[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13799-13800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      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

[[Page 13800]]

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.

                          ____________________