Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee are struggling to agree on a budget reconciliation plan that will include cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, with some of the savings being earmarked to pay for increased spending on commodity programs and crop insurance.
But one of the key options for meeting the committee's lofty target for a net spending reduction – requiring states to help pay for SNAP – is now being considered only as a last resort.
Without that option, the committee would have a hard time avoiding cutting SNAP benefits, an idea opposed by President Donald Trump, said House Ag Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa.
The panel is expected to debate its portion of the reconciliation bill next week, in what likely will be a lengthy markup.
The budget resolution approved earlier in April instructs the House committee to find a net $230 billion in spending cuts over 10 years. There are also talks in the House and Senate of moving portions of the farm bill into the reconciliation package – including a boost to reference prices, increased trade funding and science investments in land-grant universities – which would also have to be offset with spending reductions.
House Agriculture Republicans met Tuesday morning, where members were briefed on at least three possible provisions, according to multiple sources.
Later, Thompson told members of the North American Agricultural Journalists that the $230 billion target for a net spending reduction may be "modified" because of Trump's opposition to SNAP benefit cuts. Thompson didn't say how much it could be reduced.
Tightening work requirements under discussion
Republicans appear to be in agreement on some other provisions that would tighten work requirements and address SNAP error rates and program integrity.
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and another Republican lawmaker familiar with the committee discussions said portions of a bill from Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., on SNAP work requirements are in consideration.
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla.Johnson’s bill, which was re-introduced in February, would raise the age limits of an able-bodied adult without dependents from 55 to 65. The starting age would remain 18. Currently, a parent or household member with a dependent under the age of 18 is exempt from work requirements. The bill would also change that to a parent with a dependent under 7 years old.
Finally, Johnson’s bill restricts the ability for states to get work requirement waivers by tying these waivers to county or county-equivalent unemployment rates.
“My understanding is that all of those topics are being discussed,” Lucas said about the SNAP work requirements and state cost-share. “I don’t know what we’ll see in the final draft, and I don’t know for sure that the White House has signed off on anything yet.”
Another proposal House Agriculture Republicans are discussing would scale back federal spending for SNAP by requiring states to split at least some of the costs. States would have to pay 22.5% of SNAP costs over the next decade, according to a report by Politico.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates this could add $23.65 billion to state budgets in 2034 alone. Since states are required to balance their budgets, and would likely struggle to fill the additional SNAP costs with additional revenue, this proposal could push states to cut SNAP programming, according to CBPP.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
“It seems pretty top level right now,” said Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., about the state cost-share proposal. “30,000 feet and just kind of bouncing it off members and getting feedback.”
Thompson confirmed the state cost-share requirement was his idea.
“I don't think [Trump's] real interested in increasing state cost-share,” Thompson said. “I would only do that if I had to. I'm not crazy about the idea. I came up with the idea, but I'm not crazy about it. … We just don't have that much in our jurisdiction, to tell you the truth, to reach that level.”
Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman, R-Ark., said the state cost-share is an example of something both committees are exploring but haven’t reached a decision on. Boozman said he continues to meet with senior members of his committee, Senate leadership and Thompson on reconciliation plans.
“We had one significant really good meeting the last few weeks,” Boozman said. “Just kind of said, 'Let’s go forward with this plan. You do the best you can. We’ll do the best we can and see where we’re at.'”
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans are also looking at reforms to Medicaid to find $880 billion in cuts. One proposal reportedly being floated would impose a per capita cap on federal Medicaid funding, which would similarly shift more costs to states.
These two policies combined could have a major impact on state budgets and are likely to make Republicans nervous about upcoming elections.
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he’s concerned about the state cost-share proposals for both Medicaid and SNAP. He said Nebraska already had a $160 million deficit this year and will have a hard time paying for that already. These cost-share ideas could further budget constraints.
Bacon says cost-share just shifts costs to states
Bacon said he thought other proposals, such as work requirements, made sense and said there are savings on the nutrition side. But his main concern is cost-sharing.
“I don’t really see that as a benefit,” Bacon said. “I mean it’s not cutting costs. You’re just shifting it to the states and our state’s struggling right now.”
Bacon said he needs to talk more with Thompson and leadership, but in general the $230 billion was not what the committee wanted. He said he expects the Senate committee to come up with a different target for spending cuts.
“Frankly, I don’t think that was a good number … I don’t think that’s what the Ag committee wanted,” Bacon said. “This isn’t the final number necessarily. So that’s what I’m wrestling over.”
Even though it could lead to some Republican heartburn, Lucas said the bottom line is the Agriculture Committee needs to find $230 billion in cuts, while the entire chamber needs to save $1.5 trillion.
“That’s going to be a painful process, because all those programs were created for a reason,” Lucas said. “All those states may have stretched every rationalization to draw as much federal money as they possibly can in the spirit of enlightened self-interest, but we got a $35, $36 trillion national debt.”
Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Ill., said Democrats on the committee will be looking to their ranking member, Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., for guidance on the markup. But she thinks members will focus on driving home the fact that cutting SNAP is the wrong direction for the country.
Recently, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing specifically on SNAP work requirements. Democrats used the hearing to highlight the impact they said a reduction in SNAP could have on farmers.
“A lot of farmers in my district understand the connection between those two things,” Budzinski said about the correlation between SNAP benefits and economic development.
Thompson told the ag journalists the committee was also looking at provisions that could benefit needy individuals. One would end a ban on benefits for people convicted of drug-related felonies. Another would address a so-called "benefit cliff."
Under current rules, job training and education benefits can count toward a household’s total income, making people ineligible for the program. “There are instances of households who make $1 more than they are supposed to because their E&T or employment gives them a nominal income and then they have all their benefits cut off," a committee aide said.
Reporters Noah Wicks, Philip Brasher and Lydia Johnson contributed to this story.
For more news, go to www.agri-pulse.com.
