Snap Benefits Are Needed By 42 Million Americans

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have joined me for this extremely special SNAP Special Order hour.

Hunger continues to be a pervasive issue in America. According to the USDA, in 2023, over 42 million people rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, and 41 percent of those households have children.

SNAP benefits are modest, averaging only about $6.20 per person per day or about $2 per person per meal.

The benefits of SNAP are highly targeted to focus on those with the greatest needs. Ninety-two percent of SNAP benefits go to households with income below the poverty line and 54 percent go to households at or below half of the poverty line.

Additionally, every dollar spent on SNAP benefits generates as much as $1.54 to the local economy. House Republicans are putting forward a farm bill which would end the USDA's authority to increase the Thrifty Food Plan. The Thrifty Food Plan is used to determine the amount of benefits a SNAP recipient receives.

USDA calculates the Thrifty Food Plan using a mathematical model based on the cost of food, the nutrients in the food, nutrition guidance, and what Americans are actually eating. The Thrifty Food Plan goes further than a simple adjustment for inflation to better ensure that people have access to food.

The 2018 bipartisan farm bill directed USDA to regularly reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan and SNAP benefit adjustments as food prices, dietary guidance, and other scientific standards shifted over time. The farm bill put forth by House Republicans will result in roughly $30 billion in benefit cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would impact every SNAP household in future years, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities.

It would mean that the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan would be frozen no matter what the science says about the cost of a healthy, normal diet.

In the last 50 years, the Thrifty Food Plan has only been updated three times: in 1983, 1989, and 2006, but these updates did not increase SNAP benefits.

As a result of the 2021 update, the benefit amounts were increased and the purchasing power of the plan to 21 percent. This led to a $1.40 per person per day increase in SNAP's average benefits, or about 70 cents per meal.

This is not a lot of money to begin with; however, this update lifted over 2 million SNAP participants out of poverty or above the poverty line, including over 1 million children.

According to the Urban Institute, the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan reduced poverty for Black and Hispanic people, suggesting that reevaluation was addressing longstanding systemic racial issues. Additionally, a 2023 Data for Progress poll found that 66 percent have a favorable view of SNAP, including 83 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 52 percent of Republicans. All Americans benefit from this anti- hunger program. A majority of Americans support increasing funding for SNAP, not cutting it.

The total cut to SNAP and related nutrition programs under the House Republican proposal is roughly $30 billion. The average per person SNAP benefit would be roughly $7 less per month between 2027 and 2031 and jump to $15 less per month in 2032 and 2033.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this cut would affect nearly 6 million older adults, 4 million people with disabilities, and nearly 17 million children, including 5 million children under the age of 5.

Hunger is a policy choice and SNAP is our most effective anti-hunger program, and we must protect the Thrifty Food Plan in the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record four letters in opposition to the House Republican farm bill from the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, AFL-CIO, and ASFCME. All letters disapprove of the nearly $30 billion cut to SNAP. American Federation of Teachers, May 22, 2024. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members of the AFT, I write in opposition to the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (Farm Bill).

Simply put, this bill will only increase hunger and food insecurity for many Americans by cutting $30 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits over 10 years. This will have a devastating effect on the children, families, older Americans, college students and individuals with disabilities who rely on the program. SNAP is the nutritional safety net that families and individuals depend on to thrive. The AFT represents school food service workers and educators who know firsthand that SNAP is the guardrail, along with school meals, that ensures our most vulnerable students are receiving the food assistance needed to learn and excel in school. This proposal will be the largest cut to SNAP in 30 years. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Summer EBT (electronic benefit transfer) program, which provides families with school-age children a grocery benefit over the summer when students cannot receive their school meals, will also receive a cut of $500 million in this bill.

SNAP benefits are already limited, with the average benefit totaling approximately $6.20 per person, per day. And this is after the 2021 re-evaluation (the first adjustment in nearly 50 years), which provided SNAP recipients with an additional $1.40 per person, per day. According to the Urban Institute, this increase helped reduce poverty by 4.7 percent, impacting approximately 2.3 million Americans. Yet, in addition to the cuts, this is the adjustment the House Farm Bill wants to prevent from occurring again.

The Farm Bill is also proposing to eliminate the federal protections for merit staffing and privatize the workforce that conducts the essential work for the SNAP program. Merit staff are government workers who ensure the program is working effectively with transparency by providing eligibility screenings, application assistance and verification guidance. As a union of public employees, including those who process SNAP applications, the AFF opposes the proposal to outsource jobs and strip merit staffing that has protected public investment for more than 75 years. Not only will this eliminate public accountability for public investment, but it will also set the precedent to remove the merit staffing provisions in other critical federal programs.

Although the Farm Bill includes programs for rural communities that have bipartisan support, the funding for those programs is paid for with funding taken from SNAP. If a child is hungry, any positive gains of having additional funding for schools, broadband and other services in rural communities are nullified. This is not a time to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

Many individuals and families are struggling to buy sufficient, healthy meals. Instead of focusing on real bipartisan solutions for families, children, workers and rural communities, the House Farm Bill is attempting to roll back nutrition and labor protections. I urge you to oppose the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 in committee. Sincerely, Randi Weingarten, President, AFT. ____ National Education Association, Washington, DC, May 20, 2024. Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of the National Education Association, who teach and support nearly 50 million students in public schools across America, we urge you to vote NO on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act 2024, the reauthorization legislation for the farm bill. Votes related to this issue may be included in the NEA Report Card for the 118th Congress.

We oppose the bill because of proposed changes to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)--that will weaken the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and erode benefits for participants.

NEA members are teachers and education support professionals in 14,000 communities throughout urban, suburban, and rural America. These educators know firsthand that hungry students cannot focus on learning. We urge you to strengthen SNAP so that it will improve low-income families' health and well-being and help prepare students for learning.

Approximately two-thirds of SNAP households include a child, an older person. or an individual with a disability, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Many working-age SNAP recipients hold multiple low- paying jobs with unreliable hours and paltry benefits, or no benefits at all. For them, any unexpected expense, health crisis, or other emergency could mean choosing between buying groceries and paying a bill. Among these recipients are approximately 10 percent of education support professionals and approximately 16 percent of school food service professionals--workers who are dedicated to nurturing students and providing them with healthy meals, but struggle to feed their own families. Like these hardworking education support professionals, 70 percent of adult SNAP recipients hold at least one job, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Because SNAP is the first line of defense against childhood hunger, the NEA strongly opposes the bill's proposal to cut the program by approximately $30 billion over 10 years, through limiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority to adjust the TFP. This proposal--which would impact as many as 17 million children in a typical month, according to the CBPP--would undercut the TFP's ability to accurately reflect the cost of a healthy diet, eroding benefits and narrowing families' access to fresh fruits and vegetables amid rising prices.

This change would further impact programs that are tied to the Thrifty Food Plan. NEA is particularly concerned about the impact on the new Summer EBT Program, which provides grocery benefits to children in low-income families during the summer when schools are closed. The summer program would be cut by more than $500 million over the 2027-2033 period due to the TFP change, the CBPP estimates.

While the bill contains some provisions that NEA supports, such as lifting the drug felony ban, improvements to the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, and extending the Secure Rural Schools program, these are insufficient to make up for such a large and long-term cut to SNAP.

Instead of undermining SNAP, we ask you to be guided by NEA's priorities for reauthorization, which include strengthening the program by removing the shelter deduction cap and time limits on eligibility, enacting a standard deduction for medical expenses, and aligning SNAP's eligibility standards with the Affordable Care Act to allow lawfully present immigrants and permanent residents to participate in SNAP.

NEA also supports efforts to ensure that the work to cultivate, process, and secure the food supply chain is respected. NEA seeks a farm bill that ensures workers are paid a living wage, employers maintain safe working conditions, and employers support workers' right to organize in order to have a say in the conditions of their employment. This bill ignores these needs. In fact, the bill undermines labor. NEA further opposes the bill's privatization provision because it would permit the outsourcing of SNAP eligibility determinations, affecting the merit staff employees who administer SNAP.

SNAP is our nation's largest anti-hunger program. For many families, it means the difference between eating and going without. All students deserve important nutritional support to learn. Robust SNAP benefits not only provide struggling families with a crucial safety net; they are also instrumental in creating the conditions for academic engagement and achievement.

We must urge you to vote NO on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act 2024 as currently written. We also ask that you support amendments that would strengthen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and oppose all amendments that would weaken the program. Sincerely, Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations, National Education Association. ____ AFL-CIO May 20, 2024.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12.5 million workers and 60 affiliate unions represented by the AFL-CIO, I urge you to oppose the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 when it comes to a vote in the House Agriculture Committee, and to reject any amendments that further harm our nation's food programs.

This partisan bill proposes changes to the Thrifty Food Program, resulting in close to $30 billion in cuts to SNAP and other food benefits over the next decade, worsening food insecurity and hunger for over 42 million Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, these cuts will affect 17 million children, 5 million children under age five, 6 million seniors, and 4 million people with disabilities. Among other things, according to this analysis, the bill will result in $500 million less funding for the Summer EBT program, depriving families of food benefits during the summer recess when school lunches are unavailable. Enacting this bill without dramatic changes would push more people below the poverty line and increase child hunger.

Additionally, we strongly oppose provisions like those in H.R. 5094, which strip the USDA of its oversight authority and eliminate federal protections for merit staffing within SNAP, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for other federal programs. Merit staff are essential for conducting SNAP eligibility screenings and maintaining program integrity. Privatization, as evident in failed experiments in Texas and Indiana, wastes taxpayer dollars and harms program beneficiaries.

Our unions represent workers across the entire food supply chain--from meat-cutting floors and school cafeterias to grocery store checkouts and agricultural fields. These workers are essential to our economy and community well- being. It is imperative that the Farm Bill supports good jobs and includes the voices of food workers in agricultural policy decisions.

We urge Congress to back agricultural policies that foster well-paying jobs, including the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill, the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024, which seeks to protect and expand SNAP benefits, improving access for marginalized groups and offering a more effective approach to combating hunger and supporting workers.

Food safety, nutrition, and agricultural policies are vital to all Americans, especially our union members. We urge you to vote against this partisan Farm Bill and any further damaging amendments, and instead, work towards a more inclusive and effective solution. Sincerely, Jody Calemine, Director, Government Affairs. ____ AFSCME, May 21, 2024. Hon. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Chair Hon. David Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Thompson and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of the 1.4 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), we strongly oppose the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 pending before the committee because it would deeply cut future SNAP benefits by nearly $30 billion over the next decade, take away good union jobs and harm program integrity.

Tens of thousands of AFSCME members under merit-based personnel systems are proud to administer SNAP benefits because SNAP is the cornerstone of the nation's nutrition and food security safety net, helping to put food on the table for 41.2 million low-income participants each month. Cuts to SNAP would harm families, young children, college students, seniors, veterans, active-duty military families and people with disabilities in all U.S. states and territories. SNAP is a lifeline for low-wage workers, child care providers and school employees, including school food service workers and classroom assistants.

AFSCME strongly opposes Sections 4105 and 4111, and any other SNAP provisions which undermine, erode or eliminate the current federal requirements for SNAP to be administered by workers under a merit-based personnel system.

Merit-based personnel systems at the federal, state and local levels require hiring, advancement, demotion and discipline be based on merit and competence.

Federal law requires that merit staff public employees conduct the essential work of SNAP to screen for eligibility and determine benefit levels, including providing application assistance, answering client questions about missing information, pursuing missing information, providing verification guidance and to thoroughly explore and certify whether an individual meets the state's criteria for participation in Employment and Training (E&T).

Merit staffing ensures that all important SNAP determinations are unbiased, high quality, free from political influence and without fear of arbitrary management action or retaliation.

Merit staffing protects program integrity and ensures that SNAP beneficiaries receive the help they need from a professional workforce, that recipient data remains private, and determinations are based on qualifications rather than profit or other motives.

Section 4111 is based upon H.R. 5094, which we oppose. and despite its misleading title, this provision would not provide ``flexibility'' but would dismantle longstanding federal merit-staffing requirements that protect program integrity. States and counties currently have significant flexibility to administer SNAP. Experiments with the outsourcing of merit-staffed work in Texas and Indiana, in particular, have proven to be a waste of taxpayer dollars and a programmatic nightmare, as well as a drain on good, local jobs that pay better than private for-profit companies who rarely provide essential benefits, including health care and retirement.

Outsourcing has resulted in none of the promises of improved performance, efficiency or cost savings. In fact, it has harmed struggling families, seniors and the disabled, and compromised the integrity of the program itself.

Section 4105 is an additional attack on merit staffing, unwarranted by current merit staff performance, and inefficient. This provision would allow a state to hire for profit contractors to screen SNAP beneficiaries for E&T referral after merit staff have already reviewed an applicant for benefit determination. Merit staff responsibilities are designed to be ``one stop,'' designating one staff point of contact to screen and refer potential beneficiaries to needed programs. Dividing screening and referral responsibilities creates duplicative work for the multiple screeners and additional points of contact and likely duplicative document submissions for people in need of assistance who are already navigating a complex system. This duplication would likely delay referrals for employment and training, create needless backlogs, and compromise the quality of services.

Both proposed privatization provisions (Sections 4105 and 4111) do not allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to stop states from privatizing important work, nor would USDA have authority to oversee the actions of for-profit contracts. This lack of oversight and accountability would threaten access to essential SNAP benefits as a direct result of the actions of private companies whose past performance has been proven to result in increased backlogs, costs and error rates. Furthermore, the reference to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in Section 4111 is misleading and ineffective, providing no real protection to union workforces, and absolutely no protection to workers in states where there are no public sector CBAs.

AFSCME is relying on you to vote ``no'' on this partisan farm bill and any harmful amendments that compromise the SNAP program. We are counting on you to protect SNAP from deep benefit cuts and maintain current SNAP public sector merit- staffed employment requirements, which allow the program to continue to serve our nation's most vulnerable individuals and families. Sincerely, Edwin S. Jayne, Director of Federal Government Affairs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Brown).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Wild).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Wild for those powerful words.

Schakowsky).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I would add that $18 billion of the cuts would affect households with children, which, in a typical month, would include nearly 17 million children.

Barragan).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I would add for the record that $9 billion of the cuts would affect households with preschool-aged children or children under 5, which, in a typical month, would include about 5 million young children.

Tlaib).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, $5 billion of the cuts will affect households with older adults, which, in a typical month, would include more than 6 million individuals age 60 or older whose benefits would be cut.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything Representative Jackson said, and I thank him for his words.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I want to amplify the point that we have to have a farm bill that works for everyone. I often hear people say that we need a farm bill that represents farmers. I would challenge that. We need a farm bill that represents everyone.

Members often ask me whether I represent a farming community. My response is that we all represent communities where people eat, and that has to be a part of the conversation, as well.

Pressley).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pressley for her remarks. I add that children in some of our most vulnerable communities don't have lobbyists, but they do have Members of Congress, and it is our job to make sure that we are actively working to improve their lives.

Omar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I would add that in 2023, 1.2 million veterans participated in the SNAP program. I really don't understand why in this Congress whenever we have to make tough policy choices, these are the people that are always targeted.

Last year during the debt ceiling negotiations, the program that was targeted and cut was SNAP and nutrition programs.

In September when we went back for the appropriations budget, the program and the hard lines that were targeted were, once again, feeding and nutrition programs. When will this end?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Balint for her remarks. As my colleague stated, she and I are both former educators, and I really wish that before Members of Congress cast their vote on these cuts to programs like SNAP that they were forced to sit in a classroom on a Tuesday morning after a long weekend and count the number of kids who have their heads down on their desk.

I wish that Members were forced to sit in a classroom on any given day as a kid said they had a headache third period, and you realize it is because they haven't had breakfast.

I wish that Members of Congress were forced to stand with you at the after-school program when a kid hung behind and asked if they could take something home for their little brother who has been home all day, and they know they haven't eaten.

I wish every Member of Congress and everyone in this Chamber were forced to do that before these proposals were put into a bill like the farm bill and before Members voted on these things.

Stevens).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but reflect on the irony of us hearing every day about inflation and the rising cost of food and basic things that people need while also proposing cuts to the most vulnerable people on an anti-hunger, antipoverty program.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy), the newest member of our Democratic Caucus.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Leger Fernandez), a leader on the Rules Committee.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hayes so very much for organizing and for giving me this time, because I am here on behalf of my good friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern, who Republicans silenced today for simply telling the truth about a criminal trial.

Imagine that, on this House floor, we cannot state a fact about a trial. Here is another fact about the former President that represents a policy choice Democrats oppose. President Trump supported cutting SNAP by nearly 30 percent within 10 years.

Mr. McGovern stands for the opposite. He stands up every week on this House floor with his poster ``end hunger now.'' If Republicans hadn't silenced him, he would have spoken tonight against the farm bill because of its impact on farmers. If Republicans hadn't silenced him, he would have spoken up for families who do not have enough food to eat.

Similar to me, Mr. McGovern represents a district that includes thousands of farms and farmers who benefit from SNAP because they sell their produce to the program, but also farmers need to use SNAP because they don't make enough money. We are starving the people who are raising the food for us.

In my district, one in five New Mexicans receive SNAP benefits, the highest of any State. This Republican majority silenced him, so I am here to read the remarks that the Republican majority might not want to hear from Mr. McGovern. These are his remarks:

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are advancing a bill that cuts SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, by an astounding $30 billion.

He would have probably raised his hands and said: You can't make this up.

MAGA Republicans included a provision in their extremely partisan farm bill that will prevent SNAP benefits from ever being increased, even if a scientific review says they should be.

The last reevaluation, in 2021, which was the first update in 50 years, gave families an extra--wait for it--$1.40 per person per day to purchase food. That extra help has meant families can access more nutritious food. It has meant fewer skipped meals. It has meant better food security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this MAGA Republican farm bill which would cut future benefits and increase hunger for kids, seniors, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable adults.

Those are Jim McGovern's remarks. While House Republicans silenced him today, they will never silence the truth that he speaks. We must end hunger now. We must answer the call: ``When I was hungry you gave me to eat; when I was thirsty you gave me to drink.''

I thank Representative Jahana Hayes for her advocacy in bringing us together to heed this call.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut very much for yielding.

I rise today, alongside so many of my colleagues, to make one thing very clear. Republicans' proposed funding cuts to SNAP are unconscionable and will send millions into poverty and food insecurity.

SNAP is an essential lifeline that working families across America rely on to put food on the table. In New York City alone, where I come from, more than 1.7 million people rely on SNAP benefits to help them feed their families. Nationwide, there are more than 41 million SNAP recipients.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 92 percent of SNAP benefits go to households with income below the poverty line and a shocking 54 percent go to households at or below half of the poverty line.

It begs the question: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have against working families doing their best to succeed? Do you not care if our children go without food?

It is just simply unacceptable. Food is a basic necessity. In the wealthiest country in the world, it should not even be a question whether our government is going to make sure that everyone, especially innocent children, have basic necessities.

Our budgets show where our priorities lie. Let's reverse these draconian cuts to SNAP, let's not cut taxes on the wealthy, and let's put our families and our children first.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank all of my colleagues who participated in tonight's SNAP Special Order.

I will close by saying that these cuts will affect Summer EBT, which is how most families feed their children over the summer, by $500 million in this farm bill.

I am not really sure if there is a full appreciation of who is affected by these cuts. I have been very transparent about my story and the fact that I grew up in a household that received food stamps. As a young college student and a single mom, I was working two jobs, attending community college, and still qualified for benefits.

I promise you that my story is the same as a constituent in the district of every single Member of Congress who just wants a shot, who just wants a chance at raising their children with dignity, who just wants a chance at moving their family from poverty into being contributors to society.

Every single one of you has someone in your district just like me, hundreds of families going through the same thing, working families that will be affected by the $11 billion in cuts that would affect their households and their earnings.

I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink these proposals, to come back to the table and let us work on a bipartisan farm bill that helps everybody in America. Of all the things that we can say that we have done, I don't want taking food out of the mouths of children to be one of them.

Tomorrow, we will go into a markup on this farm bill, and we will review it title by title. There are 12 titles. The Thrifty Food Plan, which is what many of us have spoken about tonight, which is a mathematical system by which benefits are evaluated and based upon, was moved from title IV, which is the nutrition title, to title XII, miscellaneous and others.

Nutrition is not miscellaneous. It is something that should be a priority in this country. It is something that we have the ability to do. Once again, it is a policy choice.

I held out until I saw the text because I prayed about it and I hoped and I wished that the cuts were not as bad as I had read about in the papers and heard talk about, but they are. Mr. Speaker, $30 billion in cuts are devastating to a program that is the most effective antihunger program that we have.

I urge my colleagues to really consider their votes on this farm bill and the impact that it will have on children and families.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source