House Agriculture hearing spotlights SNAP employment and training as members spar over $230 billion cut proposal

The House Agriculture Committee convened a multipart hearing on SNAP on Oct. 12, 2025, where lawmakers and witnesses debated approaches to connect benefit recipients to work and contested proposed budget cuts that could shrink the program by $230 billion over 10 years.

Chairman Thompson opened the session, saying the panel would hear testimony on “The Power of Work: Expanding Opportunity Through SNAP” and later framed the committee’s goals as preserving benefits for those in need while encouraging pathways to long‑term employment. Ranking Member Ms. Craig warned that large cuts under reconciliation would “make families hungrier and farmers poorer,” and she criticized other administration actions, including recent federal staffing and trade decisions that, she said, exacerbate food insecurity.

The hearing featured four expert witnesses: Dr. Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Sam Schafer, chief executive officer of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO); Dr. Diane Schanzenbach, a professor at Northwestern University; and David Tidwell, president and CEO of Hope Ministries in Baton Rouge. Each described different aspects of SNAP and SNAP Employment and Training (SNAP E&T), including program design, evidence on employment outcomes, local program examples, and barriers beneficiaries face.

Supporters of SNAP E&T described the program as a bridge from short‑term nutrition assistance to employment. CEO’s Sam Schafer and William Lewis, a former participant and site supervisor, urged Congress to pass two bipartisan fixes that they said would expand access and remove penalties that unintentionally hurt participants entering paid training. Schafer called paid training “a lifeline while E&T services build a bridge to lasting independence.”

Researchers who testified differed on whether tougher work requirements would raise employment. Dr. Rachidi said reforms could reduce work disincentives and called attention to “benefit cliffs” that reduce the net gain from earnings. Dr. Schanzenbach summarized recent administrative‑data studies and said increased mandatory work requirements for able‑bodied adults without dependents (ABODs) have not produced consistent gains in employment and can reduce access to food without improving labor outcomes.

Lawmakers from both parties emphasized job pathways and training but sharply disagreed over proposed budget actions outside the committee’s immediate jurisdiction. Multiple members warned that a $230 billion cut to SNAP would reduce farm revenue and deepen hardship in rural areas. Representative Costa and others cited regional farm and grocery impacts; Representative Tidwell and other local providers highlighted that SNAP dollars circulate quickly in local economies and help sustain retailers and farms.

Committee members asked witnesses about options policymakers can pursue: tightening waiver rules that allow states to exempt ABODs from time limits, addressing benefit cliffs through temporary income disregards for paid training, expanding funding for supportive services such as transportation and childcare, and maintaining SNAP’s role as a countercyclical stabilizer during downturns. Witnesses urged that program design be coordinated with robust, voluntary training and supportive services rather than relying solely on punitive time limits.

The committee did not take votes or adopt policy at the hearing. Members left the record open for post‑hearing materials and written questions.