
Stabenow admits the nutrition title could be difficult – as the House plan to cut 39-billion dollars from food stamps over 10 years is not even close to what the Senate would accept. Stabenow says she wants to do everything to make sure nutrition is accountable – but also wants to find savings without playing with people’s lives.
Another difference between the House and Senate is that the House bill reauthorizes nutrition programs for three years and the farm program for five years. That – if kept in the conference report – could set the programs on a permanent path of separation. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says decoupling the farm program from nutrition programs would mean the House would not pass a farm program. He says the farm program and food stamps were put together in one bill to provide food for the hungry, increase consumption of food, stabilize farm income, create economic activity and provide a reason for urban members of Congress to vote for the farm bill. The Agriculture Secretary says separating the two is bad policy for farmers in his view.
FAPRI Takes Closer Look at Commodity Tiles of House and Senate Farm Bills
The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri has released an in-depth look at how the commodity titles of the House and Senate versions of the farm bill compare. According to the analysis of the commodity provisions – the savings gap between the two versions is bigger that a Congressional Budget Office analysis showed. FAPRI finds the Senate bill saves 5.5-billion dollars more than the House version. Looking at the possible consequences of provisions in the two bills – the FAPRI summary notes both bills have a lot in common and therefore would have similar consequences in many respects. For the full report – visit www.fapri.missouri.edu.
Source: NAFB News Service
