By RACHEL LANE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal legislators continue to object to certain aspects of the 2018 farm bill.

Each chamber of Congress passed its version of the bill in July. The Senate version had relatively few changes to it, and was a bipartisan bill, whereas the House bill included mandatory work requirements to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and changes to funding for conservation programs – both issues with Democrats there.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, has said that chamber is too evenly split between Democrats and Republicans to get a farm bill without Democratic support. This makes it unlikely the SNAP work requirements will remain in the final version of the bill.

Last week, members of both houses, led by Roberts, held a public Farm Bill Conference Committee meeting to discuss progress in reconciling the differences between the two versions of the bill.

The 2014 farm bill technically ends on Sept. 30. Passing the new bill before October is still the plan, Roberts said. In recent history, the farm bill has been approved on time only once – the other times, the funding for its programs was extended by Congress until the new bill was approved.

The 2014 farm bill, for example, should have been the 2012 farm bill. This year’s is the eighth farm bill in which Roberts has been involved.

"We all have a history of working together in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to find solutions and to get farm bills done. If it was important then, it is even more so now," he said. "The goal, the responsibility, the absolute requirement is to provide farmers, ranchers, growers and everyone within America’s agriculture and food value chain certainty and predictability."

He said members of both houses worked hard but more work – and compromise – needs to be done. "We must ensure that our voluntary conservation programs are keeping farmland in operation while protecting our agriculture lands, forests and other natural resources.”

In terms of SNAP, he said program integrity and common-sense investments are needed to strengthen the nutrition programs to ensure a pathway to long-term success of those in need of assistance.

"I share the goal of promoting work and self-sufficiency among SNAP participants," he said. "We can find ways to work toward that goal by improving the program. Investments in employment and training that demonstrate success, partnerships with the private sector and more accountability can all help get folks back on the path to long-term employment."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ranking member of the agriculture committee, reminded everyone the Senate bill had support from more than 500 groups and passed with more votes than any other Senate farm bill has.

"We can give them the certainty they need – if we work together,” she said. “Chairman Roberts and I worked side by side on every part of our bill, from the commodity and conservation titles to the nutrition title, because we know that feeding people in need and helping them find good-paying jobs doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. In fact, it shouldn’t be.”

SNAP is working and costs are going down. Stabenow said the Congressional Budget Office reported food assistance programs are saving $80 billion more than initially expected because the economy is getting better and unemployment is going down. As a result, changing eligibility requirements and increasing the paperwork for individuals and state officials does not make sense.

The second safety net in the farm bill is for farmers, and Stabenow said the cost of that is going up because of drops in commodity prices, massive uncertainty on trade and serious labor challenges.

"We can all agree that our farmers should have robust risk management tools including crop insurance, and new tools for our dairy farmers," she said. "Our country doesn’t just produce a handful of crops. From corn and soybeans to specialty crops and organics, the strength of our agriculture economy is rooted in the diversity of what we grow."

The Senate bill provides more money for organic research, protects conservation tools and strengthens SNAP oversight. "We should also establish meaningful payment limits to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that only farmers who need it are receiving commodity program payments," Stabenow said.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, said it is the fifth year of recession in farm country and this is expected to continue for several more years. Farm bankruptcies are up, but the USDA projects spending on the farm safety net will actually drop significantly as the Agricultural Risk Coverage program strains under the current farm economy.

He said the farm bill should protect the crop insurance program, trade promotion, food aid programs and the commodity title, which provides the safety net for farmers and ranchers.

"I have seen no disagreement that should prevent us from completing a strong farm bill on time. Even on SNAP, I have repeatedly stressed that we are willing and able to come to consensus with the Senate," Conaway added.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the farm bill is really a food, economic development and rural broadband bill. "It’s a bill that affects everyone in the country," he said. "We need to get the farm bill done this year and provide farmers with the certainty they deserve."

He focused some of his comments on the need for conservation funding to continue targeting the best, highest-quality projects that reduce runoff and improve water quality in Lake Erie and across Ohio. The goal of the programs would support Ohio farmers by reforming the three largest conservation funding programs to protect waterways, while expanding access to quality farmland.

The Senate bill also includes the Margin Protection Program with the Dairy Risk Coverage program, which invests an additional $100 million to improve affordability, flexibility and effectiveness for Ohio dairy farmers.

Both versions of the bill include support, but no money, for a foot-and-mouth vaccine bank.