The Farm Bill Again? Already?

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 16:21:23 PM PST

Collin Peterson is for a Home Grown Economy?

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 13:35:30 PM PDT

In my role as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I've emphasized the importance of the growing markets for organic, locally grown and sustainable agriculture as exciting new opportunities in agriculture," Peterson said.

Umm, you have? That's news to me, Mr. Chairman. Oh how I wish I could make it to Collin Peterson's "Home Grown Economy 2010 - Equipping You to Build Community Based Food Systems" conference. Too bad I'll be in New Orleans drunk off my ass at Mardi Gras at another conference. If Peterson is so into community based food systems, then why was he so NOT into funding the Community Food Projects competitive grant program in the last farm bill?

The Latest on the Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 10:51:44 AM PDT

I realize there are some folks on our side who wouldn't mind seeing this bill gutted. When you have one-size-fits-all legislation that could be harmful to small farms, having provisions removed from the bill by Big Ag might simultaneously weaken the bill's effects on Big Ag while helping small producers (by preventing them from being subject to the bill's provisions that were written and intended for Big Ag). If Peterson does anything that helps us, it won't be intentional. It would just be a lucky accident.

Peterson will likely remove the provision in the bill allowing the FDA to quarantine geographic areas after the discovery of a food safety problem. I would be VERY HAPPY to see that provision removed from the bill. Peterson wants to keep the FDA off the farm - which, to be honest, I wouldn't mind at all - but it seems that some provisions will stay in the bill, like a requirement for farms to keep records and perhaps even the ability of the FDA to demand farm records. I'd also like to see them remove the part of the bill where they tell farmers how to grow and harvest food.

The best parts of the bill (the ones we most need to keep IN the bill) are the increased FDA inspections for food manufacturers and warehouses (and the $500 user fees to pay for them), the FDA's ability to view records during inspections and during food safety outbreaks, the FDA's authority to mandate a food recall, the requirement for high risk facilities to test for pathogens and send positive results to the FDA, and the punishments for breaking the law. It doesn't seem that the Ag Committee won't remove any of those provisions. If you want to call the House Ag Committee to ask them to pass the bill quickly and to keep the most vital parts of the bill intact while removing the parts that could be problematic for farmers, their phone number is 202-225-2171 and their fax is 202-225-8510.

Additionally, the Western Organization of Resource Councils asks us to call our representatives (and/or the Ag Committee phone number I provided above) and:

urge them to support language in the Managers Report to the House on H.R. 7249 that

1.    Draws a bright line definition around small local food system producers and processors,
2.    Ensures that fledgling local food producers and processors are not saddled by excessive registration, fees, and recording-keeping requirements.

Collin Peterson Threatens Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

The bill is currently sitting in the Ag Committee, giving Peterson power to block its passage unless his demands are met. According to Congressional Quarterly:

Peterson is acting on behalf of agriculture groups that say a broad food safety overhaul would put "burdensome" regulations on certain food producers. They complain the bill does too little to reduce impacts on smaller family-owned farm operations.

Representatives from the Farm Bureau Federation, American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Farmers Union and other groups told Peterson's panel about their concerns related to user fees, food safety plans, recalls and record-keeping policies outlined in the legislation.

The idea that Peterson is acting on behalf of small farms is 100% bogus, but if he happens to do anything to benefit them, I'll be happy. However, it would be an enormous shame to see the necessary parts of this bill that regulate large food producers get watered down.

Colin Peterson on the Waxman-Markey Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:03:55 AM PDT

During the House debate, the bill was introduced into the House Energy & Commerce committee (chaired by Waxman, whose name is on the bill) and was substantially weakened before passing out of that committee. Then Collin Peterson got his environment-hating claws on it, and he worked out a compromise that allowed the bill to pass the full House. In the end, Peterson voted FOR the bill but many Ag committee members did not. It was in the aftermath of that that he went on the radio show AgriTalk on July 2.

Peterson said that he was happy with what he accomplished but it was not a perfect bill. He thinks that the Senate will water it down quite a bit more because rural states each have 2 Senators, just like the more urban states do, and therefore rural areas have more power in the Senate compared to the House. He said that perhaps the global warming part of the bill will be entirely dropped in the Senate, leaving us with a bill that only deals with energy (and added that that wouldn't "hurt [his] feelings" if it happened).

He said that if you asked him a month ago whether the bill would go to the President's desk by the end of the year, he would have said no. But now he's not so sure. He also said that if the current House version of the bill was going to be voted into law, he'd vote no. That's pretty significant. The bill only passed by 7 votes, so he is basically saying that it would NOT pass in its current form if it was the final vote to send it to the President.

Probably the most interesting point he made was that a recent court ruling decided that the EPA had to regulate carbon as it was a health hazard. Therefore, if Congress does NOTHING, the EPA is going to regulate carbon no matter what. The bill will essentially stop the EPA from doing whatever they would do on their own and instead give them specific instructions based on whatever Congress wants. It sounds to me like the environment would be better off if the EPA were left in charge and if Congress kept its nose out of it, but the risk is that we'll have a future President like George W. Bush who appoints, say, a coal lobbyist (or similar) to head the EPA. In that case, it will be nice to have a law in place from Congress that sets the rules for carbon regulation. Peterson, of course, is very much opposed to leaving the EPA in charge.

In other words, he admitted his own weakness here. He can hold up this bill all he wants, but in the end, ANY bill is going to be better (to him) than letting the EPA decide how to regulate carbon on its own. So really, Peterson's in a bad place to negotiate from. It's amazing that they let him have so much power so far. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I'd say "Fine Collin. Then we'll have no bill and the EPA will regulate carbon. How will you like that. You won't? OK, well here's the alternative. You play by my rules."

The most amazing part of the interview was towards the end, when Peterson said that he has grandchildren, and this bill is for his grandchildren. He had expressed interest in eliminating the need for Middle Eastern oil as a national security measure, so is that what he is doing for his grandchildren? Or does he actually see a need to save the planet? For most of the interview he spoke about how much he wanted to throw a wrench in any and all efforts to help the environment. If that's what he thinks he's doing for his grandkids, well, that's not a very grandfatherly thing to do.

Farm Bureau confident climate change bill going nowhere

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF director of public policy, tells Agriculture Online that Farm Bureau doesn't anticipate the massive climate change bill passed by the House last week to pass the Senate this year.

And the New York Times reported Tuesday that opposition from Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups threatens to kill the bill in the Senate. The Times reports that groups such as AFBF wield greater clout in the Senate, because members there must be protective of an entire state, rather than a small congressional district.

Here are the links to the Agriculture Online piece and the New York Times article.

You may recall that the Farm Bureau Federation lobbied members of the U.S. House to vote for Collin Peterson's lousy amendments to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act but against the bill intended to address climate change.

I have my own problems with the ACES bill, especially the deals made to appease the coal industry and Peterson's colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee. That said, the objections big agribusiness and their Congressional allies have raised against the cap-and-trade approach are off-base and short-sighted.

It wouldn't surprise me if Farm Bureau's vote-counter is correct and the Senate rejects the Waxman-Markey bill for the wrong reasons. Frankly, that might be better than letting senators like Claire McCaskill make this flawed bill even worse.

Waxman & Peterson Have a Deal (and I Have a Cow)

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 22:16:48 PM PDT

Now, people talk a lot about a third political party in America. We don't need a third party, we need a first party. You go to the polls and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bail out or the guy who voted for the next ten. This week we're hearing that a public option for health care is unlikely because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy's plan - Ted Kennedy, yeah - leaves 37 million uninsured. This is because we don't have a left and a right party in this country anymore - we have a center right party and a crazy party. And over the last thirty-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.

So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture, and the pharmaceutical lobby - that's the Democrats. And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat earthers, and Civil War re-enacters who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans - and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal! I know he's not, because he's on TV, and while I see Democrats on television, I don't see actual liberals. And if occasionally you get to hear Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Dennis Kucinich, they are treated like buffoons. OK, these are not three of the world's most charismatic men, but then nobody's going to confuse Newt Gingrich for Zac Efron and I have to look at his fat face on TV more often than that free credit report song.

Shouldn't there be ONE party that unambiguously supports cutting the military budget, a party that is straight up in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, legalizing pot, and steep, direct, taxing of polluters. These aren't radical ideas. A majority of Americans are either already for them or would be if they were properly argued and defended. And what we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats - because bottom line: Democrats are the new Republicans.

About the steep, direct taxing of polluters... wanna know why we are going for this cap and trade nonsense? Because of Wall Street. They see an opportunity to make money on this by creating a new market for carbon. And because you can easily water down a cap and trade system by giving out free credits to pollute or allowing easy ways to get allowances for sequestering carbon. You know, we aren't working towards fixing the problem if we're rewarding people for sequestering carbon that was going to be sequestered anyway.

Here's what CQ has to say about the Waxman-Peterson deal:

Their agreement would put the Department of Agriculture, rather than the EPA, in charge of special projects to reduce emissions in rural areas - for example, by planting trees on farmland.

"We will seek guidance from the administration to figure out the appropriate role for the EPA," Waxman said.

They will also add language to halt an EPA proposal, disliked by farm groups, to measure the greenhouse gas emissions that might indirectly result if more farmland is used for growing biofuel stock. They said the proposal would be on hold for five years pending a scientific study and consultation with federal agencies and Congress.

Both changes are likely to anger environmental groups, who say that EPA has superior expertise in these areas. But, Waxman said, "I think we will hold the environmentalists."

Bottom line: The American people are getting screwed on this one. And I need somebody smarter than me to analyze whether or not this lousy bill is actually better than the status quo and thus worth our support, or if it's just going to institutionalize legal polluting in the name of combating global warming. I think it's disgusting that this is the situation we're in and that the rich assholes who control our country are seriously more interested in short term profits over the longterm survival of the human race.

House Ag Chair Peterson Talks About Food Safety, NAIS, Cap & Trade, and Subsidies

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

Does Collin Peterson Have Any Words Beyond "Stupid" and "Dumb" in His Vocabulary?

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 09:00:00 AM PDT

As for Obama's idea... it's stupid, and it isn't. The idea to take away direct payments from rich farmers? Good idea. The specific way Obama wants to do it? Stupid idea. (This is just KILLING me that I am agreeing with Collin Peterson!)

Farmers get payments in a few different ways. One way is a subsidy when prices fall below what the government thinks is fair. One way is a payment for conservation practices. The third way - and the way we're talking about - is a "direct payment." Direct payments don't go to everybody, but in general if you've been growing corn (or any commodity) on your land for years and years, you'll get a check automatically every year that is based on a running average of your past yield and the crop you grow.

Now, if we're talking about taking away direct payments from a farmer who makes $500,000 in NET INCOME (revenues less costs), I'd be OK with that. I'd be thrilled actually. What are we doing giving government payments to a guy making $500,000? But that's not what Obama's talking about if I'm understanding things right.

What Obama wants to do is cut off the direct payments from anyone who makes more than $500,000 in gross sales. So you sell over $500k of corn and we take away your payments - even if you have $600k in costs? How's that fair? Or helpful? Now you've got one more farmer who can't afford to continue farming. How's that good for any of us? We need farmers or else we won't have any more food.

Here's where I have a hunch Sen. Peterson and I differ. He'd probably say that my idea to cut off direct payments from farmers who are making a lot in NET INCOME "stupid" too. After all, he already called me "dumb" for buying organic food.

Meet Your Leaders: Collin Peterson

by: OrangeClouds115

Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 19:00:00 PM PDT

Collin Peterson is important to us because he chairs the House Ag Committee. He had a LOT of power over this past farm bill. Unfortunately he's a "Bush Dog Dem" - a Dem who votes with Bush all the time. And he called people who buy organics "dumb." Thanks, Collin.

Contact Information
DC: 202-225-2165 (phone); 202-225-1593 (fax)

District Offices: 218-847-5056 (Detroit Lakes); 218-253-4356 (Red Lake Falls); 320-235-1061 (Willmar); 507-537-2299 (Marshall); 320-269-8888 (Montevideo); 507-637-2270 (Redwood Falls)

Chief of Staff: Mark Brownell
Scheduler: Cherie Slayton
Legislative Director: Robin Goracke
Press Secretary: Allison Myhre

Congresspedia entry on Collin Peterson