U.S. House lawmakers on Monday laid out a plan to increase work requirements for some recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program food aid benefits, and to eventually require states to share more of the cost of the program, according to the farm committee bill text.
The House Agriculture Committee proposal would also restrict future increases to SNAP benefits that outpace inflation and would narrow the ability of states to waive work requirements during periods of high unemployment.
The proposal advances the committee's efforts to achieve $230 billion in savings, part of the Republican plan to pass a sweeping budget package in line with President Donald Trump's agenda.
House Democrats have warned that such an overhaul to SNAP would shrink the chamber's possibilities for passing a farm spending package this year.
More than 41 million Americans receive benefits from SNAP, the nation's largest food aid program.
The farm committee plan would require adults up to age 64 without disabilities or dependent children to work 80 hours per month, hiking the existing age limit from 54.
It would also raise the qualifying age of the dependent children from six to seven.
Anti-hunger groups have argued that expanding work requirements would shrink SNAP enrollment.
The Republican proposal "would take food away from millions of older adults and parents who are struggling to find steady work or get caught in red tape," said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
House Agriculture Committee chairman Glenn 'GT' Thompson said in a statement that the approach would increase accountability and provide "a temporary helping hand while encouraging work."
The plan would also require states for the first time to share some cost of SNAP benefits, which are currently paid by the federal government. The cost-share percentage would be determined by states' error rates in accurately distributing SNAP benefits, and would go into effect in 2028.
The country's 23 Democratic state governors said they oppose cost-sharing and that the plan would amount to a benefit cut.
"The notion that states will respond to massive cuts to federally appropriated dollars by backfilling with state resources is simply inaccurate and impossible," said the Democratic Governors Association in a statement.
