Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Snap Budget And Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Agriculture markup becomes a referendum on SNAP cuts from H.R. One
Summary
Democrats pushed repeated amendments to restore SNAP cuts and delay state cost shifts; Republicans defended program design changes, citing program integrity and budget neutrality. The Hayes repeal attempt and related debates drew the committee’s longest exchanges.
Democrats used the Title Four markup to press attempts to roll back deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program contained in last year’s H.R. One reconciliation package. Rep. Hayes offered a large‑scale amendment to repeal the roughly $187 billion in SNAP reductions; Democrats characterized the cuts as ‘‘cruel’’ and warned governors and food banks that tens of millions could lose benefits. Hayes said the measure would restore benefits for tens of millions and protect local grocery and farm economies.
Republicans and some swing members defended the changes as fiscal choices and argued that the SNAP program requires integrity safeguards and clearer work expectations. Several members stressed exemptions already in law for seniors, people with disabilities and parents of young children, while others said the law gives states flexibility to modernize and encourage employment and volunteering.
Ranking members from both parties repeatedly urged delay or fixes for newly required state cost shares, noting that many governors and state officials told the committee the shifts could force program participation decisions. Rep. Brown (OH) proposed a delay to give states more time to plan and avoid potential disruptions; she and other members argued the cost‑shift timeline would otherwise force states with constrained budgets into impossible choices. That amendment drew strong bipartisan support and a recorded‑vote request.
The lengthy markup showcased the deep divisions over SNAP’s role and funding, with multiple recorded‑vote requests and several amendments withdrawn after negotiation. Committee members repeatedly framed their positions around common goals — reducing hunger and strengthening work pathways — but sharply diverged on how to balance program access, fiscal policy and state responsibilities.
Procedurally, several amendments were withdrawn by sponsors after chair‑sponsor consultations, some were defeated on voice votes (with recorded votes requested), and others were agreed to when crafted as narrowly targeted, bipartisan, state‑option measures.
