And so the final battle begins...
Saying he was a "happy man," and likening the Farm Bill process to "passing a kidney stone," Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA), chair of the Senate Ag Committee and chair of the 2008 Farm Bill conference, joined his House counterpart Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) in declaring this week "we have a deal."
While not quite approaching the same level as the selection of a pope, the internal politics and the regional tug-of-war within this process is going to stand for a long time as probably the most frustrating Farm Bill process ever.
While he smiled and said all the right things -- and even put out a press release saying all the rights things -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA), was obviously the reluctant bridesmaid at this week's ceremony. He's previously said he'd withhold his support until he saw the bill in writing and knew the official cost, but as a good and loyal ag soldier, he did his duty at the public press conference. He was echoed throughout the day by other House members -- generally those getting a big chunk of the Farm Bill spending pie.
Not so collegial was Rep. John Boehner (R, OH), House minority leader and former member of the House Ag Committee. Having never met a Farm Bill he didn't hate -- he's been a die-hard opponent of direct payment and support programs for years -- Boehner took the unusual step of publicly announcing he opposes the Farm Bill conference report.
It turns out Boehner was the opening act for the headliner of this evolving variety show, as President Bush late in the day May 8, confirmed what everyone in town already knew, namely he would veto the bill when it hits his desk in the next 10 days or so.
Now comes the melodrama of vote getting, deal cutting and vote counting. In order to override the veto, both chambers need to come up with two-thirds who will vote to overturn the President's veto. In the Senate, that looks to be fairly easy to do. However, the House is a totally different story.
There are several factions in the House not happy with the bill. First are the fiscal conservatives who think a bill costing $610 billion over 10 years is way too fat and way too unnecessary. The Blue Dog Democrats, part of that fiscal conservative gang, are also not crazy about the apportionment of the dollars. Then there are the reformers, those who believed this was the golden opportunity to wean farmers and ranchers off the government dole, bring the U.S. farm programs into world trade alliance compliance, and signaling a new day in food and ag policy.
Can Peterson exert sufficient pressure, charm and salemanship to win his two-thirds majority? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and her lieutenants will be marching the aisles next week, echoing the Speaker's support for the bill because it increases food stamps and other nutrition programs by $10.4 billion -- just as she demanded. You read that right -- every penny of new spending money in this bill, all those dollars over which battles were fought, friendships strained and headaches medicated, goes to nutrition programs. In fact, overall, 73% of the bill's spending goes to nonfarm items, with only 16% being spent on subsidies and farm payments.
That's actually the winning message for the House. This is not longer a Farm Bill but a new "Food Bill." And it signals the beginning of the end for traditional farm programs and their funding. (I'm excited to see what the new title of the bill is -- rumor is staff spent hours arguing over what to rename the bill once they figured out most of the money was going to food stamps.)
And if you don't believe me, just think about Peterson's comment at his press conference this week. "You know, I've never liked direct payments. I don't think they provide a decent safety net. We're going to get rid of them in the next Farm Bill."