[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6055988,"mediaKeyId","3312807-939ee404988f37ad8f8cc0486ba5912a","parentId",3312807,"title","Committee package boosts farm safety‑net measures even as SNAP debate roils markup","audioSeconds",2054,"startMs",2233000,"endMs",4287000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312807-939ee404988f37ad8f8cc0486ba5912a&start=2233&end=4287","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312807-939ee404988f37ad8f8cc0486ba5912a/thumbnail_2233000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6055988/Committee-package-boosts-farm-safetynet-measures-even-as-SNAP-debate-roils-markup","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6055988-a4e971a9b32182681d180711ddd46cad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771107123&Signature=KSpCvHfraX2lGQcTJOHIUXH2EU5Ru-2n5oqWY2MtWpyEyXNX7xXKgYzMbLkJnvBrmBxsPkEYjSiSxFQCiHmDza~0AQYNtMNhKy4~8VxHU6ETJeTkSmRlkbpxSypnluqdeb76ZaO3~grntjLauyNec-lZGGOQIjmhrf0NgI1mpi8ndu24-jsOM14QmJu~d5eCEg8szIJ8cO4ParNK05xDDqGuRue3slHhIHpy~McE1Lxu2Y50~viSkz2EHH5HKpkZ3dMA89hAVK15kJWMkG41tmKd74BT1JUYugopier6wsWAfDP4smfLNS6~mlOD26VF-ecs1Q4MLOAsyh5sFzdeAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Agriculture","date","2025-05-14T03:26:55Z","article","The House Committee on Agriculture’s May 13 markup combined a series of farm program changes with broader reconciliation savings that center on SNAP. Supporters said the measure restores predictability for producers while opponents said moving farm provisions through reconciliation breaks a bipartisan tradition and risks passage of a stripped‑down farm policy.

Chairman Thompson described the measure as putting \"the farm back in the farm bill,\" saying the package \"bolsters every facet of American agriculture\" and provides investments in trade promotion, research and specialty‑crop programs while updating program reference prices and crop‑insurance supports.

Why it matters: Farmers and rural communities face tighter margins after several years of higher input costs, disease outbreaks and extreme weather. Committee supporters argued that updating reference prices and improving crop‑insurance access will provide needed certainty; opponents said the partisan reconciliation route jeopardizes full five‑year farm bill priorities such as rural development and conservation.

Most important facts

- The committee print would adjust reference prices for covered commodities and expand access and cost support for crop insurance, measures supporters said are critical to stabilizing farm income.

- The package includes a multiyear reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program. Representative LaMalfa described the SRS authorization as \"a lifeline for places like that in rural... areas that used to depend on timber harvest.\" Supporters called a three‑year SRS authorization a stopgap for forested counties reliant on timber receipts.

- The print contains investments in export promotion, market access and animal health infrastructure; Representative Mann said the bill \"makes crucial investments to support the farmers, ranchers, and ag producers\" and noted attention to livestock biosecurity and export programs.

Supporting details and debate

Proponents: Several Republican and some Democratic members praised provisions that raise reference prices, expand crop‑insurance benefits for young and beginning farmers, and invest in export promotion and market development. Representative Fincher (R‑Iowa) said improvements ‘‘help invest on the 3‑legged animal health stool’’ and flagged investments in veterinary and animal disease facilities. Representative Nunn (R‑Iowa) emphasized the need to update the farm safety net after seven years without a reauthorization.

Opponents: Democrats and some Republicans criticized the use of reconciliation to package farm priorities with deep SNAP savings, saying it undermines the chance for a comprehensive bipartisan five‑year farm bill and risks leaving out specialty programs, conservation, broadband and rural development investments that require separate negotiation.

Process notes and committee action

- The chair made the committee print the original text for amendment and said the amendment in the nature of a substitute would be considered as the original text for purposes of amendment. Members were reminded that only germane amendments were in order and that the chair could postpone proceedings on recorded votes.

- The committee set electronic voting for amendment votes. Several members indicated they will offer amendments in subsequent sessions to adjust both SNAP and farm provisions.

Ending

Members on both sides urged a durable farm bill for producers, but they sharply disagreed about procedure. Supporters said the package provides immediate, targeted support to farmers; opponents said the partisan process undermines long‑term bipartisan consensus on farm policy. The committee recessed and scheduled continuation of amendment consideration the following morning.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SNAP Integrity and Farm Security Full Committee Markup","oneSentenceSummary","The House Committee on Agriculture’s May 13 markup combined a series of farm program changes with broader reconciliation savings that center on SNAP.","taxTitle","Agriculture: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1977,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6055993,"House Agriculture markup sharpens debate over proposed SNAP reforms, state cost sharing",9236,2011000,11247000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312807-939ee404988f37ad8f8cc0486ba5912a&start=2011&end=11247","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312807-939ee404988f37ad8f8cc0486ba5912a/thumbnail_2011000.jpg","/articles/6055993/House-Agriculture-markup-sharpens-debate-over-proposed-SNAP-reforms-state-cost-sharing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6055993-27aa01be61d9b9a67adfe35b0350bbee/orig.mp4?Expires=1771107123&Signature=o4lhaRZHP2UhHQVxCD-RMYwPyW6teUgfUTCK0oia7GD3T0-msS~OyG5oXh9yND8LGCZeeoUZNl83hzHK~1pBYpoP~2TYj-PTjW~YkZJ4ACqfKLFENEKdtMDnvCp68Z5FIPuBDOqA0-oq-4753RVOvsN1zqs-xujRBvyFpQE7-kLSgGjqgHiG-uOLAK67h5e1iE1Q4U5MBDkFXcyut0f6qNj9SecFV3Kl-Xd0Mfd8APooTpmC-JhrVe~3RdIIXwSrYfD-Qav9iRF5ujdQtkeRnZ06X7UaOCPGz97AwfvjaZaMw7FMW65WnKBboGMpO9qyY3MG5~zMvJLyLGYtu3JYmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Agriculture met May 13 in Washington to mark up a reconciliation committee print that would reshape Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules and put new costs on states as part of broader deficit savings and farm bill investments.

The committee chair, Chairman Thompson, said the package is necessary \"to restore integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP\" and to meet reconciliation instructions from the concurrent budget resolution; he described the measure as a way to \"put the farm back in the farm bill.\" The text before the committee would expand work requirements for certain adults, require a minimal state benefit cost share beginning in 2028, and change how program error rates and state waivers are handled.

Why it matters: SNAP serves about 42 million people nationwide and is integral to food security for children, seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. Committee Democrats said the measure’s changes would reduce access, while Republicans argued the reforms are needed to curb waste and preserve the program long term.

Most important facts

- The committee considered an amendment (Amendment 13) offered by Representative Hayes (D‑Conn.) that would have blocked implementation of SNAP changes until USDA and every state agency certified the changes would not reduce benefits or participation. Hayes said, “This amendment is simple. It says this legislation can only take effect once the USDA and all state agencies issue reports and certifying that any changes made to SNAP will not result in a reduction of benefits to eligible individuals or a decrease in participation.” The question on the amendment was postponed for a recorded vote.

- Chairman Thompson opened debate framing the package around program integrity and budget reconciliation requirements and said SNAP costs rose from about $60,000,000,000 to $110,000,000,000 since 2019 while enrollment increased from 36,000,000 to 42,000,000. He also cited state-level erroneous payments of roughly $13,000,000,000 per year as a rationale for change.

- Democrats repeatedly argued the cuts would be severe. Representative McGovern (D‑Mass.) called the process “a fraud,” and other Democrats warned the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates and state statements indicate millions could lose benefits or see lower benefit amounts under the new paperwork, work and cost‑sharing requirements.

Supporting details and debate

Democrats: Several Democrats said the reconciliation text would amount to the largest rollback of an anti‑hunger program in the nation's history. They emphasized the average SNAP benefit is small (about $6 per person per day, as cited during debate) and stressed downstream effects on children, seniors and local economies. Representative Hayes described prior updates to the Thrifty Food Plan and said the 2021 reevaluation “lifted 2,000,000 people out of poverty, including more than 1,000,000 children.” Democrats warned the cost‑shift to states—starting at a minimum 5 percent and rising based on error rates—would force states to cut benefits, eligibility, or other services.

Republicans: Members supporting the reconciliation text framed reforms as restoring congressional intent for work requirements and aligning SNAP with other state‑administered programs. Supporters argued that requiring states to have a financial stake in program administration creates incentives to reduce erroneous payments and improve outcomes. Members also stressed parallel investments in farm programs—reference price updates, crop insurance, and targeted rural programs—would help producers.

Process notes and committee action

- The chair announced the committee print and, \"without objection,\" waived first reading of the text and made the measure open for amendment by subtitle. Members were told amendments must be germane; the chair warned he would enforce decorum and the five‑minute rule for debate.

- Representative Hayes offered Amendment 13 to prevent implementation of SNAP changes until USDA and state agencies certify no benefit or participation reductions. That amendment was debated and the result of a voice vote was challenged; a recorded vote was requested and further proceedings on the amendment were postponed.

- The chair also announced that electronic voting would be used for amendment votes and that parts of the proceeding could be recessed \"subject to the call of the chair.\" The committee recessed at the end of the session with work to continue the next morning.

Context and next steps

Members on both sides said they want to reduce fraud and improve SNAP operations, but they sharply disagreed on whether the reconciliation language achieves those goals or whether it would instead cut benefits. Several governors and state officials (referenced during debate) had warned about the state cost‑share impact; Democrats repeatedly asked for concrete state‑level impact analyses before implementation. The committee postponed recorded votes and scheduled continuation of amendment consideration at its next sitting.

Ending

A recorded vote on the Hayes amendment was requested and proceedings on that amendment were postponed; the committee recessed and said it would reconvene at 10 a.m. the next day to continue amendment debate. The reconciliation text remains under active consideration; the committee's action will determine whether the SNAP reforms move forward as written or are revised before any final committee approval.","The House Committee on Agriculture met May 13 in Washington to mark up a reconciliation committee print that would reshape Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules and put new costs on states as part of broader deficit savings and farm bill investments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee package boosts farm safety‑net measures even as SNAP debate roils markup

House Agriculture markup sharpens debate over proposed SNAP reforms, state cost sharing