Divided Sentiment on the Farm Bill

House Democrats are in a quandary.

In a dilemma that has been played out in previous years, farm bill debate cycles by their GOP predecessors, the new Democratic House majority is divided over whether to stick with the current status quo or opt for a new approach that would replace current farm subsidies with conservation payments.

Both approaches are fraught with risk.

For his part, House Ag Committee Chairman Colin Peterson favors a bill that largely incorporates the older approach. Responding recently to questioning by a Washington Post reporter, Peterson said he decided that anything other than a gradual approach to capping farm payments could lead to a collapse of U.S. agriculture.

“You can’t walk in there and cut them off and expect them to survive. There has to be a transition,” says Peterson, who was quoted recently by Farm Press editorial writer Forrest Laws.

Peterson and other House leaders in recent years have been under relentless pressure by farm policy critics, notably the Environmental Working Group, to cut the Gordian knot of farm payments in favor of a new approach with heavier emphasis on conservation, rural development, biofuels and nutrition. That would suit some lawmakers just fine, particularly those from states such as California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont, where the major of farmers receive payments to preserve land.

Likewise, in an era of fiscal belt tightening, this may seem like the obvious solution to many U.S. lawmakers. Still, the fact remains that agriculture continues to pack a powerful wallop throughout much of rural America, prompting one farm lobbyist, quoted recently by the "New York Times" to remark, “There’s no swing voter like a farmer.”

Another basic political reality is that many of the 45 freshmen legislators who comprise part of Democrats’ House majority come from states with powerful farm sectors.

Aside from that, many lawmakers from rural states share Peterson’s concern that farm payment limits simply aren’t prudent at this especially vulnerable time as U.S. farmers are still struggling to adapt to the effects of globalization.

“I will always make my argument based on what’s best for farmers, not what’s best for my political party,” says freshman Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota, who was also quoted in the "New York Times."

What is virtually certain is that drafting a farm bill that appeases all of this divided sentiment will prove exceedingly difficult in the end. And farm policy observers caution that just because the current House markup seems to portend a continuation of the status quo doesn’t mean that’s what farmers will get in the end.

For one thing, the Senate must weigh in with its own version, and there’s no guarantee at this point that the Senate bill will look anything like what appears to be emerging in the House.

In fact, there’s a good chance that the Senate bill will place far greater emphasis on conservation measures accompanied by farm payment limits, according to Dr. Jim Novak, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System economist and Auburn University professor for agricultural economics and rural sociology.

“The Senate is probably more conservation-minded than the House, which is partly due to Senator Tom Harkin’s deep sympathy for conservation measures,” Novak says.

Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, who has traditionally exerted a strong influence on his party’s farm policy, serves as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Aside from that, Novak stresses that the even the current farm bill markup scheduled for debate in the House is not guaranteed to pass muster.

In fact, Wisconsin Democrat Ron Kind already has stated he plans to introduce amendments from the floor.

Among other things, his “FARM 21” proposal calls for phasing out farm program payments in favor of insurance and farm saving accounts. It also would impose stricter farm payment limits, eliminating payments to those with adjusted gross incomes of more than $200,000.

Posted by Jim Langcuster at July 18, 2007 11:30 AM