Archives
February 2010
January 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004

Reshaping the Farm Agenda

Congressional Quarterly Weekly
January 6, 2007
By Catharine Richert

Email this page

For most of the past seven decades, U.S. farm policy has been the product of homespun negotiations among members of the two congressional Agriculture committees and a small contingent of lobbyists for big commodities such as corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. Every five or six years, the groups engaged in a give-and-take, making tough trade-offs and developing trust as they divvied up billions of dollars in government price supports, marketing loans, deficiency payments, producer credits and other complicated benefits few outside the room understood.

"We called it the old iron triangle," said Charles W. Stenholm, a Texas Democrat and cotton farmer who served on the House Agriculture Committee for the quarter-century he was in Congress. "We'd all just sit down and work something out." Change has come slowly. Conservation and environmental groups began taking an active interest in agriculture policy in the mid-1980s and were in the thick of the negotiations the last time Congress passed a farm bill, in 2002.

Arguing that corn wasn't just food anymore, they won financial incentives for the ethanol and biofuel industries. They also established programs to promote soil, water and wildlife habitat improvements on farmland.

That was just the appetizer, though. Later this year, lawmakers will sit down and write the next installment of this sweeping measure that will reauthorize agriculture programs ranging from crop subsidies to conservation incentives and cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year over the next five years or so.

When they do, the old-line farm lobby will be joined by fruit and vegetable growers, winemakers, veterinary drug companies and even anti-hunger groups, who have all spent the past five years preparing their cases to snag some of the subsidies and protections that will be handed out this time around.

In fact, the biggest meeting room on Capitol Hill might not hold all the interests involved.

"The farm bill is wide open," said Bob Ehart, who coordinates animal and plant health initiatives for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. "The time is ripe for a lot more people to have a hand in it and to really shake things up."

What has drawn all these interests? Farming has transformed dramatically over the years. A much broader food market, partly driven by international competition, has combined with a wider concept of food and fiber policy to raise the stakes and open the door to a new order.

Stenholm, who left Congress after 2004 and now lobbies for some fruit and vegetable growers, says he may be nostalgic for the heyday of the old iron triangle, but it's time for a variety of voices in the debate.

"They're doing what I've always told them to do: Step up to the table and put your two bits in," Stenholm said. "Will this make writing the farm bill more challenging? Sure."

Nowhere is that more clear than in the case of a new coalition of specialty-food producers encompassing fruit, vegetable and nut growers and winemakers. Last fall, they and their allies on Capitol Hill -- many of whom also are newcomers to agriculture policy -- got a jump on the 2007 farm bill debate by introducing a bill that embodied their aims. The EAT Healthy America Act unites, for the first time, the traditionally divided fruit and vegetable growers and asks Congress for some of the billions of scarce taxpayer dollars that have traditionally gone to producers of the big row crops, plus cotton and dairy farmers and in more recent times to conservation.

"We want a bill that looks at all of agriculture, not one that just focuses on the commodities," said Robert Guenther, spokesman for the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance.

The early pitch from specialty growers represents the clearly changing dynamic in farm policy. And if these diverse parties get even part of what they want, they will establish themselves as serious players who may ultimately redefine American farm policy. Just as important, their presence in this year's debate shows that the once rock-solid farm lobby is vulnerable.

A Global View

Pressure for changes in farm programs has mounted since the last bill was written. When lawmakers began discussing a new farm bill in 2006, their deliberations were shaped by high prices for gasoline and natural gas, a widening budget deficit and international trade disputes. Now is a perfect time for participants with new ideas on how to solve these problems to gain clout, say lobbyists and other farm industry advocates. Although these newcomers appear to have divergent agendas, many are focusing on one thing: the equity and economic practicality of thousands of dollars in annual subsidies that many farmers get from the government.

As U.S. agriculture has become increasingly entwined with global trade, international partners have criticized these subsidies for keeping foreign producers -- particularly those in developing countries -- from selling their crops in the United States. Global trade talks stalled last summer as a result of disputes between industrialized and poor nations over subsidies and tariffs.

Paring subsidies would appeal to free-traders and anti-poverty groups, such as Oxfam America, which contend that government benefits to U.S. farmers hurt agricultural markets in Third World countries. Conservationists and alternative-fuel advocates would be happy to see money now spent on subsidies diverted to grants and contracts for research, programs that are considered fairer under international trade standards. And subsidy cuts would make it easier for the new Democratic Congress to adhere to its pledge to reduce the budget deficit.

And while nobody expects Congress to eliminate farm subsidies, American farmers may by the end of this year be faced with reduced payments, new opportunities to enroll their land in conservation programs and incentives to grow biofuel crops. At the same time, new farming interests, like the fruit and vegetable growers, could stake their claim permanently to a significant chunk of money in the form of research grants and mandatory government purchases.

A Shrinking Pie

Farm program spending topped $20 billion last year for the second year in a row. Three-fourths of the money went to growers of the five big row crops -- corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans -- plus dairy producers.

The amount spent annually on agriculture programs has varied over the years as a result of attempts by Congress to reduce subsidies. Moreover, changes in the global marketplace and vagaries of weather also push subsidy payments up and down, since most payments are closely tied to how much the major commodities bring in when they're sold.

When Congress passed the first farm bill, in 1933, then known as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, lawmakers were mostly concerned with avoiding surpluses and keeping crop prices above a government-set target. In more recent times, the focus has also been on ensuring farmers a certain level of income.

In addition to underwriting loans that often function to set a floor under crop prices, federal farm policy allows farmers to qualify for direct payments, intended as income supports, that kick in when crop prices drop below a government-set threshold. Beyond payments to major commodity producers, the farm bill is also a main source of money for conservation, rural development, grant and nutrition programs administered by the Agriculture Department.

In 1996, encouraged by a decline in farm spending, Congress decided to curtail the New Deal-era approach to price supports and move farmers toward a more market-based system. That law, which was enthusiastically named the Freedom to Farm Act, in the end actually resulted in an increase in spending. When world crop prices fell in the late 1990s, lawmakers reverted to old form and passed several multibillion-dollar emergency funding packages to keep farmers from going out of business. By 2000, the cost of farm programs had surged to $32.3 billion.

And the farm bill enacted in 2002, entitled the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, reinstated the traditional structure of price and income support payments.

Farm industry advocates and lawmakers alike expect that the amount of money that will be available for agriculture through the next farm bill will be relatively static. Democratic promises of fiscal restraint, plus the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will give little or no room for additional spending. And if lawmakers get serious about paring the budget deficit, the farm bill pie might actually shrink.

A tighter budget, coupled with proposals for new spending from specialty-crop groups and other new pleaders, is likely to pack a one-two punch against the major commodity growers. For example, if Congress decides to accept the proposal from the specialty-crop growers -- a plan that would spend more than $1 billion a year for research and marketing grants and would require the government to purchase more fruits and vegetables for school lunches -- it is likely to come at the expense of the subsidies that have been the bread and butter of the commodity-crop industry for decades.

The debate will be complicated by a commitment from the Bush administration to reduce subsidies as part of global trade negotiations. In 2006, the White House proposed major cuts in U.S. subsidies in exchange for reduced tariffs abroad on U.S. food exports. European Union members and some developing countries rejected the Bush plan, and the talks fell apart as a result. But the administration and other countries have said they want to continue pursuing the goal of lower agriculture subsidies.

Land conservation groups pose their own threat to commodities producers. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is now chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has long been a proponent of conservation incentives and vows to expand those programs in 2007.

On the other hand, spending on subsidies for major grain crops might shrink even without Congress intending it to. Prices are rising for some crops, particularly corn and soybeans, which are in high demand for use in production of ethanol and other biofuels. And since subsidies fall when crop prices increase, Congress may find that even retaining existing programs for another five years will cost less. Commodity-crop growers are hoping non-traditional farm interests will pressure Congress just as much for a larger budget.

"If these new guys want a piece of the pie, they need to roll up their sleeves and bake a piece of the pie," said Jon Doggett, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Association. "They need to be involved in these budget discussions, too. You can't just take money away from someone else."

Non-Traditional Interests

One of the more aggressive attacks on traditional farm programs this year is coming from American Farmland Trust, a 26-year-old organization that works to preserve farm and grazing lands and protect rural communities.

The Farmland Trust has been active in conservation efforts for more than a decade, but this year it is allied with the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and other groups to promote public health issues -- including an expansion of nutrition programs -- as part of the farm bill.

A couple of years ago, as staff members at the Farmland Trust were laying out their plan for the next farm bill, they made a list of organizations that had a stake in the outcome and might support the trust's aims but just didn't know it yet. Some of the most surprising groups on the list, said Jimmy Daukas, director of farm policy for the trust, were involved in health issues.

"For the first time, people are approaching this from a public health point of view," he said. "They are completely new players."

In particular, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association are two of the more prominent groups backing the Farmland Trust's push to increase spending on nutrition and health, Daukas said. They want more healthful foods in schools, and they support programs that bring fresh fruits and vegetables to inner cities.

Similarly, a new alliance is forming between livestock producers and food processors, both of which worry that corn ethanol research grants and government procurement mandates in the 2002 farm bill have caused corn prices to skyrocket. They have said they'll join forces to keep provisions that favor the ethanol industry out of the next bill. And an existing alliance among Ducks Unlimited and other hunting and fishing groups and environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy is stepping up its effort to get more farmland enrolled in Agriculture Department conservation programs.

Most non-traditional associations planning lobbying assaults on the farm bill bemoan that federal policy has been decided for decades by a few narrowly drawn interest groups.

Agriculture policy that undergoes fundamental change only once every five or six years has broad implications for the economy and health as well, so building coalitions among newcomers is a big part of the strategy of the Farmland Trust and others to shift the debate.

"By getting new players involved, you change the political dynamics," Daukas said. "It helps to reshape the political coalitions."

Well-established organizations like the American Heart Association and Ducks Unlimited, with which land conservationists have aligned during previous farm bill negotiations, have clout on Capitol Hill. Their "political muscle" will broaden the number of lawmakers who want a more progressive measure, Daukas said.

New players are banking on help from unlikely alliances in Congress, too. When it comes to cellulosic ethanol, a fuel made from grasses and trees that can be grown in most parts of the United States, the alternative-fuels industry has recently found support in unusual places, said Samantha Slater, director of congressional and regulatory affairs at the Renewable Fuels Association.

"You don't just see Midwest members on board anymore," she said. "Now we've got interest from California, from Georgia, from North Carolina and Washington state. John Deere has even started making machines over the past couple of years to process the feedstock. We're bringing a wide community into the mix."

Congressional redistricting and a continued population shift into urban and suburban communities are also increasing the clout of non-traditional farming groups.

The number of rural House districts began to decline in the 1960s. And by 2005, only 61 of the 435 seats -- 14 percent -- met the definition of rural, down from 42 percent four decades ago. Typically, urban and suburban voters care more about conservation and nutrition and show less interest in ordinary farm policy, said Brent Gattis, a farm lobbyist with the Washington law firm of Olsson, Frank and Weeda.

"Traditionally, the hardest job on selling a farm bill to urban members is convincing them that the bill supports their constituents through nutrition programs and providing the most affordable food supply in the world," said Gattis, who was a longtime Republican aide on the House Agriculture Committee.

'Circling the Wagons'

Members of the old iron triangle agree that the presence of groups like Oxfam America, the Heart Association and the Humane Society of the United States, which is working with other animal rights groups to improve conditions for livestock, will pose new challenges in 2007.

The farm lobby has never faced this degree of competition before.

"Historically, we have not had to fight activist groups from their ivory towers about defining what they think rural life should be about," Gattis said. The farm lobby's biggest challenge will be to limit the infighting and work cooperatively to make sure farm policy remains relatively unchanged.

Mark Maslyn, executive director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, downplays the concern and says corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soy farmers and livestock producers have a history of turning out a powerful grass-roots effort when they need to. More than ever, the Farm Bureau relied on its membership, which extends beyond farmers to tractor makers, feedlot operators and food processors, to make its case during the 2007 negotiations. "We'll be working hard to keep our membership informed and active on this issue," Maslyn said. "Agricultural producers have to realize that if they want a certain outcome, they have to engage their lawmakers." The new players don't have as well-established a grass-roots network, he said.

Nevertheless, some groups new to the debate, such as Oxfam America, are taking their cues from the traditional farm lobby. Last year, the anti-poverty group not only increased its staff in Washington but also installed field organizers in rural communities. The idea is to rally farmers who have gotten little out of previous farm bills to press their lawmakers for a change this year, said Gawain Kripke, senior policy adviser for Oxfam America.

Another challenge identified by the big commodity growers is keeping the farm bill within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture committees. House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., will probably want to review any farm bill provisions aimed at increasing alternative-fuel production. And a proposal from the American Trucking Association to finance truck and facilities security upgrades and establish a trust fund for rural road maintenance may be handed over to other panels.

"We don't want the bill referred to other committees," said Mary Kay Thatcher, director of public policy with the Farm Bureau. Such referrals might open the door to additional provisions, delays and difficulties in moving the already massive measure, she said.

Despite new pressures on the farm bill, most participants are skeptical that farm subsidies will be cut entirely. The traditional farm lobby still has many friends on Capitol Hill. Many point to the history and alliances of the two men who will be in charge of writing the bill in the Senate and House. Harkin hails from Iowa, where corn and soybeans rule. While he has pledged to expand conservation and ethanol programs, it would be political suicide for him to do so at the expense of his state's commodities growers.

Minnesota Democrat Collin C. Peterson, the new House Agriculture chairman, has a similar constituency. While he talks about improving the energy, nutrition and conservation titles of the bill, he has said his primary goal is to keep the "best parts" of the 2002 measure.

Regardless, Thatcher says competition from non-traditional groups is good for Farm Bureau members. "It causes us to come together even more," she said. "We're circling the wagons."

Reshaping Farm Policy

Most participants in the deliberations this year say they expect the new players to achieve some of their objectives, most likely in the conservation, energy and nutrition sections that received spending increases in each of the last two farm bills. That, in turn, will ensure that they play a more prominent role the next time farm policy is rewritten, in 2012. Like many in the old-school farm lobby, Maslyn attributes the clout of the new entrants to evolution, rather than an abrupt change in farm politics. "People always say the next farm bill will be greener than the last one, for example," he said. "It's always evolving."

But the new players say some of the initiatives they are pushing, such as the Humane Society's goal to create a new title in the law dedicated to animal welfare, would be bold departures from current policy. Big victories by the new players in this year's farm bill and the next one, expected in 2013, threaten to derail the influence the traditional farm lobby has long held in Washington, say lobbyists and industry members.

The new players also say they want more than to just be involved in negotiations. Ultimately, their objective is to permanently reshape the debate about the nation's agriculture policies. Farming isn't just about acres of corn and soybeans anymore, they say. It's about human health, environmental stewardship, land preservation, animal welfare, international trade and energy conservation. The transformation is already happening, they say, and it will be hard for Congress to ignore it.

"A change is going on," Daukas said. "Whether that sea change results in dramatically different policies is the only question remaining for the 2007 farm bill. But that change is occurring and will occur, and if not in the 2007 farm bill, then in the next one."

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.