HR-6088-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Sponsored by Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would repeal sections 10101 through 10108 of the 2025 budget reconciliation act, which made changes to nutrition assistance programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Repealing these sections would restore the prior law governing SNAP eligibility, work requirements, benefit calculations, or funding as it existed before the reconciliation act took effect.
Who benefits
SNAP recipients who lost eligibility or benefits under the repealed sections, including certain able-bodied adults without dependents subject to new work requirements, and states that had to implement new administrative or cost-sharing rules. Anti-hunger advocacy organizations and food banks that argue reduced SNAP eligibility increased demand on their services would also see the pressure reduced.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since restoring prior SNAP rules would likely increase federal spending compared to the reconciliation act's changes. Supporters of the original reconciliation provisions, including those seeking tighter work requirements or reduced federal nutrition spending, would see those policy goals reversed. State agencies would need to readjust administrative systems again to revert to prior program rules.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the reconciliation act's SNAP changes, such as expanded work requirements and altered cost-sharing formulas, reduce food security for low-income families and are likely to push people off benefits who still need them. They contend that repealing these provisions restores assistance to households facing rising grocery costs and reverses cuts they say were adopted without adequate consideration of hunger impacts.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the reconciliation act's SNAP provisions were deliberately negotiated to control federal spending and encourage work among able-bodied recipients, and that repealing them would increase costs to taxpayers and undo efforts to target benefits more effectively. They contend that reversing recently enacted, carefully negotiated budget provisions undermines fiscal discipline achieved through the regular legislative process.