Meeting Public Comments

Linda Schreiber []

What is the purpose of this bill? Is it to provide nutrition to lowincome, foodinsecure individuals or is it intended to limit options? During the pandemic, more people became food insecure. This is not speculation, it is a fact. As a Master Gardener, we practice Plant A Row to grow and give excess produce to area food pantries to help people and families who do not have enough fresh food to eat. Food insecurity is growing even in Iowa, one of the richest agricultural states in the nation. The SNAP program is tied to the Farm Bill, federal legislation. SNAP recipients can use the program to buy fresh food at farmers markets. Do legislators feel SNAP recipients are using this benefit carelessly by buying items at the store that are considered "luxury" items like soda and chips? But what you may not know is that while these are not a daily necessity, those items are a part of our culture and especially tied to our sporting culture. Investing everyone in Iowa and America in our culture helps create a stronger state and nation.

Susan Wilbois []

OK Republicans. Prove you're more than probirth advocates. You evidently don't care about what happens to people after they are born. YOU ARE NOT PROLIFE IF YOU RESTRICT INDIVIDUALS FROM GETTING HEALTHY FOODS.

Pamela Wilson []

I beseech you to not starve Iowans with your restrictions to Snap. I am a retired RN. I am sure there are those who play the system and cheat, but the majority do not. I had a client several years ago who had a family of 4. Father was nonexistent. She fixed Hamburger Helper made with 1/2 pound of hamburger and a canned vegetable 5 nights a week. Food stamp users cannot afford fresh vegetables and fruit. Please don't restrict food for those who have so little.

Rachel Henning []

I oppose HF3. The fact that the food restrictions are being removed is good, but it is not enough. This bill will not add anything to our economy Iowa only pays for half of the administrative cost, the rest comes from the federal government. In fact I have read that the proposed changes will actually increase the amount spent by the state. This bill does not take into account the reality of many Iowan lives, especially those living in rural communities. It will harm Iowans and lead to increased food insecurity something that should be a source of intense embarrassment in a state that prides itself on its agriculture. It is bad enough that there are Iowans going hungry now. Any bills that restrict and prevent helping people meet their basic needs including HF3 must be opposed and voted down.

Patricia Sheller [None]

What is the sense of these restrictions on the food people can buy? There are many ways to eat sensible, healthy, and inexpensive meals that include these foods. Why take choices away like this? Fresh meat, shredded cheese, different kinds of beans, why are you trying to forbid these? You aren't dieticians, and you don't know what particular nutritional needs different families have.

John Tovar [N/A]

Iowa's Governor and republican lawmakers should disregard their bizarre intentions of delivering a law that would be very cruel, unusual, unhealthy, and devastating to a segment of Iowans that are poor. Who are these people amongst the Iowa legislators that could be so cruel minded?

Jennifer Cooke [Head Start Preschool Teacher]

A BIG NO FOR HF3Wow! A 1.8 billion dollar surplus in Iowa and lawmakers want to limit and restrict low income familys SNAP benefits?! This is just proof that our legislators are so far removed from serving their constituents needs. Removing resources to obtain fresh meats, fruits, and vegetables from the people in our community that need them the most is an insult to our pride in our Iowa agriculture as well as a slap in the face to those who are struggling to survive. For the love of compassion Do better for those you serve Iowa lawmakers! Do you continue to forget that you are elected officials whom we pay to be our voice? I am so sick and tired of seeing the children and families I serve being bullied by lawmakers that want to micromanage and minimize programs low income families utilize. The same legislators that dont believe in big government. Whose purpose does this bill honestly serve?

Theresa Johnson [retired teacher]

I strongly oppose HF3. Food insecurity is increasing in Iowa because of the pandemic, crazy rent prices, and the extremely low minimum wage. Children need access to protein for their developing brains. Children deserve adequate nutrition; they are innocent pawns in these meanspirited political machinations. If Iowa politicians are truly prolife, they won't deprive low income people of food.

Christy Shackelford []

I do not agree with this. Our Iowa youth needs to be able to have access to healthy foods. How can you think it's ok to tell a parent what is good enough or to good to feed their kids. This is not the right way to go and I hope you realize this is only going to hurt our already struggling Iowa families.

Brandy Sickels []

I want to start by saying I support the 1 million dollars towards double up food bucks. The program is beneficial for so many. As far as the rest of the bill, I am incredibly disappointed. In this time of inflation this bill seems to be taking away from those who need it more now. I have friends who struggle with medical issues. Under 40. Cannot work,struggling to find ways to just not feel like dying and on top of that they get denied essential help? Or have to jump through so many hoops its almost impossible because of their limited energy due to illness. Then talk about families who NEED two cars to just make it to the jobs and school and still barely make it paycheck to paycheck currently. If you want to help Iowans, do not pass this. Pause and continue to look for better ways. I won't claim to have the answers. We all need to work together to find what will work. This isn't it. We need more investments in food security, not less. I am fortunate. I work full time with a well paying job. So does my spouse. However with the increasing costs of living I have anxiety over providing. My heart breaks for those whom already run out of money before the month is over and are now facing the possibility of making less last longer.As a mother of two littles, I imagine my children being in need and what I'd hope would be there for them if I couldn't. Please think of your loved ones when making these decisions.

Jackie Cordon []

Limiting SNAP benefits to the WIC list would defeat the whole purpose of SNAP benefits. Limiting growing children and teens to just canned tuna and salmon? Families would be forced into feeding their kids a lot of cereal and bread. And take a town like Villisca. You need food for supper and maybe your car isnt that trustworthy to go all the way to a HyVee or Fareway or youre working two parttime jobs and dont have the time. So youre stuck with Dollar General. But you cant buy the hamburger and feed them sloppy joes or a bowl of chili. Instead its going to be tuna and cereal for supper. A real winner for growing bodies. This bill shows just how out of touch and unrealistic these legislators are. It also shows pure laziness. Lets take a list designed to be supplemental for pregnant women and young children and substitute it for one designed for growing kids and teens (most single adults, even those on SSI dont qualify). Instead of saying okay, lets take off pop and maybe a few other things, they say this will do. All Iowans should be horrified by this.

Mary Anne Gibson []

The cruelty expressed by this bill, HF3, is shocking, even in the current environment where making life more controlled and difficult for Iowans appears to be the order of the day. I feel that I hardly recognize what is happening in our state and it leads to a deep feeling of sadness. Shame on this attack on lowincome Iowans who live with food insecurity every day. Having worked for many years in a mental health center, I saw daily the serious need of many of our citizens. When people are struggling to deal with basic needs, the emotional stress and strain takes its toll on all members of the household, adults and children alike. One becomes suspicious when one of the reasons put forth for this proposed legislation is that the dollars saved are needed in other areas of the budget. With the fast track of the school voucher bill, which skirted review by the appropriations committee, we might wonder if the projected savings of HF3 will be directed to the costly school voucher program. Some of you may profess to be led by the Gospel. May you be reminded of the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:40:"....whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

Pat Shipley []

Please oppose HF 3. The proposed food restrictions are nutritionally limited to provide food for families and the elderly. The restriction on cars makes no sense if a family is working multiple jobs. Asset restrictions don't allow for families to have any emergency funds available for unplanned expenses. This bill is punitive to those who struggle with food insecurities and may already live in a rural high poverty area that is also a food desert. There has been no data presented to support the proposed restrictions. The bill is unnecessary and simply places further burden on families or the elderly trying to have enough to eat.I oppose this legislation.

Susie Olesen []

My friends 83 year old sister worked at a low wage job her entire life, owns an old car that her brothers and sisters keep going, is active in her church, and is a fine human being. She depends on SNAP for groceries. Not sure who you all think depends on SNAP, but Iowa has disabled veterans, people who have been laid off, elderly who live in poverty, young families with hungry children not many looking for a handout. Also, there is very little fraud. It appears you want to humiliate those in need. If you have $1 billion to provide tuition to people with high incomes, surely you can feed the poor. Proverbs 14:31 (NIV)He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Cindy O'Connell []

This is one more disgraceful proposal by Republicans to punish people for being in a low income bracket. Meat and all healthy diet choices must be left available in this public assistance program.

Tiffany Welch []

I oppose HF 3. The only good thing is the funding of Double Up Food Bucks, a program that helps SNAP recipients as well as Iowa farmers and grocery stores by giving incentives to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. The rest of the bill is completely absurd if we truly want to value parent choice (restricting food options strips this choice away). The asset limits discourages saving for an emergency. Only having 1 car per household makes it nearly impossible to get two parents to employment to get back to being self sufficient, especially given the profound lack of public transportation in most of the state.Please fund double up food bucks, but forget the rest that makes it harder for families to access food.

Jacob Wanderscheid [Food Bank of Siouxland]

On behalf of the Food Bank of Siouxland, I am against House File 3 for several reasons. First, asset limits for SNAP will force people off the program. Most households in the SNAP program have assets and at the same time have low income. Vehicles used for commuting purposes and children savings accounts would not be excluded from asset limits. These items discourage saving and working (either by discouraging working at all or by limiting how far a person will go to get a job which is right for them). Establishing an asset limit with require more administrative dollars and retroactively cost the state of Iowa more money than it hopes to save. Assets Limits require more documentation and review. Further, increasing monthly and/or quarterly eligibility checks will further increase administrative work, increasing the cost of the program again. These checks could remove people from the program, and any money saved will be a direct lose to local retail outlets. Lastly, realtime verification checks with increase work load, increasing the number of staff DHHS needs to run the program. As of FY21, Iowa is error rate nearly at national rates. As such, there is no real urgency to change. Thank you for your time!

Barbara Prather [Northeast Iowa Food Bank]

The Northeast Iowa Food Bank is opposed to HF 3. For someone who is retired and living on a small pension and social security, they would have absolutely nothing left for them to seek SNAP, if the Asset limits are put into place. For a person who needs their car to get to work, they wouldn't be able to access benefits. When the pandemic disaster proclamation ended, SNAP benefits were drastically reduced. If we compare the first quarter of 2020 (FY) to the first quarter of 2023 (FY), the Northeast Iowa Food Bank in some programs saw a 60% increase in the number of household's served. Enacting this bill, would drastically impact food banks and food pantries in the state, in a negative way. This needs to be a public private partnership, SNAP should be a safety net for people who need it. We are encouraged, that the food choice part of the bill may be stripped. Life happens for people and there are things they can't control. Families should have access to SNAP when they need it most and be able to make the choices they want.

Diane Duncan-Goldsmith []

I am wondering what evidence based data and facts Representative Grassley and the other Representatives have used to justify changing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Food (SNAP) package to one designed for families of Women, Infants and Children (up to age 5) i.e. WIC, families who are also eligible for food stamps when crafting H.F. 3, An Act relating to public assistance program integrity. As the Representatives know, SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government, and the state only covers half of the administrative costs. According to the USDA, Iowa paid a little over $22 million in 2020, a state which has cut corporate tax rates and whose governor brags about the states almost $2 billion budget surplus.Representative Grassley stated But I think there needs to be some level of accountability, and make sure that theyre really things that should qualify. If you dont lead a healthy lifestyle, that leads to more use of the (governmentfunded) services. I hope Representative Grassley can explain how eliminating key sources of high quality proteins, i.e. beef, pork, chicken can lead to a helpful diet, not to mention eliminating other food staples.In addition to drastically altering the eligible foods, this bill includes additional levels accountability of which adds more levels of oversight and reporting such as identity authorization and asset testing which proponents of this proposal argue is needed to limit fraud. Again, could Grassley and his colleagues provide data to backup these accusations of extensive fraud?Trying to decrease the number of families who receive SNAP benefits may also directly impact children whose eligibility to received free school meals is automatically approved through direct certification. How does this help address hunger in Iowa.For several years I have volunteered at the CommUnity Food Bank in Johnson County. I have seen how many families rely on the food bank for their weekly groceries. For the GOP members of the House who have introduced this piece of legislation to think families in Iowa do not need help when it comes to providing food for their families is just ridiculous. Bottom line, this is simply a mean GOP bill meant to save a few bucks which will in the end negatively impact families who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Linda Gorkow [Iowa Food Bank Association]

As an Iowa native and a child who depended on SNAP in my early life, I respectfully ask for all legislators to consider those who may not have a voice (many Iowans with one or two jobs trying to make ends meet, their children and the elderly who will be most affected by this bill). Barriers to accessing SNAP is not something I cannot support HF3.This bill and its previous versions have not moved forward because the wisdom of our legislators knowing the burden and negative impact of a bill such as HF3.SNAP brings FEDERAL FUNDS into Iowa to help feed food insecure Iowans who are doing their best to make ends meet while increasing sales for retailers across the state. Food books are serving an exceptionally high number of Iowans needing food its at pandemic level. HF3 will only make the work of food banks harder. Please do not inhibit a wellrun SNAP program in our state. We work for all Iowans in our 99 counties. I know you want to nourish Iowans not penalize those who have food needs. Thank you for caring and listening to these experts who work with nourishing Iowans daily. A few specific items: HF 3 would require public assistance program applicants to complete a computerized identity authentication questionnaire to receive benefits.While this may have the potential to increase access for some people (those with transportation or medical barriers, or without access to the required forms of identification), it also presents a significant access barrier to many people, especially those without internet access, limited credit history, or limited English proficiency.This requirement would go against USDA regulations for SNAP. Were this new computerized identity authentication process an option, not a requirement, it could have the potential to increase access for SNAP applicants and would be inline with USDA regulations.On asset tests Asset tests discourage work and prevent families from saving enough to secure safe housing (e.g. first & last month rent + security deposit) or reliable transportation (e.g. a used car). In the Pennsylvania case study, you could note that the biggest drop in participation came from seniors who were wary about giving out sensitive bank account information to the government. Regarding importance of car ownership for workers in a state like Iowa. You could also tie in inflation here to say workers shouldn't be penalized when car valuations just dramatically, as they did during the pandemic.On the various pieces of the bill around "eligibility checks" and data matching.HF 3 would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to complete realtime eligibility verification checks on SNAP participants.I must emphasize how this is carboncopy language not tailored to Iowa. Many of the data checks referenced already happen, and SNAP households are already required to frequently verify eligibility. The SNAP Program works and is an efficient program that brings FEDERAL FUNDS into the IOWA economy. Iowa Health and Human Servies is doing an excellent job and Director Garcia has made incredible strides. We do not need to drown the agency in excessive alerts and paperwork actually hurts payment accuracy, potentially putting Iowa at risk of federal fines in the future.Requiring custodial parents to cooperate with the child support recovery unit or lose access to SNAP benefits: All of these state options have proven unpopular. According to the Department of Agriculture, only eight states currently implement any of the child supportrelated disqualifications.25Many times a grandparent has taken on parental responsibilities. More than 2.5 million grandparents are raising their grandchildren.36 Many are doing so informally, without official custody or foster care arrangements. A requirement for custodians to pursue child support would mandate that these grandparents seek payments from parents in order to be eligible for SNAP benefits. Some grandparents might forgo SNAP if they had concerns about the state pursuing the parents for child support. For example, a grandparent might not want to implicate a parent struggling with drug addiction or mental health issues in a child support enforcement action. Also, in cases involving prior abuse by a parent, the grandparent might fear for their own safety or the childs if they sought child support. And if a grandparent did seek child support, the parent might reclaim custody of the child which might not be in the childs best interest rather than pay support. It is not a one size fits all when we talk about Child support recovery. There should be some qualifying exemptions to ensure no child goes hungry.

Eric Fralick [--None--]

Having worked in the food business for many years, I know how badly the SNAP program is needed, especially given our uneven economy, and how little it is abused by those it helps. As with all welfare, the greatest wish of all who benefit from it is to get off it as soon as possible so they can lead normal lives. Having SNAP conform to WIC guidelines, which are for nursing mothers and babies, is both cruel and nutritionally inadequate for most people, defeating the purpose of the program.

Candella Foley-Finchem []

(1) SNAP benefits were already based on income and resources. However, adding the individual's home and vehicle as their "resources" leaves out those who may have been home owners but are currently facing an income challenge (i.e., layoffs, changing job market, health requiring reduced hours/wages, or pregnancy/childbirth, childcare needs, to name only a few of the circumstances that can cause food insecurity)SNAP benefits are designed to feed the foodinsecure even if those individuals haven't always been in poverty. (2) By including the car and home, those families who live in areas without public transportation, or where public transportation doesn't meet their scheduling needs many families need more than one car in order to improve their lives and lift them out of poverty. Penalizing them for working to improve their lives and obtaining a second vehicle is a recipe to hold them hostage for food. (3) removing automatic reenrollment puts an undue burden on families who are already struggling. The extra chore of reappylying every quarter serves no purpose to the state other than knocking some recipients who struggle with managing executive tasks off the benefits and increasing food insecurity. It also creates undue burden for the workers who approve the applications as they have more work to treat every application as a "new" enrollee. (4) "Healthy behaviors" Seriously? Unless you are walking this talk, you're just a hypocrite. How many times do you go to the gym each week? Really, it's none of your business to know the exercise regimen or why an individual may be unable to complete an exercise regimen, and this is just additional hurdles and cruelty to the impoverished. (5) Most SNAP beneficiaries do work, as they are able, but the work requirements in this bill go beyond reasonable for some Again, the point of SNAP is to ensure that Iowans are able to EAT!!! you may have heard that whole "feed a man a fish, he eats for the day, but teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime" and that is true, but it's also true that the hungry do not learn as quickly as the fed. Where is your compassion? Where is that Christianity that so many legislators seem to refer to when asked a question, but then this kind of bill? Stop with the cruelty! Ensure that Iowans are able to EAT! (6) apparently, you're also not aware of the challenges of going from broke and hungry to employed. For most jobs, there is no paycheck for the first 2 weeks, as most employers have at least a week's "Holdout" before the employee gets paid. By constricting SNAP benefits so tightly, you're increasing the number of food insecure in Iowa, and reducing the overall health and wellbeing of our citizens. (7) This is just a rotten bill all the way through. It appears to be entirely focused on punishing the poor, reducing the number of eligible SNAP recipients from wanting to apply for this Federally funded support, and ensuring that our most vulnerable citizens decline in health and wellbeing. (8) If you follow the teachings of Jesus this bill is a slap to His face, who instructed us to feed the poor. If your goal is cruelty to the poor well, in that case, you've done quite well, and I hope you receive the karma you deserve for it.