House Agriculture: Searching for the Future of Food

Central Illinois farmers harvest their corn crops Sunday, Oct. 2, 2011 near Divernon, Ill.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Jerry Hagstrom
Sept. 18, 2013, 4:30 p.m.

When House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee Chair­man Frank Lu­cas, R-Okla., went to the po­di­um in June to ask law­makers to vote for a new farm bill, he was in a kind of trouble that no oth­er Ag­ri­cul­ture chair­man in re­cent memory has ex­per­i­enced.

After spend­ing two years de­vel­op­ing the bill, push­ing Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship to let him bring it to the floor, and man­aging more than 100 amend­ments in just two days, Lu­cas still had to beg for pas­sage.

“I plead to you. I im­plore you to put aside whatever the latest e-mail is or the latest fly­er is or whatever com­ment or ru­mor you’ve heard from people near you or around you,” he said. “As­sess the situ­ation. Look at the bill. Vote with me to move this for­ward. If you care about the con­sumers, the pro­du­cers, the cit­izens of this coun­try, move this bill for­ward.”

The ap­peal didn’t work. The House voted against the farm bill 195-234, with six not vot­ing. The de­feat launched the le­gis­la­tion down a path that has wrought ma­jor changes on the pro­cess by which Con­gress ad­dresses the farm bill every five years — changes that are still play­ing out this week.

In fact, the bill’s fate re­mains un­cer­tain this year. But for the House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee, the ques­tion is wheth­er its dif­fi­cult path is just one more case of House mem­bers stomp­ing their feet and say­ing “No, no, no,” or wheth­er something fun­da­ment­al has changed in the mak­ing of ag­ri­cul­tur­al and nu­tri­tion policy. The an­swer may well be both.

As Rep. Col­lin Peterson, D-Minn., the rank­ing mem­ber on the pan­el and its former chair­man, put it, “We are in a big mess, and I don’t know how we un­tangle this.”


Foun­ded in 1820, the House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee is the old­est ag­ri­cul­ture in­sti­tu­tion in Wash­ing­ton. As re­cently as 2008, the com­mit­tee led the way for Con­gress to pass a farm bill that un­der­girded the most pros­per­ous peri­od in Amer­ic­an ag­ri­cul­tur­al his­tory; paid out $17 bil­lion to farm­ers last year dur­ing the worst drought in dec­ades; and provided food stamps for 47 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans dur­ing the Great Re­ces­sion.

Yet serving on the pan­el 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 in the House and could get more so as the bill goes to con­fer­ence with the Sen­ate. Mean­while, the heavy in­volve­ment of House lead­er­ship in the Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee’s core is­sues, 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.

The av­er­age length of time law­makers stay on the com­mit­tee has de­clined, from a high of 10 years two dec­ades ago to less than six today. For those who sit fur­thest from the chair­man in the com­mit­tee’s im­press­ive hear­ing room in the Long­worth House Of­fice Build­ing, the re­wards have been so few that one or two terms has seemed enough. Reps. Jeff Forten­berry, R-Neb., and Chel­lie Pin­gree, D-Maine, for ex­ample, both left this year to take seats on Ap­pro­pri­ations, where they sit on the Ag­ri­cul­ture Sub­com­mit­tee.

For those who have stayed, such as Lu­cas and Peterson, lead­er­ship has been dif­fi­cult. In the last Con­gress, Lu­cas fre­quently noted that half the mem­bers of his com­mit­tee were new. This year, Lu­cas and Peterson had to struggle to fill the ranks. They even­tu­ally got up to 46, in­clud­ing 25 Re­pub­lic­ans and 21 Demo­crats.

Lu­cas said the changes in com­mit­tee mem­ber­ship “ab­so­lutely” con­cern him, al­though he noted that law­makers have long pre­ferred com­mit­tees such as Ways and Means and Ap­pro­pri­ations. “We may not be as sexy, we may not be as good at fun­drais­ing as oth­er com­mit­tees,” he said. He also said the “roller-coast­er turnover in gen­er­al mem­ber­ship in the House” has played a role.

The biggest prob­lem with turnover, Lu­cas said, is that it denies the com­mit­tee the in­sti­tu­tion­al memory that helps write good farm bills. “It really does help to un­der­stand the sub­ject mat­ter you are vot­ing on,” he said.

Few new com­mit­tee mem­bers come from farm fam­il­ies or ag­ri­cul­tur­al back­grounds and they “are not quite as able to de­fend them­selves from the pres­sure groups,” Lu­cas said. By pres­sure groups, he means not only the farm lob­bies but also con­ser­vat­ive or­gan­iz­a­tions such as the Club for Growth and Her­it­age Ac­tion for Amer­ica, which cri­ti­cize farm sub­sidies.

On his side of the aisle, Peterson has faced at least as much turnover as Lu­cas but seems less wor­ried about the fu­ture. “I was con­cerned, but I like this group of people we have now. We’ve got some very good mem­bers. They are new to Con­gress, but they’re not new to polit­ics. They know a lot more about ag­ri­cul­ture and the is­sues that we deal with than people real­ize.”

An­oth­er res­ult is that the Sen­ate has gained ground on the House in ag­ri­cul­tur­al poli­cy­mak­ing. The House has tra­di­tion­ally passed a farm bill first, but in 2012 the Sen­ate, whose Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee in­cludes sev­er­al former chair­men and a former Ag­ri­cul­ture sec­ret­ary, was first to act. The House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee did pass a bill in 2012 by a large bi­par­tis­an ma­jor­ity, but with the con­tro­versy swirl­ing around both farm sub­sidies and food stamps (form­ally known as the Sup­ple­ment­al Nu­tri­tion As­sist­ance Pro­gram, or SNAP), the House Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship re­fused to bring it to the floor.

When Con­gress passed a year­long ex­ten­sion at New Year’s, it was a deal ne­go­ti­ated between Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, who didn’t want a cut in SNAP be­ne­fits, and Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky., who wanted to con­tin­ue the dir­ect pay­ments that crop farm­ers get wheth­er prices are low or high. The House was largely left out of the ne­go­ti­ation.


Ag­ri­cul­ture had to battle for at­ten­tion in Con­gress even in the early days of the re­pub­lic, when most people made a liv­ing grow­ing food and fiber. In 1795, the House set up the Com­merce Com­mit­tee, but it took an­oth­er 25 years be­fore the Com­mit­tee on Ag­ri­cul­ture was es­tab­lished. The Sen­ate did not set up its Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee un­til 1825, and the Ag­ri­cul­ture De­part­ment was not es­tab­lished un­til 1862. In spon­sor­ing the 1820 res­ol­u­tion to set up the House com­mit­tee, Rep. Lewis Wil­li­ams of North Car­o­lina called ag­ri­cul­ture “the great lead­ing and sub­stan­tial in­terest in this coun­try” but com­plained, “[W]hen ag­ri­cul­ture is op­pressed and makes com­plaint, what tribunal is this House to hear and de­term­ine on the griev­ances?”

The com­mit­tee’s greatest peri­od of power came in the 1930s. With rur­al Amer­ica suf­fer­ing from the Great De­pres­sion, Con­gress passed Pres­id­ent Roosevelt’s New Deal farm pro­grams, which at­temp­ted to equal­ize sup­ply and de­mand, re­store soil de­graded by ques­tion­able farm prac­tices, and bring elec­tri­city to rur­al pop­u­la­tions. In the 1950s, Con­gress began passing short-term farm bills, usu­ally for five-year peri­ods, by sus­pend­ing the 1938 and 1949 farm bills that have be­come known as “per­man­ent law.” The New Deal pro­grams also in­cluded dis­tri­bu­tion of sur­plus com­mod­it­ies to the hungry; in the 1960s, the com­mit­tee began to take hun­ger ser­i­ously with the cre­ation of the food-stamp pro­gram, which had the ad­ded be­ne­fit of as­sur­ing votes from urb­an and sub­urb­an House mem­bers for the farm bill.

Today, the House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee’s core prob­lem ap­pears to be a lack of rel­ev­ance to many voters, even though the num­ber of people who be­ne­fit from food stamps and com­mod­ity-dis­tri­bu­tion pro­grams has swollen dur­ing the re­ces­sion.

As the U.S. pop­u­la­tion con­tin­ues to grow in­creas­ingly urb­an and sub­urb­an, the num­ber of people who de­pend dir­ectly on ag­ri­cul­ture — and the com­mit­tee’s pro­grams — for a liv­ing de­clines while the food sup­ply re­mains so plen­ti­ful and cheap that con­sumers can take it for gran­ted. Food safety, or­gan­ic and loc­al food pro­duc­tion, and the im­pact of obesity are hot top­ics, but the com­mit­tee still fo­cuses most of its at­ten­tion on com­mod­ity pro­grams and the reg­u­la­tion of the fu­tures in­dustry.

Per­haps the com­mit­tee lead­er­ship’s oddest de­cision over the years has been its lack of at­ten­tion to food stamps, which rep­res­ent more than 70 per­cent of USDA spend­ing. For ex­ample, the pan­el’s De­part­ment Op­er­a­tions, Over­sight, and Nu­tri­tion Sub­com­mit­tee, which has jur­is­dic­tion, has held no hear­ings on the is­sue this year.

But from a polit­ic­al stand­point, it’s not hard to see why food stamps have not been a primary fo­cus. An­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates have res­isted any­thing that would in­crease scru­tiny of the pro­gram, while farm-minded mem­bers have tra­di­tion­ally viewed food stamps as the price they had to pay to get urb­an mem­bers of Con­gress to vote for the farm bill.


Things have changed. The fight over food stamps has dom­in­ated the cur­rent farm bill. The de­bate has been go­ing on since 2010, when Peterson was chair­man and began hold­ing hear­ings. Lu­cas, after he be­came chair­man, held an­oth­er round of hear­ings in Wash­ing­ton and around the coun­try be­fore writ­ing the bill.

But this year, even though the pan­el had many new mem­bers, Lu­cas al­lowed only a sub­com­mit­tee hear­ing on hor­ti­cul­ture be­fore hold­ing a markup ses­sion. Even though Re­pub­lic­ans in­sisted, over Demo­crats’ ob­jec­tions, on in­creas­ing the cut in food stamps from $16.5 bil­lion in the 2012 farm bill to roughly $20.5 bil­lion in 2013, the meas­ure still passed the com­mit­tee on a bi­par­tis­an vote of 36-10.

The com­mit­tee vote was not enough to per­suade enough Re­pub­lic­ans or Demo­crats to sup­port the bill on the floor, however, lead­ing to the de­feat in June. Only 24 Demo­crats voted for the le­gis­la­tion. But even if the hoped-for 40 Demo­crats would have sup­por­ted it, the farm bill still would have failed, be­cause 62 Re­pub­lic­ans voted against it.

Past lead­ers, in­clud­ing Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., who was House speak­er in 2008 when the last farm bill was passed, de­ferred to the com­mit­tee most of the time. “What we do in the farm bill is really com­plic­ated stuff,” Peterson said. “I would ar­gue it is more com­plic­ated than what we do with the IRS. I think mem­bers un­der­stand that.”

Two people who did not de­fer to the com­mit­tee this year were House Speak­er John Boehner, R-Ohio, who wanted a change in dairy policy, and Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., who gave a floor speech ur­ging mem­bers to vote for a food-stamp amend­ment that Demo­crats found odi­ous. Boehner and Can­tor won their floor votes and voted for fi­nal pas­sage, but at the ur­ging of Her­it­age Ac­tion and oth­er con­ser­vat­ive groups, many tea-party Re­pub­lic­ans voted against fi­nal pas­sage.

The re­sponse by Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship to the de­feat was un­pre­ced­en­ted in re­cent dec­ades: They split the farm bill in two. One bill, which passed in the House, con­tained ag­ri­cul­tur­al pro­grams. A sep­ar­ate meas­ure con­tained the food-stamp pro­gram. The re­fus­al by Can­tor and tea-party Re­pub­lic­ans to ac­cept the com­mit­tee bill’s nu­tri­tion title and the lead­er­ship’s un­pre­ced­en­ted de­cision to split the farm bill in two frac­tured a dec­ades-old mar­riage that tra­di­tion­ally helped get the le­gis­la­tion through Con­gress.

The cost of the ag­ri­cul­ture-only bill is about $196 bil­lion; the top-line num­ber would have been roughly $1 tril­lion with food stamps in­cluded. Over­all, the nu­tri­tion title would be over 70 per­cent of the farm bill’s costs, and most of that is the food-stamp pro­gram.

But Re­pub­lic­ans were not yet fin­ished shak­ing things up. As part of the new strategy, Can­tor pre­pared a nu­tri­tion bill with about $39 bil­lion in food-stamp cuts over 10 years, roughly doub­ling the re­duc­tion in the pre­vi­ous bill.

The con­ser­vat­ives’ ar­gu­ment is that the pro­gram is ab­used by re­cip­i­ents who don’t meet eli­gib­il­ity re­quire­ments. These crit­ics want to tight­en loop­holes that they say al­low able-bod­ied adults to gain be­ne­fits. “Cur­rently, work­ing middle-class fam­il­ies strug­gling to make ends meet them­selves are foot­ing a bill for a pro­gram that has gone well bey­ond the safety net for chil­dren, seni­ors, the dis­abled, and fam­il­ies who des­per­ately need the as­sist­ance,” Can­tor spokes­man Rory Cooper re­cently told Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily.

An­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates have com­plained, but Can­tor ar­gued as late as last week that any re­duc­tion in be­ne­fits will not erode the safety net for the needi­est Amer­ic­ans. “No law-abid­ing be­ne­fi­ciary who meets the in­come and as­set test of the cur­rent pro­gram and is will­ing to com­ply with ap­plic­able work re­quire­ments will lose their be­ne­fits un­der the bill,” he said.

The food-stamp bill is sched­uled to hit the House floor this week. Pelosi said she ex­pects Demo­crats to re­ject it, giv­en that most op­posed the pre­vi­ous bill that had only $20.5 bil­lion in cuts. So Re­pub­lic­ans will have to rally much of their con­fer­ence to pass the bill.

Yet even if it does pass, there are still miles to go. A con­fer­ence with the Sen­ate, which passed its own com­pre­hens­ive farm bill, is likely to be tu­mul­tu­ous be­cause of the stark dif­fer­ences in the way the Demo­crat­ic-con­trolled Sen­ate and the Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled House have treated food stamps. The Sen­ate bill cuts only $4 bil­lion from the pro­gram over 10 years.

Moreover, the clock is tick­ing. If a two-cham­ber deal is not reached by Sept. 30, farm-bill pro­grams will re­vert back to the 1938 and 1949 laws. However, even if the two cham­bers don’t reach an agree­ment, crop in­sur­ance and the food-stamp pro­gram will con­tin­ue. Crop in­sur­ance has its own per­man­ent law, and food stamps are an en­ti­tle­ment that can con­tin­ue to op­er­ate even without reau­thor­iz­a­tion, provided the fund­ing is ap­proved through ap­pro­pri­ations bills or a con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion.

“Part of the prob­lem” in per­suad­ing Con­gress to pass the bill, Peterson said, “is that crop in­sur­ance will con­tin­ue wheth­er there’s a bill or not, and food stamps will con­tin­ue.”


Bi­par­tis­an­ship has not ex­ten­ded to the com­mit­tee’s oth­er power cen­ter, either: reg­u­lat­ing the fu­tures in­dustry and the Com­mod­ity Fu­tures Trad­ing Com­mis­sion. Un­der Peterson’s lead­er­ship, the pan­el played a role in the pas­sage of the Dodd-Frank Act, which reg­u­lated the fin­an­cial in­dustry after the fin­an­cial col­lapse in 2008. Un­der Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship, the com­mit­tee has passed bills that would re­duce the new reg­u­la­tions, al­though these stand little chance of be­com­ing law. This year, Re­pub­lic­ans also held three sub­com­mit­tee hear­ings on the reau­thor­iz­a­tion of the CFTC, which takes place every five years. Those hear­ings have been chaired by Rep. Mi­chael Con­away, R-Texas, whose Gen­er­al Farm Com­mod­it­ies and Risk Man­age­ment Sub­com­mit­tee is also in charge of com­mod­ity policy and crop in­sur­ance, mak­ing him by far the most power­ful sub­com­mit­tee chair­man.

If Re­pub­lic­ans re­tain the House, it may be Con­away who takes over the com­mit­tee’s gavel. The fact that a Texas Re­pub­lic­an could chair the Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee un­der­lines how polit­ic­al changes in the coun­try have res­ul­ted in dra­mat­ic changes in the com­mit­tee’s mem­ber­ship.

Rur­al Demo­crats from the Plains and the South dom­in­ated the pan­el through most of the 20th cen­tury and stayed on it for years. Those Demo­crats were usu­ally con­ser­vat­ive on so­cial and fisc­al mat­ters, but they came from dis­tricts whose con­stitu­ents ten­ded to be­lieve that wealth and power were else­where in the coun­try and that the role of gov­ern­ment — and the com­mit­tee — was to im­prove their lives and get them a fairer shake.

In the 1970s, the rur­al South began to elect Re­pub­lic­ans, but they too sup­por­ted farm pro­grams and food stamps. The GOP trend cul­min­ated in the 2010 elec­tions, when the com­mit­tee makeup changed to mostly rur­al Re­pub­lic­ans, who are in­ter­ested in com­mod­it­ies such as corn, cot­ton, rice, soy­beans, and wheat; Demo­crats from Cali­for­nia and New Eng­land, who are in­ter­ested mostly in dairy, fruits, ve­get­ables, and or­gan­ic and loc­al pro­duc­tion; and urb­an rep­res­ent­at­ives, who care mostly about nu­tri­tion pro­grams, par­tic­u­larly food stamps.

The com­mit­tee’s mem­ber­ship is now skewed to the South, Cali­for­nia, and New York, with less rep­res­ent­a­tion from the middle of the coun­try than might be ex­pec­ted. Ari­zona, Idaho, Ken­tucky, Louisi­ana, Kan­sas, Maine, Mis­sis­sippi, Montana, Neb­raska, North Dakota, Utah, West Vir­gin­ia, and Wyom­ing — all states with key ag­ri­cul­tur­al con­stitu­en­cies — have no rep­res­ent­a­tion on the com­mit­tee at all.

Moreover, the pan­el now has a hand­ful of long-ter­mers at the top, with a chan­ging cast of char­ac­ters down the line, prompt­ing ser­i­ous ques­tions about the fu­ture and lead­er­ship.

Un­der House Re­pub­lic­an rules, Lu­cas is sched­uled to end his term as chair­man when this Con­gress con­cludes in 2014. Lu­cas said last week he will run for reelec­tion in 2014, and if the farm bill does not pass dur­ing this Con­gress, he will ask for a waiver from House rules so he can con­tin­ue as chair­man. If farm-bill op­pon­ents “use House Re­pub­lic­an rules as a weapon, I will fight on every stage,” he said.

Ab­sent the waiver, Con­away is most likely to take over as chair­man if the Re­pub­lic­ans re­tain con­trol of the House and fol­low reg­u­lar or­der. Sev­er­al oth­er com­mit­tee mem­bers have more seni­or­ity, but there are reas­ons they may not as­sume the lead­er­ship. They are former House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bob Good­latte, R-Va., and Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, Randy Neuge­bauer, R-Texas, and Mike Ro­gers, R-Ala. Con­away, like Peterson, is a cer­ti­fied pub­lic ac­count­ant. If Con­away be­comes the highest-rank­ing Re­pub­lic­an and Peterson stays as the highest-rank­ing Demo­crat, the com­mit­tee would be run by two cer­ti­fied pub­lic ac­count­ants.

Still, even if Lu­cas does not keep the gavel, he will stay on the com­mit­tee to make sure Con­gress does not re­peat mis­takes that have hurt farm­ers in the past.

As Lu­cas put it, “I am not here to be­ne­fit from the polit­ic­al chaos of the day.”


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.