Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 6/11/18

As organizations analyze the farm bill's sweeping agriculture and nutrition policy, one point became clear: Representatives from anti-hunger, research, organic and local-food groups are much more on board with this legislation compared with the House's version.

Some conservative groups, including the Foundation for Government Accountability, say Senate Ag missed an opportunity to overhaul the food-stamp program to promote work at a time when the unemployment rate is so low. Those groups — and some liberal ones like the Environmental Working Group — also say both versions don't do enough to cut off wealthy individuals from receiving farm subsidies.

The Senate bill would reduce the adjusted gross income limit from $900,000 to $700,000 but it would not tighten provisions defining what it means to be "actively engaged" in farming — an assessment that determines which producers are eligible for up to $125,000 in commodity subsidies annually (couples can get double that).

This week's action: The "actively engaged" definition could be a thorny debate when the Senate Agriculture Committee meets Wednesday to mark up the farm bill. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters Friday that he plans to offer an amendment similar to one he secured during the 2014 farm bill debate but was stripped out during conference. That provision would have limited the number of farm managers eligible for subsidies.

Another amendment could be offered by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) or Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who sponsored a bill designed to make the commodity support program known as Agriculture Risk Coverage trigger additional payments — to the benefit of the majority of Midwestern corn and soybean farmers who enrolled. Those provisions didn't end up in the Senate farm bill.