▶ 0:24:55The committee will come to order. Welcome and thank you for uh joining us today for this hearing entitled Exploring State Options in SNAP. After brief opening remarks, members will receive testimony from our witnesses today and the hearing will be open to questions. In cons in consultation with the ranking member and pursuant to rule 11E, I want to make members of the sub committee aware that members of the full committee may join us here today.
▶ 0:25:19Good morning and welcome to this morning's hearing on examining state options in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for sharing their expertise on this very important topic. Before getting the main focus of today's hearing, I want to set the record straight on reforms to SNAP included in the working family tax bill or HR1 and dispel some of the false narratives I know we will hear in this room today.
▶ 0:25:44First and foremost, HR1 protects and strengthens SNAP's ability to serve our most vulnerable neighbors in need. We are stopping federal and state executive overreach that is eroded once bipartisan work requirements for able-bodied adults without young children. We are finally creating real accountability incentives for states with high payment error, high payment error rates, which I will remind everybody hurts the participants first and foremost.
▶ 0:26:10And we are protecting the hardworking American taxpayer who has been footing a hundred billion dollar annual SNAP bill that increased by close to 70% in five years. No one in this room should be defending $10 billion a year in federal SNAP benefits going out the door incorrectly. Nor should they defend 40% of able-bodied adults without children on SNAP living under state waiverss of work requirements without the economic conditions to warrant them. But this was the status quo before HR1.
▶ 0:26:39The facts are that this program was on an unsustainable trajectory and HR1 is putting it back on a better path. SNAP must be based on the goal of reaching nutrition independence, financial independence, and the American dream. I also need to address the ongoing fear-monging fear-mongering by some of the leaders in my home state of Minnesota about the working families tax uh cuts bill and how they will affect and impact our counties. Minnesota along with nine other states has chosen to administer SNAP at the county level.
▶ 0:27:09In fact, this is one of several state options that Congress allows. I want to be very clear and set the record straight. States are not required to push SNAP costs, neither administrative nor potential benefit cost to the counties. In fact, in six of the 10 county administered states, the state government shares the SNAP administrative expenses with the counties. In one state, the state covers the entire cost of the SNAP administrative expenses.
▶ 0:27:36So despite what local officials may be hearing from their governors, the states have a shared responsibility to prioritize prioritize and invest this critical nutrition program. And there is a precedent for it. This morning, I sent a letter to my governor, Governor Walls, urging him to re-examine his budget priorities, reducing the state's error rates, and taking accountability by restoring program integrity. Congress can no longer turn a blind eye to states that mismanage federal funds at the expense of vulnerable families.
▶ 0:28:04I would ask for unanimous consent to submit this letter for the record. I hope Governor Walls will work with me and other local officials to ensure Minnesota meets the intent of HR1's historic reforms. But the primary topic before us today is much larger and farreaching. While SNAP is a federal program, there are numerous state options allowing states some flexibilities in operating their programs. As states implement the program changes included in HR1, they will need to adapt and re-examine the SNAP options they have adopted to date.
▶ 0:28:34It's also important for us to as legislators to regularly review regularly review the SNAP options currently allowable under federal law to know if changes or new flexibilities are I know some of our witnesses uh today will speak specifically to that. State options in SNAP are large in scope impacting eligibility criteria, benefit levels, and even in what counties federal work requirements are in effect.
▶ 0:29:00It beca it may come as a surprise to people that SNAP gross income and asset limits set in federal law are not actually the law in 44 states. This is something we need to address in this body. Now more than ever, states will need to carefully examine each state option, knowing how it will impact staffing, program costs, and most importantly, error rates.
▶ 0:29:22I look forward to learning more from each of our witnesses today about how states and counties are utilizing these program the impacts they have on administration and participation, and what things we should be thinking about as we look forward to the future of SNAP. Miss Green, Mrs. Bevans and Miss Schmidtz. Thank you again for being here today. I understand Miss Miss Green and Miss Schmidt have never testified before uh to Congress. We look forward to hearing from you today.
▶ 0:29:51With that, I'd like to now welcome uh I'd like to now welcome the distinguished ranking member and gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, for any opening remarks that she would like to give.
▶ 0:30:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first welcome our witnesses to the very first subcommittee hearing on nutrition and foreign agriculture in the 119th Congress. As the ranking member of this subcommittee, I came to Congress to work. I care very deeply about this issue of food security.
▶ 0:30:20And yet, nine months into the year, 21 weeks into the session of Congress, and nine weeks after the largest cut to food assistance in the history of our nation, we are finally here to explore state options in SNAP. Unfortunately, the problems our country faced nine months ago have only been exacerbated by the reconciliation bill passed in July. I've noted that the chair referred to it as the working families tax cut bill or often HR1.
▶ 0:30:48I don't know what any of those things are, but what I do know is that the quote one big beautiful bill that was passed by Republicans in July has already begin to hurt Americans. Americans are feeling the high food costs, higher rents, more expensive health care, child care, and energy costs. Republicans said that they are looking to address waste, fraud, and abuse. But their one big beautiful bill does nothing to address the actual fraud that is happening right now to SNAP recipients.
▶ 0:31:17criminals are stealing EBT card information and taking food assistance away from those it was intended for. The bill does nothing to address the need to transition EBT cards to more secure chip cards to avoid this type of theft. And it does not address other critical issues within SNAP like the need for college students to have access to these programs.
▶ 0:31:38Instead, 4 million people, including families with children, senior veterans, and individuals with disability, will see the food assistance they need to afford groceries cut substantially or taken away entirely, thanks in wholly in part to the one big beautiful bill act.
▶ 0:31:55I do not know if Republicans really understand that SNAP is county administered in 10 states and that most of those counties pay for some of all of the SNAP administrative costs for their states, which means that counties and states from Wisconsin to North Carolina will be struck by a massive bill starting next year that will have to get passed on to the taxpayers. Democrats want to address these issues. This bill does not do that.
▶ 0:32:20The issues that this bill is going to create create are worse than and are will only worsen and cannot be overstated. I hope we can try to find some real solutions uh to get out of this mess that has been made by the quote one big beautiful bill and support states in their capacity to getting food to hungry Americans. State options are critical way for states to tailor SNAP to their unique needs and the needs of the people they serve.
▶ 0:32:47I am concerned that SNAP eligibility and accessibility now that states carry an enormous burden of the administrative and benefits costs shifts will create um additional burdens for individuals. Broad-based categorical eligibility, for example, is a state option that 45 states and territories, red states and blue states alike, use to ease SNAP benefit cliffs.
▶ 0:33:11It allows participants who get a slight raise at work or pick up an extra shift to continue to receive food assistance instead of getting kicked off of the program entirely and left with less money than before. It also allows SNAP households to save more than $3,000, the standard asset limit for SNAP, which is not even enough to cover first and last month's rent for most families in any part of this country.
▶ 0:33:36But because of the one big beautiful bill act, states might be forced to opt out, kicking working families off of off of the muchneeded supports they need and by the helping this critical state option, excuse me, kicking working families helped by this critical state option off SNAP to pay for the costs pushed on to them.
▶ 0:33:55I look forward to this hearing today and to hearing from the witnesses about what state options are most helpful to them and the communities they represent and how these options may be impacted by the immense financial strain that the one big beautiful bill act passed by Republicans in Congress this July have put on states and have put our states and counties under and how they believe this issue should be addressed.
▶ 0:34:20I welcome your testimony today and hope that at the end of this hearing, we can begin to not only illuminate, outline, but address uh not only the issue, but come up with some solutions. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 0:34:36Thank you, Mrs. Hayes. Uh I would now recognize my friend, the ranking member, uh ranking member from Minnesota, Ranking Member Craig, for any opening comments you'd like to make.
▶ 0:34:45Uh thank you, Mr. Fenstad. Um, I suspect perhaps that one of the only things you and I are going to agree on today is skull Vikings. Uh, so I will say that just at the start of this hearing uh this morning. Um, thank you for allowing me to start uh the conversation here today and thank you to our fantastic uh ranking member of the subcommittee. Thank you to our witnesses in particular. Um, this is the first subcommittee hearing of this Congress. You heard me right.
▶ 0:35:14the first subcommittee hearing on nutrition and foreign agriculture. Yes, there were no subcommittee hearings before my colleagues cut food assistance by $186 billion through the Republican budget earlier this year. And um my colleague on the other side of the aisle just called it a name that I don't even recognize the bill. It wasn't the name of the bill.
▶ 0:35:39It's appropriate uh that we are serving on the a committee that I'm the ranking member of the a committee but you cannot put lipstick on that pig of a bill and the American people know it. We cannot talk about state options without putting them in the broader context of that partisan process which resulted in a massive unfunded mandate onto states and counties including in my home state of Minnesota.
▶ 0:36:07I met with Minnesota SNAP administrators here last week in DC. Counties in my state are wondering how they'll successfully make the programmatic changes demanded by the Republican budget while also cutting staff due to the major reduction in administration administrative funding. A reduced workforce also makes it harder to participate in state options that make program operations more effective and efficient.
▶ 0:36:35The combinations of added red tape and paperwork, program changes, and fewer staff create a perfect storm that will send states error rate upward, putting states at risk of being fined millions of dollars by the federal government. In effect, Republicans cut their resources and then punish them when overworked staff make more errors administering an increasingly complicated program. None of these changes help reduce hunger in our communities.
▶ 0:37:04Seniors who rely on SNAP to stay healthy and live independently. Parents who use SNAP to keep their children fed. Veterans struggling while finding stable housing or employment. Who use SNAP to keep food on the table do not benefit from states being intentionally overwhelmed and underresourced by a partisan budget that provides tax handouts to the already rich. Minnesota uses a number of options.
▶ 0:37:32standard utility allowances, a county administered structure, and broad-based categorical eligibility, to name a few, to tailor the program to our state's needs. To help our neighbors and help keep our communities fed, Ohio recently joined Minnesota and the 44 other states using broad-based categorical eligibility.
▶ 0:37:56Last June, they opted in to, in their words, create a sliding scale that encourages people to earn more by slowly reducing their benefits as their income grows, providing an incentive to accept promotions and payraises, knowing that they won't immediately lose benefits.
▶ 0:38:16Lawmakers in Alaska also recently passed legislation opting into broad-based categorical eligibility, specifically to help with their error rate and speed up application review timelines.
▶ 0:38:29When this change went into effect a couple of months ago, an Alaska Department of Health spokesperson said it will quote, "Resalt in faster, more streamline eligibility determinations for many households, which will improve timeliness and reduce the risk of errors associated with incomplete or delayed State options are common sense policies that help SNAP reach those who the program was designed to help.
▶ 0:38:57People struggling to feed themselves and their families, the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and families with children. Exercising the options given to states to administer SNAP in ways that meet the needs of residents is not fraud, waste, or abuse. It is humane food assistance policy. The Republican budget has already made food more expensive for millions of Americans.
▶ 0:39:23Undermining or restricting state options will only serve to take food away from more people. We should be looking for ways to ensure SNAP remains available to every American when they need it, not making it harder and more expensive for states to administer it. Thank you again to the chairman and ranking member for having me join you today and thank you to the witnesses for joining us in DC and I look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.
▶ 0:39:51The chair would request that other members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony and to sure that there is ample time for questions. So I'm going to introduce the witnesses here. Uh our first witness today is Miss Khloe Green, the manager of food and nutrition services at the American Public Human Services Association. Our next witness is Mrs. Joy Bivvens, the deputy county administrator for Health and Human Services of Franklin County, Ohio. She is testifying on behalf of the National Association of Counties.
▶ 0:40:20And our final witness is Miss Corin uh Schmidt, the director of Wyoming Department of Family Services. Thank you all for being with us uh today. Uh we'll now proceed with your testimony. You'll each have five minutes. The timer in front of you will countd down to zero, at which point your time is expired. And just to give you a heads up, there's a few other committees going on right now. So, you'll see members coming and going. Trust me, it's it's not you, it's us. And uh we'll we'll be here as as much as possible. So, uh thank you all for being here.
▶ 0:40:48And we'll start with Miss Green, please begin when you're ready. Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association and to contribute to this important conversation on SNAP, a vital program serving more than 40 million people in our country each month.
▶ 0:41:13APSA is the bipartisan nonprofit membership association that for over 90 years has represented state, county, and city human services agencies. Our members represent the executive leaders who report directly to their governors and the subject matter experts who oversee programs like SNAP, TANNIF, child welfare, and child care. We focus on building common ground and advancing pragmatic solutions that work both for the agencies that deliver the programs and the families who depend on them.
▶ 0:41:42In my role, I lead APsa's work on SNAP and nutrition policy. I began this work during the onset of the CO 19 pandemic and worked closely with state SNAP directors through both the emergency response and the unwinding. From that vantage point, I saw how SNAP can quickly adapt when states are given appropriate flexibilities and how powerful it is to have a strong federal foundation that protects families. SNAP is by design one of the most prescriptive federal programs we have.
▶ 0:42:11Congress sets the framework, USDA regulates it, and states must operate within those rules. you eligibility rules, benefit levels, and key components like quality control and payment air rate measurement are all federally defined. This uniformity is one of SNAP's greatest strengths. It guarantees fairness and ensures that families are eligible for the same benefits no matter where they live. At the same time, there are targeted areas where states do have options.
▶ 0:42:39These can be related to the application and how it's offered, certification periods and their length, verification and reporting requirements, the use of technology, automation and staffing, and more. These flexibilities don't change the core rules, but they allow states to tailor how people experience the program and manage it in ways that meet their unique Some options are relatively simple to uptake, like policy options that can be elected in a state plan.
▶ 0:43:06Others like demonstration projects are more complex requiring rigorous evaluation, cost neutrality, and USDA approval. As an example, I'll use eligibility and benefit calculation because this illustrates both how prescriptive SNAP is and how flexibilities can operate.
▶ 0:43:22By federal law, every household must pass a gross income test, generally set at 130% of the federal poverty level, and then after allowable deductions such as housing, child care, or medical costs, must also pat a pass a net income below 100% of poverty. They must also fall under federal asset limits of $3,000 for most households or $4,500 for a household who has someone who's elderly or disabled.
▶ 0:43:48States must apply these thresholds uniformly and they must provide the full federal benefit for every household that qualifies. What broad-based categorical eligibility or BBCE allows is for a state to raise that initial gross income threshold up to 200% of poverty and ease or remove the asset test, but it does not wave the federal net income requirement. Every household must still meet that final test before receiving a benefit.
▶ 0:44:15Flexibilities like BBCE can help families access needed benefits. It can be especially important for families with high living expenses and to help reduce churn where families briefly lose and then regain eligibility. It also supports the successful transition off the program by allowing families to build savings.
▶ 0:44:34BBCE can increase error rates and case loads, but it also reduces burden and staffing needs for When states consider whether to use flexibilities like this, they weigh customer service, staffing capacity, available funding, and performance outcomes alongside direction for their governors and legislators.
▶ 0:44:55Under the recently passed budget reconciliation bill, states will face increased matching requirements and financial penalties for error rates, creating new and complex considerations for them to weigh. Based on what we hear from our members, APSA offers four recommendations for you to consider. The first is to support innovation and consider new flexibilities. Second is to make proven flexibilities permanent state options. Third, to balance accountability with flexibility.
▶ 0:45:25And fourth, to continue to engage directly with state and local leaders like my fellow witnesses today as we work to meet our shared goals. In closing, SNAP strength lies in its strong federal framework paired with targeted state options to allow for innovation. By sustaining that balance, Congress can ensure SNAP continues to reduce hunger, improve nutrition, and strengthen families across our nation. Thank you again for your commitment to this vital program and for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your
▶ 0:45:56Thank you, Miss Green. Uh with four seconds to spare. Good job. Uh, I would like to now uh welcome Mrs. Bivvens. Uh, please begin when you're
▶ 0:46:09Good morning and thank you, Chair Finstead, Ranking Member Hayes, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share today on the county perspective. My name is Joy Bivvens, and I am the deputy county administrator for Health and Human Services in Franklin County, Ohio. Today I'm here on behalf of the National Association of Counties where I serve as vice chair of the Human Services Education Committee.
▶ 0:46:31In 10 states, counties administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, determining eligibility, processing applications, and reertifications and working closely with state and federal partners. In Franklin County, we serve more than 183,000 SNAP recipients, most of whom are children or older adults.
▶ 0:46:51Today I am here to share the county role in administering SNAP and to share recommendations for how we can work together to strengthen administration, maintain integrity, and improve outcomes. First, stable federal support and practical flexibility are essential to effective SNAP delivery. County specific responsibilities vary by state law and by the design of state technology systems and policies. where states permit counties greater operational flexibilities.
▶ 0:47:19Counties have deployed innovation and improved outcomes. In nine of the 10 county administ administered states, counties must partially or fully cover non-federal and administrative match. The one big beautiful bill act reduces the federal share of the match from 50% to 25% beginning in fiscal year 27.
▶ 0:47:41In Franklin County, that would shift require approximately 7.5 million in additional local spending annually to maintain current service levels. This shift arrives as counties across the country face outdated technology, staffing challenges, and increasing pressure to improve timeliness and reduce payment errors.
▶ 0:48:02With stable funding and operational flexibility, counties can continue to deliver timely service without shifting unsustainable burdens on local taxpayers. Funding and flexibility are critical. However, proven administrative tools to help counties manage case loads are also needed to protect program integrity.
▶ 0:48:22Broad-based categorical eligibility streamlines applications and reertifications for households already screened through the SNAP program, letting them letting staff spend less time on processing applications. Broad-based categorical eligibility uses a sliding scale to ease the transition off benefits, ensuring working families don't have to choose between accepting a promotion and losing benefits or turning down a better paying job to take food off the table.
▶ 0:48:51The standard utility allowance reduces documentation errors by allowing households to use the flat deduction rather than their fluctuating utility bills. However, recent changes limiting the use of the lowincome housing and energy program payments to qualify for utility allowance in households without an elderly or disabled member will increase administrative touch points and risk for documentation errors.
▶ 0:49:17At the same time, expansions to work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependent populations have dramatically increased monitoring obligations. In my home state of Ohio, we anticipate 17,000 veterans, former foster youth, and people experiencing homelessness will now be subject to work requirements.
▶ 0:49:37In order to meet these demands, counties need targeted support to recruit and train staff which offered a which often need more than a year to f to fulfill Alongside funding and administrative tools, counties also need policies that recognize local economic conditions and support participants as they enter the Counties rely on discretionary exemp exemptions for abots to mitigate churn for individuals facing temporary barriers
▶ 0:50:07such as homelessness or irregular work hours. Additionally, eight out of the 10 county administered states used ABOD time limit waiverss for fiscal year 2025. Narrowing time limit waiverss strictly to areas with unemployment above 10% removes flexibilities from communities facing underemployment, seasonal jobs, and changing markets.
▶ 0:50:29Counties believe that having the flexibility to use the indicators of insufficient jobs, not only the unemployment rate, will ensure that time limit policy fits real world outcomes. At the same times, counties recognize that keeping individuals connected to food assistance is only part of the solution. Long long-term stability when come long-term stability comes when residents are able to move into steady good paying jobs. This is where SNAP employment and training ent plays a vital role.
▶ 0:50:59SNAP ent gives counties a vehicle to help participants build skills, connect the work, but counties face hurdles with complex reimbursements and re reporting requirements and expansion. By simplifying these processes, Congress and USDA can help counties add more providers in high need areas and strengthen local workforce pipelines. Thank you.
▶ 0:51:21Thank you, Mrs. Be uh Bivvens. I would now like to welcome Miss Schmidt. Please begin when you're ready.
▶ 0:51:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hayes, and distinguished subcommittee members. My name is Corin Schmidt, and I'm the director of the Wyoming Department of Family Services. On behalf of Governor Mark Gordon, and my staff, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. Addressing hunger is a priority for our state governor, in particular, First Lady Jenny Gordon. She's a tremendous advocate and has built a strong framework for community support and solutions to feed children and families.
▶ 0:51:56Wyoming's population is less than 600,000 people and is considered frontier. The majority of our of our counties have fewer than six people per square mile. This translates into large portions of our population living in low access low access areas and traveling 10 or more miles to a grocery store. In addition, Wyoming's aging population is growing at the fastest rate in the United States. And even though our younger population is rapidly declining, one in five Wyoming children are hungry.
▶ 0:52:27In our state, SNAP is an integral part of addressing hunger, keeping families together, and elderly people in their homes. Last fiscal year, a monthly average of 13,400 households making less than $3,380 a month for a family of four received a typical food benefit of $386. Of the 28,000 individuals served, 44% were children, 35 were adults, 13% were 60 plus years or older, and 8% were abled bodies without dependent.
▶ 0:52:58Like other small conservative states, we have limited staff responsible for program administration, eligibility determination, and case management. Our SNAP team in the field consists of 92 workers in 28 local offices and three program managers who administer the five hunger related programs. Our 12 staff and quality control and fraud protection are essential to maintaining the integrity and credibility of SNAP, whose ongoing support is strengthened by public trust.
▶ 0:53:27Given our minimal staffing and focus on costconscious governance, the payment error rate has been a primary performance indicator for decades and has been below 6% in the last five since 2015. Constrained staffing and resources make us risk adverse to slight make us risk adverse. So we approach waiver and policy options with caution. The rate is susceptible to slight changes in policy and casework. Any deviation requires careful consideration.
▶ 0:53:56We vet opportunities through small pilot programs, research, and extensive extensive conversations with other states. We look at lessons learned to assess the benefit and risks to program accuracy and integrity. Then refined our eligibility processes to balance efficiency and accountability. We also attribute our successes to the strong partnership between our eligibility field workers and our program managers at the state level.
▶ 0:54:22The positive relationship between the case workers and the program managers allows for frequent and planned communication that promotes honesty and hard conversations. A focus on quality control and fraud detection is critical to maintaining ongoing public support for SNAP.
▶ 0:54:39We implemented front-end eligibility, which is a fraud detection tool used at the time of client Front-end eligibility allows us to investigate potential fraud before an application is approved and a benefit is issued, thereby um avoiding the pay and chase model where we have to go back and collect. In the last two years, we prevented almost a million dollars in fraudulent benefit issuance.
▶ 0:55:05As states increase their financial contribution, please consider our ability to tailor program and policy changes to meet our needs. The current scope and regulatory structure of waiverss and options do not give um do not give us the full ability to make sound economic choices on behalf of our clients and residents. For example, Wyoming is facing challenges with our rapidly growing elderly population that will not be able to generate income through work.
▶ 0:55:32Wyoming's lowincome elderly would benefit from a waiver removing the asset limit for households receiving a social security benefit under a designated As mentioned, whenever policy changes occur, error rates often rise temporarily as eligibility workers adjust to new procedures.
▶ 0:55:49We believe a hold harmless period that begins after guidance is issued would allow error rates to stabilize and ensure appropriate and effective Last, we welcome a dialogue regarding meaningful outcomes that more accurately define a successful program. Error rates are a sound indicator of regulatory and programmatic compliance.
▶ 0:56:11However, it is also possible to define success as a family that as a result of temporary participation in SNAP achieves self-sufficiency through st strong job training and education programs. Thank you again for the invitation and the opportunity to showcase Wyoming's hard work and successes, much of which is due to the hard work of our DFS family. Thank you,
▶ 0:56:39ladies. Thank you for your testimony. Uh at this time, members will be recognized for questions. Order of seniority, alternating between majority minority members and an order of arrival for those who joined us after the hearing convened. You will be recognized for five minutes each in order to allow us to get as many questions as possible. Um I now recognize myself for five minutes.
▶ 0:57:02And I would like to set for the record uh section 10102 of HR1, which clearly states that uh medically people that are medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment are not subject uh to the new worker requirements. Uh Miss Smith, um I'm going to start with you um because you noted in your testimony that Wyoming looks to other states for lessons learned from adopting certain policy options and waiverss. Uh can you give us specific examples of that?
▶ 0:57:35Um yes, Mr. Chairman. We have a strong network with other states in regard to a lot of conversations with our policy people. So for example, it was suggested that we entertain a waiver that looks at client statements around assets and client statements around expenditures. As we discussed those options with other states, what we learned is that there are fewer errors surrounding those where we're just talking about assets, but that there was an increase in errors around um resources.
▶ 0:58:06So through conversations about the pros and cons implementation of the program and what they saw as a result, we then therefore decided to go with just accepting statements on client resources but not assets. That's an example of how we've really looked at the the opportunities other states provide.
▶ 0:58:25Okay. And you mentioned in your testimony that Wyoming implemented front-end fraud detection tools,
▶ 0:58:31front-end eligibility, and that that has uh avoided close to a million dollars in fraudulent SNAP benefit issuances in in less than three years. Can you speak more about uh the tools that you're using? Whether you know of other s uh states that are using the same tools and uh how much did it cost your state to u this strategy?
▶ 0:58:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the uh the front-end eligibility tool we learned about at a conversation with fraud workers at a conference on welfare And the cost to start up was about We applied for a grant through the USDA and the FNS food nutrition services. Um ongoing costs we think are going to be about $200,000 or less per year.
▶ 0:59:26What we learned is that by with a a front-end investigator, when we have some suspicion that maybe reporting was fraudulent, we then refer it to a person who starts to invest in investigate it from the very beginning before benefits are issued. That really helps to solve the problem of going after benefits if there has indeed been fraud committed. Not all referrals are refra are fraud. Sometimes they're just mistakes in paperwork.
▶ 0:59:55But our review at the front end helps us to avoid that and then if the the person is eligible and has met all of the requirements then they can go forward with the application.
▶ 1:00:05So other than cost did you have uh any barriers to adopting this strategy?
▶ 1:00:12Uh Mr. Chairman some of the barriers were just uptake trying to find we had to hire a few investigators on the front end. So finding of course in our state those folks with experience to do that. We do now have someone who's um been with the agency previously retired and so that was a nice natural fit. Um and then the asset verification that we used as part of the program.
▶ 1:00:36Okay. Miss Green, where do limitations exist on the use of technology and and even artificial intelligence and SNAP? And how might better use of these tools both customer service for the person who needs the SNAP benefits and uh program
▶ 1:00:58Thank you for the question. So, our members that we've been hearing for years have a strong interest in better utilizing technology and automation to support their um program administration both to help streamline their work and to so that really they can be making sure they're spending the most time on the cases that need it the most and streamlining cases that are more straightforward and simple.
▶ 1:01:24We there has been some although limited guidance from USDA FNS around the use of automation citing them as major changes required which should in practice mean that a state can submit a request and then they be acknowledged and therefore approved by FNS although we've heard from several of our members that there have been a lot of delays in response from USDA or a lot of questions that have delayed the implementation to be able to use automation.
▶ 1:01:50Additionally, USDA has defined uh automation or bots as non-mmerit staff which then has additional limitations to what they can actually do in a SNAP case. Miss Mivvens, I'm going to come to you for the same question. Um limitations on the existing use of technology and artificial intelligence and snap. Do you have any any comments on that subject?
▶ 1:02:15Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say that um you know because of our outdated um technology system to even process the current cases that we have, we are still working to in to implement new systems but unfortunately those are co costly. Um we look for opportunities to leverage technologies not just to process cases but to also save taxpayer dollars.
▶ 1:02:40But unfortunately again due to restricted budgets it prohibits us from being able to look at what can be advanced and what is approved from our state partners in order to leverage new technologies because as you understand you know we are a county administered state and whatever Franklin County leverages to process cases the entire state would have to adopt as well. Okay, ladies. Thank you for your testimony and I recognize Miss Hayes uh the ranking member for five minutes.
▶ 1:03:08Good morning. Thank you. I want to note again that there are several attempts made to rebrand this bill before states actually feel the impact of it. But what we are hearing and what people at home are experiencing is that the Republican one big beautiful bill act will incre has increased the administrative cost share burden placed on states and counties operating SNAP from 50% to 75%. And you're going to have to figure out how to absorb that.
▶ 1:03:37The cost share will also apply to states interested in transitioning from the current outdated EBT card technology to EBT cards with chips. Chip cards are one of the best ways we can combat electronic fraud theft, which occurs when criminals skim or clone EBT cards and drain the accounts, leaving families who are depending on that food assistance with nothing. In Connecticut, nearly $6 million in food assistance has been stolen from more than 12,000 households in the past two years.
▶ 1:04:07Congress gave USDA the authority to reimburse those stolen benefits so families whose assistance was stolen through no fault of their own would be made whole. However, despite it costing no additional dollars to extend, Elon Musk and the Republican majority in the one big beautiful bill act stripped that extension and that authority along with many other bipartisan provisions in the end ofear spending bill in 2024.
▶ 1:04:34Ever since, victims of these crimes have been told there was no help coming if their benefits were stolen. Miss Bivvens, have you seen instances of electronic benefits theft in Ohio? And if so, can you describe how families are impacted by the loss of their benefits and how the increased administrative cost share burden imposed by this bill impacts the ability of states to transition to safer, more secure cards?
▶ 1:05:00Thank you, Ranking Member Hayes. And yes, we have seen this in Ohio. Initially when it first occurred, we received thou we received hundreds of phone calls and there was, you know, support in order to reimburse, but there was a cut off for those residents in order to receive the reimbursement for food. And since that has taken place and there's no longer that support in place, if I can bring, you know, for the empty chairs in the room, I look at the empty chairs and I think about the residents in Franklin County that receive SNAP and the ones that we're talking about right now.
▶ 1:05:30there's no help. So when they call, we're not able to assist them in order to um you know refuel their card. And what it has caused is it's a lot of frustration. Um we have grandparents that are taking care of grandchildren because of the kinship issue that we are experiencing right now. We have folks that are um working that are undermployed that rely on their SNAP benefits so they can put food on the table.
▶ 1:05:55And when that skim when that EBT card is skimmed to no fault of their own, there is no relief that we are able to provide in order to assist them other than they have to wait until the following month in order to receive their benefit. And so what has caused in Franklin County are more phone calls, more frustrated residents who are just trying to live and thrive every day.
▶ 1:06:19Thank you. I've received similar calls in my office and we went through all of the channels through state agencies and the response was to have people reach out to local food banks which their shelves are depleted because they lack the resources and are having to service more people. Mm. I heard you talk about the personnel and the people who actually help administer and educate people about these programs.
▶ 1:06:42In May, I introduced the SNAP Administrator Retention Act, which allows states to receive 100% of the administrative personnel cost associated with hiring and retaining merit staff who carry out SNAP programs. I heard you say you had to bring someone back out of retirement to help with this.
▶ 1:06:58Miss Bivvens, as the deputy county administrator, what would be some of the benefits of the federal government handling 100% of the administrative personnel costs so that these benefits can get out securely and I'm sorry. Can you repeat your question?
▶ 1:07:15What would be uh the benefit of the federal government abs absorbing a 100% of the administrative costs?
▶ 1:07:22The benefit would be it would release um financial support in our in counties. we can leverage the dollars that we're assisting currently right now through workforce contracts, through supporting our nonprofits in order to, you know, connect folks who are receiving e who are receiving SNAP to more qualified programs.
▶ 1:07:45Currently, right now, as it stands, because there is a cost share, the dollars that are being leveraged in order to um pay for the SNAP program, and if even if it increases, what it will cause is it will cause a decrease in our contractual services, meaning less dollars to our nonprofits to support our most vulnerable, less dollars in our uh food pantries, less dollars in our workforce programs, and we have high quality workforce programs currently in Franklin County where folks are going through trade Miss Bibbons,
▶ 1:08:15I'm sorry. Thank you. My time is expired. I don't mean to cut you off, but I have to get in before I end that the CBO estimates that 4 million individuals will be cut off SNAP as a result of the one big beautiful bill out that was passed in Congress. With that, I yield back.
▶ 1:08:31Chair now recognizes Mr. Man from Kansas for five minutes.
▶ 1:08:36Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here this morning. Um, thanks, uh, to Chairman Finstead for hosting today's hearing. I appreciate the opportunity we all have here today to discuss and examine the role that states and localities have in administering the SNAP program. The farm bill nutrition title accounts for an estimated 81% of farm bill spending in 2024 which makes it vital that this Congress actively conducts oversight and ensures the program is operating effectively.
▶ 1:09:03States and localities play a key role in administering the SNAP program on behalf of of the federal government. While it's important to maintain this flexibility, there must also be accountability for high error rates that prevent benefits from being directed to our most vulnerable populations. I believe that everybody in this room shares the same goal, ensuring that SNAP benefits reach those who truly need them.
▶ 1:09:24If there are ways to make improvements to how states and localities are administering this program and ways to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, we should pursue these solutions and ensure that they are implemented effectively as Congress intended. I just have a handful of questions and again appreciate all three of y'all being here this morning. Um f first for you Miss Green, you mentioned your testimony that using BBCE states can confer SNAP eligibility to households who receive non-cash tanniff benefits.
▶ 1:09:51From the USDA website, it looks like almost every state that uses BBCE considers brochures, pamphlets, 1-800 numbers as tiff benefits. How does this policy actually practically work? And do states simply hand someone a brochure that has been funded with TF dollars and confer category SNAP eligibility or is it more is there more to it than that?
▶ 1:10:15Thank you for the question representative. So in states uh TANF is a block grant. so they can um operate their TANF program differently as opposed to how SNAP is more prescriptive as we have been talking about today and um so because of that I can't tell you exactly how it works in every state and I'm not um uh you know working there on the ground but I do know that what happens is or what can
▶ 1:10:45happen is that when someone qualifies for a benefit they can receive a pamphlet in the mail for example or in an office and then if they go to apply for SNAP, they have to show that that they have received that in order to then be able to use the BBCE benefits such as above to 200% gross or uh the increase or waiver of the asset
▶ 1:11:08Thank you. Next question for you, uh M Schmidt, in your testimony, you spoke about bringing field and program leadership together every month, uh which is something it sounds like that you do. It seemed like practically everyone should be doing that. But what have you discovered in these meetings and can you point to improvements that wouldn't have happened otherwise?
▶ 1:11:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman and and Representative. Um the conversations get very technical and it's through those technical conversations then that both the field and the program managers can understand maybe strategies that are going to uh be more appropriate.
▶ 1:11:46I think the relationship is important in that um program managers don't assume through the regulatory scheme what they know is to be true and also I think from the field perspective that not everything that is suggested to them is because we're being mean. So the relationship between the two I think really create the opportunity for brainstorming and very on the ground issues.
▶ 1:12:10So in a given community, if we see something that's popping up, it's a it's kind of a heads up to the rest of the the state and to leadership to start looking at it and then strategies develop as a result.
▶ 1:12:23I agree. Thank you. And last question um for you, Miss Green. Um back on you, if in your testimony, you mentioned how Congress should support innovation if states are asked for funding to adopt um automation and AI. How do you ensure that these investments actually reduce fraud and improve accuracy and and efficiency instead of just sending a blank check?
▶ 1:12:46Thank you for the question. I think of course and when I talk to members, it's always front and center that accuracy is essential to the program and that there needs to be ongoing partnership with people like partners at the USDA to ensure that that's happening. in things like demonstration projects when they're used, they do require rigorous evaluation for the state and separate quality control measurement of uh cases that are impacted to be able to measure things like fraud.
▶ 1:13:15Um really when I'm talking about supporting innovation, it's that states do want to try new things, but we need to not let perfect be the enemy of the good in preventing them from even trying new innovations because of how strict different um requirements are.
▶ 1:13:30Great. Well, thank you again for being here and Mr. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:13:36All right. I now recognize Ranking Member Craig for five minutes.
▶ 1:13:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know what I've learned uh here in my short time in Congress is that everything uh that happens in those closed door house conferences, whether it's the GOP or Democrats, it always leaks.
▶ 1:13:55And so what I'm noticing here this morning in the subcommittee hearing is um really a reflection of what happened in a House GOP conference where Lisa Mlan is pushing my colleagues to hit the new quote unquote working families messaging. Well, you know, I've just been sitting here brainstorming here uh all by myself.
▶ 1:14:17if I would invite the rest uh of America to help me brainstorm, but how about we rebrand some of this language to the wealth transfer from working families? How about we call it the higher health care costs for working families budget? How about we call it the more motans go hungry budget?
▶ 1:14:39You know, if we're going to rebrand the big ugly bill because they don't like the polling of it of Americans, every single one of us has a responsibility to make sure that every American knows what's actually in this bill. And what it is is the largest transfer of wealth from working families in our country to the top 10% in our nation.
▶ 1:15:04And we cannot let anybody forget that fact no matter how hard they try to rebrand. So, Mrs. Bibons, thank you so much for being here. And as you know, Ohio and my home state of Minnesota are two of the 10 states that opt to delegate administration of SNAP to their counties, right? Administration to the counties. Could you tell us a little about the benefits of running a county administered SNAP program?
▶ 1:15:34Thank you so much. Running the a countyled SNAP program allows more accessibility for our residents who actually live in communities. Our current job and family services are embedded in communities where residents actually live and they have more accessibility.
▶ 1:15:49And what it allows for us to do is to make direct referrals to nonprofits, faith-based organizations, workforce partners, boots on the ground with residents having the direct opportunity to either walk into a building or intersect with us in on one of our mobile units or also in one of our wonder of our wonder offerings.
▶ 1:16:10You're bringing it straight to the communities. And so in nine of the 10 county administered states, counties pay for some or all of the non-federal share of administrative costs. Is that right? And can you share how much counties in Ohio are expected to contribute toward administrative costs? And how will the drop in reimbursement rate for administrative costs from 50 to 25% impact Franklin County and other counties that are in similar positions?
▶ 1:16:36So, with the change that is up upon us, we are anticipating and increasing our share cost to an additional $7.5 million on top of what we already are um expensing. And what that will do is um I will say that our Franklin County commissioners are very generous and very um forward thinking in leveraging taxpayer dollars and leveraging sale tax dollars I should say um to partner with nonprofits and workforce partners to to find opportunities
▶ 1:17:06for higher wage jobs for residents. And so what do I mean? I mean that we invest in trade schools, we invest in CDL training. We invest in the livable wage jobs with those discretionary dollars that we're able to use. If we are to increase our shared cost, those dollars that we invest in those other opportunities, including the nonprofits, will diminish and we will have we will pro we will provide less offerings to the residents who are undermployed.
▶ 1:17:37Yeah, it's it's just extraordinary the impact on counties and that doesn't even get to a state like mine where the cost shift is actually going to be to the counties. It's going to result in tax levies. My counties, it doesn't matter what side of the aisle my county commissioners are on. They're up in arms about this cost shift that the federal government is delivering to them. And in my home state of Minnesota, taxes are going to go up at the county
▶ 1:18:04because of what my colleagues across the aisle have done here today. Um, let me get to my last question then. USDA has repeatedly said it would work with states and provide technical assistance as they work to implement the big ugly bill. Yet, I'm hearing from states that this hasn't been the case. In fact, last week, Pennsylvania sent a letter to the chairman stating that they have not received any technical support, that their pre-existing um standing monthly calls have been cancelled, etc.
▶ 1:18:32Has Ohio, Miss Bivvens, gotten the answers it needs to implement the provisions that went into effect two months ago?
▶ 1:18:38Um I did speak to our job and film's director prior to coming. Um they've had little contact in that regard. Um, unfortunately, we are still trying to understand the rules and implications of what is what is ahead of us.
▶ 1:18:53Thank you for being here. And, um, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Uh, Miss Schmidt, you note in your testimony that you only have 12 staff members in your SNAP quality control and fraud protection unit. I often hear that staffing shortages prevent states from reducing their error rates. How has Wyoming managed to keep its error rate below 6% for 10 years with conservative staffing levels?
▶ 1:19:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, our SNAP program has a very robust continuous quality improvement component to it. And so we are in this this cycle of continuous quality improvement which then allows us to efficiently use our QC fraud staff at their most. So it starts with robust data collection through our quality control program in addition to the conversations that we have regularly with our field and our leadership.
▶ 1:19:48Based on all of that, we have a thorough understanding of what's happening with our program at any given time. We can see trends. We can see we can look for problem spots which then allows us through our quality control process to be able to identify what it is the rate the error rate and then make the adjustments. So basically we're efficient um because we have a pretty consistent process to how we review our quality control information.
▶ 1:20:16It helps us then to identify fraud easier and then make the referrals as necessary. Also the front-end eligibility component has really helped us along the lines with a limited staff.
▶ 1:20:27Thank you for that. Uh Mrs. Bivvens. Uh going down this uh road a little bit about specifically around the 10 states that administer the SNAP program at the county level. Do you think it's fair that decisions made by governors and state legislators that increase the cost of SNAP, such as seeking work requirement waiverss and expanding SNAP via BBCE are forced on counties and they are expected to foot the bill.
▶ 1:20:52And so if I can answer u Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I can answer it this way, I think that what we are ultimately dealing with are folks who are undermployed. SNAP is a tool is an anti-hunger program and unfortunately folks are not making enough and the cost of living has increased. Housing has increased and these costs are not incurred by the individuals who um are impoverished. It's incurred by living. It's just the this is where we're at in society.
▶ 1:21:21And so when asked if it's fair, um I don't know if I can answer that, but I I would say I don't think it's fair for um rules to be imple implemented to un to individuals who are just trying to live every day, particularly children and senior So just to be crystal clear though, the the governors and the state legislators of these states are making the decisions to seek the waiverss, but the counties then foot the bill to administer the And so
▶ 1:21:52I think collectively together that um governors and counties need to work together in figuring out what is appropriate in order to um ensure that large portions of our populations are thriving in our community.
▶ 1:22:07Yeah. So, thank you for that. And I'll just make it crystal clear in Minnesota that's not happening. The the counties are not having a seat at the table specifically when it comes to the waiverss. They're always on the receiving end of the administrative costs and they're they get what they get. Um, Miss Bevvens, another question. Uh, as you know, if states are able to get their air rate below 6%, the benefit cost share would be zero dollars.
▶ 1:22:30So given that all but one of the county administer staff states including my home state of Minnesota have payment error rates above 6% how is no working with counties to get error rates down. So we are working together with no um we have um standing meetings similar to my colleague to the left um we have similar meetings where we can cross and share ideas on what is working and what is not working in our areas. Um the error rates are as you know for multiple reasons.
▶ 1:23:00It could be you know uh user error or it could also be um unfortunately on a client error not understanding what to submit or when to submit. So um as we're working with Niko we are working in exchanging ideas from some of our colleagues from across the nation on what we can adopt and deploy in Franklin County that will work to decrease our air rates.
▶ 1:23:23Thank you for that. Uh, I appreciate your your time this morning. I will now uh go to Mr. McGovern.
▶ 1:23:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um given what's transpired in this Congress, I I just feel like I I need to say a few things. And I think states have no clue about what's about to hit them. Uh and to my Republican friends, uh you know, in July you guys passed your big ugly bill making the largest cut in history to America's anti-hunger programs. And now three months later, now you want to hold your very first hearing of the nutrition subcommittee.
▶ 1:23:58I mean, really, I mean, you I mean, do you guys even realize how absurd that is? You're supposed to do the hearing before you pass the bill, not 3 months later after it is passed. And I don't know what you expect to learn today. You slash the most important program that helps fight hunger. What do you think's going to happen? This Republican majority majority has become a giant rubber stamp for the rich. And that's what it's all about for you guys, giving another tax break to CEOs and billionaires.
▶ 1:24:27And what's unbelievable to me is that now you guys have the goal to come down here and try to lecture us about how states should be administering food assistance programs. You know what states have the worst hunger? Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma. You know what these states have in common? They're led by Republicans. You know what state has one of the lowest hunger rates?
▶ 1:24:50my state in Massachusetts, California, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Rhode Island, all places where hunger is lower, all led by Democratic governors. So if you want to talk about outcomes, check the scoreboard and maybe focus on lowering hunger in your own states before lecturing us about how to administer food assistance in ours. And by the way, didn't Republicans used to claim they were for states rights? States rights my foot.
▶ 1:25:17One of the reasons we do better in Massachusetts is because we take full advantage of a state option called categorical eligibility. It's a fancy term for the idea that working families shouldn't get punished for earning a few extra bucks or saving a little bit for an emergency when it comes to food assistance. Categorical eligibility makes sure SNAP is a bridge, not a trap.
▶ 1:25:41So, if someone is working hard but is still struggling, making say $30,000 a year, they can still get some food assistance in Massachusetts. In Mississippi, that same person would be cut off at $20,000. You get no benefits. In Mississippi, you'd have $20,000 a year to cover rent, utilities, health care, and food. And that is the recipe for keeping people in poverty. And I know you guys are obsessed with error rates because you want to imply that SNAP is a wasteful program.
▶ 1:26:11We hear it over and over and over again in this committee. But what about the error rates when it comes to the Pentagon? This week, Congress is advancing an NDAA bill that sends nearly a trillion dollars to the Pentagon. And not a peep for most Republicans about sending a trillion dollars to an agency that spends $1,500 for a coffee cup. But when it comes to food assistance for poor poor people, all of a sudden, Republicans are up in arms about error rates. I mean, give me a break. And by the way, I'm glad someone from Wyoming is here to talk about how to reduce error rates.
▶ 1:26:41200,000 more people live in my congressional district than in the entire state of Wyoming. And Wyoming spends $100 a person on administering SNAP. That's the most in the nation. So, if the point of this hearing is to imply that other states should have the same error rate as Wyoming, you're going to need to double or triple how much this country spends uh on on food assistance, not slash food assistance like you did in this big ugly bill. And you know what?
▶ 1:27:09With all due respect, the number I look at isn't just the error rate. It is the hunger rate. We live in the richest country in the world, and it is a moral outrage that we have hunger. And that's and that's what we should be talking about in this hearing. And instead, you guys are using this excuse again to once again attack and demonize SNAP and to cover up how your big ugly bill is going to screw over poor people. Because of the big ugly bill, we're going backwards on hunger.
▶ 1:27:37And we are going to have more families struggling to keep food in the fridge, more hungry kids, more red tape for working parents who are just trying to cook a healthy meal for their kids. And it's also that Republicans can hand another round of tax breaks to the CEOs and billionaires. It's a national disgrace and instead of this hearing, we should be holding a hearing on how to end hunger. This subcommittee and this committee should lead that effort. Instead, Republicans are doing the opposite.
▶ 1:28:03Making SNAP making SNAP better is something that we all that's something that a goal we all share. But that's not what this is about. I mean, we we know what this is about. This is about demonizing a program that helps put food on the table for poor people. Um, and quite frankly, the idea that we are not tackling the hunger issue, that we are making it worse, I think is a disgrace. And I again I thank the witnesses for being here. But I just I have I had to say for the record what what what really is going on here.
▶ 1:28:32Um, and it's not about the integrity of the program. Um, it's about cutting people uh off the program. I yield back. And now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for five minutes.
▶ 1:28:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for testifying today. Miss Schmidt, Wyoming does an exemplary job of administering SNAP program and has sustained an impressive error rate of less than 6% since 2015. In your testimony, you highlight the need to vet potential opportunities for SNAP expansions through small pilot programs and extensive conversations with other states.
▶ 1:29:13Can you share with the committee some of the lessons learned from these pilot programs and conversations with other states?
▶ 1:29:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman. representative. Um, an example that I could give you is the on demand interview waiver and that is a waiver that we were just recently uh awarded. So, as we were um applying for this waiver, we did extensive review of the applications that were submitted by other states and from there then we picked a handful of states that seem to resemble and have experiences maybe similar to ours.
▶ 1:29:47Um we we then started to reach out to those states and ask the questions about pre and post Did the waiver actually meet the need that was discussed in their application? Did it have the end result? And then through that we made some decisions about implementation. And in this case we did fully implement the waiver and and expect to see um good results as good returns on that result.
▶ 1:30:14and how those lessons influence the way you administer SNAP in Wyoming. And pull your microphone just a little closer. I've ridden a farm tractor too much in my life.
▶ 1:30:24Thank you. Um, and I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
▶ 1:30:28And how have those lessons influenced the way you administer SNAP in Wyoming? um representative. We are a small conservative state and we are fairly riskadverse to trying new things because of the potential impact it can have on our air rates. The credibility of our SNAP program is integral to positive public support.
▶ 1:30:51So we spend a lot of attention thinking about how it is that the right people who are eligible for these services indeed receive these services. So it's a combination of wanting families, elderly people to have those services in addition to recognizing that um the eligibility process, the quality control process and the fraud process are a big part of that. So that is what we look at when we look at options and waiverss.
▶ 1:31:20And then that really does direct a lot of the decision making from here there on out. Sometimes we choose to move forward with a pilot and look at it as an option. other times we've decided it doesn't work very well and then we we resend the
▶ 1:31:36Continuing with you your testimony and you mentioned this before so let's expand on it. Your testimony indicates that due to limited staff Wyoming tends to be more risk aversive. You've noted that in changing the program. Can you walk us through the different factors your state considers before adopting a state policy option in SNAP, especially as it pertains to staffing and error Mr.
▶ 1:31:59Chairman, Representative, the very steps are actually part of our quality control process and where we're we're always understanding where our deficits are um through the information that we gather, the data that we gather, we always see where maybe we need to shore up and then we wait for opportunities that to come by, whether it's options, whether it's lessons learned from other states that maybe we could adopt to address that deficit.
▶ 1:32:27I think the foundation is is that we always recognize what's happening within our program and that is because we are small and that is because we have a small staff. The conversations are a little bit easier had and we have opportunities to connect more. Um as part of that then we look to the other states as we see options come through and if it feels like it's going to be something that's going to help us address the deficit then that's when we start to walk into it.
▶ 1:32:56So, from the very get-go, we may we may disregard options that are available to us because we know that that's not going to be something that we can feasibly do while keeping um an eye on our air rate and also understanding the sheer limitations of the number of staff. There's only so much our staff can do.
▶ 1:33:15Mr. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I'd simply like to note I appreciate the director from Wyoming because being able to demonstrate projects and test changes before implementing how you ensure a well-run program where it should be. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 1:33:30And I recognize the gentleoman from North Carolina, Miss Adams.
▶ 1:33:34Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and and uh thank you all for you for being here. uh SNAP payment errors rate error rates uh refer to the percentage of of of benefit payments that are issued incorrectly, whether it's overpayments, whether underpayments, or administrative errors. And a 10% error rate actually means that the program is getting it right 90% of the time, reflecting a relatively strong track record in administering benefits accurately.
▶ 1:34:02But this one big ugly bill made it so that states with 10% error rates face extremely high cost share penalties. That said, I still have critical uh questions that remain unanswered. For example, what happens if a state cannot afford its new required share of SNAP benefit costs under the recent law?
▶ 1:34:23This was a key concern that I raised uh in July in a July 1st letter, but but we have yet to receive clarity on the potential consequences or the solutions. Meanwhile, grocery prices continue to rise, putting increasing strain on families who are already living paycheck to paycheck. Despite a White House commitment from day one to address these rising costs, Republicans have instead chosen to cut SNAP benefits and I want to say significantly so.
▶ 1:34:53Uh these cuts will reduce the amount families will have to spend on groceries and that's going to make it harder to afford basic necessities. Reduced benefits mean less spending at SNAP retailers, which negatively affects farmers and food distributors and and local economies, especially in rural areas and small towns. Uh uh Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to submit my July letter into the record.
▶ 1:35:23like North Carolina, Ohio, and many other states operate under bianial state budgets, meaning their budget cycles are two years long, not annual. And this creates major challenges. States are being asked to budget now for costs that they won't even know until October 2027. combined with other new cost share responsibilities from Medicaid cuts in the one big ugly bill, it puts states in an impossible position.
▶ 1:35:50You know, I've served for 20 years in the North Carolina House and I know firsthand that states cannot afford budget cuts under these conditions and they simply can't afford these new burdens. So, Miss Bivvens, since you administer SNAP in a state with a bianial budget cycle, what concerns does this raise for you? Thank you so much. Um, as it states today, if we were to um, impose our error rates, we will be paying $300
▶ 1:36:20We are working currently right now, of course, um, of course, our air rate has gone down and we work closely with our state partners um, in trying to innovate, but the burden would be would be critical. it would it would it would debilitate our um our human services branch in order to assist our residents.
▶ 1:36:40So So Miss Green, what feedback have you heard from these states regarding budgeting uh for these new cost shares and uncertain future costs?
▶ 1:36:50Thank you for the question. Throughout the past several months when this was being discussed and then since it's been passed, we have heard significant concerns from our members across the country about their ability to uh for their states to be able to fill the uh shifts that have been shifted to them for costs on SNAP. Of course, that includes both the administrative shift as well as the potential for paying part of the benefit, which states have never had to do before.
▶ 1:37:19I do also want to say because you've been talking about payment error rates that um fiscal year 26 starts in less than 30 days and that could define up to the first two years of a state's cost share and states are still working on um and waiting for uh the rest of the guidance from USDA to be able to implement the changes which could impact their error rates as well.
▶ 1:37:41Thank thank you very much. Um Mr. Chairman, I did ask to have my letter submitted. Okay, great. Thank you. and I'm going to uh yield uh my time to to Miss Hayes.
▶ 1:37:51Thank you for the time. I just ask for unanimous consent to introduce a Wy Wyoming public radio transcript article into the record. The article is entitled quote here's what changes to SNAP mean for Wyoming. End quote. And in it, Karen Livers, who is the senior administrator for the Department of Family Services, is quoted as saying, "We either get the money or the SNAP program goes away." End quote.
▶ 1:38:19So, even in Wyoming, there's concern about the lack of federal resources coming to the state in order to um continue these programs and administer them. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
▶ 1:38:33I ask for unanimous consent.
▶ 1:38:35Without objection.
▶ 1:38:36Thank you.
▶ 1:38:37All right. We'll go to the gentleoman from Illinois, Representative Miller.
▶ 1:38:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing and for providing the muchneeded oversight of SNAP. As a mom, grandma, and farmer, I know the how important food security is to all hard-working families. But I'm concerned about how liberal policies have damaged SNAP, all at the expense of the honest Americans and all at the expense of my constituents in Illinois.
▶ 1:39:08For example, when states allow illegal aliens to join SNAP to essentially steal money from the American people, that is a major abuse of the program and one thankfully that will soon end. I worked with this committee to make sure that language was included and reconciliation that would remove unlawful illegal aliens from SNAP. But this is only one small step in the right direction. Overall, the abuse is staggering.
▶ 1:39:39Since 2022, more than 21 million dollars in benefits have been stolen from Illinois families. Illinois has one of the highest error rates in the country. This is a failure due to poor state management. SNAP was also designed to be a nutrition program, not a junk food subsidy.
▶ 1:40:04That means Congress must act ask, how do we ensure SNAP dollars are safeguarded for American families, not stolen and abused by radical state governors or spent on junk food? Miss Schmidt, Wyoming has a reputation for tight accountability in the SNAP program. From your experience running a state agency, what role should Congress play in ensuring that states are held accountable so families don't pay the price for mismanagement?
▶ 1:40:38Mr. Chairman, Representative, um, thank you for the question. The eligibility as you mentioned is established by the feds in the federal government and then the states then enforce those. The method that we've chosen to enforce it is to ask for um verification proof a birth certificate for example and then we verify that through the department of homeland security save system. So we have both electronic ways of verification and then physical ways of
▶ 1:41:07That's fantastic. Also, Miss Schmidt, as someone who has had to manage eligibility determinations at the state level, what steps should Congress make to make sure SNAP benefits go to American families first and that states cannot use loopholes like Illinois is using they don't require the um driver's license or um a birth certificate to extend benefits to those who should not
▶ 1:41:36U Mr. Chairman and Representative, you know, in part of my written testimony, I made a comment about how every state has to make the decisions based on its constituency and Wyoming makes a lot of our decisions based on what it is that will be supported both through our public and through our leadership.
▶ 1:41:56And so as as we think about what it is that we would need then in order to make sure that we are performing the best um one of the big requests would be is is consistent information coming from our partners at FNS and the USDA. And I think that consistency in terms of conversations across all states helps anyone who's re um anyone who's applying for SNAP to know what it is that is expected, what they need to verify.
▶ 1:42:26And then as as people move, as they do from state to state, then they have a greater chance of being successful in making a a um a sound and legitimate application. So technical assistance, consistent technical assistance across our partners and across our states, I think would be one way that um the government could help us.
▶ 1:42:48Well, I appreciate that you've been a success story that we can look to. And also in my remaining time, would you like to respond to Chairman Hayes uh comment about the radio program cutting SNAP in your state?
▶ 1:43:06Uh Mr. Chairman, thank you. Um the reality is is that there has been a reduction in the administrative support from the federal government. Um we've talked about that today. We've gone from in the state from 50% of the cost to 75% of the cost. Of course that's going to mean an increase in state general fund in our case to support the program. We're on a bianual budget as well.
▶ 1:43:31Um, our legislature will be convening in February to discuss the governor's budget that will be presented to the legislature in late November, early December. And then I see from there a conversation, a very local conversation about the merits of SNAP, who it serves and and what the impact that program has.
▶ 1:43:53It makes it now a very local conversation and um and but at the end there is still a reality that there will be um some responsibility of Wyoming to pick up some of the tab.
▶ 1:44:06It's a new day here and American taxpayer benefits are going to be going to Americans. Thank you.
▶ 1:44:14I'll now recognize gentleoman from Oregon, Miss Selenus. Thank you uh to Chair Finstead and Ranking Member Hayes for convening us and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Roughly 740,000 Oregonians or one in six residents rely on SNAP to keep themselves and their families from going hungry. And that includes at least a 100,000 just in my district. Nearly nine and 10 Oregon households that receive SNAP also depend on Medicaid.
▶ 1:44:40And we all know that under HR1, the um the big ugly bill, uh my Republican colleagues at the direction of President Trump have explicitly targeted these folks. The sweeping cuts to healthcare and nutrition programs in this legislation will devastate those who are already struggling the most. One of the most harmful aspects of this bill is how it changes the partnership, as we've been talking about today, between states and SNAP. States already face tight budgets, and this legislation forces them to absorb enormous new costs.
▶ 1:45:09I know my state of Oregon is facing really tight budgets with the the tariffs and the the drop in economic activity. The burden could be so great that states may have no choice but to scale back SNAP benefits. And to be frank, I suspect that shifting these costs to states was designed to have exactly that effect. So, Miss Green, according to state data, Oregon expects to take on about 75 million in new administrative costs each year because the one big ugly bill reduces the federal share of SNAP administrative costs from 50% to 25%.
▶ 1:45:38And if the state also fails to meet the bill's strict error rate requirements, that 75 million could be compounded by upwards of $250 million in annual benefit costs. Given these pressures, how likely is it that states, especially those already facing budget shortfalls, will be forced to reduce benefits to balance their
▶ 1:46:00Thank you for the question. Our understanding of the uh legislation right now is that states have to pay the full benefit amount that a household is eligible for and therefore absent any legislative change states wouldn't be able to for example only pay 85% of the benefit to avoid the state share.
▶ 1:46:23So because of that, our understanding is that either states have to make up that share or they have they will not be able to operate a SNAP program at all.
▶ 1:46:36That is our current understanding.
▶ 1:46:38Thank you. Do you anticipate that the steep administrative cost share could actually make it harder for states to improve their error rates which I believe is what we are trying to get at here since staff reductions or other cuts may actually undermine program
▶ 1:46:54Yes. So what we hear from our members is reducing payment error rates is not uh one uh easy step to be able to do that. It's really a whole of system approach to it. And some of the most important things there are the training of staff which of course take money and uh system changes and upgrades and new resources such as uh income verification tools. All of these again take significant funding.
▶ 1:47:23We have seen in the past for example actually in Oregon who was in financial penalty because of having a significantly high error rate for two years in a row has now they used the option to reinvest half of their penalty amount and have significantly dropped their error rate in the past year I think because of the breadth of different approaches that they're looking at and again being able to use that dedicated uh funding to improve
▶ 1:47:51Thank you. And I know we've talked about this today, too, but one of the most important flexibilities the states have in administering SNAP is the ability to wave work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependence in areas with high unemployment. Before the passage of the one big ugly bill, states had discretion to grant waiverss either for areas with unemployment above 10% or for areas lacking sufficient jobs to provide employment for individuals. Oftentimes, these are in rural areas.
▶ 1:48:16The big ugly bill eliminates that flexibility by restricting waiverss solely to areas with unemployment above 10%. This year in 2025, Oregon is using these waivers in 30 counties, 30 of our city, 36 counties and seven tribal areas. Collectively, these communities have unemployment rates at least 20% higher than the national average.
▶ 1:48:36Uh, Miss Bivvens, um, given some of these indicators, do you believe restricting waiverss only to areas with unemployment above 10% undermines our ability to respond quickly and effectively during
▶ 1:48:48Yes, I do, and thank you so much. I think that, um, currently, right now in Franklin County, our unemployment rate, um, the last time I checked, it was we don't have a 10 a 10% um error rate and that is very narrow for a lot of counties across the country and so just that indicator alone is very
▶ 1:49:12Thank you. I um I yield back.
▶ 1:49:16Thank you. I'll now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
▶ 1:49:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thanks to all of you on the panel for your time today and and your willingness to come and share. Um, my colleagues today seem to be defending a status quo of expensive policies that aren't ultimately helping hungry Americans. Record high payment error rates, food assistance to illegal aliens, and working capable adults, and using loopholes to to qualify people for government assistant uh assistance.
▶ 1:49:48But what my colleagues fail to recognize is that the reforms in HR1 that was passed actually in fact preserve benefits for the truly needy who Congress intended for SNAP to serve. Now, my home state of North Carolina is unique in the way it administers SNAP benefits. Each of our 100 counties oversees the program rather than a state office.
▶ 1:50:15And this model of administration has been singled out today in some of the testimony. And I want to set the record straight for my constituences constituents back home. Miss Bivvens, a question for you. Just yes or no. Does HR1 explicitly require that states push the cost of SNAP over to individual counties?
▶ 1:50:45Just yes or no? Yes, ma'am.
▶ 1:50:48No. Well, and and thank you for clarifying that for the record. States have never been required to pass SNAP cost on to counties and HR1 did not change that whatsoever. So, I find it incredibly misleading when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that counties are going to bear the cost of this legislation.
▶ 1:51:10And as your testimony points out, in six out of the 10 county administered states, the state shares the SNAP administrative expenses with the counties. And in 41 states, counties bear no cost. Now, it's true that the federal government will be contributing less to SNAP now and that the difference in cost will have to come from somewhere, but it's not a one forone swap.
▶ 1:51:35And when states and counties implement HR1's reforms, they will find that SNAP will be stronger and help the very people it was designed to assist. So that is why I object to the idea that counties in my district will be left out to dry as a result of this legislation.
▶ 1:51:53And frankly, I call on the governor and other state leaders in North Carolina to work with counties and ensure that the resources to meet the needs of their SNAP participants are done and the law is followed. Um, real quick, just a second question in the remainder of my time. U, Miss Schmidt, Congress has a duty to ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly by the states.
▶ 1:52:20And this is especially true when it comes to SNAP and the effects that payment error rates have on federal resources. And that's why, frankly, I'm very proud of the reconciliation bill's reforms to SNAP as it holds the states accountable for the operations of its SNAP programs while at the same time protecting the program for those it is designed to protect.
▶ 1:52:43In reading in the testimony that you submitted, Miss Smith, you mentioned in your testimony that you manage a quote basic SNAP program in Wyoming. C can you just expand on what you mean by that and how that has contributed to your state's low payment error rate?
▶ 1:53:04Mr. Chairman, Representative, um the the reference to a basic program really comes down to the minimal options and waiverss that we pursue. Um also in my testimony, I noted that any type of implementation of an option or a waiver can be disruptive to um the practices in the field and then therefore are felt then in our error rate.
▶ 1:53:31So, when I say minimal, I really do mean that we, as I've um testified here earlier, we really do try to pinpoint what the problem is that we're trying to solve and then implement the appropriate option or waiver or solution based on that. Um, that is the best way for us to be able to administer within our means, so to speak.
▶ 1:53:53um we we do not have the luxury of a lot of staff to be able to um you know be as innovative as I think maybe we would like to be. But the reality is is that we operate a constrained program.
▶ 1:54:07Well, it sounds like Wyoming's SNAP program, while it may be basic when compared to other states, uh actually is working better uh than most other programs. And it seems to me that uh this is somewhat of a good model that other states should follow. And again, I'm I'm grateful for all of you on the panel. I'm grateful for your time and your willingness to come and share with us today. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:54:32Thank you. Uh the chair now recognizes a gentleoman from Hawaii, Miss Ms. from Hawaii, Miss Takuda, for five minutes.
▶ 1:54:38Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's be very clear. Whether the counties are bearing the burden or the states, at the end of the day, it's no different. People are about to go hungry. This new day that we see dawning means that over four million people in this country will go without less food on their table. In my home state, we're talking about 50% of those SNAP households being children. Children that can't go to work and support themselves to put food on that table right now.
▶ 1:55:06So, I just want to be really clear and follow up on my colleagueu's previous question. Miss Green, you stated that um if states have to if they can't take, you know, make up the shortfall, I think you said, then this program will close. Explain what you mean by that. If what happens very clearly in plain English, what happens if states can't make up the shortfall
▶ 1:55:34absent? Thank you, Representative Takuda. Absent any change to the current legislation, our understanding is that if states cannot pay the funding that has been shifted to them, they will not be able to operate a SNAP program.
▶ 1:55:48Okay. So when you say they can't operate the SNAP program, what does that mean for beneficiaries?
▶ 1:55:53It means that SNAP as it currently is would no longer be offered in the state. So no one would receive SNAP as it currently is in the state.
▶ 1:56:00Okay. Okay. So, there's some catastrophic potential ramifications from this bill as what you're if a state program closes, that doesn't mean you're just cutting off some benefits to a few people. They will not have that EBT card to go to the ger to be able to pick up food for their family.
▶ 1:56:20Yes, as it as we currently understand it. Again, we are still waiting for USDA FNS interpretation and of course, uh there could be changes to the law, but currently that is how we understand it.
▶ 1:56:31Now, I know as a small state, um similar Wyoming, um no matter what, you are going to have significant ripple effects. We do live in food deserts. Food deserts, by the way, cost a whole lot more money. Sometimes even co you know, the cost to administer a program costs a whole lot more money. So we're talking about shifting 75% of administrative cost burden now to the states and likely depending on your air rate 5% or more of that state cost share for the program.
▶ 1:56:57As you look at the broad reach of states especially perhaps larger states but especially I'm concerned about rural America that bears a higher burden in terms of the number of SNAP households that exists in our community. How many states could be potentially looking at this catastrophic ending of the SNAP program, taking away of EBT cards from families that need it Any thoughts on who can make up that balance?
▶ 1:57:25And I'd like you to keep in mind, or anyone can answer this, the fact that we're not just talking about SNAP here. We cut over a trillion dollars from Medicaid. We cut a lot of other support services. that states are now going to have to figure out do I pay for someone to have food on the table which food is medicine or do I help to restore or provide some level of health care especially again let's think about rural and remote America but let's also think about urban America that has a high density high demand high need um so are states going to really how many
▶ 1:57:55states are really going to be able to look at covering all these costs versus taking away as you said those EBT cards closing those programs And we heard those words as well from the transcript that ranking member Hayes has put into the record. Closing the program, the SNAP program. Any want to take a shot at that?
▶ 1:58:17So, thank you. I would add as you're talking about, you know, there are multiple changes and really when we talk to our members, especially in executive levels and their state agencies, that they will have to be looking at the budget impacts not just from SNAP, but also with Medicaid. Also when there were proposals for example to to cut lie or other programs within human services.
▶ 1:58:38We also know that the eligibility workers for example on these programs uh in many states operate or work on you know SNAP tan uh tanniff Medicaid and more. So we don't view any of these in a silo. So I appreciate you in raising that. I also want to clarify because there are two different you know large cost shifts that we're talking about.
▶ 1:59:00One being the admin costs in uh increasing the state share to 75% which is of course a very important change as well as really the benefits being what we see as the biggest challenge that states would be looking at into whether or not they can operate the program because that could be as some examples were shared hundreds of millions of dollars in a year per
▶ 1:59:22And I just want to add I know I'm running out of time Mr. chair, but food security is everywhere. As I mentioned, one in six in my district, the households are food insecure. Even in Wyoming, especially small states, food insecure actually rose to 15.5% as you know in 2023. Our national average is Take a look when you walk outside over 1 in 10 people right now cannot put food on the table and we're about to see catastrophic loss if states cannot make up their cost share and these admin costs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
▶ 1:59:52Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ben Nordon.
▶ 1:59:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey, um, just want to establish some bonafites here. I I was raised in abject real poverty by a single mother and we had food stamps and it was actually a stamp that you put on a card when you went to the grocery store. I subsidized school lunches, government cheese, the whole thing. And I volunteered to be on the subcommittee for two congresses in a and if I get reelected, I'm going to be on this this subcommittee for three congresses in a row because these programs have merit.
▶ 2:00:25And this is this is one of the one of the things that we can actually unite together with like I don't know if I don't know if the hell is going to freeze over, but I actually agree with Mr. McGovern on on a lot of these things. Um and I agree with my Democrat colleagues like there should be chips for EBT cards so they can't get skimmed. You know what I mean? And these programs should be as widely available as possible to the people that are in need, not just widely available.
▶ 2:00:55And we're talking about having illegal aliens on these programs. SNAP is not a global program. It's a program paid for by American citizens for American citizens. And I think that we can agree on that. I think that's that's wonderful. Um and but there's room for improvement. And the error rates uh the initial idea was to charge every state 25%.
▶ 2:01:15If for error rates and and I strenuously objected to that and we got it focused in a tiered system uh to focus on the individual states error rates to and the purpose of that is not to remove people from the programs. The purpose of that is to encourage responsible bureaucracy and and that can be done and people are starting to feel the heat and they're focusing on this. So check this out. Uh the state of Wisconsin spends $38.52 per month to administer this program.
▶ 2:01:44Now Ohio on the other hand spends $97 per month per person to administer these programs. So that's twice as much. So Miss Bivvens, can you can you explain to me the difference? Why would it cost $97 in the state of Ohio to administer these programs when it cost $38 in the state of Wisconsin?
▶ 2:02:04Thank you. um serve I would say for several reasons. Um in order to as you know um because you're familiar with Ohio we're not going to talk about Franklin County. We're a county of 1.3 million people.
▶ 2:02:14We have about 183,000 folks that are that are receiving SNAP.
▶ 2:02:18It requires a staff person to be trained to administer to do all the things in order to ensure that that resident has what they need regarding their EBT card. In addition to what I will say is and I'm not familiar with the cost of living in your state so I apologize cost of living um across the country has
▶ 2:02:39Okay. So Miss Bivvens the cost of living has absolutely nothing to do with the administration program. So hold on a sec now. Let's go. We're going to go back to Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter this little little uh bit of paperwork I got into the record
▶ 2:02:55without objection.
▶ 2:02:56All right. So check this out. Here's the state of Wisconsin, and we are one of the most efficient states in the entire country. They're spending $4.4 million to issue EBT cards, $1.8 million for quality control, $200,000 for management evaluation, $4.5 million for fraud control. We can agree. Those are all great things. Now, check this out. They're spending $7.3 million. This is under the leadership of Tony Ivers or actually his chief of staff in an autopen.
▶ 2:03:25They're they're spending $7.3 million for automated data processing development. If it's automatic, why is it still costing $7.3 million? They're spending $42 million for automated data processing operations. If it's automated, why is the state of Wisconsin spending $42 million for an automated process? The purposes of automating things is to make them much more efficient, less expensive. Uh $1.3 million for fair hearings. I get that. Now, check this one out.
▶ 2:03:50The state of Wisconsin under Tony Iver's chief of staff in the autopen is spending $43.2 million for SNAP employment and training programs. So SNAP employment and training programs are part of SNAP and they're they're they're hiding this under administrative costs. Now extrapolate that across the entire nation. We're talking about hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars that are being misallocated. And I was the hungry child when I went to sleep. And I don't want and neither do my Democrat colleagues.
▶ 2:04:20We don't want a single child to go to bed hungry in the United States of America. But when when we're spending that's we're spending over 11 billion dollar for administrative costs. That's what we need to to nip in the bud. So that money goes to the hungry child. And that's what we're trying to get at. There's no viciousness here. We want every single person who needs food assistance in this country to receive it.
▶ 2:04:49And that's why we are so adamant about getting rid of stuff like this. That's why we want the state of Ohio to spend $38 a month administering this program. Vice $97 and my time is expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:05:03Thank you. And now recogn What is the document?
▶ 2:05:17Mr. Chairman, can I respond?
▶ 2:05:18I speak Wisconsin, so I knew what he was saying, but go ahead.
▶ 2:05:21So, uh, Madame Ranking member, what this is, it comes from the Wisconsin uh, Department of Human Services, and it is their it is their grid provided to us uh, as far as the breakdown of the administrative cost. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask you unanimous consent if I can uh, enter into the record the uh, paperwork from the Wisconsin Department of of Human Services that details out the administrative costs of the uh, SNAP program. Thank you.
▶ 2:05:47You're welcome, ma'am. And thank you for clarifying that.
▶ 2:05:49All right. And now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Figures, for five minutes.
▶ 2:05:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let the record reflect that Mr. Van Orton has agreed to work with us to get the uh the chip cards uh in place. And so we are we are going to uh we're going to do that. I think that's common sense. It's something that's costing real money. Um you know, it's it's it's really costing real money and having negative effects. Um I represent uh second congressional district in Alabama. Uh it's one of the poorest congressional districts in this country.
▶ 2:06:21About a one in4 rate of SNAP participation uh in my district. And as several of my colleagues have pointed out that under the reconciliation bill, uh they have said that the people that need the uh aid the most uh we'll still get it. Um, but I want to be clear with what we have in our possession in terms of knowledge right now about what happens if a state cannot meet the cost sharing participation that those people can no longer get it.
▶ 2:06:50And so this conversation has shifted totally away um from limiting eligibility to certain people to eliminating the program for everyone. Um, that's my understanding of it. And Miss Green, I know you've answered this question already, but is that your understanding of what happens here? If a state cannot meet the benefit cost sharing?
▶ 2:07:13Yes. As currently written, if a state cannot meet the benefit cost sharing and the admin cost sharing that they would not be able to operate a SNAP program.
▶ 2:07:21Miss Bivven, is that your understanding?
▶ 2:07:24And Miss Smith, is that your understanding? I know we heard some or we saw um uh ranking member Hayes enter something into the record u a statement on behalf of um I believe the same organization the same agency that you work with but is that your
▶ 2:07:39Yes sir, that's our understanding. So to be clear, to be crystal clear, what this bill did was create the for SNAP programs to no longer exist in any shape, form, or fashion in terms of providing SNAP benefits in states that could not afford to or chose not to for whatever reason meet the cost sharing.
▶ 2:08:08Is that is that a fair assessment of that, Mr. screen.
▶ 2:08:12Yes, sir.
▶ 2:08:13Miss Bivvens.
▶ 2:08:14Yes, it is.
▶ 2:08:15Miss Schmidt.
▶ 2:08:16Yes, sir.
▶ 2:08:18I almost just want to sit in silence to let that sink in. The United States of America just signed into law a bill that will allow states essentially to determine whether or not they will provide food assistance to anyone anyone fedally funded food assistance to That
▶ 2:08:49would include children. Is that correct, Miss Bivvens?
▶ 2:08:54That would include disabled individuals. Is that correct, Miss Green?
▶ 2:09:00Yes. If they no longer operated a
▶ 2:09:03that would include homeless veterans. Is that the case, Miss Smith? Or would there be some exemption for them?
▶ 2:09:11That's our understanding. Yes.
▶ 2:09:14That's a sad day. That's a sad day when we sit here and look at that. And in and in my district, you know, in my state, the $172 million would be Alabama's cost sharing um requirement given our most recent error rate of 8.5%. Uh which is something that we need to reassess how that's calculated because that is not a fair assessment of actual of actual errors. Um but this bill made no changes that I'm aware of.
▶ 2:09:42Um please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in terms of how error rates are calculated. Is that correct, Miss Green?
▶ 2:09:50Miss Bibbons.
▶ 2:09:51Is that your understanding as well, Miss
▶ 2:09:53Yes, sir. I had some questions that my staff uh prepared for me, and I thank you, Kyla, um for doing that. But as I sat through this hearing and the realities of, you know, some of the commentary that's being made and some of the statements and positions uh that people have been been taking, I felt the need to highlight the realities, the stark realities of what that of of what this bill potentially means in states that, you know, that do not
▶ 2:10:24uh meet the cost sharing. I think we all share the general objective and the hope and the moral value. I would like to think that um that we should be feeding hungry families, hungry people, and also creating pathways for them to come off food assistance. I am not one that believes poor people want to be poor. Um but I felt the need to highlight that. So I thank you guys for your response and I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
▶ 2:10:49Thank you. I would just like to enter into the record from the USDA food and nutrition services the SNAP state activity report for FY2023. And according to this latest data in Ohio's admin administrative costs per case were $33.31, not the $90 that was previously stated in this hearing. Um,
▶ 2:11:14without objection.
▶ 2:11:16Thank you. I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Weed, for five minutes.
▶ 2:11:24Thank you. I want to thank uh Chairman Finstad and Ranking Member Hayes for holding this hearing today. While quite a bit of the rhetoric surrounding today's topic may have you think otherwise, I think all of us on this subcommittee do agree that SNAP and hunger prevention is important and that it is even more important that the people who really need the support can get it.
▶ 2:11:47With that in mind, I think we can also agree that with all our state's unique needs and interests, it's an overall good thing that each state has the opportunity to customize their SNAP program. However, it is clear that those options have also moved the program away from what Congress has intended. Additionally, I think it has become abundantly clear that some states want to make the program their own, which I think can be a good thing. But they also want the federal government to foot the bill completely. Take my home state for example.
▶ 2:12:17Since the passage of the working families tax plan, I have heard from the Democrats of my state that we can't afford the changes that the bill made to the program. However, last year NPR reported that the state had quite the budget surplus, 4.6 billion to be exact. So, I would challenge the governor of my state of Wisconsin, Tony Ivers, to really prioritize this program the way that he claims to and utilize those funds for that purpose.
▶ 2:12:44Like with every other government assistance program, the state should contribute to the benefits, especially if they want to customize SNAP beyond what the federal law prescribes. So, Miss Green, can you walk through how each state determines which options that they will utilize? Uh, is it the governors, the state legislature, a mixture of both or is it something else entirely?
▶ 2:13:09Yes, and thank you so much for this question because if I can, I'd like to also just go back to what we were just talking about in that I do think when we're talking about state options, there is still room to look at policy flexibility beyond what's currently allowed in law to make it more feasible for a state to continue operating a program and to look at um their eligibility so that they could make it more affordable for the cost share.
▶ 2:13:32So I am glad that we're talking about policy options and flexibilities today and the future potential for where we can continue to look at flexibilities in partnership with state agencies. So to your question around how do states decide this, it really is uh it can defer across states and across what the issue is. So sometimes um again a policy option the agency can see that as a priority and raise that uh to their commissioner and have the governor sign off.
▶ 2:14:00Sometimes they need to have that approved by a board at the state and then sometimes it's actually passed by their state legislature to require them to use it. So for example, in some state legislatores they are required to use BBCE which we talked about earlier. So that would require a law change. Some also require them for example not to be able to use discretionary waiverss which are another work requirement waiver within ABOD. So it really does defer.
▶ 2:14:28All right. Thank you. Miss Schmidt, you paint the picture of a state that operates a lean but incredibly efficient program. Can you explain how Wyoming determines which flexibilities to use without overwhelmingly raising the cost to operate that program?
▶ 2:14:46Mr. Chairman, Representative um yes, we start with what is going to help us and then we analyze whether it'll in fact help us or hurt us. So essentially what we do is we look at what what issues are happening within our program whether that be around case processing whether that's around how we organize our work and then we look for the options that may best fit or wait for an option to show up that could that
▶ 2:15:17could support us. So it's really b it's really founded in the data that we that we gather through quality control and through feedback from our from our clients and also from our field staff and recognizing what is it that may be of best use for us to be able to first be effective and efficient but also to deliver what we need to deliver and that's a benefit. So starting with quality control, we then work through um problem identification.
▶ 2:15:47Then from problem identification, we look at what strategies are available. Then we then we address those strategies and determine what of those strategies are going to be most appropriate. Do they affect our error rate? That's a consideration we give. Are they politically feasible and palatable with our constituency? That's another factor that we'll consider. and then we'll start with slow research investigation and then potentially implementation on a pipe level if we think that that's an appropriate solution.
▶ 2:16:17All right. Thank you all three of you for being here for this very important hearing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:16:23Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Carbajal from California for five minutes.
▶ 2:16:27Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. Uh, Miss Bibbons, I represent the central coast of California, and before I came to the uh, Congress, I served on the board of supervisors for 12 years. As a county supervisor, I got to see firsthand the fiscal challenges counties face, particularly regarding administrative cost burdens as it relates to SNAP.
▶ 2:16:54In your testimony, you described how the recently enacted one big beautiful bill, which I call ugly bill, could create additional financial strain on counties instead of easing it. As you know, California along with nine other states delegate administration of SNAP to its counties, which serve over 34% of SNAP recipients nationwide.
▶ 2:17:16With the new requirements under this bill, counties will likely face increased Given that counties already shoulder a large share of the non-federal administrative costs, could you elaborate on how this bill's incoming financial burden will impact local county resources and the administration of SNAP services?
▶ 2:17:36Thank you so much um for the question. Um, so the way that this bill has been written in and although it is not, you know, a 100% cost from federal government, every county and every community around this country is dealing with some form of fiscal issue. Counties and communities currently right now rely on tax dollars as well as um sales tax dollars.
▶ 2:18:04If this were to go in place for our county alone, it would be an additional $7 million and we would have to make cuts in other areas in order to support residents in our community and that would be around the country and so and how that would impact the um administration of the SNAP benefit. We would have to make some tough deci decisions on how we would even administer it if we're going to incur additional more dollars in order to administer.
▶ 2:18:32And as you know, it takes a very long time to train a staff person at least a year to be proficient. So there's always going to be errors because it's not errorproof. And so you know what this could possibly do to communities and counties is it would lean our budgets and then we would have to make decisions on where what other areas do we cut and then what are those areas how does that impact the residents in our communities.
▶ 2:18:58So in essence, it's shifting cost burdens to states and local communities.
▶ 2:19:04Miss Bivven, when SNAP benefits are reduced, families oftent times turn to other local support to make ends meet. Can you describe how cuts to SNAP in counties like your own could impact other services like child care, housing assistance, and workforce development, and what that strain looks like for a county budget, which you've already done, but if you could elaborate just a tad more, that'd be great. Um, currently right now when we look at our SNAP residents, they are experiencing what we know to be are either underemployed, they're not making enough.
▶ 2:19:35And so it is because of high housing costs. It is because of high child care costs. It is because of all the inflation and cost of living the reason why folks depend on um SNAP benefits. And so, um, if this particularly if we were just to hypothetically say, let's say it goes away, um, in Franklin County or if it's weakened in Franklin County, our state legislator, um, we decreased our food pantry budget by $7 million.
▶ 2:20:04So, there's not enough food on the pantries in order to even support the decrease in the SNAP changes if we were to be extreme and to um, administer in a different way or to have it go away. Thank you.
▶ 2:20:18A lot has been said about fraud and and efficiency uh by this and um if you really wanted to do that, the big beautiful ugly bill would have really addressed that and it does little to address that issue. Um we've heard about the rise in EBT card skimming which leaves families without food assistance they rely on.
▶ 2:20:43From your perspective at the county level, what state options or federal flexibilities would be most effective in helping prevent fraud while ensuring families can securely access their SNAP benefits?
▶ 2:20:54And so from the county perspective, of course, we've talked about it before, the chips um leveraging the chip um option and also looking at the EBT card, no different than we look at our credit cards or or our debit cards from financial institutions. those securities that we put around those cards. Many of us receive alerts when we are in other communities that are not familiar with our financial institutions.
▶ 2:21:16So, looking at ways we can be more sophisticated or catch up with current day society as it relates to fiscal um financial institutions in order to trigger and target fraud when they are stolen.
▶ 2:21:29And Miss Bivvens, I'm running out of time, but does the big beautiful ugly bill address that in any way, shape, or form? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm out of time. I yield back. Now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Barrett, for five minutes.
▶ 2:21:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking member, and I appreciate this hearing about exploring state options in SNAP. And so, in that vein, I appreciate uh all of you witnesses being here uh and sharing your ideas. And so, I'm going to start with Miss Schmidt. Uh you mentioned that combat that in order to combat fraud your team implemented front-end eligibility FE.
▶ 2:22:08Uh could you elaborate on the structure of this tool and how it helps investigate potential fraud? And could you additionally explain the difference between this and what you referred to as the pay pay and chase model.
▶ 2:22:25Mr. Chairman, Representative, thank you. Um, we first learned about the front-end eligibility at the United Council on Welfare Fraud conference. And when we learned about this particular project, we applied to the to FNS, the USDA FNS for a fraud framework grant. And this was back in August of We were issued $750,000 in the initial grant.
▶ 2:22:52Um, and the biggest part of the grant was used for asset verification. Uh the original period of the grant was from August of 2022 through September 24, but because we got a late start, we extended it until um March of 2025. So our grant just ended this last spring, we will continue this grant um because we did find that it prevented a lot of what you mentioned, which is the pay and chase.
▶ 2:23:21So essentially without the grant we would make a payment. We would issue a a benefit then to discover it was fraudulent and then have to pursue actions in order to retrieve those dollars. Um it is inefficient for us.
▶ 2:23:36It's not a good use of our small staff um to be to have to go chase down, but rather looking at potential fraud at the beginning of the case and then making the decision about whether or not that case should be um considered for Not all inappropriate, not all information that we receive is fraudulently provided. oftentimes, as was testified earlier, it's a it's a client making a mistake, a misunderstanding on what they thought the question was.
▶ 2:24:07So, it's also a good way to provide technical assistance to our staff to help them to be able to ask the questions a little bit more targeted or correctly so that we can avoid fraud from the very get-go. It's a prevention approach more so than it is a reactive
▶ 2:24:25Thank you. And I, you know, I like the idea of of prevention instead of having to try to recover those dollars. So I commend you for that taking that uh program to take a look at it. Uh you know, in another area uh uh Miss Green, I want to ask you in artificial intelligence is really really taking off and uh it's of interest to me how we might use that. So, do you know of any states that use advanced technology to improve efficiency?
▶ 2:24:55Uh, what are the biggest barriers that states face in making technological advancements and investments and how can we help them uh on the federal level?
▶ 2:25:07Thank you for the question, Representative Baird. So, our members are also really excited about the potential of using AI or artificial intelligence in SNAP, especially when they continue to share about challenges with staffing and turnover and really looking at it as an opportunity to help make up for that capacity. Although, of course, it does take uh funding and investment into highquality technology, including for things like user testing to make sure it works well on the front end.
▶ 2:25:37to uh to answer the second part of your question first where some examples are. The examples actually right now are pretty limited because as I had mentioned earlier from our perspective and what we hear a lot from our members is that the USDA food nutrition service has been pretty reticent to approve abilities to use automation or AI and and there has been some framework but really what our members would like to see is some more direct guidance or guide rails on
▶ 2:26:07what they can apply for and to work with them to really make it happen. Where we do see some um use is around what non-marit staff can do. So things like if they they call into the call center uh IVR or integrated voice response can help direct them or help answer some of their questions.
▶ 2:26:25I know that Niko has shared about this happening in some counties as well and um some starting to use uh in their policy manuals or um things like OCR where you can help to translate a printed document into uh computer text.
▶ 2:26:45Well, Mr. Chairman, I got more questions, but I see my time's up, so I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 2:26:51All right. Thank you. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson for 5 minutes.
▶ 2:26:55Thank you so much, chairman. Thank you, our ranking member, Mrs. Hayes. Um, let me begin by first acknowledging and thanking all the participants for your testimony and your time today to share with us and also acknowledge the irony before us. We sit here in the agriculture committee and specifically the subcommittee on nutrition.
▶ 2:27:15And yet we have before us a sweeping bill that has already become law that has bypassed our deliberate body and our ability to even weigh in on this discussion. There have been no hearings, no testimony, no factf finding. This is simply has been legislation by branding. Uh, this bill tells us that it will lift families into dignity through expanded work requirements. But consider the single mother of two in Illinois where the law is clear.
▶ 2:27:45Children under 14 may not legally be left alone. The work the eligibility for students to stay and children to stay at home varies state by state. We come from very diverse states and very diverse backgrounds. Children under 14 may not stay at home alone. Therefore, every additional shift that that mother is asked to take mandated by this bill federally is simultaneously prohibited by our state in Illinois.
▶ 2:28:14Isn't this not a level of contradiction, a demand that she cannot meet? That is impossible. The contradiction is very real. The minimum age for children in Illinois is 14 that need parent supervision. Parents with younger children cannot comply with expanded work requirements unless affordable child care is made available. This bill does not provide any such funding. In effect, it creates a catch 22.
▶ 2:28:40Meet the federal requirement and violate state law or by or honor state law and you violate the federal SNAP eligibility. This is not empowerment. This is entrament. And finally, the ultimate paradox is the federal government and its pursuit of dignity inadvertently criminalizes the very act of parenting. Mothers are told to work longer hours. The state says stay at home with your children. What is a mother supposed to do?
▶ 2:29:08In the state of Illinois, we have 1.9 million persons that are eligible for SNAP under this reduction in the 50% cost sharing now to 25%. That's going to be an additional$1 billion dollars passed on to our state. We're going to see families go hungry. And lastly is regarding the seniors. I think it's cruel.
▶ 2:29:29I put an amendment to try to curtail this eligibility requirement for the senior citizens, people having to work 60, 70 years of age almost in order to qualify for these benefits. And considering that you have more frequent reertifications, online only submissions, some people don't have access to the internet, there are tighter deadlines, this is a disaster.
▶ 2:29:54I want to thank each of you and I would ask Miss Bivvens um do you think this will bill would be practical and enhance its desired goal of feeding more hungry uh children and seniors in our society?
▶ 2:30:07I do not think that it Thank you for the question. I do not think it will require more collective um conversation, inclusive conversation from all the systems that you pri you mentioned prior in order for it to be
▶ 2:30:22Thank you so much, Mrs. Green. Um in your state, can you contrast or compare what we're going to confront with Illinois um on having to have parents stay at home with children at 14? What will be the state's workaround of that federal law? Thank you for the question. Speaking on behalf of uh the country as a national association, I'm not as familiar with individual state laws in terms of um whether parents can stay home or not.
▶ 2:30:52But I do hear your concern around um the the additional challenge for states that do have laws like that and the uh challenge that the mother or anyone in that case would have to weigh. Miss Schmidt, can you comment on that on what would be the mother's workaround on complying with state and federal law that's at a contradiction? Mr. Chairman, Representative, Wyoming doesn't have a required law around a minimal age.
▶ 2:31:21We really look at the appropriateness of the child, the Um but at but to your point it asks the question about child care and the role of child care which for us and our agency is a core foundational program that supports a lot of this work. So we've taken a very um family approach to the work in our agency and have kind of set our standard around home. Why home matters is our tagline.
▶ 2:31:50And from that we try to orient all of our programs to think about what is necessary from a collaboration across programs and through communities to support families so children can stay safely at home or elderly can stay safely at home. So it's through those conversations that we would address this problem. It's about what is available locally through our churches through our community supports to provide that support to that mother.
▶ 2:32:17looking at programs that are designed specifically around employment for mothers and providing child care as a response to that so that that child can be safe. Um we also very much consider kinship and looking to to family supports as an option to what we would see in that event.
▶ 2:32:36Thank you. My time is expired. Like to thank each of you. I wish I could have met you in a hearing and gathered more testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 2:32:45Thank you. I'll now go to recognize the gentleoman from Ohio, Miss Brown, for five minutes.
▶ 2:32:50Uh, thank you, Chairman Finstad, and Ranking Member Hayes. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and a special thank you to Miss Schmidt and Miss Bivvens who are truly on the front lines making sure families in Wyoming and Ohio can put food on the table. Um, what we've heard today is deeply troubling.
▶ 2:33:10um the fallout from the one big ugly bill that my Republican colleagues are desperately trying to rebrand after um forcing it through this summer only to realize it is worse than we feared. Um let's be clear, this bill was never about program integrity or rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It was about shifting costs onto state so Republicans could hand out more tax cuts to wealthy and the well-connected.
▶ 2:33:38The bill rigs the system by inflating error rates in SNAP, essentially punishing states and counties for paperwork mistakes, not fraud. Then, to add insult to injury, it slashes the very administrative funding that Ohio needs to hire and retain staff who process applications, correct errors, and serve families.
▶ 2:34:02That means case workers in places like Kyhoga County who already manage the highest case loads in the state will be asked to do more with less while facing penalties for mistakes that are inevitable under these conditions. And families across Cleveland will pay the price with longer wait times, more red tape, and fewer resources making it to people who need them. So, I want to start off first with you, Miss Beavens, and thank you again for all that you do for Ohio.
▶ 2:34:31Since Ohio is a county administered stat uh SNAP state, we're in a uniquely challenging position. These new costs won't just fall to the state. They'll fall directly on individual counties. In your testimony, you noted that counties have very limited options for generating revenue, relying mostly on property taxes or sales tax. Unfortunately, many now expect they'll have to raise taxes just to keep up. Can you speak to what the immediate impact of these cuts would be on counties and families?
▶ 2:35:01And and also second, if these cuts were delayed, if they were delayed, how much breathing room would it give the counties to plan ahead and soften the blow?
▶ 2:35:11Thank you so much for your question and I really appreciate the service that you provide to Ohio. So, thank you. Um, previously to previous to what I stated earlier, um, these cuts, you know, Franklin County rely heavily on sales tax and as you know, um, residents across the country are taxed out from property taxes to all types of taxes.
▶ 2:35:34So, um, for us, if we were to incur this shared cost, Franklin County has to make a decision on what we do not fund no anymore. and what does that look like? So, um it would be tremendous and it would be debilitating to our human service delivery system. And so, you you also mentioned that you we would have to come up with roughly $7.5 million a year to cover the new SNAP administrative costs.
▶ 2:36:01And that's not even accounting for the increased cost share that is coming as well. Um this is a massive number and counties just don't have unlimited budgets. I I used to work at the county so I know. Miss Bivvens, what other critical services could be at risk if that money has to be diverted? Workforce training, child care services, public health. Can you tell us?
▶ 2:36:20So, it would be workforce training. It could be child currently right now we're running a pilot to subsidize um child care for those who fall into the benefits cliff and we're able to leverage um general fund dollars in order to do that. Similar and we've and we've braided some of those dollars with ARPA in the past. It could also be funding our nonprofit organizations who support us and providing quality training for folks who need training in order to be skilled up for a better paying job.
▶ 2:36:48So, you know, it is it's almost like whack-a-ole, if I can use that term. I know that's not a professional term, but if it's almost like whack-a-ole, you know, and oh, you you pay Peter to you steal from Peter to pay Paul or whatever the the terminology is. Um, but we would defund a lot of supportive services for our residents and making those decisions in order to figure out how we move forward.
▶ 2:37:09I I thank you for your testimony and again for the work that you're doing. Here's the bottom line. These cuts aren't just line items on a budget se sheet. They are lifelines. Um, they represent families who have fallen on hard times. Families who will now have to wait longer for help on their SNAP application.
▶ 2:37:29Families will get caught in red tape because there aren't enough case workers to process their paperwork and families who will lose out on services because counties have to shift dollars away from things like workforce training or public health. At the end of the day, these cuts don't make SNAP more efficient. They just make it harder for families in Ohio to put food on the table. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:37:55Thank you. Uh before we adjourn today, I'd now uh like to invite the ranking member to share any closing comments that she may have.
▶ 2:38:04Thank you. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and for highlighting challenges that state agencies and counties face when administering SNAP and informing our committee about the importance of state options, which provide agencies with the flexibil the flexibility to tailor their services to meet the needs of their communities best. More needs to be done to support families, children, veterans, and other vulnerable populations in our communities.
▶ 2:38:33It is even more apparent today that the recent cuts to SNAP in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will create more problems than they solve. 4 million Americans will lose some or all of their SNAP assistance as a direct result of the one big, beautiful bill. So much here today was discussed about error rates.
▶ 2:38:55I wish we had taken time to really talk about the 80 to 90% success rates that most states have experienced over the last decade. Based on CBO estimates, the Center for the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that about 1 million children will see food assistance to their families cut substantially or terminated under expanded work requirements, elimination of eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants, and other benefit cuts.
▶ 2:39:25States and counties will be forced to raise taxes, cut funding, or other social service programs, or possibly stop participating in the program at all. Miss Schmidt, you said you'll have to have some local conversations. That translates to locally people will have to figure out how to pay for these services. There is no other way around it. States will be left to make hard decisions, even ending SNAP altogether because of the legislation passed by this Congress.
▶ 2:39:57The increased administrative cost share and benefit cost shifts will make it more difficult for states to implement options that streamline application processes and improve customer services. These are real people in my district, in every congressional district across the country, who will be left with fewer resources to make ends meet.
▶ 2:40:18I'm talking about our veterans, our seniors, our parents, those working two jobs to put food on the table, or those who just need a little bit of help, supplemental help. They were left behind in the one big beautiful bill. What remains are the problems like benefit cliffs and SNAP skimming, and no solutions to these problems was included in this legislation. But I remain committed to improving SNAP for the 42 million Americans who simply need a little help putting food on their table.
▶ 2:40:48And in case it needs to be said, I spent my career as a classroom teacher. If a child, a 15year-old child, let's say 15, I chose that age intentionally, came to my class and they were hungry, their documentation doesn't matter. Do I have a problem with my taxpayer dollars being spent to feed a child? In case it needs to be said, the answer is no.
▶ 2:41:16And I will fight to make sure that every child in this country, no matter their status, goes to bed with a full stomach. We have the ability to do it. Hunger is a policy choice and we have demonstrated that over and over and over again. The permanent tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest individuals in this country could have fed countless families in our nation. I'm still here.
▶ 2:41:46I'm ready to work on these issues. I'm ready to find solutions. I'm ready to ensure that we are lowering food insecurity and childhood hunger. And I am at the table and remain committed to doing these things all day, every day, over and over and over again.
▶ 2:42:04But when legislation is crafted that talks about the 8% of individuals who are considered able-bodied or the handful of people who have defrauded the system and refuses to acknowledge the success of the SNAP program in addressing hunger in this country and making sure that people are healthy and can show up in their communities at work and at school and and
▶ 2:42:34just thrive and be productive, something that we have the ability to assist in. I can't participate in that. So again, thank you for our witnesses for coming. I've been waiting nine months for you, but happy that you're here and reach out to my office if there's anything that we can do to help just come up with ways to craft legislation to begin to address some of the things that you spoke about here today. Thank you.
▶ 2:43:04And with that, I yield
▶ 2:43:07Thank you. Uh thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. Uh this has been an important discussion about how to move forward and meet the intentions of HR1's historic reforms. I also want to remind everyone that federal spending on SNAP has increased by over 70% since since 2019 while food insecurity rates have remained stagnant. The status quo isn't working. Republicans are committed to addressing the root problems struggling Americans face, which is why we want to refocus on work and ensure work requirements are robust.
▶ 2:43:35After the passive passage of HR1, we have the opportunity to serve folks on this program better to remove some burdens from the taxpayers and get people off SNAP into into independent futures. I want to again thank you all for being here and your testimony today. Uh moving on here, under the rules of the committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by a member.
▶ 2:44:04This hearing of the subcommittee on nutrition and foreign agriculture is now adjourned.