Steven Holt: “I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the remarks of our colleague from Connecticut. The SNAP program…”

“I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the remarks of our colleague from Connecticut. The SNAP program is in jeopardy, which means children's health is in jeopardy, and we should extend the ARRA-created benefits as well as to fully fund, not cut, the SNAP program. My colleague referred to the article this past week in The Lancet, the prominent medical journal. Allow me to quote from that. Many studies have shown positive associations between receipt of SNAP . . . and a lower risk of anemia, obesity, poor health, hospital admission for failure to thrive, and reports of child abuse and neglect. Children aged 5-9 years of SNAP-participating families have better academic outcomes and less obesity than children in nonparticipating families. Between 1961 and 1975, the program was implemented county by county, thus, allowing for comparison across counties that differed only by SNAP availability. In SNAP-available counties there was . . . a significant increase . . . in mean birthweight for both Black and White Americans, compared with those counties where SNAP was not available. As the Speaker knows, that is an important measure associated with infant health. Children of low-income women in SNAP-available counties were less likely to have metabolic syndrome [ill health such as diabetes] in adulthood, and women who had received food stamps during early childhood were more likely to be economically self-sufficient. These are children who had the benefits of SNAP.…”