House Ag holds first hearing on SNAP program
February 25, 2015 |05:31 PM
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, today presided over what he described as the first hearing in a “top-to-bottom review” of the Agriculture Department’s largest program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP or food stamps.
The hearing was remarkably civil in comparison with last year’s farm bill debate in which Republicans and Democrats vigorously disagreed about the country’s responsibility to hungry people, with each side citing Bible passages to bolster its arguments.
But it was also clear that Republican and Democratic members of the committee have different priorities.
In an opening statement, Conaway noted that SNAP has grown from a pilot program that served just 500,000 people in 1964 to a program that at its peak during the recession served more than 47 million Americans, and said that its mission should be clear.
But Conaway added “We will conduct this review without preconceived notions and with a commitment to strengthening the program so it can serve as a tool to help individuals move up the economic ladder.”
The committee heard testimony from Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who is known as a strong defender of the program, and Douglas Besharov, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, who is known as a SNAP critic but one who believes in social programs.
Both Greenstein and Besharov credited the food stamp program with ending terrible diseases related to malnutrition. But they disagreed about its nature today.
Greenstein descried it as a program that addresses the continuing problem of “food insecurity” while Besharov described as an “income supplement program” that has “many unintended and, many believe, negative effects.”
Besharov testified that, as higher income people became eligible for SNAP during the recession, “We now have a new welfare program. It is called SNAP. It still fills an important nutrition need at the lowest levels, at the higher levels it is income support and we ought to treat it as such.”
He added, however, that benefit levels should be increased at the lowest levels.
Greenstein and Besharov agreed, however, that that any efforts to reduce the number of people receiving SNAP benefits without simply cutting off their access to food would require cooperation with other congressional committees.
Greenstein said U.S. job training systems have not served SNAP beneficiaries well, and suggested that the House Agriculture Committee work with the House Education and the Workforce Committee to conduct more oversight of job training programs.
Greenstein also said he hopes that the pilot SNAP-to-work grants to the states that the Agriculture Department is expected to announce will provide insight into what works to help beneficiaries gain employment.
Besharov testified that he believes SNAP needs to be coordinated with other social welfare programs to be effective, and that he believes there are 80 different social welfare programs because congressional committees want to protect their turf.
Greenstein and Besharov also agreed that the type of beneficiaries have changed over time and that the U.S. economy has changed.
Greenstein noted that more than 30 percent of unemployed Americans have been unemployed for more than six months, and when they do get jobs their wages are often so low that they still qualify for SNAP.
Besharov also noted that people are unemployed for longer periods and that the United States faces international competition. Safety net programs today need to provide people support, prepare them for the workforce and give them a “nudge” to get into the workforce, he said.
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he is concerned that states decide who is qualified to receive SNAP benefits while the federal government pays the bill.
Besharov testified that he believes the reason the SNAP rolls went up in the recession while cash welfare rolls did not is that the states do not have to pay for the SNAP benefits.
The states, he said, “do not have an incentive for reform” as they did with cash welfare in 1996. Besharov suggested that states could be given “a bounty” if they find people jobs or help them get degrees.
Besharov also suggested that the states “out there” should have more opportunity to introduce innovations around SNAP, but that the federal government would also have to hold them accountable because they would be spending federal tax money.
On the question of SNAP beneficiaries not wanting to find jobs because they would lose benefits, an issue known as falling off “a cliff,” Besharov noted that some European countries have reduced benefits gradually as incomes rise.
In the exchange between members of the committee and the witnesses, it was clear that Republicans were most interested in trying to figure out how to develop programs to reduce the number of people getting SNAP benefits while most Democrats still see SNAP as a program that provides food.
Rep. Jackie Walorksi, R-Ind., who chairs the House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee, asked if SNAP has always been a “Band Aid.”
Republicans repeatedly asked questions about waivers that states have been able to grant to the term limits on single people without children getting benefits. Greenstein noted that most of the waivers will expire by the end of 2015.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee, said, “I hope we resist making this debate passing the buck to the states.” The committee, he said, should consider food “a right, it is a federal obligation.”
On the issue of waivers, he said, “If we are going to demand people be enrolled in work programs, we should make sure the programs exist.” Governors, including Republicans, he added, asked for waivers because they did not have work programs to train or employ the unemployed.
Walorksi, who will hold a subcommittee hearing on Thursday, said that today’s hearing had shown “the validity of the conversation” and that she looks forward to studying the issue “over the next couple years,” but that she also wants to make sure people are not hungry.
The hearing was remarkably civil in comparison with last year’s farm bill debate in which Republicans and Democrats vigorously disagreed about the country’s responsibility to hungry people, with each side citing Bible passages to bolster its arguments.
But it was also clear that Republican and Democratic members of the committee have different priorities.
In an opening statement, Conaway noted that SNAP has grown from a pilot program that served just 500,000 people in 1964 to a program that at its peak during the recession served more than 47 million Americans, and said that its mission should be clear.
But Conaway added “We will conduct this review without preconceived notions and with a commitment to strengthening the program so it can serve as a tool to help individuals move up the economic ladder.”
The committee heard testimony from Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who is known as a strong defender of the program, and Douglas Besharov, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, who is known as a SNAP critic but one who believes in social programs.
Both Greenstein and Besharov credited the food stamp program with ending terrible diseases related to malnutrition. But they disagreed about its nature today.
Greenstein descried it as a program that addresses the continuing problem of “food insecurity” while Besharov described as an “income supplement program” that has “many unintended and, many believe, negative effects.”
Besharov testified that, as higher income people became eligible for SNAP during the recession, “We now have a new welfare program. It is called SNAP. It still fills an important nutrition need at the lowest levels, at the higher levels it is income support and we ought to treat it as such.”
He added, however, that benefit levels should be increased at the lowest levels.
Greenstein and Besharov agreed, however, that that any efforts to reduce the number of people receiving SNAP benefits without simply cutting off their access to food would require cooperation with other congressional committees.
Greenstein said U.S. job training systems have not served SNAP beneficiaries well, and suggested that the House Agriculture Committee work with the House Education and the Workforce Committee to conduct more oversight of job training programs.
Greenstein also said he hopes that the pilot SNAP-to-work grants to the states that the Agriculture Department is expected to announce will provide insight into what works to help beneficiaries gain employment.
Besharov testified that he believes SNAP needs to be coordinated with other social welfare programs to be effective, and that he believes there are 80 different social welfare programs because congressional committees want to protect their turf.
Greenstein and Besharov also agreed that the type of beneficiaries have changed over time and that the U.S. economy has changed.
Greenstein noted that more than 30 percent of unemployed Americans have been unemployed for more than six months, and when they do get jobs their wages are often so low that they still qualify for SNAP.
Besharov also noted that people are unemployed for longer periods and that the United States faces international competition. Safety net programs today need to provide people support, prepare them for the workforce and give them a “nudge” to get into the workforce, he said.
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he is concerned that states decide who is qualified to receive SNAP benefits while the federal government pays the bill.
Besharov testified that he believes the reason the SNAP rolls went up in the recession while cash welfare rolls did not is that the states do not have to pay for the SNAP benefits.
The states, he said, “do not have an incentive for reform” as they did with cash welfare in 1996. Besharov suggested that states could be given “a bounty” if they find people jobs or help them get degrees.
Besharov also suggested that the states “out there” should have more opportunity to introduce innovations around SNAP, but that the federal government would also have to hold them accountable because they would be spending federal tax money.
On the question of SNAP beneficiaries not wanting to find jobs because they would lose benefits, an issue known as falling off “a cliff,” Besharov noted that some European countries have reduced benefits gradually as incomes rise.
In the exchange between members of the committee and the witnesses, it was clear that Republicans were most interested in trying to figure out how to develop programs to reduce the number of people getting SNAP benefits while most Democrats still see SNAP as a program that provides food.
Rep. Jackie Walorksi, R-Ind., who chairs the House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee, asked if SNAP has always been a “Band Aid.”
Republicans repeatedly asked questions about waivers that states have been able to grant to the term limits on single people without children getting benefits. Greenstein noted that most of the waivers will expire by the end of 2015.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee, said, “I hope we resist making this debate passing the buck to the states.” The committee, he said, should consider food “a right, it is a federal obligation.”
On the issue of waivers, he said, “If we are going to demand people be enrolled in work programs, we should make sure the programs exist.” Governors, including Republicans, he added, asked for waivers because they did not have work programs to train or employ the unemployed.
Walorksi, who will hold a subcommittee hearing on Thursday, said that today’s hearing had shown “the validity of the conversation” and that she looks forward to studying the issue “over the next couple years,” but that she also wants to make sure people are not hungry.
