The House Agriculture Committee last night voted to approve a multibillion farm bill that would authorize substantial new increases for renewable energy projects on farmland while extending most farm conservation and crop subsidy programs.

The bill would enact upward of $250 billion in subsidies for conservation, energy, nutrition and crop subsidy programs for the next five years. The committee gave its unanimous backing and broke into applause after the final vote.

The bill is expected to see action on the House floor Thursday, according to sources in the House leadership.

Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) was able to win the backing of his committee and most major farm groups with a package that includes more money for some crop subsidies, limits for payments to very wealthy farmers, funding for the most popular conservation programs, and billions of dollars in increases for nutrition and energy programs. The bill was a delicate compromise that came as the committee was squeezed by budget constraints.

Peterson managed to keep his proposal together in committee, navigating past major amendments. By the time the committee completed its three-day markup last night, they had considered more than 85 amendments in over 30 hours of debate. Many of the amendments were fairly narrow and most were either withdrawn or accepted by voice vote. In all, there were only five roll-call votes.

One major addition came last night, when the committee broke for a closed "executive session" and then announced an agreement on country-of-origin labeling for meat products, which has been an ongoing fight for the past five years. They are including the language in the farm bill and may tack on labeling specifics for produce and other food in the next week.

"To say I am pleased would be an understatement," Peterson said of the bill at the end of the markup. "Many nights at three in the morning, I did not think we would get here.

"I think we hit a pretty sweet spot here," Peterson told reporters.

Ranking member Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said it was a "long tough road" to pull together the bill, and he hoped it could maintain bipartisan support on the floor.

The real test will be keeping the committee's vision for the farm bill together on the floor. It could face a significant challenge from lawmakers who want to see more stringent limits on crop subsidies and greater investment in nutrition and conservation programs. The committee's bill would block very wealthy landowners from conservation or crop payments, cutting off anyone with an adjusted gross income over $1 million from federal payments, but it would also raise some of the limits on individual programs.

Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), one of the most vocal advocates for a farm bill overhaul, said this week the committee did "not get to the heart of problems" with crop payments and should move more aggressively or face a challenge on the floor.

But Peterson appears unruffled. Last night, he said there is "not much there" with the opposition, adding he has not seen "any kind of coalition forming" to oppose the bill.

'No new taxes'

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who proposed an AGI cap of $200,000 and more cuts to crop subsidies, made a visit to the committee yesterday afternoon to give his "congratulations" on the work. But in remarks to reporters, Johanns said the farm bill should make "more progress" to limit the payments, and that the committee's move to raise loan rates for some crops would not "do anything to help" U.S. agriculture stave off trade challenges.

"More work needs to be done, but a lot of the process is left," Johanns told reporters.

Johanns arrived just before a flare-up among committee Republicans about how Congress will pay for offsets to increase the nutrition title. Democrats and Republicans in the committee had a tussle after Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) proposed two different "sense of Congress" amendments that stated there should be no tax increases to fund the bill.

Peterson called the amendment out of order and cut off debate, saying it was too "political" an issue. Musgrave and other Republicans objected that she should at least be given an opportunity to describe her amendment.

"I am just trying to keep this committee out of the ditch," Peterson replied. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is helping secure offsets for the nutrition title, and Peterson said it appears they will come from collections on existing taxes, not tax increases.

Johanns told reporters: "We don't support tax increases."

Musgrave came back later in the evening with a revised version of the amendment that was ruled out of order again. She forced a recorded vote on whether Peterson could cut off debate and failed in a party-line vote.

Before giving their final approval to the bill, Republicans reiterated they might turn their backs on the legislation if the spending increases in the bill are offset by tax increases. "As we go to the wider House of Representative, I have some concerns that we need to make sure the way it is paid for allows us to hang together," Goodlatte said.

Offsets still missing for conservation

An "en bloc" amendment accepted by the committee provides significant increases for nutrition programs and billions of dollars more for renewable energy programs. Peterson said he has secured offsets for those increases but not for proposed increases to conservation.

The proposal also includes the sole source of new funding for a grasslands protection program, more money for a farm easement program and funding to revive the Conservation Security Program. Peterson said it is not clear if they will ever see the light of day.

"Frankly, I don't see where it is coming from," Peterson said of conservation offsets. He noted that he also lacks offsets for one of his pet programs: disaster funding.

He said the best chance is for the Grasslands Reserve Program, which has the interest of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Peterson added that the Conservation Reserve Program has "no constituency." The program is a favorite of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who included it in the 2002 bill.

The en bloc amendment would add 5 million acres to the Grasslands Reserve Program, which would otherwise come to a halt at the end of the current farm bill since its baseline expires at the end of the year. It would also more than double the Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program, which pays farmers easements for their land.

Wage labor requirements for biofuels plants

The en-bloc amendment brings with it a nearly six-fold increase for grants and loans that help farmers start energy projects or improve energy efficiency on their farms, a new $1.5 billion bioenergy program and $2 billion in loan guarantees for biorefineries. It also includes Peterson's biomass energy reserve, a pilot program for cellulosic ethanol.

The loan guarantees for biorefineries would add a new requirement for ethanol plants to pay employees according to the Davis-Bacon act, a labor act that sets wages for federally funded or assisted construction projects. The committee had a heated debate on the requirement, after Musgrave offered an amendment to strike the Davis-Bacon requirements.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said "fewer ethanol plants" would be built with the wage mandate. But Peterson said it is not an "onerous" requirement, since the sophisticated plants would require highly specialized labor. The Independent Electrical Contractors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups sent a letter to the committee this week opposing the requirements.

The committee approved an amendment last night from Rep. Timothy Walz (D-Minn.) that requires a study of railroad issues for the movement of renewable fuels.

The panel also voted in favor of an amendment from Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) that would set up five energy-independent farm demonstration projects in different parts of the country. Barrow said each farm would "act as an independent laboratory," where farmers or graduate students could learn more about new technologies to produce or conserve energy on the farm.

Separately, Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) withdrew an amendment that would have started a federal "Green American Energy Farm" certification program for farms that rely on manure-to-energy projects, solar or wind power. Committee members said they supported the concept but thought certification might be better left to the private sector.

The underlying bill would extend current programs for biomass research and assistance for energy production or energy efficiency on farms. It includes $1 million to study the potential for an ethanol pipeline and a provision to allow the Agriculture Department to buy excess sugar from producers, then sell it to ethanol plants. A proposal to include looking into the effect of food prices in the ethanol pipeline study was left on the cutting-room floor.