on c-span. . sunday on q&a. >> i've worked with fourpreside jimmy carter, bill clinton, barack obama, and to my surprise, donald j. trump. >> publisher of many best selling nonfiction books. >> i also came to understand about donald trump, and this is profoundly important for the way things work now, is donald trump in his heart of hearts believes he always wins. here's a guy who has been in new york real estate, gambling real estate, boxing, wrestling, beauty contests, television. construction. never been the target of a criminal investigation. that's astonishing in new york city. >> a conversation with longtime journalist and publisher peter osnos sunday night at 8:00

eastern on c-span's q&a. >> continuing our discussion on the farm bill. joining us, catherine budroe of political, here to talk about the farm bill. good morning. >> aside from that, talk about the larger pieces, what is the ultimate purpose? >> the farm bill is a massive piece of legislation. it's -- it touches a lot of different parts of the economy. so primarily, of course, the supplemental nutrition assistance program is the largest part of the bill. that's formerly known as food stamps and then craft insurance for farmers, initiatives to help them improve the land that they're working on, the soil, the water quality. rural development, agricultural research, and there's also credit and trade, too. investment in those types of programs. >> what's the price tag? >> about $860 billion over a decade, so pretty significant

price tag. >> how does that compare to previous farm bills? >> the goal of the house and senate agricultural lawmakers is to keep it budget newtal. it's going to cost no more than the current law is projected to cost over a decade. and the last farm bill, they did cut -- they did cut spending. i think the goal is over time to drop the price tag. >> is there a deadline for this bill, and what happens if the deadline is not met? >> it expired in the new fiscal year. but the logic is that a lot of the programs in the farm bill actually are mandatory spending. so that means that they continue regardless of this congress appropriates the money. there are some programs left in the works. they're less expensive and lawmakers told reporters that they need to do it before the end of the year because then there are other kind of fiscal quips, you could say, in the new year. they want to do it by the end of december. >> where do republicans and

democrats in the house and senate stand on agreeing to the aspects of this bill? >> right, so the leaders of the house and senate agriculture committee reached an agreement in principle, quote, in principle, last week. and my impression is that it's going to resemble mostly the senate bill, and actually, i think in general, it's not a terribly different -- it's not terribly different than the current farm law. i think right now, they're in a good place. i think it will probably pass in the senate when it's brought to the floor. maybe next week. and you know, the first time the house passed its version, it was on strictly partisan lines. only republicans voted for it, but now that the final version is expected to resemble the senate, which doesn't make major changes to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, i think the house will pick up enough democrats to pass the legislation. although they'll probably lose more of the conservative right flank of the republican party.

>> catherine boudreau talks about the farm bill. if you want to ask her questions, we have set aside the phone lines. democrats, 202-748-8000. and you can also post your thoughts on twitter at cspan wj. how much of a hurdle was the s.n.a.p. program, particularly the debate over increasing the work requirements for some on the program? >> for months, as the house and senate was negotiating the differences between their two bills, of course, the food stamp program was a major hurdle. and the problem on the senate side is just politics. i mean, they just didn't think they would have the votes to pass something that looked like the house bill. and also, a lot of democrats are flat out opposed to what the house is trying to do, essentially they wanted to impose stricter work requirements between 5 and 7 million people, and they wanted

to do some tightening of eligibility criteria to qualify for the food stamp program. they wanted to pour billions of dollars into state education and training programs, and there was concern about the feasibility of states to stand up those programs in a decent amount of time. i think the house wanted to do it by 2021, and the congressional budget office said that probably would be infeasible, maybe even over a decade to crate enough slots for people who are newly eligible for these work and training programs. >> this is something the president added. is he okay with it being left out? >> that's what i'm hearing from lawmakers, the president is expected to sign it even though he's been tweeting up a storm, maybe not a storm, but he has over the last several months tweeted about how he likes the house bill and work requirements, stricter work requirement eed should be a par

of it. >> you talked about crop subsidies. explain to the folks how those work. >> yeah, so i would say there's kind of two buckets of crop subsidies. the first are these two programs that make direct payments to farmers when the price of commodities or their average revenue drops to below certain thresholds. so i would say those cost anywhere between like $5 billion and $8 billion, sometimes $10 billion, and there's also a crop insurance program. we as taxpayers subsidize a portion of farmers' premium, on average, taxpayers pay about 60%, and farmers pay about 40% of their premium so when there's a disaster, a natural disaster, or they have a significant drop in revenue, they will receive an indemnity from the government. >> what about the politics of crop subsidies. what are those. >> i think the biggest political football right now regarding crop subsidies is limiting them

to wealthier farmers. so senator chuck grassley, for instance, from iowa, he was trying to rein in the number of managers, for instance, that pharms can have. there are limits on non-family farms, how many managers they can have qualifying for subsidies, and there's a $900,000 adjusted gross income tax. if you're making above that, you can't receive subsidies. the senate bill would have limited the number of managers that family farms can have that qualify for subsidies and also reduce from $900,000 to $700,000 agi, adjusted gross income. >> the eastern and central time zones, for the mountain and pacific zones, 202-748-8001. if you work in the agriculture industry, 202-748-8002. is it fair to say that many go to family farms or industrial farms? >> 97% of farms in this country are family farms. owned by families.

there's no question farms are getting bigger. so bigger farms receive more subsidies. they have more land. so that's just the nature of the industry. but i should be clear, yeah, most of the farms in this country are run by families. >> let's start with a call. bill in washington, d.c., works in the agriculture industry. bill, good morning. you're on with our guest. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. yeah, i wanted to ask ms. budroe if she had information on the bill. >> both the house and senate bill included money for the new livestock vaccine. usually when something is in both pieces of legislation before they go to conference, it typically ends up in the final deal. i'm assuming they're going to allocate -- i'm not sure of the exact amount of money at this point, but they will allocate some money for the vaccine, to

combat disease, which is worry sp for the livestock industry because it can spread rapidly. >> from massachusetts, go ahead. you're next up. >> caller: yes. i would like to ask if the bill that is going to be voted on still includes the $800 million cut in medicare? >> oh, i actually am not aware of an $800 million cut to medicare. that wasn't -- i'm not sure that's included in the bill. >> the other aspect you talked about that was in the bill aside from crop subsidies is environmental policy. how much of an importance is environmental policy when it comes to this bill specifically? >> connoisseservation is about billion a yer. comparatively, the s.n.a.p. program is $70 billion, not a huge chunk, but a fundamental part of the farm bill, and what the house is trying to do was kind of controversial, which was

to basically merge the conservation stewardship program into an environmental quality incentives program. both are working land programs. so they help farmers pay for conservation practices. practices that will improve quality, water quality, wult there was a difference of opinion on whether it should be phased out all together, and my understanding is both will be intact, but it's unclear how much money each will receive. the house bill would have cut conservation by about $800 million, i think, over a decade, and the senate version would have kept funding flat. so it's an open question, i think, so we'll have to learn more when they release the bill pub lackly, i think early next week. >> what's the justification of cutting the conservation side? >> a good question. i think the house republicans thought there was kind of efficiencies they could put into the conservation programs. there are a number of conservation initiatives, not

just the several that i mentioned. i think they're probably trying to maybe reduce overlap or make some efficiencies or i think that's their argument. >> from new mexico, chuck is next for our guests. chuck, good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just would like to make an observation and maybe see what the person thinks about this. in 1965, we passed the thing called aid for children. i used to work on a blueberry farm at that time or just before that time. and when they passed that, i think it was $2,500 a year, if you didn't make $2,500, you would get put on this. those two farms went out of business because we used to get our laborers from philadelphia and camden, they were the best people in family units, and largely poor black people, but they came with their families. time-out things happened that i

saw that we're still perpetuating. one is it increased the family units from now it's 70% plus of single family parents, and also, it created a void for farm workers. so now the illegals come in, so there's this big cycle that that created in my mind, and i don't know if they look at this when they create these bills. i just would like to find out. >> caller, thank you. >> is he's talking about a labor issue in this country, of course, we have a significant labor shortage on farms. and i think that the agriculture industry is hoping that congress can potentially address this in an immigration package, but unfortunately, i don't think that will happen this year. that's what they want. and the farm bill does not

address really much agricultural labor or the workforce. that's mostly left up to the -- i mean, the department of labor, for instance, and the farm bill is mostly covering agencies like the usda, fda. >> a viewer asked on twitter about the farm bill, i suppose talking about the subsidies that farmers get. adding they wouldn't be needed if tariffs didn't destroy markets for the united states. can you talk about the tariff situation and the impact on farmers? >> there's been significant drops in sales to china of soybeans, for instance. that's one of the largest impacts. but this involves all major commodities, the pork industry, the dairy industry, this has been taking a toll on the bottom line for sure for farmers across the country, so the trump administration has allocated up to $12 billion on trade assistance. so part of that is direct payments to farmers, about i think they launched the first

direct payments earlier this year. and they might do a second round, probably not be next week, i think, so that's the kind of to blunt the damage to farmers. also, the usda is doing commodity purchases so they're going to buy up excess commodities and send them to nutrition programs, food banks, and then there's another portion which is promotion overseas of these products to increase exports overseas. >> we ultimately saw the president sign a initial agreement with mexico and canada at the g-20. what does that mean for farmers in the short term? >> the biggest gains in that agreement is definitely for the dairy industry. those will be seen over time. but other than that, i think it's largely status quo, i think. there were pretty open markets between the three north american countries, so the markets were open. and i think that agricultural

producers are just happy that there's some predictability because i know president trump has said if congress doesn't pass it, he will withdraw, so that remains to be seen whether that takes place, but of course, congress will be able to take it up until next year. but like i said, i think the biggest gains for the agricultural industry is in dairy. it definitely won't be enough to blunt the impact of what the dairy industry has felt due to the tariffs. >> so does canada win out over mexico in this deal when it comes to trade or at least farm issues? >> you know, i don't think -- it's a good question. i think the u.s. did get some wins in terms of canada and mexico in market access, even for u.s. wheat producers, for instance, and i think mexico also got a win in that it rejected a proposal from the trump administration to make it easier for the fruit and vegetable industry, for instance, in florida, like

peppers and tomatoes who are really complaining about the difficulty of competing with cheaper labor in mexico. so when imports come to the u.s., it undercuts their market. but the trump administration was not able to secure a provision that would have made it easier for these regional industries in the u.s. to bring an anti-dumping and countervailing case against mexico to challenge some of these practices. >> this is catherine boudreau joining us. bill, you're next. good morning. >> caller: good morning. there's two points that i would like to just discuss on this. first of all, i believe the food stamp program is the largest part of the agriculture bill. and when this was going through congress earlier, the house passed some draconian restrictions on and requirements for people who receive food stamps, things like you have to

have a job or you have to be looking for a job, and this is for a lot of places in the united states where there aren't any jobs. or you have to be getting some education, and people who can't put food on the table don't have money to go and get educations. so first off, the senate said no, we don't want these restrictions. it would cut $19 billion from the food stamp program if you put these restrictions in. so they said no, we don't want that. but the house, who had acted on this earlier, said yeah, we do want this. it would effectively take the food off the table of 2 million people, mostly women and children. right around christmas time, that's to give you an idea of how compassionate these people are. this time around, my first question is, do you think that

the senate will balk if the senate tries to reimpose this $19 billion cut in the food stamp program with these restrictions? that's the first question. the second question is, do you think people in the united states know generally that this farm bill would cut $19 billion in the food stamp program and take food off the table for over 2 million americans, especially women and children. >> bill, thanks. >> so i think two things, to the first question. based on the congressional budget office score of the house farm bill, i believe it was about $9 billion in benefits that would be cut, not necessarily $19 billion, and they would reinvest a large portion of that money into these

education and training programs. and that would be at the state level. it would be mandatory. states would have to set these education training programs up. but of course, the major concern is of democrats is, of course, yes, we're taking benefits away from potentially families with children. i mean, the vast majority of people, two thirds of people receiving stamp benefits are families with children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. and then, you know, secondly, i think his question was, do people know that that's who makes up the majority of food stamp recipients. and that's a good question. i think there is some maybe misconceptions about people who receive food stamps. misconceptions that they're not working. i think usda said about 43% of households on s.n.a.p. are receiving an income, meaning they are working. it just means they're not

earning enough to disqualify them for food stamps. of course, there is this controversial waiver process and house republicans agriculture secretary sonny perdue have talked about this a lot. states can waive the work requirements for the population known as able-bodied adults without dependents. and that's a terrible acronym, kind of what we call it in washington. but basically, states can exempt this time limit that they're on, basically, they can only receive s.n.a.p. benefits for three months during a three-year period unless they're working or they accept a job that comes their way or does an education training program. states can waive that if unemployment is high in a region or a state. i think only seven states have waivers state-wide, and something like 36 have partial waivers in certain regions of

the state. basically, this is because the unemployment rate was actually very high in the great recession, and house republicans and, again, agriculture sonny perdue have argued this really hasn't come down. the use of the waivers probably shouldn't be -- they argue they're being abused actually because they're doing too many of them when unemployment is low right now nationwide, it's under 4%. and then if you just compare the numbers of people on s.n.a.p. pre-recession and after the recession, you know, there's about 26 million people on food stamps before the recession. now there's about 40 million, and that's come down from a peak of 47 million in 2012. but again, house republicans argue it's not coming down fast enough when unemployment is lower than it was before the recession and there's job growth in the country, but at the same time, this is a complicating story. you know, wages are stagnated.

and i think that there was a big recruitment effort during the bush administration, the obama administration, to enroll people who may be eligible but didn't know and were on food stamps. >> we had a question off twitter, why are farm assistant and food assistant combined? >> a great question. this has been a link for a long time, and i think it is important to getting the bill passed because you have to have this kind of coalition of urban members and rural members who will come together and pass this bill because if you're living in a city, maybe you don't necessarily have farmers in your district that find this piece of legislation important. but you care about the food stamp program, for example, and there's a lot of this will probably be promotion of urban agriculture, and then of course, the farmers and ranchers and the more rural districts, they, of course, want this legislation passed so the lawmakers who represent them want to get it done. and so it takes a kind of

moderate, more moderate group of members of congress to get it done. >> robert is in baltimore. go ahead. >> caller: i wondered if you could just step back and give us more of a 10,000-foot view of the need that modern farm policy serves. i know as an expert it's down to get in the weeds. i would like you to step back and give us a sense of the historical need that farm policy has served and how that might have changed today. i would imagine that historically, it would be imperative of government, maybe even beyond foreign policy and securing borders and national defense was preventing us from starving in our beds. i'm wondering if that need changed at all over the decades and that we have a bigger obesity problem in this country than we have starvation problem, not withstanding the s.n.a.p. programs and things like that. there's always a need for

politicians to garner votes and maintain power. and certainly, that's part of the motivation for foreign policy, evidenced by bilateral support year after year. so if you could just step back and basically just give us a more higher scale historical picture of the need, that would be great. >> sure. so farm policy started in the dust bowl in the 1930s. of course, there was a need to help farmers who, in the event of natural disaster, to make sure we could grow food for this country and not starve. it's a good point. over time, i mean, it's certainly evolved a lot. you know, we went from direct payment system. farmers would get money regardless if they planted a crop or not. sometimes they got paid not to plant. that's changed a lot over the

years. now, policymakers and the agriculture industry tend to advocate for a more market-oriented farm policy program where there's only money going to farmers and ranchers in the nature of an actual disaster. a recent development is the crop insurance program, so i think the idea is that farmers have skin in the game. they're putting money into a program. and a partnership with taxpayers in the event of a natural disaster or they lose some revenue each year. and so it certainly has been evolving, and i think, you know, maybe not during my lifetime or maybe later in my lifetime, there will be this question of, do we just have a crop insurance program? do we need some of those more direct farm programs that pay

farmers when prices and revenue drop. and they don't have to put any money into the programs themselves. that is certainly a debate to be had. just in general because farms are getting bigger, the debate is also shifting to, well, when should we cut -- at what size should farmers be cut off from receiving subsidies from the government. and that didn't get very far this time around in the farm bill, but i think maybe in future years. i think the reason that debate didn't take off really at all this cycle is because the commodity prices have been on a decline over the last five years. net income has dropped quite a bit as well. so i don't think lawmakers really had an appetite to have this conversation about how to limit subsidies. >> one more call from orange, new jersey. sterling, go ahead. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. salute to the gentleman from d.c. he made a good point. and i would like to say that -- i would say two things. first, obesity isn't linked

directly to just -- obesity is linked to poverty. yes, a lot of people who may be on s.n.a.p. are obese, but it's because they're eating processed food. the second thing is the farm bill should really address what has happened historically and what's happening currently to black farmers like in mississippi where the black farmers were sold bad seeds on purpose so they would lose their crops and then lose their land. there were farmers down there who lost over a million dollars in crops this year. but secondly, we had a previous segment talking about how to reduce s.n.a.p. and then we follow it up with the farm bill segment where we're literally giving welfare to farmers currently because of our bad foreign policy decisions. so the farm bill may be needed, but it definitely needs to be more thoughtful and inclusive to all of the things that have happened to all farmers, not just the farmers we care about. thank you. >> the usda has over the years

had enormous settlements with black farmers, native american farmers, women, because they're being discriminated against in the loan process. they loan out a lot of money in operating ownership loans and that certainly was a pattern of discrimination and the usda in past farm bills, the congress has had to allocate money for these settlements. so this time around, that seems to be behind, not necessarily behind them, i just mean that the congress isn't allocating money for any settlements in this farm bill. then, to your point about, you know, where the government gives its money to farmers or food stamp recipients, i think that juxtaposition wasn't lost on people watching the process. the house farm bill would have made it easier for farms to

receive greater subsidies at the same time that they were trying to cut benefits for food stamp recipients. family of three that is on food stamps, that means they earn about $27,000 a year. meanwhile, you know, farms that are participating in these subsidy programs, a lot of them are large farms. and so there is a debate to be had about what is the right, you know, what is the right amount to send to each farmer, what's the proper place for this tax money. so i think that this is going to be an ongoing conversation in farm bills to come. >> when do we expect votes in the house and senate? >> i think next week. so both the house and senate don't have to release their legislation publicly, and that was supposed to happen earlier this week, but it is delayed because of the passing of george h.w. bush and the ceremonies congress is having to honor him.

he's lying in state until wednesday. so everything has been pushed back to early next week. but i think it will be a fast-moving process because i'm pretty sure they will have the votes it needs, both chambers. >> catherine boudreau who reports on agriculture joining us for a discussion about the farm bill. thanks for your time. >> this is barbara glenn, the ceo of the national association of state departments of agriculture joining us to talk about agriculture policy and the farm bill. good morning. >> good morning, pedro. >> tell us a little bit about your organization, specifically what it does and your role in it. >> i would be happy to do so. i'm the ceo of the national association of state departments of agriculture. our mission is really to create consensus around sound agricultural policy. we do that between the state departments of ag, the federal government, and stakeholders. so pedro, our nmembers are the commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture in all 50 states and four tear