that afternoon at the george bush presidential library and museum and college station. washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, we discussed the life and legacy of resident george hw bush with the chicago tribune communist clearance page and ethics and public policy center senior fellow peter be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7 pm eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. good mornin. talk about the larger pieces of. the farm bill, what is the ultimate purpose? guest: the farm bill is a massive piece of legislation, touches a lot of parts of the economy. the farm bill is a massive piece of legislation, primarily it's a nutrition assistance

program, food stamps and then there's a lot of crops and conservation initiatives to help improve the land and water quality, rural development and also credit and trade. >> it will cost no more than its projected cost for over a decade. host: they did cut spending, the goal is to a dereturn to drop the pr down. >> is there a deadline for this bill and what happens if the deadline has not been met? >> it's already expired but a

lot of the programs are mandatory spending. that means they continue regardless of how congress appropriates the money . >> my impression is that it will mostly resemble the senate it's not a terribly different -- in the current law. and i think right now they are in a good place i think it will

probably pass in the senate on his back on the floor next week. the house passed its version anna line but now the final version is expected to resemble the senate which doesn't make major changes, i think the house will pick up enough democrats to pass legislation, although they will probably lose more of the conservative rights . >> joining us to talk about the farm bill, if you want to ask questions, we have opened the phone lines for all parties. you can also post your thoughts on twitter. when it comes to the agreement on this bill how much, especially the debate over those on snap ?

>> they were negotiating the differences between the two bills, this was a major hurdle and, the problem on the senate side is politics, they didn't think they would be able to pass the bill and essentially, they wanted to impose stricter work requirements between 5 million and 7 million people and do tighten of eligibility criteria to qualify for the food stamp program. they wanted to pour billions of dollars into state education and training and there was concern about the feasibility of states to stand up to those programs and a decent amount of time. the house wanted to do it by 2021 but the congressional budget office said that probably would not be feasible.

to basic create enough slots for people who are newly eligible. >> i'm hearing from lawmakers that the president is expected to sign it even though he's been tweeting up a storm, maybe not a storm but he has, tweeted several times about how he likes the house bill and the work requirements should be a part of that, there are already general work requirements rees -- to be quantifiable for the foodstamp benefit . >> the first are two programs that make direct payments to farmers when the price of commodities or their average revenue drops below a certain threshold, i would say that cost anywhere between five to $8 million, we as taxpayers

subsidize a portion of the farmers premiums and on average i think we pay about 60% and farmers pay about 40% of the premium for when there is a natural disaster, or they have a significant drop in revenue, they will receive an indemnity . >> those are the technicalities, what about crop subsidies? >> limiting them to welfare farmers. from iowa, trying to rein in the number of managers that farms can have, there are limits on nonfamily farms, many managers they can have and there is a $900,000 adjusted gross income so 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 and also reduced from 900,000 to 700,000 agi, adjusted gross income. >> if you work in the agriculture industry, 202 -- is it fair to say that many of these subsidies go to family farms or industrial farms? >> 97% of farms owned by families but there's no question that farms are getting bigger so bigger farms receive more subsidies with more land, that's just the nature of the industry but, most of the farms in this country are run by families. >> bill works in the agriculture industry, you are on with our guests, go ahead . >> i wanted to ask if there was any information on potential foot-and-mouth disease vaccine that was supposed to be in the

farm bill? >> that's a great question. both bills included money for this new vaccine, usually when something is in legislation before they go to conference, that typically ends up in the final deal so i'm assuming they will allocate -- i'm not sure of the exact amount of money but, they will allocate money for the vaccine bank and that includes foot-and-mouth disease which is very worrisome . >> from mar-a in massachusetts, go ahead . >> yes, i would like to ask if the bill that's going to be -- still includes $800 million cut in medicare? >> i actually am not aware of an $800 million cut to medicare , i'm not sure that's included in the bill .

>> that was in the bill it aside of subsidies and environmental policy how important is this to the bill specifically? >> conservation is about $500 million that we spend on that. so there's not a huge chunk but they merge the conservation stores that program into a program that helps farmers pay for conservation practices that improve quality, water quality but there was a difference and both will be intact but it's unclear. the houseboat of ,

conservation by about $800 million in the senate version would have kept funding flat so where that ends up is still an open question . >> what's the justification of cutting the offending side -- the funding side? >> there are a number of conservation initiatives and not just the several that i mentioned, i think they are probably trying to overlap or make some efficiencies i think that still up for argument . >> check from new mexico is next . good morning . >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to make an observation , in 1965 we passed a bill that

i worked on a blueberry farm at that time and they passed out $2500 per year that you would get put on this. those two farms went out of business because we use to get our labors, largely poor black people but they came with their families. but one increase to the family unit, to now 70% plus of single- family parents but also it created a ploy for farmworkers. so there's a big cycle but it created in my mind and i don't know if they look at this when

they create these bills, i would like to find out . >> if you're talking about a labor issue, of course we have a significant labor shortage and i think that the agriculture industry is hope that congress could address this in an immigration package but fortunately, the department of labor -- the farm bill is mostly companies like usda and fda . >> you asked about the farm bill and the subsidies, but they wouldn't be needed if's -- if terrorists destroyed markets, can we talk about the tariffs and the impact on farmers? >> there's been significant

drops, one of the largest impacts but all major commodities, the dairy and pork industry, the bottom line for share farmers across the country so they've allocated up to $12 billion in trade so part of that is direct payments to farmers, i think they launched first direct payment earlier this year and may have to do the second round the next week i think. that's the damage to farmers and the usda is doing commodity per purchase -- commodity purchases there's also promotion overseas of these products of these exports.

>> we saw mexico and canada -- >> the biggest gain is for the barry industry and this will be seen over time. but, other than that, i think it's largely status quo, open market between the three north american countries so, the markets were open and i think that agricultural producers are just happy that there is some predictability because i know trump said if congress doesn't pass that he will withdraw and that remains to be seen whether that takes place but of course congress will be able to take it up next year but, like i said, the biggest gain is the agricultural industry but it definitely won't be enough for the impact to the dairy industry due to tariffs.

>> has 10 at the -- has canada one over mexico in this deal? >> it's a good question, i think you have to get some wins in terms of canada and mexico and market access. i think mexico also got a win in that it rejected a proposal for the trump administration to make it easier for the fruit and vegetable industry and those complaining about the difficulty of competing but, the administration was not able to secure a provision that would've made it easier for regional industries in the u.s. to bring antidumping against mexico, we've got to challenge

some of these practices . >> thank you for joining us for this discussion, bill in washington d.c. is next, good morning . >> good morning. i believe the food stamp program is the largest part of the agricultural bill and when this was going to congress earlier, the house passed restrictions and requirements for people to receive food stamps. the senate said they don't want these restrictions there, it would cut $19 billion from the food stamp program to

put these restrictions, but the house said we do want this and we would effectively take the food off the table of 2 million people, mostly women and children this gives 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 house once again tries to reimpose these $19 billion cuts to the food stamp program with restrictions, that's the first question. the second question is, do you think people in the united states no that this farm bill would cut $19 billion in the food stamp program, take food off the table for over 2

million americans, mostly women and children? >> i think to the first question, just based on the congressional budget office or the house farm bill, i believe it was about $9 billion in benefits that would be cut, not necessarily 19 billion i think they would reinvest a large portion of that money into these education and training programs at the state level, it would be mandatory they would have to set the education training programs up in the major concern is of democrats, we are taking benefits away from families with children, the vast majority of people, two thirds of people receiving snap benefits are families with children , the elderly and people with disabilities, so, and then, secondly, i think his

question was, do people know that sue makes up the majority of food stamp recipients. it's a good question, there are maybe misconceptions about people was -- people who make food stamps that they are working. i think about 43% of households on snap to receive an income , it just means they are earning enough to disqualify them for food stamps. there is a controversial waiver process in house republicans agricultural secretary and they've talked about this a lot , states can waive the work requirements for the population known as able-bodied adults without dependents, that's a terrible acronym called abawd,

states can waive that if an employment is high but only seven states have waivers, i think statewide and then 36 have partial waivers and basically, this is because the unemployment rate was very high during the recession but this really hasn't come down. unemployment right now is low right now under 4% nationwide

and if you compare the number of people on snap pre- reception and after the recession, there's about 26 million people enrolled in food stamps before the recession and now there's about 40 million people but that has come down from a peak of 47 million in 2012 but house republicans argue with that coming down fast enough when unemployment is lower than it was before the recession and there is job growth but at the same time it's a complicated story of course, wages are stagnated and i think there was a big recruitment effort during the bush administration and the obama administration to enroll people who might be eligible who didn't know and work on food stamps . >> we had a viewer on twitter ask why is farm assistance and food assistance combined? >> that's a good question, you have to have this coalition of urban members and rural members who will come together and pass

the bill. of course the farmers and ranchers in the rural districts say -- the lawmakers that represent them want to get this done. >> i was wondering if you could step back to give us more of a 10,000 foot view of the modern farm policy, i'd like you to step back and give us a sense of ahistorical need that farm

policy has served and how that may have changed today. i imagine historically it's imperative for government maybe even beyond foreign policy and borders, preventing us from starving in our beds, i'm wondering if that need has changed at all and that we have a bigger obesity problem in this country then we have starvation problem notwithstanding the need for the snap program. there's always a need for politicians to garner votes and maintain power and, certainly that is part of the motivation for farm policy for bilateral support. so, if you could just to step back and give us a higher scale historical picture, that would be great . >> sure. farm policy started during the dust bowl, there was a need to

help farmers in the event of natural disasters showing we could grow food in this country and not starve. overtime, it has evolved a lot we went from direct payment system, money regardless of whether they planted a crop or not, sometimes they got paid not to plant but that's changed a lot over the years. in the agriculture industry, we tend to advocate for more market oriented farm policy with money going to farmers and ranchers in the nature of an actual disaster. a recent development is the crop insurance program so, the idea is that farmers are putting money into a program

as a partnership with taxpayers or they lose revenue each year. so, it has certainly been evolving and i think, maybe not during my lifetime maybe later there will be discussion about whether we have a crop insurance bill and do we need some of those more direct programs that pay farmers prices and revenue jobs and they don't have to put any money into the programs. that's a debate to be had and then in general because farms are getting bigger, the debate is also shifting to, when and at one point should be be cut off from receiving subsidies from the government. that didn't get very far around this time but in the future -- the reason the debate didn't take off is because the commodity

prices have been on a decline in the income has dropped as well. lawmakers really had an appetite to have this conversation about how to limit subsidies . >> thanks for taking my call. the gentleman from dc made a good point. obesity isn't linked -- obesity is linked to poverty, the eat processed food. they should really address what has happened historical way and what has happened historically to black farmers the way they would so bad seeds -- where they were sold plaid -- bad seeds on purpose and they would lose their crops and secondly,

we had a previous segment talking about how to reduce snap and follow it up with a farm bill segment where we are literally giving welfare to farmers because of bad foreign- policy decisions. the farm bill may be needed but they definitely need to be more inclusive for all things that have happened to all farmers just -- not just the farmers we care about. >> the fda has over the years, had enormous settlements with black farmers because they are being discriminated against. so the usda loans out a lot of money by offering loans and ownership loans and that was certainly a pattern of discrimination and the usda and congress has had to allocate money for settlements. so, this time around that needs to be

behind -- not necessarily behind but congress is in allocating money for any settlements in this farm bill. then to your point about where the government spends its money, i think that juxtaposition was not lost on people watching the process on how the farm bill would've made it easier for farms to receive subsidies at the same time they were trying to cut benefits for food stamps recipients. a family of three on food stamps means they earned about $27,000 per year. so, they are participating in subsidy programs, a lot of them are large farms, so there is a debate to be had about what is the right amount, each farmer,

what is the proper place for this tax money. so, i think this will be an ongoing conversation in the future . >> next week, both the house and senate will release their legislation public way, that was supposed to happen early this week but it was delayed because of the passing of george hw bush and the ceremonies to honor him. so, everything has been pushed back to early next week but i think it will be a fast-moving process because i'm sure we will have the votes . >> that's catherine who reports in agriculture discussing the farm bill . >> this is barbara glenn, the ceo of the national association of state departments of agriculture, joining us to talk about our culture policy