Latest news with #HouseAgricultureCommittee
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Exploring a run for governor, Randy Feenstra touts work on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
SIOUX CENTER — As he explores a run for governor, U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra touted his work on the federal tax and spending policy bill moving through Congress, saying he was a 'key author' of the legislation. 'I was very close to the administration on helping write this bill, not only the tax portion of it, but also the (agricultural) portion of it,' he said at his annual Feenstra Family Picnic in Sioux Center May 30. Feenstra, a Republican, recently voted with other members of his party to advance Republican President Donald Trump's sweeping budget bill. Feenstra sits on the House Agriculture Committee, which oversaw changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, including about $300 billion in spending cuts over the next ten years. He also serves on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Iowa's U.S. House Republicans have championed the bill's passage, but it's drawn the ire of Democrats who fear the cuts will harm those who lose access to benefits. "I'll tell you what, we're not going to hurt anybody," Feenstra told reporters. "I mean, what we did with SNAP is making sure that we're getting rid of waste and fraud. Sitting on the Ag Committee, we had a lot of discussions about this, and I want to tell you, anybody that's on SNAP will stay on SNAP unless you're an illegal." Speaking to the crowd, Feenstra aligned himself with Trump, who remains deeply popular among Iowa Republicans, particularly in this deeply conservative pocket of northwest Iowa. 'The bill reflects the mandates that Trump talked about in all of his stump speeches when he was running this campaign,' he said. It comes as Feenstra gears up for an expected gubernatorial run, during which he'll need to appeal to the deep-red voters expected to make up the Republican primary electorate. Feenstra announced May 13 he was forming an exploratory committee to weigh a run for governor, and he has aggressively made moves toward a formal campaign. He announced ahead of the event that his campaign had raised more than $3.2 million. And he recently launched a $400,000 advertising buy across the state, making him the first declared or potential candidate to air television ads. 'Randy is swiftly consolidating support for his exploratory bid for governor,' his campaign senior advisor Brian Dumas said in a statement. '… From President Trump's biggest donors in Iowa, coupled with those that have historically stood behind Governors Reynolds and Branstad, his coalition of support is broad and deep.' But Feenstra avoided talking about the prospect as he spoke to the crowd of supporters. Instead, he focused on his work in Congress and highlighted his commitment to advancing Trump's agenda. Lt. Gov. Chris Cournoyer introduced Feenstra, praising his 'workhorse' mentality. 'Randy led the fight to ban China from buying American farmland,' she said. 'He stood with President Trump every step of the way to secure our border and stand with our border patrol agents. … And most recently, as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, he helped write President Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill.'' Cournoyer previously announced that she would run for state auditor in 2026, a position currently held by Democrat Rob Sand. 'We've got to get her to win,' Feenstra said. Sand announced May 12 he would mount a gubernatorial bid. Feenstra referenced his potential rival only briefly, saying that Sand is 'going on to other things' and opening up the auditor seat for Cournoyer. Feenstra was joined by U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who serves as chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan has been a mainstay on the Iowa political speaking circuit, and he joined U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn a day earlier for an event in Des Moines. Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Des Moines Register. Reach her at bpfann@ or 515-284-8244. Follow her on X at @brianneDMR. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Randy Feenstra highlights Trump ties as he explores run for governor
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How the GOP's one-sided deal-making will hurt farmers — and the people they feed
The recent farm provisions proposed by the GOP-led House of Representatives should give all Americans pause. I should know. For the last 50 years, including the 18 that I served as Montana's U.S. senator, my wife, Sharla, and I have been farming the same land that my grandparents homesteaded in northcentral Montana more than 100 years ago. We know firsthand the challenges of the weather, markets and input costs. We live it every day. So I was especially troubled to see that House GOP leadership and Republicans in the House Agriculture Committee ignored decades of tradition and did not bother to gain bipartisan support for their farm bill proposals. Why is this important? Because bipartisan legislation is typically more thoughtful, resilient and more likely to stand the test of time. Remember, Republicans aren't right all the time and Democrats aren't wrong all the time. In a press release, Rep. G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania claims his committee's section of the House's new reconciliation bill is 'strengthening the farm safety net and delivering critical support to the farmers, workers, and communities that keep America fed.' I argue it's a prime example of one-sided, partisan deal-making. And Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., agrees. 'Instead of working with Democrats to lower costs from President Trump's across-the-board tariffs, House Republicans have decided to pull the rug out from under families by cutting the SNAP benefits that 42 million Americans rely on to put food on the table — all to fund a tax cut for billionaires. That's shameful,' said Klobuchar, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Klobuchar continues: This means more seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and children will go to bed hungry. It means farmers, who are already operating on razor-thin margins, will see billions in lost revenue. It will mean job losses and lost wages for everyone who is a part of the food system — from truck drivers to local grocers. And ultimately, these cuts threaten the Farm Bill coalition that has delivered bipartisan support for farmers, families and rural communities for decades, and will make it harder for Congress to pass a bipartisan Farm Bill. Typically, to get a broad-based bipartisan legislation passed that receives support from both rural and urban America, the Agriculture Committee would work to address both food insecurity — often but not always a bigger issue in urban areas — and family farm agricultural production — which tends to be more tied to rural America. This current House effort does neither. First, and in typical Washington politician fashion, House Republicans have pushed more SNAP food assistance costs onto the states, which will result in more hungry people and, in turn, result in Washington blaming the states for the SNAP reductions. Secondly, Republicans seem intent on making farmers more reliant on subsidies from the federal government. Every farmer I know vastly prefers getting their paycheck from the marketplace, not the government or the American taxpayer. But this bill will increase farm subsidies while reducing the SNAP program. It also will do little to increase competition in a highly consolidated marketplace, which would decrease costs for consumers and benefit farmers. We need competition in agriculture for capitalism to work. Let's enforce anti-trust violations and add enforcement language with real teeth. Perhaps most alarmingly, those same House Republicans who decry socialism on one hand are pushing American farmers to take more money from the government and less from the marketplace. That sounds a lot like socialism to me. To say nothing of the fact that reducing SNAP, in addition to hurting hungry people, will reduce demand for farm commodities — yet another negative impact on the market. And while Republicans in Congress are pushing what amounts to an anti-farmer agenda, the Trump administration's tariffs haven't gone away. And a resulting trade war will have devastating effects on agriculture production. Agricultural organizations and exporters have said as much. And so have individual farmers. House Republicans want to push through their reconciliation bill as quickly as possible. And they don't seem to care whether it's actually good for the American people. My advice would be to go back to the drawing board. Maybe then, they could actually come up with a modern proposal for the 21st century that would both help feed our nation and boost our agricultural production. Farms, and farmers, are integral to the health and prosperity of our citizens and our economy. Republicans love to pay lip service to rural voters, and farmers especially. But actions speak louder than words. I should know. This article was originally published on
Miami Herald
19-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Grocery industry fights for SNAP as program faces massive cuts
The top trade organizations representing supermarkets are urgently calling attention to the importance of SNAP as a proposal that would slash the government assistance program's funding moves forward in Congress as part of a tax-cut megabill. Last week, the House Agriculture Committee advanced legislation that would cut as much as $300 billion in nutrition spending as well as overhaul SNAP by requiring states to help fund the program's benefits, Politico reported. On Sunday, the House Budget Committee passed the tax cut bill, clearing the way for a House floor vote, which could happen this week, Reuters reported. SNAP cuts on the federal level would help fund the party's domestic policy plan and some farm bill programs, Politico noted. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee has said that too many "work-ready" people are on SNAP, arguing for stricter work requirements for participants in the food assistance program. The proposed cuts come at a time when consumers continue to worry about their grocery spending and how trade policies could potentially increase the cost of goods, including food. Walmart is bringing back its $6.99 minimum basket fee for SNAP consumers who place online orders under $35, Reuters reported at the end of April. As of February, more than 42 million people participate in SNAP, up 2% from the same time last year, according to the USDA. SNAP accounts for around 5% of all supermarket purchases, the FMI - The Food Industry Association shared during a webinar last week, and retailers have shared with investors how reductions in SNAP funding can hurt their sales. SNAP is "very well received across the political spectrum," Jennifer Hatcher, FMI's chief public policy officer and senior vice president of government and member relations, said during the webinar. Fifty-nine percent of people are opposed to cutting or reducing SNAP funding, while one-third are in favor, Hatcher said, citing a survey of 1,000 people Fabrizio, Lee & Associates and FMI conducted in late April. The proposed SNAP cuts have struck a dissonant chord with the grocery industry, with the National Grocers Association saying it is "deeply concerned by the cuts and programmatic cost shift changes" in the proposed legislation. "SNAP is not only essential to fighting food insecurity, but [is] also a proven economic engine for thousands of local communities across the country," NGA President and CEO Greg Ferrara said in a statement on Tuesday. SNAP funding not only addresses food insecurity but also supports the economies of local communities, such as by generating over $4.5 billion in state and federal tax revenue annually, Ferrara noted. The trade association had previously cited data that every $1 invested in SNAP generates $1.79 of economic activity in communities. "[The] committee's proposal to shift costs to states is a concern given the challenging headwinds that states face," Ferrara said. Earlier in May, the NGA said it met with representatives of four Democratic members of Congress to urge Congress to limit SNAP funding cuts. "We urge Congress to pursue balanced reforms and solutions that strengthen the program, eliminate waste and fraud, and uphold the health and economic well-being of American families, while preserving American jobs in our food chain and grocery industry," Ferrara said last week. FMI is advocating for the continuation of federal governance of SNAP to ensure continuity. "We believe complex, differing SNAP restrictions sorted by states would cause delays, errors and disputes, further slowing the checkout speeds, frustrating customers and increasing operational costs," Hatcher said. By a 57%-to-39% margin, survey respondents want a single national standard on what SNAP can be used for, according to FMI. To help ensure stakeholders have up-to-date information as discussion of SNAP policy changes continues, FMI recently launched a new website to provide the survey data and serve as a resource for information about the current discussions around SNAP. Along with the federal proposal, approximately 25 states this year have considered restricting SNAP participants from buying specific items like candy and soda, and those state policy changes would require getting a waiver from the USDA, Hatcher said, noting that Arkansas, Indiana, Nebraska and Iowa have already submitted waiver requests. FMI has pushed back on efforts to limit how SNAP participants use their benefits, noting that "the best results" are those that make resources available like dietitian-supported recipes or curated shopping experiences, Hatcher said. FMI has said that different state policies could confuse shoppers and retailers. "The future strength of this program isn't just a policy issue-it's a moral imperative and an economic necessity," Leslie G. Sarasin, FMI president and CEO, said in a statement. Peyton Bigora contributed reporting. Copyright 2025 Industry Dive. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House Republicans Want to Force States to Cut SNAP for Them
House Republicans are pressing forward with a plan to cut billions of dollars from a critical nutrition program by forcing states to shoulder more of the cost, threatening benefits for roughly 42 million low-income Americans in red and blue states alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, has traditionally been fully funded by the federal government and administered by states. But this week, the House Agriculture Committee approved along party lines a measure that would slash more than $290 billion from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. These cuts would be achieved in part by pushing a portion of benefit costs onto states, as well as requiring individual states to shoulder more of the administrative expenses. Haley Kottler, campaign director at Kansas Appleseed, an anti-hunger advocacy organization, described the potential changes as 'the most outlandish policy that I've seen on SNAP, maybe ever.' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, requiring Kansas to pay for 25 percent of SNAP benefits would cost more than $100 million over six years. 'If these go through, it absolutely will wreak havoc on the program overall,' said Kottler. 'For one, we don't have that in our state budget right now, and two, lawmakers in Kansas do not have the political will to put any more money forth for SNAP.' If the bill passes both chambers of Congress, beginning in 2028, states would be forced to pay between 5 percent and 25 percent of SNAP benefits based on payment error rates. In 2023, more than half of all states had an error rate of higher than 10 percent, meaning that they would shoulder a quarter of the cost of SNAP. Kansas, for example, had an error rate of more than 12 percent in 2023. Kottler said that she was disheartened but 'not surprised' by the efforts to cut SNAP, as they echoed recent bills in her state's legislature to expand work requirements and shave program costs. She was skeptical of House Republican assertions that states would understand the shift in cost and would be able to pick up the slack. 'I'm a fifth-generation Kansan, and I've been working with our state legislature for six years now, and I've never heard them being interested in something like that,' said Kottler. Elaine Waxman, senior fellow in the Tax and Income Supports Division at the Urban Institute, noted that SNAP payment error rates increased amid the upheaval of the coronavirus pandemic and that the state offices administering the program remain understaffed and underfunded. Historically, states and the federal government have split the cost of administering SNAP evenly. Under this bill, states would now be responsible for 75 percent of administrative costs, which would make it even more difficult for them to balance supervising the program and providing benefits themselves. The bill would also lower a 'tolerance level' for SNAP error payments from $37 to $0, which would likely increase error rates across the board. 'You're [between] a rock and a hard place in that, OK, you have a higher error rate—in order to get your error rate down, or to implement other things that will reduce your costs, you need more administrative investment, probably. But where will that be coming from?' she said. 'You had an atypical situation the last few years, and so you're predicating the program on an atypical situation, but without diagnosing why things are the way they are, and what would be required to make them better.' As nearly every state has some form of balanced budget requirement, they may not have the leeway to expend greater funds on providing SNAP benefits. 'What states cannot do, that the federal government can, is they cannot infinitely borrow to run an entitlement program,' said Lauren Bauer, associate director of the Hamilton Project. 'Pushing things off onto states who do not have the capacities that the federal government does is a way to push responsibility onto people who don't have every tool that they would need to to prevent the shrinking of these programs.' States would have limited options for finding the funds to cover increased SNAP costs that Republicans are proposing. One potential route states might take would be eliminating 'broad-based categorical eligibility,' a policy that allows households to participate in the program if they qualify for certain other benefits. Eliminating this policy would increase bureaucratic red tape for families who would suddenly be dealing with a more complicated application process and potentially result in people losing their benefits. This, in turn, would affect access to other programs—for example, children would no longer be automatically enrolled in free school meals or immediately qualify for early childhood nutrition programs. 'Should this cost shift go through, states would have to pull back on this SNAP expansion, and leave people who need the program without a recourse,' said Salaam Bhatti, SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center. 'It's not just a ripple effect that these proposals have. It's a shock wave.' SNAP can be considered an 'automatic stabilizer' during times of economic hardship because it allows for the rapid enrollment of people who are newly eligible due to job loss or other financial struggles. During the Great Recession and the coronavirus pandemic—which saw significant expansions in program benefits—SNAP was a key resource for Americans suddenly floundering in an unstable economic environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that every $1 spent on SNAP during a recession generates $1.50 in economic returns. 'Let's say that you're in a place where a lot of people have lost their jobs because a recession is starting, but more people go onto SNAP to help buffer that income decline. And so what does that mean? Well, they can still go to the grocery store and buy food. So what does that mean? Well, it means that the grocery store doesn't need to lay off one of their checkout people, or one of their shelf stockers,' said Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Northwestern University who studies policies addressing child poverty. 'There's a multiplier effect.' With economists warning of a potential recession on the horizon—with uncertainty surrounding tariff policy simultaneously heightening and lessening worries of an economic downturn—cuts to SNAP would mean losing that automatic stabilization. A recent report co-authored by Waxman estimated that, should the U.S. enter a recession, states subject to a 10 percent cost share would need to spend an additional $980 million in the first year of the economic downturn to cover increased benefit costs. The report also found that if states did not increase spending, but instead reduced benefit amounts, all SNAP participants would face an average reduction in benefits by $327. Given that these changes would be implemented beginning in fiscal year 2028—crucially, after the 2026 midterm elections that will be a referendum on Republican guardianship of Congress—it's uncertain where the economy will be at that point. The potential changes to SNAP are not happening in a vacuum—the cuts are part of a massive package to slash federal spending and extend tax breaks that Republicans are currently trying to muscle through both chambers of Congress, through an arcane process known as 'budget reconciliation.' The bill also includes cuts to Medicaid that could result in millions of low-income people losing their coverage at the same time that they see changes to SNAP benefits, even as losses in SNAP benefits are associated with poorer health outcomes. 'Ironically, if you're cutting SNAP, you may push that pressure over onto the Medicaid program … at the same time that you're looking at cutting Medicaid,' said Waxman. While shifting more costs onto states would comprise roughly half of the $290 billion in proposed cuts to SNAP, tightening work requirements would slash an additional $92 billion in spending. Currently, able-bodied adults without children under age 54 can receive SNAP benefits for only three months over a three-year period unless they are able to prove that they are fulfilling a 20-hour-per-week work requirement or are disabled. The Republican plan would lift that cap to able-bodied adults without dependents up to age 64. It would also tighten work requirements for parents; instead of allowing parents with children under age 18 to be exempt from work requirements, those exemptions would only apply to parents with children under age 7. Research by Bauer has shown that SNAP work requirements do not meaningfully increase employment, and lead to a decrease in program participation. It's uncertain whether the cuts to SNAP will pass as is, given that the reconciliation bill still needs to pass the House, and some senators have appeared skeptical about changes to federal benefit programs. Efforts to address some issues in the reconciliation bill that would normally be part of the farm bill—the massive legislation that oversees nutrition, agriculture, and conservation policy—may also run afoul of Senate rules. Still, even with changes to the bill on the horizon, the proposal to slash SNAP spending indicates where Republican priorities lie. Bauer argued that the intention of the cuts to SNAP did not fulfill the program's purpose of assisting low-income Americans but that instead they were merely concerned with cutting the federal deficit. 'This program right now is about reducing human suffering, getting people back on their feet, improving nutrition and food security outcomes, preventing hunger, stimulating local economies, helping rural economies, helping rural grocery stores, helping all grocery stores,' said Bauer. 'All of the proposals that are in this bill are cost-cutting. That's why they're there.'
Axios
16-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Cuyahoga County child food insecurity is among the worst in Ohio
Over 40% of children in some U.S. counties live in food-insecure households, per new estimates shared first with Axios from Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks. Why it matters: Potential cuts or changes to federal food aid programs like SNAP and tariffs on imported foods could affect millions of Americans and exacerbate the childhood hunger crisis. By the numbers: An estimated 14 million U.S. children overall live in food-insecure homes. That's about one out of every five kids. The rate tends to be higher in relatively poor, rural counties — but there are urban areas with high rates as well, like New York's Bronx County (33.1%). Zoom in: Cuyahoga County's child insecurity rate (26%) is among the highest in Ohio, per Feeding America's new Map the Meal Gap report. Only Adams (27.6%), Meigs (26.7%) and Scioto (26.1%) counties rank worse. The big picture: Childhood food insecurity is one piece of a broader hunger problem exacerbated by rising food costs. The annual aggregate national food budget shortfall — meaning, the total amount of money people in food-insecure U.S. households need to buy enough food — rose from $28.5 billion in 2022 to $32.2 billion in 2023, up 8.4% inflation-adjusted. What they're saying: U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Warrensville Heights) voiced opposition to the proposed SNAP cuts in remarks at the House Agriculture Committee hearing Tuesday.
