Ranking Member Bishop Statement at the Oversight Hearing on Nutritious Foods in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Congressman Sanford Bishop (D-GA-2), Ranking Member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on Nutritious Foods in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome the witnesses here today, especially my fellow Georgian, Mr. Michael Gay.
Mr. Gay, Claxton, Georgia is very lucky to have you.
The testimony you have submitted is very powerful, and I hope that during our discussion today you can expand on the reasons why restricting food choice is misguided and ultimately undermines the purpose of SNAP. These restrictions harm American families, burden 262,000 food retailers, and impede the federal and state governments administering this program that helps fight hunger.
During today's hearing we will evaluate and scrutinize a pilot program being proposed by the majority. Though it tells poor people what to eat, it does little to address the underlying challenges we face in fighting hunger.
Researchers, like those at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have already demonstrated that one of the greatest hurdles SNAP participants face in purchasing healthy foods is the modest amount of support that SNAP provides. A healthy diet costs more.
If the other side is going to argue that people using SNAP should be limited to healthier options since they are eating on the government dime, they need to join us in the 21st century and realize that a healthy diet costs more than a dime or the average $2.00 per person, per meal that SNAP provides.
Simply restricting – in the name of health – what Americans with the greatest need can purchase with SNAP without providing sufficient funding for them to afford a healthy diet is really more about trying to undermine SNAP. And that increases the likelihood that American families will go hungry.
To make matters worse, this ideological exercise would cause collateral damage to our food retailers as well as federal and state SNAP administrating authorities. Talk about interrupting supply chains. We must remember that what happens to SNAP has far-reaching effects on our food retailers and on the families supported by the program.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two letters from the National Grocers Association and one from a coalition of nutrition groups and industry.
I will just note to my colleagues that there are nearly 2,500 individual grocery stores opposed to restricting SNAP purchases who signed onto the letter, a few of whom might be in your district.
Dr. Harris, your district has 45 independent community grocers; Mr. Valadao, your district has 67 stores; Mr. Moolenaar, your district has 70; Mr. Newhouse, your district has 74; Ms. Letlow, your district has 80 independent community grocers; Mr. Cline, your district has 23 stores; Ms. Hinson, your district has 84 independent community grocers; Mr. Carl, your district has 53 stores; and Mr. Franklin, your district has 31 stores.
It is also important to note that USDA already has the authority to approve a pilot program and other government entities may propose them.
This has not happened. Why?
Well, in part, because if the goal is to make sure that those with the greatest need in our country can afford enough healthy food to feed their families, then you need to come to the table with clear suggestions not only about what constitutes healthy food but also how to ensure that everyone in need of SNAP can afford these foods.
Simply put, the majority's proposal is, at best, a half-baked idea and, at worst, a negligent suggestion that misses the mark.
To be clear, no one here disputes the importance of proper nutrition.
If the majority wants to make sure that families who use SNAP can make healthy food choices, we already have the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (also known as GusNIP). It provides a solid research framework for looking at supplementing SNAP benefits to get participants to better health.
It is reauthorized in the farm bill that Agriculture Committee Chairman Thompson just released, and the mandatory funding provided is increased substantially.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that you have been saying SNAP should follow the WIC model where food choices are limited.
Well, let us look at the WIC model. In the WIC model, participants must be assessed by a medical professional and be determined to be at nutritional risk, meaning – according to the Food and Nutrition Service – that an individual has a medical-based or dietary-based condition.
There are no health screenings for SNAP. If the intention of the majority is to promote a program with healthy choices and healthy outcomes at its heart, and argue that the WIC model should be followed, then where are the health screenings in your proposed pilot program?
Families supported by SNAP face many barriers when trying to buy healthier food, including: Being physically disabled as 22% of recipients were in 2020; Having no income other than SNAP; Being homeless; Not having proper storage for fresh fruits and vegetables; Being in a food dessert or only having access to stores that don't stock these items; Not knowing much about the impacts of dietary choices; Lack of time to prepare meals from scratch; and not having transportation to get to a store with a variety of healthy options.
To fully understand these challenges, evaluate our nutrition programs, and then make changes where needed – we need to hear from witnesses who have hands-on experience with the SNAP program. This includes families who have used the program, our grocers who sell the food, and the states who are making great strides in fighting hunger in their backyards.
Though the pilot program we discuss today appears to miss the mark, we would love to work with the Chair to find ways to address these issues, which would accomplish a shared goal for nutrition and food security.