House Republicans Propose Strict Work Requirements for Food Stamp Recipients

“This bill attempts to change SNAP from a feeding program to a work program.”

jetcityimage/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee proposed a dramatic change in SNAP that would tighten eligibility rules and require some six million “work-capable” adults to work at least 20 hours a week or attend job-training classes for an equal amount of time in order to receive monthly benefits that now average $123 per person. Under the farm bill sponsored by Chairman Michael Conaway, the government would give $1 billion a year to states to provide training slots for every SNAP participant subject to the work requirement.

Produced with FERN, non-profit reporting on food, agriculture, and environmental health.

Unveiled two days after President Trump called for new or tougher work requirements for the federal food stamp program, Conaway’s proposal for “modernizing SNAP” is expected to dominate farm bill debate. Conaway has a 26-20 Republican majority on the Agriculture Committee and said he is sure it will approve his bill next week, possibly on Wednesday. Passage in the House at large is less certain because some conservative Republicans may hold out for bigger cuts in SNAP. Democrats stopped negotiating with Conaway a month ago, saying he was pursuing radical SNAP changes. In a video released in conjunction with the announcement of the proposed farm bill, Conaway said his approach “maintains and strengthens the great American tradition of self-sufficiency—that compels us to work to improve our station in life.”

The anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center said “harsh SNAP eligibility limits” will bring “greater poverty and hunger” to poor Americans rather than Conaway’s vision of a helping hand.

Food stamps make up the lion’s share of spending in the broad-spectrum legislation, which covers everything from crop subsidies and rural development to famine relief. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that SNAP will cost $65 billion a year in the near future. The farm bill overall would cost about $87 billion annually. The Conaway bill would make relatively minor changes in crop subsidies but would eliminate the Conservation Stewardship Program, the USDA’s first green-payment program, which now covers 70 million acres. Elements of the CSP would be folded into the cost-sharing Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

No one will be forced out of SNAP, insisted Conaway, although he said some people may drop out voluntarily. The Democratic leader on the committee, Collin Peterson, said the work and training requirements were “designed to be a hassle factor so people drop out of the program.”

Under Conaway’s proposal, about a million people are expected to disappear from SNAP over 10 years, because they will get better-paying jobs, they won’t work enough hours, or they’ll drop out of the training program. Enrollment would fall by an additional 300,000 people with the elimination of a broad-based categorical eligibility provision that allows people with incomes above 130 percent of the poverty line to apply for SNAP regardless of assets.

“This bill attempts to change SNAP from a feeding program to a work program,” said Peterson. He said Conaway “put the farmers and rural communities who rely on the farm bill’s safety net programs at risk in pursuit of partisan ideology on SNAP.”

The think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said a multi-faceted and effective job training system for SNAP could easily cost $1 billion a month nationwide, far more than the annual $1 billion in the Conaway bill, based on the track record of work requirements for federally supported welfare. “The almost-certain result would be greatly under-resourced work programs that offer few, if any, services to help people gain skills and jobs,” it said. At the same time, recipients would have to show compliance with the requirement for work or training.

The work requirement for adults aged 18 to 59 would not apply to the elderly, disabled people, pregnant women, or adults caring for children younger than 6. Children, the elderly, and the disabled account for the majority of SNAP recipients.

Conaway’s package also would reduce the leeway states have to exempt people from the work requirement, which is now tied to a 90-day limit on benefits in a three-year period to so-called able-bodied adults without dependents. Up to 60 percent of current waivers would be eliminated.

At latest count, 40.7 million people received SNAP benefits.

To read a section-by-section summary of the bill, click here.

This article has been revised.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate