Posted by: Phillip Fraas
November 13, 2006

The results are in for all but a handful of races in the House of Representatives; and the voters gave control of both the Senate and the House to the Democrats. What does that mean for the farm bill process, which starts in earnest in just a few months?

Background

First, it is important to keep in mind that the Senate and House agriculture committees traditionally have been as non-partisan as any committee on Capitol Hill. Their membership is dominated by farm state legislators who are not inclined to undercut any farm bill programs perceived to be of benefit to farmers, regardless who is in control.

While one will see agriculture committee members divide along party line or philosophy of government (conservative v. liberal/moderate) in areas such as the nutrition programs, forest management, or pesticide regulation, when it comes to the farm programs, the divisions tend to be regional, not party-based.

It is true that, when the Republicans swept to victory in 1994, the next farm bill, in 1996, included farm programs with less government involvement in planting decisions than in previous farm legislation. However, the new programs had been supported by farmers themselves; and when farming came under economic pressure prior to the drafting of the next farm bill in 2002 and farmers wanted a change, the Republican House joined the then-Democratic Senate in making those changes.

That said, one generally sees more Republicans than Democrats come down on the side of agribusiness and the food industry on issues such as dairy and sugar price support program. So, we might see a little shift of the balance in these areas.

Expected Fall-out from the Election Results

While the Democratic wave this year was big, it wasn't a tsunami, many of the new Democrats are moderates from rural areas, and farm policy was not a campaign issue. Thus, the switch in control of Congress can't be read as a mandate for major change in farm program policy. To the extent there was any message from voters on policy changes, it appears to relate only to the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Thus, I believe that the dynamics going into the farm bill process are pretty much the same as before the election, with just one caveat: For those seeking major reform of the farm programs in ways farmers aren't exactly clamoring for (including the Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, and food industry groups such as the sugar users), their jobs, which were an uphill struggle to begin with, just got more difficult.

Looking to who the new players will be, it shouldn't be anticipated that there will be major shake-ups at either the Senate or House Agriculture Committee.

On the Senate side, prior to the election, the Agriculture Committee consisted of 11 Republicans and 9 Demcrats. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ratio in the new Congress that starts in January to be 10 Democrats and 9 Republicans, given that the Democrats will hold only a two-vote margin (51-49). Two of the 11 Republicans lost their elections (Jim Talent of Missouri and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania); so the Republicans don't need to do anything to trim their membership. Of the 9 current Democrats, only one will be gone, Mark Dayton of Minnesota (by retirement). One could easily see the Democratic side move up to 10 with the addition of newly-elected Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri--and without even any change in state representation.

On the House side, the Agriculture Commitee before the election had 25 Republicans and 21 Democrats. And, while the election will bring in more Democrats, the relative size of the majority and minority will be roughly the same as before; the party ratios just flipped-flop from 233 Republicans and 202 Democrats to 230 Democrats and 195 Republicans (in the 10 races not finally decided, the Republicans lead in 7 of them). Thus, it could be that the committee ratio would stay the same: 25 Democrats and 21 Republicans.

For the Republicans to slim down from 25 to 21, it is already done: 4 of their members lost last week. On the Democratic side, there was one retirement and one race not called yet (John Barrow of Georgia, who leads by 900 votes with all votes counted, but who might have to endure a recount). It would not be surprising to see the Democrats who beat 3 committee Republicans seek membership on the Committee, which would fill up 3 of the 5 slots right there. Those Democrats are Jerry McNerney of California, who beat Richard Pombo; Jim Walz of Minnesota, who beat Gil Gutnecht; and Baron Hill of Indiana, who beat Mike Sodrel.

Of course, the chairman of the committee can have great influence in what goes into the farm bill just by controlling the process of drafting it. Thus, on the Senate side, it is worth noting that the chairmanship of the committee will pass from Saxby Chamblis of Georgia, known for his interest in the cotton program, to Tom Harkin of Iowa, similar known for his interest in the corn program. On the House side, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, not tied to any one commodity and not known as a fervant advocate of the traditional farm programs, will be replaced by Collin Peterson of Minnesota, a strong supporter of both the dairy and sugar programs.

One final note on committee membership: It is not untypical for members of the agriculture committees to move on to more powerful tax-writing/trade and appropriations committees when there are openings. Arguably, they can as effectively serve their farm constituents in those posts as on the agriculture committees. And, at this point, it looks as if there will be a number of open Democratic slots on these money and trade committees to be filled when the Democrats caucus in the near future. So, look for the make-up of the agriculture committees possibly to be influenced by resignations of some of their current members.

News

Election 2006 results: What they mean for the Farm Bill process

News

Environment

Topics

Recent Updates

Archives

Web Resources