Protracted disputes over SNAP funding are preventing progress on the new farm bill and endangering support for the legislation, said Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow on Tuesday. The House Agriculture Committee was expected to vote next week on a Republican-written bill that would cut SNAP funding by $28 billion over objections by Democrats.
“I’ve been a part of six farm bills…this is the hardest one I ever,” said Stabenow during a White House meeting on rural economic development. “They’re always difficult, but at this stage, we’re usually beyond the politics of nutrition and food, and we’re down to actually, you know, negotiating a farm bill. And that hasn’t happened yet.”
Congress is more than seven months late in enacting a farm bill with SNAP funding, climate mitigation, and crop subsidies as the major obstacles. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee say they will release their framework for the farm bill after the House committee vote.
A bipartisan coalition is essential to passing the farm bill, said Stabenow. “It’s not about dividing people, you’ll never get a bill.”
The consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest said it opposed the farm bill drafted by House Agriculture chairman Glenn Thompson because of its proposed cuts in SNAP, reprogramming of climate funds, and intrusion into the school food program. The Thompson package “all but guarantees that SNAP benefits won’t keep up with the escalating true cost of food, exacerbating already too-high rates of food insecurity,” said CSPI president Peter Lurie.
Thompson would require future reviews of the costs of a healthy diet to be cost-neutral, unlike the 2021 Biden administration update that resulted in a $250 billion increase in SNAP benefits over 10 years. Senators such as Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the senior Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, also want to return to cost-neutral reviews.
The Republican proposal was estimated to save $28 billion over 10 years, a relatively small amount. Nonetheless, it has become a test point for conservatives who want to reduce the cost of public nutrition programs and Democrats who say SNAP helps millions of people get enough to eat. Republicans pursued SNAP cuts in the 2014 and 2018 farm bills.
As part of his package, Thompson would allow $15 billion earmarked for climate mitigation to be used for any conservation practice, not just to capture carbon or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and he would increase so-called reference prices for row crops by 10 to 20 percent. Stabenow’s package would guarantee an increase of 5 percent. Reference prices are the triggers for subsidy payments. Farm groups say they should be raised because of rising costs of production.
Thompson also would require schools to offer full-fat flavored or unflavored milk as part of their meal programs. The USDA issued school nutrition standards in April that specify flavored and unflavored, fat-free and low-fat milk, as recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The House passed a bill sponsored by Thompson to mandate whole milk, 330-99, last December.
House Republicans have tried to create momentum for their farm bill by stressing features expected to be popular in farm country, such as larger spending on farm supports. On social media, they say removing the “guardrails” on climate mitigation “restores the locally led nature of conservation.” Democrats on the Agriculture Committee have made SNAP funding a leading issue, saying Republicans would raid the kitchen cabinets of low-income families.
Ten Democrats and five Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee, a quarter of the committee membership, face tough races for re-election, according to handicappers.