Congress will write the 2023 farm bill without harming SNAP, notwithstanding Republican suggestions to restrict food-stamp eligibility, said the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee on Monday. “There is no way we are going to accept any cuts in this program,” said Rep. David Scott of Georgia at a farm conference.
House Republicans, who tried to expand SNAP work requirements in the 2018 farm law, are likely to propose deep cuts in SNAP as part of the new farm bill, said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. The think tank estimated that 6 million people would be affected, but not all would be disqualified, by a bill filed by Rep. Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Republican, to make more able-bodied adults subject to a 90-day limit on food stamps and to restrict state waivers of the time limit.
“There will be no turning back on SNAP,” said Scott, who rejected cuts in SNAP four times during 15 minutes of remarks via an internet connection to Agri-Pulse’s Ag and Food Policy Summit.
Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow has also ruled out a rollback in SNAP. Last week, she said threats “from some in the House in favor of reckless and indiscriminate mandatory budget cuts will result in cuts to all farm bill programs. We cannot go backward at a time when our farmers and families need us most.”
House Agriculture chairman Glenn Thompson said in a pre-recorded Agri-Pulse interview that SNAP should help people move toward independence. “They need nutritional support but quite frankly, they need a shot at the American dream,” he said, adding that work requirements have existed for decades, as have waivers.
Arkansas Sen. John Boozman responded, “We don’t need to stay hands off” of SNAP to assure the farm bill is enacted. The senior Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee has criticized the 2021 USDA recalculation of the cost of a healthy diet, which boosted SNAP benefits by 25 percent compared to pre-pandemic levels. Like Thompson, Boozman’s comments were pre-recorded.
SNAP recipients who are not children, elderly or disabled are expected to look for work and accept appropriate employment if it is offered. The debate on time limits or eligibility restrictions is aimed at so-called ABAWDs — able-bodied adults ages 18 to 49 without dependents. They are limited to 90 days of benefits in a three-year period unless they work at least 20 hours a week, perform workfare or are in a job-training program.
“Independent studies have repeatedly shown that SNAP’s 20-hour work-or-lose-benefits rule does not increase employment or earnings,” said Center on Budget analysts. “It just cuts people off from the food assistance they need to buy groceries.”
Johnson’s SNAP legislation would expand the ABAWD category to people ages 18 to 64 unless they have a child under the age of seven at home, said the Center on Budget.
The Center on Budget study pointed to pitfalls in two other approaches often proposed as ways to cut SNAP enrollment or costs — elimination of so-called broad-based categorical eligibility, which allows some low-income households to qualify for SNAP even though they have assets above the usual cut-off point, and the conversion of SNAP to a block grant.
Some 42.6 million people received SNAP benefits at the latest count, according to USDA data. A temporary increase in SNAP benefits, part of the federal response to the pandemic, expired this month. The 90-day limit on benefits to ABAWDs was suspended during the pandemic and will return in July.