The Senate's modifications to a comprehensive bill, initially proposed by President Donald Trump, have softened some concerns raised by veterans and military family advocates. However, certain adjustments may still adversely affect veterans' access to food assistance programs. The education policy section of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee's bill avoids a controversial provision present in the House version that could have exposed veterans to exploitation by for-profit educational institutions through their GI Bill benefits. Meanwhile, although Senate Republicans have scaled back plans to reduce food benefits relied upon by many veterans and military families, anti-hunger groups argue that the Senate’s proposal could still severely impact these programs.
In response to earlier warnings from veterans’ organizations about potential loopholes in the House bill that might allow predatory schools to exploit GI Bill funds, Senate Republicans maintained the 90/10 rule. This regulation limits how much revenue for-profit schools can derive from federal student aid, thus protecting veterans from being targeted by unscrupulous institutions. The 90/10 rule was originally tightened in 2021 to address this issue, with full implementation occurring in 2023.
Despite maintaining protections against exploitative educational practices, the Senate Agriculture Committee has introduced less severe but still concerning cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While not as drastic as the House proposal, which would significantly cut federal SNAP funding and require states to compensate, the Senate plan also includes a state cost-sharing component. States with error rates exceeding six percent will be required to contribute, though at a lower percentage than under the House plan. Furthermore, the Senate bill does not exempt veterans from work requirements necessary to receive SNAP benefits, potentially reversing a recent legislative change.
Veterans and anti-hunger advocacy groups have expressed concern over the implications of these changes. Liza Lieberman of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger noted that while the Senate's approach is somewhat improved, it remains problematic for military families and veterans. The overall bill, according to Lieberman, poses significant risks to millions of individuals, including those within the military community.
While Senate actions reflect an effort to mitigate some of the more contentious aspects of the House legislation, challenges persist regarding the financial support and accessibility of essential services for veterans and military families. Advocates continue to emphasize the importance of safeguarding these populations from potential adverse impacts arising from legislative adjustments. As discussions progress, stakeholders await further developments that could shape the final outcome of this complex legislation.