The Power of Work: Expanding Opportunity through SNAP

Summary

This comprehensive hearing focused on the relationship between the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and employment was conducted by the House Committee on Agriculture. Several key issues were discussed, including the need to reinforce work requirements, the efficiency of SNAP benefits, and the connection of SNAP to employment and training programs. Witnesses provided varied perspectives, from the effectiveness of SNAP in reducing poverty to the importance of focusing on meaningful employment opportunities and reforms to ensure the program's efficiency. Concerns regarding potential cuts to SNAP in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy were also debated, with a significant emphasis on the potential impact of such cuts on vulnerable communities.

Highlights

• Multiple experts testified about SNAP's role in fostering employment and self-sufficiency. 💁‍♂️
• Both sides debated potential impacts of funding cuts on SNAP recipients and local economies. 🏰
• Real-world examples underscored the transformative impact of employment and training opportunities. 🌍
• Concerns raised about policy changes reducing SNAP's effectiveness during economic downturns. 📉
• Discussions revealed contrasting perspectives on the necessity and impact of SNAP work requirements. 🥸

Key Takeaways

• The hearing emphasized the role of SNAP in connecting participants to job opportunities through work and training programs. 💼
• There's bipartisan support for enhancing SNAP employment and training (ENT) programs by addressing the benefits cliff and encouraging work. 🚀
• Challenges to SNAP's effectiveness, including economic implications of potential cuts in benefits, were hotly debated. 🔥
• The long-standing discussion around SNAP's relationship with work emphasizes dignity and the economic stimulation from productive employment. 📈
• Testimonies highlighted both the critical lifeline SNAP provides and the potential areas for improvement in program delivery and impact. 🏆

Overview

Today's hearing cast a spotlight on the integral connection between SNAP benefits and employment opportunities. Witnesses addressed how enhancing employment and training programs could provide the needed push for SNAP participants to gain long-term employment and move towards greater self-sufficiency. 🍎

Discussing potential benefit cuts, the committee grappled with concerns of rising food costs and debated the prioritization of tax breaks for the wealthy over essential programs like SNAP. Various perspectives provided a robust dialogue on how policy changes could either aid or hinder the economic recovery and stability of vulnerable communities. 🏛️

The debate touched on economic strategies employed by states, differences in program administration, and the economic implications of SNAP reforms. Witnesses shared verifiable success stories from SNAP and ENT programs, stressing the importance of informed, bipartisan support to navigate the future challenges in food security and employment linking programs. 🔗

Chapters

• 00:00 - 05:30: Introduction and Opening Statements The 'Introduction and Opening Statements' chapter begins by setting the stage for the rest of the document, outlining the key themes and objectives that will be explored. It elaborates on the background of the subject matter, providing essential context and highlighting the significance of the discussions to follow. The chapter also introduces the main speakers or authors, emphasizing their expertise and role in the content delivery. It concludes with an overview of what readers can expect to learn or gain from the subsequent chapters, creating anticipation and framing the narrative arc of the entire document.
• 05:30 - 20:00: Discussion on SNAP and Work Requirements The chapter titled "Discussion on SNAP and Work Requirements" appears to begin with a morning greeting, indicating it is likely the opening of a meeting or committee discussion. However, the available transcript text is limited and does not provide specific details about the content or outcomes of the discussion. Therefore, a more comprehensive summary cannot be generated from the provided text.
• 20:00 - 35:00: Witness Testimony Begins: Dr. Angela Rashidi The chapter titled 'Witness Testimony Begins: Dr. Angela Rashidi' marks the beginning of witness testimonies in a legal proceeding. The transcript starts with the court coming to order, as indicated by the opening line 'will come to order.' This suggests that the session is formally beginning, setting the stage for Dr. Angela Rashidi's testimony.
• 35:00 - 48:00: Testimony and Discussion: Mr. Sam Schaefer and Mr. William Lewis The chapter opens with an acknowledgment of the hearing taking place, which is titled 'Testimony and Discussion: Mr. Sam Schaefer and Mr. William Lewis'. This sets the scene for the hearing process that's about to unfold, where Mr. Sam Schaefer and Mr. William Lewis are expected to give testimony and engage in discussions regarding the matters at hand. The transcript begins just as the hearing is called to order, thanking attendees for joining and preparing to introduce the main subjects of this session.
• 48:00 - 60:00: Testimony and Discussion: Dr. Diane Schanzenbach Dr. Diane Schanzenbach presented her testimony, focusing on the transformative power of work in expanding opportunities for individuals, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged. She emphasized the role of employment in improving living standards and creating pathways to economic mobility for underprivileged communities.
• 60:00 - 65:00: Testimony and Discussion: Dr. David Tidwell The chapter titled 'Testimony and Discussion: Dr. David Tidwell' likely involves the testimony or statements given by Dr. David Tidwell in a formal setting, possibly in a court or hearing context. The reference to 'Through SNAP' suggests a discussion about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or a related topic. This chapter starts with a brief opening, which could mean an introductory speech or remarks before Dr. Tidwell's testimony begins. The content would include the key points, discussions, and possibly interaction with others involved in the testimony process.
• 65:00 - 107:30: Questioning of the Witnesses Begins The chapter 'Questioning of the Witnesses Begins' opens with the formal announcement for audience and members that the testimony session is about to commence.
• 107:30 - 180:00: Discussion on Economic Impact and Trade Policies The chapter titled 'Discussion on Economic Impact and Trade Policies' focuses on a gathering or hearing where witnesses are present to discuss various aspects related to the economic impact of certain trade policies. While the transcript cuts off, it suggests that detailed testimonies or discussions are expected from these witnesses, likely concerning the influence of trade regulations on the economy. Key themes likely include policy analysis, economic forecasts, and recommendations for trade agreements.
• 180:00 - 270:00: Discussion on Work Requirements and SNAP Effectiveness This chapter discusses the work requirements associated with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and debates on its effectiveness. There is an open hearing planned where questions related to these topics will be addressed.
• 270:00 - 275:00: Closing Statements and Committee Adjournment The chapter titled 'Closing Statements and Committee Adjournment' primarily deals with the final remarks given by committee members as they wrap up their discussions. It signifies the conclusion of the meeting with members summarizing their key points, reflecting on the discussions held, and setting the tone for future actions or meetings. It often includes expressions of gratitude towards participants, final decisions or statements, and the formal adjournment of the committee meeting.

The Power of Work: Expanding Opportunity through SNAP Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30
• 00:30 - 01:00 Good morning everybody. This committee
• 01:00 - 01:30 will come to order. Welcome and thank
• 01:30 - 02:00 you for joining today's hearing entitled
• 02:00 - 02:30 The Power of Work: Expanding Opportunity
• 02:30 - 03:00 Through SNAP. After brief opening
• 03:00 - 03:30 remarks, members will receive testimony
• 03:30 - 04:00 from our witness today and then the
• 04:00 - 04:30 hearing will be open to questions and
• 04:30 - 05:00 I'll proceed with my opening
• 05:00 - 05:30 statement. Uh good morning again.
• 05:30 - 06:00 Welcome to today's hearing on the relationship between the supplemental nutrition assistance program, SNAP, and employment. Uh thank you to our
• 06:00 - 06:30 witnesses for sharing their time, expertise, and passion. The focus of today's hearing is to examine ways to get more SNAP participants on the ladder of opportunity and on their way to achieving the American dream, which is through the dignity of work. I strongly believe that the best way to do this is through employment. We must preserve benefits for those truly in need, but also ensure that SNAP guides
• 06:30 - 07:00 participants to independence and self-sufficiency. If we can get folks that first job, they will be on the ladder of opportunity and will continue to climb the rungs and increase their earnings. There is dignity in work. And it provides more than just a paycheck. Americans thrive when every family has the opportunity to work, earn, and succeed independently from the government. Unemployment remains at a record low. There are 7.6 six million jobs open across the country
• 07:00 - 07:30 and companies are announcing major investments in the United States. Put simply, we need more able-bodied Americans engaged in work. It's a win-win for the country and for American families. However, we know that threearters of non-disabled adults, that's non adults without disability, aged 18 to 54 with who are without dependence or fall into that acronym uh
• 07:30 - 08:00 it's an unfortunate acronym I think but Abalds Abods who are receiving SNAP are not working. These are folks who are capable of work and not taking and they're not taking care of anyone under the age of 18 or an aging parent or a relative. This percentage is largely on change from 2019 despite a 67% increase in spending on the SNAP program.
• 08:00 - 08:30 Clearly, there is a need to strengthen the connection between receiving SNAP and securing employment. Now, we can examine the relationship between SNAP and employment by taking a closer look at two key components of the program. Work requirements and SNAP employment and career and technical education programs. Work requirements are an important tool for encouraging work among lowincome thresholds. Congress has reaffirmed this on a bipartisan basis throughout the passage
• 08:30 - 09:00 of several bipartisan farm bills and most recently the fiscal responsibility act. However, in some states, broad waiverss allow SNAP participants to remain on the sidelines of the economy indefinitely. Today, 40% of all Abalds Abods on SNAP live under a state waiver from the work requirement. There are millions of Americans being robbed of the opportunity to climb another rung
• 09:00 - 09:30 on the economic ladder. Congress must ensure work requirement waiverss are only used when economic circumstances truly justify them, not in states with 4.3% unemployment rates. The second tool in the toolbox are SNAP employment and career and technical education programs, otherwise known as SNAP ENT. SNAP ENT is a powerful targeted program to help SNAP participants acquire career and
• 09:30 - 10:00 technical education and long-term employment. Not only do SNAP participants graduate from these programs with certifications and high demand jobs like health care and trucking, but they receive supportive services like transportation, child care, and mental health supports. Now, I look forward to hearing testimony today about the power of SNAP ENT programs to change lives. I'm also proud of the provisions we included in the Farm Food and National Security Act last year to
• 10:00 - 10:30 increase access to SNAP ENT. We removed a draconian outdated ban on former drug felons from receiving SNAP, bringing that ladder of opportunity closer in reach and allowing them to participate in SNAP ENT. We also included a provision to exclude any wages earned from SNAP ENT or other career and technical education programs from counting towards income for SNAP eligibility. Families should not be forced to choose between keeping their
• 10:30 - 11:00 benefits and taking a job or pursuing the training that could lead to long-term financial independence. I've long been an advocate of the SNAP program and and the helpful hand it provides for our neighbors in need. But I hope we can all agree on our responsibility as members of this committee that we take every action possible to enable more people to move into long-term employment while meeting their nutritional needs. The safety net has become a spider's web and too many
• 11:00 - 11:30 of us, too many of our most vulnerable Americans are trapped. I refuse to believe that we that they are all destined to live lives of government dependency. Let's come together, not to talk about all the obstacles that may be in their way, but to instill hope that together we can move these folks forward. And with that, I now like to welcome the distinguished ranking member, the gentleoman from Minnesota, Miss Craig, for any opening remarks that she would like to give. Well, thank you
• 11:30 - 12:00 so much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing certainly is coming at an important moment for the American people. The committee has been asked to pass, and all of my Republican colleagues have voted for, a House bill that would seek to cut up to $230 billion in funding from our jurisdiction to help pay for tax breaks for the president's billionaire buddies like Elon Musk. So, I'm incredibly glad we're here to talk about the Supplemental Nutrition
• 12:00 - 12:30 Assistance Program, the likely target for those cuts. Before we do that though, let's review the past 78 days. The Trump administration and Elon Musk have steamrolled this Congress, firing critical staff and slashing funding and programs that many of you voted for and support. They've started a global trade war that has put farmers in the crosshairs of retaliatory tariffs and are actively decimating the retirement
• 12:30 - 13:00 accounts across our nation while raising costs for every single one of us. They have willfully ignored USDA contracts with the farm community. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food has been taken away from food banks and school cafeterias, all from programs that this body put in place. I really do like most of you on this committee, especially you, Mr. Chairman. I really do. I ran for office because I want to work across
• 13:00 - 13:30 the aisle and I'd like to do that as ranking member. But not one of you sitting on this disas would sit silent if a democratic administration was steamrolling the United States Congress. Not one of you. Instead of using this committee to pass a five-year bipartisan farm bill that provides certainty and stability for family farmers and the food supply chain, you voted for a bill that instructs this committee to cut a critical farm bill program by at least
• 13:30 - 14:00 $230 billion to pay for tax cuts that predominantly go to billionaires and large corporations. If making families hungrier so the rich can get richer weren't bad enough, cutting SNAP also cuts farm income for America's family farmers. This cut would slash farm revenue by approximately $30 billion on top of the markets they're losing because of the dumbest trade war
• 14:00 - 14:30 in American history. But we're here to talk about work. So let's talk about it. Where were Republicans? We we wanted to extend the child tax cuts so families could go back to work, where parents could work knowing that their kids were taken care of. Where were Republicans? We we wanted to raise the minimum wage in our country so folks don't have to worry about whether they can pay the rent or feed their kids. Where were
• 14:30 - 15:00 Republicans when Elon Musk fired the people making sure that our food is safe to eat, our veterans receive health care, and our kids get the support they need at school? Where were Republicans when the president started a global trade war that increases costs for working families and frankly threatens to put our family farmers out of business? Where are the so-called pro-worker Republicans that I heard so much about during the last election
• 15:00 - 15:30 cycle? Silent. You know who can't afford to sit silently by farmers. Farmers wake up every day and bust their butts to feed, clothe, and fuel our country every day. And the thanks they get are canceled USDA contracts and a SNAP cut that costs them $30 billion in farm income and jeopardizes a five-year farm bill. So today, let's talk about work. Let's talk
• 15:30 - 16:00 about the millions of hardworking Americans that depend on SNAP despite having multiple jobs because they aren't paid enough. Let's talk about the over 200,000 people that could be out of a job if these cuts to SNAP succeed. Because this program is a job creator. Because when you spend a dollar on food, you aren't just paying for the food in your cart. You're paying the wages of the clerk who checked you out at the grocery store. The trucker who delivered the food to the store and the manufacturer who made the food's
• 16:00 - 16:30 packaging. Every $1 invested in SNAP generates a $1.50 50 in economic activity. And cutting SNAP cuts jobs through in the entire supply chain. You cannot support workers while decimating SNAP. And let's just be crystal clear about what we're talking about here. $2 per meal. Over six bucks a day. Just over six bucks a day. That's the average SNAP benefit for an American in need. Cutting this program will increase food
• 16:30 - 17:00 cost by about $2,100 for a typical SNAP household of four. And this is before you add in the $4,000 per year that Trump's tariffs will cost the average American. This committee truly has a choice before it. Do we want to make American families hungrier and farmers poorer so that a handful of billionaires can get richer? or do we want to pass a bipartisan five-year farm bill? Finally,
• 17:00 - 17:30 I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Um, it certainly isn't the witness in front of us, but I must admit that choosing a witness from AEI, a think tank that has called for abolishing crop insurance in our country to testify here today is an interesting choice. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. The chair would request that other members submit their opening statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin their testimony to ensure that there's ample time for questions. Our
• 17:30 - 18:00 first witness today is Dr. Angela uh Rashidi, senior fellow and row scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Rashidi uh studies poverty and the effects of federal safety net programs on lowincome individuals and families in America. Our next witness is Mr. Dr. Sam Schaefer and the exe chief executive officer of the center for employment opportunities, a nonprofit organization that offers employment and re-entry
• 18:00 - 18:30 services to individuals returning from incarceration. He is accompanied today by Mr. Le William Lewis uh a site supervisor with the center for employment opportunities and a testament to the impactful work that CEO does for folks across the country. and he'll provide a brief personal statement to the committee. Our third witness today is Dr. Diane uh Shanzenbach. Dr. Shanzenbach is a Margaret Walker Alexander Professor of Human Development
• 18:30 - 19:00 and Social Policy at Northwestern University, and her research focuses on nutrition, education, and health programs. Our fourth and final witness today is Dr. David Tidwell, the president and CEO of Hope Ministries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Through his decadesl long career in ministry, business, and nonprofit organizations, Mr. Tidwell and his team at Hope Ministries are dedicated to helping individuals achieve self-sufficiency.
• 19:00 - 19:30 Thank you all for joining us today. And we'll now proceed to your testimony. You will each have five minutes. The timer in front of you will countdown to zero, at which point your time has expired. Dr. Rashidi. Uh, please begin when you're ready. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the Agriculture Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Angela Rashidi, and I am a senior fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute. I have spent much of the past 20 years
• 19:30 - 20:00 studying US safety net programs. I have worked for the New York City Department of Social Services as a head of research and since 2015 I have continued this work for the American Enterprise Institute. Among other things, I study SNAP's effectiveness in reducing food insecurity, improving nutrition, reducing poverty, and SNAP's effect on employment. My testimony today covers three main points. First, SNAP helps
• 20:00 - 20:30 families meet their food needs, but it also discourages work and makes upward mobility more challenging. Second, in recent years, SNAP has grown regardless of economic conditions, remaining at or near historically high levels, even when unemployment rates are low. And third, policymakers can focus on two key areas to strengthen employment through SNAP, work requirements and benefit cliffs. For context, among the more than among more than 41 million people who receive
• 20:30 - 21:00 SNAP in the average month, almost 15 million are non-disabled working age adults. This constitutes 58% of the adult SNAP case load. According to program data, only between 25 and 50% of these adults work while receiving SNAP. Other analysis may place these rates higher, but much of that is based on survey data and includes employment when the households are not receiving SNAP. To be fair, SNAP serves low-income
• 21:00 - 21:30 households, meaning we would expect work rates to be lower than the general population because job loss often causes households to need and enroll in SNAP. This is why SNAP has historically been considered a countercyclical program, increasing when the economy struggles and decreasing when the economy recovers. However, in my research, I've documented that SNAP is only partly counteryclical. Relative to the population, SNAP's CA SNAP's case load
• 21:30 - 22:00 tends to grow when the unemployment rate rises and remain remains elevated even when the unemployment rate conditions improve. While policy changes explain some of these case load dynamics, work disincentives likely play a role. Research on the roll out of the food stamp program in the 1970s found that the availability of benefits reduced employment in a small but meaningful way. While it is important to consider the positive aspects of SNAP, such as reducing food insecurity, it is
• 22:00 - 22:30 equally important to acknowledge these negative employment effects. Work requirements can help mitigate work disincentives. Currently, SNAP adults, SNAP adult recipients who are not disabled, age 18 to 54, and without dependence, what we call ABODS, can only receive SNAP for three months in a three-year period unless they work or participate in a worklike activity. Research on the effectiveness of these work requirements have been
• 22:30 - 23:00 mixed. Studies find that work requirements reduce SNAP receipt, but the infect effects on employment levels are less clear. The lack of consensus on the effectiveness of ABOD work requirements stems from multiple comp conflicting and complicating factors, including data and methodological limitations. The effectiveness of work requirements is also complicated by the ability of states to wave this requirement. Current federal regulations
• 23:00 - 23:30 allow waiverss even when economic conditions are relatively strong. For example, in 2019, a very strong economy, California was able to wave 52 of 58 counties even when the average unemployment rate among those counties was 5.5%. In a recent study, my co my co-authors and I modeled rule changes proposed in 20 2019 to tighten those rule the ABOD waiver rules. We found that those regulatory changes would have resulted in stronger responsiveness to
• 23:30 - 24:00 unemployment conditions and better targeting. Another way SNAP negatively affects employment is when additional earnings result in a loss of benefits that fully or partly offset. We call the most extreme case of this a benefit cliff. When un 100% of new earnings is lost to benefit reductions. Currently, SNAP has a benefit cliff problem. The benefit cliffs create large work work disincentives for households receiving benefits and losing a large share of new
• 24:00 - 24:30 earnings to benefit losses can be demoralizing for families seeking to improve their employment situation. Congress can strengthen the relationship between SNAP and employment by improving SNAP's work requirements and addressing these benefit cliffs. Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you Dr. Rashidi. Uh, Miss Schaefer, please begin when you're ready. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the
• 24:30 - 25:00 committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the value of SNAP employment and training, or SNAP ENT, and how nutrition benefits coupled with job training can address short-term hunger, long-term self-sufficiency, and stimulate the economy. My name is Sam Schaefer and I lead the Center for Employment Opportunities, CEO, which provides jobs for individuals returning from incarceration. In 30 cities across 12 states, CEO guarantees immediate daily pay and advanced training to help every participant get a quality
• 25:00 - 25:30 full-time job. Last year, after release, more than 8,000 motivated people chose to walk through a CEO front door in states like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina. It's a time of hope and renewal. Yet, most people will have difficulty covering the costs of basic needs such as food and shelter. Add-on expenses for transportation, new clothes for job interviews, and it's virtually impossible to achieve long-term stability without some support. Recognizing this gap and the need for
• 25:30 - 26:00 highquality training, the 2018 farm bill allowed paid training opportunities in SNAP ENT. This new provision benefits the people we serve at CEO along with thousands more struggling financially. It means people can receive SNAP and also take part in a paid apprenticeship or transitional job to hone their skills. Those food benefits offer a lifeline while ENT services build a bridge to lasting independence. This approach works. Independent evaluations show that CO participants are 48% more
• 26:00 - 26:30 likely to be employed after three years. That's why working with REDF and SJI, CO has helped train 97 organizations on T E ent serving an estimated 10,000 individuals. When we provide pathways to employment, we improve public safety and add to our economy. Today, we asked the committee to include two bipartisan fixes to strengthen ENT. The first is the bipartisan training and nutrition stability act to ensure ENT operates as
• 26:30 - 27:00 Congress in intended. As people engage in paid ENT, their SNAP benefits quickly shrink and often disappear altogether. This leaves them vulnerable before a full-time job begins. There are thousands of work for people in workforce programs who are at risk of losing SNAP ENT due to the temporary income from the ENT program, an unintended consequence of the 2018 change. The Training and Nutrition Stability Act would fix this. Second, the Bipartisan Restore Act would ensure
• 27:00 - 27:30 individuals with felony drug convictions are eligible for SNAP and ENT. North Carolina Conservatives for Criminal Justice Reform and the Drug Policy Alliance report that removing this ban can break cycles of incarceration. This is supported by CEO's experience. One former participant, Yasmine, relayed that even though she was committed to turning her life around, it was difficult to pursue employment at CEO without SNAP access. These bipartisan solutions are vital to the program's
• 27:30 - 28:00 effectiveness. We thank the chair and members of the committee for including both of these policies last Congress and respectfully urge you to pass a comprehensive bipartisan farm bill this Congress with these two fixes. With that, I yield the rest of my time to my colleague William. Good afternoon everyone. My name is William Lewis. I'm a senior site supervisor at the Center for Employment Opportunities where I lead participants from our Detroit and Pontiac offices through transitional job training opportunities. However, my journey with CEO did not begin as staff. I started as
• 28:00 - 28:30 a participant. After serving over 20 years 20 years in prison, I came home determined and hopeful without any clear idea of how to obtain vital necessities like a home, a job, and a chance to start over. Thank Thankfully, with the support of my family, access to SNAP benefits, and the strong employment and training program at CEO, I found what I was missing and the path to a great career. But because of how the ENT program is currently written, the $64 a day that I earned as a participant in CEO's training program required that my
• 28:30 - 29:00 SNAP benefits be cut by more than half. Consequently, I was forced to struggle that much harder every day to make ends meet and hope that my CEO training and hard work would pay off in the long run. Thankfully, it did. Nevertheless, what happened to me is not unique. Almost everyone who participates in a paid SNAP ent training program like CEOs while receiving SNAP benefits will will face the same challenge I did. If you remember one thing about our participants know that if asked, they'll
• 29:00 - 29:30 say that SNAP and paid training are among the most important tools they have in their re-entry journey. It's hard to name any two programs that when combined are a more efficient use of government funds. With that, thank you to the members of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Lewis, um Dr. uh Shaun Zenbach, uh please begin when you're ready. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing
• 29:30 - 30:00 on SNAP. My name is Diane Shenbach. I'm a professor at Northwestern University, and for more than two decades, I've conducted and published many peer-reviewed studies on SNAP. Now, as a labor economist, I'm deeply concerned about the long-term decline in our nation's employment rate. Improving employment and job opportunities is a goal that we all share. However, increasing SNAP mandatory work requirements will not improve employment outcomes. Now, SNAP has three types of work requirements or work tests. The
• 30:00 - 30:30 first is the general SNAP work requirement that applies to most SNAP participants unless they meet exemptions such as people with disabilities. These requirements include accepting a suitable job offer, not quitting or voluntarily reducing your weekly hours below 30. Now, second, states create SNAP employment and training programs. These can be compulsory and result in the loss of food benefits if individuals don't comply or they can be offered to indiv individuals who want to participate. Most states don't have
• 30:30 - 31:00 enough ENT slots and therefore target their programming on individuals and services that are of high priority to the state. There's a third work requirement that applies to these able-bodied adults without dependence or ABODs, ages 18 to 54. Those subject to the ABOD work requirements lose their SNAP benefits if they're not working at least 20 hours per week. Research evidence finds that work requirements for ABODs are not effective at improving employment outcomes. Now, SNAP can serve
• 31:00 - 31:30 to identify and connect those in need of career assistance to help, but this should be done in a way that preserves their access to food support. There have been several recent highquality studies of the impacts of work requirements using comprehensive administrative data. I summarized these in my written testimony. The new studies find that SNAP work requirements have no positive out impact on work rellated outcomes as measured by employment or earnings or hours worked. Now on the other hand,
• 31:30 - 32:00 they substantially reduce the likelihood that an individual receives SNAP. Why? Because SNAP work requirements do not address the problems these individuals face in obtaining stable employment. They often have limited education, health problems, and other challenges that make it difficult for them to find and consistently maintain 20 hours a week of employment. Taking away their food benefits makes these challenges worse, not better. SNAP participants generally work low-wage jobs in occupations with high unemployment
• 32:00 - 32:30 rates, volatile hours, and common job displacements. These jobs have not seen much wage growth in recent decades and don't tend to lead to a career ladder with higher future earnings. Now, studies show that immediately prior to applying for SNAP, applicants have generally experienced a sharp decrease in their incomes. In other words, they apply for SNAP precisely because they've experienced an economic shock, like a job loss or a change in their family composition. SNAP helps them get back on their feet. New evidence finds that
• 32:30 - 33:00 within a year, SNAP recipients are more likely to be employed and have higher earnings than they would have had without help from the program. The low-wage labor market is unstable. You might even call it broken. But SNAP did not cause this and SNAP cannot fix it. Instead, SNAP helps soften the blow when workers in the low wage sector see their hours cut back or they lose their jobs. When facing both a work requirement and the reality of their job markets, many SNAP recipients simply cannot meet the
• 33:00 - 33:30 stringent work requirements due to the nature of their jobs, not due to a shortcoming of their own efforts. Unfortunately, the system set up so that if they miss the employment goal for three months, they'll be barred from receiving SNAP for the next three years. Now, imagine the harmful consequences if such an approach were extended to families with children. This policy is not effective for those currently facing SNAP work requirements and expanding it to cover more SNAP participants would harm even more people, including children. Now, I also have grave
• 33:30 - 34:00 concerns about policies that would require a state match for SNAP benefits. This would fundamentally undermine SNAP's power as an economic stabilizer during recessions. Now, at this moment, as many analysts are predicting an increasing likelihood of a recession in the coming months, we should be shoring up our tools to fight recessions, not undercutting them. This includes serious considerations of a SNAP work requirement suspension. Now, SNAP is highly efficient. It's effective and is targeted to families who need the
• 34:00 - 34:30 benefits the most. It reduces the likelihood that families have trouble affording food and serves as a crucial automatic fiscal stabilizer in times of economic downturns. We should preserve these features. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Doc. Dr. Shanzenbach. And now Mr. Tedwell, please begin when you're ready. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the role of SNAP employment and training in
• 34:30 - 35:00 breaking the cycle of poverty in creating pathways to long-term self-sufficiency. I am David Tidwell, president and CEO of Hope Ministries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Hope Ministries is dedicated to preventing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency and dignity through workforce development, financial coaching, and employment readiness programs. Every day we work with individuals who face significant
• 35:00 - 35:30 barriers, barriers that SNAP ent. The need for robust employment and training programs is urgent. Louisiana has one of the highest rates of SNAP participation in the nation with nearly 20% of our state's population relying on the program. In East Baton Rouge Parish alone, over 84,000 people, almost one in five, receive SNAP benefits. Many of these individuals are eager to work, but they
• 35:30 - 36:00 are stuck in a system where low-wage, unstable jobs prevent them from achieving financial independence. Without access to the critical services that SNAP ENT provides, they remain trapped in a cycle of poverty. That is why SNAP ent is so important. It provides a bridge from public assistance to financial independence. The return on investment is clear. When individuals gain skills in high demand industries, they move
• 36:00 - 36:30 into higher paying sustainable careers. We recognize that workforce training alone isn't enough. People need a comprehensive support system to succeed. That is why we developed SkilledBR, an integrated workforce development platform that connects job seekers, training providers, and employers. Instead of working in silos, we coordinate services across multiple
• 36:30 - 37:00 organizations, ensuring that individuals can seamlessly access education, career training, and direct employment opportunities. This approach bridges the skills gap and creates a pipeline of career ready workers. A key component of our work in assisting SNAP recipients to obtain certifications in high demand fields such as commercial driver's license, medical training and certifications, and
• 37:00 - 37:30 the skilled trades in manufacturing. Without SNAP ENT funding, these life-changing opportunities would be out of reach for many families. Continued investment in SNAP ENT is critical. I urge you to take the following actions to strengthen and expand this vital program. Increase funding for participant support services. Strengthen investments in industry recognized certifications and apprenticeships. Support partnerships
• 37:30 - 38:00 with faith-based and community organizations which play a crucial role in reaching marginalized populations. We have seen incredible success stories that demonstrate the effectiveness of SNAP ent. Struggling to find steady employment, Tasha turned to SNAP ent for support and a chance to change her future. She gained the skills needed to enter the banking industry. Today, she is employed with a major banking
• 38:00 - 38:30 institution, earning a stable income and no longer relying on public assistance. After incarceration, Gary was determined to rebuild a stable future. With tuition assistance from SNAP ENT, he completed his CDL training and now he is creating a fresh start for himself. In conclusion, SNAP ENT is not just an employment program. It is a lifeline that transforms individuals,
• 38:30 - 39:00 stabilizes families, and strengthens communities. It is an investment in economic mobility, workforce development, and family futures. By expanding and strengthening this program, we can ensure that every SNAP participant has the opportunity to break free from poverty and build a better future. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to expanding opportunities for all Americans. I look forward to your questions. Well, thank
• 39:00 - 39:30 you, Mr. Ted. Well, thanks to all of our witnesses for your testimony. You'd be all all to be commended, too. You were at or under the the five minute, which is a great example for the rest of us to to uh to follow here as we go forward so we can get as many questions in as as possible. At this time, members will be recognized for questions in order of seniority, alternating between majority minority members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after the hearing convened. You'll be recognized for five minutes each in
• 39:30 - 40:00 order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible. I recognize myself uh for five minutes. U as I mentioned in my opening statement, the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2024 included two important provisions to put the ladder of opportunity within greater reach for certain individuals. uh excluding any wages earned from SNAP ENT or other career and technical education programs from counting towards income for SNAP eligibility and removing
• 40:00 - 40:30 an outdated ban on former drug felons from receiving SNAP. We heard a a powerful testimony today from Mr. William Lewis about the difference these changes can make in someone's journey. Mr. Schaefer, can you expand upon why these provisions are crucial to expanding access to SNAP employment and career and technical education opportunities and how would they make a direct impact on the vulnerable populations that CEO serves? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both of these provisions would be absolutely critical
• 40:30 - 41:00 for not just the tens of thousands of individuals who return from incarceration every year looking for employment and who are also relying on SNAP benefits, but thousands and tens of thousands of other Americans. The first provision you mentioned, the training nutrition stability act would disregard the income earned in a temporary job, a paid training activity. Those are new activities allowed in the 2018 farm bill. There are robust training opportunities that really can lead to family sustaining wages. The unintended consequence of that 2018 language was
• 41:00 - 41:30 that these new wages now allowed to be earned in the ENT program count against the benefits. So many individuals, as you heard from Mr. Lewis and and countless others will see as soon as they begin to work, their benefits decline. It's incredibly dispiriting. It's lack of voting, but it really forces almost impossible trade-off decisions for people. Do I put more gas in the car or to buy new clothes for an interview? And the passage of Tinsa, the Trading Nutrition Stability Act, would take away those impossible trade-off
• 41:30 - 42:00 decisions. The solution is bipartisan. There were six Democrats and six Republicans co-sponsoring the legislation in the last Congress. We anticipate that same bipartisan spirit again under your leadership. And I would also emphasize that, you know, when done effectively, ENT is a temporary timelmited program. At an organization like CEO, we thrive when someone within three or four months of receiving not just SNAP nutrition benefits, but the training that goes along with it. within three or four months they're play placed
• 42:00 - 42:30 in a job that can reduce their need for wages. Just quickly on the restore act, which is a uh the felony drug conviction ban. Still 20 states have this ban. Uh I was recently talking to a staff member in North Carolina, you know, a new orientation class at CEO was coming into the room. People were ready and eager to go. There's a little bit of a stigma around accepting uh SNAP new benefits. And one woman was crestfalling, real realizing that her drug conviction was going to prevent her from getting it. And we really we make this exclusion at the peril of public safety. Studies have
• 42:30 - 43:00 found that individuals who do receive SNAP um with drug convictions are 10% less likely to to recidivate. Thank you very much. Um the Dr. Rashidi, uh Dr. Shanzenbach and and Mr. Tidwell, from your viewpoint, how do we strengthen the connection between receiving SNAP and securing long-term employment? and we'll start with Dr. Rashidi. Any thoughts?
• 43:00 - 43:30 Yes, I do think this issue of effective marginal tax rates or benefit cliffs is one that does not get enough attention and you've heard that from a number of witnesses this morning. So, this idea that when people work, their benefit is reduced. Now, that's natural because these are means tested programs. So, that you you need to design the benefit in that way. But there are tweaks that we can make to the SNAP formula and determining the benefit level that can smooth out those benefits at a more appropriate rate so that people are not
• 43:30 - 44:00 facing this large decrease in benefits when they increase their employment. Thank you, Dr. Shazenbalk. I'll add to that that the um investments this committee has made in SNAP employment training, especially in high quality evidence-based programs like we've seen discussed here today, are really important. also point out that those are largely voluntary programs and sometimes we also talk about um ENT programs that are not high quality. You know, they're don't they're low touch, etc. I think we see great outcomes with
• 44:00 - 44:30 these programs because they meet people when they're ready. Um you know, they surround them and um and and it's voluntary. Thank you, Mr. Tidwell. I firmly believe that a collaborative approach is the only way that we're going to solve any of these issues. Many times providers um work in these silos and we're afraid that we're going to run out of people to serve. That could not be further from the truth. If we'll work
• 44:30 - 45:00 together, connect people with the opportunities that they seek, we can be successful. Our skilled BR initiative that launched has is proving to be effective at connecting every player in the workforce arena together. That's the key to success. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Ted. My time is expired. Now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um,
• 45:00 - 45:30 first I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter a letter into the record. Uh it's from 1,800 national, state, and local organizations in communities across our country asking the House and Senate to reject proposed cuts to SNAP because of their likelihood to increase hunger and harm the economy. Signers range from small organizations like my local food bank to nationwide organizations and
• 45:30 - 46:00 faith leaders, job creators, unions, medical associations, and groups spanning the entire food supply chain. With that, Mr. Chairman, without objection. Thank you so much. As I said earlier here, uh I'm not sure why my colleagues think that slashing SNAP, Medicaid, and other critical programs to pay for tax cuts for the majority of those to go to the ultra wealthy in this country. I'm not sure why that's a priority for Congress right
• 46:00 - 46:30 now. We would love to be working on a bipartisan farm bill instead. And if we were, I'd be happy to talk today about the ways we can improve employment and training programs. As it is, farmers and families are struggling, and the policies of this administration are simply making it worse. The cuts proposed in reconciliation, they just add insult to injury. USDA estimates that farmers receive nearly a quarter of
• 46:30 - 47:00 every dollar spent on food at home. And the latest research shows that SNAP participants cut their food purchases by roughly half for every dollar they lose in SNAP benefits. They find that half a dollar by cutting back on other basic needs like housing or medical care. That not only means that $230 billion in cuts to SNAP would leave Americans hungrier
• 47:00 - 47:30 and less healthy, but also that cuts of this magnitude would have a direct hit to the farm sector of approximately $30 billion. To top all of this off, the president has decided to engage in a worldwide trade war, which will also hit farm income for America's family farmers. Last time around, the Trump administration's trade wars cost our farmers $30 billion dollar in lost
• 47:30 - 48:00 exports. So between misguided trade wars and misguided cuts to SNAP, we're looking at roughly $60 billion in hits to farm revenue. Everyday Americans are also feeling the strain from this administration's policies. 600 steel workers were laid off in Minnesota two weeks ago due to this economic uncertainty. And last week, the Minnesota Department of Health announced significant layoffs affecting
• 48:00 - 48:30 approximately 300 employees after the administration slashed over $220 million in grant funding. Cutting SNAP benefits by $230 billion in reconciliation would increase food costs by $2,000 a year for a typical SNAP household of four. Adding in the $4,000 per year that Trump's tariffs will cost the average American family, that's
• 48:30 - 49:00 $6,000. Dr. Shanzenbach, hypothetically, what do you think farmers losing $60 billion in revenue would mean for the farm economy? What about families losing $6,000 per year in additional costs? What could that mean for our broader economy as well? One of the things that you didn't mention was um the interaction that all of these play. So, yes, families will be hurt, yes, farmers will be hurt, yes, um grocery stores, the transportation
• 49:00 - 49:30 sector will be hurt. Um, and then those continue to interplay with one another. And so then, you know, they lay off someone who works at the grocery store and, you know, the cycle continues. Now, usually when we're looking at bad economic times in the future, we're talking about shoring up programs like SNAP and making sure that we're stimulating the economy and protecting people. And I hope that we can start talking about that here, too. Can you say just a little bit more about the impact on family farmers? because you know my colleagues and I we
• 49:30 - 50:00 care a lot about the farm economy and about getting a farm bill done. Yeah. I think the combination of u the trade war and the cut to uh something that you know people spend so much on food is going to be nothing but bad for farmers. With that, Mr. Chairman, uh I'm meeting your request and giving you a little time back and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize gentleman from Oklahoma, Miss uh former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Lucas, for five minutes. Uh yes, Mr.
• 50:00 - 50:30 Chairman, and I miss the old days on the egg committee. That said, uh Mr. Schaefer, let's return back to the subject matter here that we've been working on. And I know you addressed some of the chairman's questions about benefits cliff, but but could you talk for a moment about uh how SNAP participants worry about the benefits cliff and which they earn just enough to disqualify themselves but not quite enough to support themselves. Your company has several locations in my
• 50:30 - 51:00 state of Oklahoma. Could you explain how the work CEO does with SNAP and ET helps to alleviate the benefits Cliff concerns and encourages sustained employment that ultimately reduces participants reliance on assistance? Yes. And it's wonderful having Mr. Lewis here by the way an example of that success. Absolutely. It's a privilege to testify alongside Mr. Lewis today. Um and you know since 2011 Mr. Lucas, CEO, has provided training and employment
• 51:00 - 51:30 opportunities to over 6,000 people in the state of Oklahoma across our Tulsa and Oklahoma City offices. This year, 89% of the people who walk through a front door at CEO, two things will be true. 89% of them uh will need SNAP benefits for that essential initial lifeline in the weeks and days just after incarceration. And about half of those individuals will have never worked before. The ENT program, which as we've mentioned has allowed since 2018 for more robust evidence-based interventions, allows us to give them a
• 51:30 - 52:00 transitional job. Um, through partnerships with Oklahoma DOT, Tulsa Community College, the city of Oklahoma City, they work three to four days a week. Um, it's daily pay. It's getting them those initial skills and immediately their benefits begin to drop, right? And that's where those trade-off decisions start becoming really difficult. So, there's a few strategies, right? as a workforce organization, we could try to quickly place them into a higher wage job, but without the requisite training and skills, they aren't likely to succeed. One of the best opportunities and that
• 52:00 - 52:30 we can do through SNAP ent is to offer advanced credentials, right? Something like a construction trade certification, something in the commercial driving sector. Um, those often will pay a stipen, but again, that stipen is enough to reduce benefits, but not enough to get someone family wages. So, if we can pass the training and nutrition stability act, we can disregard that income from the benefits calculation, we can get more people into these advanced trainings and into these jobs that are
• 52:30 - 53:00 paying now upwards 40, 50, $60,000 a year. Focusing more broadly on the employment needs of the communities you work in, there are what, 83,000 open jobs every year in Oklahoma. Is it in your experience, Mr. Schaefer that employers are ready for these individuals to join the workforce at an expedited rate. Absolutely. When those individuals have the requisite skills that those employers need. I think a key component that has to be factored into the ENT
• 53:00 - 53:30 program whether in Oklahoma or any state around the country is that we are training people for jobs that are needed in the local economy. um in Oklahoma and Tulsa, Oklahoma City specifically, we identified welding and commercial driving as two really high in demand skills uh for individuals, you know, and what's so encouraging is not just that we're training people. Uh I can talk to you a little bit about Robert Honoresi who got a welding certificate after 10 years incarcerated, immediately came
• 53:30 - 54:00 out, was hired by Valmont Industries to make $24 at a starting wage. It's since gone up. That's exciting as an individual level, but what's really encouraging to me is that Valmont has hired 10 more people coming through this program. They are eager and hungry. So when we target ENT programs to the needs of the local economy, it helps the individual, but also the broader employment sector generally. Mr. Tidwell, in your testimony, you shared several success stories of individuals who are able to find steady employment and lift themselves out of SNAP assistance. Would you say employers
• 54:00 - 54:30 you work with are eager for the program's participants to begin work? Is there a demand for the folks? Absolutely. In Louisiana, the demand for skilled labor continues to increase year after year. In Louisiana, um CDL uh drivers are needed every day. Um individuals to work in the prokim industry are needed every day. And if we can continue to partner with training providers to get our participants the
• 54:30 - 55:00 skills, the certifications, and the training that they need and then connect them directly to these employers so they complete our program, get a job in a high demand field and help them jump the benefits cliff. If we cannot get them to a job that pays enough uh to jump this cliff, it's it's really hurtful. But our goal is to get them in higher paying sustainable in need careers. Clearly,
• 55:00 - 55:30 Mr. Chairman, there are good things we need to be working on in this coming farm bill. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Uh Dr. Sensen back. Every month, 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to put food on the table. And this includes one and a half million veterans. And yet my
• 55:30 - 56:00 Republican friends are pushing a dangerous reconciliation bill that will slash uh $230 billion dollar out of this program and impacting disabled veterans. My question to you, my first question is, can you expand on the
• 56:00 - 56:30 disproportionate harm that implementing stricter work requirements for SNAP to pay for tax cuts will have on our veterans. So I think you know veterans will be hurt both by you know any sort of across the board uh cut because you know this benefit is about $6 a day. Um this is not people you know sort of you living
• 56:30 - 57:00 high on the hog right uh people really struggle even with SNAP benefits to put SNAP on the table especially as we're facing more inflation this trade war etc. um you know at this point in time um requiring uh you know this strict work requirements you know I think the evidence shows will kick a lot of people off of SNAP and won't improve employment outcomes and can you
• 57:00 - 57:30 uh guarantee that not a single veteran including the 50,000 and veterans in my state of Georgia who rely on SNAP will lose access to the SNAP program under this misguided and downright mean Republican bill.
• 57:30 - 58:00 I I c I cannot guarantee that your constituents won't be hurt. That's a lot of double negatives, but I think it will hurt people. And what are some of the unique barriers tell us that veterans face when meeting SNAP worker requirements and what should Congress do to remove these barriers? I really think that it's very wise to invest in SNAP ENT programs to help
• 58:00 - 58:30 people that uh either, you know, don't have the skills to succeed in the job market or have um struggled with, you know, alcohol or, you know, substance abuse or mental health challenges. All of those, I think, are common in this population, including among veterans. Um it's very wise to fund programs that can help come alongside these folks when they're ready and help them to build the skills that they need to um to get a middle class job.
• 58:30 - 59:00 You know, uh veterans make up 8% of the population in my state of Georgia. And what do I tell them about this? What kind of program needs to be there? You don't slash 230 billion dollars out of a
• 59:00 - 59:30 program that is so vital to survival. The one thing we cannot do without is food. This is a mean stroke that these Republicans are doing and we need to really defeat this
• 59:30 - 60:00 measure with every methods that we can. Nobody has paid the price for the greatness and security of our nation than our veterans and to slash $230 billion dollar. You don't think that's going to
• 60:00 - 60:30 cause some great trouble? I think we owe our veterans more than that. I agree with you. Well, I would tell you we are going to defeat this bill. Gentleman's time is expired. And I recognize the the other gentleman from Georgia, the other Congressman Scott from Georgia even for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um I just
• 60:30 - 61:00 want to point out to Americans that are watching this um the reason we're cutting spending is because we have a $2 trillion budget deficit. A $2 trillion budget deficit even though tax revenues have been higher than they've ever been in the history of the country. I would also point out that in January, the US trade deficit hit a record 130.7 billion dollars. Nobody on the
• 61:00 - 61:30 Republican side of the aisle felt like we could fix the trade deficit or the budget deficit by simply saying pretty please. I don't think the American citizens expected us to be able to fix them by saying pretty please either. We made it very clear there were going to be some shortterm there was going to be some short-term pain to save the dollar as the world currency and so u I'm glad that trade deals are now being negotiated in a manner that will be uh
• 61:30 - 62:00 equitable for both parties and I look forward to the reduction in that trade deficit which will lead to an increase in jobs and opportunities inside the United States of America. Now, I think work is a good thing. I don't mind telling you that. I think it's a good thing. And when you tell people that they don't have to work, you're not helping them because when they don't work, money is not being paid into the Social Security system on their behalf. And when they reach retirement age, that is going to have an impact on their
• 62:00 - 62:30 Social Security benefits. Is that correct? Is that correct? Does anybody dispute that? So when you're telling people that they don't have to work, you're you're actually the end result of that is a reduction in their employment benefits. So let's talk about jobs. Mr. Schaefer, um most of the open jobs across the country no longer require college degree, but some type of credential. In fact, those jobs actually pay more than
• 62:30 - 63:00 most of the jobs with college degrees now, especially in the southeast. Can you talk about the types of credentials center of credentials center for employment opportunities offers and how do you make sure that they are in demand and aligned with the industry needs of your region? It's a it's a great question and um really this has to be looked at when we look at advanced training. We look at the credentials uh CEO offers or other workforce providers offer. It has to be done in a geographically specific way. I
• 63:00 - 63:30 heard my colleague Mr. Tedwell talked about the prochemical uh industry and the training required for that and I can say with great confidence that that training is not necessary in our Fresno, California office where there is not a prochemical industry and so um that scan um often identifies a few things that are consistent construction trades as well as commercial driver's licenses but then when you go a level deeper you may see that it's more specialized trainings and healthcare that could be beneficial and what really unifies and makes these all
• 63:30 - 64:00 an opportunity unities that the ENT program, right, which was expanded to offer paid training and apprenticeships in the 2018 Farm Bill is a tremendous mechanism to help pay for these trainings for folks who are looking to achieve self-sufficiency. Senator Rashidi, uh we've heard a lot today about how work requirements don't work. Uh can you explain the limitations of the studies commonly cited by those who make make the argument?
• 64:00 - 64:30 uh make that argument. And what evidence do we have from the 96 reforms that were made to the cash welfare programs that that work work requirements are in the best interest of both the country and the people that are going back to work? It's a great question. Um, so I the the evidence we have on work requirements in SNAP um is pretty limited because we've never actually had a randomized control trial like we had with the welfare reforms in
• 64:30 - 65:00 the 19 in the late 1996 period. Um so the the you know description of highquality studies I would dispute slightly because it's just limited. Um some of the studies that are out there are constrained by data limitations, methodological limitations. Um but regardless of that um we do have evidence from the n late 1990s uh using more rigorous methods that work requirements can improve employment. It was in a different context uh different
• 65:00 - 65:30 population, but it certainly points to the potential for evidence. And the last thing I'll just add is there's you know multiple outcomes that can come from work requirements. One is being an increase in employment. So that affects people who are not working who then are incentivized to work. The other is the disclosure of unreported employment and I think that that is something that is a very real thing and would not show up on increased employment levels but it does ensure that the benefits are targeted in the my my time is expired but thank you
• 65:30 - 66:00 and I just I just want to end with work is a good thing and you're not helping anybody by telling them they don't they don't have to work. Thank thank the gentlemen. Now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and uh, I'm I'm glad that uh, we're we're holding this hearing uh, this morning. Um, I missed u the, u most of the comments that my colleagues have made. So, I hope I'm not repetitious here, but uh, the bottom line is this.
• 66:00 - 66:30 We don't have a farm bill at this point in time because we've yet to be able to bridge the gap between um people in America who are food insecure and uh the rest of the titles in the farm bill that uh have had success and are popular in many instances and overs subscribed and and therefore we have a um a log jam so to speak and we're being asked to make cuts
• 66:30 - 67:00 at least seems to me given the caps that the chairman and I I I let me be very clear. I I want to commend the chairman for his continued source of enthusiasm and efforts to try to make this work what is almost a conundrum of impossible ends. At least they seem to be that way with me and this is my fourth farm bill. So I think I've had a little experience in how we reach that bipartisan um compromise, bridge the gap. We're not there and we're over a year and a half
• 67:00 - 67:30 into this and I I I'm trying to figure out just what will lead us to bridge that gap because food is a national security issue. Food is an international security issue. And when you have 47 million Americans that are food insecure, you've got a challenge. And the farm bill generally in a bipartisan fashion, I think has been viewed as America's safety net. a safety net for folks that are food insecure, for farmers, ranchers, dairymen, and women
• 67:30 - 68:00 uh that are all part of the the food supply chain that work very hard with our farm workers to put food on America's dinner table every night and that gets taken for granted. So, you know, I represent one of the largest agricultural u regions in the entire country. Yet, it's a dichotomy. my congressional district uh and Congressman Valados are number one and number two in SNAP recipients. So you have this incredible agricultural
• 68:00 - 68:30 productivity and yet at the same time 27 to 30% of our population are food insecure and reliant on SNAP and and we believe in the work ethic really well in in the valley. Everybody works uh but a lot of these folks work seasonally. uh they um have families of four or five maybe make 20 $24,000 a year and it's pretty hard in seasonal employment to try to put that food on your own
• 68:30 - 69:00 family's dinner table um when it it certainly isn't enough. So let me ask a few questions here u and cut to the point. Uh uh Mr. Schaefer you in your testimony cited the importance of having a sustained pathway to ensure economic stability. Could you elaborate on the vital role that SNAP plays in workforce training especially for rural communities like mine? Yeah, absolutely. And speaking just in the context, Mr. Costa of CEO for whom everyone is coming home from incarceration, you know,
• 69:00 - 69:30 studies have shown that upwards of 91% of those individuals uh are food insecure, right? And that's pretty much everyone. It also attracts with my experience, people come So, let me ask you this question because my time's limited. If we limit the benefits uh for a person in in a secure workplace, would would that be detrimental? Yes. I mean, for an individual at CEO, that initial SNAP benefit in the days, weeks after incarceration, the SNAP nutrition
• 69:30 - 70:00 benefits are the lifeline. The nature of our program is that we guarantee everyone a paid temporary job. In that period, the paid temporary job, which is often three to four days a week, starts limiting the benefits. We have work requirements in California as well that we I think complement this effort. Dr. um if I pronounce this right uh Shan Sinbach Shanzenbach uh in your testimony uh you acknowledged that research and studies on various populations. Would you agree that
• 70:00 - 70:30 increasing work requirements have an economic cost for families of all types who are trying to get uh out of poverty? I do. I think that um SNAP helps people get back to work. It helps people get back on their feet and um harsh work requirements um are counterproductive because we have additional threats right now with these tariffs. I'm very concerned about our agriculture economy causing food costs to increase. U the president campaigned that he was going
• 70:30 - 71:00 to reduce food costs. That hasn't happened. Um, and it's going to make it more difficult and harder for families who are not only uh food insecure, but the ranchers, dairymen, and women uh who rely on the uh return on their on their profit on their on their commodities um to make a living. Right. Thank you. My time's expired, Mr. Chairman. Uh continue with your optimism. General time has expired. Now
• 71:00 - 71:30 recognize gentleman from Illinois, Mr. boss for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm going to give a statement here and I just want to know if any of you know where where it came from. Give us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of f our fellow citizens, excelling them from the world, excelling them to the world of work. It gives structure and meaning to dignity to the purpose in lives. Anybody know
• 71:30 - 72:00 who said that? Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton 1996 after the welfare reform act. And that is because it worked. We matter of fact, the reason I know it worked is one of my first bills I passed as a state legislator was the welfare reform of Illinois. And it was amazing how quickly um when that started working was that the federal government picked it up and did those changes. Um, so now as we're talking about work, I think it's amazing uh that it was
• 72:00 - 72:30 mentioned a while ago um on veterans. Does everybody understand that veterans um when we're talking about work requirements that veterans are excluded entirely from the ABWD work requirements? That should be also mentioned. So with that, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. And according to USDA, only 28% of non-disabled adults without dependence age 18 to 54
• 72:30 - 73:00 AWDs on SNAP who are subject to work requirements are working. 40% of all ABWD currently live under a state waiver of work requirements, including in my home state of Illinois. States are abusing loopholes in the law and keep people on the sidelines and stuck in lives of government dependencies. These are millions of able-bodied American workers that we
• 73:00 - 73:30 need to work especially when there are 7 million open jobs across this nation. Dr. Rashetti, why when we have low unemployment rates, so many jobs available across this country, do you think half of all states under they're under some type of waiver under the ABA AWD work requirement? The USDA FNF sets regulations on what qualifies a it's in
• 73:30 - 74:00 the legislation that states can wave the requirement if there's a lack of sufficient jobs or 10% unemployment rate. So there's regulations that the USDA FNS establishes to define those lack of sufficient jobs. Um they've been on the books for a very long time. Uh there's two in particular that I think are overly generous that allow states to kind of manipulate uh so that they can receive waiverss. One is that uh they have to be 20% above the uh national
• 74:00 - 74:30 unemployment rate. So you can imagine if you have a 3% national unemployment rate, 20% higher than that is still a fairly low unemployment rate. And the other is they're able to group areas uh in a way that can maximize their waiver coverage. So those are allowed under current regulations and that's what allows states to wave the work requirement even when economic conditions are fairly good. And I think that a majority of those states that have those waiverss are also those states like mine uh
• 74:30 - 75:00 that I want to say this that I believe that there's certain people want to keep people out of the workforce and dependent on government and they want them dependent on government because therefore they're loyal to a party. And it's really sad that we are wanting more uh enttrapments into these programs than we do to want to give somebody an opportunity to go into the workforce to thrive to make their lives
• 75:00 - 75:30 better for their families uh a and to encourage them to do that. Now, I think we can all agree that we want to see American families not go hungry and we want to help our neighbors in need. But there's a need to be have some accountability. I believe that as we're moving work forward with these proposals that it is just that to try to help
• 75:30 - 76:00 people better their lives. No one wants to starve them to death and no one on this panel, I believe, wants to starve somebody to death. But we are a nation that takes great pride in our accomplishments and our work. And we need to make sure that people have that opportunity to work and don't feel entrapped by government programs. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields. Now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um and let me be
• 76:00 - 76:30 blunt. Um it's it's frustrating uh to be here today. Um you know uh to to have a hearing on this topic uh at this moment I think is a colossal disappointment. Um I think it's an insult an insult to America's farmers and ranchers an insult to hungry families and frankly given what is happening in the world right now uh an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a functioning brain. Uh where's our hearing on tariffs mr chairman? Where's our hearing on how
• 76:30 - 77:00 these tariffs are going to cost farmers and ranchers billions in lost sales? Where's our hearings on how the Secretary of Agriculture went on TV this weekend and couldn't explain why we're slapping tariffs on uninhabited islands in the middle of the ocean? I mean, this stuff is nuts. Where's our hearing on how Trump and Elon Musk are shutting down the USDA phone lines, firing the staff that farmers rely on for help, and gutting the programs that connect local farms to local schools? Where's our
• 77:00 - 77:30 hearing on how food prices are about to go through the roof? This administration went from promising lower prices and a better economy uh to promising higher prices and a recession. And just when you think it couldn't get more out of touch, uh they're cutting SNAP to pay for tax breaks for Trump uh and his billionaire buddies. So, let me get this straight. You guys tank the economy. You drive up food prices. And your solution is to cut food assistance for people who
• 77:30 - 78:00 already struggle to afford food. Who the hell thought that was a good idea? I mean, honestly, I'd like to meet them just so I could ask them what's wrong with them. This is literally trying to sabotage our country. You guys are setting the house on fire and slashing the fire department's budget at the same time. It is insane. And if I have to sit through one more Republican lecture about how SNAP discourages work, I might lose it. This is gradea weapons grade stupidity. It's a lie. It was a lie the first time you said it and and it'll
• 78:00 - 78:30 still be a lie the millionth time. Now, let me break it down for folks at home. Most people on SNAP are kids, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. They cannot work and we don't expect them to. Should we repeal the child labor laws? Send grandma back to the factory? And of the people who can work, the vast majority already do. So, spare us the condescending talk about the dignity of work. If you guys cared about that, you'd be raising the minimum wage.
• 78:30 - 79:00 But you don't. You care about demonizing poor people to score political points and you guys can go right ahead and do that. But don't expect the rest of us to play along. And before you guys all pull out your Heritage Foundation talking points on work requirements, I just want to say to everyone watching at home, there are already very strict work requirements in SNAP and time limits for able-bodied adults. Look it up. It's the law. And by the way, SNAP benefits of poultry. We're talking $2 per meal.
• 79:00 - 79:30 That's what it is now. You guys want to cut the program by $230 billion. You want to even lower that. But most of you spend more on your c spent more on your coffee this morning. Now, call me radical, but I don't think it's morally right to slash a food benefit that costs a sliver uh of the federal budget while farmers get hammered uh and food prices go through the roof. So, if we want to talk about government waste, let's talk about the billions in tax breaks for billionaires. Let's talk about big oil subsidies. Let's talk about the Pentagon losing track of trillions. But this hearing, this bizarre obsession with
• 79:30 - 80:00 punishing hungry people while ignoring the crisis facing farmers, it's a bad faith, tonedeaf, mean-spirited sticktick to get you a clip on right-wing talk radio, and I'm not here for it. So, shame on this committee and shame on Republicans. Miss Shan Zimbach, I am I'm short short on time, but I have a few yes or no questions. Uh, first, are there already strict work requirements and time limits in SNAP? Yes. Will uh will people be paying higher prices for
• 80:00 - 80:30 food because of Trump's absurd trade war? Yes. And are current SNAP benefits enough to cover the cost of a meal for hungry families? No. I mean, and again, we're talking about a reconciliation bill coming up to cut the program by $230 billion. So that $2 per meal benefit that I we I just mentioned probably goes down to about a$160. I mean, how the hell is people supposed to live on that and feed their kids and feed their families? Uh, for those who
• 80:30 - 81:00 think that cuts and snap are a good idea, that putting more restrictions on poor people trying to feed their families is a good idea, let me make a suggestion. You know, stop watching too so much Fox News. Stop listening to right-wing think tanks and maybe start talking to people who are on the benefit, who are struggling to basically make ends meet and to feed their families. With that, I yield back my time. I appreciate the gentleman for his remarks based on a bill that hasn't been
• 81:00 - 81:30 defined yet of cuts. I now rep recognize a gentleman with a big brain. I guess uh in that context, you missed that part, Dusty. Mr. Mr. Johnson from South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I would just start by observing that I think reasonable people can disagree on policy uh without resorting to insults and accusations. And this committee generally has been a hallmark of great bipartisan work. And listen, uh, work requirements for SNAP have been a bipartisan exercise in the past. And I'm just I'm disheartened that
• 81:30 - 82:00 so many of my colleagues today have chosen to use so much of their time to try to demonize the motivations when this is something we do. We try to talk about how to move people off of welfare, how to create better lives, how to have more income mobility. And to the extent that we have tactical disagreements on policy, shouldn't we begin from an assumption that that our motivation is indeed to try to make a better America? And so I would just uh I would hope that in the future uh we could do better. Uh
• 82:00 - 82:30 I will start with Ms. Rashidi. Much has been made today about the the negative aspects of work requirements, but you argued uh I think effectively in your testimony, ma'am, that they can be a positive force in people's lives. Tell us more. Well, yes. I mean, to the extent that work requirements increase employment or allow people to continue employment and move up the income ladder, it certainly can be positive. I mean we have a lot of evidence showing that employment uh is
• 82:30 - 83:00 financially benefit to households as well as non-financially in terms of the dignity of work social networks that they can access. Um you know I think it's hard to argue that work is not a positive thing. Miss Rashidi is there any replicatable recipe for escaping escaping poverty that doesn't have at its core work training and education? Well, sure, increasing government transfers, um, but that's not necessarily sustainable or doable in
• 83:00 - 83:30 most most countries. Clearly, support services, I would think we can all agree that that good supports do help people escape poverty. Talk to us about the role of making sure that the training is in place. Yes. Um so government supports can certainly be helpful especially for low-income families who struggle to um you know struggle to work consistently for a variety of reasons um and or lack
• 83:30 - 84:00 skills and so training can be crucial support for them. I will add though it needs to be effective training. We have a lot of evidence suggesting that training programs especially targeting low low um income households are not necessarily effective. Um but there are certainly programs that are effective. Um my witnesses here at the table um have uh you know evidence of some success in their programs. Uh so yes, training can is a crucial component to the support services that we offer to low-income households. You noted in your
• 84:00 - 84:30 testimony that the workforce participation rate for ablebodied people without dependence is still below prepandemic levels. Did I hear that right? Well, the the work levels they've been fairly consistent. Um the I you might be referring to the number of ABODs receiving SNAP. Um that remains higher than pre pan pre- pandemic. Um but certainly things have not improved for ABODs receiving SNAP
• 84:30 - 85:00 since uh since the pandemic. There's been some allegation today that work requirements don't work. uh that that is not supported uh by all of the evidence. There are clearly instances where uh uh work requirements have worked. Give us some sense of what some states have done better than others of course. So what characteristics of effective policy should we be looking to to make sure that these work requirements do the best job of helping
• 85:00 - 85:30 people escape poverty? That's a great question. So when we're talking about work requirements in SNAP, we're talking about work for pay, but we're also talking about work activities like volunteer. You can satisfy a work requirement with volunteer activities. So states that can be successful if they really focus on how can we move these participants towards employment with an employment and training program, for example, getting them connected to an organization with volunteer work. I think states need to be creative uh and
• 85:30 - 86:00 you know put their resources in effective ways to do that rather than focusing on ineffective programs or focusing on things that you know can be detrimental to participants. Some of my colleagues unfortunately have attempted to demonize work requirements today rather than talk about good policy. So just m Dr. Rashidi let's make sure I understand this. Do any of the existing work requirements impact pregnant women? No. Do any of them impact those with disabilities? No. Do any of them impact
• 86:00 - 86:30 those people who live in areas with high unemployment? No. Depending on how you define high, but yes, if high unemployment, no. There's Do any of them impact people who have young dependents at home? No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that so much of the demonization that is done around work requirements have actually no evidentiary basis. And with that, I would yield back. Gentlemen, your time is expired. Now recognize Dr. Adams. uh for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
• 86:30 - 87:00 and uh thank you to our witnesses uh for being here today. Um this is um it's really important what we're talking about, but you know, for me, it's a it's PPP again, punishing poor people. Um let me just uh say for those of you who may not know, uh I was a professor for 40 years before coming to Congress. And I think I I probably need to put my teaching hat back on today because things just aren't adding up. Uh family farms are at risk. Yet Republicans have
• 87:00 - 87:30 decided to wage a war a worldwide trade war. And last time around, uh Trump's tariffs cost our farmers $30 billion in lost exports. Food costs are high. So what do Republicans do? Uh, we're threatening $230 billion in cuts to SNAP, our nation's most effective food assistance program. And instead of fighting to to lower costs for everyday Americans and passing a bipartisan farm
• 87:30 - 88:00 bill, and I had the pleasure of working on the last one, but but to give certainty to to families and farmers, Republicans are prioritizing massive cuts to pay for tax breaks for their wealthy donors like Elon M. and they're not denying that. Now, we should be talking today about how to invest in SNAP because it helps 42 million Americans afford food each month. It supports farmers and it stimulates local
• 88:00 - 88:30 economies. But instead, we're talking about slashing benefits for our most vulnerable families. If Republicans are successful at slashing benefits by rolling back the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluation in reconciliation, then a typical SNAP household of four will see their benefits cut and and food for food costs increase by more than $2,000 a year, uh rising to over $3,000 a year by
• 88:30 - 89:00 2034. Um Dr. Uh Sean Zebach. Uh in my in my home district, over 28,000 households depend on SNAP. Over half of which are families with children. They they can't afford they cannot afford to lose $3,000 a year. And as someone who has studied these issues extensively, what do you think it would mean for low-income families to have their benefits slashed
• 89:00 - 89:30 by over 20% on average? Yeah, I think that we'll see uh more food insecurity. I think we'll see uh diets get worse. Um I think we'll see all sorts of harm to a broad range of people, families with children, the elderly, uh disabled people, uh etc. Especially if then we head into a recession like so many people are are expecting, punishing poor people. Well, there have been also implications today
• 89:30 - 90:00 that the increase in benefits from the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan is incentivizing people not to work and instead to depend on SNAP. The 2021 Thrifty Food Plan contributes an average of $1.40 per person per day to SNAP benefits. And let me just say that again. A$140. Now, instead of SNAP benefits being $4 and change, they're a little
• 90:00 - 90:30 over $6 per day. And I don't think most folks in this room could say with a straight face that for only a$1.40 a day, more a day that you'd be able to stop working. Uh, Dr. Senbach, how do you think the $140 uh 100 and a dollar40, excuse me, per day that the 2024 2021 thrifty food plan provides has impacted people who depend on SNAP to put food on their tables.
• 90:30 - 91:00 We've got evidence that when the benefit is made more adequate, you know, when it's expanded a little bit, people are able to eat a more diverse um and healthy uh food diet. Uh so people buy more perishables, they buy just higher higher quality proteins, things like that. So I think that we've seen real good come from the enhanced benefit. You know, in my district, um we have a lot of food deserts and people cannot even get to purchase the kind of food that
• 91:00 - 91:30 they need. you know, you you can't be healthy if you're hungry. That that's just point blank. Those things go together. U Mr. Chairman, uh I'd like for unanimous consent to enter a letter from 31 national religious organizations urging Congress to avoid all changes to SNAP and reconciliation that shift costs to states, expand work requirements, or impact the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan. I'd like to enter that into the record, sir. Without objection. Thank you very much, and thank you all for your testimony.
• 91:30 - 92:00 I'll yield back. J yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Fistra, for five minutes. Oh, now Miss Miller's lo is after Mr. Fster. Are you calling on me? No, Mr. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, you're right. Mr. Fincher is not here. Okay, Miss Miller, go ahead.
• 92:00 - 92:30 Please recognize for five minutes. Thank you. Uh, Dr. Rue Shidi, in your testimony, you mentioned state waiverss of work requirements. Mr. Bost has already mentioned this today, but I want to highlight again, my home state, Illinois, is one of the states that's abusing these waivers. Illinois has received a statewide waiver despite having an unemployment rate of 5.2%. 2%.
• 92:30 - 93:00 In some counties, the rate is as low as 2.6% and none of the counties meet the 10% threshold. Can you speak to how these statewide waiverss undermine the integrity of the SNAP program and what reforms would you recommend to ensure waivers are only granted where truly warranted? I do think it undermines the integrity of the program. the the work requirement that was put in place for Avods in 1996
• 93:00 - 93:30 uh what did have a waiver but it was specific to areas of high unemployment and it defined as 10% or areas that lack sufficient jobs. So clearly the intent was that area that states and counties should implement AVOD work requirements uh and only and that that they only could wave that when unemployment conditions were poor. And so when you allow states to wave these work requirements even when unemployment conditions are positive as you mentioned, I do think that undermines
• 93:30 - 94:00 the integrity of of the program. You also mentioned the need for Congress to to uh address the benefit cliffs. Can you expand on this issue as it pertains to SNAP and how Congress can fix it? Yeah, this is a very tough issue because we've heard today about disregarding earnings from income uh as one way to address that issue. Meaning that people can m keep their benefits even when their earnings increase. Um, that's one
• 94:00 - 94:30 way to address the issue kind of in the in the um at certain level of benefits, but without expanding the income eligibility, you're still putting households in a in a difficult position because once they reach the income eligibility limit, which is 130% of poverty, in some states at 200%. they still if their benefit is relatively high because you have disregarded all this income in calculating the benefit they will face a substantial drop in benefit. So the key to this again
• 94:30 - 95:00 complicated issue is that you have to align the maximum benefit level the tapering point and the exit point of the benefit. You have to align all of those things and again it gets complicated but it's important to consider all of those factors together. So earning so deductions from income, income eligibility and maximum benefits, consider them all together so that households have their benefits phase out to zero dollars in a reasonable uh at a
• 95:00 - 95:30 reasonable rate. Thank you. And we'll look forward to working with you to fix that issue. Mr. Tedwell, how does faith pay play a role in what you do at Hope Ministries? Well, in in the community that we serve, we have found that um the faith-based community, churches, synagogues, and the like um are a key component in serving SNAP ent participants. Um one of the
• 95:30 - 96:00 challenges that we have seen over the years is building trust, having the okay of these spiritual leaders in our community. um goes a long way in building that trust. If trust can be built, we are a lot more successful at serving them, help them overcome past traumas, and changing a mindset of a right now job into a mindset of a
• 96:00 - 96:30 career. Changing the mindset of time is only right now to time is future. Changing the mindset of I'm faded. It's always been this way. it's always going to be this way. If that can be changed and their future can seem brighter and can seem obtainable, they're a lot more successful. The faith-based community plays a key role in building that trust and changing that narrative for many. I think you've been doing great work and I
• 96:30 - 97:00 think we should expand on these kind of programs. People need relationships tied to the financial help. And I do want to address the committee also because people are trashing President Trump and the tariffs and how President Trump is advocating for the American people and the American farmer and for great trade policies using leverage in a key way. Um I I'm one of the few family farmers left in Congress. I represent a heavy a district and I can say the last four
• 97:00 - 97:30 years the a community and farmers have not been thriving. inflation under Joe Biden has been crushing and we've had a lack to none to a a poor trade policy and we in my district support President Trump and what he's doing with the tariffs. Thank you very much. Lady's time is expired. Now recognize the general lady from Kansas, Miss Davids, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. And uh thank you to you and ranking member
• 97:30 - 98:00 Craig for holding this hearing today. uh we we are in a time where farmers are already facing some pretty serious economic uncertainty and uh should be stren should be focused on strengthening our farm economy and expanding access to markets and not making things harder. Uh recently, President Trump did announce a new wave of tariffs that uh have the potential of devastating our economy and uh certainly dragging Kansas farmers into a self-inflicted trade war.
• 98:00 - 98:30 These decisions have real consequences. Kansas producers are going to face higher costs for critical inputs like seeds and equipment. Uh they'll be hit even harder when they export um because we're seeing export markets uh potentially start to close. Uh Kansas is the eighth largest agricultural exporting state in our country. Our farmers and ranchers rely on access to international markets to sell their crops. Uh but now we're seeing countries like China responding with uh steep
• 98:30 - 99:00 retaliatory tariffs. These policies are putting Kansas producers in the crosshairs. And it's not just farmers who are going to feel the pain. Families across Kansas are already feeling the strain of higher grocery prices. Uh these tariffs are going to drive up costs even more, especially for items like coffee and bananas, which we don't produce in the United States. The reality is these harms are entirely avoidable. These tariffs are the result of choices made by the president. But here in the House Agriculture Committee, we do have a
• 99:00 - 99:30 responsibility to respond. not with political games, but with real solutions that provide certainty and support to our producers. That means protecting farm bill programs like supplemental nutrition assistance programs. Our families rely on these. In my district alone, more than 8,000 households depend on SNAP to put food on the table. It also helps keep our agricultural economy moving by ensuring that people can buy Kansas grown goods. I would like for us to stay focused on what really matters which is supporting
• 99:30 - 100:00 the folks who grow our food and feed our families. Uh so my first question is uh for Dr. Shaenbach. Economic econ economists have estimated that cutting SNAP by $230 billion could reduce farm revenue by approximately 30 billion. Uh, under the current Senate Republicans latest budget resolution, the House Agriculture Committee would be required to cut at least $230 billion over 10 years in order to pay for tax cuts. I would argue tax cuts for billionaires.
• 100:00 - 100:30 Assuming that these cuts would would come from SNAP and not from farm programs. Uh, how would these cuts um and cuts of this magnitude um to food assistance impact farmers and the agriculture economy? Yeah, I think you're right about the we're expecting about a $30 billion loss in uh the farm economy, maybe even more than that when you factor in all of the dynamic effects. Um but then combining that with a trade war, I think that you know is
• 100:30 - 101:00 going to hurt farmers and I think it's going to hurt all Americans. So I I I'll follow up. I I'm pretty deeply concerned about cuts to SNAP and um eroding the nutritional and agricultural coalitions that have carried previous farm bills across the finish line. Uh right now the economic pressures on Kansas farmers and ranchers um due to
• 101:00 - 101:30 the impacts of uh or in addition to the impacts of President Trump's uh tariffs that I would characterize as reckless are creating a lot of instability uh in farm country. It's why now more than ever we're going to need a bipartisan farm bill that can actually become law and provide producers with certainty uh and the resources uh that they need. Do you thought like do you think that removing $230 billion dollars from the
• 101:30 - 102:00 food economy would increase uncertainty that farmers are already feeling? Yes, it'll um increase uncertainty for farmers. It will increase uncertainty for families, all sorts of small business owners. Uh and I think in this moment it would be great if Congress could add more stability uh you know to get rid of some of the volatility that I'm afraid we're going to face. Yeah. Thank you. And you know, I I would say that uh we're in an atmosphere where too many people, farmers and businesses included, are dealing with tons of
• 102:00 - 102:30 uncertainty. Uh and this level of uncertainty that is being added by uh federal policy is unacceptable. Thank you for your time. Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. I yield back. Gentle yields back. Now recognize the gentleman uh from Iowa, Mr. Finstra, for five minutes. Thank you uh Mr. Chair and thank you uh Ranking Member Craig. Uh this is an important topic. I want to thank our witnesses for
• 102:30 - 103:00 your testimony. Uh I read through your testimony and you know the bottom line here is we need to build pathways out of poverty. I mean that's all we want to do, right? We want to build pathways out of poverty and we've created some some great programs to do that such as SNAP. uh and now it's just a matter of how can we improve on these programs how can we make them more effective how can we make them work you know when I think about what SNAP does and how we can uh create participation whether it be
• 103:00 - 103:30 participation in work whether it be participating in matching a skill with a job so that comes through training that comes through education um these are all vital components of doing this uh I was very excited and happy to join my colleague Dusty Johnson in introducing legislation aimed to closing certain loopholes that that uh would threaten some of these these issues. Um so uh Miss uh Rashadi and if I said your name wrong I humbly apologize but how can we
• 103:30 - 104:00 work to promote a better SNAP program and and uh eliminate states use of of abusing some of the waiverss that are out there. the uh in the first Trump administration in 2019, his USDA proposed new regulations uh for when states could qualify for a waiver for the ABOD work requirements. It tightened up some of the requirements, set a floor on the unemployment rate of 6%, meaning that no state um or area that had unemployment
• 104:00 - 104:30 rate below 6% uh could qualify. I think that that's a good step uh or that's a step in the right direction in terms of tightening up that criteria. So, can can we apply I mean I just see there's there's we have 50 states and they're all using SNAP SNAP and SNAP in different forms and is there a way that we can evenly apply this across all states? Uh the the work requirement and the waiver criteria. Um well certainly the regulations would have consistent
• 104:30 - 105:00 definition or criteria for when a state would would qualify for a waiver. Um if your point is about how do we ensure w uh work requirements are applied consistently. I mean in the law now it does have this provision where it can be waved when unemployment is high or when jobs are insufficient and so certainly you could eliminate that and so it's just applied across the board. Um but that's something you'd have to consider in terms of when work requirements are
• 105:00 - 105:30 appropriate. So let me ask you this and I can ask others this too. Uh to me there's this important concept that's that's moving forward across agency lines and that is artificial intelligence. Is there a way that we can use some artificial intelligence in the SNAP program to make it more effective? Has anybody thought of that? Uh Dr. Rashidi, have you gone down that path? Has this been talked about? Um I I haven't directly, but I've heard it discussed in terms of program integrity
• 105:30 - 106:00 and fraud detection and things like that. Yeah. So I think there's a large, you know, area of study um and a lot of people who are working on that and and hopefully that'll continue. Anybody else? Anybody want to talk about that? Uh uh I mean to me this is very important. Yeah, I I think uh she's exactly right about for program integrity. You know how um if your credit card gets hotarted uh because they think there's something unusual, a lot of that's AI. They do the same thing with SNAP and try to figure out is is something going going wrong here? And if so, we'll go and you know make sure that
• 106:00 - 106:30 nobody's cheating the system. Yep. Yep. Well, and and thank you for that. I I just think that this is a a great avenue as we move forward. I mean, you know, we all have credit cards. Uh this is in essence somewhat of a card like that and and there's technology available just like you said through AI that that this can be done to create more integrity in the program. Um but can I add but you need a person to go and check check it out. Right. The computers% you're right. Right. But and when they're when they're skilled person, here's the thing. When it's identified, then a person's got to check it out and say, is it real or not
• 106:30 - 107:00 real? Yep. Right. I mean, I think all of us collectively in this room, we want to do what's right. And we see this as an opportunity, as a program that is is utilized that that does good things. Uh but for me, it's how do you get how do you lift people out of poverty? And that's the whole goal here. Hopefully, that's the whole goal of this room. Um that that we can do that. So, I I thank each one of you for your testimony. Very grateful. and and hopefully we can work collectively and get something done. Thank you, Chairman, and I yield back. Gentlemen, y'all's back now. Recognize
• 107:00 - 107:30 the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Selenus, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig, for bringing us together today. And thank you to our witnesses for your time. Um, before we get started, Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter a letter from multiple veterans organizations opposing cuts to SNAP, including changes such as rolling back the 2021 update to the Thrifty Food Plan, expanding the so-called work requirements, and shifting benefit cost to states into the record. Yeah, without objection. Thank you. So, as members of
• 107:30 - 108:00 Congress, one of the greatest responsibilities is looking out for our nation's veterans. My own father is a two-time tour Vietnam War veteran, and those who have served our country deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. No one who's ever served our country should wonder where their next meal will come from. Yet, working age veterans are 7.4% more likely than nonveterans to experience food insecurity, a figure that is even higher for non-white veterans. Across the nation, one and a half million veterans live in poverty
• 108:00 - 108:30 and 1.2 2 million use SNAP to be able to afford food. In Oregon, an estimated 33,000 vets receive SNAP each month. That's about 14% of our state's total veteran population, which is the highest in the nation. It is clear SNAP plays a critical role in keeping food on the tables of Oregon veterans and their families. One incredibly important aspect of SNAP as it relates to veterans is the Veterans Time Limit exemption, which was included in the fiscal responsibility act. This exemption
• 108:30 - 109:00 allows veterans facing employment challenges due to health conditions related to their service to still access SNAP. Unfortunately, under current law, these exemptions are set to sunset on October 1st, 2030. If we let these exemptions expire, veterans would have yet another hurdle to overcome to be able to put food on their tables. Dr. Shaenbach, would more veterans face food insecurity if the time limit exemption for veterans was removed?
• 109:00 - 109:30 Yes, it's important to keep that u in place and I believe that Dr. Shid's been on the record um in favor of of removing the veterans uh time limit exemption. Thank you. What other obstacles this back to Dr. uh Sean Zenbach, what other obstacles do veterans face when it comes to food um insecurity? you know, so there there's several. One is that um there's relatively low participation rate in SNAP among veterans. And one of the
• 109:30 - 110:00 things that can help with that is I guess the VA is starting to do screenings for food insecurity and try to help match people uh together with the benefits that they they're entitled to. Uh that's one you know another is really you know coming back to u the issue of skills and you know if your skills are not a good match for the local economy uh you either need to get you know retraining or something or or you know find a a different outlet location. Yeah. Thank you. I'm also
• 110:00 - 110:30 deeply concerned about Republicans proposal to pay for tax cuts for Elon Musk and the wealthiest people in our country by forcing states to pay for a proportion of SNAP benefits in addition to the administrative costs they are are already responsible for. Mandating a state cost share for benefits would be a drastic change to the structure of SNAP, resulting in major cuts to benefits and eligibility and making it near impossible for the program to be responsive during economic downturns. Even a 10% cost share would cost Oregon $150 million next year alone. A 25% cost
• 110:30 - 111:00 share would cost my state about 397 million. States are just not in a position to absorb these substantial additional costs. In fiscal year 2024, total tax collections in Oregon were 20% lower than the state's 15-year trend. And nationally, state collections were about 2.8% below their collective long-term trend. I've seen how hard it is for Oregon to scrape together funding for critical infrastructure projects like bridge replacements. Adding hundreds of millions in SNAP funding in
• 111:00 - 111:30 addition to Republicans planned Medicaid ripoff would be a devastating blow to Oregon's fiscal future. Dr. Shanzenbach, how could an unprecedented state cost share for SNAP benefits impact the effectiveness of SNAP, particularly for the most vulnerable in our community? It really would be a radical departure from how this program has been run for more than 50 years to require a state match. So, right now, any low-income household that meets the eligibility requirements can get access to SNAP. If
• 111:30 - 112:00 we um required a state match, um not all states could afford that. And so, we would see a ratcheting down potentially of of benefits, of eligibility, etc. Now, where this particularly is harmful is when we hit an economic downturn and you know then instead of SNAP propping the economy back up um and you getting those multiplier effects and restabilizing things, you know, we'll uh see things spiral continue to spiral down. We should not remove this important tool from our arsenal. Thank
• 112:00 - 112:30 you. And I yield back. Julie yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from from uh Iowa, M or from Minnesota, Mr. Finstead for five minutes. Those are fighting words. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thank you for uh holding this important hearing today and thank you for the witnesses uh for being here and uh giving of your time uh for us and with us today. Throughout the last two decades, SNAP funding has increased by close to 230%. Meanwhile, food
• 112:30 - 113:00 insecurity in this country has remained largely unchanged. The constituents I represent in southern Minnesota would give the shirt off their back to help their neighbors in need. And as members of Congress, we must ensure that they have faith in the program's mission and integrity. SNAP should be a hand up, not just a handout. And it should focus as just as much on financial independence and achieving the American dream as it does nutrition independence. So with that being said, uh Dr. Rashidi, um can
• 113:00 - 113:30 you tell me what SNAP stands for? Supplemental nutrition assistance program. Okay. Not sole nutrition assistance program. Supplemental. Supplemental. And I want to point that out because, you know, as we uh have heard some rhetoric here today uh from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Uh it's almost presented that this is the sole nutrition assistance program. And just uh for the record, I want to
• 113:30 - 114:00 just state that it is a supplemental nutrition assistance program. And just in the USDA alone, we have other programs. Uh the supplemental nutrition program for women, infant and children, wick, we have children and adult food care program, afterchool meals, free breakfast and lunch at school, uh summer EBT benefits to purchase food when school is not in session, senior food uh food box program, and it goes on and on. And that's just within the USDA. So, I just want to make sure that we kind of have our head around the the nature of
• 114:00 - 114:30 the supplemental nutrition assistant program. Um, in your testimony, uh, Dr. Rashidi, you talked about waiverss and, uh, you know, that has been an issue that, you know, we we kind of, uh, have seen members from my side take a, you know, my side of the aisle take a very strong position on and members on the other side, uh, h have different views on this. Um, just a couple thoughts that I'd like you to share with us. So, uh, citing the USDA's information, 75% of ABODs on SNAP have no income, and we
• 114:30 - 115:00 have seen in in your testimony, you've talked about 40% of ABODs currently live under a state waiver of the work requirement. Can you just share some thoughts on uh on that? And uh, I know you've talked about it a little bit in regards to maybe some areas for opportunity with us, but what does that data tell you and and what advice do you have for us? Yeah, I mean I think looking at those data um there we're talking about individuals who have no uh dependence in their household to support who have not
• 115:00 - 115:30 been determined to be disabled or have some other medical exemption um and who are prime age. So I think most people have an expectation for themselves and others who fit that category that uh employment is realistic and should be their be best path to provide financial resources into their household. So when I look at those data, it suggests to me that there is that that message is not getting through to a particular part of the population that's receiving SNAP. Um, and there could be reasons for that,
• 115:30 - 116:00 but I think that that is something SNAP should pay attention to and states should be aware of that and they should do everything that they can to try to connect those individuals to employment because again, we talked about it earlier, there's not only financial benefits to employment in terms of resources in the household, there's also so many non-financial benefits and the only realistic way out of poverty and uh towards upward mobility is employment for those those for that population. So, Dr. Rashidi, help me understand this.
• 116:00 - 116:30 So, the average age of the US farmer uh is 58 years old. Explain to me the logic and the reasoning behind the ABOD work requirement uh to the age of 54. That's a difficult thing to explain. I'm not I'm not sure if the the age requirement necessarily aligns with logic about what we expect from people from working. I think it largely is somewhat arbitrary. Um, I think that people generally are expected to work
• 116:30 - 117:00 until retirement age, which we could debate what that is, but it's uh around 65 or even higher. Many people um work at that age. So, yes, I think that that age cut off is fairly arbitrary. Well, as a farmer myself, I know I'm I'm not even close to hitting my prime yet, but when I get to 58, I'll I'll be full full groove, full farmer. So, I look forward uh God willing to those years. Um, and maybe a last thought on that point. Do you believe uh requiring ablebods with without dependence
• 117:00 - 117:30 um you know the work requirements do do you believe that lacks compassion? I don't I actually think it's the opposite. Um I think that people want to work they want access to work opportunities uh and to the extent that SNAP actually discourages work and prevents that through benefit cliffs through other things uh yeah I think it's the opposite. Thank you and thank you Mr. Chair. I yield back. Time is expired. I recognize the gentle lady from Hawaii, Mr. Tuda, for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Trump
• 117:30 - 118:00 has been in office for less than a 100 days, but his administration has already unleashed numerous assaults on our food security in Hawaii and in rural communities nationwide. The cuts to SNAP and work requirements proposed and imposed by this administration and congressional Republicans will result in families losing food off their tables and too many children will go hungry. When it comes to rural America, here are the facts. 1.7 million rural Americans live in counties where there aren't enough jobs for people who need them.
• 118:00 - 118:30 63% of rural counties have fewer jobs than before the Great Recession. In addition to this, challenges like lack of affordable housing, child care, and access to transportation all make it harder for rural Americans to find and sustain employment. Dr. Shazenbach, you've stated that expanding work requirements would cause harm. would you specifically briefly discuss how these proposals would specifically impact rural communities? Yes. So, in general, rural communities rely a little bit more on SNAP. Um, in
• 118:30 - 119:00 large part because of the reasons that you mentioned, uh, you know, declining, you know, work base, um, etc. But SNAP works really effectively in those areas in part because it, you know, works through normal channels of trade. And so, you know, uh you can go to the grocery store um with your benefits with your other um other money together. Um it helps prop up the rural economies. It helps um you know, again, back to that multiplier effect, you know, when you're spending money in the rural areas. Um
• 119:00 - 119:30 that keeps more jobs in the area. Well, as well, SNAP is very important for rural households. Thank you. So, it lifts up our rural residents and our rural economy. And to put it bluntly, for many rural Americans, Republicans efforts to raise work requirements is essentially sentencing them to starvation because of where they happen to live. Um, across the country, millions of Americans are frustrated with the high cost of living, especially with the price of their groceries. Rural communities are absolutely no exception.
• 119:30 - 120:00 The difference is that SNAP participation rates are higher, as you mentioned, in rural areas. The fact that the place is producing the food that we consume as a nation experience even higher rates of food insecurity is not just a cruel irony. It is a fundamental inequity in our country's food system. One that SNAP helps to address both by putting food on their tables and by supporting farmers and rural economies. Yet rolling back the 2021 food plan update means SNAP benefits would fail to
• 120:00 - 120:30 cover the cost of meals in every county across the country, not even close to supplemental. especially in rural communities. According to the Urban Institute, maximum SNAP benefits for a rural resident in Lelenau County in Michigan would be almost $3 short of the average cost of a modestly priced meal of $5.19. That's a shocking 133% gap, the second highest for any county in the country. If Republicans roll back the 2021 TFP update, Tito, Blaine, Cameas,
• 120:30 - 121:00 and Kuster counties in Idaho, Lincoln, and Teton counties in Wyoming, in Nevada, and Sierra counties in California would all see over 110% gap between SNAP benefits and the cost of a moderately priced meal in those areas. Pierce County, Wisconsin would see a 91% gap. And in Dodge County, Minnesota, an 87% gap. The list goes on. But the bottom line is this. Rural communities will not survive these SNAP cuts. Rural Americans will starve. It's worse if you
• 121:00 - 121:30 account for the fact that every SNAP dollar spent in a rural area in this country generates $1.79 in local economic activity. USDA's own analysis highlighted that an additional 1 billion in SNAP spending raised GDP by $1.54 billion, created over 13,000 jobs, and generated over 32 million in farm revenue. Feeding people feeds our economy and it supports our farmers, ranchers, and producers. If we let Republicans cut SNAP, we're letting them
• 121:30 - 122:00 take billions of dollars away from these rural communities. Less market demand means less farm revenue, resulting in less jobs at the end of the day. Dr. Charismbbar, what will happen to rural communities and towns across our country in every one of our districts here if people can't find jobs where they live and due to cost and scarcity they can't afford to feed themselves and their families. Yeah. So it will make people worse off it and it will make the economy worse
• 122:00 - 122:30 off which then you know has a spiral effect. I do want to say we're not going to let people starve. Um the charitable food sector um you know is already stretched very thin but you know we are still the United States of America. We're not going to let people starve but the charitable can only go so much. This is where we need to supplement and make sure people do not starve. Let's be clear in my district. People will leave these communities. We will all see an exodus of our constituents if they cannot afford to work and to feed their
• 122:30 - 123:00 families. Thank you Dr. Charenbart. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the uh gentleman from Washington state uh Mr. New House for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the ranking member as well for this hearing today. And also thank you folks for being here. I can't see you all. I'll try to do my best. Um so this is a big deal in my district. I come from central Washington state. Fully 18% of the households in my district are
• 123:00 - 123:30 utilize the SNAP program. Uh so it's very valuable especially as you know for low-income communities like I have a lot of but as was said before the intention of this program is to be supp supplemental and we all understand that to help families during hard times. Currently our unemployment rate in this country is just over 4%. And we have I think nationwide something like 7 million jobs open. In my state alone, there's about between, I
• 123:30 - 124:00 don't know, 150 to 170,000 jobs open right now. And yet the numbers I hear that only a quarter of those people that are I hate the I hate the acronym ABOD, but it sounds kind of weird, but uh that people in that cuh category, only about a quarter are actually working. Uh, so I look forward to working with this committee, people on both sides of the aisle to strengthen this relationship between SNAP and employment. Proud of the work that the
• 124:00 - 124:30 committee has accomplished so far. Um, uh, I I do agree that we have some work to do. I think Miss Rashidi mentioned something about the benefits cliff and I I think that that's absolutely a place where we can make improvements. I think we all want the same thing. We want healthy communities. We want healthy members of those communities who contribute to the over overall uh good and things like working uh education and
• 124:30 - 125:00 training programs, volunteerism are all good things to encourage people to do and all qualify uh for receiving SNAP benefits. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Lewis when he made the comment and I sorry I can't quote exactly but he he told us that the SNAP and ET programs when combined are some of the best and most efficient use of scarce taxpayer dollars and and I would add while at the same time they encourage people to
• 125:00 - 125:30 become self-sufficient encourage and enable people to do those things so important stuff here that we're talking about and and I do hope that we can come to some very good conclusions conclusions. Dr. Rashidi um at the end of last year in my state uh requested and approved for the ABOD uh uh time limit waiver uh 38 counties out of 39 um including all those in my district.
• 125:30 - 126:00 Now, just as I was talking about with so many jobs open throughout the country and throughout the state, um it seems to me that that's just a little counterintuitive and I know you've addressed this somewhat, but uh would you agree that um for states to continue to request and be granted these waiverss doesn't quite add up? It doesn't. And again, not all states kind of exploit some of the regulations
• 126:00 - 126:30 set by FNS. Um but certainly the way the regulations are now, it allows states um like yours to wave those requirements even when the unemployment rate is relatively low. You also talked about um the data is skewed. I think maybe the word you used due to things like waiverss and for states and inconsistent data. So could you talk a little bit more about the some of the data that we have available to us? Yeah. No, that's a
• 126:30 - 127:00 good question and I wouldn't say it's skewed and I don't think I use that term, but there's this issue of, you know, all this research out there on work requirements. There's not a a lot of looking at the enforcement of those work requirements. And I spent about a decade working for New York City. We implemented work requirements. Um I did a lot of field work. So the the real question is how are these enforced? Um because if they're not effective because they're not enforced, that's not surprising. That doesn't tell us anything about the potential for
• 127:00 - 127:30 effectiveness of those programs. And so I think um we have to keep that in mind. Mr. Schaefer, moving to to I I really liked what I heard you say about the the work that the CEO, the Center for Employment Opportunities does and how it impacts the communities that you serve. Uh, I'd like to hear more about how you see your program help move participants towards self-sufficiency and and how we can somehow translate that that thought
• 127:30 - 128:00 into strengthening the SNAP and the employment training opportunities. Yeah, abs. Absolutely. The individuals who come to us from prison, half of whom have never worked before, rely on that nutrition assistance benefit for that initial lifeline. But what they're really looking for is is the job training, the advanced credentiing to get them the full-time families sustaining wages that they need. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate all you're being here. Gentlemen's time is expired. Now recognize the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Bazinski, for five
• 128:00 - 128:30 minutes. U Mr. Chairman and and ranking member, I want to thank you for calling this hearing today. Um I think this is a really important conversation. and it's very timely and I brought a visual aid here. Um, we are all hearing from our districts that families are struggling. They are struggling with higher costs at the grocery store, wondering if they will still have health care or if title one schools will have the funding they need to operate. And what I am having a
• 128:30 - 129:00 hard time understanding is how talking about more burdensome regulations on SNAP or making cuts to the program to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and America's largest corporations helps this problem. Hardworking Americans across the country have felt the squeeze at the grocery store over the past several years, starting with the pandemic. But this administration is not prioritizing lowering costs to help
• 129:00 - 129:30 families get by. Instead, the Trump administration's reckless tariffs on some of our most established trading partners and allies are extremely alarming for American consumers. We import 60% of our fresh fruits and 40% of our fresh vegetables, many of which cannot be grown in the United States. Not to mention the many other products we import, coffee, olive oil, and other
• 129:30 - 130:00 pantry items. And this US and the US imported nearly $45 billion worth of meat and fish in 2023 alone. And we know that consumers will bear the cost of tariffs on these staples. No matter what some may claim, producers will simply not eat these costs. It is the consumers. It is my constituents. They are the folks that are going to bear the cost of this. In fact, leading
• 130:00 - 130:30 economists are projecting that this chaotic and unnecessary trade war will cost American families thousands of dollars per year. The Yale Budget Lab shared an analysis that it would be upwards of $3,000. $3,000 for working families. For families who are living paycheck to paycheck, $3,000 a year is a difference in keeping your lights on. It allows you to go to the doctor when you're sick. It allows you to start an emergency fund.
• 130:30 - 131:00 It allows you to put food on the table for your children. And we want to talk about cutting SNAP right now. I seem to recall the president running on the promise of bringing down grocery costs for the American people, which I would love to see. If we if he is really going to take real action to make life more affordable for folks, I'm here for that. I celebrate that. But instead, we are watching him make decisions that are ballooning costs, including the cost of
• 131:00 - 131:30 feeding a family. And now, Congress wants to pull the rug out from under them. This is unconscionable. In my district, over 55,000 households rely on SNAP. And like the rest of the country, the majority of these households are the homes to children, seniors, and those with disabilities. And we would do well not to forget what this program looks like for families. The average benefit is around $6 per person per day. One of
• 131:30 - 132:00 my constituents shared a story with me about what SNAP means to her over 10 years ago. She benefited from SNAP while attending nursing school as a single parent living in section 8 housing. SNAP meant that she would be able to put food on the table for her and her son. But because of the burden that was relieved from her, she graduated and became and was a and got a job as a stable in a stable nursing career even before even
• 132:00 - 132:30 becoming a nurse, excuse me, during the the COVID crisis. Another constituent of mine, administers SNAP, and I'd like to quote her directly. Some days it's very hard to do my job. Like when I see elderly individuals receiving Social Security retirement disability who have worked all of their life but are not eligible for significant SNAP because they are over the threshold. They are asking for help but not getting what
• 132:30 - 133:00 they need. Some of our most vulnerable clients must choose between medicine and food. End quote. When we talk about SNAP SNAP beneficiary beneficiaries, we are talking about hardworking Americans like these individuals who are just needing a little help to get by and that is something we should celebrate and not demonize. I have one very quick question for Dr. Schnazenbach. Dr. Rashidi's testimony leans on research that you did
• 133:00 - 133:30 to support her claim that SNAP discourages work, but your analysis focused on women in the 1960s and 70s during the nationwide roll out of the modern food stamp program. Do you think that things have changed for women in the last 50 years? Women's labor participation have gone up at least 15 percentage points since then. We've got more modern evidence and that's what I talked about. Okay, thank you. I yield back. Very good. Gentle's time has expired. Uh now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, uh Mr. Taylor, for five
• 133:30 - 134:00 minutes. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Craig for hosting this hearing today and thank you to all our witnesses for your insight and testimony. I think the two of the four words represented by the acronym SNAP provide a good look into what the program is supposed to be about. As my colleague Mr. Finad mentioned the word supplemental and assistance should provide us with the context that this program is not supposed to be permanent for people, is not supposed to be someone's entire income, is not supposed to replace a job. It hurts both both the
• 134:00 - 134:30 individual and the country if it is applied that way. SNAP is meant to be a life raft for those folks at their lowest point barely able to stay afloat. It's supposed to be a temporary option that supplements someone's income and not replaces it entirely. As the chairman often says, it should be a trampoline, not a spiderweb. The long-term goal of SNAP should honestly be rendering itself unnecessary or or at the least vastly less so. And yet, from 2001 to the present day, we've seen the participation in SNAP nearly triple when
• 134:30 - 135:00 in that same time frame, the median household income has nearly doubled. Today, over 42 million people are on SNAP, representing nearly 13% of all US citizens. And my district is no exception. The counties I represent in southern Ohio have some of the highest percentages of SNAP recipients in the state. And we want needy people to continue to be helped by the program. But it seems as though most of the people we've heard from on the other side of the aisle today never want to see the number of people on SNAP go down. They are in fact against the tax
• 135:00 - 135:30 cuts that help every every taxpaying household in the United States. It's a core doctrine of propaganda that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. The lie of choice in this room today has been that the TCJA is only to benefit billionaires. The truth is the TCJA benefits every American taxpayer. Ending it will hurt everyday folks and create more needy people and strain on SNAP and other programs. But I think Chairman Thompson and House Republicans have the right message here. There is dignity in
• 135:30 - 136:00 work. There's a way to aid people at their lowest while also helping teach new skills and prepare them for a brighter future. So, Mr. Schaefer, can you just speak more about some of the experiences you've witnessed where people have found meaning after they've found work? Absolutely, sir. Um, you know, I want to emphasize how impactful the changes in the 2018 farm bill have been for tens of thousands of individuals. You know, by allowing for the first time paid training activities, apprenticeships, stipens that go along with trainings, we're seeing so many
• 136:00 - 136:30 more people take that initial staff benefit which they're relying on in those early days, especially in our organization coming home from prison. As a note, we serve about served about 3,500 people in Ohio, including a Cincinnati office. And they've been able to take those trainings, whether it's in a commercial driver's license training or a welding training, and achieve great things. You know, one of the unintended consequences that we really have to look out for is that even when it's that temporary payment, even when it's a small stipen, it does see their benefits go down. And it's one of those
• 136:30 - 137:00 unintended consequences that we're really grateful that there's a bipartisan consensus to try to fix that and disregard that income for the purposes of benefits. Thank you. Has the SNAP employment and training program played a large role in this in your opinion? Yes, the SNAP employment and training program has been impactful not just for the Center for Employment Opportunities, which has used part of these resources to scale across the country. It's been impactful for thousands and thousands of people and hundreds of organizations who have been able to get people into better training and ultimately into better
• 137:00 - 137:30 careers to support themselves and their family. Thank you, Dr. Rashidi. We've discussed a lot about how different states are abusing the waiver system for work requirements for uh so-called ABODs. In your testimony, you mentioned that some states such as California waved almost all their counties from work requirements, even those counties that had some of the lowest unemployment rates. Uh what is the incentive or is there an incentive for uh states such as California or Illinois or others to abuse the work requirement waiverss? Well, yes. Um, I think there's this view
• 137:30 - 138:00 among states and we've heard it here today that federal SNAP dollars somehow is an economic stimulus for their state and so that that incentivizes them to get as many people as possible in your state on SNAP. They sort of disregard the argument that that SNAP should be a springboard um and kind of don't don't buy into the argument that people need to find employment um to achieve upward mobility. So, yes, they're incentivized to get as many people on SNAP as possible.
• 138:00 - 138:30 Okay, thank you very much and I yield back. Chairman, gentleman yields back. Now, pleased to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorenson, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it's really difficult for people across the country to understand what's happening here in our nation. Uh, we're looking at cuts that would affect everyone from toddlers with disabilities to senior citizen heroes who fought for us in World War II. These are real people. In my neighborhood, families rely on SNAP to survive. Some have asserted here today that my own
• 138:30 - 139:00 neighbors are lazy or that veterans should just go get a job if they want to get the help. Some people may not not know at home that each member of Congress represents about 750,000 people. Out of that, I have 64,000 families in my district who rely on SNAP to make ends meet. But this administration seems to be just okay turning their backs on these real neighbors of mine. The fact that we're debating today whether some people
• 139:00 - 139:30 deserve to be helped. You know, my colleague across the island and across the Mississippi and Iowa, Mr. Fenstra, touched on this. How do we lift people out of poverty? We should be answering that question. And I'm hearing no solutions today. This is not about the big cities of Rockford and Peoria. It's about Canton, Kiwani, Monmouth, and Pearl City, Illinois. If your town has a population sign of 5,000 or less, you're hit the hardest because
• 139:30 - 140:00 it's not just that there aren't any opportunities here. Now, you get no help to literally survive. And in these rural farm hometowns back home, they want a 5-year farm bill that opens up new markets, provides safeguards to keep their operations resilient, and guess what? They want food accessible to all. We want what's best for agriculture. We want the next generation of farmers to have a fair shot. We want our country to be energy independent. But we will never agree
• 140:00 - 140:30 that it is a good idea to slash SNAP so billionaires get a bigger gulp of cash. Even if we eliminated a 100% of the SNAP fraud alleged here today, it wouldn't even put a dent in the $230 billion dollars in cuts that my colleagues across the aisle have prescribed. Dr. Rashidi, how on earth will a blanket reduction in SNAP benefits not increase hunger, especially among children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans?
• 140:30 - 141:00 Uh the rate of child hunger in the US is below 1%. If we look at the very low food security that has not really adjusted much at all in recent history, even with a 25% increase in SNAP. So I'm not sure cuts would have much of an impact on that rate. So you don't you don't think if we cut SNAP that it's going to affect real people. I think some people might receive a reduced
• 141:00 - 141:30 benefit, but if you're asking is that going to affect outcomes, not necessarily. And I don't know what outcomes you're referring to. I'm saying very low food security. It's not likely to affect that. So in order to reduce fraud and inefficiency, we need to just pursue these blanket cuts that are primarily going to affect honest families. It seems we could modernize the system, you know, with a chip card that would protect our investment as taxpayers. If
• 141:30 - 142:00 fiscal responsibility is why we are here today, why target one of the most efficient and tightly regulated programs instead of addressing the larger budget issues such as tax loopholes and subsidies? I would have to disagree that SNAP is the most efficient program. There's quite a lot of of fraud and I'm not talking about participant fraud. I'm talking about trafficking, retailer fraud. There's a great deal of that in SNAP. So why shouldn't we just find that instead of just cutting the uh I think
• 142:00 - 142:30 that should be part of it for sure. Um I'll turn to you uh Dr. Shazenbach. Uh you noted in your uh testimony that SNAP is a powerful economic driver. You know my local grocery store um at Cityline Plaza in Molen, Illinois is only profitable because people use SNAP at the checkout. How does Albertson's keep that store open? How does Shaw's Marketplace in Mount Carroll stay open? How does Sullivan's in Morrison stay open?
• 142:30 - 143:00 Especially if there's there's no work in these small towns and then people are supposed to find work requirements. How do they afford it? And how do these small town businesses stay open? SNAP is really important to keep those businesses afloat. And we have some of the best, most efficient um food distribution network um in the United States. I mean, it's really amazing what we've been able to do and Snap works hand in hand with that. Thank you. I
• 143:00 - 143:30 appreciate you and I yield back. Gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all on the panel for your patience today and for your testimony and what you've shared. Um, Dr. Dr. Rashidi, I know you previously worked in New York administering SNAP at the state level, and we've discussed today how a state can abuse the vague language in the law to categorize their
• 143:30 - 144:00 whole state as a high unemployment area, thus exempting everyone from work requirements. And uh frankly, this is wrong. As a result, only 27% of able-bodied working adults are subject to the law's modest work requirements. Um, I just want to give you a few moments to share what is the solution you believe to this problem and what can we do better at the federal level to encourage states to get their able-bodied residents to work.
• 144:00 - 144:30 Guess there's two things I would say. One is this came up earlier about states having um to fund a share of SNAP. Um, I think that part of the reason you might want to increase the share that SNAPs or that states contribute to SNAP is to give them some skin in the game. Uh, to ensure that they're incentivized to make sure that their SNAP participants are encouraged to seek employment. So, I think that's one thing. The other thing is on the waivers. Um, I mean the the the intent of the waiverss was good in
• 144:30 - 145:00 the sense that you can't necessarily expect people to find work if no jobs are available. But given the fact that the work requirement can be satisfied by volunteer work, education, and training, I actually am not even sure the waiverss necessarily make all that much sense anymore. Um, I would encourage Congress to think of other ways to strengthen work requirements, maybe even not allowing states to request waiverss at all. Um, but pairing that with funding
• 145:00 - 145:30 for employment and training, for example. Okay. Thank you. Currently, states sign people up for SNAP and administer the program, but to your point, pay 0% of the actual benefit, and the federal government pays the benefit cost to the tune of a hundred billion dollars a year with no questions asked. I I think I know your answer, but do you think that this motivates states to maintain high levels of payment accuracy?
• 145:30 - 146:00 No, they they don't have incentive for, you know, detecting fraud, payment accuracy, all sorts of things. Yes. And and nor does the current structure incentivize states to see their residents move from welfare into a higher paying job. Is that correct? Exactly. They've been told that the more SNAP participants you have, the better it is for your economy. Um and certainly some states have many states have boughten into that. and Congress does have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure the states are not asleep at the wheel if we're going to trust them to
• 146:00 - 146:30 oversee programs that that cost over a hundred billion dollars. So, let me um shift for just a moment to Mr. Tidwell. Earlier, Mr. Tidwell, uh you shared with uh Representative Miller about how faith plays a role in what you do. Um and I agree that we should look for ways to empower more ministries like yours. I've been a pastor for more than 36 years and so I understand and appreciate that. I I just want to give you a moment if you could to share more about the results
• 146:30 - 147:00 you see when you approach life's challenges not just with practical support from government programs but also with an openness to help people's spiritual needs. Well, seeing that the zip code that Hope operates in is one of um the most crimeridden and has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation where the average income is a little bit below
• 147:00 - 147:30 $24,000 a year. Um Hope has been in this community for a little more than 22 years. We're known a as a safe place. So when our participants come to us, we have a very unique opportunity to speak into their lives and identify the challenges that they face. Helping them move from one point to another is life transformational. Seeing the clients come in working a fast food job at $8 an
• 147:30 - 148:00 hour to gaining their CDL license and suddenly they're moving from eight to $35 an hour. They're leaving our community and their neighborhoods for the first time in their lives. We're two miles from the Mississippi River. Some of our participants have never seen the river. Wow. So, helping them move from a life of dependency to a life of self-sufficiency, whatever that looks like for them. Our goal is not middle class. Our goal is self-sufficient. And
• 148:00 - 148:30 what that looks like for them, it varies across the board. Having the opportunity to speak at that level into their lives makes a difference and SNAP helps. Well, I thank the Lord for what you're doing. Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time. Gentlemen, time is expired. Now, recognize gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. Thank you to our guests for being here today. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion
• 148:30 - 149:00 regarding this very, very important issue for the American people. Uh in my district, New Mexico's second district, a district that's about as big as the size of Pennsylvania, one in four households depend on SNAP to feed their families and children. This one of the highest participation rates of any congressional district in the nation. And New Mexico has amongst the highest rates of child hunger and food insecurity in the country. That's one in five. That's much larger than 1%. Now, I know this firsthand because I volunteered for a local food pantry for several years and personally handed
• 149:00 - 149:30 boxes of food to families far before I became a member of Congress. And so, cutting SNAP by $230 billion in exchange for tax giveaways for the wealthy would do irreparable harm to rural communities and colonials across my district. We're talking about folks who work the fields, ditch riders who open our irrigation uh gates, and rural retailers who sell their homegrown products in our state and across the nation. SNAP's economic impact is huge in rural communities and small towns where SNAP dollars provide
• 149:30 - 150:00 high returns to the local economy. In my district alone, 592 grocery stores and food retailers, including 12 local farmers markets, depend on revenue from SNAP purchases. Every dollar spent on SNAP supports businesses and workers across the food supply chain from the farmer to the cashier at the checkout counter. Dr. Shazenbeck, as someone who has studied this issue, why would a $230 billion cut to SNAP specifically hurt
• 150:00 - 150:30 rural communities? Um, rural families participate in SNAP at a slightly higher rate than the rest of the country. Um it's just a really important um you know economic lubricant for for areas. Um people spend the money very promptly. They spend it more or less in their local areas and that keeps everything afloat. And these are local growers that are providing local fresh produce to places like farmers buying. Correct. Exactly. Okay. Um would these and this is yes or no questions. Would these cuts cost local grocerers and
• 150:30 - 151:00 independent reo retailers to close in rural America? I would predict yes. Okay. Another yes or no question. Would these snap cuts directly cause people to lose their jobs then in these retailers in rural America? I would call it indirect but but people will lose their jobs. Thank you. So there's a strong misconception that SNAP recip uh recipients only exist in urban cities. That is simply not true. SNAP responds to the needs of people across America in urban, suburban, rural, and tribal areas. I
• 151:00 - 151:30 represent extremely rural areas in New Mexico where it takes school buses an hour to two hours to get to the nearest school, where folks have to drive two to three hours to the nearest grocery store or to seek medical attention. Now, ironically, these are the same folks that are growing America's food, that are helping feed our nation. And that's why it's especially offensive to me to imply that these folks who live this rural lifestyle and choose to live in these rural communities are somehow committing fraud when they are simply trying to sustain their families on
• 151:30 - 152:00 incomes that are simply not livable for their needs today and that in turn sustain America's food supply. Dr. Shazenbeck, if Congress decimates SNAP, would it disproportionately hurt rural Americans and leave rural Americans in the dust? It would disproportionately hurt rural Americans. Yes. Thank you so much. Well, I am ready to work with my colleagues to pass a bipartisan farm bill that provides certainty and support for my constituents. Unfortunately, a reconciliation bill that seeks to gut SNAP by $230 billion while giving
• 152:00 - 152:30 millions more to the wealthy would hurt ruralh communities that work damn hard to put food on the table for all Americans. Now, this is again especially important to me because I did this work before going to Congress. I know those especially unique circumstances that families face. We cannot apply a blanket approach to work requirements when everybody's life situation is different and we have to understand that. And so in communities like mine, places like Deming and Lordsburg and Benn and Sakoro
• 152:30 - 153:00 where jobs are hard to uh find, jobs are hard to come by and those that you can find aren't enough to sustain a family of two or three mean that they need a different solution than blanket cuts and blanket work requirements that simply do not work for them. And in struggling states like New Mexico, where we're struggling to show up our budget to provide basic services like wastewater and infrastructure and fix our roads and provide a good quality of life for people, taking food away from a child who is hungry when he's not in school is one of the worst things that this
• 153:00 - 153:30 country can do. And it's one of the worst policies that I can think of. And I hope that my colleagues across the aisle are willing to work with us on solving fraud issues across the agencies, across uh uh the government, but simply taking food away with a blanket approach at the tune of $280 billion to feed kids is not the right answer. Thank you. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from the volunteer state of tens of Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman, and and
• 153:30 - 154:00 thank you, Ranking Member Craig, for for holding this important hearing today. And thank you to our witnesses for taking time to be with us. There is no denying that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP provides vital assistance to economically challenged individuals and families. However, I feel or I fail to see how my colleagues across the aisle expect to deliver prosperity and stability for the American people if we continue down this road of unchecked and irresponsible
• 154:00 - 154:30 spending on benefits that are constantly abused and not self-motivating. SNAP benefits are intended to be a hand up, not a hand out. It is time that we hit the ground running and encourage more work ready SNAP participants to get off the bench and back into the workforce by strengthening work requirements and SNAP employment and training programs. Dr. Rashidi, you mentioned in your written testimony that SNAP is
• 154:30 - 155:00 intended to be counteryclical, but that ev but that evidence shows that SNAP participation has not followed this pattern in recent years. Can you provide additional context on why specifically the trends have not followed this intended pattern? Yes. So really we see that pattern after the great recession um in 20078 and then during the pandemic. Um so two pretty uh
• 155:00 - 155:30 unique periods of time after the great recession. Um I think the reason the SNAP case load remained high even though unemployment uh conditions improved was largely due to policy uh and changing uh composition of SNAP households. Meaning SNAPS have SNAP the composition of the SNAP case load has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. It used to be about 50% of households had children in them. Now it's about a third. Um and now there's almost 60% of SNAP households only have a single person. So it's those
• 155:30 - 156:00 changing dynamics. And then during the pandemic it was uh you know clearly uh policy related in terms of uh loosening eligibility criteria and uh providing benefits and and removing work requirements. Is it safe to say that the Biden Harris administration's overreaching uh update of the Thrifty Food Plan, which increased SNAP spending by a quarter of a trillion dollars, did not have any significant effect on lifting individuals and families out of poverty?
• 156:00 - 156:30 Well, I don't it's it's a hard thing to measure. I mean clearly that provided more resources into households and if so you're looking at a a poverty line. It could have you know it certainly would have brought some households above that poverty line. I think the the real question is you know does it you know did it meaningfully improve the conditions in households maybe a little bit but I don't think there's strong evidence
• 156:30 - 157:00 either way. And continuing with you Dr. Rashidi, you mentioned that one way to improve the effectiveness of work requirements was to ensure they are applied consistently and evenly across the country. Can you elaborate on how Congress can institute comprehensive work requirements across the board to establish one standard for the entire nation? Yes, I mentioned this earlier. I mean, I would almost consider just eliminating the ability of states to wave the requirement um and just have
• 157:00 - 157:30 states apply them. That does mean states would possibly need resources in order to offer employment opport or uh activities for participants. But yes, if you wanted to do it consistently, uh you just, you know, have the same criteria in every state of who uh the work requirement applies to. Thank you. Mr. Tidwell, your work with Hope Ministries is truly inspiring. Uh what do you believe Congress can do to better promote partnerships with community groups and organizations to assist in
• 157:30 - 158:00 growing self-sufficiency and resiliency of those who are tied to SNAP benefits? I think um increasing the collaborative effort. Um we see a lot of individuals that come to our program that are not even familiar that and aware that SNAP has an employment training component. um educating the public on the opportunities that are available to them. We spend our first couple of hours meeting with individuals, explaining to
• 158:00 - 158:30 them what is available. So I think education is one of the first steps to um letting individuals know what is available to lift them out of poverty. And do you believe as currently constituted with the limited time we have uh left are you provided with adequate incentive and support for doing that education process? Yes, I I would like to see the um reimbursement rate higher for um skills training for an
• 158:30 - 159:00 organization like ours. We get the 50% reimbursement but we have to raise in the other 50%. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman's time is expired. Uh, now please recognize the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Venman, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Farmers and hardworking families know one thing is true. Costs are up and not coming down anytime soon. With overall inflation increasing and food prices remaining high, Virginiaians continue to feel the strain on their
• 159:00 - 159:30 wallets. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. It seems like that there is no end anywhere in sight, especially with this trade war looming. USDA predicts that grocery prices will continue to rise faster than usual and that was before the administration started wrecking the economy with these tariffs uh which are raising the price of groceries. Now groceries might be a kind of uncommon word for uh the president. It's but for the average American, they think about
• 159:30 - 160:00 groceries every single day. And especially, but I digress, but uh especially as we uh think about commodities that we import like coffee, cheese, uh nuts, and fish. As for the food we grow here, these tariffs will increase the price of inputs needed to grow and produce staples like milk, eggs, and beef, which will also get more expensive. This is bad news for families who depend on SNAP to make ends meet. In my district, 19,000 families depend on SNAP to put food on their table each
• 160:00 - 160:30 month. 60% of these families have children. Statewide in the Commonwealth, 815,000 Virginiaians, including 27,000 veterans, receive food assistance uh from SNAP, 42 million people nationwide, 40% children, 16.8 million, and 10.6 million elderly and disabled. Finally, in my district, um my district is home to thousands of federal workers, many of whom just lost their jobs due to Elon
• 160:30 - 161:00 Musk and Doge mass firings. Many of them might be applying for SNAP benefits uh for the first time. Dr. Shazenbach, do you know how much a person receives each day from SNAP? Yeah, it averages $6. $6. And um do you know how much a carton of eggs goes for these days? Yeah, I have three teenage kids, so I we go through about three of those a week. About six bucks. About six bucks. So, we're talking about uh barely being able to cover the cost of one carton of eggs. Um
• 161:00 - 161:30 is what we give to our SNAP um recipients. I think that's a pretty small that's a pretty measly sum in my opinion. So, you're telling me that if a person's daily SNAP is barely enough to cover uh afford eggs, um that is now a good time to consider SNAP cutting SNAP benefits? Yeah, I'm really worried about u the potential economic impacts of cutting SNAP at this time when costs of food are
• 161:30 - 162:00 going up and I think we're predicting uh that it could potentially get worse before it gets better. Um so, I I'm very concerned. I'm concerned about the impacts on families, on the elderly, on disabled people, veterans, all across the board. Yeah. And so, especially when now the chances of a recession are growing to 60%. There were 15 at the start of this administration. Now they're at 60% um solely due to this administration's policy. Is now a good time to to consider cutting SNAP
• 162:00 - 162:30 benefits? We should be trying to shore up our defenses against recessions, not, you know, hurt our own tools. Yeah. So, um, you know, when I think about this current environment, we have, um, a trade war that's basically been declared by this administration. And I hear my colleagues talk about, well, we need to trust the president. We need to trust the administration. Well, when you declare a war, you need to make a case to the American people. That has not happened. And I for one and certainly my
• 162:30 - 163:00 constituents that elect me uh are we Americans are not blindly obedient to the leadership. We ask questions and we deserve answers and we certainly deserve answers in this um trade war. Um is it when when a recession is potentially eminent um is that a good time to cut SNAP benefits? It is not. Okay. And um are people going to go hungry if Congress cuts SNAP benefits?
• 163:00 - 163:30 I think that both the rate of food insecurity and of hunger will increase if we reduce SN. So thank you. So I would say look we we need to we need to tone down the rhetoric. We need to come up with compromise. Um I think we all agree that work is good. It's beneficial. Um that certainly was true for my immigrant family that came here with less than $800 in our pocket. My my dad took great pride in in um his work. Um
• 163:30 - 164:00 but we also can agree that Americans shouldn't go hungry. And so uh somewhere in there we can find uh compromise and and move forward. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from California uh Mr. Lamal for for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Um so the subject of today's hearing is called the power of work expanding opportunity through SNAP right it isn't bash Musk or
• 164:00 - 164:30 trade policy or Trump or those sorts of things it's about work in SNAP and SNAP stands for as pointed out by Mr. Finad the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Right? So he got supplemental, he got assistance. Those don't imply be all end all in one program. I I assume, right? Okay. And so mainly the subject today kind of covers a group called Abods. Another fun acronym in DC, able-bodied adults without dependence.
• 164:30 - 165:00 And so that group defined as between age 18 and 54 not taking care of a dependent or incapacitated person to receive benefits for longer than three months over three years you must work at least 80 hours a month. So I I come from a farming background. A lot of the people I know on farms and ranches they can get 80 hours in in seven or eight days of farming and ranching especially in their busy season. So, okay. Uh, I myself was
• 165:00 - 165:30 an A-BOD, Mr. Chairman, from 18 until 28 when we got married. And my wife might not want to be considered a dependent per se. You know, she's pretty capable and all that. So, maybe she wouldn't be part of that dependent otherwise defined outside of the tax purposes. So, let's say 34 when our first child came along. So, I was an ABOD from 18 to 34, Mr. Chairman. Right. in that sense. So does that mean I
• 165:30 - 166:00 didn't have to do anything but work 80 hours a month from the age 18 to 34? I could have gotten that during harvest season. I said in about seven or eight days. Interesting. Okay. So let's let's talk about how this has been stretched. Um, I have a a map here showing my home state of California and basically how the uh system has been abused beyond what Congress in writing
• 166:00 - 166:30 the law originally intended when Congress said uh counties that have an unemployment that reaches 10% would be um in that category. So this is the original intent. A little higher please. California had two counties under that. Okay. So, USDA interpreted because of the vagueness in the law saying that lack of sufficient jobs, wide openen vague definition, USDA made it look made it
• 166:30 - 167:00 look like that those bunch of counties in California. So, at least we still see like Silicon Valley and San Francisco County and some other, you know, highinccome counties aren't uh included in that. You know, may maybe the ones you'd expect. But under California, since they have wide openen policy interpreted under various administrations, especially the COVID era, the whole thing is read. The whole thing, not the red in the sense around here, but in uh eligibility for Abods to
• 167:00 - 167:30 not have to even be in that 80 hours a month or in an education or training program. Okay. And for anybody that isn't an ABOD, they don't have to do any of that stuff. So what are we talking about here? The disingenuous rhetoric coming out of this committee about all these other things and people going hungry and all that. We're talking about 18 to 54 year olds like me being an ABOD
• 167:30 - 168:00 from 18 to 34, not having to make that minimum bar. Yet we see California is able to exploit it way beyond that because it sounds good politically to do so. So where are we on that? And for even us having that conversation, it seems like, oh my gosh, you want to take it all away from the poor and have people go hungry. What a disingenuous conversation that is. So, I don't think it's bad to talk about the opportunity and the power of work,
• 168:00 - 168:30 helping people, giving people, you know, purpose and hope and goals for Abods 18 to 54 without any real responsibilities. And yet it's turned into something completely different. Completely almost like we're criminals talking about it here today. It's ridiculous and through manipulation. You see that all of California. But that's, you know, California's shining star for a lot of abusive things where our fuel is double the price. You want to talk about tariffs, talk about the gas prices being
• 168:30 - 169:00 taxed up to double the price. I mean, California has its own tariff on fuel basically, if you want to call it that. And then we're talking about rural issues. They introduce wolves in my district which makes the farmers and ranchers almost unable to do business. They take away the timber jobs so we can't produce timber gas as I mentioned. They take away the water. You want to kill water, rural jobs, rural opportunity. Just keep regulating everything to death the way they are with this environmental stuff that
• 169:00 - 169:30 they're doing. That's what's killing opportunity for people. And you see the poor in the central valley for example when they take away the water down there and you get Chinese import relief food and Chinese boxes coming in to help people there. So with that thank you Mr. Chairman. Now uh recognize gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes for five minutes. Thank you and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I would like to just follow up on a few things. I assure you that everyone on this side of the dis recognizes that soul does not
• 169:30 - 170:00 replace supplemental when we're talking about SNAP. And the only thing you need to know in order to know that that's true is that you cannot provide a family's nutrition needs on $6 per person per day. I'd like for any of them to try it. We've heard about how we've been forced to make these cuts because of deficit which I can't reconcile while
• 170:00 - 170:30 they are simultaneously they my Republican colleagues in this administration putting forth a bill that would leverage $5 trillion in addition in debt limit increases and also $7 trillion in deficit financed tax cuts. So if they were truly concerned about cutting the deficit, they wouldn't also be trying to add additional tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. In 2023, more than 47 million Americans experienced food insecurity. And I heard
• 170:30 - 171:00 in the opening that while unemployment rates dropped, participation in the programs did not. It's because the people who are benefiting from SNAP for the most part are already working already working multiple jobs. I was one of those people working two jobs and still qualified for SNAP benefits. So, if my Republican colleagues want to have a real conversation, I'm introducing a piece of legislation today to raise the minimum wage, the federal minimum wage
• 171:00 - 171:30 from $7.25 25 cents so that if people are working uh two jobs, they can have a living wage. Households with children under six face substantially higher rates of food insecurity than the national average. And more than 7.2 million children live in food insecure households. We heard that work is a good thing. Work is a good thing, but paying a living wage is also a good thing. So those are the conversations we should have. I heard many of the panelists talk
• 171:30 - 172:00 about jobs like truck drivers and construction work. I would argue that our seniors and our children, our disabled Americans and veterans who can't do those jobs would not benefit. We're trying to paint a picture as if you have all of these able-bodied individuals who are taking advantage of the system. I have to tell you that fraud is not a widespread pro problem in the SNAP program. It is one of the most
• 172:00 - 172:30 efficient programs that is run. And that's just data. That's just data. We got a whole lot of PhDs on this panel. Look it up. It's data. SNAP is the largest and most effective anti-hunger anti-poverty program in the country. And I would argue that states do have skin in the game. In my state of Connecticut, we send more money to the federal government than we get back. And everyone in this room, even without being from the state of Connecticut, I mean the state of California, knows that California sends more federal tax
• 172:30 - 173:00 dollars to the federal government than any other state. So this isn't about gaming the system. Uh the Republican reconciliation plan would slash $230 billion from SNAP. There's no way to do it without cutting SNAP. and they know that they're attempting to cut benefits to families while the price of food is going up and framing it as if we heard about recently uh incarcerated
• 173:00 - 173:30 individuals and returning to work. I fully support that and I think one of the things we should do to make that happen is to ban the box so that people could get good paying jobs so that they could return to to their communities and be conscientious and productive citizens um of society. Uh that should not just be reserved for presidents. So, I would argue with my colleagues in this room, there are so
• 173:30 - 174:00 many things that we can do. And this hearing is not attempting to do any of those things. This hearing and what they are planning to do is take food out of the mouths of hungry Americans. Nothing that we have discussed today um will achieve that goal. I have lots of questions here, but I'm not even sure that this is a factf finding venture anymore. We have a budget re we
• 174:00 - 174:30 have a budget bill that we have to vote on hopefully sometime this week. We have a farm bill that's going to come up. If my Republican colleagues are as um they are they want to help as much as they're saying they do and make sure that people are fed, we will work on some of the real issues that are before us. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yield. Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize a general lady from Texas, Dea Cruz. Thank you so much, uh,
• 174:30 - 175:00 Mr. Chairman, for hosting this important hearing about SNAP. I represent a largely lowincome district in deep south Texas where nearly 25% of my entire district is on SNAP benefits. I want to be very clear. I support SNAP and the benefits that SNAP gives to families who are in a time of need. You know, many South Texans, you know, they really uh
• 175:00 - 175:30 need and rely on this critical program for their family and for feeding their family. And I agree with my uh colleague on the other side of this of the aisle is that we need to stop uh the rhetoric and really the the fear tactics when it comes to talking about SNAP and the work that we are trying to do in this committee, which is to truly give those people who are most in need the benefit
• 175:30 - 176:00 that they need. No American should go home and should sleep hungry. Period. And so SNAP is one of those programs that's important to me personally. I take it personal when um I hear tactics and fear-mongering and uh rhetoric from the other side of the of the aisle because you're talking about my people. You're talking about people that I live with and that are in my community. And
• 176:00 - 176:30 it's important that we protect this program because it's feeding people in my in my community. That being said, we must cut out the fraud and abuse to ensure that those that rightfully need this program that it is in place not only for today but for tomorrow. That being said, uh Mr. Dr. Tedwell, I'd like you to speak a little bit about your focus and um the focus that Congress should have in supporting partnerships
• 176:30 - 177:00 with faith faith based faith-based community uh organizations. Could you expand on that? And I also heard you say that we give you 50%. How do you get the other 50% to make ends meet? gaining the other 50% is a day daily struggle um for organizations like ours. Strengthening the partnerships in between Congress, the states and organizations like ours is essential.
• 177:00 - 177:30 being able to um better serve the clients that that we do every day and building that trust and building the um knowledge of what ENT offers um will increase the participation in the ENT program. Um how do we get the other 50%. Um grants, some are federal, some are state, some are local foundations. We have a large donor base that believes in
• 177:30 - 178:00 what we do. Um, we have individuals that strongly believe in helping individuals get certifications and training, so they fund the other 50%. Um, are there times that we run out of funding for um the other 50%? Yes. When that happens, what do we do? Punt. Um so if the if there was an increase beyond 50% in certain areas of supportive services I believe
• 178:00 - 178:30 we could be more successful. One of the areas that you spoke about was the importance of educating uh SNAP recipients on some of the additional uh benefits that they can receive. And I say benefits loosely in that I'm going to say support programs that would help them gain full-time employment because the goal is for people to live the American dream, right? And be able to uh work and and be prosperous. So what does
• 178:30 - 179:00 the education program look like now? And what could we do better to educate these recipients? So there is currently a screening process. If you're a um SNAP recipient and eligible for ENT, you have to be screened before you can officially enter into a program like like ours. Many times um when the screening process takes place, the SNAP recipient is completely unaware of uh of what ENT is and it takes time to explain what those
• 179:00 - 179:30 benefits are. Like in other words, um they're unaware as in they're receiving so much information it's hard for them to process or are they not told in the initial conversation? So I I think it's both. Um in when they sign up for benefits, they are told about ENT, but many don't you know they're they're not aware because they receive a stack of documents that's written in a size eight font and nobody reads that. Um, so being able to educate them beyond that initial
• 179:30 - 180:00 um, enrollment is essential. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Riley, for five minutes. Uh, thank you uh, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses, uh, for being here. Um, I agree uh with with some of what my my colleague just said in terms of uh I think a lot of us here support SNAP because we believe very deeply that nobody should go hungry in the richest
• 180:00 - 180:30 country in the history of the world. I represent about 40,000 households that participate in SNAP. And I haven't talked to a single person who says they'd rather have SNAP than a paycheck. Not a single person I've talked to has has told me that. Uh I just did a roundt on Saturday morning at Sunni Broom and I met with a teacher from the Triple Cities and he told me that 80% of the kids he teaches are on nutrition assistance. He was telling me about kids
• 180:30 - 181:00 who are uh sleeping on couches in different towns every month because their lives are so turned upside down. I mean imagine that. Imagine being a kid who's couch surfing on an empty belly trying to learn. And yet there are folks around this place who want to take food off of their tables so that they can give tax cuts to campaign donors. Give me a give me a break. But look, even if you disagree with me on the moral imperative of caring for the most vulnerable in our communities, you just
• 181:00 - 181:30 can't deny the economics around this. Uh SNAP, I understand, provides $30 billion in revenue to our farms. uh and folks here want to take that away at a a time when our farmers are already hanging by a thread. Um I want to talk uh Dr. Sean Zimbach about one of the other really important economic impacts of SNAP uh which is that it can stabilize the economy. Um right now analysts are predicting that the American economy may end up going into a recession. I think
• 181:30 - 182:00 you had mentioned uh earlier that SNAP and Medicaid are a couple of the federal programs that can stabilize the economy during big downturns. Um could you talk a bit about the potential consequences of cutting those programs at this uh particular moment in our economy? Yeah, so first affirm that SNAP is one of our most important countercyclical u stimulus programs during economic downtimes. you know, anything that we do to to
• 182:00 - 182:30 weaken that, whether that's kicking certain folks off because they can't find stable employment or it's reducing the baseline uh benefit amount, you know, or it's a cost share that means that some states are going to have to roll back, it's going to weaken our ability to um to stabilize the economy in a in a recession. Got it. And um one of the other impacts that I understood from some of the earlier testimony economically is that a dollar invested in SNAP generates um a$150 or more in returns through the rest of the supply
• 182:30 - 183:00 chain. I was just texting with um Josh Young. He runs a farmers market in um and grocery new new Lebanon. And before that uh farmers market and grocery opened a few years ago, uh folks in that community had a 10mi uh trip to the closest ger. And you think about that, those travel costs on top of the cost of groceries. It was basically a food desert in Columbia County. And so some folks in the community, Josh and Eleanor Young and Liz Weekes, they basically did
• 183:00 - 183:30 what upstate New Yorkers do. You get together and you solve the problem. and uh they set up the New Lebanon farmers market and Grocery. And what they do, most of the food is stocked from local growers and producers. And those folks, as I understand it from what Josh was just texting me, they get to keep about 88 cents to 90 cents on the dollar because they're not paying for um other distribution network costs that they otherwise have. So, they're basically supporting the community, feeding the community, supporting our farmers,
• 183:30 - 184:00 win-win all around. And I asked him this question about SNAP and the broader impacts of it. And and he told me that about 5% of the customers at the market are on SNAP. But he said the thing you got to think about is that it's a lot more complicated than that. Like if you cut the 5% it's not just cutting uh those dollars. It has a domino effect. So it could crush his business because they're operating on thin uh margins. And one of the things they try to do is meet distributor minimums to get discounts. And so if you're cutting the
• 184:00 - 184:30 SNAP benefits, you're making it harder for them to get those discounts and the whole thing unravels. And I just thought that was a real world example of how this $1 invested results in more um economic activity down the food chain. And I was wondering in in the 30 seconds you have left if you could elaborate on that a little bit more from sort of um what the data show on it. I mean I think you summarized it beautifully that um this has a multiplier effect. It works handin glove with the private sector. you know that uh you your colle your friends went out
• 184:30 - 185:00 there and started a business that's serving the community. Most of the money is not coming from SNAP but the amount that's coming from SNAP is really helping stabilize that business. It really matters. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses. Gentleman yields back. U please recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr. Breahan now for five minutes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to start by making one thing clear. Work is not a dirty word. In northeastern
• 185:00 - 185:30 Pennsylvania, the next economic boom that will revitalize our region will come in the energized land industry. Right now, we are preparing to build and operate data centers and the energy centers that will power them. In order to do this, we need a skilled workforce ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Just last weekend, I was proud to host labor secretary Lori Shioz Dreamer for a labor roundt where we brought up union reps, industry leaders, and local officials together to discuss the vital role that apprenticeships play in bridging the skilled workforce gap.
• 185:30 - 186:00 As the former chairman of that very IBW joint apprentichip training center, I saw firsthand the benefit of registered apprentices and their learn as you earn model. This is why I'm glad that the 2018 Farm Bill expanded SNAP and ENT to include apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships as eligible programs. However, as you have mentioned earlier, Mr. Schaefer, this change came with the unintended consequences of actually disincentivizing participation in these programs because the income participants were earning threatened to
• 186:00 - 186:30 make them ineligible for SNAP, therefore also making them ineligible to continue in their SNAP ENT program. Uh this is why I'm proud to say that I along with my uh colleague from New York, Rep. uh Espott will be introducing the Training and Nutrition Stability Act to remove this disincentive by excluding the income earned from SNAP and ENT programs from SNAP eligibility calculations. Uh my first question, Mr. Schaefer, when the Training and Nutrition Stability Act is signed into law through this year's farm bill, how will it allow
• 186:30 - 187:00 organizations like CEO to further enhance the relationship between job seekers and employers? Thank you, Mr. President Han, for your leadership on this issue and thank you for your sponsorship of this important bipartisan legislation. I think the primary beneficiary of TINSA, the Training Stability Act, will be the individuals who when faced with tremendous economic uncertainty will be able to retain their benefits and engage in advanced training. And that's really the key of this act that the people who have said,
• 187:00 - 187:30 "I am motivated to work. I'm showing up at a job training program, but having my benefits cuts is a huge disincentive, and it comes at a tremendous trade-off decision for me and my family. They're the ones who are going to be principally served by this. So, I understand that the that CEO has three offices in Pennsylvania. Can you share more about how ENT programs operated by CEO work with employers to meet the workforce needs across the Commonwealth? Yes, absolutely. So, CEO um since 2015 has operating the state of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Uh we have offices in
• 187:30 - 188:00 Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and the Philadelphia area serving both those cities and surrounding counties. The ENT program allows us to first give people basic trade uh basic paid training opportunities through transitional work. We have 10 different partners across the state doing everything from landscaping in the public sector to uh supporting manufacturing and waste management in the private sector. Uh the department the department of um health and human services has been tremendous in helping us get more people onto SNAP as an
• 188:00 - 188:30 initial lifeline then ultimately into the ENT program for the advanced training and it's giving folks the training they need to to succeed in the private sector. Uh we've served over 3,000 people. I've made mention earlier the advanced skills credentials that we're seeing just across the board like commercial driver's license construction trades are highly sought after by employees employers across the state of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Uh I think just in the last year alone training 25 people in commercial driver license. They're sort of snapped right up by um
• 188:30 - 189:00 by employers. When we give people the credentials to succeed, they can really thrive into these family sustaining wages. What do you see the biggest growing industry out of those 10 different trade partners that you affiliate with? The the biggest growing industry I think it across I mean in the the 10 partners I'd say cutting across commercial driver's license you know really does um have tremendous applicability and it's used by several different sectors. So, you know, that's
• 189:00 - 189:30 a necess necessary both in logistics, but also in construction trades. And the cost of obtaining a CDL is, you know, somewhere between five and $8,000. It's relatively nominal. The training is often 12 to 16 weeks. In that 12 to 16 week period, you know, we're able to offer through ENT someone a modest stipend. It's not enough to fully sustain the family. If they're able to retain their SNAP benefits and the stipend after that relatively timelmited period of ENT three to four months, they can be off the benefits and into jobs that are now are paying upwards of 50
• 189:30 - 190:00 and $60,000 a year. Is there anything that a single item that you can post you can point to that hasn't worked as well as you would like in the ENT program? Yeah, I think in the 2018 Farm Bill, making this change that allows paid training activities is for us the single biggest shift. um and making sure that it's now scaled and replicated across the country would be our biggest priority in addition to the passage of Tensa. Thank you. I yield back.
• 190:00 - 190:30 Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Figures, a gentleman from Alabama for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for sitting here. One of the good things about seeing me means that you're getting close to the close to the end. But uh thank you guys for your patience. Uh Mr. Lewis, I actually want to start with you, man. Um because you uh in my opinion are the most relevant witness that's here. Uh and not in terms of a
• 190:30 - 191:00 question. You don't have to get up. I'm just I'm just giving you some flowers, Mr. Lewis. um because you you've been a beneficiary of this program and as we sit here members of this body for us to make these decisions for us to uh incorporate voices of of people who who um you know who work around the industries that um that help uh with implementation. Um those voices matter, but it's the matter it's the voices of
• 191:00 - 191:30 the people like you who matter the most. People who have actually been through this who who've been a beneficiary. Um, but not only that, you know, I I have people in my family that have been in prison. I have friends that I grew up with that have been in prison. Um, a lot of people I know have been in that life. And I know how tough it is to overcome that. I know how tough it is to go from the hopelessness of sitting in a prison to giving testimony in the United States Congress.
• 191:30 - 192:00 So, I I just want to give you a round of applause, man, because that's that's big, [Applause] brother. The um as we sit here, we we cannot remove the human element of what we're talking about. At the end of the day, what this hearing is about is, you know, uh a hearing that's seeking out justification for $230 billion in cuts to SNAP. that that's that's as simple as it can be. Um
• 192:00 - 192:30 that's the plain language of what we're doing here. Um seeking out a justification for $230 billion of cuts through a reconciliation process, which means that these cuts are just going to be number cuts. They're they're going to actually just go to the numbers. Um and through reconciliation, you can't really change the policies. Um, so we can sit here and we can use all these big words um and acronyms and calling recipients abods and that sort of thing, but it it's at the end of the day we're talking about people. Talking about real people.
• 192:30 - 193:00 This is not an academic exercise. These are real people. And I don't know how many of you grew up in the projects. I don't know how many of you have ever even visited the projects or the jets as we call them where I'm from. I don't know how many of you actually spend time in what we refer to as the hood or in the real country, right? Like where I'm from, I got people in my district that can't afford insulation in the damn walls, right? That's the human element of what we are talking about. Um, and
• 193:00 - 193:30 this is a program uh that's been around for the purpose of providing that supplemental support. And $6 a day, it come on. $6 a day is not is is not enough to live on. It's not. And the process by which we're going through, we won't be able to just cut benefits for those uh quote unquote abods. It's going to be across the board cuts because it's going to come through reconciliation. So, you won't be able to change the underlying policies with it.
• 193:30 - 194:00 So, when we say we're taking food away from hungry people, that is what we literally are talking about doing. And I for one cannot sit silent um and just and just sit on my hands while that happens. Yeah, there's some broader, you know, things that we can talk about and things that we can propose to change, but the vehicle through which we are driving right now, it's not going to do that. It's going to reduce benefits for real people. real people in places like
• 194:00 - 194:30 Evergreen, Alabama, Pritchard, Alabama, Monroville, Alabama, Clayton, Alabama. Places that I'm sure nobody in here other than me, maybe Barry Moore if he was here, have ever been to, right? These are real people with real with real problems. And so, um, you know, I I I was supposed to ask a question, but I that couldn't go unsaid. But but Miss Shanzenbach, could you speak to how SNAP functions as a critical policy tool in
• 194:30 - 195:00 supporting rural communities u particularly communities of color who are disproportionately represented um in the SNAP program and and how cuts of this magnitude will just impact overall food security and deepen existing disparities? Yes, rural families rely on SNAP at a slightly higher rate than the rest of America. Um it's any cuts to SNAP will be felt there. um it will uh harm their local economies. You know, there's already, you know, often big challenges and getting grocery stores,
• 195:00 - 195:30 etc. Um this won't make that better. It will likely make it worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Jim yields the chair. I now recognize myself for the person asking questions for five minutes. Thank you all for being here today. I'm Tracy Man. I represent the big first district of Kansas, which is 60 primarily rural counties in western, central, and a few in the eastern part of of Kansas. And uh I know a lot of people have been in and out. A couple of my questions might be a little bit repetitive. Um but I'm glad
• 195:30 - 196:00 we're doing this hearing today. And you look at the farm bill, you know, 81% of the farm bill today is food nutrition programs. 19% is everything else. everything else, things like crop insurance, um the things that underpin production agriculture, but 81% of the dollars are are in the food nutrition programs. And so I'm really glad that we're we're having this hearing. My first question is for you, um Dr. Rashidi, data suggests that SNAP enrollment has grown during both weak and strong economies, including
• 196:00 - 196:30 remaining at or near historically high levels, even when unemployment rates are low. Why is that? There is some research looking at what other factors contribute to those kind of case load dynamics. Um policy changes are certainly one. Um we saw some liberalization in the 2008 farm bill. Um waving work requirements. So it's it's a lot of it's policy related. And and Dr. currently the US has a low
• 196:30 - 197:00 unemployment rates and we have 7 million open jobs. Can you explain why half of every state is under some type of a waiver from the ABOD work requirements? Sure. Um the the criteria that the USDA FNS food and nutrition service sets allows states to the intent is to allow states to wave those work requirements when unemployment rate is high. But the regulations they've set have allowed states to to do it uh even when
• 197:00 - 197:30 unemployment rates are relatively low. Um and so states have taken advantage of the rules that were set by the FNS to kind of maximize the coverage in their state that they can cover with a waiver. Once the waivers are in effect, are they ever unwaved? Meaning, are they reviewed by the states? And so the waivers are coming and going. They are. Usually they're um requested and then usually it's a year and then they have to reapply and revisit the conditions that
• 197:30 - 198:00 satisfied the criteria. Okay, great. Thank you. Next question is for you uh M Mr. Tedwell. Um inspired by what you're doing. Thank you for being here. Hope Ministries, your RISE program provides SNAP recipients with access to training and certification for high demand career fields. How long does it take for participants to go through the program and how much money are they typically able to earn after they come out of the program? So the the rise uh program it stands for reaching individual success
• 198:00 - 198:30 through education. Um we offer um online educational opportunities in nine different career fields. everything from um electricity, heating and air, plumbing, construction, and then there's an in-person component to that. That's where the medical certifications and the CDL truck driving and and the like sit. Um depending on the individual, um it can take anywhere from um three, four
• 198:30 - 199:00 months all the way up to a year. The good thing about it with the online certifications once they complete the online portion they walk away with certifications in hand, you know that they walk away with OSHA 10, OSHA 30, EPA 508. These are real world certifications that they can go to our employers with and it gives them a leg up to get that living wage job. Um, employment opportunities for a truck driver can be 30 plus dollars an hour.
• 199:00 - 199:30 Um, in the other career fields, uh, it could be $25 and up. It just depends on the career field. And, and Mr. Tidwell, the the population that you serve can face, you know, many bears to employment, transportation being one of them. How is the SNAP employment and training program specifically through the 5050 federal matching funds, uniquely positioned to address some of the other challenges? So without the 5050 match um you know
• 199:30 - 200:00 many of the participants that we serve would not have the opportunity to participate in these. So having that match enables us to continue serving individuals and it stretches our dollars. Um basically if they're on SNAP and they're eligible and they're they're screened um every dollar we spend turns into $2 because there the federal match is there. Great. Well, well, thank you and uh thank you all for being here today and for your testimony. Uh the
• 200:00 - 200:30 chair now recognizes Miss Brown from Ohio for Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Kreb and and thanks to uh our panelists today. Your your comments have been incredibly valuable. Um I want to just start by saying the quiet part out loud. We're here because Republicans want to cut SNAP to pay for tax cuts to billionaires. It's just that simple. We can dress it up as a conversation about work requirements, quote unquote, which by the way already exist in SNAP
• 200:30 - 201:00 program, or about streamlining operations. But let's just be honest, the real goal here is to sell the American people on a false promise that we can slash $230 billion from SNAP just by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. That's simply not true. The only way to get to those cuts is by making it harder for people in need to access the program and by reducing benefits for families who are already struggling. This isn't about efficiency.
• 201:00 - 201:30 It's about cruelty disguised as fiscal responsibility. Now, if my colleagues were serious about working to improve the efficiency and security of the SNAP program, I would be happy to have that conversation because since 2023, Ohio families have lost over $17 million in stolen SNAP benefits. Not because of anything they did wrong, but because we we have failed to prioritize
• 201:30 - 202:00 modernizing EBT card technology to stop known scams. This is unacceptable. We should be doing everything in our power to fix it. But instead of addressing the root of the problem, Republicans did the opposite, stripping the Secretary of Agricultures authority to reimburse victims of this theft from the funding bill we passed last December. That's not fighting fraud. That's punishing victims, not once, but
• 202:00 - 202:30 twice. First, by allowing their benefits to be stolen, and then by refusing to help them recover what they have lost. The truth is SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates of any federal program. That is a fact. And it is some of the most rigorous eligibility requirements in the SNAP program, including existing work requirements. So, let's not pretend this is a program plagued by so-called waste,
• 202:30 - 203:00 fraud, and abuse. And I have to say, the timing of this conversation is completely out of touch. We're standing at the edge of a potential economic crisis fueled by the Trump administration and instead of protecting families facing rising bills, we're debating whether to make it harder for them to put food on the table. Dr. Shazenbach, can you speak to the real world barriers that SNAP participants face when trying to find and maintain work such as lack of
• 203:00 - 203:30 transportation, child care, or stable housing? and also explain the eligibility requirements that already exist within the program including work requirements and income limits. Oh boy. Okay. Um there are lots of barriers to uh stable employment especially felt along among the ABOD population. Maybe let me take a half step back. Most people who can work and
• 203:30 - 204:00 are on SNAP do work and a lot of SNAP benefits go to working families with, you know, with kids who just don't earn enough to make it over that hump. And so SNAP in those cases just helps them make ends meet. The Abods, which we're mostly talking about today, are much more disadvantaged. They have a lot of barriers to employment like lack of skills, as you say, lack of um transportation, other barriers um that
• 204:00 - 204:30 people need to come alongside them and and help with. And that's why I think we've heard so many great things from my colleagues up here today about the benefits that their voluntary employment and training that's high quality can do to make sure that people are on that right track and earn enough money so that they can escape poverty. That's what we all want is people to have thriving jobs and thriving communities and SNAP helps that. It does not hinder that. I just want to say that SNAP isn't
• 204:30 - 205:00 a jobs program. It's a hunger program and slashing $230 billion from it isn't about balancing a budget. It's about abandoning moral responsibility. This isn't a fiscal crisis. It's a values crisis. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Okay. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Uh I appreciate you all sharing your time here with the committee today. Your stories, your
• 205:00 - 205:30 success, success stories are especially encouraging and that's why we're really here today to make sure that through SNAP and SNAP ENT, we replicate your success and re rehabilitate SNAP recipients permanently. Mr. Mr. Tidwell, as you shared, ENT funding operates under a federal state match. How does this skin in the game approach uh led your state to spend dollars more responsibly through program programs like Hope Ministries? I I think there there needs to be skin in the game. Um
• 205:30 - 206:00 we require, you know, all of those that we work with to put some skin in the game by showing up every day, actively participating, being a good steward of the funds that that we have available. our our funding is limited, so re requiring some skin in the game is not a bad thing. Thank you. And and how does your uh tailored system help free participants from reliance on SNAP over time? I'm sorry, I I did not fully hear your
• 206:00 - 206:30 question. Um how does your your tailored system help free participants from reliance on SNAP over time? um helping them get training and certifications and a living wage job co you know enables them to get off of public assistance moving forward and being self-sufficient and no longer relying on benefits. Okay. Thank you. Um also Mr. Tidwell, it is often said that the only jobs available to SNAP
• 206:30 - 207:00 recipients are low-wage, unreliable jobs that block SNAP recipients from becoming self-sufficient. From your perspective, is that true? Absolutely not. There is no reason why a SNAP participant cannot get a highpaying job. Many times those that are raised in generational poverty or living at the Alice level um have just don't have the opportunities that other people have and they don't believe in themselves and they've never had someone that comes alongside of them and
• 207:00 - 207:30 tells them and assures them that they can do it. SNAP recipients can have the same jobs that anybody can. Thank you. Uh the longterm long-term stability of ENT programs like CEO provide provide is paramount. In the same hearing room, we've heard farmers, trade associations, utilities, and financial service executives all speak on the value of stability. Uh Miss Rashadi, uh last Congress, the the Farm,
• 207:30 - 208:00 Food, and National Security Act was passed out of this committee with unan unanimous Republican support. This bill contained multiple fixes to strengthen the efficiency and reach of SNAP, including a solution to the benefits cliff several of you have spoken about today. We know that the passage of the farm bill is vital to providing our farmers and rural communities with stability. Miss Rashadi, what are the threats to the stability of SNAP recipients if mudslinging against the Trump administration and the positive work of this committee prevents passage
• 208:00 - 208:30 of a beneficial cliff fix in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act? That question was for me, sir. Um, Miss Rashadi, sorry. Um, I'm actually not familiar with that bill to be honest. Okay. Any of of the other panelists care to comment on that? I think Mr. Schaefer is Schaefer. Okay. Sorry, I directed at the wrong person. Mr. Schaefer. And again, sir, the question being the impact of the failure to pass the farm bill, the farm bill, the, you know, again, the
• 208:30 - 209:00 2018 farm bill went such a long way in allowing effective evidence-based interventions like CEOs, like hope ministries, uh, to expand our work uh, specifically with allowing paid training opportunities. The evidence of effectiveness is there. Um, our program has been proven to improve public safety, um, reducing recidivism by up to 30% and increasing long-term employment over three years. You know, the critical thing in that 2018 farm bill was while
• 209:00 - 209:30 we did allow paid training, there's been this unintended consequence is that the benefits count against um the calculation of earnings. And so people get themselves stuck in this in between place where getting some benefits uh not enough to survive. they're in a low wage job where we really to get them into training so they can support themselves and their family. Um I would also add hopefully in this next farm bill there'll be um the ability to address the Restore Act, the felony drug conviction ban, giving folks who are shut out of SNAP um with a you know
• 209:30 - 210:00 sometimes a long prior felony drug conviction for now receiving those benefits. Many of them want to work, they're eager to work uh but they're not allowed to in 20 states around the country. Thank you. and I yield back my time. I now recognize uh Mr. Jackson from Illinois for five minutes. Thank you very much.
• 210:00 - 210:30 Thank you. I like to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you. Grateful. Um just like to put this in for the record that the constitution clearly states article 1 section 8 that the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impost and excises to pay the
• 210:30 - 211:00 debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. This clause ensures that Congress as a directly as duly elected representative of the people control the economic purse strings. I really wish we would have a um meeting as well on the tariffs that we should have some say on foreign food and taxes that we're imposing. Thank you so much for all the members that have come here uh today to share. Um, before I begin, I'd like to
• 211:00 - 211:30 request unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the Alliance for Aging Research, joined by organizations including the American Society on Aging, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Rural Health Association, and over 50 other like-minded organizations that have expressed strong opposition to proposed cuts to SNAP and the budget resolution. I'd also like to request a statement from the Alliance of uh to end hunger for the record who are
• 211:30 - 212:00 also opposing the SNAP cuts. There's widely held understanding that these cuts will in fact hurt people. When I came to Congress, I made a commitment to the people in the first district of Illinois. Without objection. Without objection. Thank you. Request without objection. Go ahead. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate you. When I came to Congress, I made a promise to the people of Illinois's first district to fight for fairness, justice, and dignity, especially for those who've historically been left behind. That
• 212:00 - 212:30 means standing up for our seniors, people with disabilities, or shall I say different abilities, and low-income families who rely on programs like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to put food on their table. In my district alone, over 75,000 households depend upon SNAP. more than 40% of those include include our elderly persons. That's just not the statistics. That's our neighbors, friends, families across the country. 7 million seniors
• 212:30 - 213:00 are facing food insecurity. There's something else also alarming that uh only 55% of of seniors eligible for SNAP actually take advantage of these programs. So, they're not being overrun with waste, fraud, and abuse. Uh more people qualify for them. And what we've seen in Kentucky and other places as you raise these uh uh requirements for paperwork, people drop off. People lose their eligibility because of tedious paperwork. I'd like
• 213:00 - 213:30 to raise a question to you. Uh Dr. Sean Zinbach finally got it right. Uh we've heard that the argument that SNAP discourages people from working, but the truth is most working age adults who can work and are on SNAP already do. Uh the issue isn't laziness, it's the structure of the labor market. Can you talk about the labor market and those that have isolation issues, lack of transportation to get to work? The jobs that most SNAP recipients um especially this ABOD community, those
• 213:30 - 214:00 people at the bottom of the income distribution get are um they have higher turnover, they've got lower wages, they have lower wage growth. Um there's just a lot of instability in that, you know, which is a reason why my colleagues here are trying to help people get out of that segment of the labor market and get to more stable employment. Uh there's a lot of evidence that taking away people's food doesn't help them get better jobs or you know doesn't doesn't
• 214:00 - 214:30 fix that. It just makes them worse off. Well, and the last question is for older adults living with disabilities and different abilities who already face higher rates of poverty, isolation, and health challenges. How do these barriers multiply if there are cuts and additional work requirements to this vulnerable population? So, I know you know about this, but I'm on the the board of the Greater Chicago Food Depository, and we are doing some really spectacular work trying to feed
• 214:30 - 215:00 our elderly and disabled neighbors by delivering meals out to folks. It's been a really innovative program. We're only able to do that because we work handinand glove with SNAP and just SNAP helps keep the line out the door shorter so that we can do some of these other complicated things like you know prepared hot meals, deliver them safely to elderly people who need it. We need SNAP and other piece other you know parts of the system to work together and
• 215:00 - 215:30 we're stronger when we do that together. Well, I thank you for your continued work, outstanding work, and your leadership. Mr. Chairman, I yield. Gentleman's time is expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nun, for five minutes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the panel here today uh addressing how we both feed and care for America through SNAP and through ultimately your farm bill, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your leadership on
• 215:30 - 216:00 that. I want to highlight to begin with this conversation of trade. It's at the forefront of everybody's mind, particularly my own as a, you know, century farm kid, but more importantly the state of Iowa, the one of the largest egg producing states in the country here. I had the honor last week of hosting the new secretary of agriculture, Brooke Rollins. And during that time, she got to see how Iowa feeds the world by visiting pork plants, rowcrop, corn, soybean. She also had the opportunity to see how Iowa helps fuel
• 216:00 - 216:30 the world by visiting a bofuels plant and helping drive down costs for individuals both for how they work but also how they get access to their food. During that time, we also experienced the challenge that most farmers across America see as not having access or at least fair access to be able to sell the goods that they produce here domestically around the world. And challengingly, four years ago, we were at trade parody with our partners. But now we are at a $50 billion deficit for egg production and that has a cost here
• 216:30 - 217:00 at home particularly for local growers. Four years ago we had no new trade deals and the Biden administration in my opinion helped contribute to a trillion dollar trade deficit. But four Secretary Rollins just this week went to new markets. six new countries in her first weeks on the job alone, including India, one of the greatest export markets that the United States now has the opportunity to sell our commodities to. That not only helps drive a strong farm family, that helps make sure that these projects like
• 217:00 - 217:30 supplemental nutrition assistance program have the farmers to be able to grow this domestically so that we can feed our communities and not depend on foreign entities to be able to provide for food for Americans today. It's also why in addition to trade, I've helped lead on something called the Hot Foods Act. Now, we were able to pass or brought up the language and put it forward in the farm bill for last year. But I want to walk through what this is. It moves on to a critical ex use of a program which makes sense. You think of
• 217:30 - 218:00 a single mother working a third shift, coming home, wanting to feed her family, going to a local convenience store, and seeing a hot rotisserie chicken ready and available. But because of SNAP, she can't buy it. You're absolutely right, Mr. Tidwell. She can buy potato chips. She can buy Pop, but God bless, we're not even giving her the opportunity to be successful. So, here's what I want to see. We want to make sure that we use our SNAP dollars, as limited as they may be, effectively. And when it's 80% of
• 218:00 - 218:30 the farm bill, that's a substantial portion of where we are. You know, as we look at what we can do to increase this, I'm proud to have been able to partner with Representative Ming to introduce this new bill, the Hot Foods Act, which would eliminate outdated and modernize SNAP to help meet real world situations. And I applaud this panel for recognizing the need for that going forward while still being responsible with limited SNAP resources. I believe strongly that Ians and all
• 218:30 - 219:00 Americans del des deserve the flexibility to be smart about how they invest limited funds because they're doing this in the best way possible to always put their families first. Equally, as a rural state, I want to highlight the importance of our rural communities. There's a young lady in the audience today, Lucia, who is from rural Iowa. And this is one of the great things about rural Iowa. She gets to grow up strong, bright, and vibrant visiting me here in Washington today. But importantly, she wants her community to be successful, her nana, her papa to
• 219:00 - 219:30 be able to get the things they need. In this, we are working hard to deliver for our rural seniors. Now, I spoke at length about the need to support working families, but in my district, there are some folks that simply aren't eligible to work, and that's part of our senior uh community. For too many seniors in Iowa, they can't access the food they need need because of where they live. And while my colleague from Illinois is right to talk about downtown Chicago, I'll talk about the rest of the country where they don't always have the opportunity to get that. In fact, there are more than a 100,000
• 219:30 - 220:00 eligible seniors who are missing out on food assistance because they can't travel to the distribution locations. Access to healthy, nutritious food is essential, particularly for people of an age where they need it most. The Commodities and Supplemental Food Program or CFPP uh plays a key role in providing monthly food boxes for around 760,000 eligible low-income seniors. But challengingly, mobility and transportation make it impossible for these folks to be able to access these programs, meaning they're left out. Our
• 220:00 - 220:30 pilot program would not only help seniors, Mr. Chair, but it would deliver for rural seniors act. And that's why I'm leading on the deliver for rural seniors act to directly help individuals who would be in the step. Not only am I proud this is a bipartisan opportunity, but it truly maximizes what we're able to do. Hunger should impact no family any any worse or harder than others. This bill has the opportunity that with that, Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you to the panel. I yield my time. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize
• 220:30 - 221:00 uh Mr. Carbajal U for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tell everybody you're a great chairman except for when you vote the wrong way. I want to thank the witnesses here today. Uh thank you for coming. Dr. Shazenbach. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has fired over thousands of federal workers, took a sledgehammer to our trade policy by announcing blanket tariffs or a nationwide tax on
• 221:00 - 221:30 many of our uh on Americans and many of our global trade partners except Russia. A little interesting. And now this week, my colleagues, my House Republican colleagues at the direction of President Trump plan to cut $230 billion dollar in SNAP to pay for billionaires to get more tax breaks. If my colleagues are successful, they would be taking away food from hungry families, seniors, veterans, and forcing an unfunded
• 221:30 - 222:00 mandates on states that they simply cannot afford. Even a 10% cost share would cost California 1.2 23 billion next year alone. But it's not just my state that would be impacted. So, let me give you some other examples. Under even just a 10% match, Florida would have to pay about $657 million alone next year, or more than what the state spent last year on its entire affordable housing
• 222:00 - 222:30 budget. This also comes as state economists have already forecast a $2.8 8 billion deficit for fiscal year 202627, which they project will increase to 6.9 billion the next fiscal year. And Pennsylvania would have to pay almost $427 million last year to ensure that families don't lose food benefits, about 1.5 times what the state spends on its
• 222:30 - 223:00 entire community college system. Dr. Shazenbach, with many states already stretched thin, what are some of the impacts we could see in states and local governments if they are forced to pay a portion of SNAP benefits costs on top of what they already pay for administrative expenses during normal times? You know, I think that we'll find that some states decide that they can't afford it. They can't, you know, spend 1.5 times the amount they spend on their community colleges.
• 223:00 - 223:30 So, they'll pulled back and then we'll see benefits shrink and we'll see participation shrink. we'll see the uh the policy change. But where it becomes really important is that during economic downturns when the SNAP program is so important in stabilizing our economy, states will be basically unable to meet their part because they've got balanced budget amendments, things like that. And as a result, the SNAP program, which has historically been so important in
• 223:30 - 224:00 boosting our economy during economic downturns, will be made less effective and uh you know, we'll have longer recessions, deeper recessions, etc. Thank you, Dr. Shazenbach. I represent the central coast of California where approximately 119,000 people rely on SNAP and 46% of SNAP households include children, 38% include a senior, and 45% include a person with disabilities. In my district alone, SNAP delivers $343
• 224:00 - 224:30 million in economic activity, 191 million in food assistance, supports two 2,600 jobs, and supported 622 local grocery stores and retailers. For some reason, this administration thinks that taking fruit from hungry families is a way to accomplish government efficiency. Americans are still struggling with high costs. inflation continues to go up and cost of basic food like eggs remains high and because of the these reckless
• 224:30 - 225:00 actions of this administration on tariffs I can't imagine that the situation is going to improve can you tell us why nutrition programs like SNAP are so important what will the be the consequences for Americans if these programs were to be cut so significantly SNAP does so much good for such a large number of people, right? So, it helps the elderly who are living on fixed incomes, especially when they're facing u inflation, you know, u it helps, you
• 225:00 - 225:30 know, veterans, it helps low-income working families who can't make ends meet, just top up that extra benefits. It helps children make sure that they've got adequate resources. Um, it's been it's one of our most effective tools in fighting fighting economic downturns. I mean, SNAP really does a lot. It is vitally important to local economies across this great nation. Thank you. Panelists, have you all experienced hunger every t any time in your lives?
• 225:30 - 226:00 Yes. Doesn't feel good, does it? Well, many children and families and veterans and seniors go through that every day in our country. And if we cut these programs, that's going to exa be exacerbated. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yield back. Jim, time expire. Now recognize the uh gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Uh I was a high school biology and chemistry teacher for almost 30 years, and we had a simple
• 226:00 - 226:30 mission. Uh that was to make sure that every student had the tools and resources necessary to concede s to succeed not just in the classroom uh but in life. Um, but the thing is not everybody in this country has an equal opportunity to find and secure a job that pays a livable wage, which makes programs like SNAP incredibly important. In New York State, 46,000 children and almost 300,000 adults with disabilities rely on SNAP to help get food on the table. I
• 226:30 - 227:00 was the former uh chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Disabilities. In my district in New York's 22nd, which I'm proud to represent, over half of all SNAP households include an individual with a disability. Across the nation, people with disabilities face immense barriers to maintaining a high quality of life, including lower wages, higher unemployment, upwards of 70%, and higher medical costs.
• 227:00 - 227:30 Medical costs for people with disabilities are are on average three times higher than individuals without disabilities. And those are real challenges. The $6 a day that SNAP provides goes a long way for those that face hurdles in many other aspects of their daily lives. At a time when food prices are rising and working families are being asked to stretch every dollar, cutting SNAP to fund tax breaks to lower the tax bill for billionaires is simply wrong. It's unconscionable. It's
• 227:30 - 228:00 unamerican. Families caring for a child or adult with a disabilities often have to cut back on work or leave the workforce entirely to care for their family member. That means lower household income and greater reliance on support systems like SNAP, not out of choice, but out of necessity. Supporting SNAP is about protecting families. It's about doing our job as members of Congress to support the most vulnerable among us. Dr. Shanzenbach, could you talk about how
• 228:00 - 228:30 people with disabilities may impact it if we do have cuts to SNAP benefits? Yeah. So, if we cut benefits, um, you know, people with disabilities often are unable to to get jobs and so they'll just have fewer resources to spend on food. So, it will hurt them. Thank you. And what improvements would you suggest that can be made to SNAP to ensure that this program better meets the needs of individuals with disabilities and the
• 228:30 - 229:00 family members that live with them? I think SNAP is really welldesigned at baseline u and almost any policy changes uh make it worse off to tell you the truth. So u I guess that's maybe something I'd implore you all to um don't make SNAP worse. It's already such an effective and efficient program. Considering that many many uh family members must provide care for individuals with disabilities in their
• 229:00 - 229:30 home, are there any changes to work requirements that would help to lower the rate of food security among individuals with disabilities and their family members? Sure. Really, these work requirements that we've been talking about throughout do essentially nothing to improve people's outcomes. It doesn't help them get better jobs. It just kicks them off the program if they're unable to meet the necessities. That what we're talking
• 229:30 - 230:00 about in work requirements are not the same as what my colleagues here have been talking about, which are these voluntary and highquality job training programs that meet people when they're when they're ready and propel them to new and better jobs. But basically work requirements as they've been implemented are just a failed policy. Thank you for your answers and thank you Mr. Chair. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize uh gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bear, for
• 230:00 - 230:30 five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you committee members for being here. I always learn something from experts like you when I attend these sessions. So, thank you for being here. So, I'm going to start u I' I'd kind of like to have some idea, Mr. Tidwell, on on your model of using SNAP employment training uh to make that successful and how can it be replicated? If you got examples of how it was successful.
• 230:30 - 231:00 So, um, when I started with Hope, um, about eight years ago, we served maybe in our the way to work program, which is our workforce development division, maybe a hundred people a year. Um, currently we average a little more than 700 individuals a year. We take a holistic approach serving and meeting people where they are. Um, we start with a two-eek soft skills class. From there we are um moving them into our education
• 231:00 - 231:30 components, helping them get the certifications that they need to get that higher paying job. We provide consistent financial coaching, teaching them how to manage their money, not just spend it. And from there, once they gain employment, we are on them and follow up to help make sure that they keep the job and mitigate barriers to losing their job. This is a model that we have found that works. Um, we operate in Baton
• 231:30 - 232:00 Rouge. We also duplicated this model at our second location in Point Cap Parish, which is one of the most impoverished parishes also in in the state that is a rural community. So, following this model, it is something that can be replicated in other areas and it works. So, could you give me Continuing right on. Continuing right on. Could you give
• 232:00 - 232:30 me an example? Do you have one in mind that really exemplifies that kind of success? Absolutely. When I started at Hope, we had a young lady that volunteered in our client choice food pantry and she had been volunteering for years and I met with her and encouraged her to join our our program. She um migrated from New Orleans to Baton Rouge during Hurricane Katrina. Um has faced many many bouts of trauma in her life.
• 232:30 - 233:00 She she committed to join the program and during her two weeks in the class she faced a a lot of barriers. Her her her mother um was extremely ill but she committed to stick with it. And from there she she graduated. She got a job, was able to get out of a very abusive relationship, was able to become self-sufficient. Is she in a middle class job? Absolutely
• 233:00 - 233:30 not. But this young lady is now self-sufficient. She has pride. She has dignity. I see her on on my way to work many times and she will run into the street tugging at her shirt to show me the Wendy's logo of the restaurant that that she she works at. That is self-sufficiency. That is dignity. And we we see that often in our program. So she had the opportunity then
• 233:30 - 234:00 to rise up above where she was and make be successful. Yes. Uh, Mr. Schaefer, uh, these employment training programs are designed to go public, uh, and help people get into jobs. Can you talk about your job placement rates and services? And do you have a partnership with employers or businesses and how do you place people and make sure that they're successful? Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
• 234:00 - 234:30 The partnerships with employers are at the core of what we do. uh we need to provide training for folks for relevant industries, right? And that's going to be geographically specific. It's going to look a lot different in our work in Oklahoma versus our work in California versus our work in Kentucky. And so that might mean an emphasis on upskilling people in the logistics trades or construction trades or it um depending on that location. CO success um has been well documented. We've submitted
• 234:30 - 235:00 ourselves to multiple independent evaluations, randomized control trials, quasi experimental evaluations. Two key findings both on employment but also on public safety. Unemployment um our most recent study in New York showed a 48% improvement fully three years after enrollment in the program. Um this was after years of fine-tuning our work and our model. On the public safety side, we've submitted ourselves to again multiple evaluations showing up to 30% reductions in recidivism. So it shows
• 235:00 - 235:30 the power of a program like CO which leverages SNAP has the ability to both give someone that lifeline, that support early on, advanced training, but also keep community safe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I say one thing? Uh the two ladies didn't get around to you. I had questions for you, but I'll just say hi to you and thank you for being here. Appreciate it. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. And now, please recognize the gentle lady from Michigan, Miss McDonald Rivet, for
• 235:30 - 236:00 five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and uh for the members that are um here to testifying, thanks for hanging in. It's been a long morning. Um so, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that can we all agree that we're here to make a better America? Yes, agree. Can we all agree that there is dignity in work and it is important for every person? Yes, agree. But what we're talking about right now is food.
• 236:00 - 236:30 And we are also doing this within a context that is really hard. And and I just want to talk about that for a moment because right now in my state we have up close to 20% of our children are food insecure and you know which is a Washington word but what that really means is on a daily basis 20% of our kids are wondering where their next meal is coming from. At the same
• 236:30 - 237:00 time, we have seen cuts to the operational grants to our food banks. We have had food delivery in our communities halted, a 1 billion cut to the school food program, and now we're looking at $220 billion of cuts to SNAP. Now, I know that this hearing is talking about expanding opportunity through SNAP, through the power of work. Great. But it feels more like a smokeokc screen to hide this erosion of access to food
• 237:00 - 237:30 for people who really really need it. And I um as the mother of six think first about our kids. And it seems to me that we are in a place right now as a country that we have to think about whether or not a better America includes a tolerance for hungry children. Because that's what this is actually about. What is the percentage of America's kids we're okay being hungry? Is that number 20% where we sit
• 237:30 - 238:00 now? Do we up that number to 25%. Do we lower it? Because I can tell you for me in one of the the strongest, richest countries in the world, that number needs to be zero. And we are not moving in that direction. So the thing that I wanted to be able to talk about and ask not just about SNAP but in the context of all of these cuts, right? All
• 238:00 - 238:30 of these things that are eroding uh access to food in our communities. what we think that means for the economic trajectory of the country, what we think that means for educational outcomes when we have a point in this country right now where we are graduating kids from our public schools that cannot do basic math. And if we take kids food access away, whether it's through the school lunch programs,
• 238:30 - 239:00 whether it's through double up food bucks, whether it's through all of these programs, what is it we think we're going to get as an outcome when it relates to our kids? So, I'm going to murder your name, Dr. Sean's back. Sean, sorry. Um, I'm wondering if you can just talk about your work and your research about the impact of hunger on kids and what you see in terms of long-term outcomes when if we implement a $230 billion cut
• 239:00 - 239:30 to SNAP inevitably happens down the road. Yeah. So we know that it's not even, you know, the most severe version of hunger, but food insecurity and economic um insecurity more broadly than that harms children. Um, it harms them especially when they're at the youngest ages when they're in the midst of brain development, but it continues to harm them, you know, across time as they're, you know, in school, maybe not able to
• 239:30 - 240:00 learn as well as they could because either, you know, they're stressed out at home or they are hungry, etc. I want to point out to you that this is especially acute during economic downturns. If we fail to protect children especially at some of these critical ages essentially we do such damage that we cannot make up for that at scale we will see you know things like permanently lower you know uh educational outcomes you know GDP growth
• 240:00 - 240:30 etc because we're not investing in kids and their ability to build skills and when you're looking at areas that have high concentrations of poverty there are uh cities in my district that had child poverty uh above 50% above 60 70%. What does that what does that do when you add food insecurity on top of that right it's multiplicative uh when you're talking about concentrating so many people in the in an area thank you I yield back
• 240:30 - 241:00 gentle yields back now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Weed for five minutes thank you Mr. Chairman for having this small business owner It's not on. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing here today. As someone who has been a small business owner, an employer, I've seen firsthand how working can really transform a person's life. Like my colleagues and
• 241:00 - 241:30 all of our witnesses here have said, I view SNAP as a vital tool to supplement people's diets with healthy and nutritious food while working on getting out of tough sit situations. Whether that be through working or gaining more education to get a better job. I'm inspired and thankful to hear how organizations like Hope Ministries and CEO are taking the education and training opportunities to help people in need to not only attain better opportunities, but become incredibly successful and no longer need government
• 241:30 - 242:00 support. I look forward to working with my colleagues here to help SNAP work as it was written and ensure people get the help they need, but also are empowered to get back on their feet rather than be reliant on the government indefinitely. Miss Rashidi, you describe employment as a way out of poverty, right, for lowincome families. You also talk about how there are states that are abusing waiverss to accept Abods uh from work requirements. Would you say that this encourages people to not work and therefore encourage people to stay in
• 242:00 - 242:30 poverty? I think it does. Yes. I mean, there is research suggesting there's work disincentives that exist in SNAP. I mean, it's interesting that the author of that walked that back today, but it still is a study that at least SNAP does include work disincentives. And so, yes, when when SNAP recipients are disincentivized from working, um, they are denied that opportunity that work can provide. So, in your opinion, can you clarify to me then, why don't these states want
• 242:30 - 243:00 people to work and thrive instead of remaining trapped in poverty? I think there's just kind of a, you know, philosophical, I guess, maybe aversion to expecting people to work. Um, which I don't fully understand. Um, I think some of it might also come from this idea of trying to, um, you know, use government to change people's behavior. Um, a little bit of that. Um, but yeah, to be
• 243:00 - 243:30 honest, I don't fully understand it. Uh, so Mr. Shazenbach, so you don't believe in work requirements for SNAP. I think the evidence suggests that they're not effective. They're effective at kicking people off of SNAP, but they're not uh effective at providing incentives. On the other hand, there are many social safety net programs that are very good at providing incentives. For example, the earned income tax credit has brought people into the labor
• 243:30 - 244:00 market, lifts people out of poverty, is really the cornerstone of our um social safety net for families with kids. Okay. So, so I believe in work and I agree, you know, with all that. It really is that work requirements as designed and implemented for Abods don't help with this challenge that we face. So, what do you suggest then? W would be a work requirement. Well, you know, so it doesn't need to be
• 244:00 - 244:30 um a work requirement. We don't need to take away these meager food benefits. Uh we need to be doubling down on SNAP ENT and other opportunities like my colleagues here have talked about to make sure that people get the skills that they need to compete in this economy that we have today. Okay. Um I'll ask Mr. Schaefer. is having opportunities and requirements to education and training. Does that help more people in the long run than if if they didn't have access to them? Well,
• 244:30 - 245:00 CEO operates in 30 cities, serves 8,000 people a year. It's a voluntary program. Everyone who comes through our doors makes a choice to walk through that front door. It's the nature of our work. It's the voluntary program that's generated this really strong evidence of effectiveness both in terms of improving public safety and in terms of in increasing long-term employment. Mr. Tidwell. So Louisiana at one time was on the waiver. Uh Louisiana over a two-year period moved away from the waiver. Since
• 245:00 - 245:30 the waiver um has gone away, we have seen an increase in ABOT participations in our programs and um for us it's been effective. Very good. Thank you. Uh with that I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now pleased to recognize the gentle lady from Maryland, Maryland, Miss McClan Delaney for five minutes. The chair for organizing this
• 245:30 - 246:00 now. It's down there. Hello. I'm claiming my time back. Okay. So, uh, so thank you to the chair and ranking member for organizing this hearing on expanding opportunity, um, through SNAP and work. Um, and I am, you could tell, one of the last of the 119th Congress freshmen to speak. So, thank you all for coming on almost four hours. I really
• 246:00 - 246:30 appreciate you as witnesses here today. Um, you know, a lot's been said, but I really want to um talk about the focus on the economics associated with SNAP and how it impacts our country and the health and well-being of all of us. And that really an investment dollars in SNAP really reap more than what we put into it. And it's actually really um pennywise and poundwise. So do um I represent Maryland's sixth district and
• 246:30 - 247:00 it's one of the most diverse districts in the nation. Um, my district includes the suburban neighborhoods of Gaithersburg and Germantown and the hills and farms of Mountain Maryland. And I'm also the daughter of a potato farmer. So, I love rural America. In all these communities, SNAP is more than just a lifeline uh for its constituents. It's really the cornerstone of local economies, including thousands of family farms across Maryland and many small businesses which benefit from SNAP funding. Um, specifically with respect
• 247:00 - 247:30 to SNAP, 33,000 households and over 76,000 people in my district depend on SNAP for food on their tables each month and more than half of them are children. And so no matter I like uh McDonald River, my my wonderful um freshman colleague, I agree with her um so many of her points, but no matter what the circumstance, no child in this country should ever go hungry. Um the GOP has chosen to put this critical program in
• 247:30 - 248:00 jeopardy and um it's really a choice about lowering some of our tax bills rather than lowering food costs for everyday Americans and food as you know is starting to rise particularly given the tariff wars in Maryland. The staggering cuts proposed to SNAP will shrink our economy. Cuts to SNAP will cost farmers 30 billion in revenues it's estimated across the country. And I've heard from many many farmers in my district that they snail direct directly into SNAP um uh uh participants and into
• 248:00 - 248:30 programs and so that working farm families will lose substantial income and jobs. But in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of our US government dollars, every $1 invested in SNAP generates over 150 in economic activity. And for children, the return on investment is even higher. And I worked at a children's nonprofit for many years. Every SNAP dollar invested in children is estimated to return $62 in
• 248:30 - 249:00 value over their lifetime. SNAP also improves health outcomes for participants. Low-income adults participating in the program save about $1,400 in medical care costs per year compared to similarly situated uh Americans who do not use SNAP. and SNAP participants miss fewer days of work due to illness work. Contrary to nar the narrative, many SNAP beneficiaries do work. They want to get off of SNAP and
• 249:00 - 249:30 they are working farm families in rural America often and food makes us healthier and better able to work. Last, if Republicans move forward with rolling back the 2021 thrifty food plan uh evaluation, a SNAP household of four will see their benefits cut and food costs increase by $285 per year. Vulnerable Americans, farmers and participants cannot absorb these costs. And guess what? That economic
• 249:30 - 250:00 stuff goes downhill. Requiring states to pay for SNAP benefits could very likely be invisible, infeasible, and will mean a slash in their benefits, making these states far less able to respond to recessions and economic downturns and will impact our health and well-being. Before my question, I'm going to say kudos to David Tidwell and Hope Ministries and Sam Schaefer at um Center for Employment Opportunities. what you are doing to help break this trajectory of of of poverty and help these people
• 250:00 - 250:30 get good paying jobs is excellent. But my focus is going to be of course to and thank you Northwestern University. I am an alum. Um Dr. back. How would 230 billion in cuts to SNAP benefits impact the health of participants? And could those health impacts also result in economic impacts like missing days of work or maybe health impacts on kids, missing school, and not even being able to
• 250:30 - 251:00 concentrate. Recognizing your time, um I'll uh provide questions uh for the answers for the record, but this will this will harm uh people. This will harm and Republicans have proposed a state cost share of up to 50%. How would passing on 230 billion cuts uh benefit cost share for states? I will submit that for the record and I appreciate that gentle lady's time
• 251:00 - 251:30 is expired. Now please to recognize the uh gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orton for five minutes. Oh, new system, new guy. Hey, um, I want to clear the air and I'm going to dispel some things. If you're receiving
• 251:30 - 252:00 benefits from the federal government lawfully as an American citizen, your benefits are not going to be reduced by a nickel. Okay, I'm going to say that again. If you're an American citizen that is lawfully receiving benefits from the federal government, your benefits will not be reduced by a nickel. Write that down. Okay? Um, I was raised in abject rural poverty by a single mother. We're on welfare, food stamps, so you had a stamp, stick it on a card, going to the grocery store. I had subsidized lunches and government cheese. I was the
• 252:00 - 252:30 hungry child that my colleagues are talking about. Okay, things have changed. And the same people that told you during the last budgetary cycle that Republicans are going to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, WIC, SNAP. They lied to you. They lied openly to the American public. They're the same people that lied to you and are fear-mongering with hungry children and
• 252:30 - 253:00 those most in need in our country. And it's unacceptable and it's despicable. This should be a nonpartisan committee. They're lying. I'm over it. Stop it. 94 Here's to my Republican people. 94% of all tillable land in this country is represented by Republicans. And more people in rural areas use SNAP benefits than in urban areas. So when my friends over here are
• 253:00 - 253:30 talking smack about these programs, they're wrong. Their job title is representative and they need to represent their people. My dairy farmers use SNAP and they produce food. To you, you're wrong. My Democrat colleagues, there's billions and billions and billions of dollars in fraud with these programs. Refining a program does not say getting rid of the program. It's refining it. Every single dollar that is
• 253:30 - 254:00 foolishly or wastefully spent is a dollar that can't go to feed the hungry child that I was or cannot sir go to the person who committed crimes previously so they can get food so they don't commit more crimes so they don't go back to jail. The Biden administration Joe Biden bragged about it as a senator how he made all of these crimes so tremendously horrible that they were going to send people to prison forever. Joe Biden is responsible for this. the recidivism. That's a fact. Look it up. Internet's forever pissed. So they're
• 254:00 - 254:30 wrong and you're wrong. This is out of foolishness. This is out of maliciousness and it will not be tolerated. Okay. Dr. Shazenbach, you said that work requirements are really good at getting people off of SNAP. What's the purpose of SNAP? To be on SNAP forever? No, but we want people to leave SNAP because they're hold doctor. How many
• 254:30 - 255:00 years did you go to school? A lot. Like how many? Uh uh 17. Okay. So I dropped out of high school as a sophomore. Like two weeks into my sophomore year. I got a undergraduate degree of 44. Got accepted to law school 50. The advantage of being a high school dropout is what you don't have. Like you don't get it. If work requirements are getting people off of SNAP, that's success. The metric of success are people who are working. Are you familiar with not working? Are are
• 255:00 - 255:30 you familiar dropping off? Don't interrupt me. Are you familiar with Ability One? Of what? Ability One. No. It's a nationwide program that hires profoundly handicapped people. Profoundly. And I I have two of these centers in my district. I'm one of their champions. I have their award on my wall. It's like my favorite award. And when you go speak to these folks that are profoundly handicapped, they're like, "This is my job. I am so proud to come here." They feel like members of
• 255:30 - 256:00 the community. They have friends and colleagues. The dignity of work cannot be underestimated. And so if people aren't working and they're not getting these benefits, are they stealing money to feed themselves? No. What you said is ludicrous. It It's just It doesn't make any sense. So th these programs and m the chairman explicitly clear handups not handouts. My mom we had to move in with my grandma because she couldn't make
• 256:00 - 256:30 rent because my dad abandoned us when I was an infant. And we use these things as a hand up, not a handout. And what you're talking about is perpetuating the cycle of poverty. And you're trying to enslave Americans and keep them repressed. And that that is below the dignity of your station, man. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize uh Mr. Gray for five minutes.
• 256:30 - 257:00 Thank you. Uh Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig. Appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Shanenbach, uh it's hard to take some of the people here seriously, but uh some of the nonsense I got to listen to since I got to Washington. And I'm the new guy. And uh I come from central California, Sanwalking Valley, largest, well, one of the largest either one, two, or three. And whatever crop you want to talk about, we do uh over
• 257:00 - 257:30 40% of the nation's fresh fruit and vegetables and uh and specialty crops. And my understanding in talking to my colleagues is that this whole deal with the farm bill blew up before over a $ 30 billion proposed cut. And the nonsense that the current uh majority is bringing us now is to cut $230 billion out of uh agriculture and feeding families and
• 257:30 - 258:00 kids. And I want to make sure everybody understands that what the what the trade-off what the choices are in front of us and the folks back home understand what the trade-offs and choices are. There's, you know, two big problems as I see it with not being able to get a farm bill because of this activity. And the first one I want to talk about is the is the specialty crops. You know, as the top specialty top specialty crop producer in 20 uh 24, California
• 258:00 - 258:30 received 23.3 million in specialty crop block grants. This funding is essential to our farmers in the district, but uh flat funding fails to meet the growing needs right now. We got these tariffs going on and all kinds of other nonsense back here in Washington with these not serious people. and we're probably going to need more more money and and frankly uh we're going to miss that opportunity in not being able to deliver a farm bill because of this ridiculous number that
• 258:30 - 259:00 they've thrown at the agriculture committee. And the second problem is is the loss in farm revenue all over. I guess this assertion that one of our country's biggest problems is that some kid or some family got a meal that they didn't deserve and that that's worth the tradeoff of hurting further hurting beyond like I said the nonsense tariffs
• 259:00 - 259:30 and everything else we've got to deal with this week uh our farms and our farm revenue in a place where everybody I know I grew up in the dairy business my family had a dairy supply company feed store we built dairies but everybody I know is involved in agriculture If you're not directly involved in agriculture, you run a business that depends on agriculture. And so the question I want to ask you is what type of impact would cutting SNAP funding have a on the demand for produce
• 259:30 - 260:00 in the US and B uh the potential to impact farm revenue. Whenever we cut SNAP, you know, it it's going to filter through to the bottom line because low-income families spend these benefits. They spend them quickly. They spend them in in their community. Cuts BA from where we are right now, um, we think will disproportionately hurt things like
• 260:00 - 260:30 produce and fresh food because that's sort of the marginal thing that that families families buy. So, you would agree that we might need more support for specialy crop. we need a new farm bill uh to compensate for that that challenge. Um you I guess in closing what I'm what I'm having a hard time reconciling is that is that my Republican colleagues and you know I was the founder of the California Problem Solvers Caucus in the state legislature. I was the most conservative Democrat in the legislature. I've worked well with my
• 260:30 - 261:00 Republican colleagues over the years. So uh I welcome their partnership. But I'm just blown away upon arriving in DC that we're all so obsessed with kids and families eating too much that we need to devastate the agricultural economy. Appreciate uh your participation in this hearing. Thank you to all the witnesses. Thank you to the chairman and ranking member. I yield back the rest of my time. Gentlemen yields back. Now, please recognize the gentle lady who is was a tremendous farm bill listening session
• 261:00 - 261:30 host and the great state of Maine, Miss Pingry, for five minutes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to you and the ranking member for hosting this hearing. Thank you to everyone on the panel. It's possible I'm the last speaker. At least I'm close. And I know you put in many hours and I hope you know how much we appreciate the time that you're spending with us. Um, just to counter a little bit what my uh, colleague from Wisconsin was saying, talking about this hearing as being fear monitoring and talking smack. Uh, look, I may be a Democrat, but in my state,
• 261:30 - 262:00 making sure the kids get fed, making sure that our seniors have food. This just common sense. About a third of the households in my state use SNAP dollars to feed children. We have over 174,000 mayors who get help from SNAP. Um, this is just to put food on the table. And I think we all know $6 a day uh per person isn't much to feed your family. $2 per person. I just want to say the reason we're talking about the cuts, it's not fear-mongering. It's not smack. It's because in this reconciliation plan,
• 262:00 - 262:30 which some of our Republican colleagues have been over in the White House talking about just as this hearing was going on, um you can't cut $230 billion from this committee without cutting some SNAP benefits. That's why we're here. That's why we're talking about this. We've been through a very long farm bill negotiation. I hope we're able to bring that uh to a conclusion at some point, but we've been talking about cutting through the healthy the thrifty food plan. So, we know this is about whether it's uh future opportunities to have enough money to pay for SNAP or current
• 262:30 - 263:00 benefits. Um this is on the table. It's a current conversation. That is actually why we're here. And so many of my colleagues say just waste, fraud, and abuse. Get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse. Well, I don't know how many studies we've looked at, how many times we have looked at the waste, fraud, and abuse, and we appreciate that. That's a very important thing to cut, but I just want to talk about one of the things that gets covered as waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a store in my district. We've gotten floods of calls from one part of my uh district, from constituents about a little tiny grocery
• 263:00 - 263:30 store at the risk of closing because USDA's revoked their SNAP lesson. Now, we know how difficult it is to find a grocery store, how many food deserts there are, how many food stores don't have fresh fruits and vegetables. This store has been around for 33 years. It's a pillar of the neighborhood. They made a mistake. They accidentally allowed a sale of tissues and dish soap estimated around $10, uh, which was ineligible for SNAP, as all of you would know. So, they received a
• 263:30 - 264:00 $5,700 fine. A $5,700 fine, uh, for a small business owner. They understood the consequences. They arranged a plan, but there was some confusion around the payment, the payment date. Um, they were laid on a payment. Their license has now been revoked. As a result, the store isn't sure if it's going to be able to remain open. About a fourth of their sales, I think, are SNAP um snails sales and um it's also a critical resource for those communities. So, I know that every source of waste, fraud, abuse, isn't
• 264:00 - 264:30 exactly like this. But if we're going to account for all of these in our total numbers and we're going to say that these small grocery stores uh are we should be putting them out of business, uh that's that's just not reasonable. Another big concern I have is that we've already cut our local food purchase agreements um at our food banks. We're um making more cuts to the emergency food assistance, the TFAP program, putting a strain on our feeding organizations. These are also cuts to farmers. Some of these were contracts
• 264:30 - 265:00 with farmers to deliver food to our local food banks, to our school lunch programs. And now we're going to cut SNAP benefits. Those are more farmers. Our SNAP sales at farmers markets and farm stands in Maine is about5 to $600,000 a year. Now, maybe if you're from California, that doesn't sound like much, but those are critically important programs for our farmers. We use the nutrition incentive program to provide harvest bucks. wonderful way to get more healthy fruits and vegetables. This increases SNAP total spending at our
• 265:00 - 265:30 farmers markets to around 900,000 a year. Um, this every dollar is important here. There are 50 main farmers in Maine that accept SNAP. Um, so that continues to add more farms where people can get healthy fruits and vegetables. I'm worried about all these. I won't support any cuts in the reconciliation bill or our farm bill that takes away money from lowincome households. And they're not always what we would think of as low income. Many of these are two fam two earner families. People who go to work,
• 265:30 - 266:00 go to work every day, but don't have enough money to put on the table to make sure they can afford food, particularly with skyrocketing costs. And now we're talking about tariffs on our food. So, I know I'm getting calls in my office from the people who are already worried about the cost of food, who are already struggling at the grocery store, and who are already saying, um, now you're going to cut my SNAP benefits next. You know, where do I turn? How do I make ends meet? So, uh, I didn't get a chance to ask you all a question, but I want you all to know I appreciate you very much. I know you put in a long day. As I said, you you bring a lot of valuable
• 266:00 - 266:30 information to all of us and provide an important discussion. And with that, I yield back my time and I thank the chair and the ranking member. Appreciate the gentle lady, especially the lobster you provide in Maine. So, um, seeing no other members, we had great participation today. But before we adjourn today, I invite the ranking member to share any closing comments that she might have. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and a special thank you to each of our witnesses over the course of these many hours uh here this afternoon.
• 266:30 - 267:00 Over the last 78 days, I know many of my colleagues have just been silent as the administration craters our economy, threatens farmers and other businesses with a disastrous trade war. They've been silent while an unelected billionaire fires tens of thousands of government workers, even if it makes it harder for Americans to apply for social security benefits, farm loans, or other key services. Work is what we're talking
• 267:00 - 267:30 about today. Work is good. Work requirements are already part of the SNAP program. If we want to talk about work, let's talk about ways to pay a living wage in our country. Let's talk about how we get the folks the skills they need to find work and improve their lives. But instead, today my colleagues are talking about adding bureaucratic red tape and needless extra hoops to jump through to make it harder for hungry people to get SNAP. I've heard a
• 267:30 - 268:00 lot today from my colleagues about what this hearing is or isn't, but the fact remains that if Republicans succeed at passing their tax bill, the top 0 1% of income earners will get a $180,000 tax break, partially paid for off the backs of hungry families, seniors living on fixed incomes, and farmers. While the median taxpayer gets
• 268:00 - 268:30 about 365 bucks, 365 bucks. Economists are saying that the $4,000 in new tariff taxes and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs will wipe out any savings the average person gets from the Republicans's latest tax plan. And for all the talk about how important the national debt is for my colleagues here today, the bill my colleagues are proposing would add, this is not me,
• 268:30 - 269:00 this is data, $14 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Perhaps most disappointingly for me as ranking member, the majority seems to be okay is close to busting up the farm bill coalition, leaving uh the future of the farm bill in serious jeopardy. There's still time to change course. I remain hopeful that there will be a change in course. My door is and will remain open to working
• 269:00 - 269:30 on a bipartisan farm bill because I want to work together and I want to get a bill done that supports the farmers, rural communities, and struggling families that we represent. The American people are watching. Mr. Chairman, I love your optimism as well. Let's not disappoint them. Thank you, and I yield back. Gentle yields back. I want to thank uh thank all of our witnesses, especially Mr. Lewis for your valuable testimony today. Um I just want to remind all my
• 269:30 - 270:00 colleagues that uh when it comes to the tax provisions and reconciliation which is not on on the agenda today I uh pretty lenient um I remember under working with the previous chairman um that um he shut down conversations on things that were not gerine. Um I'm a little more flexible in that. I understand that people have their emotions they need to express and and they have their speeches they need to
• 270:00 - 270:30 make for the folks that they represent back home. That it's a part of being here. I I I understand that fully. Uh but when it comes to um uh when it comes to taxes, we're we're actually working to prevent the largest tax increase in history. This is not about cutting taxes. This is about maintaining the tax code that we all currently benefit from. uh preventing that largest tax increase. That said, I violated my own role there. Uh oh well, nobody's perfect. So, we've
• 270:30 - 271:00 as we've heard today, two key steps that we can take to strengthen the link between SNAP and employment or reinforcing work requirements and improving the SNAP employment and training program. These are common sense measures that will help ensure those receiving assistance are also gaining the skills and the opportunities to provide for themselves and their families without the need for government assistance. I actually resent the
• 271:00 - 271:30 implications that these programs do not work outside of this committee. I lead the nation on career and technical education. I can tell you they work. And when people are engaged in these programs, and we're not talking about a bachelor's degree, or an associate degree, we're talking about a certification program, a specialization, and the individuals, both youth, youth and adults are enrolled in those today. And by the way, there's waiting lists for those programs out there today. And many of these institutions are building
• 271:30 - 272:00 bricks and mortar when most schools are struggling. Um these are the kinds of programs that help um uh well any kind of a youth involved in these programs. Their graduation rate from high school is like 96% much higher than those following an academic pathway within schools. And they're graduating from these uh from these types of programs that we're talking about here within the SNAP employment and training. And when they're done, it's a matter of of weeks,
• 272:00 - 272:30 if not maybe a few months. Uh but they're graduating with a diploma, certifications in one hand, and multiple job offers in the other. So, um so please don't tell me they're not effective. Uh we know that they're effective today. Um the uh uh I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft solutions and to get more folks on supplemental nutrition assistance program on the
• 272:30 - 273:00 ladder of opportunity so that more Americans can support themselves and their families. We need to uh as has been talked about today the and we didn't even hit on all the expanded access to vulnerable populations. Uh there was one that we didn't discuss at all today. there is a part of the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2024 language uh that were is creating uh for folks that uh uh have not been um have not been eligible. So, thank you all and
• 273:00 - 273:30 and uh and this hearing is now adjourned under the rules of the committee. The record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days uh to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by a member. This hearing of the committee on agriculture is adjourned.