United in a bipartisan embrace, the House sent the status-quo 2018 farm bill to President Trump after a landslide 369-47 vote on Wednesday, with only a few Republicans openly lamenting that the bill will not impose stricter SNAP work requirements. The House GOP had insisted on the change — welfare reform in the farm bill — for months but gave up the struggle with Democrats poised to become the majority party in January.
Trump, an advocate of new and stronger work requirements for participants in social programs, could sign the bill as soon as next week, said House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway. In an indication of administration support, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said he was encouraging the president to enact the bill.
The five-year farm bill, estimated to cost $87 billion a year, would modestly strengthen the farm safety net through such steps as higher crop support rates, and while it contains provisions for SNAP program integrity, it does not change eligibility rules or benefit levels.
Senate and House negotiators rejected the House GOP plan that would have required millions of “work-capable” adults aged 18 to 59 to work at least 20 hours a week or spend equivalent time in job training or workfare to qualify for food stamps. The Senate voted 2-to-1 against that approach before passing its bipartisan bill, 87-11, last summer. By contrast, the House passed its bill by just two votes on its second try, with only Republicans voting for it.
“I’m just proud to turn a partisan bill into a bipartisan bill,” said Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson, a conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat, said his adamant opposition to the work requirements authored by Conaway “turned me into a hero” among Democratic lawmakers.
House Democrats counted the rejection of SNAP changes as a major reason to vote for the bill. Rep. Alma Adams of North Carolina said the bill “avoids disastrous cuts to SNAP” and “mean-spirited, unreasonable” work requirements. Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, an outspoken defender of food stamps, said the farm bill “is good on the nutrition title. … It doesn’t make hunger worse.”
A handful of Republicans rued the loss of the work requirement provision. “We missed a golden opportunity,” said Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Others followed the lead of Speaker Paul Ryan, who said the bill would encourage SNAP recipients to move into work. The surviving changes are minor compared to the GOP’s initial proposal, said Politico. As an example, it said the bill would put more money, roughly $104 million a year compared with the current $90 million, into a work training program that is an adjunct to SNAP.
During a celebratory news conference, Conaway said the next step on SNAP belongs to the administration. “Sonny Perdue will bring out a rule pertaining to waivers pretty soon.” Conaway said he did not plan new legislation on work requirements. “Right now, I don’t have any plans to do anything than get this [bill] signed.”
Perdue deferred action during the farm bill debate on a change in USDA rules that would constrain the power of states to waive the time limit on food stamps for so-called able-bodied adults aged 18 to 49 without dependents (ABAWDs). The 1996 welfare reform law limits ABAWDs to 90 days of food stamps in a three-year period unless they live in an area with a waiver due to a high jobless rate or insufficient jobs.
Anti-spending conservatives, including SNAP critics, accounted for most of the votes against the bill. Three Democrats voted against it. One of them, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, said the bill “is not addressing the crisis in American agriculture” and called for more spending on land stewardship, ag research, and aid to beginning farmers.
The farm bill priority among farmers was maintenance of a strong crop insurance program, said Nebraska Rep. Adrian Smith. “This bill accomplishes that objective,” he said.
With major changes to SNAP off the table, Conaway said the farm bill would bring “five years of stability” to a sector coping with low farm income, a trade war, and bad weather. “Here are federal resources we are going to put against those issues,” said Conaway. “This bill does get at these issues.”