Agricultural interests are anticipating a shakeup in policy as a result of the Nov. 3 election, both in the leadership and makeup of congressional ag committees and in a number of key agriculture and environmental programs.
One of the biggest changes comes with the defeat of Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, who lost his re-election bid for a 15th term to Republican challenger Michelle Fischbach. Peterson was first elected to Congress in 1990, and has represented Minnesota’s largely rural and agricultural Seventh Congressional District for 30 years. He was the Agricultural Retailers Association’s (ARA) Legislator of the Year award winner in 2009 and again in 2019.
“Collin has been a strong advocate for agriculture in the House and within the House Democratic caucus,” Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) President and CEO Daren Coppock told Green Markets. “But he also had a deep understanding of the issues, their history, and the machinery that makes ag policy work in the federal government – far better than most members. There are certainly some solid Democrats vying to take over the Ag Committee gavel in the House, but Mr. Peterson’s perspective and influence will be missed.”
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) also highlighted Peterson’s loss, noting that he was a member of the Congressional Fertilizer Caucus and his departure “sets up an interesting battle for the House Agriculture Committee chair.”
Peterson was the only Democrat to vote against both articles of impeachment against President Trump, and also the only Democrat invited to attend the White House signing ceremony in January (GM Jan. 31, p. 1) of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the renegotiated trade pact with Mexico and Canada that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Peterson was not averse to criticizing the Trump administration, however. In March 2019 (GM March 15, 2019), he referred to the president’s proposed 2020 budget cuts of 15 percent for USDA and 31 percent for the EPA as a “road map for how to make things worse for farmers, ranchers, and those who live in rural communities.”
Peterson’s name has been dropped as a possible contender to head the USDA under President-elect Biden. Congress will start work on the next farm bill in about a year, with the current farm bill scheduled to expire in three years.
“He was somebody who understood the details and minutiae of agricultural policy probably better than anyone in the country,” former USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Associated Press. “He was a skilled negotiator, which you need to have to get farm bills through the process.”
The retirement of Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) will also result in changes for the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. Roberts, who announced in January that he would not seek reelection for 2020, was elected to the Senate in 1996 after serving for 16 years as a Representative from Kansas.
Roberts has headed the Senate Ag Committee since 2015 and is a longtime member, gaining some notoriety for missing 130 – or 65 percent – of the 201 ag committee meetings held from 2000 to 2014, according to U.S. Government Printing Office records. Roberts also served as the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 1997.
Roberts’ Senate seat is being filled by Republican Roger Marshall, who defeated Democrat Dr. Barbara Bollier. Marshall has served as the U.S. Representative for Kansas’s First Congressional District since 2017, and is a member of TFI’s Congressional Fertilizer Caucus.
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) has been named as a likely contender for the Senate Ag Committee chairmanship, while Reps. David Scott (D-Ga.) and Jim Costa (D-Calif.) have announced plans to seek the chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee. Scott is the most senior member of the agriculture committee, and currently serves as chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit.
Some analysts have speculated that the promotion of southern congressmen to the ag committees’ top spots will result in the prioritization of crops such peanuts, rice, and cotton over the traditional Midwestern farm state focus on corn, soybeans, and dairy. Vilsack told the Associated Press that Peterson’s departure will be “particularly difficult” for the biofuels, dairy, and sugar industries, with the new leadership likely to focus on nutrition programs instead of subsidies and crop insurance.
On the policy front, several environmental initiatives implemented during the Trump administration that sought to undo Obama-era regulations are likely to see another abrupt change after Biden takes office. The changes will likely come through executive orders and new rule-making, but just what this means for the industry is uncertain because of the lengthy litigation process that will inevitably play out.
On climate change, according to Bloomberg, the new administration is expected to reinstate tougher vehicle emissions standards and direct limits on methane from the oil and gas industry, reversing Trump-era rollbacks. Biden’s team is also expected to unwind Trump’s industry-friendly Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which replaced Obama’s Clean Power Plan to reduce emissions across the power sector. The broader legal issues over what kind of climate change regulation EPA can enact under the Clean Air Act will continue, however.
The Biden administration is also expected to address which types of wetlands and waterways are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, another contentious issue that has been tied up in litigation for years. Trump’s EPA issue a much narrower definition of those waters earlier this year (GM Jan. 24, p. 1) after repealing the 2015 Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule in 2019 (GM Sept. 13, 2019).
Trump’s rule is facing multiple lawsuits in federal court, just as Obama’s rule did before, and a new round oflitigation is guaranteed if Biden officials attempt to revert to the Obama-era rule or craft their own program. Any certainty on this issue is still likely years away.
A Trump rule aimed at fast-tracking federal environmental studies is also expected to land on the chopping block under Biden, Bloomberg reported. The White House Council on Environmental Quality earlier this year finalized new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in an effort to make federal reviews faster and narrower, and exempt some federal actions from review altogether. Five separate lawsuits challenging Trump’s NEPA reforms are pending.
The new administration will also take another look at the national monuments issue, and will likely reverse Trump’s decision to shrink federal lands in the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. Trump’s move in 2017 was hailed by ranchers and industry who had complained of federal overreach during the Clinton and Obama years.
Bloomberg also noted that Biden’s 500-person transition team, announced on Nov. 9, includes “people who favor stronger government regulation than Trump – particularly for the financial and energy sectors – and greater consumer protections.” The Biden team is stocked with policy experts, academics, and former Obama administration officials, Bloomberg said, in contrast to the “industry-friendly figures” on Trump’s team four years ago, which included “people who had been openly hostile to the agencies they were charged to review.”
The anticipated regulatory whiplash has left many lawmakers fatigued and cynical. “Revolving door executive orders – with Obama issuing an order, Trump rescinding it, and Biden going back again – is not how our government should work,” Allen & Overy LLP attorney Ken Rivlin told Bloomberg. “This is not a stable approach to governing. But it may be the only way right now given the times we are in.”