House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas), pictured with other House leaders, touts an older version of the farm bill last month. That bill was tanked by House Freedom Caucus members, who were critical in getting Thursday’s version to pass the chamber. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo House farm bill passes with controversial food stamp changes

The House passed its farm bill Thursday by a vote of 213-211 after weeks of uncertainty over whether leadership would be able to secure enough support within the fractious GOP Conference to pass a measure that is critical to farm country.

Republican leadership succeeded in rebounding from last month’s stunning defeat of the massive $860 billion legislation by meeting the demands of the House Freedom Caucus, which helped tank the first vote by withholding support as leverage to force a roll call on a conservative immigration measure. The immigration bill, written by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), was voted down earlier Thursday, but clearing that hurdle led the influential conservative bloc to deliver just enough support to pass the farm bill.


Freedom Caucus support was essential, because Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the bill over new work requirements for food stamp recipients. Twenty Republicans joined with Democrats in opposing the bill, but eight Freedom Caucus members flipped their votes from last month and voted in favor, including caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.).

Passage of the House farm bill — which would re-authorize programs ranging from nutrition assistance and crop subsidies to rural development and agricultural research — moves Congress one step closer to sending a bill to President Donald Trump before the current legislation expires at the end of September. The Senate is planning to take up its version, which has bipartisan support, as soon as next week, and passage is widely expected — but trouble could be in store when both bills get to conference.

House GOP leadership had to rely solely on Republican lawmakers to carry the measure — the first farm bill to pass either chamber with only one-party support — after Democrats revolted over its proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps. SNAP, which helps more than 40 million Americans buy groceries, accounts for more than three-quarters of the farm bill’s price tag.

Morning Agriculture A daily briefing on agriculture and food policy — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

House Democrats walked away from the bill in committee because it would impose stricter work requirements on between 5 million and 7 million recipients of food stamps while pouring billions of dollars into state education and job training programs.

Passage of the House farm bill was a victory for House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans who are eager to advance welfare reform. The Senate bill, however, would not make major changes to SNAP.

The right flank of the House GOP, which tends to support steep cuts to SNAP and farm subsidies, had been holding its position on the farm bill close to the vest. In the days leading up to Thursday’s vote, Meadows told reporters he thought he could deliver enough Freedom Caucus votes to advance the farm bill, but a number of the group’s members had said in recent days they were undecided.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) told reporters afterward that he knew all along the vote was going to be “razor thin” and continued to lobby members to support the bill up until the last minute.

The House farm bill would also tighten eligibility criteria under SNAP — changes that would result in some 400,000 households losing SNAP benefits. Thousands of children would also risk losing their enrollment in free and reduced-price school meal programs.

Republicans contend the plan would put people on a pathway to self-sufficiency. Democrats and anti-hunger groups say it would make it more difficult for millions of needy Americans to receive nutrition assistance, and also would invest in a state-run job training bureaucracy under SNAP that has yet to prove it helps people move out of poverty.

How quickly Congress is able to deliver a bill for Trump to sign — the White House has repeatedly backed an on-time farm bill — will likely depend in large part on the ability of House and Senate negotiators to reconcile differences over the nutrition title.

Trump weighed in on Twitter after the vote, and sent a signal about work requirements for food stamp recipients, saying in part: "So happy to see work requirements included. Big win for the farmers!"

Conaway will be outnumbered at conference. His counterpart on the other side of the aisle, House Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), has said he will conference with Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). All three oppose making substantial changes to SNAP.

The Senate farm bill would not seek new work requirements or make significant changes to eligibility standards for SNAP. Instead, the bill focuses on making a series of administrative changes geared in part toward combating fraud.

“I think that’s very unfortunate that’s where the House wants to go,” Roberts, referring to the partisan process in the House, told reporters earlier this month after the Senate Agriculture Committee passed its bill with ease. “We’ll just have to see and hope that at least some version of the farm bill will pass.”

The House and Senate legislation largely leaves current farm policy intact, which has prompted taxpayer watchdogs, free-market think tanks and environmental groups to criticize lawmakers for not doing more to rein in spending on commodity supports and the crop insurance program, which total about $13 billion annually.

There are some differences between each chamber’s version on payment limits, however, that could ignite heated negotiations. The House farm bill would exempt operations structured as limited liability corporations and S corporations from a $125,000 cap on commodity subsidies and a $900,000 adjusted gross income limit to qualify for those payments. That means owners would no longer have to split subsidies based on what portion of the business they control; instead, they would each be subject to those payment and adjusted gross income limits.

Further, the House legislation would allow additional family members to qualify for commodity subsidies, including first cousins, nieces and nephews. The Senate version doesn’t contain such changes, and Sen. Chuck Grassley is working to secure language aimed at ensuring that individuals who aren’t involved in the day-to-day operations of a farm are not able to receive commodity subsidies.

The Iowa Republican wants to limit the number of individuals who can qualify as being “actively engaged” in farming — and therefore be eligible for payments — under criteria for management that critics argue are now too lenient. Grassley has been fired up since the debate over the 2014 farm bill, when a similar provision was adopted by both the House and Senate but ultimately watered down during conference.

The House farm bill also would take a different approach to conservation programs than the Senate version. Under the House measure, one of USDA's major conservation initiatives — the Conservation Stewardship Program — would be eliminated, and nearly $800 million over a decade would be cut from the bill's conservation title. The Senate version, on the other hand, would maintain funding for the title and expand resources for certain efforts, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program.

Getting a farm bill passed before the current measure expires has taken on greater importance because anxiety in farm country is steadily rising as Trump pursues an aggressive trade agenda. U.S. agriculture has done well under the NAFTA deal with Canada and Mexico, and Trump's ongoing effort to renegotiate it has caused much consternation within the sector. American farmers and ranchers are struggling amid a sustained downturn in commodity prices that has caused net farm income to drop by as much as 50 percent over the last few years.

Farm-state lawmakers have said an on-time farm bill is needed to provide producers with certainty because they face the potential for major losses if Trump’s trade actions lead to protracted trade wars with China and U.S. allies like the European Union.

Conaway referenced farmers' struggles during his comments to reporters after the vote. Looking toward conference committee negotiations, he said that "being able to get the farm bill done on time would help alleviate a modest amount of some of that anxiety, and Rural America deserves us getting it done on time."

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue echoed that position in a statement after the vote, saying that the farm bill is "critically important to give the agriculture community some much-needed reassurance."

"No doubt, there is still much work to be done on this legislation in both chambers of Congress," he added, "and USDA stands ready to assist with whatever counsel lawmakers may request or require.”

Some U.S. agricultural sectors, including pork, have already been hit with tariffs by China in response to the Trump administration’s decision to slap duties on steel and aluminum imports from the country. Canada and Mexico are also rolling out tariffs in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs. And if Trump proceeds with additional tariffs on Chinese goods — as he has vowed to do unless larger trade talks with Beijing yield progress — Beijing's countermeasures would inflict greater pain on U.S. farmers and ranchers.

Liz Crampton, Helena Bottemiller Evich and Megan Cassella contributed to this report.

