Congress could adjourn for this year without enacting a new farm bill because of the Senate vs. House standoff over SNAP, said Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, one of two senators on Tuesday to suggest an extension of the farm law that expired at the start of this week. President Trump has backed House Republicans in demanding stronger work requirements on a larger number of food stamp recipients.
“Common sense tells me that” an extension of the 2014 farm bill would be a short-term solution, said Grassley during a teleconference. His fellow Iowa Republican, Senator Joni Ernst, told Reuters that a short-term extension was under discussion. House Republicans are unwilling to compromise on SNAP and “they’re encouraged by the president not to do it,” said Grassley. SNAP is the headline dispute in the farm bill but there are disagreements throughout the $87 billion-a-year legislation.
The “big four” farm bill negotiators—the Republican chairmen and senior Democrats on the Senate and House Agriculture committees—are expected to meet face to face this week, possibly on Thursday.
House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway rejected the idea of retreat on “policies that we have fought for,” an oblique reference to SNAP. “Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Peterson need to go along with us on this deal,” said Conaway while discussing SNAP during an Agri-Pulse Open Mic interview. Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Collin Peterson are the lead Democratic negotiators on the farm bill.
Republicans hold a 42-seat margin in the House and relied solely on their caucus to pass by two votes the farm bill written by Conaway. By contrast, Senate Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts and Sen. Stabenow aimed for a farm bill that would pass easily on a bipartisan vote in the Senate, where the GOP holds 51 seats and Democrats have 49.
“I understand the dynamics over there…I’m not doing one (a farm bill) that I’m ashamed of,” said Conway.
The Conaway-drafted House bill would require an estimated 7 million “work capable” adults aged 18-59, including those with school-age children, to work 20 hours a week or spend equivalent time in job training or workfare, along with tightening eligibility rules. Conaway says the package would help people move into work or secure better-paying jobs. To Democrats, the plan is a charade that would deny benefits to people because of paperwork violations and short-change the job training programs.
At present, SNAP recipients are required to register for work and accept a suitable job if offered. Children, elderly and disabled people are exempt from those requirements. Since 1996, so-called able-bodied adults without dependents aged 18-49 have been limited to 90 days of food stamps in a three-year period unless they live in an area with a waiver from the time limit.
Besides SNAP, farm bill negotiators have notable disagreements over land stewardship and farm subsidies. The House would eliminate the green-payment Conservation Stewardship Program. “That’s a program that just needs to go away,” said Conaway. They also disagree on payment limits on farm subsidies.
A recent flash point is the House provision to allow growers in droughty areas to update the crop yields used in calculating their subsidy payments. The provision would apply mostly to the southern and central Plains and cotton growers would benefit the most, said four economists at the farmdoc Daily blog. The cost would be offset by barring future payments on so-called base acres nationwide if grain, soybeans or cotton were not planted on them during 2009-17. The West and the Southeast would be affected the most by that change.
Grassley said Conaway, from the top cotton state of Texas, was trying to rob base acres from wheat, corn and soybean farmers. “What does it take to satisfy the cotton farmers?” he asked.