By MATTHEW D. ERNST

Missouri Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The omnibus appropriations bill signed by President Obama Dec. 15 received a mixed response from farm groups, who both declared wins and decried losses in the legislation funding government activities for fiscal year 2015.

The bill funds most government agencies, including USDA, for the next fiscal year. Farm groups applauded some increases in research funding. The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), a grant program for university research and extension education programs, received a 3 percent increase.

Farm groups also appreciated funds being maintained for USDA’s Foreign Market Development and Market Access Program, both used to promote U.S. exports abroad. But groups across the farm spectrum expressed disappointment in funding cuts for some conservation programs.

“The 2014 farm bill cut $4 billion from voluntary conservation assistance programs, or over $6 billion when accounting for sequestration. The new spending bill unveiled today piles on, taking hundreds of millions more, primarily from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program,” said Ferd Hoefner, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

In a statement, the American Soybean Assoc. said it was “disappointed in the bill’s further cuts to conservation programs on working lands,” as “these programs have been proven effective in improving soil and water health.”

The omnibus, nicknamed “CRomnibus” as it combines the Continuing Resolution that avoids a government shutdown with the annual omnibus appropriations, contains more than 100 riders. These measures, attached to the bill, are not directly related to spending legislation.

“I didn’t support everything in this bill. But an omnibus is a compromise,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.). “We were able to get rid of the vast majority of poison pill riders that were in the House bill.”

Some of the riders relate directly to agriculture policy, with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA) seen as a winner. One rider supported by NCBA instructs the secretary of agriculture to submit a report with his recommendations for any changes in the federal law required to bring the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) program into compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) guidelines. The report is due within 15 days of the appeal decision from the WTO or by May 1, 2015, whichever comes first.

“The WTO ruling on the COOL rule was very clear that this provision discriminates against our largest trading partners,” said Bob McCan, NCBA president.

Another rider supported by NCBA advises the USDA secretary not to implement an additional beef checkoff. Since the bill was signed, multiple news agencies have reported Vilsack had decided to abandon his pursuit of a second checkoff that would have been administered more directly through the USDA.

Not all the cattle industry supported the riders, said Danni Beer, president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Assoc. “The COOL and checkoff provisions in the bill do not implement any changes or weaken any of the programs; rather they are written as directives to USDA,” she said.

“Each issue should be allowed to play out through its respective ongoing process, which will allow producer input; instead, these riders will now demand additional and unnecessary government oversight and intervention.”

Meat industry riders

Much of the meat industry supported a rider blocking a USDA proposal to change the way some meat animals are bought and sold. The proposed regulations, including new language on the use of swine and poultry contracts and order buying, were released in 2010.

Most commercial livestock and meat industry groups opposed the measure, which would also prohibit packer-to-packer sales. “The components of this proposed rule hurt producers and could drastically change the way cattle are marketed in the United States,” stated an NCBA policy paper.

John Crabtree, of Nebraska’s Center for Rural Affairs, condemned the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration rider. “The 2008 farm bill required Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to write regulation, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, to prohibit undue and discriminatory preferences given to large, industrial livestock operations and to provide basic protections to farmers and ranchers who do business with meatpacking corporations,” he said.

“Secretary Vilsack proposed the best and most comprehensive livestock market reforms since the passage of the Packers and Stockyards Act.”

A less controversial policy rider bans the purchase of chicken raised in the United States and processed in China for school lunches. “Banning Chinese chicken from school meals is a common-sense step to protect our kids,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who cosponsored the amendment.

School lunch programs played a major role in the omnibus negotiations as some in Congress sought to repeal new school meal guidelines championed by the White House. The fresh produce industry viewed the result favorably, said Tom Stenzel, president and CEO, United Fresh Assoc.

“After a sometimes contentious debate over the past year, members of Congress agreed that schools should have more flexibility in certain areas such as securing whole grain products and meeting future sodium restrictions,” he said.

The School Nutrition Assoc. (SNA), which represents 55,000 school nutrition professionals, agreed. “Although well-intended, some of USDA’s rules went too far, too fast, and ended up driving students away from healthy school meals while unnecessarily driving up costs for schools,” said SNA CEO Patricia Montague.

Stenzel pointed out the results still emphasize healthy school lunches. “Congress agreed that rolling back the very modest requirement that kids get one-half cup of fruits and vegetables in their lunch would not be good policy, and would have been detrimental to achieving our shared public health goal which is to help children learn to make half their plate fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Waters of the U.S.

Opponents of the EPA’s Waters of the U.S. regulations applauded a rider that defunded an EPA interpretive rule which could have placed requirements for permits to complete normal farming practices.

“Defunding the Interpretive Rule is the first step toward making sure our farmers and ranchers can continue to carry out the basic farming and ranching activities they’ve practiced responsibly for generations,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.).

The rider only applies to a specific interpretive rule, not the broader Waters of the U.S. regulations. Opponents to “Waters” vowed to keep up their opposition. “Now, we need to focus on eliminating the Waters of the U.S. regulation completely in the new Congress,” said Hoeven.