Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee fought off Democratic attacks Wednesday on a plan to make states pay a portion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for the first time in the program’s history.

The committee debated its portion of the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill Tuesday night and all day Wednesday before finally approving the legislation on a party-line vote, 29-25. The legislation will have to be merged with other committee bills to create the giant budget reconciliation measure for floor consideration. 

The Ag Committee's legislation would cut about $290 billion from SNAP and use $60 billion of the savings to pay for some farm bill programs, including an increase in Price Loss Coverage reference prices and more funding for trade promotion programs. 

Among several policy changes the legislation would make to SNAP, one  would require states to cover some of the costs associated with the program. Currently, the federal government pays for 100% of the program while states split the administrative costs 50-50. 

Starting in 2028, states would pay between 5% and 25% of the benefit costs. The full cost-share would be determined by the states’ latest SNAP error rates. 

Despite initial fractions in the party over the details of this proposal, Republicans said they are now unified on the proposal. However, Democrats used the markup to speak out against this suggestion and argued that their states are not equipped to cover the millions of dollars this would impose. 

Republicans voted down a series of Democratic amendments targeting the SNAP provisions, including one by Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., that would have blocked implementation of the entire SNAP subtitle "until certified by USDA and all States that it will not result in a reduction in SNAP benefits or participation.

An Agri-Pulse analysis of fiscal year 2023 federal SNAP spending in each state and 2023 error rates found that some states, red and blue, would face over $1 billion in costs under this proposal. 

Some Republicans countered that their states or others had a budget surplus and could easily bear the new cost-share. Democrats pointed out that is not the case for everyone, however, and noted other Trump administration policies could make the cost-share more difficult to manage. 

Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said her state legislature would have to find about $105 million for its SNAP benefit program under this proposal. This comes as other policies like tariffs, possible restrictions on states for Medicaid dollars and DOGE cuts to agriculture programs, also weigh on state finances. 

She added that the administration plans to cut the Environmental Protection Agency by 50% largely through state categorical grants, which shifts another cost to states. 

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. 

“The legislature is battling over a variety of items right now, and they’re not going to be in a good position if we have to make this deep cut,” Pingree said. 

Democrats and anti-hunger groups are already warning this could lead to states cutting back on their SNAP programs. 

Outside the markup, Republicans seemed confident their states would be able to absorb the costs, and said this is an important step in holding states accountable for errors. 

“I think Tennessee has a very frugal, well-managed state and I think they get what we’re doing,” said Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., who is also running to be the state’s governor. “These are Tennessee values, and I think Governor Lee will be happy to take that responsibility on for the good of the country. And I know if I get the opportunity to be Tennessee’s governor, I'll be proud to work to help implement savings for SNAP.”

The Senate Agriculture Committee is also less enthusiastic about the state cost-share idea. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said he shares colleagues' concern about the proposal and doesn’t think the Senate will go along with it. 

“Asking a lot that really can’t be done,” Moran said of the proposal. “I think we’ll be very prudent and appropriate in what we do.” 

Democrats offered a number of amendments seeking to repeal portions of the SNAP cuts. One major topic focused on changes to work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. The bill would increase the age limit from 54 to 64. It would also require parents or guardians of children aged 7 years old and up meet the 80 hours per month requirement, a proposal Democrats highlighted. 

Chair Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., defended the measures arguing that most children this age are in school, which gives guardians the ability to work.

Still, the committee's ranking member, Angie Craig, D-Minn., and other Democrats called this proposal one of the most “egregious” parts of the bill. 

Democrats inquired about how the policy would impact parents during summer and winter breaks, homeschooled children and parents of children with disabilities. They also said that a policy shift this large warranted a committee hearing, which did not occur. 

“You're making a major policy change that’s going to impact millions and millions of families,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. “And we don't even know all the implications and all the negative implications of this policy change.”

Members also used this time as an opportunity to highlight the lack of attendance by their Republican colleagues, often asking if members could explain certain proposals or if they would agree to a hearing. 

Thompson handled most of the questions directly.

At one point, Craig made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The measure eventually failed 29-23 but required many Republicans to rush back to the Agriculture Committee room. 

“I'm glad to see when I called the motion to adjourn that they were all forced to come back and actually participate in this markup,” Craig told Agri-Pulse. “This is the biggest cut to an anti-hunger program in American history and they're attempting to do a farm bill as part of this process. They can at least show up while we do it.”

Other amendments defeated in the House Ag Committee on party-line votes included Democratic proposals to: 

  • Require the agriculture secretary to "submit a report on a monthly basis that includes five bullet points explaining the actions the Secretary has taken in the preceding week to improve market access for American Farmers."
  • Require USDA to fund all existing contracts and reopen any field offices that have been closed. 
  • Require USDA to develop an online filing portal for reports filed through the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. The proposal was aimed at addressing concerns about foreign land ownership.
  • increases funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative to $300 million a year. 

 Lydia Johnson contributed to this story. 

For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.