Inside D.C.

Putting producers first — where they belong

Cruising through next week’s schedules for both House and Senate Agriculture Committees, I was taking in details of the Senate ag panel’s February 24 hearing on Farm Bill implementation, and was immediately struck by a something a bit “off” on the agenda.  The first witnesses from which the full committee will hear is a producer panel, four farmers representing crops and livestock from Kansas, Michigan, Georgia and Iowa.  Then the committee will hear from committee ranking member Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) and then from Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

Big whoop, you say.  Well, in the world of congressional protocol and Washington, DC, status, the symbolism is major. The order of appearance of witnesses at a House or Senate hearing has always been as follows:  First up, members of Congress; second, ranking members of the Administration, and last, members of regulated or affected industry, advocates and the general public. This made for some long days if you covered a hearing to hear what the farmers and ranchers had to say.

The spotlight on farmers and ranchers at the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, while mainly symbolic, is pure Pat Roberts, the senior Senator from Kansas and chair of the ag panel.  It’s part of his “producers first” philosophy that is guiding his chairmanship.

Roberts told Agri-Pulse this week – the first of several interviews he’s doing  prior to next week’s hearing – “I wanted to show farm country that we (the committee) value their opinions and want to be responsive to them.  We want results.  I think too many times they (farmers and ranchers) feel that basically that’s just not happening…that they don’t have a voice in Washington.”

Bravo, Chairman Roberts.

I’ve been a reporter, editor and lobbyist in Washington for a long time. I can remember as a 20-something reporter having the solid impression no member of Congress or the Administration would even contemplate giving production agriculture a backseat on any issue.  Ag was a force to be reckoned with; every politician wanted agriculture as a friend, never an enemy.  I saw time and again if agriculture united for or against an issue, it usually prevailed.

However, as the number of full-time farmers dropped and the number of House and Senate members who truly understand production agriculture declined to a precious few, so did the public priority on farmers and ranchers.  Couple this with the rise of anti-agriculture activism, and the spotlight on food and agriculture policy shifted from farmers to the foodies, the animal rightists, the environmentalists and “consumer” group because they had the more effective media machine and no shame about using it.

Perhaps the balance is shifting back toward the producer as folks understand the simple truth:  No farmers, no food.

While the interview goes on to detail Roberts’ priorities for the committee and his zeal to ensure he’s on top – and involved directly in – areas outside his panel’s jurisdiction which directly impact producers, the symbolic move to prioritize the views of farmers at next week’s hearing speaks volumes.

During the November, 2014, election when Roberts’ campaign looked like a case study in how not to run for reelection, I feared the man might not return.  I knew if Pat Roberts, Marine vet, former journalist, lost reelection, agriculture would arguably lose its biggest champion and protector in Congress.  When the dust settled, Roberts was reelected, and in short order, simultaneously became the only member of Congress to chair both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and the only member to sit as ranking member on both ag panels.

Other members of Congress, I’m sure, carry the same philosophy as Roberts, but I’ve not seen anyone put action behind the philosophy like Pat Roberts.  Too many pay lip service; too few act.