Stamp of approval. (Race and Recession).

President George Bush proposes a better food stamp benefit restoration policy for legal immigrants than the Senate Democrats in the Farm Bill. A Republican Senator from Indiana leads the fight for more money for the food stamp program and conservation programs while Senate Democratic leadership urges restraint. The conservative Republican chair of the House Agricultural Committee offers more money for the food stamp program, but the Senate Agriculture Committee chair, Tom Harkin, and Democratic Majority Leader Thomas Daschle reject it.

An alternate universe? Not quite, but these strange political twists are the result of a convergence of forces that makes the 2002 Farm Bill one of the most beneficial bills yet from the 107th U.S. Congress for low-income and immigrant communities.

The final Farm Bill, expected to pass as we went to press in April, will provide a projected $6.9 billion in new money for the food programs. The food stamp program is the nation's largest and most effective anti-hunger program, providing poor families with a near-cash equivalent to buy food at grocery stores, convenience stores, and farmers' markets. This rare victory came out of a tough grassroots campaign that took advantage of an intriguing blend of political posturing by Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative advocates, and a powerful anti-subsidy and pro-conservation effort.

Food Stamps Post-1996

The 1996 welfare reform legislation had serious consequences for the food stamp program and provides an important political backdrop for the 2002 Farm Bill. While food stamps remained a federal entitlement, the 1996 legislation included a number of punitive and racist policies such as eliminating food stamps for immigrants and mandating work requirements for many adults without children. Subsequent reforms added some groups of legal immigrants back onto the rolls, but many remained without access to this vital program.

Welfare reform prompted anti-poverty and immigrant rights organizations to intensify local organizing to improve state food stamp policy and increase access. Many stares, particularly with large immigrant populations, adopted their own programs to supplant federal funding for food stamps for immigrants, while others applied for federal waivers to exempt counties with high unemployment rates from work requirements. Despite these efforts, welfare reform resulted in large declines in food stamp enrollment. Participation in the food stamp program plummeted by 7.3 million between 1996 and 2000. According to a March 1999 USDA analysis of caseload declines between 1994 and 1997, the number of legal immigrants felt by 54 percent, accounting for 14 percent of the total decline.

Why such dramatic changes? Across the country, community organizations began hearing an endless stream of stories about the difficulties of enrolling in support programs. Limited-English speakers described attempting to fill out 20-page applications without the help of a translator. Employed applicants told of practices, such as mandatory interviews scheduled during work hours and multiple office trips required for enrollment, that forced them to miss work and lose badly needed wages. Some applicants, particularly those of color, recounted being told they need nor bother to apply for programs because they were not eligible when, in fact, they were. Others described being illegally denied benefits and nor counseled on how to appeal denial decisions.

Community organizations began to document these problems and initiated a number of successful access campaigns. The Northwest Federation of Community Organizations helped groups organize testing projects in Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington and found that states erected numerous barriers to enrollment--often involving discrimination. Similarly, Make the Road by Walking documented systemic language discrimination in New York's welfare offices and won a federal lawsuit (Ramirez v. Giuliani) to force the state to provide interpretation services. Grassroots Organizers (GRO) in Missouri coordinated a regional action where hundreds confronted food stamp directors to demand better policy and implementation.

2002 Farm Bill

As hearings on the Farm Bill began last spring, there were initial concerns that Congress might defederalize the food stamp program and block grant the funding to states. In testimony to Congress in the first hearing in the House, influential conservative Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation said the Food Stamp program needed more work requirements and time limits, like TANF under welfare reform.

"While TANF is based on the idea of reciprocal obligation, that the government shall give aid but shall require constructive behavior on the part of the recipients, food stamps remains primarily based on the idea of one-way handouts and permissive entitlements to participants," Rector said.

With many of its member organizations actively engaged in state and regional food stamp campaigns, the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support was well positioned to ensure that the right-wing fantasy to dismantle the food stamp program was never realized.

And, after years of battling with state administrators and governors to improve food stamp programs and increase access, hunger advocates found themselves on the same side with state officials. In August 2001, the Northwest Federation of Community Organizations (NWFCO) organized 250 hungry families to demonstrate outside the Western Governor's Association annual meeting in Coeur D'Alene. After three hours of demonstrating, governors from Idaho and Oregon came out to address the group and promised to work at both the state and federal levels to ease barriers to access in the food stamp program. But, self-interest was equally as important.

Strict federal quality control requirements resulted in states erecting numerous hurdles for applicants to help ensure that their numbers were right. Likewise, many states were literally paying the price for providing immigrants with food stamps. "Of course governors were supporting restoration of benefits for immigrants," says LeeAnn Hall, NWFCO director. "A hundred percent federal funding would relieve states, particularly when most states are having budget deficits."

The Republican House quickly passed the Farm Security Act in October 2001. It provided $3.6 billion in new money for the food stamp program. Most of the funds were aimed at simplifying the application process and easing the impossibly strict rules that penalize states for making minor errors. There were no new work requirements, no block granting to states, no new hassles for families when they enroll, and no other punitive measures in the bill.

The Senate Twist

The Farm Bill became interesting when the Senate Republicans came our with a stronger bill than the Democrats. Senator Harkin provided $6.2 billion for food stamps in his initial farm bill. While Harkin's bill represented a major step forward from the House bill and twice as much funding, Republican Senator Dick Lugar from Indiana was offering a far more generous farm bill that included $12 billion in improvements in the food stamp program.

Why were Republicans in front of Democrats in supporting the nation's most critical anti-poverty programs? The Farm Bill is a zero-sum game; money from one section must come from another. The moderate Republicans sponsoring amendments to bring more money into the food stamp program took this money from the commodity section of the bill. This is money that would go to agribusiness and wealthy farmers in the form of subsidies.

Defying Beltway Politics

Republican Senator Dick Lugar is a moderate Republican with a history of support for the food stamp program. He also disdains the nation's current system of farm subsidies, believing that it is unfair and harmful to small farmers. He led the effort in the Senate to take money from farm subsidies and move it into food stamps.

Under the Democratically controlled Senate, Harkin's bill was likely to pass. While all anti-hunger advocates supported the provisions of the Lugar Bill, many national policy organizations, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Food Research and Action Center, were also pleased that the Harkin bill provided increased funding and after Democrats refused to budge they were hesitant in pressing the issue.

But instead of settling for the Harkin bill, the National Campaign broke ranks with beltway liberals and immediately adopted a strategy to push Democrats to meet or beat Lugar's offer. "Our members want to fight for what their communities need," said NWFCO's Hall. "We're unwilling to be limited by what others think is winnable without a fight."

GRO of Missouri and South Carolina Fair Share led an action at the Democratic National Committee headquarters demanding help getting the Senate Democrats to adopt Lugar's food stamp provision. The action resulted in Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe agreeing to push key Senate Democrats to take stronger leadership on hunger issues.

In addition, the National Campaign released campaign finance research by NWFCO that exposed the financial dependence of some Senate Democrats on large contributors from agriculture interests. Arkansas ACORN used the campaign finance numbers for a "Feed the needy, not the greedy" media campaign to pressure Arkansas's Senators to support more money for food stamps.

Environmental organizations also stepped into the fray. Their efforts to limit farm subsidies and strengthen conservation policies helped force the Democrats hand. While no Senate Democrat emerged to lead the effort to adopt Lugar's nutrition title, ultimately Senate leaders allowed three amendments to pass that added an additional $2.7 billion for food stamps. This brought the total value of the Senate nutrition title up to $8.9 billion in new money.

Courting the Latino Vote

The campaign to improve Food Stamp was also aided by Republican attempts to garner support of Latino voters. Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic minority group and becoming a larger political force in many key states, including Florida, Texas, and California. When September 11 stalled the incredible momentum of the campaign for legalization, it gave the President an easy way to avoid making a bigger political gesture to Latino voters. Instead, Bush attempted to earn points with Latinos by restoring food stamps to immigrants.

But concession on one issue will not necessarily translate into blanket support, community groups caution. "Latinos will continue to vote based on the candidate's overall views, not based on a vote on a single issue," says Laura Barrera of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. "He gave us food stamps, but he then turned around and hammered down the conservative position on welfare reauthorization."

On January 9, 2002, President Bush announced that he would support a reversal of the 1996 welfare law on immigrant food stamp benefits. His proposal would restore food stamp benefits to 363,000 legal immigrants who have lived in the country for at least five years, without work requirements, at an estimated cost of $2.1 billion. President Bush's public statement in support of immigrant restoration insured that this restoration would stay in the Farm Bill.

Even if Bush's gesture has helped give the Republicans a boost amongst Latinos, it may be short lived. Senator Graham won a rider to the bill that would disqualify any individual from assistance, if they were ever undocumented residents. "It's just another scare tactic to keep families from applying," says LeeAnn Hall. And, just one month after his statement on food stamps, Bush's administration greatly disappointed immigrant advocates with its welfare reauthorization proposal.

"Not only did Bush's welfare proposal maintain the five year bar on immigrant access to cash assistance, he embraced the rhetoric that public assistance is a magnet for immigration to the U.S., despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary," says Tanya Broder, staff attorney of the National Immigration Law Center. "The Bush Administration has sent a lot of mixed messages and must become clearer on its position on immigrants."

Next Steps

While hunger and poverty advocates continue to focus their pressure on the House and Senate Conference Committee to ensure the best possible Farm Bill legislation, many point back to state implementation. "Like in 1996, a number of the new provisions will be offered as state options," says LeeAnn Hall. "Our job is to make sure states do the right thing by adopting these options."

Advocates are hopeful that more gains can be won during welfare reauthorization. Barera CHIRLA is also hopeful that the fight for food stamps benefits for immigrants may pave the way for future gains.

"First it's food stamps, next is welfare reauthorization, and then on to legalization."

RELATED ARTICLE:

Update: On April 10, 2002 House Republicans refused to go along with the Senate and the Bush administration plan to restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. The Republican conferees instead voted for a proposal by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (VA) that provides less funding, imposes restrictive policies to make it nearly impossible for many immigrant families to qualify, and only allows them two years of benefits. "Its no coincidence that House Republicans did this on the same day Bush's welfare plan was introduced in the House," says Kevin Borden of the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support. "They are drawing a line in the sand around benefits for immigrants." Senate conferees rejected the House plan. Welfare advocates are fighting to kill this last-minute attack on immigrants.

Carson Strege-Flora is policy director at the Northwest Federation of Community Organizers and Menachem Krajcer directs the Welfare Advocacy Research Project at the Applied Research Center.