Democrats and Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee discussed food aid Thursday as they drafted the chamber's version of the $1.5 trillion omnibus farm bill.
The issue set off partisan fireworks during the contentious session, in which representatives from both sides of the aisle took the stage to extol the virtues of bipartisanship while accusing their counterparts of trashing those values.
Lawmakers fiercely debated whether Republican efforts to freeze changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food assistance programs constituted “cuts,” amid broader tensions over whether the bill, as introduced by Republicans in the House of Representatives, is sufficiently bipartisan to have any hope of approval.
“I served in the United States military for 26 years, often below the poverty line, taking advantage of 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 back on these benefits. It's not true and it's unfair.”
But, he added, “speaking of the waste, fraud and abuse that absolutely exists in these programs – every dollar lost, fraud and abuse for these SNAP programs is a dollar that cannot be used to feed a hungry child to feed.”
Republicans “can't have it both ways,” Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-California) shot back. “I've heard my colleagues say this is not a SNAP cut. But dozens of external experts disagree.”
If the freeze on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) coverage was used to pay for something, Carbajal argued, then that money should represent a reduction elsewhere. “If the commission considers it paid, then that's money you're taking away from hungry families.”
The proposed legislation, unveiled last week by Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), would use SNAP as a funding source to provide subsidies to grassroots farmers, largely a few thousand growers of rice, cotton and peanuts.
The measure would not reduce current SNAP levels. But it would freeze the current list of covered products, and the values that allow them to be purchased, at their current levels – although these could still increase with inflation.
This would make it much more difficult for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to add new items, or — as the Biden administration did in 2021 — to provide more support to buy more fruits and vegetables, for example.
One point of contention that emerged in the debate during Thursday's markup was what exactly these changes would accomplish. 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.
That's a point that Democrats made explicitly. “On a policy level, this is a very good bill — you got some of my marker bills in,” Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) told colleagues.
“But on the payment side, I asked you all specifically how you come up with your math. The word that has come back to me the most over the past 72 hours is “blurred.” It appears that my Republican colleagues do not understand the funding mechanisms in this farm bill either.”
At this Thompson intervened.
“To be clear, in terms of reimbursement, I have not heard any alternatives to funding submitted from the Democratic side of the aisle,” Thompson said.
“So my door is open and I'm more than happy to work with you. But you know, the reason the papers aren't bipartisan is because, quite frankly, the Democratic Party hasn't had a seat at the table.”
Many Republican members argued that SNAP was oversubscribed and that the money was going to the wrong types of food.
SNAP “was designed to give hardworking Americans a second chance during difficult times in life,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) told the committee. “It was never intended to become a lifestyle, but rather a life jacket.”
The program, Alford argued, was being overfunded by millions per day — largely “helped by sugary drinks, the second most purchased items sold through SNAP. The truth is that as the number of SNAP recipients has grown, our health levels here in America have declined.
“I think that's shameful,” Alford added.
Democrats argued that this was not only unfair but also inaccurate.
“We just heard from the Republican member that there is somehow a link between SNAP and poor health outcomes,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “I honestly don't know what he's talking about.”
Research among SNAP participants shows that participation in the program is “linked to better nutritional outcomes, lower health care costs, and better current and long-term health.”
Research supports elements of both lawmakers' statements. Participating in SNAP means that childrenThey are much less likely to be food insecure, which is very bad for long-term mental and emotional health. At the same time, a 2023 study foundthat children on SNAP were “more likely to have increased disease risk and consume more sugar-sweetened beverages” than those not on the program.
That study found that other federal food assistance programs, which had “stronger nutritional standards,” improved the quality of children's diets while reducing childhood obesity.
In the past, members of the House of Representatives have worked on this issue: In addition to calls for stricter work requirements, Alford pointed to a bipartisan amendment he co-authored with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) that increased food assistance for frozen foods. fruit and vegetables.
But by mid-afternoon, with hours to go, emotions in the room were running high.
“My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle have expressed a willingness to work to find savings to allow for other investments in a farm bill,” Carbajal told committee members.
“Unfortunately, these efforts to reach agreement have failed and the majority has chosen to move forward. Unfortunately, this is a trend in Congress – and this bill certainly will not become law.”
Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) argued that bipartisanship was necessary not only to make Democrats happy, but also because otherwise the bill couldn't pass.
“History tells us that only bipartisan farm bills have a chance to become law,” he said. “This is especially true in a divided government where Democrats control the White House and the Senate and Republicans control the House.”
Both members' comments pointed to the underlying pressures causing tensions in the procedure: the existing agricultural law expires in September, and the absence of a new version of the legislation is entirely possible.
Such a failure occurred just a few months ago. Last September, after the chaos in the House of Representatives that led to the election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), an exhausted Congress failed to agree on a new five-year farm bill and instead passed a supplemental version good for a year.
This kept programs funded at their existing levels, but left those working in the agricultural sector or dependent 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 in which investment and infrastructure decisions are often made years in advance.
On Thursday, Republicans argued that it was Democrats who had refused to get the bill passed last year, despite Republican concessions. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) pointed to “more than 40 initiatives that were specific requests from Democratic members.”
“The same members who claim this bill is an entirely partisan endeavor are saying this is not a bipartisan bill, when you know full well this bill includes the priorities you are asking for.”
“We call them chickens at home…” Cammack added.
Many Democrats, in turn, stood up to acknowledge these concessions, thank their colleagues in the majority party for some of their priorities and praise the areas of real agreement: on programs to reduce wildfires and create new markets for products made of America's overgrown and hotbeds. vulnerable forest areas, along with efforts to put more money into water infrastructure and rural broadband.
But the parties remained at loggerheads over Democrats' key sticking points — SNAP and the Inflation Reduction Act's climate financing.
And behind the dispute between the parties hovered a counter-reaction that cut across the entire political spectrum. Populists on both sides of the aisle have formed an uneasy alliance against the growing role of the concentrated agricultural industry in American life, leading a coalition of left and right groups in opposing the House bill, such as The Hill reported this week.
While left-wing groups broadly oppose restrictions on SNAP, right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation generally support them. However, they have expressed concerns about any long-term increases in support for commodity farmers, who as smart entrepreneurs no longer need federal subsidies.
In Thursday's increase, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) argued that the agriculture industry, not SNAP, was the main source of misallocated funds in the farm bill.
“When people talk about waste, fraud or abuse and talk about people just trying to get by and on food stamps, I would actually point to the waste, fraud and abuse of corporate America that is starting to become overwhelmingly dominant. our food systems and driving up prices and underpaying their workers,” Casar said.
“Just look at the beef market, where we have four packing companies that now have 85 percent of the market.”
The farm bill, he said, “is such an important opportunity to reduce the power of those corporate discounters, but instead this Republican bill rewards them.”
