Overview
Title
To amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, to limit the conditions applicable to the use of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards to purchase food, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1398 wants to change how some people use special cards to buy food by making new rules, like stopping the card if people only use it in a different state for a long time, and saying store owners can't use their own store to spend these special food cards.
Summary AI
H.R. 1398, titled the “Securing Strictly Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2025,” proposes changes to how electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards are used to purchase food. It mandates that if a household's EBT benefits are used exclusively outside their home state for more than 60 days, their account should be suspended until proof of residency is provided or an investigation confirms residency. Additionally, the bill prohibits owners of approved food retail or wholesale stores from redeeming their own Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits at their businesses, except if the store or business is publicly owned or government-operated. The changes are set to take effect one year after the bill becomes law.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
H.R. 1398, introduced in the 119th Congress, seeks to modify existing legislation related to the use of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards for purchasing food under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The bill aims to tighten the rules around these benefits by addressing where and how they can be used. It proposes suspending EBT accounts for households that use their benefits exclusively out-of-state for more than 60 days unless they can prove residency or an investigation confirms their residency in the state providing the benefits. Furthermore, it restricts households with business owners of approved retail or wholesale food stores from using SNAP benefits at their own stores unless these are publicly or government-owned. The legislation is scheduled to take effect one year after its enactment.
Significant Issues
A key aspect of the bill involves suspending EBT accounts for households that perform out-of-state transactions for extended periods. This provision might negatively affect individuals or families with legitimate reasons for being outside their home state, such as military personnel or those receiving medical care. Additionally, the requirement for households to provide "substantiating evidence" of their residence could create challenges due to the lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes acceptable proof.
Another issue relates to the bill's restriction on SNAP benefit redemption by households with business owners in the retail or wholesale food sector. This clause could disproportionately disadvantage small business owners, particularly those operating family-owned stores who might rely on such benefits. Furthermore, the effective date of one year after enactment may not address urgent issues within the current EBT system that require more immediate action.
Potential Impact on the Public
The bill, if enacted, is likely to impact various segments of the public differently. For the general public relying on SNAP for food assistance, the proposed regulations may create barriers in accessing these benefits, especially for those with circumstances necessitating temporary out-of-state residence. Although the bill may deter misuse of SNAP benefits, it could inadvertently penalize individuals with genuine needs and situations beyond their control.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders such as military families and individuals undergoing medical treatment, the bill's stipulations could introduce unnecessary hurdles in maintaining access to crucial food assistance. These groups may face the burden of proof or procedural complexities that come with justifying legitimate out-of-state transactions.
The business owners of retail or wholesale food stores face another layer of implications. The restriction on redeeming SNAP benefits at their own businesses might hinder families who operate small, family-owned stores, possibly complicating their financial stability.
Overall, while the bill aims to tighten control and reduce potential misuse of SNAP benefits, its implementation might require additional safeguards and clearer guidelines to prevent adverse consequences for those it is intended to aid.
Issues
Section 2: The amendment to suspend EBT accounts for households making exclusively out-of-State transactions for over 60 days might be overly punitive. It can impact individuals with legitimate reasons for being out of state temporarily, such as military families or those seeking medical treatment.
Section 2: The requirement for households to 'affirmatively provide substantiating evidence' without defining what that evidence should be leaves the process unclear and subjective, potentially leading to inconsistent application and enforcement. This ambiguity could result in unfair treatment of certain households.
Section 2: The lack of detail regarding the investigation process for determining the residency of program participants can create enforcement challenges. Without a clear process, there could be inconsistencies and potential disputes between different state agencies.
Section 3: The limitation on redemption of SNAP benefits by households including members who are owners of approved retail food stores could be seen as discriminatory. It may unfairly penalize small business owners or those in family-run grocery businesses who might rely on such benefits.
Section 4: The one-year delay in the effective date of the Act could be problematic if immediate changes are needed to address existing concerns with the current EBT system. This delay might also impact program participants who would prefer immediate resolution.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states the short title of the law, which will be known as the "Securing Strictly Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2025".
2. Amendment to Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, requires state agencies to suspend the benefit accounts of households whose electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card transactions occur only outside of their home state for more than 60 days. This suspension will last until the household can prove, or an investigation verifies, that they still reside in the state from which they receive benefits.
3. Limitation on redemption of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits by owners of approved retail food stores and wholesale food concerns Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to state that households with a member who owns an approved retail food store or wholesale food concern cannot use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits at those stores, unless the store is owned by a publicly owned corporation or a government entity.
4. Effective date Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The law and any changes it introduces will begin to apply one year after it is officially passed.