Outside Influences

A Sweet Victory for Collin Peterson

Citing his defense of food stamps, Peterson rallied fellow Democrats to oppose a change to the sugar program that’s vital to his district.

A field of sugar beets near Longmont, Colo., in 2009
AP Photo/Ed Andrieski
Jerry Hagstrom
Add to Briefcase
Jerry Hagstrom
May 22, 2018, 8 p.m.

Much has been made of the House’s failure last week to pass the farm bill, but the real long-term story for agriculture is the connection between House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson’s opposition to the bill over its food-stamp provisions and the huge Democratic vote that helped stop an amendment to make changes to the sugar program.

The House was considering a farm bill that had passed the Agriculture panel with only Republican votes because Democrats had so vigorously opposed the GOP plan to impose stricter work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—food stamps—and to make qualifying for the program more difficult.

Peterson is one of the House’s most conservative Democrats and votes with Republicans more frequently than his leadership likes. But he opposed the SNAP changes with extraordinary vigor because, he says, the provisions requiring people to report monthly on their incomes, utility bills, and work habits amount to harassment that will lead hungry people to drop out of the program. The GOP plan to use savings from the resulting decrease in participants to fund a work-training program wouldn’t provide enough money to be effective, he said.

Peterson represents a western Minnesota district that produces more beet sugar than any other district in the country. Peterson’s farmers are deeply committed to the sugar program, which establishes a floor price on sugar that requires industrial-scale sweetener users to pay higher prices for sugar than users in other countries have to pay. The Agriculture Department is required to operate the program, which also controls imports, at no cost to taxpayers except under extraordinary circumstances.

The Sweetener Users Association, which represents candy companies and other big buyers of sugar, has long criticized the program, but it has failed in past farm bills to make many changes.

This year the sweetener users attracted more allies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and mounted a huge campaign, including advertising for a bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Democratic Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois to make changes to reduce the price of sugar. Foxx and her allies argued that the sugar program has cost U.S. manufacturing jobs because the price of a key ingredient was too high. The American Sugar Alliance, which represents the beet and cane growers, mounted a vigorous defense of the program.

The two sides seemed equally matched in their campaigns, but when the House voted on the amendment it got fewer votes than a similar measure in 2013.

A total of 278 House members voted against the sugar-reform amendment and only 137 voted for it, compared to 221 against the 2013 amendment and 206 in favor of it.

Of the votes against the sugar amendment this year, 132 came from Republicans and 146 came from Democrats. Only 69 Democrats had voted against it in 2013.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, who had opposed the amendment on the grounds that it might lead to votes against other commodity programs, particularly cotton, told reporters that House Speaker Paul Ryan had rallied Republican votes in opposition. But Conaway also shook Peterson’s hand and thanked him for the Democratic votes. Peterson said it was the first time he and Conaway had spoken in five weeks.

Why did Democrats, many from urban areas, vote against changing the sugar program? Peterson had made a rare visit to a Democratic whip meeting and made the case that he needed his colleagues’ votes against the sugar amendment because his effort to protect SNAP was unpopular in his rural, Republican-leaning district. According to an attendee at that meeting, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, who represents the Hudson Valley of New York, gave an impassioned speech saying that Peterson had been a true party stalwart on SNAP and deserved the caucus’s support.

Peterson joined all Democrats and 30 Republicans in voting against the farm bill. House leaders now say they will bring the bill back up after the chamber votes on an immigration measure on June 22. But it will be safely without a sugar amendment.

After the debate ended, Peterson told reporters that he has now proven he really is a Democrat and that he has never been more popular in his caucus. Peterson also said he can tell the farmers in his district that his stand on food stamps “helped us defeat the sugar amendment.”

His next job, he said, is to make sure the Senate doesn’t “cave in” on SNAP work requirements if the bill gets to conference. He can certainly be counted on to defend the sugar program too.

What We're Following See More »
ONLY 14 NO VOTES
House Approves Opioid Package
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The House on Friday overwhelmingly passed sweeping bipartisan opioid legislation, concluding the chamber’s two-week voteathon on dozens of bills to address the drug abuse epidemic. The measure combines more than 50 bills approved individually by the House focusing on expanding access to treatment, encouraging the development of alternative pain treatments and curbing the flow of illicit drugs into the U.S. It was passed 396-14, with 13 Republicans and one Democrat voting against the package."

Source:
NEVERMIND THE TWEETS
Trump Tells Congress North Korea Remains a Threat
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a letter to Congress on Friday, President Trump wrote that he's continuing the national emergency status with respect to North Korea, citing the country's “provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions," which "continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. In a series of tweets following his meeting with Kim Jong-un, Trump said Americans could sleep well at night because North Korea no longer poses a nuclear threat.

Source:
ZERO-TOLERANCE FALLOUT CONTINUES
Navy Document Outlines Plans For Detention Camps
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The U.S. Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald Trump’s 'zero tolerance' policy for people caught crossing the Southern border." The document outlines plans for "temporary and austere" internment camps for 25,000 migrants "at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida panhandle," and in Alabama, for 47,000 people near San Francisco, and "as many as 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton" in California. The document estimates that operating a camp to detain 25,000 people for six months would cost approximately $233 million.

Source:
LASERS USED IN DJIBOUTI TOO
U.S. Military Aircraft Targeted By Lasers
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Lasers have targeted pilots of American military aircraft operating over the western Pacific Ocean more than 20 times in recent months," said U.S. officials. The lasers appeared to be coming from Chinese fishing boats in the South China Sea, said the officials, which is the setting of a "long-running dispute between China and Japan over the control of nearby islands ... The incidents likely will come up as part of a broader discussion of issues when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visits Beijing next week and meets Chinese President Xi Jinping."

Source:
EMPHASIZES SECURITY AND JOBS
Trump Overturns Obama Orders on Oceans
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump has unveiled a new policy that depicts the world’s oceans as a resource ripe for expanded business opportunities, reversing the Obama administration's emphasis on protecting 'vulnerable' marine environments." Rather than emphasizing environmental protection, as Obama's policy did, "Trump’s directive speaks mostly to the oceans as a resource for promoting national security" and creating jobs.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login