Clinton Agriculture Nominee Wins Praise

Former Rep. Dan Glickman, the Clinton Administration’s choice to head the Agriculture Department, on Tuesday pulled off an unusual feat for a White House nominee these days, breezing through the first of his confirmation hearings.

A moderate Kansas Democrat who was swept from his House seat last November by the GOP’s electoral tidal wave, Glickman--unlike many recent Administration nominees--won paeans from Republicans as well as Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, a GOP presidential candidate and fellow Kansan who is struggling to balance Republican rhetoric on cutting government programs with his home state’s deep dependence on federal farm support, called Glickman “someone who’ll do the job and do it right.”

Another Kansas Republican, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, told senators that he could “think of no finer nominee.”

Rapid approval of Glickman, perhaps as early as this week, is virtually assured. The nine-term congressman would succeed former Rep. Mike Espy (D-Miss.), who resigned last October after allegations surfaced that he had made personal use of government travel and received favors from companies doing business with his department.

But Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), another presidential contender and chairman of the Senate agriculture panel, acknowledged that Glickman’s first day may belie tougher challenges down the road when Republicans who are bent on slashing farm programs--lawmakers who are not represented on the committee--demand those cuts.

For now, observed Lugar, Republicans as well as Democrats on the Agriculture Committee are counting on Glickman--a seasoned legislator with long experience in drafting farm bills--to help reform and justify the nation’s farm programs just enough to keep such deep cuts at bay.

“There’s a strong plurality (on this committee) for doing nothing, indeed for adding additional services” to the 1995 farm bill, said Lugar, who has pressed for sweeping reforms in farm programs.

But Glickman signaled a willingness to discuss reforms. He appeared to walk a careful line between the sweeping reforms sought by many Republicans and the protection for farm programs sought by Agriculture Committee members of both parties.

Glickman called for greater flexibility to be phased into the Agriculture Department’s commodity programs, which help undergird the prices that farmers receive for their products.

“Basic commodity programs--the heart of any farm bill--should let farmers have the flexibility and freedom to respond to the signals of the market,” he said.

But flexibility apparently means different things to different groups.

Budget-minded Republicans have suggested that giving farmers greater “flexibility” in how they use their land would enable the federal government to cut subsidies. But some farmers seek “flexibility” as a way to continue subsidies while loosening the restrictions that the government now places on them as a condition of accepting subsidy payments.

Glickman said funding for agriculture programs has been cut through a decade’s worth of budget-balancing legislation and is only now stabilizing after a recession. He warned that “we would be disturbing that stability if we made substantial cuts,” and he urged reforming traditional farm programs rather than complete overhauls.