If Congress fails to pass a farm bill this year, it will be the fault of House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway, who would harm SNAP and land stewardship programs, said six anti-hunger, environmental and small-farm groups on Monday. It was the first time in months of farm bill maneuverings, punctuated by calls to give farmers and ranchers the certainty of long-term legislation, that a block of activists said having no farm bill would be better than passing a bad bill.
“It is the only viable path forward,” said Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, referring to the Senate version of the farm bill. “The onus is on the House chairman to decide if he wants to get a farm bill done.” Mike Lavender of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the House farm bill, drafted by Conaway, relied “heavily on ideology” rather than practicality with its proposal for an estimated 7 million “work capable” adults aged 18-59 to work at least 20 hours a week or spend equivalent time in job training and workfare to qualify for food stamps.
None of the four lead negotiators on the farm bill, known as the “four corners,” had an immediate comment. Aside from Conaway, the lead negotiators are Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Senate Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts and Rep. Collin Peterson, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee.
Monica Mills of the food movement group Food Policy Action said “three corners of the four” backed the Senate approach on SNAP, meaning Conaway was isolated on the issue. The Senate bill would improve administrative efficiency of the program but leave alone the benefit structure. Senators passed their bill, 86-11, after defeating by 2-to-1 an amendment that mirrored the House package on SNAP. For Food Policy Action, “no farm bill is better than a bad farm bill,” said Mills, a line repeated by other activists.
House Republicans regard the farm bill as their only chance to enact welfare reform this year. “[H]aving a work requirement in food stamps, having an education requirement in food stamps, is the best possible way” to put Americans to work, said Speaker Paul Ryan last month. President Trump, who signed an executive order for new or expanded work requirements for federal safety net programs, has called for more stringent rules in the farm bill. Backers say work requirements will push people into the workforce during a booming economy and a demand for workers.
“Millions of able-bodied adults” are “trapped on welfare,” said an op-ed by the Foundation for Government Accountability, which advocates “the power of work” as the replacement of welfare. “Work is a powerful antidote to so many problems our society faces, from drug addiction, to child abuse and neglect, to generational poverty.”
But others contend many able-bodied adults face challenges, like health issues, that prevent them from working. While some able-bodied people “might work if they are threatened with loss of benefits…this group is very small relative to those who would be sanctioned under the proposed policies who are already working or are legitimately unable to work,” said a paper by the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. “Among persistent labor force nonparticipants, health issues are the predominant reason given for not working.”
Some people would lose SNAP benefits because they do not consistently work 20 hours a week despite a desire to work, said the report. For people who work enough hours, “there are still significant informational and administrative barriers to compliance,” such as filing paperwork on time to prove compliance. “These continuing road blocks to participation…are likely to result in lower take-up among the eligible population and disenrollment.” The authors said other measures, such as an increase in the earned income tax credit, might be “very effective” in increasing work participation without the costs and barriers of work requirements.
At present, food stamp recipients are required to register for work and to accept a suitable job if offered. So-called able-bodied adults without dependents aged 18-49 are limited to 90 days of benefits in a three-year period. The Hamilton Project study estimated the House bill would double the number of people subject to the work requirement. It would apply to a wider age range and to parents with children over age 6.
At a news conference, the farm bill activists urged Congress to enact the farm bill this year. Besides SNAP, there are myriad disagreements between the House and Senate with less than three months before Congress adjourns and all unresolved legislation dies. The House bill would eliminate the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) for working lands and loosen farm subsidy rules by making nieces, nephews and cousins eligible for subsidies and removing payment limits on subsides to some types of corporate farms. The Senate bill would keep CSP and tighten farm subsidy rules by allowing only one “manager” per farm to collect payments. Farmers and spouses automatically are eligible.
“The farm bill is the time to strengthen SNAP, not weaken it,” said Ellen Vollinger of the antihunger Food Research and Action Center. Eric Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council said the easiest path for farm bill negotiators is to “follow what the Senate has done.”
One of the unresolved farm bill issues is a House provision that would give some farmers in the central and southern Plains – chiefly cotton growers in Texas – the opportunity to qualify for larger subsidy payments by increasing their yields per acre. Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group said the proposal “simply doesn’t make sense” because cotton prices are strong compared to other commodities.