Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:
On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the bipartisan organization representing the legislatures of our nation's states, territories, commonwealths and Washington, D.C., we are writing to express our concerns about provisions in the House Agriculture reconciliation bill that would result in a significant cost shift to states for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
SNAP is a vital lifeline for 42 million individuals and families, supporting public health, food security, and economic stability in our communities. For decades, the federal government has fully funded SNAP benefits, while states have split the costs of program administration. This partnership has ensured a consistent national standard and has leveraged the federal government's economic capacity while maintaining program consistency.
The proposed changes in the reconciliation bill, however, would upend this long-standing balance by shifting substantial new costs to states. These include increases in the required state share of program expenses tied to a state's payment error rate-ranging from 5% to 25%-- with a majority of states subject to a cost shift of 20% of higher. This provision comes on top of an additional 25% increase in the state share of administrative expenses.
If enacted, these changes would have several serious consequences:
- Budgetary Strain: States may have to divert funds from other essential services-such as education, public safety, and infrastructure-to cover new SNAP obligations.
- Program Imbalances: Proposals to increase the state share of SNAP costs could lead to disparities in assistance, with some states potentially reducing benefits or imposing stricter eligibility requirements, while other states may be able to absorb some of the costs. Such a result undermines the core mission of SNAP to help low-income families afford nutritious food.
- Weakened Economic Responsiveness: During economic downturns or disasters, the proposed structure would limit states' ability to respond quickly and effectively to rising food insecurity.
- Administrative Disruptions: Greater cost burdens could affect staffing, outreach, and system modernization efforts that are critical to delivering SNAP efficiently.
While NCSL members embrace quality control measures to ensure program integrity, NCSL policy strongly supports federal incentives that move away from a system based on error rates to one that awards bonuses for accuracy and provides states with tools and resources to identify and correct problems in SNAP administration. NCSL opposes proposals that would impose costly administrative burdens and unfunded mandates on state governments and strongly urges the House Agriculture Committee to reconsider these provisions.
Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support. NCSL urges a carrot rather than stick approach to quality control. State legislators are committed to improving program integrity but cannot do so effectively if their hands are tied by unfunded federal mandates.
We welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue on how to strengthen SNAP while maintaining the federal-state partnership that has served the nation well. Thank you for your leadership and for your consideration of the states' perspective in this critical debate.
Sincerely,
Tim Storey
Chief Executive Officer
National Conference of State Legislatures
Cc: House Agriculture Committee