Iowa Legislature Public Hearings

Carlyn Crowe [Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council]

CON

An asset test for Medicaid applicants and current recipients that set an asset limit for everyone in a household is duplicative, unnecessary and could deny benefits to thousands of Iowa children and adults with disabilities. Medicaid is a healthcare safety net for hundreds of thousands of individuals in Iowa who have NO OTHER CHOICE for their health carethis includes thousands of children and adults with disabilities who are on Medicaid HCBS waivers because that is the only way they can get the services they need to live, work and go to school in their communities. Parents of adult children with disabilitiesfor whom Medicaid is their only optionshould not have to pass an asset test when their childtheir dependenthas NO OTHER OPTION but Medicaid for their medical and health care needs.Futhermore, 46% of households who received SNAP benefits in 2021 have one or more persons with a disability. The new administrative requirements meant to ensure the integrity of public assistance programs will affect people with disabilities disproportionately. Asset limits that have been implemented in other states have been shown to discourage people who are eligible from applying for benefits, increase administrative costs, and discourage people from saving for emergencies. Iowans well below the asset limit, as well as Iowans with disabilities are likely to struggle with the additional administrative hurdles put in place and lose access to benefits.Care providers, direct service professionals, case managers and social workers are already overburdened with administrative work on top of direct care responsibilities. These new provisions would create MORE WORK for those who are already overburdened and as we all know, unpaid, if paid at all. We continue to talk about the needs of these providers, yet instead of working to meet their needs so that people with disabilities can live, work and thrive in their communities, we overburden them with government regulations that are put in place to penalize the few and the expense of the many.

Candella Foley-Finchem [Mental health provider]

CON

Any restriction on SNAP Benefits is another attach on Iowa's children. Having recipients need to reapply more often increases the likelihood that families will fall off of benefits for the month, and even a few weeks without food is bad for kids. Having restrictions which reduce the poor family's ability to obtain a second car so that their teen can get to track practice or to their afterschool job is another hit on families trying to pull themselves out of poverty and provide for their families. Vote NO on this devastating bill.

Kathy Graeve []

CON

Vote No on SF494. This is another attack on Iowa children and their families increasing hunger and food insecurity. The bills will only increase SNAPadministrative costs to the state and create furtherhurdles for eligible Iowans to participate. SNAP enrollment is at a 14year low, but food banks and food pantries across the state are breaking alltime records of usage. Children from ALL families deserve to eat and have access to food. Focus instead on providing food and a better future for our children, rather than punishing children and families who are the working poor, or facing difficult circumstances.

Jennifer Brennan []

CON

As a person who grew up food insecure, and now is in a place of privilege, I am grateful to know my kids will always feel full and secure. I understand the statistics are high in the state of Iowa for children not knowing where their next meal will come from. Please take a moment to put yourselves in the shoes of the children this will impact.

Paula Lindsey [NA]

CON

I raised two children as a single parent in this country. There was very little help available from any corner. One of the few things that did help was the food stamp program. Please do not make a very difficult job more desperate for parents who are in the situation that I was. There are already plenty of restrictions to participate, making it more difficult for people will not be helpful.

S.L. Nostwich []

CON

The proposed changes in this bill add unnecessary bureaucracy at a time when Governor Reynolds is trying to streamline and reduce state government. Every additional requirement placed on a potential SNAP recipient adds more complexity to the administration of the program. Even outsourcing new functions will cost the state's taxpayers. Most importantly, the proposed changes do nothing to reduce Iowans' hunger or food insecurity, but will only make this problem worse, especially for our most vulnerable citizens: children, the elderly, underemployed populations (i.e., people with disabilities; marginalized individuals), and low income individuals, especially those in rural areas. By not effectively addressing food insecurity and by increasing barriers to obtaining food assistance, this bill would instead contribute to poor physical health, poor mental health, a reduction in Iowa's eligible workforce (it's hard to work when you're hungry), and students' difficulties in obtain ing a basic education (it's hard to learn when you're hungry). According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (https://www.cbpp.org/research/foodassistance/thesupplementalnutritionassistanceprogramsnap)..."SNAP benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of economic stimulus because they get money into the economy quickly during a recession. Individuals with low incomes generally spend all their income on daily needs such as shelter, food, and transportation. This means that every dollar in SNAP that a lowincome family receives enables them to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. Nearly 78 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed within two weeks of receipt and 96 percent are spent within a month, based on data from 2017.According to a 2019 USDA report, every dollar in new SNAP benefits increases GDP by $1.50 in a weak economy. Similarly, CBO and Moodys Analytics have each found that SNAP has one of the largest bangsforthebuck (i.e., increase in economic activity and employment per budgetary dollar spent) among a broad range of policies for stimulating growth and creating jobs in an economic recession.To promote efficiency and integrity, SNAP has one of the most rigorous eligibility determination systems of any federal benefit program. In addition, the SNAP quality control (QC) system requires states each month to select a representative sample of SNAP cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally over the year) and have independent state reviewers check the accuracy of the states eligibility and benefit decisions within federal guidelines. Federal officials then rereview a subsample of the cases.USDA annually releases state and national payment error rates based on these reviews. When there are errors, they are generally honest mistakes by state agencies or participating households, not fraud. These error rates measure how accurately states determine eligibility and benefit amounts. States are subject to fiscal penalties if their error rates are persistently above the national average.Before the pandemic, SNAPs overpayment rate was in the single digits and its underpayment rate was less than 2 percent. In 2019, the most recent year available, the overpayment rate was 6.18 percent and the underpayment rate was 1.18 percent."

Diana Jensen [None]

CON

Please stop & really think about this bill! So many people should be able to have money set aside for college. I would hope everyone would fill the same in order to help the next generation. It doesnt mean they dont deserve SNAP benefits. They may have previously already started doing so before they needed to use SNAP benefits & because of COVID, the economy, etc made it impossible to work. Families should not be punished for this or having two vehicles so that they can find work, go to work to get themselves out of the circumstances that caused them to be on those benefits. Like the saying goes, there but for the grace of God go you or so.

Anonymous [n/a]

CON

While I don't generally speak out too much.....this bill of bringing more barriers and increasing food insecurity is just too much. We don't more and more restrictions served to the most vulnerable in an effort to punish them further merely for being poor and in need. Yes...while the number of SNAP recipients is lower, the food pantries all across the state are seeing more and more demand. While I agree there should be some sort of "asset test," so we can avoid fraud and abuse...I am very, very concerned about SNAP, which is a federal program being taken away from the most vulnerable, especially children, veterans who have proudly served our country and seniors who have worked their whole lives and paid into the system. What a shameful thing to do to those folks! I have worked in the Human Services sector at one time and saw firsthand the waste, fraud and abuse. Those who did NOT need assistance were getting on it....while those who legitimately needed it were denied, and yes, it was dehumanizing and degrading to those who truly needed a hand up.

Anonymous []

CON

Please do not pass this bill. As a life long Iowan, Im saddened by the direction our state is headed recently. This bill will not benefit Iowans that need it most.

Di Findley [Iowa CareGivers]

CON

Denise O'Brien [none - individual]

CON

This bill puts undone pressure on SNAP recipients. Please vote no.

Carlyn Crowe [Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council]

CON

An asset test for Medicaid applicants and current recipients that set an asset limit for everyone in a household is duplicative, unnecessary and could deny benefits to thousands of Iowa children and adults with disabilities. Medicaid is a healthcare safety net for hundreds of thousands of individuals in Iowa who have NO OTHER CHOICE for their health carethis includes thousands of children and adults with disabilities who are on Medicaid HCBS waivers because that is the only way they can get the services they need to live, work and go to school in their communities. Parents of adult children with disabilitiesfor whom Medicaid is their only optionshould not have to pass an asset test when their childtheir dependenthas NO OTHER OPTION but Medicaid for their medical and health care needs.Futhermore, 46% of households who received SNAP benefits in 2021 have one or more persons with a disability. The new administrative requirements meant to ensure the integrity of public assistance programs will affect people with disabilities disproportionately. Asset limits that have been implemented in other states have been shown to discourage people who are eligible from applying for benefits, increase administrative costs, and discourage people from saving for emergencies. Iowans well below the asset limit, as well as Iowans with disabilities are likely to struggle with the additional administrative hurdles put in place and lose access to benefits.Care providers, direct service professionals, case managers and social workers are already overburdened with administrative work on top of direct care responsibilities. These new provisions would create MORE WORK for those who are already overburdened and as we all know, unpaid, if paid at all. We continue to talk about the needs of these providers, yet instead of working to meet their needs so that people with disabilities can live, work and thrive in their communities, we overburden them with government regulations that are put in place to penalize the few and the expense of the many.

Regan Michaelsen [Information, Referral & Assistance]

CON

We have a food pantry at our location. Last year the number of pantries increase by 300% To consider any kind of cut in SNAP benefits would hurt so many food insecure families. With the cost of everything going up this would force families to make hard descision like paying rent, getting needed medications or putting food on the table. Please consider this when voting.

Rachel Murdock [DMARC Board and concerned citizen]

CON

I am concerned that we are creating unnecessary burdens on people

Kevin Remillard [Retired]

PRO

Recently, a colleague and I discussed why so many healthcare people are morbidly obese. I am a casual observer and he is an empiricist; his reaction was this is something you dont bring up. He explained that there are numerous modalities to assist in helping people, but as a physician, you would risk your job and reputation for the perception that fat shaming may be used as a weapon. The bill in question defines eligibility. Politicians have characterized authors as cruel and stupid. A vision of the world without constraints as opposed to one with constraints is in question. The general public may not understandand indeed may be confused precisely because of the propaganda of the contending parties.We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them, it seems, in empirical terms.

Tara Kramer []

CON

These limitations will take food away from our most vulnerable people. Children, seniors and disabled people will go hungry, become ill, and some will die as a direct result of these restrictions. Please vote against this bill. Thank you.

Jennifer Gardner []

CON

As a caring Iowan, we do not need add a SNAP asset test to Iowa code. This new law will add cost to a program fulfilled by the federal government. It will needlessly kick Iowans off SNAP benefits, Iowans with children. In a state that feeds the world, we shouldn't have hungry Iowans!

Faye Hoeft []

CON

It's time our so called representatives live on disability income, pay a mortgage, utilities etc and tell me how they can eat. Honestly is this a way to starve those they regard as below their standard? Worried about fraud when they themselves are the ones that need to be looking in the mirror and investigated! Which has been proved TRUE!Allowing rural Iowans to pay for Texas billionaires incompetence with a polar vortex gas fee for 2 years and now take food away, how many ways can you say, "We the GOP hate Iowans if they aren't rich"?If I hear one more of these people call themselves a Christian when all they do is spread hate and take from the less fortunate at every turn its time for full disclosure of their medical records for the world to see since no woman has a right to privacy these days. Let's see the skeletons!

Liz Dierolf [River Bend Food Bank]

CON

The Iowa government only pays half of the administrative fees for these programs, with 100% of SNAP benefits distributed coming from the Federal government. According to the Fiscal Note for the companion bill (SF 494), the LSA estimates 1% of program beneficiaries would be removed from programs with the implementation of this bill. This equates to $12.2M in federal money no longer being injected into the Iowa economy ($8.1M in federal SNAP funds x 1.5 multiplier effect) between FY24FY27. The same analysis projects the government will save less than $1M during the same time. This means the program results in a net loss to Iowas economy.In addition, the bill being fiscally irresponsible, the bill should be rejected because it: Establishes an asset test that would include hurt families with 2+ vehicles. Families with two working parents or high school students with afterschool jobs would no longer be eligible to use SNAP as a bridge to establish fiscal independence. Discourages seniors from participating in these programs. Inadequate nutrition will lead to increased health care costs for the state in the future. Promotes mandatory E&T programs, which research shows are costly for states to administer and do not meaningfully improve employment outcomes for workers.

Bethany Kohoutek [NAMI Iowa]

CON

NAMI Iowa is opposed to any legislation that makes it more onerous for individuals with mental health conditions and chronic mental illness to access and maintain benefits such as SNAP and Medicaid. Living with and managing a mental health condition is not a linear process. Access to coverage and care including basic needs, such as food is essential for people to successfully manage their mental health condition and stay on a path of recovery. Medicaid can be a lifeline for much of that care, creating access to services that people need, such as medications, case management, therapy, and crisis and hospital care. Overly burdensome paperwork and administrative hurdles could threaten that access and put individuals recovery at risk, which can have serious immediate and longterm implications.

Diane M. Duncan-Goldsmith []

CON

Amy Sinclair, President of the Iowa Senate, stated she believes this bill is necessary because fraud and abuse exists in our system. The fact is Iowas SNAP fraud amounts to just 0.001%.If the goal of SF 494 is to decrease the number of families receiving SNAP; how will this bill help address and alleviate hunger and food insecurity in Iowa, especially since the amount of fraud found is this program is almost nonexistent? Does the tax payer funded stipend Iowas legislators receive while in session limit food choices; how much paperwork are legislators required to submit in order to receive a meal? For some reason Republican legislators must believe families in Iowa do not experience food insecurity and hunger so here are some facts. According to FeedingAmerica.org in Iowa, 2292,500 people (1in 14) are facing hunger and of those 80,160 are children (1 in 9). Here are facts from the Johnson County CommUnity Food Bank: from January 1 through 3 p.m., January 27, 2023, roughly 144,000 pounds of food were provided to 3,741 households. How many Iowa families will lose benefits simply because they will not be able to correctly complete all the new online forms, paperwork and documentation which must be submitted in order to prove eligibility?The irony of this bill is the fact former Governor Branstad was recently appointed President of the World Food Prize, acknowledging his integral role in creating the Iowa Hunger Summit which has been instrumental in combating food insecurity in Iowa and around the world. Apparently Republican legislators, Governor Reynolds and other supporters of this bill have completely forgotten Iowas long history of actually actively addressing hunger.It amazes me any Republican member of the Iowa Legislature believes SF 494 a good bill for Iowa. Legislation should be compassionate; this bill is certainly just the opposite. Perhaps, legislators should spend some time volunteering at a local food bank and talk to those who come in once a week in order to put food on their familys table. I would suggest a good day to visit is when, due to lack of donations, shelves are practically empty. This bill is definitely an example of a bill looking for a problem that does not exist. If this bill is passed and sent to the Governors desk, who will surround Governor Reynolds when she signs it into law? Legislation should absolutely do no harm to any citizens of a state. Unfortunately, this bill will certainly harm the many Iowans and their families who face hunger and food insecurity on a daily basis.Please vote no on SF 494 thank you.

Brian Barks [Food Bank for the Heartland]

CON

While based in Omaha, Food Bank for the Heartland distributes millions of pounds of donated, purchased, and USDA food to partners in eight southwest Iowa counties. The counties include Harrison, Shelby, Pottawattamie, Cass, Mills, Montgomery, Fremont and Page. According to Feeding America, an estimated 14,600 people are food insecure in those eight counties. Food Bank for the Heartland distributes food to pantries in local communities. The pantries then serve families needing food assistance. The Food Bank and our partners have seen a 25 percent increase in the number of households served compared to last year. Inflation is devastating lowincome Iowa families. I ask you to oppose legislation restricting SNAP access like SF 494. Like you, I share concern of many to make sure people who need food assistance are the ones getting it. Iowas SNAP fraud rate is less than one percent, specifically .008%. Bills like SF 494 are a solution in search for a problem.If legislation like this becomes law, more Iowa families will be placed in the charitable food system. We do not have capacity to serve the current need let alone the additional families that will show up at the doors of our partners. We are not meeting the need now! We lean on the philanthropic community to fund our operations. There are not enough available charitable dollars to support this growing need.For every meal served by a Food Bank like ours, SNAP can distribute nine. Every $1 in SNAP, brings $1.70 worth of economic impact. Coming off the historic flooding of 2019, the pandemic and now inflation, food banks and food pantries cannot take on more. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the measures before you.

Doug Campbell [private citizen]

PRO

All comments will be at the hearing.

Anonymous [None]

CON

Why in the world do you people want to punish the most venerable, your fellow Iowans? It would seem that those of you in elected office would want to exemplify IOWA NICE. Instead this legislative session with a Republican majority has done nothing but rule to harm our most venerable population. Your proposed changes the SNAP program are nothing but cruel and inhumane. You are punishing people who are struggling to make ends meet, Do what is right and vote NO on this heartless act.

Carolyn Klaus []

CON

This is such an assault against poverty in Iowa. The poor will never have the ability to take a step up with today's food prices and the requirements you are setting to make them eligible for such a small pittance of help.

Whitney Free [None ]

CON

Why are we prioritizing taking care away from citizens? Why aren't we focused on fixing our education and mental health systems? Why are we taking away grandma's dinner and not the domestic abuser's gun? I'm so disappointed with Iowa legislators.

Mary Whisenand [Former Commission Chair, Division of Community Action]

CON

As a former commission for the Division of Community Action, I have had the honor of visiting many of the Community Action Agencies throughout Iowa. Each one of our visits has opened my eyes on the true need for a more compassionate approach to delegating our collective assets. We should be focused on how we help Iowans, not how we prevent them from accessing that help. Making a general assumption that certain assets signal that a family doesn't need the SNAP benefits is a very narrow approach to curtailing fraud or abuse. It literally could affect the nutrition to our most vulnerable and needy citizens. These families are already asked to bare their personal details for every aspect of the assistance they receive. Adding another layer is not the solution. These decisions don't just affect the SNAP recipient. They affect the local grocery stores, local farmer market vendors, and the many organizations who approach their support from their civic or religious commitment to their fellow citizens. I respectfully ask that you vote no to moving this discussion further. Thank you.

Jennifer Cooke [Save the Children Action Network Iowa Volunteer ]

CON

Vote No to SF 494Food insecurity is a real thing for Iowans. I dont understand how a Federal program like SNAP is being so viscously attacked with the need to severely regulate it in Iowa.What is the goal? Cutting the budget? SNAP is already being underutilized. According to the Iowa Hunger Coalition, its enrollment is at a 14 year low. So far, Iowa has already succeeded in making it inaccessible for many. Community food banks and food pantries have needed to pick up the slack in record numbers for Iowas hungry. Our governor is so proud of her states budget surplus. Yet, her agriculturally rich state has families that are going hungry. Its unconscionable! We have so many ways that resources in our state can be used to partner together and better its SNAP program. Yet, Iowa government wants to restrict and reprimand its most needy. No wonder our youth are leaving this state in droves.Please vote No to this bad bill for Iowa!

Anonymous []

CON

I am against SF 494 because the asset test is not a fair measure of a family's need for SNAP benefits. If this bill is adopted, there will be many families where the children will go hungry. Already, there are fewer programs to help feed needy families in Iowa. This bill will do more harm than good and should not be passed.

Anna Staveley []

CON

I am vehemently against this bill. To cut public funding for there vital resources is reckless, uncaring, and archaic. I am moving from Chicago and returning to my hometown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. One of the many reasons I have chosen to return is to use my voice loudly and actively in opposition of the GOPs abhorrent behavior and policies such as this. The direct implication this has on people of color and those with disabilities is destructive. I encourage all to oppose this bill and any others even remotely like it.

david leshtz []

CON

As a former Iowa DHS social worker, I can attest to the efficiency of SNAP in minimizing fraud and bureaucratic waste while providing temporary help to working parents, children, and family members who are elderly or disabled. As a former board member of CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank in Johnson County, I can tell you that in the month of January 2023 approximately 145,000 pounds of food were provided to 3,750 households. The sponsors of this bill have yet to show a shred of evidence that it will save taxpayer dollars or help people find jobs with livable wages. In fact, it will require the hiring of at least 200 more staff to administer, and Iowa will lose the federal funds to help keep families healthy. Even worse, an out of state private company will be hired to administer public assistance programs; corporations with no skin in Iowa will profit at the expense of lowincome families and everyday taxpayers, as has occurred with Medicaid, COVID testing, and Workday.

Anonymous [N/A]

PRO

The government is going to make it to where low income families like mine will go hungry because they want to save money. I understand that saving money is good but when you cant save money because you get penalized for saving. At what expense is the government going to give a shit about us?

Edmund Nwangbakor []

CON

I believe that wellmeaning Iowa legislators need to vote against this reprehensible bill. It is my candid opinion that this bill's passage will disenfranchise many Iowans, preventing them from free and unhindered easy access to nutritious food. Additionally, this illtimed bill constitutes discrimination against Iowans, especially Iowans with disabilities, who will be the most affected if this bill passes in its entirety.

Sandra Baringer []

CON

The asset restrictions in this bill will make it very difficult for selfemployed people, including but not limited to farmers, to apply for benefits during times when their net income is not enough to feed themselves and their families. They need the tools of their trades in order to work.

Catherine Meyer []

CON

I am writing to oppose SF 494! The children of Iowa do not deserve to lose what meals they currently get. As a Mom of a daughter with a family of 6 currently utilizing SNAP, I can't imagine what will happen to those four children. My daughter works and still struggles to make ends meet. They have two older cars; one she takes so she can get to and from work; the other so the Dad can get the kids where they have to be. They are trying to get to a point where they don't need help, but they are not there yet. The idea of have 10 days from the date a letter would be sent that requires proof of assets is setting the family up for failure.I will keep track of who votes "yay" on this one. I can say it will effect the way I vote in the future.

Kayla Perkins [Save the Children Action Network]

CON

I say no to SF 494. There are so many factors that go into a persons eligibility for assistance that cannot be measured by material value of possessions. Having a car does not pay for groceries. Owning a house does not pay for groceries. With this file, people would be sent letters in the mail asking them to verify their eligibility within 10 days. By the time they receive that letter, its a few days at best. People who need that assistance will be kicked off before getting a chance to speak for themselves all in an effort to save the state money. This file will inevitably cost Iowa more than it would to support its people in their times of need. No one in Iowa, an agriculture state, should go hungry, all because of owning basic necessities to survive in todays world.

Donna Godar [Save the Children Action Network ]

CON

I am opposed to this bill. Part of the push for it is concern about fraud. Fraud with SNAP is less than 1%. Not enough to make laws to force more limits and hoops for hungry children and their families to jump through. Hungry kids dont learn as well. Lets be a state that cares for children and families!

Denise Perez [Constituent ]

CON

I am commenting to voice my opposition to cutting any benefits for Iowans who are receiving assistance due to poverty. We are able to cut taxes for businesses and yet Republicans want to punish the poor. This is not only mean but completely disingenuous from the party that says it is prolife. During a time of known financial difficulties for Iowans, further increasing food insecurity is wrong.

Anonymous []

CON

Existing qualification criteria for SNAP, CHIP and Medicaid are already excessively restrictive. To cover your budget shortfall, instead of plunging poor Iowans deeper into poverty, how about you rethink the corporate tax breaks.

Anonymous [None]

CON

Are homes or cars considered as assets in this? Because someone could have worked for years and fall on hard times. It should not be used against people. Vehicles are also needed how can we get back on our feet or to our doctors without it? Stop penalizing the poor to pad your own pockets...

Kayla Perkins [Save the Children ]

CON

I say no to SF 494. When Iowa should be focusing on keeping its people fed, lawmakers instead focus on kicking off as many people as possible to save a dime. This file will inevitably cost more than it would to support Iowas people in their times of need. No one should be going hungry in Iowa, an agriculture state, and we should be supporting our neighbors.

Judith Pfohl []

CON

Hungry Iowans need easier access to the Federal Funds of SNAP, not more confusing and limiting rules and foods. We already are not using all the Federal money that is available to us to fight hunger. The average Iowan in 2020 got $156 per month from SNAP. What stipend for food do the legislators get during session?If the state just pays administrative costs and only 4 out of 305,000 SNAP users were convicted of fraud in 2020, why reduce access and not add administrators to look for fraud? If you are really worried about fraud and abuse with taxpayer funds then add safeguards to the school voucher bill. Other midwestern states have seen embezzlement, purchase of luxury cars for administrators, and money laundering.

Rachel Evans []

CON

I would like to add my voice in opposition to this bill SF 494. As an avid volunteer at my local food bank, I feel this legislation is harmful to the most vulnerable Iowans. We need to end hunger in our state not make it worse.

Anonymous [None]

CON

I do not support this bill and do not believe that Iowa legislators should either. If legislators care about their constituents and the general wellbeing of the state, they will vote against this bill. People deserve assistance, and they deserve to be able to eat without deciding between other necessities. Even if a family can afford certains assets, that does not mean they are not struggling. 10% of Iowans are food insecure, and a third of those facing food insecurity are children. I hope that Iowa legislators will act intelligently and with compassion, to ensure that the children of Iowa do not go hungry.

Linda Schreiber []

CON

Public Benefits (SNAP HF494)The newlyappointed President of the World Food Prize and former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad acknowledged his essential role to create the Iowa Hunger Summit which has been instrumental in combating food insecurity in Iowa and around the world. HF494 SNAP defies the states long history of actively addressing hunger. Limiting SNAP (HF494) benefits for Iowans will result in more food insecurity among the states most vulnerable populations. According to FeedingAmerica.org in Iowa 2,292,500 people 1 in 14 face hunger. Of those, 80,160 are children 1 in 9. This year 42% of Iowa students are eligible for free or reducedprice lunches. SNAP automatically certifies children for free meals, however, if families cannot navigate the new proposed process, many of these children could lose access to free school meals. Facts and data have not supported the claim that additional levels of accountability including authorization and asset testing are needed to limit program fraud. According to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dated March 2022 the existence of fraud is 0.001% (https://fnsprod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/FY20stateactivityreport.pdf)SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government Iowa covers half of the administrative costs. With a budget surplus of nearly $2 billion, this bill makes Iowa appear greedy in an attempt to squeeze out additional dollars from Iowans who can least afford it. The welfare reform this bill seeks isnt an improvement nor will it save the state money. It borders on cruelty to those who need support. Linda SchreiberJohnson County

Anonymous []

CON

Feed my lambs.

Jane Miller []

CON

This is a horrible bill that puts the most vulnerable Iowans at risk. Its antithetical to everything Iowa should stand for, and is bad for the future of Iowa as a state (research shows that investing in the health and education of young children nets an enormous economic benefit to states as those children grow up). I strongly oppose this bill on both moral and policy grounds. Its bad for Iowa and its bad for Iowans.

Barb Prather [Northeast Iowa Food Bank]

CON

Comments attached

Dennis Harbaugh []

CON

First, I want to express appreciation for all of you on the Appropriations Committee for your sevice to our state.I grew up on a farm, and it's important for all of us to remember that poverty is not just an urban problem. There are many aspects of SF 494 that make it bad legislation, but the biggest problem is the asset limitation requirement.Iowa's public policies should focus on creating conditions which help lift families out of poverty. SF 494 does just the opposite, by punishing folks just as they are on the verge of 'getting ahead', and providing an incentive to remain extremely poor in order to receive any food assistance.This legislation is not just illogical, it's extremely hypocritical. Does Iowa place asset limits on conservation benefits provided to wealthy farmers? No. Asset limits on tax credits provided to billion dollar companies? No. The list of credits and tax breaks Iowa provides to folks and compannies with no limit on assets attached is long, yet SF 494 puts extreme asset limits on the poorest among us.Please reject this legislation. It's bad policy, and it's bad morality.