I want to start with the latest news which was the rulings by several judges, a couple of judges asking the Trump administration to pay out SNAP benefits for the month of November out of contingency funds and possibly other funding.
So to start off, we didn't need to get there, right?
FRAC and other organizations have been telling the administration even before the shutdown happened about asking about what their plan is.
USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has contingency funds, what is at issue here, and reserves that they can utilize in order to be able to pay benefits.
Benefits today should have gone on time if the Secretary and the administration had acted accordingly.
Last Friday, USDA sent out a memo that violated the Hatch Act because it was incredibly political, but it also said that the contingency funds that advocates like ours had been saying for weeks to be utilized for SNAP so that benefits could go out on time were only in case of an emergency and that department lacked the authority,
which is something we know is not true because they have utilized those funds to already pay some administrative expenses and had utilized the reserves to pay for other priorities of the administration.
Yes, they have utilized some of the contingency funds to pay the administrative cost expenses for the states.
So the federal government pays 50%, the state pays 50%, but they did utilize, it's our understanding, that they did utilize some of the contingency funds to pay administrative state share expenses.
In the memo specifically that they cited last Friday, it said, that this two Fridays ago, specifically said that it was in terms of a disaster.
And so about a dozen attorney generals that said, we need answers.
What do you mean you can't utilize this?
No response from USDA.
So then they, on Tuesday, they file a lawsuit led by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Andrea Campbell, asking that USDA utilize its authority that Congress had given them, that is in the Nutrition Act, which is what governs SNAP, and utilize those contingency funds in order to fund SNAP benefits.
And you're right, there were two lawsuits.
It was the one by the Attorney Generals, but there was another lawsuit also filed by national nonprofit organizations along with municipalities and other state nonprofits that also said, please utilize this contingency funding.
And you also terminated some waivers that states were depending on, ensure that those continue onto the end.
On Thursday, the hearing for the Massachusetts one, because it was filed in Massachusetts, was heard.
And the judge gave an inkling.
There was a lot of oral argument where the judge seemed to be asking questions as to why USDA didn't think it had utilized the authority, what it had done in the past, and said that it would issue an order on Friday, which she did.
And then the Rhode Island hearing also happened on Friday.
Both are similar and different in a way.
Both specifically have given USDA, it captures the whole of the nation, because even though the states asked for the injunction during all your argument, the judge seemed to say that this would apply as a whole.
And that's the way the SNAP program works.
You can't choose and pick over states.
It would apply as a whole.
And so the judge seemed to say USDA has until Monday, the administration has us to Monday to decide how they're going to utilize the contingency funds in order to fund SNAP.
And the Rhode Island one, the one that was heard in Rhode Island, actually goes a little bit further and says that USDA should also find a way to figure out if they can utilize the reserve funding so that they can fully fund SNAP.
Because currently we do know that the contingency funds are not sufficient to cover the full month of SNAP benefits.
Well, we've been saying this that there is this fund called Section 32 that the Secretary of Agriculture has tapped in to fund WIC, right?
There is over $30 billion worth of reserves that the Secretary can easily tap into, has the authority to do so in order to offset so that full benefits will go in.
So there's two things that can happen.
We don't know how the administration is going to respond, but it takes a while, right?
Because it's not as simple as turning on a switch.
The states have to do these issuance files where they say this is how many people are eligible.
This is how much they're entitled to.
They send that to something called an EBT processor vendor.
There are two main ones in the U.S. that pretty much have half and half of the states.
Those EBT processors capture all of the cases and say to the Department of Agriculture, this is how much money we need in order for individuals when they swipe their card to have benefits in the card.
USDA takes those numbers and says, okay, here's your letter of credit.
Take it over and begin.
Then the EBT processors have it.
And so when that person walks into an eligible participating EBT retailer and they scan their card, that money is transferred.
So it's not as simple as that.
If USDA says, nope, we're only going to use contingency funding, then it's going to take another level of steps because then USDA will have to figure out how they're going to prorate, meaning how they're going to give less than the amount that people are entitled to, most likely 50%, and will have to do added calculations.
I will flag that this process may take a little bit longer because we do not know how many people have been terminated or furloughed from USDA because unlike other shutdowns, the Office of Management and Budget directed the agencies to terminate individuals instead of being furloughed.
So we don't know how much on the back end and how quickly the department can act, but we do know that we just don't know at the point like what USDA, how is going to respond at this moment.
Can we let's take a step back, Gina, and talk about the SNAP program and kind of who it covers.
We're going to put on the screen some information from the USDA about fiscal year 2025 benefits and how many people it covers at about 42.5 million people are covered by SNAP.
Can you give us an idea of the type of people who receive SNAP benefits and usually how long do people stay on it?
They make up the biggest bucket, followed by older adults and then followed with people with disabilities.
They are parents, they are children, they are veterans, they are unhoused individuals, they're a youth aging out of foster care.
The main reason that people are on this program is threefold.
Number one, I lost my job.
This economy has been tough.
When people lose their job and don't have a support system, they need to be able to keep paying their bills to be able to stay afloat.
The second reason is my wages have been reduced.
And the third reason is I have a family member to take care of.
I can't work full-time or there are things that are prohibiting me.
All of these things are interrelated to the economy.
When the economy is strong, people are not in SNAP because there are jobs.
Food doesn't cost as much.
Shelter doesn't cost as much.
And you can see that through various years that the program has been utilized.
When the economy is strong, we are not.
We're at a point that our economy is not doing that well.
We haven't recovered since the pandemic.
And so there's a higher unemployment rate.
There is, and when I say unemployment rate, majority of people on SNAP are working part-time.
And the latest labor statistics show that people were looking for a full-time job, but they could not find it.
Even though they're working, a lot of these individuals make less than $1,100 a month because they're part of the gig economy, meaning there is not enough funding for them to be able to supply for their families.
So in order to be able to pay shelter, which takes up to 70 to 80% of their income, leaving very little money for anything else, they rely on this program in order to feed their family.
Most people are in the program ranging either from six months to 24 months, depending on how dire the situation is.
But it's not a permanent program.
People are not in the program for their lifetime.
They're there because they have falling on hard times and they rely on this program so that they continue so that they continue with their well-being and can be able to move through and receive economic mobility.
There's some that do three months, they do six months, they do a year.
But in general, there's constant checking that individual circumstances are currently the same.
Also, individuals who have wages, which is a majority of the individuals, and the back end is constantly checking that wages have not gone up because if it does, it flags it for the state agency, which then contacts the individual and then they have to submit verifications.
It is the most regulated quality control program that we have among all federal programs.
And I'll just let people know that if you'd like to join our conversation about federal food aid, you can give us a call.
The lines are Democrats 202748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
We also have a line set aside for SNAP recipients.
So if you are on the SNAP program, please do give us a call.
A special line is set for you.
That's 202-748-8003.
And Gina, I want to ask you about work requirements because you mentioned a lot of people that are on SNAP are working, but the one big beautiful bill did make those, I guess, put in new work requirements.
Can you give us an idea of what those are and how things are going to change as a result of that bill?
Yes, since 1996, under the Personal Responsibility Act, individuals Who are 18 to 49 had to show that they were, and they were called, as they are called, able-bodied adults without dependent, which is a misnomer because there are many individuals who have disabilities that just haven't been able to prove them.
But they can only get SNAP for three months in a three-year period if they cannot show that they are working at least 20 hours a week.
In 2023, under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, that was expanded from 18 to 49 to 18 to 54, but they were giving certain caveats, certain protections for those who were unhoused, those who are veterans, and those who are youth aging out of foster care, because there's plenty of data that shows that these particular populations are incredibly vulnerable, and it's really difficult for them to show that they're constantly working those 20 hours a week.
There's some people who are at 17, 18.
It's really difficult.
The HR1, the reconciliation law that you just mentioned in the summer, it was expanded to those who are up to 64.
It took away the protection.
So that means that veterans, housed youth aging out of foster care, now fall under this category.
And then also for the first time in history, parents, caretakers of children 14 and up also have to meet this requirement.
There are some exemptions you have.
You can show that you have a disability if you are going to school.
That could be one of the ways that could be exempted.
And there are states that may exempt if they meet something called unfitness, but it's an incredibly hard program that the disability community has been calling out for years.
That many individuals who have disabilities also fall through the gaps because it's so difficult to prove to submit verifications in order for eligible people to receive SNAP.
So as a whole, it just costs the state agencies money and resources because they have to touch the cases constantly to ensure that the right people are in the program, that people are submitting, that they're saying, okay, you utilize one month.
So what is going to happen is that beginning actually today, many individuals applying moving forward will be held to this requirement.
Once they recertify or they do their interim report, once they have a touch base with the agency, they will be told you're no longer protected.
It doesn't matter if you're homeschooling your child.
It doesn't matter that you, grandmother, have retired and are on a limited income.
You can't find other jobs.
You're 63.
You have to go back to the workforce and show that you're working at least 20 hours a week because helping your daughter taking care of your granddaughter doesn't count.
So it's incredibly burdensome.
It's going to cost once it's implemented as a whole.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 2 million people will be losing benefits every month.
All right, let's talk to callers and we'll start with Bob in Racine, Wisconsin.
Democrat, good morning, Bob.
unidentified
Hello, C-SPAN.
I love C-SPAN.
And Ms. Peter, I like your comment on this.
All the Republicans have to do is say we're going to vote one vote to open the government, negotiate, and then we're going to bring it back to 60 votes after that.
I mean, do they think with, how do you look in the mirror when you're getting money and then millions of people are not getting food staff?
How do you base yourself?
I mean, they already worked six months, not even a year.
We're going to utilize our contingency reserves, our contingency funds, and our reserves, just like we did for WIC, just like we have done for other priorities.
On November 1st, you will get your benefits on time.
And even now, they don't have to wait for the lawsuit.
They don't have to wait for Republicans and Democrats to agree.
They can just do their job and feed the American people.
So that rotisserie chicken, that potato salad, that maybe help, you know, people with mobility issues so they can't cook, people with disability, older adults, who don't who lack the muscle mass, unhoused individuals who could really, they can't cook a bag of potatoes.
You know, they can buy hot food.
It has to be food that they themselves then go home and prepare it.
It doesn't take into account the individuals may not necessarily have a kitchen or the ability to be able to cook that food.
You know, there's a previous administration that said what healthy is, but there's no current definition.
Individuals can just buy the food that's more culturally and dietary and needed for their own needs, just like, you know, you and I and any individual with a paycheck will buy the food that is needed for them.
But I will flag that SNAP recipients, their diet is no different from the rest of Americans.
They do have to sometimes in these difficult times buy items with more caloric intake because the benefits are not enough.
They're less than $6 a day.
And with food being what it is, so expensive now, people have to make tough choices to ensure that while this program is supposed to be supplemental, this may be a person's whole budget.
They have to make sure that they last longer.
And in many places where SNAP recipients reside, they're called high-need, low-access areas.
There are very few places where they can find fresh produce or more accessible food that they can meet their needs.
There is a higher rate of poverty and a higher rate of hunger.
in rural areas that do tend to be in red states.
The issue is that in many of those states, because while it's a federal program, states have the option to administer it in ways that make it more accessible for individuals or create additional barriers.
So in many of those states, the state agency decides to make it more difficult, more people who jump through additional hoops.
So there may be less access in those places.
But as a whole, many of those places do have a higher rate of food insecurity, a higher rate of hunger, and a higher SNAP utilization.
It is across the whole board.
While sometimes states like California do come out, we have to realize that they do have a lot more population.
Some of the most populous states and also largest SNAP recipients are California, followed by Texas, followed by Florida, and then Pennsylvania.
It's also depending on population.
A smaller state is not going to have a higher amount of individuals because it really is populations and access and needs and how easier the state agency makes it people for making the program accessible.
Gary is a SNAP recipient in New Rochelle, New York.
Good morning, Gary.
unidentified
Yeah, I'd like to say good morning and agree with a couple of people out there.
The woman who's 94 who can't get to the store.
I have a friend who picks me up and takes me to the store.
It took me seven years to get off a walker to a cane.
And I managed to get to the store now, you know, with them, you know, three times a month.
And so that's not that problem.
I agree with the guy from DC about the $20 billion, which is two months' worth of food stamps that went to Argentina of our taxpayer money without any congressional approval.
But what I really wanted to ask you about is the return, the rate of return on the dollar for food stamps.
I was under the impression that the agriculture department and the people who actually grow the food actually benefit more than $1 per dollar that is put in to our food stamps.
For every dollar spent for a SNAP, it translates to up to $1.80 in local economy.
Last year brought over $110 billion of federal dollars that went into our municipalities.
This also translates, just looking at small grocers, not as a whole, the 266,000 retailers.
It brought seven, almost $8 billion in states as small grocers and retailers, over 240,000 direct jobs and 135,000 indirect jobs.
That means cashiers, the people who transport the food, over $10 billion in wages.
That means the cashiers in there, those individuals who live there, property taxes, right?
Because people, those retailers who are in there, they either lease or buy property, that property taxes going to your municipality that allows your city town manager, your mayor, to utilize it to be able to fund your basic needs.
And that brought up about $2.6 billion in tax revenue indirect and almost $2 billion in local taxes.
And this is just small grocers.
But as a whole, yes, the money goes from USDA basically into retailers who then go and spread it out through wages and multiplying throughout our local economy.
We got a question for you, Gina, on text about Governor Westmore in Maryland, who signed an executive order, created a state of emergency in order to pay SNAP benefits, asking, is that legal?
So the way it works is, remember how I mentioned that the state agency sort of holds those files and have the contract with this EBT processor.
The EBT processor can say the state agency can go to the EBT processor.
We need to utilize a different type of funding.
Remember, state agencies never, the state never touches the federal money.
They never see it, which is why they haven't been able to tap into it.
So if states have reserves, which many don't, and they're really looking and digging into finding other money to feed their families and their state, they can just, they will speak to their EBT processor who will manage it so that they can issue funds to those individuals.
I think we can all agree that it's a basic right for people to be able to have access to food.
And our country made that agreement in the 70s when it decided to span the program nationwide to ensure that families, children, and older adults, everyone in America had the right and the resources to eat in order for our country to be able to thrive and have a strong workforce.
Number one, I think the Republicans, they're just trying to hold this money so that they can see how long it's going to take people to have to start leaving grocery stores.
Number two is that people that are diabetic, they have to have food to eat or they can't take their medicine.
And number three, I don't think there's going to be a run on toilet paper because you got to eat to make turns.
This is one, you know, unfortunately, the bill that you mentioned, the HR1, also got it.
You know, billions of dollars from also Medicaid.
SNAP is the people on SNAP are less likely to be in the emergency room.
They save an average of $2,000 a month in medical and medical issues because food, the worst health outcome, is hunger.
So, when individuals don't have access to food, they go to the ER more, which increases state and federal costs in terms of when people visit these places because they are not having their basic needs.
Now, Gina, the Republican side, of course, is that they're saying if Democrats would just vote to pass a clean CR, then SNAP would be fully funded and we wouldn't have this problem anyway.
Does your organization take a position on whether or not you advocate for one solution or another to the government's shutdown?
We take a position that the Department of Agriculture can act the same way that it did for WIC, the same way that it's doing for Argentina, the same way that it's doing for certain special farmers for them to utilize the contingency and reserve funds as in their authority.
This has nothing to do with the shutdown in terms of the way that people are being held as political pieces, but ensuring that individuals are able to access what they need so they can tap into contingency, they can tap into reserves, they don't need to wait for the government to reopen.
You know, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but the facts don't lie.
We do know that the reason why we're in this situation is that tax rates for the billionaires of this country and high corporations is what's paying these, is what was exchanged in order to cut down Medicaid, in order to cut down SNAP.
Like I said, majority, 80% of the households have individuals who are working.
They are just not making enough because jobs are not out there.
The gig economy is real.
And if we really want to take that five-year-old and tell him that he's lazy because he's going to school and not having a job, then we really need to look at what our country is doing because people are working two to three jobs.
And I can say this because as a legal services attorney for many years, I saw many clients who said, I'm just not making enough and I have to go through this incredibly burdensome process.
It is a lot easier in this country to get a loan for half a million.
It takes you 60 seconds to get pre-approved than it is for you to get SNAP.
You have to jump through various hoops.
Some applications take over an hour.
You have to disclose so much information.
And the people on this program are the most vulnerable Americans.
There are veterans who have fought for our country, who don't have resources, who are living on the streets, and they have the right to be able to have food and the resources that they need like everyone else in America, not just billionaires and not just very wealthy corporations.
Like you said, there's a lot of rural counties down here.
And I didn't know until I seen on TV that West Virginia is the number one state for SNAP benefits.
And they just love Trump, but they love him, but don't even realize they're going to be affected the most.
I'm not on SNAP, but when I did apply for SNAP, like the young lady just was saying, you guessed there, they want you to go through a bunch of hoops and hoops and fill out all these paperwork.
And then when they said it was approved, they said $23.
So I just said, forget about it.
But I just hate to see what's going to happen if people don't get the stamps here in West Virginia.
You think they're going to sit by and let their kids starve?
Are they going to go into Walmart and Kroger's and start stealing?
Thank you very much.
But West Virginia is the number one state in the United States for SNAP benefits, and they love Trump.
That's unfortunate that people have to be put in very dire situations.
I do think, you know, again, individuals should look at what not, you know, I hate to say this because food pantries are really at capacity.
And for every meal that a food pantry provides, SNAP provides nine.
But I would say to the people in West Virginia, if they are number one for the president, call them and tell them that he has the power right now to tell the secretary to issue contingency and reserve funds so that they don't have to suffer.
SNAP is one of the most rigorous programs, quality control.
Like the gentleman before said, you have to go through so many hoops.
They have one of the lowest percentage of fraud.
When we do see it, the big fraud that we do see is something called skimming, is these criminals who have been stealing people's EBT numbers.
And when people go to the grocery store and swipe their card, no money is there.
And this has cost our country and states billions and billions of dollars because the EBT cards don't have a chip like our credit cards do, where like people can't just steal that information.
And once those monies are stolen, they're not given back.
There was an opportunity this past December to ensure that individuals will get money back that had been stolen from them.
But Elon Musk put in a tweet, don't do it.
And so the whole optimus that was being discussed sort of fell through the ground.
And so now individuals who are being victims of this fraud, of this skimming, criminals across the country stealing their benefits of these vulnerable Americans have no recourse.
Some states have something called categorical eligibility that allows, for example, older adults or people with disabilities that they can claim up to 200% of their income, but the net income has to be 130% for the most part, which again, it's very low.
And so it depends on what your, the wages you bring in, whether it's through Social Security or whether you are working.
And that is calculated based then also on what are your expenses.
So that's why no SNAP benefit in no case is ever the same, because my circumstances may be very different than your circumstances.
So they look how much I pay for, you know, if I'm paying utilities, how much I pay for rent.
And so when you do, if I have medical expenses, if I'm an older adult, if I have disabilities, they look at all of those expenses deductions and then they come up with the number that individuals get.
But like I said, on average, it is about less than $6 a day.
And yes, for the most part, older adults who are receiving Social Security get very little, as you can tell, even if they are getting Social Security, because you really have to have very low income in order to receive SNAP benefits.
And then the second question is: we are working incredibly hard with, at the state and at the federal level, trying to call on elective officials to pit the chip cards that we mentioned.
And like I said, this is the most rigorous, quality controlled program that there is.
And we're just trying to make sure that it's strengthened to protect individuals as well.