|
Farm bill war of words
Story Date: 3/28/2018
| |
Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 3/27/18
House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway and ranking member Collin Peterson kicked off the two-week congressional recess by taking jabs at one another over why farm bill talks are at a standstill over proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
At the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Convention in Ft. Worth, Conaway said Peterson has known the concept the GOP majority was pursuing for SNAP provisions of the farm bill since October - and the language itself since Feb 7. "I assumed he was working with his members to socialize that. He didn't. He simply told them, 'Conaway's just doing what [Republicans] did in 2013 and we don't need to be a part of it,'" Conaway said, referring to an amendment that year by former Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) which derailed a farm bill on the House floor.
The Texas Republican went on to defend the GOP proposal to tighten SNAP eligibility and work requirements, which he has not publicly released, saying it would "plow a significant, unheard of amount of money into education and [job] training based at the states," and anyone over 18 to retirement age, who is not pregnant, disabled or the caretaker of a child under age six, can participate and continue receiving food stamps.
"Those are the 'extreme, partisan' policies that drove my Democratic friends to the sidelines," Conaway said, referring to how Democrats have criticized the SNAP proposal, adding that they don't understand the value of work. "Shame on them."
Peterson offered a different take, saying he tried to shield the farm bill from backlash, in an interview with American Ag Network. The Minnesota Democrat said on Monday that he kept the SNAP proposal under wraps because he was trying to protect the committee and Conaway from a Democratic revolt by first trying to negotiate "softer" language. But he and Conaway couldn't reach agreement - particularly on work requirements - and then committee Democrats demanded to see the proposed text and cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. "[T]hat just made them all the more adamant that they weren't going to support any bill that had this stuff in it," Peterson said. "So these are my members that are opposing this. It's not me."
During a separate interview on Monday with Brownfield Ag News, however, Peterson said he opposes the state education and training proposal because it would create more bureaucracy and not be cost-effective. He said that while he'd like to work something out with Conaway, he's unsure there is middle ground.
Peterson noted that Democratic lawmakers who participated in the last farm bill "don't trust the majority" because of how the Southerland amendment, which would have allowed states to impose stricter work requirements without funding work or training programs, out on the House floor. "These things are not exactly the same, the work requirements, but it's enough the same ... And this is not helping the situation."
|
|
|
|
