Politics unavoidable part of Farm Bill talks

Bill Knight column for Sept. 13, 14 or 15, 2018

The Capitol Hill conference committee assigned to try to reconcile differences in two versions of a new Farm Bill is made up of representatives whose districts both rely on food stamps and also get substantial government payments, so their presence may be at least as self-serving as responsive to constituents.
Hopefully, that works in favor of everyday farmers and rural communities, but in some ways it's a dangerous game.
The current Farm Bill expires Sept. 30, and the House and Senate passed vastly different versions of a replacement measure, versions with significant variations -- especially from the less-bipartisan House.
The House's Farm Bill would eliminate provisions to help locally produced foods, the Energy Title, and public comments on logging projects; would reduce conservation spending by $1 billion and de-fund the Rural Development Program; would ban local and state rules on agriculture or food production if sales are made in other states; would permit toxic chemical use even if that threatens endangered species or is dumped into rivers; and would stiffen work requirements for eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP -- food stamps).
The Senate's version would prohibit non-farmers from receiving commodities subsidies.
"In order to be successful in passing a final bill, the conference committee must put politics aside and focus on the needs of our farmers, families and rural communities," said U.S. Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) in a joint statement.
That's easier said than done by elected officials who always seem to have a knack for career self-preservation.
U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Moline) summarized the challenge.
"We have a House bill that barely passed [213-211]; it's not a very good bill," she told the Monmouth Daily Review Atas. "The Senate bill was voted for 86-11."
She's one of three members of the conference committee from Illinois' Congressional delegation, whose presence seems pretty political. Besides Bustos, the group includes U.S. Reps. John Shimkus (R-Effingham) and Rodney Davis (R-Decatur). It has 29 Republicans and 18 Democrats from the House, and six Democratic and five Republican Senators.
Bustos' district has 53,549 households getting food stamps and $85,811,000 in federal payments to farmers. Shimkus' numbers are 38,147 SNAP households and $155,644,000 in government payments; Davis' numbers are 37,024 households and $53,882,000 in payments -- all according to AgCensus data from the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reported that farmers' expenses are up dramatically, so attention is needed. Improvements and construction costs were up 48.8 percent between 2016 and last year, the data shows, and expenditures for tractors and machinery was up 34.3 percent over that 12-month period.
"This is only the second time in history that Congress has considered a Farm Bill while  Republicans control both the executive and legislative branches," commented agriculture researcher Margiana Petersen-Rockney. "The result is a bill that serves Washington's fattest wallets and most special interests.
"Its goal can be summed up as: Deregulate the rich and police the poor," she continued.
Steve Holmer of the American Bird Conservancy added, "This usually bipartisan and non-controversial bill currently being debated is in jeopardy. Harmful provisions weakening protections for endangered species and public lands have been added, making the bill a threat to conservation instead of being its greatest benefactor."