For a person to claim a dependent and qualify for work requirement exemptions under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the child must be under the age of 18.
House Republicans want to change the age to 7.
It’s a dramatic policy shift in the agriculture section of the reconciliation bill. While most of the focus — and criticism — has been on a proposal to institute state cost-sharing for SNAP, the age shift particularly enraged Democrats on the Agriculture Committee during the marathon markup that stretched into Wednesday.
“This is one of the most egregious parts of this entire package,” ranking member Rep. Angie Craig said during the hearing. “I honestly can’t understand how my Republican colleagues can think it’s a good idea to take food away and put more pressure on families who have 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-year-olds. I mean, it’s almost like nobody’s got a 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-year-old.”
The bill does carve out a work exemption for a married adult “responsible for a dependent child 7 years of age or older” as long as the spouse is in compliance with SNAP work requirements.
Democratic Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio introduced an amendment to the text during the markup she said would strike both provisions.
“Let’s have an honest conversation about what these provisions really mean,” she said. “They punish single parents, and they punish caregivers of school-age children, families who are already doing everything they can just to stay afloat right now.”
And on the exemption for a married, stay-at-home partner: “What is that about? Because to me, it seems to tell single-parent families, which make up around 21% of all SNAP households, that they’re less deserving of health because they don’t have a partner, their kids matter less. Is that what we’re saying?”
She later told NOTUS, “Anyone with common sense knows that an 8-year-old and 9-year-old does not have the capacity to take care of themselves, to fend for themselves. … We’re putting parents in some very uncomfortable and impossible decisions to be able to take care of their families. And I don’t think that that’s wise or right.”
Democratic Rep. Josh Riley kicked off a colorful exchange between Democrats and committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson about what they felt was the arbitrary age of 7 to claim as a nondependent. Riley argued that the difference from 17 to 18 was stark because someone can be tried as an adult, called for jury duty and sign up for the Army draft.
“What I’m having a really hard time understanding is how did y’all come up with the transition of 6 to 7? Like, what is the big thing that happens when you go from 6 years old to 7 years old that justifies changing the law? I don’t know the answer, because we didn’t have any hearings.”
“I think maybe the thing is, when you’re 6, it’s real hard to color between the lines, and when you get to 7, you can probably do it a little better,” Riley said. “Right now, we might have a 5-year-old, we cut his apple juice with water. Maybe once you get to 7, you can drink the apple juice straight.”
Thompson, in response, said that age 7 is when children go to school. But Democrats pounced on that argument as well. Rep. Jahana Hayes said that the age which students enter the school system is 5, as “required by law.” State laws appear to vary, with the start of compulsory school attendance ranging from 5 to 8.
“So we’re talking about the difference between usually first and second grade,” Riley said. “In any event, the line is where kids are going to school. What’s going to happen next? You guys are going to go to the next thing and lower the age to 5?”
GOP Rep. Doug LaMalfa defended the measure, saying, “The concept that’s being lost here is that if all your children are 7 years or older, they’re in school for about seven hours per day, five days a week, generally in round numbers. So it’s 35 hours a week, that will give the parent or parents time to do something outside the home.”
He told NOTUS, “It’s just a matter of, are we gonna have a genuine conversation? Or are we gonna have a bunch of flying rhetoric like has been there, that somehow Republicans are taking away the status of a minor from 17 down to 7?”
But Democrats weren’t moved.
“There is no answer for ‘What about stay-at-home parents who are homeschooling their child?’ There’s no answer yet that I can hear on the fact that our kids are out of school every summer,” Craig said. And a number of Democrats pointed to various state laws that limit the age a child can be left alone: while most have no explicit law, some have laws and guidelines recommending an age higher than 7.
Thompson also confirmed, in response to a question from Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, that there was “nothing specific” in the policy regarding work and extended breaks like over the summer or wintertime.
Democrats asked repeatedly about why there was no hearing on these provisions: “Why not have a hearing on this?” Riley posited directly. “Anybody want to have a hearing?”
There were some yeses from Democrats. But also, a small chorus of noes from some of the few Republicans present. Craig later told NOTUS that she would be following up to ask for a hearing.
“Look, I realize they’re just looking at, ‘How can we save money right now to pay for tax breaks for rich people and big corporations?’” she told NOTUS. “But this would be a major policy change, and we need to hear directly from the people it would impact.”
“I would just say, in the absence of a hearing or a real response, I recommend that we provide our 8-year-olds little tiny boots with little tiny bootstraps,” Rep. Eugene Vindman said.
Thompson, in his final remarks on the amendment, said, “If you want a true definition of oppression, what is cruel is keeping the families permanently in poverty. That is truly oppression, truly cruel. And we’re trying to make sure that that does not occur.”
Ultimately, Brown’s amendment failed.
—
Nuha Dolby is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow.