Congress will likely do more to invest in ag research and protect producers as they undertake the writing of the new farm bill, Rep. Randy Feenstra said Thursday.

Feenstra, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, answered a wide range of questions regarding agriculture and trade during an interview with the Business Record Thursday afternoon. Here are some of his responses, which have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Do you anticipate additional funding being allocated to agricultural research in the new farm bill?
If we want to be on the cutting edge and if we want to add value for our producers, it really starts with research and it starts with collaboration with not only our universities but also our nonprofits with other organizations in the ag arena that we’re all working together to create more added value to that producer or farmer. China is obviously outspending us on ag research right now, and that should concern us.

How will SNAP benefits be addressed in farm bill negotiations?
Eighty percent of the dollars in the farm bill go to the SNAP program or food assistance programs, and over the last two farm bills this was a big, big topic and it will again be this time, and whether we want some requirements for those that get SNAP benefits. These are things that are going to be looked at. I look at the Midwest, and in Iowa we also have to tell our story about protecting our farmers and our producers through insurance, protecting our energy when it comes to ethanol and biodiesel. I know the SNAP program, congressional members from the East and West coasts will be all over that area, but I also think that we have to be talking about the security of our producers and making sure they are successful to feed not only our nation but the world.

How much of a challenge is it for the U.S. to get other countries to accept genetically modified crops grown in the U.S.?
U.S. agricultural innovations over the last decades have allowed farmers to increase productivity through new technologies and creating higher yields and sustainability. A lot of the world has not caught on to that yet or is concerned about that, as we see with the president of Mexico, who is really concerned and said he doesn’t want biotech or GMO corn. So myself and Sen. Joni Ernst went there and talked to them about how the corn is safe. There’s facts and figures to show this is safe and we’re hoping we get this worked out in the next six months because 25% of the corn export crop goes to Mexico. This is really big for Iowa and the nation, and we have to communicate and show why this product is safe. And maybe over the last decade we haven’t done a good job of that.

With China pulling back and exporting fewer U.S. products, what can the U.S. do to better protect markets for U.S. and Iowa products?
We have to be very aggressive when it comes to trade, and it feels like we’re sitting on the sidelines. We see that with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement and corn. We see that with phase 2 trade with China. We have to do more, and with the farm bill coming up and the Market Access Program and the Foreign Development Program, we have to be very active in growing our exports, especially when it comes to the Pacific Rim countries and European countries. It’s so dire because they want to trade with us but they’re going to the states. We just saw Kansas do a trade deal with the U.K, and I know Iowa is trying to do some trade deals with other individual countries. I see that and say, “Wait a minute. The federal government should be very engaged, and that’s why we’re seeing this trillion-dollar trade deficit.” Our commodity prices are fine right now, but they won’t stay that way.