Iowa editor sees a coalition to pass Farm Bill that has more for conservation and avoids cuts in nutrition programs

By Art Cullen
Storm Lake (Iowa) Times Pilot

A new five-year Farm Bill could be one of the rare accomplishments this year from an otherwise deadlocked Congress. Talks are just beginning as House Republicans and Senate Democrats organize their respective agriculture committees. They are starting amicably enough.

Art Cullen

It was not so last time around, when the bill was delayed a couple of years, mainly by House radicals trying to burn down the food-stamp program [officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP]. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., and Ranking Member David Scott, D-Ga., both come from purple districts. Thompson is defending nutrition programs against Republican assaults, and last week brushed off suggestions of new restrictions on SNAP benefits. He did criticize a Biden administration expansion of benefits.

Thompson said his priority is to strengthen crop insurance, as half the corn growers in his state don’t buy in. He’s looking to sweeten that pot.

Senate Ag Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., puts conservation at the center of the discussion and, of course, defending nutrition program from cuts. Their common interests may result in one of the best farm bills in history for conservation and food security.

The main rap on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is that he is too cozy with agribusiness. But he managed to assemble a “climate-smart ag” coalition that includes titans like Cargill, ADM and Tyson alongside the Farmers Union and Practical Farmers of Iowa. Vilsack doled out several billion last year in pilot projects designed to promote sustainable production and resiliency, with many of those corporate players leading projects.

Critics call it greenwashing. Call it what you will. You could call it smart politics. The ag supply chain understands that change is underfoot. Farmers get that the climate is changing — if you’re growing corn in Western Kansas, you should be highly interested in how you can convert to grassland grazing.

Vilsack bringing in the corporate players helps reminds House Republicans that conservation programs might play a role in sweetening crop insurance — for example, a generous spiff for planting cover crops that actually could get something seeded.

There will be money for carbon pipelines to protect the ethanol industry, for manure digesters that interest the livestock industry, and “smart fertilizer” programs to keep Koch Industries at bay.

In return, Thompson makes kind remarks about nutrition programs. Of course, there will be a lot of rhetoric about welfare queens feeding at the USDA trough. There also will be whispers to keep a rein on it if you want to keep the climate spigot open to the big boys.

This will be Stabenow’s legacy bill, as she intends to retire. She also wields tremendous influence in energy legislation that draws the interest of these same corporate players. Michigan’s interests are in many ways Pennsylvania’s.

Vilsack has claimed that the next Farm Bill could be “transformative” for rural America through conservation and renewable energy. Armed with $20 billion for climate and agriculture in the Inflation Reduction Act, Vilsack has been deferential to Congress in marching forward. So far, the administration has taken baby steps in addressing food security and sustainable agriculture in a rapidly changing environment. You would have to squint hard to see transformation.

There is unquestionably an openness to conservation agriculture that there was not before. Thompson and his colleagues insist on voluntary programs. Regulation is their red line, as it is with the corporate lobby. Vilsack has enough sugar cubes in his pocket to keep the horses from nipping. The Farm Bill is supposed to be finished by September. It may get held up a couple months, but not a couple years. It should be good for crop insurance and conservation, and food stamps [SNAP] will get protected.

The coalition has been assembled. It’s hard to fight the most powerful players in world food markets. It is better politics at the moment to dance with them. As Thompson said, “The Farm Bill is always bipartisan, always bipartisan. At the end of the day, final votes are fairly bipartisan, and my goal is to keep it that way from the very beginning.” Go along to get along.