House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture Chairman Brad Finstad (MN-01) delivered the following opening statement at today's subcommittee hearing, "Exploring State Options in SNAP."
Remarks as prepared:
Good 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 important topic.
Before getting into the main focus of today's hearing, I want to set the record straight on the reforms to SNAP included in the Working Family Tax Cuts Bill, or H.R.1, and dispel some of the false narratives I know we will hear in this room today.
-
First and foremost, H.R. 1 protects and strengthens SNAP's ability to serve our most vulnerable neighbors in need.
-
We are stopping federal and state executive overreach that has 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 rates, which I will remind everybody, hurt the participant first and foremost.
-
And we are protecting the hardworking American taxpayer who has been footing a $100 billion dollar annual SNAP bill that increased by close to 70 percent in five years.
No one in this room should be defending 10 billion dollars a year in Federal SNAP benefits going out the door incorrectly.
Nor should they defend 40 percent of able-bodied adults without children on SNAP living under state waivers of work requirements without the economic conditions to warrant them.
But this was the status quo before H.R. 1.
The facts are that this program was on an unsustainable trajectory, and H.R. 1 is putting it 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 fearmongering by some leaders in Minnesota about how the Working Families Tax Cuts bill will impact our counties.
Minnesota, along with nine other states, has chosen to administer SNAP at the county level. In 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 costs, to the counties.
In fact, in six of the ten 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.
So, despite what local officials may be hearing from their governors, the states have a shared responsibility to prioritize and invest in this critical nutrition program, and there is a precedent for it.
This morning, I sent a letter to Governor Walz urging him to re-examine his budget priorities, reduce the state's error rate, and take 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.
I would ask for unanimous consent to submit this letter for the record.
I hope Governor Walz will work with me and other local officials to ensure Minnesota meets the intent of H.R. 1's historic reforms.
But the primary topic before us today is much larger and far reaching.
While SNAP is a federal program, there are numerous state options, allowing states some flexibility in operating their programs.
As states implement the program changes included in H.R. 1, they will need to adapt and reexamine the SNAP options they have adopted to date.
It is also important for us as legislators to regularly review the SNAP options currently allowable under Federal law to know if changes or new flexibility are warranted.
I know some of our witnesses will speak specifically to that today.
State options in SNAP are large in scope- impacting eligibility criteria, benefit levels, and even in what counties federal work requirements are in effect.
It may come as a surprise to people that the 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.
I look forward to learning more from each of our witnesses today about how states and counties are utilizing these program flexibilities, the impact they have on administration and participation, and what things we should be thinking about as we look towards the future of SNAP.
Ms. Green, Mrs. Bivens, and Ms. Schmidt, thank you again for being here today. I understand Ms. Green and Ms. Schmidt have never testified to Congress before. We look forward to hearing from you.
