S-1628-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Sponsored by Peter Welch (D-VT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to eliminate the existing work requirement that limits Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) to three months out of every three years unless they work or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month. It would strike the relevant subsection of current law and make conforming changes to related statutes, including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Internal Revenue Code. The changes would take effect 180 days after enactment.
Who benefits
The approximately 6.1 million able-bodied adults currently subject to SNAP work requirements who could lose benefits if they fail to comply — including those with undiagnosed or undocumented health conditions, people experiencing homelessness, and those in areas with limited job opportunities. Black and Hispanic adults, who the bill's findings indicate face disproportionate barriers to meeting work requirements. Extended family members (including children) who rely on pooled SNAP benefits from adults subject to the requirement. State and local SNAP administrators who would face reduced administrative burden. Advocacy organizations focused on food security.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers and federal budget, as removing the work requirement would likely increase SNAP enrollment and federal spending. Employers in low-wage sectors who may argue the requirement incentivizes workforce participation. Workforce development programs that are currently linked to SNAP work requirement compliance and may see reduced referrals. Fiscal hawks and deficit-reduction advocates who view the requirement as a cost-containment mechanism. States that have built administrative infrastructure around tracking and enforcing the requirement, which may face transition costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the SNAP work requirement fails its stated purpose: studies cited in the bill's findings show work requirements do not reduce poverty, and health impediments — not unwillingness to work — are the primary reason many recipients cannot comply. They contend that approximately 6.1 million people are at risk of losing food assistance under the current rule, and that benefit terminations ripple outward to children and extended family members who depend on pooled household resources. They further argue that administrative costs of enforcing the requirement actually reduce overall program participation, undermining SNAP's core mission of food security.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that work requirements serve a legitimate purpose by encouraging self-sufficiency and ensuring that a program designed as a temporary safety net does not become a long-term substitute for employment. They contend that removing the requirement would significantly expand federal spending — SNAP already costs roughly $100 billion annually — without evidence that unconditional access produces better long-term economic outcomes for recipients. They further argue that existing exemptions for those with genuine health barriers already protect vulnerable individuals, making a full repeal broader than necessary to address the hardship cases the bill's findings describe.