As Congress works towards a finalized version of a sweeping agriculture bill, there is uncertainty about the future of one of the nation’s leading food security programs, commonly referred to as food stamps.
Hunger-focused organizations in Vermont are closely watching Congress for changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
The U.S. House wants to drastically reform the food security program by raising income eligibility levels and expanding work requirements for participants in the program. The U.S. Senate would keep the food stamps program in tact.
The reforms are part of a reauthorization of the five-year farm bill. Both chambers of Congress have passed versions of the legislation and are now preparing to settle on a compromise.
The House proposal would likely lead to thousands of Vermonters losing access to the program, according to statistics from the Department for Children and Families, which administers SNAP in Vermont.
If Congress adopts a proposal in the House bill that would bar states from using a higher income eligibility level than the federal standard of 130 percent of the federal poverty line, nearly 24,000 recipients in Vermont would lose the benefit.
Under the expansion of work requirements categories in the House bill, nearly 11,000 more recipients of the program in Vermont would be required to work.
The Senate version of the bill passed with broad bipartisan support on a vote of 86-11. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voted for the bill. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., did not vote on final passage because of travel, according to an aide. But he was a player in drafting the legislation and voted for it in earlier procedural stages.
The farm bill crafted in the House split the chamber along party lines, in part because of disagreements over the proposed cuts to SNAP. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., joined all Democrats in voting against the bill, which passed on a razor thin 213-211 vote.
The House bill expands the categories of people who would need to work in order to receive the benefits. Adults with dependents under age 18 are currently exempt from work requirements. Under the House proposal, only those with dependents under age 6 are exempt. Current law exempts people over age 50 from work requirements. The House bill raises the threshold to age 60.
The bill includes some money to build out work training programs to support recipients. Supporters say the measure will help people enter the workforce. Critics say the proposal does not invest enough in training programs.
The Senate bill did not adjust work requirements. Instead, it included changes aimed at expanding access, by making it easier to use SNAP benefits at farmers markets, for example.
Hunger-focused organizations in Vermont are closely watching developments with the legislation as it proceeds.
John Sayles, who heads the Vermont Foodbank, is concerned that the changes in the House legislation would result in fewer people being able to access food through the federal program.
“If there are changes to the work requirements in line with what’s in the House bill, we’re going to have a lot more people showing up at food pantries and meal sites,” he said.
Sayles said the Vermont Foodbank would likely not be able to meet the needs of those who lose the benefit under the program. The organization would need to increase the amount of food it distributes, and build out capacity to transport and store food.
“The charitable food system does not have the capacity to make up for a reduction in the ability of people to get SNAP benefits,” Sayles said.
The Vermont Foodbank is trying to prepare for what lies ahead, but he said it is difficult to anticipate how the program may be addressed in the final version of the farm bill.
“There is both the chance that whatever comes out of the conference committee won’t make enough draconian cuts to the SNAP program for the House to pass it, or will make too many cuts to SNAP and other programs for that bipartisan coalition to remain together in the Senate,” he said.
Faye Conte, of Hunger Free Vermont, said the organization strongly supports the Senate version of the bill because it does not change work requirements, it supports an existing work training pilot program, and it improves access to farmers markets, and more, she said.
“The way the programs are working right now are really working and they don’t need a lot of changing,” she said.
While recipients of the program could use higher benefits, she does not see an immediate need for that, Conte said.
“In the political climate we’re in right now, a farm bill that doesn’t do a lot to change SNAP is a really strong farm bill,” she said.
Conte is not sure what middle ground lawmakers might find on the issue in the conference committee, because the differences are philosophical.
“They’re based on ideology. I’m not sure where the compromise lies,” Conte said. “They are starting from really opposite ends of the table.”
Leahy, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Tuesday that he sees a strong commitment in the Senate to oppose the House’s changes to the program during the conference committee process.
“What encourages me is that we got a very, very strong bipartisan effort to preserve SNAP in the Senate version of the farm bill,” Leahy said.
