Inside D.C.

A Senator’s Senator

If, as the pundits say, politics is the art of the possible, then this week’s approval by the Senate of legislation preempting disparate state and local food labeling laws is evidence of the axiom’s underlying truth.  Sen. Pat Roberts (R, KS), the unimpeachable king of all things food and agriculture policy and politics, pulled off what two weeks ago appeared to be impossible, and he did it with great skill and no small amount of patience.

For students of political science, for those intrigued by the vagaries of congressional procedure, or for those who want to know how truly adept politicians sail controversial legislation through the rocky shoals of an election year, I commend to you the senior Senator from Kansas.  There is truly no one who does it better, with more class and a wicked sense of humor.

At issue is the need for a federal solution to an emerging patchwork of state labeling initiatives, all aimed at “informing” consumers who care whether the foods they buy contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.  It’s a bizarre issue in that both sides of the question agree agriculture biotechnology is safe and necessary to feed the planet and that a confusion of state laws is a bad idea.  Yet for some reason, the use of this particular production tool must be emblazoned across a food product label.

Roberts, recognizing the production, inventory and marketing chaos 50 different state GE labeling laws would inevitably create, came forward in April with a commonsense, purely Kansas kind of plan.  While food companies would not be compelled to label their products for the presence of GE ingredients, USDA would be given authority to create a program under which food companies could voluntarily provide various options to companies to add mechanisms to an ingredient list facilitating a consumer’s desire to know more about ingredients, particularly if they were curious if said ingredients were GE.  The Roberts plan would give food companies two years to add scannable quick review (QR) codes, website addresses, 1-800 phone numbers, etc., giving buyers access to more ingredient information.  After two years, if an insufficient number of products carried this voluntary “disclosure,” the program would become mandatory.

However, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), the ranking member of Roberts’ ag committee, said voluntary disclosure wouldn’t cut it.  She wanted a mandatory on-label disclosure scheme, a limited number ways companies could provide information and she sought fairly overproscriptive limits placed on how USDA would develop and implement the plan.  So adamant was the Michigan lawmaker, that she led the revolt on the Senate floor which scuttled Roberts’ first attempt at Senate passage.

There followed nearly three months of intense and sometimes frustrating negotiations between Roberts and Stabenow, initially dominated by Roberts offering modifications to his original plan, with Stabenow reacting to Roberts offers.  Finally, Roberts’ patience ran out, he demanded she provide him her legislative wish list in the form of bill language.  When she finally came through with language, a deal was cut in just a few weeks.  The “Roberts-Stabenow agreement” came with a single string – Roberts would deliver at least 45 Republican “aye” votes, while Stabenow would deliver up to 20 Democrats, more than enough to get past the magic 60 votes needed to get the bill to final passage.

After the agriculture/food industry coalition delivered a letter praising the Roberts-Stabenow agreement to the full Senate last week, a missive signed by nearly 1,100 national, state and local associations, as well as hundreds of food companies, Roberts had a big political club in an election year with which to very persuasive.   In the end, both veteran lawmakers were good to their word.  The procedural vote earlier this week to move to a cloture vote passed 68-29, the cloture vote was approved 65-32, and the bill was finally approved 63-30.

Roberts played good faith political broker to get his bill approved.  He put up with the conservative members of his party claiming the bill went too far, or with members with parochial political goals unrelated to the very clear purpose of avoiding labeling confusion in the marketplace.  Stabenow’s road was no easier, as she contended with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Pat Leahy (D, VT) anxious to save home state labeling bill that went into effect July 1, and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D, OR) who tried to convince the Senate that mandatory front-of-package GE labeling was the way to go.

For Roberts, the approval of his GE labeling bill represented “the most important vote for agriculture in 20 years,” Farm Bills included.  For Stabenow, she acknowledged weeks of “rough and tumble” negotiations.

The House takes up the Senate bill next week.  GOP leadership is on board.  For the rest of them, I’d suggest a serious study of the Roberts-Stabenow process.  It’s a necessary reminder how things can get done in Washington, DC.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


 

Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!