It’s not hoping against hope to see possibilities for reasonable people in Congress to put country above party and again work together to compromise and construct a new, five-year Farm Bill, which is being drafted this summer.

Optimism is justified despite the obvious divisiveness on Capitol Hill.

On the House Agriculture Committe, Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) has defended nutrition programs in general and SNAP in particular (although he’s opposed expansion of SNAP benefits). Instead, Thompson is focusing on crop insurance.

“The Farm bill is always bipartisan,” Thompson’s said, “At the end of the day, final votes are fairly bipartisan, and my goal is to keep it that way from the very beginning.”

In the Senate, Ag chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is working on conservation.

Also, Biden’s Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has built an informal coalition involving interests as varied as corporate giant Archer-Daniels-Midland and the grassroots-oriented Farmers Union to discuss renewable energy, sustainable production and other ideas tied to climate change, which farmers know is here, now.

Enacted about every five years, Farm Bills affect how the nation farms and eats, how we use the outdoors and our money, and how we all protect the land and rural America — where 46 million people live (14% of U.S. population).

Forecast to cost $700 billion over five years, the next Farm Bill will determine how food is grown, who has access to it and at what cost. It can seem too complex, which is how political mischief can occur.
The last recent bill, costing about $430 billion, passed in 2018 after negotiations were prolonged when conservatives attacked food stamps, and it expires Sept. 30.

Current construction

The current Farm Bill has four main types of entitlements (programs that guarantee certain benefits to a specific group): income and price-support subsidies for commodity farmers (despite most of the corn and beans covering the Midwest feed more livestock than people, or are processed for fuel or plastics), crop insurance, conservation, and nutrition (in fact, three-fourths of overall funding went to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps), which help low-income families access healthy food.

“I’m feeling less discouraged than I could be,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), who’s also on the Agriculture Committee.

Indeed, the Farm Bill also could curb greenhouse gases that farming produces. Using cover crops that store carbon would help change U.S. agriculture from a climate problem to a climate solution, according to Cathy Day from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

However, she said, Congress should increase conservation funds to encourage tree planting and shifting to grazing practices that retain soil, noting that the $20 billion for conservation from the Inflation Reduction Act was inadequate because it won’t last longer than a decade.

“If we want to see that kind of funding go forward, we need to make funding permanent rather than have it a one-off situation,” she said.

Perilous path

Bipartisanship can’t be taken for granted, naturally. The House’s notorious right-wing Freedom Caucus has held up other measures Speaker Kevin McCarthy proposed even though the group reportedly has just 46 members out of 435 seats in the chamber. (The Progressive Caucus lists 101 members.)

Common ground also could be plowed over by obstacles such as subsidies, fertilizer use, carbon pipeline funding, and the commitment to rural development.

Sugar subsidies remain a problem — for everyday consumers as well as good-government or free-market advocates. The Florida, Louisiana and Texas business interests that are Big Sugar — maybe more accurately, the Cavity Caucus or the Diabetes Lobby — face renewed opposition. But decades of blocking cheaper imports and controlling prices and quantities not only resulted in higher prices than other countries, it also gave Big Sugar more money and power to use on Capitol Hill.

But the biggest boulder blocking a level field is Big Ag’s insistence on its domination of farming — and rural America.

The first Farm Bill in 1933 was part of the New Deal, when even during the Depression struggling farmers could raise a family on 40-acre spreads with low- or no-tech labor. But within 50 years, the philosophy became “get big or get out,” and Big Ag, from Cargill and Deere to Monsanto and Staley, grew, too. So they also used their growing political and financial influence on Democrats and Republicans alike to grow even more.

“Every version of the U.S. Farm Bill contributed to industry’s grip on rural America,” said farmer and commentator Margot Ford McMillen. “Using our tax dollars, the government smoothed the way for transportation giants on rivers, railroads and highways.

“Farm bills have continued the trend to take care of industry,” she added.

Clock is ticking

So, some 10 weeks from another legislative deadline, will someone be a broker to bring together advocates who disagree? Vilsack’s USDA may be a starting point. The department is rid of Trump’s industrialist Ag Man Sonny Perdue, but Vilsack is no Henry A. Wallace (FDR’s progressive populist Ag secretary) nor a John Block (Reagan’s USDA chief who seemed to bring his Knox County, Illinois common sensibilities to Washington).

Maybe it will take someone from Illinois’ congressional delegation who can be civil if not cordial across the ideological aisle. Looking at House committee structures, where relationship-building can be more important than headline-grabbing, there are intriguing possibilities. Peoria Republican Darin LaHood serves on Ways and Means along with Chicago Democrat Danny Davis. LaHood also serves with Schaumburg Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Richwoods grad, on the Intelligence Committee.

Murphysboro Republican Mike Bost, who’s independent enough to not be in the Freedom Caucus, serves on Agriculture with Springfield liberal Democrat Nikki Budzinski, who this year said, “I want to make sure family farmers have a seat at that table when the Farm Bill is being negotiated.”

Cynics may scoff, but if it’s hopeless, what’s the point? Power and money, maybe.

However, arrogant obstructionists who seek to delay or derail a Farm Bill that could help farmers, consumers, the climate and the economy might be overconfident. It’s said when everything’s coming your way, maybe you’re in the wrong lane.