No committee chair of right mind in Washington would surrender her jurisdiction to the committee of the whole and invite the writing of signature legislation on the House or Senate floor. But House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson seems to be saying lately that when it comes to the upcoming farm bill, the House floor simply has no role at all, except to approve whatever the 46 House members who make up his committee decide is right.

They'll shoot us an outline presently.

The sprawling, ominbus farm bill will be written in his committee, Chairman Peterson says, and anyone who has strong convictions about any of its important and costly components, from food stamps to trade to subsidies to conservation, ought to have gotten on his committee in the first place. Second option: pass those thoughts onto a committee member. They'll see what they can do.

What's odd about this posture is the contrast it strikes with Peterson's style to date, which harkens back, refreshingly, to legendary committee chairman Kika de la Garza, the last Democrat to hold the position 14 years ago. Instead of shutting out critics or nonfarm interest groups and fashioning policy in a tight huddle with the subsidy fraternity--in the manner of his Republican predecessors--Peterson has invited one and all to meet with him personally, and has clearly encouraged ecumenism in committee proceedings. Examine the committee's witness roster these past few months and you will see a greater diversity of viewpoints than that body has deigned to acknowledge in over a decade, with animal welfare groups, environmentalists, sustainable agriculture experts and anti-hunger organizations mixed in with farm organizations, crop subsidy lobbyists, and all manner of officials in between. Agriculture Secretary Johanns' farm bill reform ideas frosted agriculture's subsidy sector, which has hoovered up so much taxpayer money, for so long, they actually think it's theirs. Peterson received Johanns' ideas with equanimity.

All this openness doesn't amount to much, of course, if the committee fails to act on any of the ideas proposed, and the committee's word is the last word on final legislation, with no views to the contrary entertained on the House floor. Peterson has himself proclaimed more than once that some very important reforms are simply off the table--tighter payment limits, for instance, or shifts of money from one title (say, commodity subsidies) to another (conservation and nutrition).

And he has said all along that his table is the only table. He says he has the firm assurance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the farm bill will be written by his committee, not on the floor. Presumably he means that while the bill will come to the committee of the whole with an open rule that allows amendments, Speaker Pelosi will enforce caucus discipline to ensure the committee's work passes largely undisturbed; ditto for the fruits of conference.

Which raises the question on everyones' minds these days: how will Speaker Pelosi handle the pressure for farm bill reform that began mounting before the ink dried on the notorious 2002 version? After all, not a single progressive group in America supports the farm bill framework now in place, with its inequities, injustices, and misguided, wasteful spending priorities. Indeed, we have never seen so many progressive organizations actively working on farm bill reform. And they are finding they have far more in common with conservatives than they have with any farm groups, who by and large are clinging to the status quo, along with the politicians who represent them. Most of whom, naturally, are on the agriculture committee.

Will Pelosi really instruct--or tacitly signal--Democrats to approve whatever the House Agriculture Committee delivers, sometime this summer or fall? Will she discourage consideration of ideas found in the proliferation of "marker bills" that seek to tighten payment limits; shift billions out of commodity subsidies and into conservation, nutrition and rural development; give fruit and vegetable producers meaningful support; or refashion the farm safety net altogether? Will she say that when it comes to farm policy, the House has 46 members, not 435?

Is Mr. Peterson's fiat Speaker Pelosi's choice?