the Appropriations Committee’s ranking Republican, warned that the bill raised the danger of “devoting too many of our resources to those who are hopelessly in debt. . . . We haven’t offered this type of assistance to any other struggling segment of the economy.”

‘An Oppressive Regime’

In debate on the African aid, some Republicans expressed reservations about whether it should go to the government of Ethiopia, which has been accused of manipulating famine relief supplies for political purposes.

“It is an oppressive regime, a Marxist regime,” said Rep. Richard Armey (R-Tex.). “The money will be used by that regime to solidify their efforts.”

Rep. Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.), one of the bill’s authors, countered: “People who are starving to death are not to be (penalized for) the politics of the people who are ruling them.”

The Administration, which asked $235 million in additional relief, has expressed reservations about the larger amount granted under the House bill, saying it would return with another funding request if more aid is needed.

‘Keeping People Alive’

But Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.) said such a delay could cost many lives.

“The consequences of going with lower numbers, which we certainly could do, would be horrible to contemplate,” he said. “This response will be the key to keeping people alive.”

Separately, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) introduced a long-term farm package that he said would return federal farm policy to “a market orientation” within five years. He said his bill, which is not as far-reaching as a plan announced last Friday by the Administration, “is a little more realistic in terms of what may be acceptable and enactable.”

Times staff writer Beth Botts contributed to this story.