A House GOP-backed proposal that would cut billions in federal dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation\u2019s largest food assistance program, is drawing concerns from Republicans in the upper chamber. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The proposal, included in House Republicans\u2019 recently passed package<\/u><\/a> to enact President Trump\u2019s\u2002<\/u><\/a>tax priorities and spending cuts, would require states to cover a share of SNAP benefits costs, which are currently completely funded by the federal government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat\u2019s something that I heard some members voice concern about,\u201d Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-Ark.) said Thursday. \u201cSo, we\u2019ll need to address that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While Boozman said Senate Republicans aren\u2019t drawing a red line around the plan just yet, members \u201cwant to look specifically at how those particular policies will affect their individual states.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSome of that we know, some of it we don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House bill calls for the federal share of the cost of SNAP to go from 100 percent in the next two fiscal years to 95 percent starting fiscal 2028.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It also includes language that would increase states\u2019 shares of the costs in fiscal 2028 depending on their payment error rates. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 15 percent and 25 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat\u2019s in the we\u2019ll see category. I\u2019m not sure what\u2019s going to happen with that,\u201d Sen. John Hoeven\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-N.D.) told The Hill on Thursday when asked about the idea. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\u2019re going to talk to committee members who can talk to our caucus as a whole,\u201d he said, but he noted that the House\u2019s cost-share pitch for states goes \u201cbeyond\u201d what some senators had been looking at for \u201caccountability\u201d efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Republicans defending the proposal say the measure would hold states accountable for billions of dollars in erroneous payments to participants annually, providing an incentive for states to keep their payment error rates down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\u2019ve seen that when states actually focus on error rates, they can bring them down very quickly, and obviously that\u2019s what we want, but we don\u2019t want people who are not eligible for the program receiving payments,\u201d Rep. Dusty Johnson\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-S.D.) said. \u201cThese error rates are far too high.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fiscal 2023, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that the national payment error rate<\/u><\/a> was 11.68 percent. The vast majority of states on the list have payment error rates, which factors in a state\u2019s overpayments and underpayments, above 6 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Democrats have sharply criticized the proposal, which they argue could lead to states cutting benefits on their own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the SNAP proposal would reduce direct spending by more than $128 billion from 2028 to 2034 \u2014 accounting for a chunk of the minimum $230 billion in savings the House Agriculture Committee was instructed to find as part of the lower chamber\u2019s first stab at crafting Trump\u2019s \u201cbig, beautiful bill.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other proposals in the bill would tighten eligibility requirements for the program, seek to block the federal government from being able to increase monthly benefits in the future, and increase states\u2019 share of costs to administer SNAP. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Democrats are seizing on an analysis they requested from CBO on the potential effects of the plan, which estimated about 1.3 million people could see their benefits reduced or eliminated in an average month between 2025 and 2034 if lawmakers take the approach to require states to cover some benefit costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the CBO noted \u201cthere would be a variety of state responses to the new requirement,\u201d it said it expects \u201cthat some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn CBO\u2019s view, state responses would vary; thus, CBO estimated state responses in the aggregate using a probabilistic approach to account for a range of possible outcomes,\u201d it said in a letter Thursday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CBO estimated that such reductions or eliminations in benefits would lead to a roughly $30 billion decrease in direct spending from 2028 to 2034. It also estimated \u201csubsidies provided through child nutrition programs would decrease for about 420,000 children in an average month, reducing direct spending by about $700 million over the 2028\u20132034 period.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CBO noted that the analysis does \u201cnot account for interactions among provisions,\u201d explaining that the sum of effects to separately enact each measure would differ from the effects of enacting multiple proposed SNAP reforms at once due to the overlap in affected populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a statement on Thursday, Rep. Angie Craig\u2002<\/u><\/a>(Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, accused Republicans of waging an \u201cattack on working Americans that takes food away from families.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Republicans\u2019 budget will make America hungrier, poorer and sicker. Parents struggling to afford groceries for their families and seniors living on fixed incomes will have their food taken away if this bill becomes law,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents would also expand under the plan, which calls for increasing the age threshold at which such adults must continue to work to qualify from up to 54 to 64 years of age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While many of the proposals are supported by Republicans of various factions in both chambers, some voted for the plan this week with the expectation that the Senate would eventually make some changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n