The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE REPUBLICAN SNAP PROPOSAL” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H5596-H5597 on Sept. 18, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE REPUBLICAN SNAP PROPOSAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the deep cuts to nutrition programs that are being proposed this week by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides critical food and nutrition support for hardworking families in cities and towns all across my home State in Rhode Island. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that more than 180,000 Rhode Islanders rely on this important program every day.
Once again, House Republicans have decided, rather than working to come to a bipartisan agreement on the farm bill, that they will instead pander to the far right of their party and, in doing so, impose real hardships on America's working families and put many children at risk of going hungry all across our country.
While protecting generous subsidies for agricultural corporations, my Republican colleagues are threatening the food security of our most vulnerable neighbors. So let's review this package of cuts to the nutrition program and consider its impact on children, seniors, veterans and families.
First, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this proposal would cut SNAP funding by at least $40 billion. Some of these cuts would be particularly devastating for seniors and low-income families.
For example, this bill would eliminate categorical eligibility, putting working families at greater risk of going hungry and eliminating the incentive to find work.
Currently, a working mother who makes a little more than $24,000 a year qualifies for SNAP if her disposable income falls under 130 percent of the poverty line due to the rising cost of child care or rent. This bill would eliminate this provision and deny some working mothers and children in 40 States from receiving necessary nutrition assistance.
Make no mistake: this places a cruel burden on working families who can least afford it.
But it gets worse. Another provision would require the mother of any child a year of age to work or participate in a training program or risk losing their nutrition assistance. At a time of high unemployment and dwindling resources for job training, this bill means that a 2-
year-old could go hungry if the child's mother can't participate in job training or find work.
Of course these provisions don't only impact working families. Even a veteran receiving disability compensation could lose their exemption and have their nutrition assistance terminated if they can't find a job under this bill.
These cuts imposed on the backs of disabled veterans, children younger than 6, and working moms are bad enough. But to compound these cuts, the Republican farm bill makes it more likely additional beneficiaries will be hurt as well.
This legislation would actually encourage individual States to kick people off nutrition assistance by promising them 50 percent of the savings.
Of course, some of this is old news. We're here debating this issue again. Shockingly, the immoral, outrageous cuts I've already outlined weren't enough for the conservative fringe. They weren't satisfied with cutting funding for SNAP. They demanded even deeper cuts that would force more children and more unemployed workers to go hungry. They've insisted that more seniors and veterans, the people who helped build this country, should be turned away at their local market.
The House Republican leadership was happy to comply, and they decided to make a bad bill worse. They doubled the cuts imposed on the SNAP program and chose to slash nutrition assistance by a total of $40 billion. These newer cuts target jobless adults without children who live in areas with high rates of unemployment.
The National Association of Evangelicals said they were ``especially concerned'' about this proposal.
Let's not mischaracterize this as a new work requirement. The changes proposed in this bill tell people who are struggling to find work in a difficult economy that if their job search goes on longer than 3 months, they should go hungry too. But the bill does not provide additional workforce training resources, and it doesn't invest in job creation to help individuals find work.
This sends a clear message. If you're struggling to find a job in an area hard-hit by the recession, get ready, because in a few months you're also going to struggle to eat.
Let's not forget the context in which this particular bill is drafted. It comes after House Republicans stripped out the nutrition title and passed the rest of the farm bill.
In other words, they were happy to provide agricultural companies with extremely generous subsidies to purchase crop insurance. They were happy to spend $40 billion on commodity programs. But nutrition assistance for children and the underemployed was apparently a bridge too far.
Dozens of religious groups and other leaders have strongly opposed this bill. Earlier this week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reminded us that ``how the House chooses to address our Nation's hunger and nutrition programs will have a profound human and moral consequence.''
The Jewish Federation argued that this bill ``would constitute untenable trauma to millions of Americans and their families.''
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, a Republican, warned ``this is no time to play politics with hunger.''
They've sent a clear message. This bill is wrong, it's immoral, and does not reflect our values as a country. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this proposal.
____________________
