House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) called in farm lobbyists last week for a private heart-to-heart.
Supported by his staff, Peterson urged the diverse group, which included representatives from a variety of agribusinesses, to get behind the farm bill even though they have not yet seen the legislation.
The meeting and the request illustrate the pressure on Peterson to build support for one of the biggest pieces of legislation that Democrats are taking up this year, as well as the importance that party leaders give to its passage.
Peterson’s committee is scheduled to mark up the legislation this week in hopes of having the bill on the floor by the end of the month.
Peterson appears to favor leaving the 2002 farm bill mostly intact, a position supported by most farm lobbies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, has pressured Peterson to craft a bill that limits farm subsidies for wealthy
farmers, with the savings used for other priorities, such as nutrition.
One lobbyist said it would be impossible to support the bill until Peterson provides more details on the payment limits he is considering.
Traditionally, rice and cotton growers have fought lowering reductions. But some agriculture lobbyists say the dynamics have shifted such that these growers may reluctantly swallow the reforms to head off steeper cuts — depending on what else is in the bill.
“It’s been clear it’s important to the Speaker that there is enough reform—what’s enough is up for discussion — so she can make the case to the Democratic caucus that this is a reform bill,” said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
This puts both Pelosi and Peterson in a tough position, lobbyists say. The two are caught between those who want a farm bill similar to 2002 legislation, which has been popular with farmers, including some vulnerable Democrats, and changes long pushed by key party constituencies.
To critics, the 2002 farm bill wasted tax dollars, increased trade tensions and subsidized rich farmers who need no help from the government.
One proposal under discussion, lobbyists said, would reduce from $2.5 million to under $1 million the maximum gross adjusted income a farmer may have and still receive federal farm subsidies.
Such a change would deny federal dollars to “the fattest of the fat-cat farmers” and therefore is a “step in the right direction,” said Scott Faber, farm policy campaign director for Environmental Defense.
But he added that the reforms, at least what has been leaked so far, are mostly a disappointment. The administration, for instance, has proposed an adjusted income cap of $200,000.
Farm lobbyists disagreed.
“That would bite pretty hard,” one said.
Individual cotton and rice farms in Southern states tend to get more subsidies than grain and corn farmers in the Midwest, although not in the aggregate.
“If it disproportionately impacts Southern farmers, it will create some concern,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the committee’s ranking Republican.
“Our advice to the chairman is to slow down,” added Goodlatte, who criticized Pelosi for demanding farm bill reforms while not providing any new dollars.
Goodlatte offered sympathy for the chairman, whom he described as being in a “terrible bind”—caught between satisfying leadership and his farming constituents.
But some farm lobbyists and committee Democrats suspect crocodile tears.
With House Democrats crafting their first major farm bill since losing the majority in 1994, Republicans seem to be charting a course that puts pressure on freshman Democrats to vote on a bill that cuts farm subsidies.
“They’re right now telegraphing that if the farm bill moves forward, Democrats will have to provide the votes for it,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.).
As Pomeroy sees it, the message from committee Republicans today is to go slow; tomorrow, if a bill doesn’t move forward, they’ll blame Democrats for not getting things done.
Peterson told reporters on Friday that Pelosi was pushing for payment limits, but has yet to announce anything specific, even though his committee is set to begin marking up a farm bill today.
The committee is scheduled to continue marking up a farm bill on Wednesday and Thursday. Payment limitations could be addressed in a manager’s amendment some time this week.
In general, farm lobbyists hope to reach a compromise to reduce support for a more radical approach authored by Reps. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Their legislation would replace traditional subsidies with farm savings accounts.
Both Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in 2002 voted for a similar amendment during debate on the 2002 farm bill. The amendment failed but garnered 200 votes.
If the type of reforms envisioned by Pelosi is limited to a ceiling of around $900,000, “they’re really not reforms and payments will continue to be skewed to really wealthy people,” said Monica Mills, director of government relations for Bread for the World. She suggests lowering the ceiling to $200,000, the amount supported by the administration.
Another major problem for Peterson is money.
Fruit and vegetable growers are demanding more support for specialty crops, while other advocacy groups say more money must be provided for food stamps, which are also covered by the farm bill.
“We think it’s time for a farm bill for all of agriculture,” said John Keeler, president of the National Potato Council.
Yet Peterson’s total budget is $60 billion less than in 2002. This is because subsidy payments have been lower than expected in recent years due to high prices fueled partly by a demand for renewable fuels. That lowers the estimates used to calculate the new farm bill budget.
“It all boils down to money,” said one agriculture lobbyist.
|
