Sparks fly over SNAP in partisan markup of House farm bill

Democrats and Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee sparred over food aid Thursday in marking the House version of the $1.5 trillion omnibus farm bill.

The issue set off partisan fireworks in the contentious session, during which representatives from both sides of the aisle took to the podium to extol the virtues of bipartisanship, while accusing their opponents of throwing those values ​​in the trash.

Lawmakers fiercely debated whether Republican attempts to freeze changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food aid programs were “cuts” amid broader tensions over whether the bill introduced by House Republicans is bipartisan enough to have any hope of approval.

“I served for 26 years in the United States military, often below the poverty level and utilizing these programs,” said Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.). “So I’m not going to be lectured by people who say I’m trying to cut these benefits. It’s not true and it’s false.”

But, he added, “talking about the waste, fraud and abuse that absolutely exists in these programs – every dollar that goes to waste fraud and abuse in these SNAP programs is a dollar that cannot be used to feed a hungry child.”

Republicans “can’t have it both ways,” Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) responded. “”I heard my colleagues say this is not a SNAP cut. But dozens of outside experts disagree.”

If the SNAP coverage freeze was being used to pay for something, Carbajal argued, then that money had to constitute a reduction elsewhere. “If the committee considers this to be paid for, then that means funding will be taken away from hungry families.”

The proposed legislation, unveiled by committee chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) last week, would tap the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a source of funds for direct subsidies to commodity farmers, largely few thousand producers. of rice, cotton and peanuts.

The measure would not reduce current SNAP levels. But it would freeze the current list of products covered, and the amounts allowed to purchase them, at their current levels – although these could still increase with inflation.

This would make it much more difficult for the US Department of Agriculture to add new items or – as the Biden administration did in 2021 – offer more support to, for example, buy more fruits and vegetables.

A point of contention that arose in the debate on Thursday was what, precisely, these changes would pay for. As The Hill reported Wednesday, there are major disagreements between the Congressional Budget Office and House leadership over how much money the SNAP changes would actually save.

This is a point that Democrats have explicitly emphasized. “From a political standpoint, this is a very good bill — you included a lot of my bills,” Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) told colleagues.

“But on the payment side, I asked each of you specifically how you do your bills. The word that has come to mind most in the last 72 hours is “diffuse”. It also doesn’t appear that my Republican colleagues understand the financing mechanisms of this farm bill.” [no, just mis- punctuated ]

With that, Thompson intervened.

“Just to be clear, in terms of payments, I have not heard of any financing alternatives presented by the Democratic side of the aisle,” Thompson said.

“So my door is open. and I am more than happy to work with you. But you know, the reason the newspapers haven’t been bipartisan is because, frankly, the Democratic Party hasn’t been at the table.”

Many Republican members argued that SNAP was oversubscribed and that money was going to the wrong types of food.

SNAP “was intended to give American workers a second chance during difficult times in life,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) told the committee.

The program, Alford argued, is overpaid by millions per day — largely “helped by sugary drinks, which are the second most purchased items sold through SNAP.” The truth is that as the number of SNAP recipients has grown, our health levels have fallen here in America.”

“I think it’s shameful,” Alford added.

Democrats argued that this was not only unfair but also inaccurate.

“We just heard from the Republican member that somehow there is a link between SNAP and poor health outcomes,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about, frankly.”

Studies of SNAP participants, McGovern said, have found that participation in the program “is linked to better nutritional outcomes, lower health care costs, and improved current and long-term health.”

Research supports elements of both legislators’ statements. Participating in SNAP means that childrenare much less likely to be food insecure, which is very bad for long-term mental and emotional health. At the same time, a 2023 studyfoundthat children who were part of SNAP “were more likely to have an elevated risk of disease and consume more sugary drinks” than those who were not in the program.

That study concluded that other federal food assistance programs, which had “more stringent nutritional standards,” improved the quality of children’s diets while reducing childhood obesity.

House members have worked on the issue in the past: In addition to calls for stricter work requirements, Alford pointed to a bipartisan amendment he had drafted along with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) that increased food aid for frozen fruit. and vegetables.

But in the middle of the afternoon, with hours still to go, tempers were high in the chamber.

“My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle have expressed a willingness to work to find savings to enable other investments in a farm bill,” Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) told committee members.

“Unfortunately, these attempts to reach common ground were abandoned and most chose to move on. Unfortunately, this has been a trend in Congress – and this bill will certainly not become law.”

Rep. Darren Soto (D-Florida) argued that bipartisanship was necessary not only to make Democrats happy, but because the bill couldn’t pass otherwise.

“History tells us that only bipartisan farm bills have a chance of passing,” he said. “This is especially true in a shared government where we have Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate and Republicans controlling the House.”

Comments from both members pointed to underlying pressures causing procedural tensions: The existing farm bill is set to expire in September, and failure to pass a new version of the legislation is a possibility.

This failure occurred just a few months ago. In September, following the chaos in the House that led to the election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), an exhausted Congress was unable to reach agreement on a new five-year farm bill and instead passed a one year supplementary version.

This kept programs funded at current levels, but left those who work in the agricultural sector or rely on food aid with a lack of clarity about what they could count on for the rest of the decade – a difficult situation for a sector where investment and Infrastructure decisions are often made years in advance.

On Thursday, Republicans argued that it was Democrats who refused to play ball and get the bill passed last year, despite Republican concessions. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Florida) pointed out “more than 40 initiatives that were specific requests from Democratic members,”

“The same members who claim this bill is a completely partisan endeavor say this is not a bipartisan bill, when you know full well this bill includes the requested priorities.”

“Well, at home, we call it chickens—,” Cammack added.

Many Democrats, in turn, acknowledged these concessions, thanked their colleagues in the majority party for some of their priorities, and praised areas of genuine agreement: on programs to reduce wildfires and to create new markets for products made from overgrowth. and burned America. prone forests and efforts to invest more money in rural water infrastructure and rural broadband.

But on Democrats’ main sticking points — SNAP and the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate funding — the parties remained at odds.

And lurking behind the interparty dispute was a resistance that spanned the entire political spectrum. Populists on both sides of the aisle have joined together in an uneasy alliance against the growing role of concentrated agribusiness in American life, leading a coalition of groups on the left and right to oppose the House bill, as The Hill reported this week. week.

While groups on the left largely oppose restrictions on SNAP, those on the right, such as the Heritage Foundation, are generally in favor of them. However, they expressed concern about any long-term increases in support for raw materials farmers, who these groups consider to be experienced business operators who do not need more federal subsidies.

At Thursday’s markup, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) argued that agribusiness, not SNAP, was the main source of misallocated funds in the farm bill.

“When people talk about waste or fraud or abuse and talk about people who are just trying to survive on food stamps, I would actually point to the fraud and wasteful abuse of corporate America that is overwhelmingly starting to dominate our food supply. systems and increasing prices, as well as underpaying their workers,” said Casar.

“Just take a look at the beef market, where we have four slaughterhouses that now control 85% of the market.”

The farm bill, he said, “is a very important opportunity to reduce the power of these corporate price gougers, but instead, this Republican bill we have before us rewards them.”

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story