By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH

Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Commodity and farm-related organizations are giving mixed reviews to the 2018 farm bill markup recently approved by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee.

The Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (House Resolution 2) could be introduced on the full House floor as early as next week, according to Congressional observers. The legislation was passed out of committee April 18 by a 26-20 party-line vote – all Republicans on the committee voted for it and all Democrats voted against it.

The Senate is expected to release and begin markup on its draft of a farm bill later this month. The current farm bill expires on Sept. 30.

Committee members had partisan disagreement on some proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including a provision requiring certain able-bodied recipients aged 18-59 to work or receive career training for 20 hours a week to qualify. Republicans favored the change while Democrats did not.

Nutrition funding, including SNAP, accounted for about 80 percent of the 2014 farm bill budget, according to the USDA.

Representatives of the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) and the National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA) have concerns about provisions of the House measure, but are happy to see progress on a bill.

“I was concerned they wouldn’t get started on it,” said John Heisdorffer, ASA president. “I don’t like that it’s not bipartisan. Beforehand, I heard them talking about how bipartisan it was going to be; they couldn’t even get out of the starting gate.”

The NCGA also wishes the bill had bipartisan support in the committee, said Sam Willett, its senior director of public policy. “For the House committee to do what it did, that’s the first step in a marathon,” he explained.

“Last spring, House committee officials met with agricultural economists, commodity and national farm groups to discuss the state of the industry. It was a chance to present ideas and recommendations.”

The bill eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) while incorporating some of its features into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Funding for EQIP is set at $3 billion annually. The bill also increases the number of acres for the Conservation Reserve Program from 24 million to 29 million.

“I’m concerned they took away funding for CSP,” Heisdorffer said. “I think CSP has been a good program. It’s one of those programs not everyone is in, so maybe it’s easier to do away with it and save that money. But I’m not sure all that savings will go back into conservation.”

Willett thinks corn growers will be pleased with the increase in spending for EQIP. Potential changes could give producers administrative relief and simplicity, he noted. He is concerned about the long-term availability of money for conservation and working lands.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA) asked producers for their thoughts on changes in the conservation title, said Allison Cooke, NCBA executive director of government affairs.

“There are certain parts of CSP they don’t prefer,” she explained. “They do prefer EQIP. One thing they don’t like about CSP is they can only re-up twice and then you’re out. They did increase EQIP dollars. Overall, we support the conservation title.”

Under the bill, four programs – Market Access, Foreign Market Development, Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops and Emerging Markets – will be consolidated into the International Market Development Program. The bill calls for funding of $255 million annually.

Funding at current levels for the marketing programs was a top priority for NCGA, Willett said.

“These programs are extremely important to corn growers and other commodity producers,” he noted. “They allow us to leverage dollars to expand exports overseas. We do advocate for resources to be added to get a bigger bang for every buck.”

The NCBA doesn’t see a problem with consolidating the marketing programs and is pleased they are funded, Cooke said. “The House passed a bill trying to find ways to consolidate programs,” she said. “We’ll see what the path forward looks like.”

‘Do a lot more’

The National Farmers Union (NFU) has several farm bill recommendations it says are necessary to help farmers and ranchers. The list includes an increase in Price Loss Coverage reference prices to improve the farm safety net and offset potential trade retaliation; providing dairy farmers with enhanced price supports and a mechanism that manages the nation’s milk inventories to meet market demand; and providing an incentive-based working lands conservation program that promotes improved stewardship.

“(The bill) is just not there yet,” said Rob Larew, NFU senior vice president of public policy and communications. “Our members are very opposed to the bill in its current form.”

The measure is revenue-neutral, meaning no additional funding is available. The lack of additional money has hurt the ability of legislators to write a farm bill, he said.

“The needs are pretty big,” Larew noted. “The (House and Senate agriculture) committees from the very start were hamstrung on what they could do. I’m not going to say they didn’t do anything good with what they had, but we’re going to need them to do a lot more.”

The House bill would have a “severe and long-lasting negative impact” on American farmers and ranchers, said Wes King, policy specialist for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“By eliminating their funding – and in the case of the Conservation Stewardship Program, erasing the program altogether – the bill would take away conservation, local food, rural business development and organic agriculture programs that play key roles in supporting the American farm economy.”

Willett said he hopes the disagreement over SNAP won’t delay a new farm bill. “(Having a farm bill) by October 1 is ambitious, but not impossible,” he noted. “But it is a bit of a heavy lift.

“It’s an election year and what typically happens is (legislators) may depart earlier in the month of August to return to their districts. It’s complicated. We’re in an election year and there are always political considerations.”

Senate Agriculture Committee leaders have said they intend to release a bipartisan package.