Inside the House Agriculture Committee

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sept. 19, 2013, 4:38 a.m.

From the food stamps bill on the House floor this week to farm­land con­ser­va­tion and com­mod­it­ies reg­u­la­tion, there is very little about the na­tion’s food sup­ply that the House Com­mit­tee on Ag­ri­cul­ture doesn’t help gov­ern. In its latest Spe­cial Is­sue, Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily ex­am­ines the chan­ging nature of the com­mit­tee, the people who run it and the is­sues and chal­lenges they face. Click here to see the is­sue

Search­ing for the Fu­ture of Food
Serving on the House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee may be little fun these days, and even less polit­ic­ally re­ward­ing. The fight to re­new the five-year farm bill — dom­in­ated by how much to cut from the food-stamp pro­gram — has been ac­ri­mo­ni­ous. Mean­while, the heavy in­volve­ment of House lead­er­ship, dif­fer­ences over ag­ri­cul­ture and nu­tri­tion policy, and the de­clin­ing abil­ity of in­di­vidu­al mem­bers to in­flu­ence le­gis­la­tion gen­er­ally have made a seat on the pan­el less at­tract­ive.

Chair­man: ‘The Safety Net Still Has to Ex­ist’

Rep. Frank Lu­cas comes from the tough world of Ok­lahoma farm­ing, but run­ning the House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee is no easy job, either. Bo­nus: meet the 16 people closest to the chair­man.

Don’t Un­der­es­tim­ate Col­lin Peterson

Rep. Col­lin Peterson, D-Minn. may be one of the most un­der­es­tim­ated people ever to lead a con­gres­sion­al pan­el. But Peterson has proven to be like the pro­ver­bi­al coun­try law­yer who shocks the city law­yer with his skill.

Fight Over Food Stamps Dom­in­ates Farm Bill

When House law­makers take to the floor this week to ad­dress a bill that will set fund­ing levels for the food-stamp pro­gram, they will be fin­ish­ing a fight that has torn the tra­di­tion­al five-year farm bill in two. Lit­er­ally.

The Two Sides of Crop In­sur­ance
De­pend­ing on whom you talk to, the crop-in­sur­ance pro­gram is either an es­sen­tial risk-man­age­ment tool that helps farm­ers when dis­aster strikes or a Robin Hood-in-re­verse scheme that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

The Shrink­ing State of Farm­land Con­ser­va­tion
The num­ber of acres the gov­ern­ment idles for con­ser­va­tion is con­tract­ing, and that’s caused as much by mar­ket forces — or “nature,” as one ag­ri­cul­ture ad­voc­ate put it — as it is by any­thing Con­gress has done.

Sug­ar Grow­ers Reap Sweeter Res­ults Than Dairy Farm­ers

Two ma­jor lob­by­ing fights over ag­ri­cul­ture have taken place between grow­ers and users, with vastly dif­fer­ent res­ults.

Con­gress is Pay­ing More At­ten­tion to Fruits and Ve­get­ables

For years, spe­cialty crops — gen­er­ally defined as fruits, ve­get­ables, and tree nuts — have been treated as af­ter­thoughts in ag­ri­cul­ture policy, but with each farm bill comes a little more help.

It’s Corny, But Don’t Call the Ag Com­mit­tee
The re­new­able-fuel stand­ard has a pro­found im­pact on the ag­ri­cul­ture in­dustry. Yet it isn’t con­trolled by the House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee.

It’s North Versus South on Com­mod­it­ies De­bate
Dif­fer­ing al­le­gi­ances and philo­sophies among House and Sen­ate Ag Com­mit­tee lead­ers have led to a House com­mod­it­ies sec­tion of the farm bill that ap­peals to South­ern­ers and a Sen­ate ver­sion that is more pal­at­able to North­ern­ers.

Pro­tec­tions, Reg­u­la­tion at Play in CFTC Reau­thor­iz­a­tion

Law­makers’ de­sire to re­spond to the fail­ures of MF Glob­al and Per­eg­rine Fin­an­cial, and linger­ing dis­putes over Dodd-Frank, could be a part of the de­bate.

When Michelle Obama Says ‘Let’s Move’”¦

The first lady has made child­hood nu­tri­tion one of her sig­na­ture policy pri­or­it­ies — and it seems to be work­ing.

For staff pro­files, graph­ics and more, see the full is­sue.

What We're Following See More »
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

FUNERAL FOR ISRAELI LEADER
Obama Compares Peres to ‘Giants of the 20th Century’
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Many New Voters Does the Clinton Campaign Aim to Register?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."

Source:
“STANDING FOR PRINCIPLES”
Chicago Tribune Endorses Johnson
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.

Source:
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×