WASHINGTON — The Farm Bill, a massive package of nutrition and agriculture programs, is currently being debated on Capitol Hill, as a September deadline approaches for its renewal. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps tens of millions of Americans afford food, is the most costly item in the legislation.
“SNAP is our biggest and most important anti-hunger program,” said Ty Jones Cox, the vice president for food assistance for the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned if the current House version of the Farm Bill passes, growth in SNAP spending would be reduced by $30 billion over 10 years. The Center said that would result in a loss of $460 million in SNAP funds in Wisconsin alone from FY2027-2033.
Agriculture Committee chairman Glenn Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, wants the Farm Bill to return to a “cost neutral” system, only increasing benefits based on inflation. Some experts criticized this approach.
“It means that… the amount of funding that a person receives doesn't keep up with changing food patterns, changing shopping patterns. So it would attempt to track with inflation, but it doesn't map on to how real Americans spend money on food,” said Renee Scampini, teaching faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee College of Public Health.
Under the last Farm Bill, which was passed in 2018, total SNAP spending increased by 21% after the USDA determined the previous level of benefits was insufficient for recipients.
“SNAP participants shouldn't be placed in a position where their ability to purchase is hamstrung by some nebulous number that we've decided is it and nothing higher,” Cox said. “It should be, what does a household of four need to purchase a healthy, bare bones diet?”
The USDA reevaluated SNAP benefits in 2021 because the 2018 Farm Bill directed it to. Per USDA, it updated SNAP benefits based on food prices, composition, consumption patterns and current dietary guidance. While the USDA praised the new guidance and not being “constrained by cost neutrality” for the first time in 45 years, in an op-ed, Thompson wrote that the decision “upended four decades of history” and was an “egregious Executive abuse” since it was "expected to remain cost-neutral."
Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Prairie du Chien, the only Wisconsin member of the Agriculture Committee, told Spectrum News 1 that Republicans are not cutting SNAP. The Agriculture Committee will markup the bill on Thursday.
“The Democrats are doing fuzzy math,” Van Orden said of the $30 billion figure from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “And they're trying to scare people that are counting on these programs to feed themselves. I was raised in abject rural poverty by a single mother, and we were on food stamps, and I'm not cutting SNAP. So I don't appreciate Democrats fear mongering with hungry kids. And I'm not going to sugarcoat anything. That's BS.”
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, told Spectrum News 1 that the proposal to prevent the USDA from “accurately updating the SNAP benefit… seems intended solely to keep SNAP benefits inadequate for meeting” nutritional needs. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, had a similar message.
"SNAP benefits are the lifeline for so many families in need," he told Spectrum News in a statement. "For House Republicans to introduce a Farm Bill that guts these benefits proves they only care about their wealthy donors and no one else.”
Experts did point to some positives of the House proposal, such as allowing individuals with drug felony convictions to receive SNAP benefits and making it easier for elderly individuals to stay on the program.
What the final SNAP plan looks like remains to be seen, as the House and Senate have to come together on an agreement for final passage.