Meeting Public Comments

Liz Dierolf [River Bend Food Bank]

On behalf of River Bend Food Bank and the 32,559 Iowans facing hunger in our services area, we oppose the passage of SB1105 as currently written. The new asset test would be burdensome for the Department Human Services. Director Garcia has made incredible strides making the office more efficient. Currently, applicants are required to provide 7 documents by the federal government and these state requirements would add 8 more documents, requiring more staff work. Pennsylvania implemented asset limits only to remove them after three years because of the administrative costs. There needs to be a fiscal note to determine how much these new requirements would cost the state to implement.

Nicole McAlexander []

As a lifelong Iowan and the director of a nonprofit that runs a weekly food pantry in rural Linn County, I urge you not to advance SSB 1105. Every day I see the struggle that our community members face in trying to meet basic needs. Seniors on fixed incomes, young parents with lowwage jobs, and neighbors on disability are desperate for more assistance, not more barriers to help. SNAP is the most efficient hungerfighting program in the nation and adding new restrictions will increase hunger in Iowa and put additional strain on food pantries that are already floundering. At our pantry, as in pantries across the state, we saw a dramatic increase in need last spring, when the end of the state emergency declaration reduced SNAP benefits to prepandemic levels. Since that change we've seen a sustained increase of 3040% more food pantry visits than in any previous year. Stocking our shelves is harder than it has ever been, as the need is so great, food bank inventory is low, and retail prices are so high. Just halfway through our fiscal year, we've already spent our entire food pantry budget. While our community is generous and continues to step up to meet the need, our entire social safety net cannot be left to the kindness of individuals. We must work together at all levels local, state, national, to support our most vulnerable neighbors. SSB 1105 would make this much more difficult. Specifically, the asset limit would be especially detrimental to our rural neighbors, who have no access to public transportation and need a reliable vehicle to hold down a job. Also, a required computerized registration system would be a significant barrier for our senior clients, many of whom do not have internet access. On behalf of all of our food pantry clients and vulnerable Iowans, I urge you not to pass this harmful legislation.

Diane Jones []

I am thoroughly opposed to this bill. An asset test will at a minimum discourage savings among qualified families and at worst increase the number of hungry families in this state. Please stop with the cruel and punitive legislation against our most marginalized and vulnerable neighbors. Time to walk the walk of Christ's values.

Dawn Lull [Dawn R Lull CPA PLC]

I am not sure why the current government insists on kicking the unfortunate more when they are needing our help more. Do the representatives currently use any of these items in their current households and need to cut their use of the products too?I would suggest getting more bang for the buck by doing an across the board cut of all governmental programs including the pay and benefits of the House, Senate and Governor to show that we are all in this together and not singling out the unfortunate and poor.

Adam Falk []

I wholeheartedly oppose SSB 1105. This will be a detrimental impact to people's material well being. It is absurd and unconscionable this is even up for consideration.

Thomas O'Donnell []

Please reject this unnecessary and draconian bill. Every hurdle placed in the path of a person or family in need only keeps those who face hunger every day from the food they need to keep children healthy and ready to learn. A dollar spent today on feeding a child will save hundreds later on health care, education and corrections. Hungry kids don't learn. They fall behind and into lowpaying occupations. Their health suffers. Their desperation leads to crime. All these things cost taxpayers more in the long run.

Berleen Wobeter [South Tama Co Food Pantry]

I just finished my volunteer work at our local food pantry. We trust our clients to give accurate info and I would not want to be in their shoes. Our demand for food will only go up if this is passed. Life is hard enough for these folks. What are you thinking?

Rachel Henning []

I am opposed to SSB 1105. This proposed legislation would make it harder for the most vulnerable people in our state to get the food they need. Adding more requirements and restrictions will do nothing but increase the suffering of people in our state.

Laura Hessburg [Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence]

The Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence (ICADV) urges legislators to reject this bill (SSB 1105). ICADV supports 22 local agencies providing direct support services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, human trafficking, and homicide. People do well when their needs are met, and food is the most basic need. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps feed children and adults and remains the nations most effective and immediately responsive tool in fighting hunger and reducing poverty. Making it harder to access SNAP is bad for everyone. Among all public support programs SNAP eligibility requirements should be the least burdensome for all Iowans who rely on this very basic support to make ends meet and to feed their families. The proposed changes in SSB 1105 contradict the policy goals of SNAP in fighting hunger but also fail to meet the stated program efficiency purposes of this bill. SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government with states splitting the administrative costs with the federal government. The proposed changes dramatically increase administrative costs without saving any money based on the experience of states who have made similar changes. SSB 1105 would cost more money and leave people worse off, i.e., it would kick thousands off SNAP, increase food insecurity and economic hardship and decrease economic stimulus in local communities. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1,54 in economic activity. This bill is bad for everyone, including domestic violence victims who struggle to meet basic needs while seeking safety and rely on SNAP to feed their families. We are concerned by the computerized identity authentication requirement, the requirement for custodial parents to cooperate with child support recovery, and the proposed asset test for SNAP eligibility. Please make the computerized identity authentication requirement optional. We support the potential for this provision to increase access to SNAP for some applicants (those with transportation or medical barriers, or without access to required forms of ID), but it also presents a significant access barrier for many domestic violence victims without internet access, limited credit history, or limited English proficiency. Making this optional would increase access for all and would align with USDA SNAP regulations. Requiring custodial parents to cooperate with child support recovery to be eligible for SNAP would immediately make many domestic violence victims ineligible. Leaving a violent partner is the most dangerous time for victims and children. Anecdotally, almost all survivors served by local agencies we represent providing emergency shelter services, rely on SNAP to get back on their feet. Many victims do not engage with child support recovery for good reasons and initially it is mostly about safety. This provision is unnecessary and adding a family violence exemption would not make it better adding this step delays access to food and would not help anyway because most could not obtain the added documentation needed for an exemption or want to risk alerting a partner of their location. There is no way to implement this provision without leaving women and children without access to food. Making SNAP eligibility requirements consistent with other public benefit programs is uniquely unnecessary here. Medicaid and TANF already require child support cooperation and administering that requirement is costly. There is no need to duplicate this requirement in SNAP where the very purpose of the program is to meet an urgent need for food. The fiscal note for this provision in previous bills estimated an enormous administrative cost and the experience in other states showed it was not close to being costeffective or even generating significant child support recovery for families. North Carolina implemented a similar pilot project (for child care subsidies) and found it to be highly inefficient. It cost $2 million to implement, but only led to a total of about $7,000 in child support payments to 12 families over a year, or about $50 per month.A new asset test would also make many domestic violence victims ineligible for SNAP. Many survivors flee homes with children and the clothes they are wearing but even for those able to leave with more, most have little access to cash, bank accounts, and key identification documents because a partner destroyed documents and prevented access to money. Service providers routinely help survivors replace documents needed to enroll in SNAP which is no small task. Adding an asset test for eligibility creates an insurmountable barrier for survivors who either cannot access the additional documentation or would stop trying due to safety concerns. SNAP enables many Iowans to eat and eligibility requirements for this program should be the least burdensome. Being able to access support programs like SNAP influences a victims ability to keep their family safe and meet basic needs. Enabling survivors to get back on their feet at this critical time can mean the difference between a lifetime of economic hardship and a future free from violence. Please oppose this bill that makes it harder for Iowans struggling to make ends meet, to access food.

Alison Cocks []

No Iowan should go hungry. The roadblocks that legislatures are throwing in the way of Iowans is draconian. If we are a welcoming state as Governor Reynolds has repeated many times, than we help all people. I oppose this bill.

Teresa Baustian [Teresa Baustian]

This bill is incomprehensible to Iowans. We know the data demonstrates high levels of food insecurity with our neighbors. Some of us volunteer at food pantries and have seen the increased demand for food since the Covid emergency funding measures ended. We take some comfort in our own donations to the other feeding centers and neighborhood free pantries, but we know all too well that those are emptied almost as full as they are supplied. In other words, Iowans know that their neighbors are hungry. Our government should be addressing the problem, not seeking to make it worse.

Reggie Schmitt [North East Iowa Food Bank]

I oppose passage of SSB 1105. I have been a NEIFB volunteer for 13 years, delivering food to pantries in16 countries. I witness the need based on the amount & volume of food ordered.

Susan Breitbach []

We Iowan s need that extra help here not a lot of opportunities for us .