Committee head Peterson aims to keep tight lid on next farm bill

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and reform-minded House Democrats are rolling up their sleeves for a summer-long battle over the next farm bill.

Peterson, who is expected to announce subcommittee markups next week, wants the farm bill to be controlled as much as possible by his committee. He hopes to secure House passage of a new farm bill before the August recess.

{mosads}“I think people are somewhat misguided if they think the farm bill is going to be written on the floor,” he told reporters on May 11, in a recording posted on the Brownfield Network website.

Peterson said members with ideas for changes to the farm bill should bring them to committee members, who could then introduce them within the committee.

“In the end, it is going to be the members of the Ag committee that write this bill,” he said. Writing the bill on the floor “would be a recipe for chaos.”

Keeping committee control over the bill would also make it easier for commodity groups to retain existing farm subsidy payments, farm lobbyists say. The committee is stacked with members sympathetic to corn, cotton, rice and grain farmers.
On the floor, those interests have less power.

“We’ll try to work with the committee,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), an opponent of the 2002 farm bill. “But in the past, people on both sides of the aisle on the committee have not been on the side of agriculture reform.”

Blumenauer added that he sees this year’s bill, for better or worse, as the most important environmental legislation the House will approve this year.

For his part, Peterson is emphasizing the need to work in the committee to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2002, agriculture lobbyists said. That year, a committee-reported farm bill was nearly overturned by a substitute amendment backed by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), a leader of farm-bill reformers. That provision, which would have shifted commodity support to conservation efforts, failed but secured 200 votes.

“I am not going to be very happy if [farm bill proposals] are brought forward to the floor,” Peterson said last week. “What that tells me is it does not have support with the Ag committee.”

One agriculture lobbyist said Peterson’s tactics could help him argue later this summer that the bill reported by his committee represents a careful balance between commodity funding, conservation, nutrition and energy. Furthermore, a committee-reported bill could be invulnerable to attack under a closed rule.

But Peterson has received no assurances from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that a committee-reported bill would be protected on the floor, according to a committee aide. “There’s no indication we’ve seen that there will be a closed rule,” the aide said.

Still, Pelosi’s actions will be watched closely during the debate. Peterson is a leading member of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, a coalition critical to leadership on certain House votes. At the same time, Pelosi comes from a state that could benefit from a shifting of farm-bill funds, particularly if more money is targeted toward conservation or fruit and vegetable growers.

Blumenauer said he thinks the farm bill is something that Pelosi will have a serious interest in this year because of what he described as California’s relative disadvantage in past farm bills.

This year, Kind is offering a broader bill that some farm lobbyists acknowledge could appeal to even more members. Like the 2002 amendment, it would gradually eliminate all of the current farm subsidy payments but then replace them with a much smaller program to protect farmers from losses.

It would also set aside $5 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy programs as well as $400 million over the next five years for nutrition initiatives, such as farmers’ markets and school snacks. The latter could appeal to members from
districts with fruit and vegetable growers, who do not receive farm subsidies.

“Why should corn get money, but not fruits and vegetables?” said Sandra Schubert, director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, which is supporting Kind’s bill. “It is a necessary step forward on the way [agriculture] programs are being run and has a more equitable distribution of resources.”

“I would hope to continue to work with the committee on the bill,” said Kind. He expects to introduce his bill in the coming days and has indicated a long cosponsorship list.

“But the farm bill is bigger than the committee. We only have one shot every five years,” Kind said.

A Peterson aide said the chairman would be willing to consider all proposals, and Blumenauer described Peterson as “a
little more open” toward reform. “I think he understands realities. He’s looking to manage a difficult process.”

Peterson has been visiting with Kind and other members proposing major changes, a committee aide said.

“I think there’s an effort to incorporate some of his ideas into the process,” the aide said. But he added that Peterson does not necessarily want to advance conservation at the expense of commodity groups.