The U.S. House voted mostly along party lines on September 19 to cut the leading federal food assistance program by $39 billion over the next decade. Iowa’s four representatives split in the expected way: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supported the “Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act,” while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no. In fact, the roll call shows that not even the bluest Blue Dog Democrat supported this bill.

After the jump I’ve posted comments on this vote from some of the Iowans in Congress, along with the latest Iowa and national figures on food insecurity and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps.”

First, some background: the 2009 federal stimulus bill included extra SNAP funding to increase benefits for needy families. But that help runs out soon. As Stacy Dean reported on the Off the Charts blog, every household that receives SNAP benefits (what used to be called food stamps) will take a hit beginning on November 1–regardless of what happens with other federal legislation on food assistance.

For decades, comprehensive farm bills have included funding for the major nutrition programs, including food stamps/SNAP. Democrats and Republicans sometimes haggled over funding levels or other details, but combining federal farm policies with nutrition assistance was not controversial in Congress.

In June, the U.S. Senate approved a new five-year farm bill that would cut SNAP by about $3.9 billion over ten years. That’s nothing to brag about, but it would do less harm that the deeper cuts House Republicans are seeking. House leaders brought a comprehensive farm bill to the floor including about $20 billion in SNAP cuts over ten years, but they couldn’t get enough votes to pass it. Amendments cutting food assistance drove away most of the House Democrats, while many conservatives thought spending on SNAP was still too generous.

In July, House leaders separated the farm bill into two parts and got a bill authorizing many farm programs for five years through the lower chamber. Democrats pointed out that a farm bill with no nutrition programs would be a dead letter in the Senate, and that hundreds of advocacy groups involved with the agriculture sector opposed the GOP strategy.

Last Thursday’s vote on nutrition programs was House leaders’ effort to address unfinished business on the farm bill. Time is running out, as the temporary extension of agriculture programs is set to expire on October 1. The National Farmers Union published links and details on the House and Senate farm bill proposals here. It’s not yet clear whether House leaders will appoint conference committee members to work out a new comprehensive farm bill. My money’s on another temporary extension, like the one cobbled together around New Year’s.

I didn’t see any statement from Tom Latham on his vote to cut food assistance, but Steve King was proud of the cuts, judging from his press release on September 19 (emphasis in original):

Washington, DC – Congressman Steve King released the following statement after voting for H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013. This bill makes necessary reforms to the bloated policies of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, a program formally known as food stamps). H.R. 3102 passed by a vote of 217 -210.

“When we passed the agriculture-only Farm Bill in July, I was disappointed we were unable to include reforms to nutrition programs that would ensure stability for our economy,” said King. “As the Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight and Nutrition, I understand the importance of SNAP benefits for those eligible for aid and the need for stability for hard working farmers. SNAP was originally designed to offer aid to those who truly needed assistance. Unfortunately, it has turned into a bloated program with far too few checks and balances monitoring to whom the assistance is going. Participation in SNAP rose 65% from 2008 to 2012. During that same time, the total cost of the program rose from $37.6 billion to $78.4 billion a year. It is critical we get the growth of this program under control by ensuring that benefits go to only those who are in need.

H.R. 3102 includes reforms totaling $40 billion in savings over the next decade, cracking down on the waste, fraud and abuse currently present in SNAP. My Democratic colleagues have long been for expanding the dependency class here in America. This bill provides temporary assistance to struggling families, but it also cuts out unnecessary spending and refocuses our limited resources on those truly in need.

With passage of this bill, we have taken a step toward true reform and proper eligibility for SNAP programs. I am grateful for the leadership shown by Chairman Frank Lucas, and look forward to our continued work together on priorities of the Agriculture Committee.”

I’ll get to some flaws in King’s reasoning below. First, here’s Senator Tom Harkin’s take on the GOP measure:

Harkin: Slashing Nutrition Assistance Hurts Working Families & Farmers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement in response to a bill under consideration in the U.S. House that would cut food assistance by $40 billion, and kick nearly four million people off of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the next year, including children, seniors, veterans, and disabled Americans.  Harkin is a former Chairman and now senior member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

“Far from joining with the U.S. Senate to pass a bipartisan bill that will provide a pathway to a five year farm bill, the House is heading in the opposite direction,” said Harkin.  “The bill under consideration today would not only devastate millions of Americans by eliminating or slashing their food assistance, it will also hurt American farmers, rural communities, and consumers by making it harder to pass a comprehensive long-term food and agriculture bill.  This measure is unconscionable.  It will go nowhere in the U.S. Senate.  And it should be soundly rejected by the U.S. House.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House food bill would:

• Cut nearly $40 billion from food assistance programs over a ten year period;

• Deny food assistance to 3.8 million people from SNAP in 2014;

• Reduce food assistance by $90 each month to 850,000 households.

Though not yet calculated by the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill is also certain to deny schools meals to hundreds of thousands of children who receive free school meals as a result of their participation in the SNAP program.

Earlier today, Harkin addressed this issue in his weekly call with Iowa journalists.  Click here to listen to his comments.

Dave Loebsack mentioned his own family’s experience with food stamps in his statement from September 19:

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today after the House voted on the separate nutrition section of the farm bill. Breaking with decades of precedence, House Republicans separated the agriculture and nutrition portions of the farm bill, which threatens its chance at being signed into law. The nutrition-only section put before the House today contained $40 billion in cuts to nutrition assistance programs. The splitting of the two sections was opposed by hundreds of agriculture groups, including the Iowa Farm Bureau.

“As someone raised by a single mother who relied in part on food stamps to put food on the table, I know first-hand that the cuts included in this legislation would have a draconian impact on many families who are still trying to recover. We cannot pull the rug out from under working families, children, seniors and veterans.

“Now that the latest political theater directed by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is over, it is long past time for Speaker Boehner to get serious about getting a farm bill done and go to conference with the Senate. I strongly opposed splitting the agriculture and nutrition sections of the farm bill because it threatens the chances of getting a farm bill signed into law. Our farmers, rural communities and economy are depending on a commonsense, practical farm bill. The farm bill helps keep our economy strong and creates jobs far beyond the farm. We must pass the farm bill without further delay.”

Loebsack has consistently fought to move a farm bill forward that can be signed into law. In July, he joined the Iowa delegation, and was one of only 24 Democrats to support the complete House version of the farm bill, which was voted down. He also introduced in the House the bipartisan Senate farm bill which was supported by both Senators Harkin and Grassley.

Now, with apologies for burying the lead, here are ten reasons Latham and King cast the wrong vote last Thursday.

1. Contrary to King’s claims about “waste, fraud, and abuse,” there is very little evidence that SNAP benefits are wasted or abused on a large scale. Rather, “payment error rates are at an all-time low.  In 2010, only 3 percent of all SNAP benefits represented overpayments.”

If King is worried about federal assistance going to Americans who don’t need help, he should demand spending cuts on various farm subsidy programs instead. For instance, federal crop insurance encourages many farmers to plant on marginal land, and “Unlike direct farm aid payments, which are capped at $40,000 per farm, there is no limit on crop insurance subsidies.”

2. Rising enrollment in SNAP recent years is not a sign of failure. Rather, it shows the program has worked well as a safety net. Click here or here for more facts and figures supporting that conclusion.

Just last week the U.S. Census Bureau released new data showing that SNAP benefits “lifted 4 million people above the official poverty line in 2012” alone.

3. Food insecurity is a growing program in Iowa and nationally, even as the economy slowly recovers from the worst recession since World War II. The Iowa Fiscal Partnership recently released a new report on hunger and food insecurity in Iowa.

4. Millions of vulnerable people will be adversely affected by the cuts. As Senator Harkin mentioned above, Congressional Budget Office research indicates that about 3.8 million people would lose their SNAP benefits entirely, and hundreds of thousands of others would receive less money for food.    

The Iowa Policy Project calculated this summer that more than 400,000 Iowans received SNAP benefits:

1st District – 12.3 percent; about 94,000 people.

2nd District – 15.8 percent; about 121,000 people.

3rd District – 14.7 percent, about 115,000 people.

4th District – 12 percent, about 91,000 people.

The Iowans who benefit from SNAP live in approximately 200,000 households.

This map produced by the Iowa Fiscal Partnership shows how widely SNAP benefits are used across Iowa.

UPDATE: From an op-ed by Iowa Policy Project Executive Director Mike Owen in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on September 20:

• Fact: More Iowans were in poverty in 2012 than before the 2007-09 Great Recession. That is 377,500 people, or 12.7 percent of Iowans, up from 11 percent the year the recession started.

• Fact: About 110,200 Iowa children were in poverty in 2012, or about 15.6 percent – up from 13.1 percent in 2007 and 12 percent in 2001.

5. As Dottie Rosenbaum shows here, Congress doesn’t need to cut SNAP eligibility to reduce the number of people on food assistance. A growing economy will reduce the SNAP caseload over time without imposing undue hardship on low-income people. Rosenbaum also points out,

Because SNAP is projected to shrink as a share of the economy, it is not contributing to the nation’s long-term budget problems. Unlike health care programs and Social Security, there are no significant demographic or programmatic pressures that will cause SNAP costs to grow faster than the economy.

6. Cutting food assistance is bad for the economy. Needy people tend to spend their SNAP benefits quickly. Research has shown that “every dollar increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity.”

7. Contrary to the “welfare queen” image Republicans have been demagoguing against for decades, most SNAP recipients work in low-wage jobs. Click here or here for more evidence. Yes, millions of unemployed people also receive SNAP benefits, but that’s expected and appropriate when long-term unemployment has been at historically high levels in recent years.

8. Republican politicians have long postured as advocates of states’ rights, but the bill passed last week would restrict states’ ability to set policy. Mike Owen explained on the Iowa Policy Points blog,

The House bill would end categorical eligibility, which permits states to provide access to SNAP benefits for families just above the SNAP earnings limit of 130 percent of poverty. Iowa in 2008 used this option to expand gross income eligibility to 160 percent of poverty. An Iowa Fiscal Partnership policy brief last November noted this is particularly important for low-income working families with children, particularly when child care takes such a big bite out of their budgets.

9. SNAP benefits are not overly generous. This post by Joann Weiner includes a lot of good information, but this detail was particularly striking: “Households headed by a single mother received an average $398 in monthly SNAP benefits in 2011.” That’s not a lot to live on.

Last week Panera Bread Chief Executive Ron Shaich made headlines by taking the “SNAP challenge” and trying to feed himself on just $4.50 per day.

“I can’t stop thinking about food,” he wrote. “You probably think I’m joking (or think that must be normal for me since I work for a food company after all), but I promise you it’s not.”

“Over the last few days, my thoughts have been consumed with food. When is my next meal? How much food is left in my cabinet? Will it get me through the week? What should I spend my remaining few dollars on?”

10. As explained above, the House approach to funding food assistance has undermined efforts to pass a comprehensive farm bill. That’s bad news for Iowa on many levels.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorites has published much more about the SNAP program and the impact of the cuts House Republicans approved last week.

UPDATE: King’s Democratic challenger, Jim Mowrer, cited this vote in a fundraising e-mail blast on September 23:

Breaking: King voted to cut $40 billion from essential nutritional services for the most vulnerable but then spends over $3,000 tax payer dollars on food and lodging. That’s not right. Help us keep up the pressure for King to explain himself by giving to our Rapid Response Fund here>>

Friend,

Wow! Thank you to the thousands of you who stood with us and told Rep. Steve King that passing a comprehensive Farm Bill and helping the most vulnerable in our communities is important to us.

And once again, Steve King is talking out both sides of his mouth. He voted to cut $40 billion out of the SNAP program – a program that helps low-income folks – mostly children and seniors – meet their basic nutritional needs.

But on a recent six-day trip to Russia, Steve King was given $3,588 for his food and lodging, which is about what one person on the SNAP program receives in a year.

This isn’t right. Help us keep the pressure on King by making sure our campaign as the rapid response dollars it needs. Keep the pressure up, by clicking here >>

For the 21,000 people on the SNAP program in Iowa’s 4th district this is no laughing matter. Why won’t Steve King stand up for the most vulnerable citizens in this country but doesn’t think twice on spending over $3,000 on a trip for himself?

Help us keep up the pressure on King to explain himself by making sure we have the rapid response dollars we need. Click here to contribute.

Sincerely,

Jim

Mowrer is referring to overseas junkets that Democratic Representative Jackie Speier highlighted last week:

On Thursday, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California lambasted those Republican colleagues who want to cut food aid for the poor, while they themselves rack up pricey meals during travel to foreign countries.

“One member was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fair amount of steak. Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days,” Speier said on the House floor.

Decorum prevented Speier from naming names, but CNN’s The Lead is restrained by no such protocol. CNN researched the public records and discovered that the gourmands in question are Republicans Steve King of Iowa and Frank Lucas of Oklahoma.

Lucas received $127.41 per day for a November trip to Buenos Aires, according to disclosure forms filed with the Clerk of the House.

According to the Des Moines Register, King received $3,588 on lodging and meals during a trip to Russia earlier this year.

Speier underestimated the number of SNAP recipients in King’s district. The

The Iowa Policy Project put that number at 91,000 people, or roughly 12 percent of the population in IA-04.