INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Given the fact the last two federal farm bills each passed at least a year after originally intended, it’s no surprise the U.S. House Agriculture Committee is telling theAmerican Farm Bureau (AFB) it is going to try to draft a first version of the 2018 farm bill during Congress’ August recess this year.

 

Mary Kay Thatcher, senior director of Congressional Relations for AFB, thinks the committee may start on that draft, at least, during its recess. That’s why now is the time for the national farm group – with input from state chapters, including a large number of policy resolutions Indiana Farm Bureau (IFB) proposed that AFB has adopted – to put forth its “wish list,” since there will likely be spending

cuts.

IFB President Randy Kron said one of his first Farm Bureau roles was policy development, and it’s his goal for IFB to be the most effective advocate for agriculture in the state.

The agency hosted an ag policy outlook in Indianapolis on June 27 to go over AFB priorities for the 2018 farm bill and touch on trade agreements, risk management tools, regulatory reform, rural broadband and other state-level concerns of farmers.

Thatcher, a corn, soy and cow-calf farmer in Iowa, talked at an IFB ag policy outlook last week about likely Congressionaj strategies in drafting and voting for the farm bill over the next 15 months (the current bill expires in September 2018).

As in the past, nutrition titles including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, what used to be food stamps) make up 76 percent of the current $489 billion, five-year farm bill enacted in early 2014.

Thatcher said conservation and commodities payments each make up about 7 percent of what has been paid out and another 9 percent of spending is the government’s share of crop insurance premiums. On average, 62 percent of a farmer’s premium is paid through this and 38 percent, by the farmer.

There are a number of variables at work in negotiating a farm bill. One question  conservatives often bring up is whetherto split the bill into two – one for farming and the other for nutrition. Thatcher said the thought is that deeper spending cuts could more easily be made to each such bill than to the combined farm bill.

Tactically, she said it’s better for farmers, who are in the minority, to continue to throw their lot in with the nutrition assistance spending because there are only 34 Congressional districts in the country with more than 50 percent rural constituents – but there are 55 districts with none at all.

She said those 55 legislators would be unlikely to vote in favor of a farm-only bill. Also, she said anyone who has the perception the bulk of food assistance funds are going to urban areas is wrong, so rural populations do depend on both parts of the farm bill as it stands.

 

Legislators supporting each side – farmers and assistance recipients – may eye possible cuts that can be made to the other’s programs. While SNAP is a perennial target, commodity loss payments and crop insurance, commonly called subsidies, are also under scrutiny.

Thatcher said a charge critics of the farm bill level at it is “bait and switch,” because commodity loss payments rose to fill in the gap when direct payments went away.

But, she said, that’s how loss programs are supposed to work. If a farmer loses enough of a crop, protection was built into the farm bill to help them. On top of this, farm income has dropped by about 46 percent from its record-high level just a few years ago and is projected to be down another 8 percent this year.

As a result, spending on these things has gone up. Compared to recent figures Thatcher cited above, in 2014 the USDA Economic Research Service had projected that 80 percent of the five-year farm bill funds would be spent on nutrition; 5 percent on commodities; 8 percent on crop insurance; and 6 percent on conservation.

“In addition to lower prices … Mother Nature kind of threw us a curve ball this year,” Kron said of strange weather, adding he has corn tasseling, as well as corn that’s waist-high and only a foot high – the punchline, of course, is “it’s all in the same field.”

Another big shift for the farm bill since 2014 is the introduction into the House of the Freedom Caucus. In 2014, as now, there was a Republican majority in the House. But two years ago, Thatcher explained nine GOP lawmakers founded this caucus because they didn’t think their party was conservative enough –including on spending cuts.

Membership in the invitation-only Freedom Caucus is now 30, she said, which changes the compromise dynamic from simple “Democrat vs. Republican” to “Democrat vs. Republican vs. Freedom Caucus Republican.” A simple majority of 218 votes needed to pass a farm bill may be more difficult to reach this time.

Other topics Thatcher spoke briefly about include fixing the Milk Protection Program; addressing possibly more disaster aid for livestock producers since their insurance liabilities are increasing (especially for beef); Conservation Reserve Program acreage cap and rental rates; what size the Farm Service Agency loan program should be; increasing availability of broadband internet to rural areas; and how cotton will be addressed in this farm bill compared to 2014 concessions made to a World Trade Organization ruling on subsidies.