Johnson: splitting the farm bill was necessary

A U.S. Congressman from South Dakota says splitting the farm bill was necessary to get the best, overall policy for farm programs and nutrition.

Dusty Johnson tells Brownfield “the Democrats have always said if we’re going to help farm programs, we have to increase SNAP spending even more. We’re just not in a fiscal environment where we can get that done.”

The committee-approved reconciliation package includes a cost-sharing approach with states on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and new parameters for SNAP eligibility.

“If you’re an able-bodied 27-year-old or 57-year-old, we want to make sure you’ve got 20 hours each week you’re going to work, volunteering or going to school. If you’re not doing that, we have to ask why are we putting you on SNAP or food stamps when those resources are reserved for our neediest Americans.”

Johnson is sponsoring legislation that sets stricter work requirements for SNAP and he says more than $230 billion was cut in nutrition spending in the next decade.

House Ag Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig opposed the cuts to the SNAP program as the reconciliation package was debated last week. She says the cuts were made in a partisan manner and she was expecting the committee to pass a bipartisan 5-year farm bill this year.

Johnson says there are differing opinions on how a new farm bill needed to move forward, but “politics are the art of the possible and I still think with the other programs, we do right by them and there isn’t any reason we can’t.”

He says the House Ag Committee is expected to work on the “orphan” farm bill titles, like research and the miscellaneous, that aren’t included in budget reconciliation, later this year.