House agriculture markup erupts over $313 billion SNAP cuts and new work rules, including proposed age change for dependents

A contentious markup of a reconciliation package before the House Agriculture Committee on Oct. 11 turned into a sustained fight over proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and new work requirements, including a proposal to redefine the age of a dependent child from 18 to 7.

Representative David Scott, who offered an amendment to strike reductions in SNAP funding, led opening remarks on the amendment and the stakes for recipients and veterans. "It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people ... You cannot take $300,000,000,000 out of a food program serving our veterans, our senior citizens, and millions of children," Scott said, calling on colleagues to oppose cuts (first introduced at 44:51:31 in the transcript). He argued the bill would take food away from people who rely on modest SNAP benefits.

The committee’s debate quickly widened beyond the dollars and centered on new work rules in the text. Representative Kim Schrier and Representative Joyce Beatty among others described provisions that would expand time-limited participation and institute or expand work requirements for adults up to a higher age range, while Representative Kat Cammack and Representative Dusty LaMalfa argued work requirements restore program integrity. A particularly heated flashpoint was Representative Shontel Brown’s amendment to remove a provision that would have defined a dependent child as under age 7 instead of under 18; proponents of Brown’s change called the proposal "cruel" and likely to force single parents and caregivers to lose benefits and leave young children without care, while some supporters of the age change said aligning definitions with school attendance would create opportunities for parents to engage in education, training, volunteer or work options.

Democratic members repeatedly described the combined effects of cuts and new time limits as a direct hit to low-income families, older adults and veterans. Representative James McGovern argued the bill would make hunger “a political condition” and highlighted what he said were the real-world impacts of cutting modest assistance that averages about $2 per person per meal and roughly $6 per household per day in some statements provided on the record.

The committee held recorded votes on the amendments Scott and other Democrats offered; the Scott amendment (Amendment 18) was voted down by the committee. The roll calls recorded late-night tallies that were frequently 25–29 on many amendments offered by Democrats in opposition to the reconciliation SNAP changes.

Why it matters: SNAP is the federal government’s principal food assistance program. Committee members warned that the changes — both the multi-hundred-billion-dollar cuts in the underlying reconciliation text and the added paperwork and state cost-shifts in proposed work rules — could reduce benefits for millions and shift costs to states that may not have the budgets to make up the difference.

Discussion vs. decision: The session produced many amendments and recorded votes. Representative Scott’s amendment to strike SNAP reductions failed on a committee recorded vote (committee tally: 25–29). Several Democratic amendments to protect particular groups — for example, to exclude veterans and surviving military families from new time limits — were debated and later postponed for recorded votes.

Ending: Committee members from both parties asked for broader hearings and more time to evaluate the effects of the proposed policy changes. Several Democrats urged the panel to pursue the nutrition and farm titles through regular order so stakeholders and experts could be heard before major policy changes were enacted. The committee proceeded with further votes and postponements late into the evening.