Latest news with #SenateAgricultureCommittee
Politico
a day ago
- Business
- Politico
Senate GOP's plan to push food aid costs onto states axed from megabill
Senate Republicans' plan to force states to share the cost of the country's largest nutrition program to pay for their policy megabill has been halted by the chamber's rules. The Senate parliamentarian determined that the cost-sharing plan would violate the so-called Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in the reconciliation process, and would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, according to an advisory sent out Friday night by Senate Budget Committee Democrats. That means Republicans will need to head back to the drawing board after months of heated debate about how to slash spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The advisory comes after Senate Agriculture Committee staff met with Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Thursday to discuss their piece of the reconciliation bill text. The cost-sharing plan, which was first put forward by House Republicans, sparked backlash from state officials and concerns within the caucus. The bill would make states pay for SNAP benefits for the first time using a sliding scale based on their payment error rates. The Senate Agriculture Committee introduced a scaled-back version of the House GOP's cost-sharing plan earlier this month. Without it, Senate Republicans will struggle to find enough cuts to pay for their policy priorities and the $67 billion farm bill package they included — all with an ambitious timeline of delivering the megabill to President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Although the committee's bill hadn't received a final cost saving estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, committee staff predicted it would save around $211 billion in agriculture spending, with the cost-share plan making up a large portion of those trims. MacDonough also struck measures that would remove SNAP eligibility for immigrants who are not lawful permanent residents and extend a farm bill provision that allows federal officials to update farm payment programs.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
SNAP work requirement carveouts for vets, homeless caught in crosshairs of Trump bill
Congress could soon put an end to work requirement exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals and youth that were in foster care who receive food assistance. While House Republicans preserved the exemptions to work requirements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of their broader package to advance President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities, Senate Republicans omitted the key language in their version of the bill. The exemptions were initially negotiated as part of a bipartisan deal two years ago. The GOP-led Senate Agriculture Committee confirmed the provision's absence would mean the exemptions would no longer be retained for members of the three groups. The move has drawn little attention on both sides of the aisle so far, as other pieces of the Republicans' megabill take center stage, including significant changes to Medicaid and what some estimates have projected as a multitrillion-dollar tax package. Even multiple GOP members of the Senate committee that produced the text say they intend to press for more information about the potential change before the upper chamber votes on the bill. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Wednesday that 'everybody ought to be treated the same' when asked about the matter. A Senate Republican aide also noted that individuals who aren't 'able-bodied' wouldn't 'have to meet those requirements' under the Senate plan. Congress had previously agreed to temporary changes to work requirements for SNAP in 2023 as part of a bipartisan deal to cap annual federal spending and raise the nation's debt limit. That included measures carving out exemptions through September 2030 for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care at the age of 18. In a statement on the matter last Friday, the Senate committee said Republicans are working 'to encourage greater independence through work and training opportunities.' However, it noted its plan would still allow for 'individuals who are physically or mentally unfit for employment are not required to meet the 20 hours per week work requirement whether in those groups or not.' The decision comes as Republicans in both chambers are working to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in what some have described as a 'bloated' government program that has seen its spending climb over the years. Other notable changes Republicans are seeking to make to SNAP include requiring states to cover some of the cost of benefits and front a greater share of administrative costs for the program, as well as limiting the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future. The Senate Agriculture Committee estimates its plan will yield 'an approximate net savings of $144 billion' in the coming years, with Republicans' proposal requiring states to cover some SNAP benefits costs estimated to account for a significant portion of the projected spending reductions. The plan is part of a larger pursuit by the party to find measures to reduce federal spending by more than a $1 trillion over the next decade that can ride alongside an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts and other tax priorities. Democrats have come out in staunch opposition to the evolving proposal that is being exclusively crafted between House and Senate Republicans. 'The Republican bill takes food away from vulnerable veterans, homeless people and young adults who are aging out of the foster care system and may not know where their next meal is coming from,' Rep. Angie Craig (Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. 'Republicans want to make these cuts to food assistance to fund new tax breaks for people who are already wealthy and large corporations,' she added. Some experts are also sounding the alarm. 'It is a huge deal. These groups were carved out for a reason. They are vulnerable for a reason,' Kyle Ross, a policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said, adding the exemptions apply to 'different populations with their own special set of circumstances.' 'There are an estimated 1.2 million veterans receiving SNAP, and veterans are more likely to live in a food insecure household than nonveterans, so they're really more likely to be in need of some food assistance,' he said, while also pointing to barriers homeless individuals and those aging out of foster care face in the job market. But others have argued against the need for the special carveouts. Angela Rachidi, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), described the 2023 spending caps deal as 'a political compromise,' noting that Republicans had also secured increases to the age threshold for SNAP as part of the deal under the Biden administration. Some hardline conservatives had also been critical of the deal at the time, while pointing to SNAP's exemptions. 'Many states would exempt people anyway because of mental health issues and you don't always necessarily have to have a doctor's note for it,' she said, while also arguing there wasn't 'anything unique about those populations that make them not capable of work.' She added that doing away with the carveouts could help lessen states' burden by removing 'another level of screening.' 'They don't have to assess somebody for their veteran status or foster status, and they would assess them anyway for their shelter status,' she said, while suggesting from a 'bureaucratic perspective, it actually might make it easier.' At the same time, Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, pointed to the added strain states could face if other proposals from Republicans to increase states' cost share of the program's benefits and administrative cost also take effect. 'What the bill also does is, on both sides, you know, reduces the support that the federal government gives to states to administer the program and identifying and validating exemptions, the health exemptions, etc. is very expensive,' Bauer said. 'And administering work requirements is also very, very expensive, because it is onerous not only on the SNAP participant, it's onerous on the state who is managing the program,' she added.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
WV organizations urge Justice to speak against proposed cuts to SNAP program
U.S. Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on March 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images) As legislation cutting a food assistance program that helps feed thousands of state residents makes its way through Congress, several advocacy groups, businesses and organizations are calling on West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice to speak against the plan. 'Given that SNAP is the most effective anti-hunger program in the state, we ask that you oppose structural changes, cuts and efforts to weaken SNAP,' an open letter to Justice reads. 'Cutting SNAP would have devastating consequences for the 278,978 children, parents, older adults, veterans, people with disabilities and others in our state who rely on the program to keep hunger at bay. 'The research is clear: SNAP improves health outcomes, reduces child hospitalizations and developmental delays and supports educational success. It also decreases health care spending and helps stabilize families during times of crisis and job loss,' they wrote. The letter from the American Friends Service Committee Wednesday is signed by nearly 60 West Virginia food banks, small businesses, congregations and organizations. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that would cut the Supplemental Food Nutrition Program by $300 billion through 2034 and push a portion of the cost of the program to the states to backfill. The program currently is funded solely by the federal government. States split the cost of administering the program with the federal government. The Senate Agriculture Committee, of which Justice is a member, this week took up its portion of the Republican tax and budget reconciliation legislation. The bill has yet to be voted on by the full Senate. If the Senate passes the bill, the House of Representatives would need to sign off on any changes the Senate makes. The latest version of the legislation would still push some of the cost of SNAP onto the states, but would penalize states less harshly than the version the House of Representatives passed last month. Under the House bill, the federal government would shift between 5 to 25% of the cost of SNAP benefits to state governments beginning in 2028 depending on their payment error rate. That version of the bill could put West Virginia on the hook for $28 million and up to about $141 million, depending on the state's error rate. In the Senate Agriculture Committee's version, most states would be required to pay between 5 and 15% of the food benefits program beginning in 2028. Only those with an error rate of 6% would have to pay for the program, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Senate proposal would have West Virginia paying up to $84 million, according to the analysis. 'The cuts and cost shifts in the House bill would lead to greater food insecurity and place even greater pressure on our food banks and charities, which already struggle to meet demand,' the letter says. 'For every one meal provided by a food bank, SNAP provides nine. Our state's charitable food system cannot fill the gap that would be created by the magnitude of these cuts.' Justice this week told a reporter that cutting SNAP could cost Republicans' their supermajority. 'If we don't watch out, people are going to get hurt, people are going to be upset. It's going to be the No.1 thing on the nightly news all over the place,' Justice said in an interview with Politico Tuesday. 'And then, we could very well awaken to a situation in this country where the majority quickly becomes the minority.' When a West Virginia Watch reporter asked a Justice spokesman for comment on the letter, he referred her to Justice's comments to Politico. The Senate bill also makes changes to the work requirement exceptions. Historically, SNAP recipients with children have not been subject to work requirements for the program. The House version of the bill expanded work requirements to parents of children age 7 and up. In the Senate version, parents of children age 10 and up are subject to the requirements, said Kelly Allen, director of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. The Senate bill also gets rid of work requirement exemptions for people including veterans, homeless people and gives states more flexibility to issue exemptions on a case by case basis, Allen said. Overall, the Senate agriculture committee is just 'tinkering around the edges' with the bill that passed in the House last month, Allen said. 'It's still the largest cut to SNAP in history,' she said. 'It's still a dramatic expansion of bureaucratic barriers that will result in people losing food assistance, including households with children. And it still abandons that commitment to federally funding SNAP benefits and likely creates pretty significant burden for state lawmakers in the state budget at a time when the state budget is already crunched.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate GOP aims to pare back proposed food stamp work requirements for parents in Trump megabill
The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing some notable changes to the controversial food stamp provisions in the House-approved version of Republicans' megabill. The committee, which unveiled its proposal on Wednesday, would dial back the introduction of work requirements for parents of dependent children in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the formal name for food stamps. The Senate version would mandate that parents of children ages 10 and older work to maintain their benefits, while the House package would impose that requirement on parents of children ages 7 and older. Currently, parents of dependent children are exempt from the program's work mandate. (A summary released by the committee said that the work requirement would apply to parents of children over age 10, which conflicts with the text of the proposal. A committee spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that the provision would apply to parents of 10-year-olds and older children.) The Senate committee also drops the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who have aged out of foster care, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy House version includes the exemptions but ends them in 2030. Like the House version, the Senate would expand the food stamp program's existing work requirements to able-bodied adults ages 55 through 64 and would curtail states' ability to receive work requirement waivers in difficult economic times, limiting them only to areas with unemployment rates above 10%. Both versions would also bar refugees, those granted asylum and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among other immigrants with legal status, from receiving food stamps. Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption. The Senate measure aims at 'helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training. It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed,' Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the committee's chair, said in a statement. But advocates lashed out at the Senate plan, saying it would worsen hunger in the US. Some 42 million people receive food stamps. 'The proposal would also take food assistance away from millions of parents and grandparents who are working but get tangled in red tape, have a health condition but fall through the cracks and don't get an exemption, or are between jobs and need temporary help,' Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement. Senators in multiple committees are currently negotiating pieces of the House's sweeping tax and spending cuts bill, which aims to fulfill President Donald Trump's agenda. The House, which passed the package last month, would enact the deepest cuts to food stamps in the program's history – reducing federal spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The work requirement provision would result in 3.2 million fewer people receiving benefits in an average month between 2025 and 2034, according to a preliminary CBO estimate of the House bill. That includes 800,000 adults who live with dependent children. Both the Senate and House versions would require that states start covering part of the cost of food stamp benefits for the first time, though the Senate committee is calling for a smaller share. States' tab would depend on their payment error rate in the program. In the Senate version, states with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to the cost of benefits. The amount would then ratchet up in stages, with states that have error rates of 10% or more paying a 15% share. The House version would require all states to shoulder at least 5% of the cost and as much as 25% for those with error rates of at least 10%. Both versions would increase states' share of the program's administrative costs to 75%, from 50%. Advocates and state officials have warned that asking states to pick up more of the costs would have dire consequences. 'Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support,' Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, wrote to House Agriculture Committee leaders last month. State agencies are 'already underfunded and understaffed,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, in a statement Wednesday. Shifting more of the cost to states would leave 'strained state budgets unable to absorb the added burden without raising taxes, cutting programs, or reducing access.' How states would respond to having to pay for a share of the food stamp benefits would vary, but some 'would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' according to a preliminary CBO analysis of the House bill. The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates.
CNN
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Senate GOP aims to pare back proposed food stamp work requirements for parents in Trump megabill
The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing some notable changes to the controversial food stamp provisions in the House-approved version of Republicans' megabill. The committee, which unveiled its proposal on Wednesday, would dial back the introduction of work requirements for parents of dependent children in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the formal name for food stamps. The Senate version would mandate that parents of children ages 10 and older work to maintain their benefits, while the House package would impose that requirement on parents of children ages 7 and older. Currently, parents of dependent children are exempt from the program's work mandate. (A summary released by the committee said that the work requirement would apply to parents of children over age 10, which conflicts with the text of the proposal. A committee spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that the provision would apply to parents of 10-year-olds and older children.) The Senate committee also drops the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who have aged out of foster care, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy House version includes the exemptions but ends them in 2030. Like the House version, the Senate would expand the food stamp program's existing work requirements to able-bodied adults ages 55 through 64 and would curtail states' ability to receive work requirement waivers in difficult economic times, limiting them only to areas with unemployment rates above 10%. Both versions would also bar refugees, those granted asylum and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among other immigrants with legal status, from receiving food stamps. Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption. The Senate measure aims at 'helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training. It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed,' Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the committee's chair, said in a statement. But advocates lashed out at the Senate plan, saying it would worsen hunger in the US. Some 42 million people receive food stamps. 'The proposal would also take food assistance away from millions of parents and grandparents who are working but get tangled in red tape, have a health condition but fall through the cracks and don't get an exemption, or are between jobs and need temporary help,' Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement. Senators in multiple committees are currently negotiating pieces of the House's sweeping tax and spending cuts bill, which aims to fulfill President Donald Trump's agenda. The House, which passed the package last month, would enact the deepest cuts to food stamps in the program's history – reducing federal spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The work requirement provision would result in 3.2 million fewer people receiving benefits in an average month between 2025 and 2034, according to a preliminary CBO estimate of the House bill. That includes 800,000 adults who live with dependent children. Both the Senate and House versions would require that states start covering part of the cost of food stamp benefits for the first time, though the Senate committee is calling for a smaller share. States' tab would depend on their payment error rate in the program. In the Senate version, states with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to the cost of benefits. The amount would then ratchet up in stages, with states that have error rates of 10% or more paying a 15% share. The House version would require all states to shoulder at least 5% of the cost and as much as 25% for those with error rates of at least 10%. Both versions would increase states' share of the program's administrative costs to 75%, from 50%. Advocates and state officials have warned that asking states to pick up more of the costs would have dire consequences. 'Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support,' Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, wrote to House Agriculture Committee leaders last month. State agencies are 'already underfunded and understaffed,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, in a statement Wednesday. Shifting more of the cost to states would leave 'strained state budgets unable to absorb the added burden without raising taxes, cutting programs, or reducing access.' How states would respond to having to pay for a share of the food stamp benefits would vary, but some 'would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' according to a preliminary CBO analysis of the House bill. The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates.
