House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-TX, is counting votes to determine how many Republicans plan to vote for the proposed 2018 farm bill.
In an interview following an April 30 fundraiser for Rep. Roger Marshall, R-KS, in Manhattan, Kansas, Conaway defended his actions in developing the farm bill, with its contentious nutrition title tying Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits with work training or 20 hours of work.
“I guess I’m just the guy who screwed up the Russia committee, and now I’m the guy who screwed up the ag committee,” Conaway joked, referring to his temporary chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Conaway said he could not understand the reaction that Ranking Member Collin Peterson, D-MN, had to the bill. No one of the minority party offered any amendments during the recent committee markup of the bill.
“I don’t know,” Conaway said with a sigh. “Collin must be under some sort of pressure that I don’t know about. He’s acting differently than he normally does on this.”
Conaway said he wished he had brought in to the committee hearing room a “big board with the things we’ve done” on SNAP.
“There’s 30 issues and they asked him what items are you against. I’d have called him out for them. He’s said he’s been jammed on the whole deal,” Conaway said. “If you look at the various pieces of this, I bet you can go back through the public records where he said he’s been in favor of tightening up geographical waivers on unemployment. Treating every American exactly the same. Every one of them said they’re for work, yet they don’t want work to be a requirement.
“We don’t take one penny out of SNAP funding. This would have been an entirely different conversation if I had taken money out of SNAP and moved to some other place in the farm bill. We recycle all the money back into SNAP. It’s the right thing to do. They were unwilling to engage at that level of specificity on anything.”
Added Marshall: “It was interesting to see what amendments they offered, which were zero.”
Conaway interjected: “Or they could have a vote to eliminate Title IV or eliminate the changes. When you talk to farmers about people working 20 hours a week, that’s their second job. So this argument for not working 20 hours a week in exchange for public assistance is ridiculous.”
“We didn’t do or say anything wrong in that hearing. All the vitriol came from the Democrats. They’re responsible for what they say.”
Perhaps the most contentious part of the farm bill to producers is moving the Conservation Stewardship Program in the Environmental Quality Improvement Program. Conaway says the new farm bill will take the best parts of CSP and merge them into EQIP.
“There were some lands that got CSP help that didn’t warrant the payment. Like moving a water trough around in a pasture. We think there’s a better way by moving it into EQIP,” Conaway said.
“Here’s another thing. Nobody likes change unless it’s your idea. I know there are people who like the way it was, but we see this as a better way. Every time you change, there’s going to be pushback. This is just a better way of spending taxpayer money.”
As of the interview, Conaway said he hadn’t heard any criticism of the proposed farm bill from the conservative groups, particularly Freedom Caucus, led by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC.
“I haven’t heard anything from any of the Freedom Caucus guys. Mark Meadows has said he’s sees nothing in the bill that would cause him to say no. I’ll feel comfortable with this as long as no poison pill amendment comes along to try and kill it like stripping out sugar or something like that.”
Meadows was quoted in Politico May 8 that conservative members could support the House farm bill with some tweaks “to make sure it reflects conservative principles.”
According to the Politico report, Meadows said following a meeting May 7 that Freedom Caucus members would seek changes to work requirements for food stamp recipients to give states greater sway to create their own tailored jobs program. Members have also discussed adjustments to the sugar program and a fix to the “marriage penalty”—the potential drop in benefits that occurs when two recipients combine their incomes which some say discourages marriage. But Meadows told Politico that he doesn’t know if “that’s a top 10 priority.”
A number of conservative and libertarian groups, including Heritage Action, FreedomWorks and Club for Growth, have called for further farm bill reforms, including reducing premium subsidies, placing a cap on Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage costs, reforming the sugar program, prohibiting protection against shallow losses, requiring producers to choose between ARC/PLC and crop insurance and strengthening means testing and payment limits.
In a May 8 session at the American Enterprise Institute on SNAP, Conaway reiterated the need to get to 218 members to vote for the bill because Democrats have said no members will support it.
Conaway also told the AEI crowd he doesn’t think the bill would discourage marriage, a point that some conservative critics have made because it requires both parents with children over 6 to work in order to get benefits.
In answer to a question about why the bill does not make any changes to the sugar program, Conaway likened it to protecting the steel industry.
The United States wouldn’t allow countries such as Turkey “to dump steel into our country below cost” so why should the United States allow countries to end subsidized sugar to this country, Conaway asked.
Conaway said sugar is “a product grown by Americans” who are fighting against unfair foreign competition.
He also said that the sugar program does not skew the retail price of sugar or cause the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, as critics have said.
No matter, Conaway said in his interview with this reporter, the issue is getting a farm bill to 218 votes to move it along toward eventual reconciliation with the Senate’s version of the bill. How Conaway gets there will be a challenge.
“When we start voting, there are no Republican or Democrat lights on that tote board, just green for yes and red for no. I have to get to 218-plus green lights. Those green lights will say we’re in favor of protecting production agriculture, we’re in favor of protecting crop insurance, and we’re in favor of these meaningful reforms to SNAP that are focused on work opportunities and getting folks back on their own two feet. The red lights will say, ‘no, we’re not.’”
Larry Dreiling can be reached at 785-628-1117 or [email protected].
