A bill that covers farm and food policy is moving forward in Washington.
If the House version of the farm bill is signed by the President, there would be stricter eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also known as SNAP.
Here in northern Nevada, SNAP programs feed about 95,000 people a month who don't know where their next meal will come from.
"The average SNAP benefit per day is about $3.86 per person, that's not a lot of money,” said Al Brislain, President and CEO of the Food Bank of Northern Nevada.
If the farm bill, which just passed in the House of Representatives becomes law, it could be even tougher for these low income families to get help.
“SNAP is the way we fight hunger in this country and cutting back on SNAP means that there's kids, there's families, there's people that are going to be hurt by that,” said Brislain.
The house bill also includes provisions that would require SNAP beneficiaries to work or enroll in a job training program.
“They're adding this to their burden of trying to find a job, also having to work 20 hours a week just to get the small benefit they get from SNAP,” said Brislain.
The bill would also affect crop subsidies and other agricultural policy for the next five years and local farmers say it's a must pass piece of legislation.
"There are many agricultural producers that are very dependent on the safety net that the farm bill provides,” said Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation.
For the farmers of Nevada, the bill would allow for rural land conservation and improvements such as water efficiency.It'd also provide subsidies to dairy producers here in the state.
However, even the farmers recognize that most the money in this bill isn't for them.
"There are more non farmers who benefit in Nevada then there are farmers,” said Busselman.
It's important to note, this is the house version of the farm bill. Both the food bank and Nevada farm bureau pointed to the senate's version of the bill, saying that piece of legislation would have far less reform to assistance programs.
