Democrats divided as House takes up farm bill

WASHINGTON -- A multibillion-dollar farm bill has sparked an internal Democratic fight pitting the party's new crop of farm-state centrists against its traditional urban base.

Fearful of losing her fragile majority in 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is siding with subsidy-seeking moderates -- including many freshmen from conservative-leaning rural states -- putting her at odds with environmental activists who want bigger changes.

Pelosi and other top Democrats, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, once backed an approach that steered money to conservation and nutrition programs and substantially pared back commodity payments. They have drastically scaled down those goals in a measure headed to the House floor Thursday.

Instead, they've endorsed a measure that would keep large subsidies intact for major commodities like rice, cotton and corn. It would cut aid only for the wealthiest farmers -- those with annual incomes averaging $1 million or more -- something Pelosi called "a critical first step toward reform."

The speaker and the powerful farm interests with whom she is allied are facing a fight, however, from an unlikely coalition: liberal Democrats and conservative GOP budget hawks. They are staging a revolt against the bill and seeking deeper subsidy cuts for a wider swath of farmers.

Under the plan by Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., anyone earning an average $250,000 or more would be barred from collecting farm payments. That's closer to President Bush's proposal for an income cap of $200,000. It would also steer more money toward conservation, aid for specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, and nutrition and rural development programs.

"Current farm bill policy has really resulted in large subsidies going to a few but very large and, quite frankly, very wealthy entities," Kind said, dismissing the legislation headed for the floor as token reform. "We think that there is a better way."

'A lone ranger'

Kind's effort, which he said could cost $13 billion less, has exposed deep rifts among Democrats and inspired bitter feelings among farm-state lawmakers who argue it would devastate agricultural programs and cost the party its newly won majority.

"He's a lone ranger on this, and he's dividing the caucus, and I don't appreciate it," said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., clearly angry at the prospect that a fellow Democrat could upset a painstakingly forged compromise he crafted with substantial input from Pelosi.

It's not clear whether Kind, who came close to winning adoption of a similar proposal in 2002 -- with support from Pelosi and Hoyer -- has the votes to prevail when he offers his amendment this year.

If he does, though, said Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., who is helping lead the fight against the rival plan, "it destroys the whole [farm bill], and it will be tragic, not just for farm policy but for the party. It will be a wedge that we can't drive out, and it will land us in the minority."

Farm bills, perennial affairs on Capitol Hill, are always a matter of regional alliances and crop-specific horse-trading that defy partisan lines or traditional ideological coalitions.

This year's measure has ignited a particularly bitter debate, highlighting broader conflicts among Democrats that echo the party's dilemma on the Iraq war. There, too, Pelosi has had to steer a careful course between the swing-district moderates who helped bring her to power and an ardently anti-war base that has pushed for an immediate troop withdrawal and funding cutoff. The latter group is her traditional source of support.

In the case of the farm bill, Pelosi pushed for some major changes considered anathema to powerful farm interests, such as the bar on subsidies to those making $1 million or more and a new measure to prevent farmers from collecting payments for multiple agricultural businesses. The measure includes a new $1.6 billion infusion for specialty crops, much to the chagrin of commodity-producer interests.

"We have made changes that nobody thought would ever be made," Peterson said, adding that one leadership aide had told him, "It's not as much as we wanted, but, frankly, it's more than we ever expected out of the [Agriculture] Committee."

But Pelosi also signaled early on that rural-state freshmen's interests would be protected, seating nine of them on the Agriculture Committee and insisting that they be included in crafting the measure.

It's the only politically prudent strategy for this year's measure, said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who is fighting to defeat Kind's amendment.

When Democrats fell from power in the early 1990s, "we lost those swing rural districts. The success of our comeback is in part because we've had greater success in those areas, which gives rural concerns a larger voice in our caucus," Pomeroy said. "That has to be reflected in this bill."

Democratic critics argue instead that their plan would help more farmers in the vast majority of congressional districts, including the first-termers'.

"There are a lot of people who have a lot of vested interests in all of this, so this is for keeps. It's spirited," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., a Kind supporter.

This week is only the beginning of the struggle. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the Agriculture Committee chairman, called Kind's measure "a little bit too much, too soon, and I don't think it would get very far in the Senate."

Harkin's panel will consider farm legislation in September, he said, adding that he hopes to include payment limits "a little tougher" than those in the House bill.