Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Safety Net topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nonprofits, towns press state to backstop federal SNAP and Medicaid cuts
Summary
Municipal leaders, faith groups, and nonprofits told the Appropriations Committee Connecticut needs a bridge program (SB401) to prevent hunger, loss of health coverage and housing instability as federal changes take effect; witnesses urged explicit inclusion of refugees and other legally present immigrants and recommended immediate transitional SNAP funding.
A broad coalition of municipal officials, nonprofits, faith leaders and legal‑aid advocates testified that Connecticut should create a state bridge program to replace or temporarily backstop benefits lost under recent federal changes commonly referred to as HR1. Testimony focused on a proposed plan in SB401 that would coordinate state‑funded short‑term medical, nutrition and housing assistance and add employment supports for people affected by federal eligibility changes.
Mayor Michael Pasero (New London), first selectmen and many rural town leaders asked the committee to restore long‑diverted tribal revenue (separate bill SB388) and explained how state grants matter to town budgets, while community organizations and legal services groups described immediate food and health impacts on families. Witnesses from immigrant‑serving organizations urged the committee to explicitly include legally present immigrants (refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, special immigrant visa holders and other populations) in the bill’s definition of “vulnerable persons,” saying many are already losing SNAP and will soon lose Medicaid or housing help without a state response.
Speakers recommended the committee add an immediate transitional SNAP benefit to prevent begin‑gap hunger while the longer bridge program is developed, and urged grants to community nonprofits that will deliver expanded services. Several witnesses supplied local data on the numbers of people at risk, told of families that already lost SNAP, and urged a combination of short‑term emergency benefits and longer term funding options funded from the state budget or new revenue sources.
Committee members asked for clarifications about eligibility definitions and administrative delivery. Supporters said the state should both plan for the multi‑year fiscal impact and provide immediate mitigations such as a temporary SNAP replacement and capacity grants to food banks and service providers.
No formal vote was taken; advocates said they will provide written cost estimates and proposed language for immigrant inclusion and transitional SNAP funding for the committee to consider.
