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

the work engagement requirements that the house supported, making any kind of real reform in the s.n.a.p. program not be in the bill. how will you react to that? >> i have been trying to keep low-key. the insane part of washington dc . here are the numbers. i will do this in 30 or 40 seconds. the last two farm bills have driven people into poverty from the total amount of 28 million to about 43 million. starting with the premise of the farm bill, 85% of it is s.n.a.p., only 15% of it is actually farm bill. if we know that more and more people are losing opportunities, why in the world would we want to put some kind of work provision, this is about hope not judgment. the fact that we do not have the scruples to be able to say, we don't want to be castigated as far as, why would we want to help people? i think of psalm 139, how every individual is created and has individual talents and abilities, why don't we want to see our fellow brothers and sisters get the opportunity whether you do a merge, there are so many ways to do that. even some of our guys on the senate side, i think it does a disservic

host: one of the aspects under debate was that of the s.n.a.p. program. what was your thinking about the increased work requirements being soft by the ministration -- thought -- sought by the administration? that: it is assistance mostly goes to children, seniors, and people with disabilities. of people whoity receive assistance are in working families. there are already work requirements for nutrition assistance. i am all for making sure the people have a pathway to get good jobs so they can support their families, but i do not think we should put up additional barriers for people getting s.n.a.p. as a way of accomplishing that. does not make any sense. i am happy that the bill we are to see in the coming days is similar to the senate's nutrition assistance program, which was a bipartisan bill, supported by both democrats and republicans. host: would you say that there are overall changes to s.n.a.p. needed? guest: there are tweaks we can make. i'm open to those. i do not think we need to layer on additional requirements for s.n.a.p. host: when it comes t

the biggest point of contention was over food stamps. 80% of the bill is food stamps or s.n.a.p., supplemental nutrition assistance programrepublicans backed by trump wanted to impose work requirements on food stamp recipients. that's now off the table meaning democrats in the house and senate will support this bill. as we await the vote, let's take a look at what's in the thing. it would provide an extra $500 million to help farmers expand into foreign markets, also keeps farmer safety nets including crop insurance and subsidies in case crop prices drop. allocates $2.5 billion into research into somethings like organic farming and pest control and new addition to the farm bill this year, legalization of hemp which was pushed by majority leader mitch mcconnell. that provision would remove hemp from the list of controlled substances. here he is signing the provision with his fancy hemp pen. but the provision now means that hemp would be recognized as an actual crop, which means hemp farmers could receive the same benefits other farmers do. it also seems to be a win for p proponents of medical marijuana. funding for the opi

the work engagement requirements that the house supported, making any kind of real reform in the s.n.a.p. program not be in the bill. how will you react to that? >> i have been trying to keep low-key. the insane part of washington dc . here are the numbers. i will do this in 30 or 40 seconds. the last two farm bills have driven people into poverty from the total amount of 28 million to about 43 million. starting with the premise of the farm bill, 85% of it is s.n.a.p., only 15% of it is actually farm bill. if we know that more and more people are losing opportunities, why in the world would we want to put some kind of work provision, this is about hope not judgment. the fact that we do not have the scruples to be able to say, we don't want to be castigated as far as, why would we want to help people? i think of psalm 139, how every individual is created and has individual talents and abilities, why don't we want to see our fellow brothers and sisters get the opportunity whether you do a merge, there are so many ways to do that. even some of our guys on the senate side, i think it does a disservic