[Pages S7870-S7873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, President Trump has developed a new MAHA
strategy. Instead of Make America Healthy Again, his new strategy is
``Make America Hungry Agenda.'' He is weaponizing food against
America's most vulnerable families. In my State of Oregon, that means
cutting off food to 757,000 people, including 210,000 children and
130,000 seniors.
Now, when you think about these numbers, they are hard to envision,
but Oregon is roughly 300 miles from the northern border to the
southern border. I-5 runs the entire length of the State. So if all of
those individuals were lined up on the highway, they would be just 2
feet apart for 300 miles, and every third person, approximately, would
be a child. That is the level of impact we are talking about.
You know, when children go without food, the impact is pretty
significant. There is the impact on their physical development. There
is the impact on their mental development. And, of course, if you are
hungry, you can't learn a damn thing in school--so three ways of really
hurting America's children, millions of American children.
Congress together, Democrats and Republicans, said this should never
happen. The House and the Senate together said this should never
happen. So together we created two tools. The first tool is the SNAP
contingency fund meant to ensure that families can keep putting food on
the table. The second tool is interchange authority that allows the
Secretary of Agriculture to use tariff funds to supplement the
contingency fund.
Back in September, USDA's--the U.S. Department of Agriculture--
website noted that it planned to use the contingency funds in order to
make sure that SNAP was delivered in November, but then in October,
last month, it deleted that language, and the President said: My hands
are tied. America's most vulnerable families must go hungry.
Well, now we know that the administration certainly was well aware of
the contingency fund because it was on their website, and we know that
the Department of Agriculture is well aware of its ability to use the
interchange to transfer funds from a program that would enable it to
provide the full SNAP benefits in the month of November. In fact, it
just used this interchange recently in both October and November for
the WIC Program.
Right now, section 32 funds--there is $23 billion in there. So just
one-fifth of those funds would enable the full November SNAP funds to
be distributed.
Last week, I saw a speech by Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the
House, on television, and he was saying that Republicans are not going
to provide SNAP funds because it would reduce pressure on Democrats to
reopen the government. In other words, the Speaker of the House was
saying that America's families, the most vulnerable families--the
health and welfare of children, seniors, the most vulnerable adults--
that they are just bargaining chips.
Well, let me tell you, our vulnerable families are not bargaining
chips. Basic food for children is not a bargaining chip. So we are here
to say: Hell no. It is not acceptable to use children and the most
vulnerable as bargaining chips.
That is why 25 States and the District of Columbia filed a suit
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture to say that it is illegal to
stop funding SNAP. On Friday of last week, two judges agreed in two
different jurisdictions--in Massachusetts and in Rhode Island--and they
said to the Trump administration: You must proceed to fund SNAP. The
contingency fund is there for that purpose, and you have other funds to
enable, through the interchange, to provide the full amount in
November.
Both are needed, because there is about $4.65 billion, we are told,
left in the contingency fund, but SNAP, in a single month, can be $8 to
$9 billion. So that second tool is essential. And, again, there is $23
billion in there waiting to be used. So there is absolutely no reason
not to fund the full SNAP benefits for the month of November.
But then the administration responded to the court, and they said: We
are not going to do it. We will use the contingency funds, but we are
not going to use the interchange authority.

[[Page S7871]]

We cannot fund--we choose not to fund the full benefits for November.
Well, this results in two problems. The first is that, instead of
about $6 a day--which is the standard, average SNAP benefit--it will be
about $3 a day. Well, $3 a day isn't very much to feed any member of a
family. But there is a second problem that is even worse, and this
problem is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a court
document filed today--and I have it right here.
I ask unanimous consent that this court document be printed in the
official Record, Mr. President.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

In the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

[Rhode Island State Council of Churches, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brooke
Rollins, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendants.]

(No. 25-cv-00569-JJM-AEM)

SUPPLEMENTARY DECLARATION OF PATRICK A. PENN

1. I am the Deputy Under Secretary of the Food, Nutrition,
and Consumer Services (FNCS) at the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA). As part of my responsibilities, I
oversee the FNCS programs including the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is administered by
the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) within FNCS. The
statements made herein, which supplement my October 29, 2025,
declaration made in Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v.
USDA, 1:25-cv-13165 (Penn Decl. Doc. No. 14-2), are based on
my personal knowledge and information made available to me in
the course of carrying out my official duties and
responsibilities.

Use of SNAP Contingency Fund for Reduced November Benefits

2. At the beginning of fiscal year 2026, FNS had $6 billion
in SNAP contingency funds. In October 2025, FNS used $450
million from the contingency fund for SNAP State agencies'
administrative expenses (SAE) and an additional $300 million
for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) block grants for
Puerto Rico and American Samoa.
3. Per orders issued by the United States District Courts
for the Districts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, FNS
intends to deplete SNAP contingency funds completely and
provide reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025.
4. Even in the absence of an appropriation, states must by
law continue to accept applications and conduct eligibility
determinations. 7 C.F.R. 271.7(e)(1). States also must incur
necessary expenses to re-calculate and distribute benefits.
Accordingly, states continue to incur SAE necessary to
operate SNAP. For November, FNS will obligate $450 million
from the contingency fund for SAE, and an additional $150
million for NAP in Puerto Rico and American Samoa (50% of the
value of one month of each block grant).
5. The above will leave a total of $4.65 billion in the
contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be
obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current
allotments.
6. This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP
applicants certified in November, disaster assistance, or as
a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of
shutting down SNAP entirely. See Penn Decl. Doc. No. 14-2
21.

Consideration of Diverting Section 32 Child Nutrition Funds or Other
Funds to SNAP

7. In addition to routing the remaining SNAP contingency
funds to partial November 2025 SNAP benefits, USDA has
carefully considered tapping Section 32 funds that, pursuant
to statute, were transferred to FNS to be used for Child
Nutrition Programs. USDA would need at least $4 billion from
those Child Nutrition funds to provide full SNAP benefits
instead of reduced benefits for the month of November.
8. USDA contemplated various factors including the
statutory mandate evidencing clear Congressional intent that
Section 32 funds transferred to FNS be used for Child
Nutrition Programs (see 7 U.S.C. 612c-6(b)(1)), which are a
group of programs that are distinct from SNAP in terms of
legal authority, appropriations accounts, and operations. In
addition, USDA considered the impact a transfer of the
magnitude necessary to support SNAP would have on Child
Nutrition Programs, the likelihood (or lack thereof) of
Congress's ability to appropriate additional billions of
dollars for Child Nutrition Programs for FY26 to make up the
funding shortfall such an additional transfer would create,
and the Courts' orders.
9. Ultimately, USDA has determined that Section 32 Child
Nutrition Program funds must remain available to protect full
operation of Child Nutrition Programs throughout the fiscal
year, instead of being used for SNAP benefits. Section 32
Child Nutrition Program funds are not a contingency fund for
SNAP. Using billions of dollars from Child Nutrition for SNAP
would leave an unprecedented gap in Child Nutrition funding
that Congress has never had to fill with annual
appropriations, and USDA cannot predict what Congress will do
under these circumstances.
10. The Child Nutrition Programs, which include the
National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, Summer Food
Service Program, and Summer EBT (SUN Bucks), provide
critical, nutritionally-balanced meals and food assistance
benefits to millions of children every day. Through the
National School Lunch Program alone, approximately 29 million
children per day receive nutritionally balanced, low-cost or
no-cost lunches.
11. Funding for Child Nutrition Programs derives primarily
from two sources--annual appropriations and funds transferred
from the Section 32 account, the latter of which constitutes
the bulk of Child Nutrition Programs funding. See 7 U.S.C.
612c-6(b)(1).
12. Section 32 refers to a mandatory appropriation (7
U.S.C. 612c) that receives 30 percent of customs receipts on
all imports from the prior calendar year. A large portion of
those funds go to Child Nutrition Programs, See Penn Decl.
Doc. No. 14-2 30. To make them available for SNAP, USDA
would need to execute its discretionary authority under 7
U.S.C. 2257. Much of the public discussion of Section 32
misunderstands the funding; Congress has designated uses for
Section 32 funds that do not include SNAP, and Congress
purposefully avoided keeping any remainder and/or unallocated
Section 32 funds for general contingency purposes.
13. While Section 32 funds are essential to Child Nutrition
Programs, they do not fully fund Child Nutrition Programs.
Rather, Congress must fund the remainder through annual
appropriations.
14. As an example of the dual funding streams for Child
Nutrition Programs, in FY24, the total cost of Child
Nutrition Programs was approximately $33 billion. See
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. L. 118-42, 138
Stat. 25, 92 (Mar. 9, 2024). Roughly $28.8 billion came from
Section 32 funds and $4.5 billion came from annual
appropriations. For FY25, the total cost of Child Nutrition
Programs was approximately $32.4 billion, with $22.4
billion coming from Section 32 funds and $10 billion
coming from annual appropriations.
15. For FY26, there is $25.2 billion in Section 32 funds
derived from customs receipts, and approximately $23 billion
was transferred to FNS for the Child Nutrition Programs. See
7 U.S.C.612c-6(b)(1). Based on the FY26 USDA budget request,
this would mean Congress must still appropriate at least
$13.2 billion for Child Nutrition Programs in FY26 for a
total of $36.27 billion.
16. However, using USDA's discretionary authority at 7
U.S.C. 2257 to transfer such a significant portion of Child
Nutrition funds to ``top off'' SNAP contingency funds and
issue full November SNAP allotments would leave Child
Nutrition Programs, which feed no fewer than 29 million
children, with an unprecedented and significant shortfall.
17. Under current law, another infusion of Section 32
tariff funds to Child Nutrition Programs will not occur until
FY27. In other words, the $4 billion removed from Child
Nutrition Programs for one month of SNAP benefits would be a
permanent loss to Child Nutrition Programs for the entirety
of their annual operations in FY26.
18. If Congress were to pass an annual appropriations act
or continuing resolution with usual terms and conditions,
that $4 billion gap would not be filled because Congress
would not replenish the Section 32 portion with annual
appropriations (again, the Section 32 transfer is funded
annually with customs receipts).
19. To make Child Nutrition Programs whole for FY26,
Congress would need to appropriate an additional $4 billion
in new budget authority. In other words, instead of Congress
appropriating the estimated $13.2 billion for Child Nutrition
Programs in FY26, Congress would need to appropriate more
than $17.2 billion for Child Nutrition Programs to continue
funding the Child Nutrition Programs at the level required to
serve all eligible children. The pending continuing
resolution makes no such additional appropriation.
20. While USDA transferred approximately $300 million in
October 2025 to support the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), there are key
differences. For example, the magnitude of the amounts ($300
million for WIC in October 2025 versus $4 billion for SNAP)
is a material consideration. While USDA believes there are
sufficient funds in the Child Nutrition Programs to support
WIC during these unprecedented circumstances, the agency does
not believe the same is true for SNAP due to the significant
differences between the amounts at issue.
21. USDA also believes a transfer of Child Nutrition
Program funding to support SNAP would further stray from
Congressional intent. While Congress has developed a
statutory scheme for providing partial SNAP benefits and,
according to the Courts, provided contingency funds at a
level it has deemed sufficient, USDA would ignore those
provisions while also threatening its ability to administer
Child Nutrition Programs if it were to repurpose funds
Congress explicitly intended be used only for Child Nutrition
Programs. A much smaller transfer for WIC does not undermine
performance of the Child Nutrition Programs and raises no
such concerns.
22. Amid this no-win quandary and upon further
consideration following the Courts' orders, USDA has
determined that creating a shortfall in Child Nutrition
Program funds to fund one month of SNAP benefits is an
unacceptable risk, even considering the procedural
difficulties with delivering a partial

[[Page S7872]]

November SNAP payment, because shifting $4 billion dollars to
America's SNAP population merely shifts the problem to
millions of America's low income children that receive their
meals at school.
23. The discretionary interchange authority at 7 U.S.C.
2257 allows transfers within the same ``bureau, division, or
office''. SNAP, Child Nutrition Programs, and WIC are in the
same ``bureau, division, or office,'' namely FNCS. As
explained, using Section 32 Child Nutrition Program funds
jeopardizes those crucial programs, and WIC does not have
funds to spare for SNAP. There are no other large blocks of
funding--that is, funding not tied to yearly appropriations--
within FNCS that could be used to supplement SNAP.

Actions to Implement Reduction in Benefits

24. There are procedural difficulties that States will
likely experience which would affect November SNAP benefits
reaching households in a timely manner and in the correctly
reduced amounts. See Penn Decl. Doc. No. 14-2 22-28.
25. Before States begin making the novel system changes to
implement the benefit reductions, USDA must notify States of
the effective date of the reduction and by what percentage
maximum SNAP allotments are to be reduced. See 7 C.F.R.
Sec. 271.7(d)(1)(i) and (ii).
26. USDA is prepared to issue such notice and revised
issuance tables to State agencies on November 3, 2025. States
will rely on the issuance tables to calculate the benefits
due to each eligible household in their respective States. To
assist State agencies with the massive changes, USDA will
have staff available for technical assistance.
27. As is required by Federal law, after receiving notice
from FNS, State agencies must recode their eligibility
systems to adjust for the reduced maximum allotments. See 7
C.F.R. 271.7(d)(1)(ii); 274.2(a). The resulting reduced
benefits amounts for certified SNAP households will be sent
to States' EBT processors in ``issuance files.'' See Penn
Decl. Doc. No. 14-2 7, 24.
28. Given the variation among State systems, some of which
are decades old, it is unclear how many States will complete
the changes in an automated manner with minimal disruption
versus manual overrides or computations that could lead to
payment errors and significant delays. See Penn Decl. Doc.
No. 14-2 24.
29. For at least some States, USDA's understanding is that
the system changes States must implement to provide the
reduced benefit amounts will take anywhere from a few weeks
to up to several months. See Penn Decl. Doc. No. 14-2 25.
30. In addition to adjusting eligibility and benefit
issuance files to accommodate the reduction, States must
notify all SNAP households of the reduction, as well as
handle any requests for fair hearings from SNAP households
related to the reduction, See 7 C.F.R. 271.7(d)(4) and (f).
31. As noted above, USDA will issue the appropriate notice
and issuance tables today to comply with the Court's order.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Patrick A. Penn,
Deputy Under Secretary, Food Nutrition and Consumer Services,
United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this court document was filed today by
Patrick Penn. He is the Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services at the Department of Agriculture. He says:

USDA's understanding is that the system changes States must
implement to provide the reduced benefit amounts will take
from a few weeks to up to several months.

So here is the situation. The court said: Fund SNAP, and do it right
away.
Today, the administration filed this document saying it will take
weeks to months because they are choosing to fund only half, and
everything has to be reprogrammed in the computer system to make that
happen at the Federal level and for most States. That is not an
acceptable strategy. That is going back to saying people are not going
to get SNAP benefits in November.
You know, this resolution that I have tonight--it is very simple and
expresses a number of thoughts that I have heard from both sides of the
aisle. It is a sense of the Senate that the Trump administration is
obligated to fund SNAP through the use of the contingency fund. And the
courts have made that very clear.
Second, the administration has the authority and the funds to finance
SNAP through the month of November, which we know because they have
both the contingency fund and they have the interchange fund.
Third, exercising this power is extremely important to the health and
wellness of families experiencing hunger, including about 16 million
children, 8 million seniors, 4 million people with disabilities, and
about 1.2 million veterans.
Finally, the administration should exercise its legal authority to
fund SNAP in November.
Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward.
Mr. President, children, seniors, the disabled, the veterans, our
most vulnerable families--they are not bargaining chips. It is simply
wrong to treat them as bargaining chips. It is wrong to adopt a
position in which they will not even get funded in November after the
courts have said: Fund it.
There is enormous damage that is done when children are deprived of
food--to their health, to their mental development, to their physical
development, to their ability to learn in school. And, of course, there
is damage done mentally and physically to all of the adults who are
funded in this program.
Food deprivation is not a correct strategy for any government in the
United States of America.
Trump's ``Make America Hungry Again'' agenda is wrong. It is immoral.
There is just something that really seems like the United States is way
off kilter when we have a President who is absolutely passionately
excited about building a giant, golden ballroom worthy of Louis XIV to
feast, to dine, and to dance with billionaires and power brokers of the
world, while letting--in fact, forcing--America's children and
vulnerable families to go hungry.
I thank Senator Schumer and the other 44 additional cosponsors who
have joined this resolution. I invited all 100 Senators to join it. The
five points are certainly ones I have heard expressed on both sides of
the aisle. Let's all together say: Fund SNAP, not weeks or months from
now but right now, so America's families in every State--regardless of
how they are represented in this Chamber--will benefit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of my resolution, which is at the desk;
further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to,
and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this
isn't lawmaking. This is a political stunt by the Democrats. The
resolution they are offering is empty. It is meaningless.
Democrats shut down this government. Democrats have voted against
reopening the government 13 times. Democrats are holding food
assistance for 42 million Americans hostage, and they are going to do
it again tomorrow. They are doing it tonight.
Democrats knew their actions threatened food assistance. They were
fully aware of it. This was organized and orchestrated in Chuck
Schumer's office months in advance of the shutdown. The Department of
Agriculture warned the Democrats weeks ago what was going to happen.
The local newspapers around the country--as a matter of fact, a
newspaper in the Senator's home State of Oregon reported:

Food is the first thing to go.

The Oregon paper went on to say:

Oregonians brace for SNAP delays if federal shutdown drags
on.

And still, for 34 days, Democrats have voted time and time again to
keep the government closed. If Democrats hadn't voted 13 times to shut
down the government, there wouldn't be the lines we are seeing on
television down and around the block at food banks and all around the
country.
The Senator from Oregon talked about children, using people as pawns,
as political pawns. That is exactly what the Democrat whip in the House
had said. So, of course, there is going to be suffering. She said it
gives them leverage. Senators in this body--Democrats--have said
exactly the same thing.
The Democrats have continued to use people as pawns for political
purposes, and it is wrong. It has to stop. If Democrats really wanted
to help struggling families, they would stop blocking a clean
continuing resolution.
The shutdown ends when Democrats end their dangerous political games.
And it is a dangerous political game that even the Washington Post has
pointed that out. You want to end the food assistance cliff? It is
easy. Pass the clean, bipartisan continuing resolution. Democrats
should vote for it immediately. Until then, the Schumer

[[Page S7873]]

shutdown is going to continue to hurt struggling families. Therefore, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I had really hoped that given the five
basic planks of this resolution, which had been expressed on both sides
of the aisle, that we would have something other than arguments that
sound like, I don't know, moldy bread, stale cheese; arguments we heard
time and time again about a shutdown.
But my resolution and my remarks tonight didn't even mention the
shutdown. Why is that? Because the shutdown is irrelevant as to whether
or not the November SNAP payments are made. We have a contingency fund
for that purpose. We created, Democrats and Republicans together,
interchange authority for that purpose. There is more than $23 billion
sitting in that interchange fund, section 32, tariff funded.
The money is there. The legal authority is there. And this resolution
simply says that failing to provide SNAP benefits hurts millions of
people and encourages the President to do what the courts asked him to
do--told him to do last Friday--provide the funds.
But the administration sneered at the court. They said we are going
to adopt a strategy in which the funds may not get to people for weeks
or months because we are going to do it in a fashion that requires a
reprogram of computers across America.
Really?
There is only one desk that has the power to immediately make these
funds available, and that is the desk in the Oval Office. Shouldn't we,
representing the people in each of our States, come together in a
bipartisan fashion to say that depriving people of food--the most
vulnerable families of food--across America is simply wrong, Mr.
President? I am speaking to President Trump. President Trump, you have
the authority, you have the funds, you have the responsibility. Your
``Make America Hungry Agenda,'' your agenda of starving children and
vulnerable families is wrong. Surely, that is something both Democrats
and Republicans can agree on. Let's keep pressing for the President to
get those funds to America's vulnerable families immediately.

____________________