The 118th Congress was limping to the finish line as the week before Christmas wound down, with lawmakers working to approve three months of patchwork funding to avoid a government shutdown. The new Congress begins its work Jan. 3.
When the members of the 118th first convened in 2023, their agenda included a new five-year farm bill, with the 2018 version due for renewal. Two years seemed like it would be enough time even for a fractured legislature to cobble together the bill, which sets important policies not just for the agriculture industry but also for anti-hunger efforts and renewable energy interests.
Alas, the House and Senate instead agreed on fewer than half as many laws as any other Congress in decades, according to States Newsroom, and no farm bill was among them. The only numerical overperformance was in the number of votes taken to select speakers of the House.
If lawmakers and Donald Trump’s new administration want to demonstrate that they can competently govern for the masses, instead of posturing for the benefit of niche audiences, a great way would be to move the overdue farm bill to the top of their list for the first half of 2025.
December farm squabble shows need for long-term thinking
The pre-Christmas bill to keep the government from shutting down was at one point held up over disputes about agriculture-related provisions. But that fight focused on pot-sweetening handouts for a few select groups, which just helps to accent the need for a holistic look at agriculture. A prepared statement from Mike Lavender, policy director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, capsulizes the problem well: “Congress cannot continue prioritizing short-term aid while shortchanging farmers’ long-term needs.”
Advocates for increased focus on conservation might view the prospect of a farm bill crafted by the new government with trepidation. But plodding along with extensions of the 2018 law is no less discouraging. Whatever the good and bad in that bill, it was conceived in wildly different circumstances. Since 2018, COVID-19 has upended livelihoods and food assistance. The markets for biofuels and biofuels byproducts has transformed. Bird flu has devastated some farms and has experts worrying about the possibility of human-to-human transmission.
And that’s just at the macro level. Iowa Capital Dispatch reported earlier this month on an Iowa lawsuit that has prompted advocacy groups to suggest farm bill provisions to clarify what uses are allowable on designated wetlands. A new farm bill that lamentably rejects pro-conservation ideas but at least responds to today’s world is probably better than an endless status quo.
The farm bill’s consequences for climate change, water quality, renewable energy and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program make it relevant to the everyday existence of most Americans. Even though negotiation over its provisions foundered in 2023 and 2024, the farm bill historically has been a haven for bipartisan work. All of this makes it an ideal place for President-elect Donald Trump and senior House and Senate Republicans to focus their time in the new year.
Because the law’s relevance is even more acute in Iowa, the state’s six-member all-GOP delegation to Congress should strive to push in that direction in their caucuses.
Bring back proposal to support climate-related conservation programs
The reported agreement on an end-of-year government-funding bill excluded $14 billion focused on climate-related ag conservation programs that some lawmakers had sought to shift from the Inflation Reduction Act to the farm bill, according to the Hagstrom Report newsletter. That’s disappointing, and the new farm bill should accept the suggestion to maintain such spending.
The free market doesn’t always reward beneficial conservation practices. In such cases, it’s justified for the government to put its finger on the scale and hand out cash. That’s good stewardship of finite resources, not reckless or anti-capitalist spending.
If new penalties are a bridge too far, at least think twice before slashing rules
The Register editorial board stands by its position described in June that the new farm bill should go heavier on penalties for contributing to environmental harms. We also acknowledge that the new Congress’ political makeup means that such an idea has zero chance of advancing.
That does not mean policy has to go backward, though. When the fervor for deregulation inevitably reaches environmental rules and farm regulations, lawmakers should resist the pressure to blithely pare back existing standards. Can the people proposing blanket rollbacks demonstrate that the rules in question are unreasonably constraining farmers and others? If not, lawmakers should retain rules and laws intended to preserve clean air and water and sustainable climates.
Farm bill is an early test of GOP leadership
“By January 1, 2025, our farmers deserve a reauthorized and improved five-year farm bill,” Rep. Randy Feenstra of western Iowa wrote on his official website this fall. While he was accusing Democrats who then controlled the Senate of not negotiating, the bottom line is this didn’t happen. Feenstra’s party will soon be calling all the shots. Republicans can focus on grievance and radical policy shifts if they wish. Or they can show they can govern by delivering a forward-looking farm bill.
Lucas Grundmeier, on behalf of the Register’s editorial board
This editorial is the opinion of the Des Moines Register’s editorial board: Carol Hunter, executive editor; Lucas Grundmeier, opinion editor; and Richard Doak and Rox Laird, editorial board members.
Want more opinions? Read other perspectives with our free newsletter or visit us at DesMoinesRegister.com/opinion. Respond to any opinion by submitting a Letter to the Editor at DesMoinesRegister.com/letters.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Farm bill poses test for GOP leaders: Make it a priority. | Opinion
