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

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.