2013: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing $20.5 Billion In Eligibility And Benefit Level Cuts To The State Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Paid For By Reducing Crop Insurance And Delaying Other Agriculture Programs. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the proposed 2013 Farm Bill that, according to the Associated Press, "would have eliminated the SNAP cuts [in the underlying bill] and taken the money from farm subsidies instead." According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment "would eliminate the bill's restrictions on eligibility and benefit levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, which under the bill would reduce spending by $20.5 billion over 10 years." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188 to 234. [House Vote 256, 6/19/13; Associated Press, 6/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 176; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
As A Result Of Underlying Bill's SNAP Changes, 1.8 Million People Would Lose SNAP Benefits, While Another 1.7 Million Would Have Their Benefits Cut By $90 Per Month. According to a letter posted by the Friends Committee On National Legislation, "Specifically, the House bill would result in at least 1.8 million people losing SNAP benefits entirely, and another 1.7 million people seeing their benefits reduced by about $90 per month. Our nation can ill afford to see SNAP weakened in the farm bill. Benefits are modest, averaging less than $1.50 per person per meal and are already scheduled to drop on November 1, 2013, with termination of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefit boost. This reduction, which will impact every SNAP beneficiary, will average about $25 per month for a family of three." [Friends Committee on National Legislation, 6/19/13]
The Amendment Would Have Cut Underlying Bill's Federal Crop Insurance Programs And Cotton Premium Payments To Offset The Cost Of Its SNAP Changes. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To offset the costs of the amendment, it would strike the supplemental coverage option for crop insurance and cap the overall rate of return for crop insurance providers at 12 percent, and delay for one year the start of the peanut revenue crop insurance program and the Stacked Income Protection Plan for cotton and limit the cotton premium payment to 65 percent." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/13]
AARP, Unions, And Religious Groups Supported Removing Underlying Bill's "Unconscionable And Harmful" SNAP Cuts. According to a letter posted by the Friends Committee On National Legislation, "We, the undersigned, support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion/10 years cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently in H.R. 1947[the underlying 2013 House Farm Bill]. As it stands, we oppose H.R. 1947 because it would increase hunger among millions of Americans - people with disabilities, children, seniors and struggling parents - those who work, as well as those who are unemployed or underemployed. At a time when more than one in six Americans struggle to put food on the table, the cuts to SNAP proposed in the House farm bill are unconscionable and harmful." The letter was signed by the AARP, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and numerous religious and social welfare groups. [Friends Committee on National Legislation, 6/19/13]
Amendment Opponents Said Tighter Eligibility Requirements For SNAP Would Ensure That Its Benefits Go Only To Those Who Need Them, Saving The Government $20.5 Billion. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said, "We're of the same heart here. We don't want people who need them and people who deserve them to go without SNAP benefits. On the other hand, we don't want to hand these out to people that are gaming the system, so to speak. So we've tightened the qualifications down on SNAP, and we've done so for a number of reasons. One of them is reports of a neon sign up on a tattoo parlor that says, ``We take EBT cards.'' You also have the report of an individual who bailed himself out of jail with an EBT card. I don't think that we want to borrow money from the Chinese to fund such a thing. I think those people can figure out how to bail themselves out and how to pay for their own tattoos. Instead, we tighten this down, and it's a savings of $20.5 billion. It was a tough enough negotiation to get to that point. I don't know what the gentleman from Massachusetts would say is enough, and maybe I don't know what I would say is too little. Someplace in between his opinion and mine is where we've settled today on this $20.5 billion that came out of this top line that is roughly 80 percent of the overall benefits that are in this bill." [Congressional Record, 6/19/13]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On The SNAP-Less 2013 House Farm Bill. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on the House's version of the agriculture program provisions of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would "extend[] most major federal farm, rural development and agricultural trade programs through FY 2018 --- but repeal[] direct and countercyclical payments to agriculture commodity producers, replacing them with two new risk-management programs to protect farmers when they suffer significant losses. It also bolsters the use of crop insurance for risk mitigation, consolidates conservation programs and establishes a new dairy margin insurance program." The House approved the bill by a vote of 216 to 208. The Senate had already completed its own version of the 2013 Farm Bill that included nutrition programs, and a conference committee was convened to work out a compromise version of the two bills. A related bill later became law, which included a reauthorization of food stamps, but which cut it by $8.6 billion. [House Vote 353, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
The Bill Was A Second Attempt To Pass A Multi-Year Farm Bill; Consisted Of Farm And Agriculture Program Sections Of Bill That House Had Rejected Earlier. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill represents the second House attempt to pass a multi-year farm bill, after the original bill (HR 1947) was defeated in June, mostly because of controversy over its food stamp provisions. The new bill omits the food stamp and nutrition title of the original, leaving just the farm and agriculture program titles --- but it incorporates the amendments to those titles adopted by the House in June. It also includes new language to repeal provisions of 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13]
Republican Leadership Hoped That The Farm Bill Would Be Less Contentious With Nutrition Programs Removed From It, But Both Democrats And Conservative Republicans Continued To Oppose The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But in order to at least partially reverse the embarrassing defeat they suffered three weeks earlier, when the first version of the legislation was defeated on the floor largely as a result of a conservative GOP revolt, Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team had to rely solely on votes from reluctant members of their own caucus. And to make that work, they crafted a revised measure (HR 2642) that dodges entirely the most contentious issue in the farm bill, the programs it traditionally authorizes to help feed the poor. The retooled farm bill passed 216-208 on July 11 without a single Democratic vote and over the continued opposition of a dozen Republicans, whose position was backed by conservative groups including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action. [...] Democrats used procedural tactics to make the Republican leadership's task as difficult as possible." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/13]
Obama Administration Threatened To Veto Bill, Citing Inadequate Changes To Crop Insurance, Lack Of Renewable Energy Investment And Omission of Nutrition Program Reauthorization. According to a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. Because the 608 page bill was made available only this evening, the Administration has had inadequate time to fully review the text of the bill. It is apparent, though, that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the country. Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the Nation. This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans -- in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our Nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances. If the President were presented with H.R. 2642, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill" (underline in original). [Office of Management and Budget, 7/10/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Reducing State Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Spending By $20.5 Billion. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill, which cut $20.5 Billion from the SNAP program. According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Democrats and a group of small-government conservatives on Thursday defeated a farm bill that would reauthorize agriculture programs through fiscal 2018 and shrink the nation's largest nutrition benefit program, cutting $33 billion from current law. [...] Democrats fled from the measure over reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The bill would cut the program by $20.5 billion by raising the minimum heating assistance required to be eligible for SNAP to $20. It also would mandate that participants in other low-income programs receive cash benefits to qualify automatically for the nutrition program." The House rejected the bill by a vote of 195 to 234. [House Vote 286, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Bill Would Have Restricted "Categorical Eligibility," In Which A Person Is Eligible For SNAP Benefits Solely Because They Are Enrolled In Other Government Assistance Programs; It Would Have Done So By Shrinking The List Of Programs Whose Participants Were Automatically Eligible For SNAP. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure significantly restricts so-called 'categorical eligibility,' under which individuals become eligible for SNAP benefits based on their participation in other low-income assistance programs. Under the bill, categorical eligibility would be restricted to only those households receiving cash assistance from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or other state general assistance programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
Bill Would Have Blocked Automatic Increases In SNAP Assistance To LIHEAP Recipients. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It also modifies SNAP formulas to prevent automatic increases in SNAP benefits for households that receive a nominal payment under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) from states, and it ends the bonuses that the Agriculture Department awards to states for administering SNAP. Together, these changes would reduce 10-year SNAP funding by an estimated $20.5 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
The Bill Included The Provisions Of The "Southerland Amendment," Which Allowed States To Require That SNAP Recipients Have Jobs Or Be In Job Training. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Before the bill went down, the chamber adopted, 227-198, the Southerland amendment to the nutrition title that would allow states to impose work requirements on SNAP recipients, mandating they have jobs or be in job training. 'Work is the surest way to empower able-bodied Americans to advance from welfare to self-sufficiency,' Southerland said. Democrats countered that there was no job training money in the bill to help SNAP recipients meet the requirements." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13]
Opponents Of The "Southerland Amendment" Said It Would Lead States To Push More People Out Of The Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, "SNAP provided provides [sic] monthly food benefits to more than 46 million low-income people. [...] Opponents, including [House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Colin] Peterson, said the amendment [...] would lead states to move people off SNAP in order to get incentive money they can use without restrictions. The amendment passed 227-198." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13]
Heritage Foundation: SNAP Benefits' "Runaway Spending" Is Due To "Culture Of Dependency." According to the Heritage Foundation, SNAP has experienced "runaway spending [...] [it] doubled between 2001 and 2006 and again from 2008 to 2012. This year, taxpayers spend roughly $80 billion on food stamps. [...] As with most Great Society-era programs, the food stamp program has created a culture of dependency. The number of Americans receiving benefits has soared to 46.3 million; that is 1 in 7 Americans, compared to just 1 in 50 Americans in the 1970s." [Heritage Foundation, 6/19/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Claim That SNAP's Growth Was "Relentless And Unsustainable" Was False. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed plan to convert SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) to a block grant and cut the program by almost 20 percent rests on the false claim that the program is experiencing 'relentless and unsustainable growth.'" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: "SNAP's Substantial Growth Of Recent Years Has Come Primarily In Response To The Battered Economic Circumstances." According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "SNAP's substantial growth of recent years has come primarily in response to the battered economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans, showing that, in fact, the program is working as intended --- not that it is out of control and contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problem." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP "Nation's Most Important Anti-Hunger Program", Helped Almost 47 Million Americans Each Month In 2012. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. In 2012, it helped almost 47 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet in a typical month. It also is an important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Almost 75 Percent of SNAP Participants In Families With Children. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children. " [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Over 25 Percent of SNAP Participants Are In A Household With Seniors Or Persons With Disabilities. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "[M]ore than one-quarter of [SNAP] participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP Second Most Responsive Federal Program For Providing Aid During A Recession. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "After unemployment insurance, SNAP is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote No And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Denying Food Stamps For At Least Two Months To Recipients Who Quit Their Job "Voluntarily," Regardless Of The Reason. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 that would have effectively denied supplemental nutrition assistance (SNAP) to anyone who quit their job voluntarily. The bill included a reauthorization of SNAP; the amendment would have required each state participating in SNAP to create a "work activation program," and required, among other things, that "each able-bodied individual participating in the program [...] shall not voluntarily [...] quit a job." Those who violated that requirement -- or any other requirement for the "work activation program," would not receive any SNAP assistance for at least two months. The amendment failed by a vote of 175 to 250. [House Vote 283, 6/20/13; House Report 113-117, 6/19/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 230; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Amendment Offered No Exceptions To Requirement. The amendment simply stated that "each able-bodied individual participating in the program" shall meet certain requirements, one of which was that they "shall not voluntarily [...] quit a job." [House Report 113-117, 6/19/13]
Amendment Also Forbade Reducing Weekly Work Hours To Under 30 Without Compensating Increase By Another Adult In The Family. The amendment also stated that participates in the work program "shall not voluntarily [...] reduce work effort and, after the reduction, the individual is working less than 30 hours per week, unless another adult in the same family unit increases employment at the same time by an amount equal to the reduction in work effort by the first adult." [House Report 113-117, 6/19/13]
Other Requirements Had Exceptions For Good Cause. The amendment had other requirements for participants in the "work activation program," including accepting a job offer that paid at least the applicable minimum wage or, if not applicable, 80 percent of the federal minimum wage; and providing the state with enough information to determine their employment status or availability to work. Both of those requirements allowed violation "with good cause." [House Report 113-117, 6/19/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Denying Food Stamps For At Least Two Months To Recipients Who Quit Their Job "Voluntarily," Regardless Of The Reason. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 that would have required supplemental nutrition assistance program recipients -- even those currently employed -- to conduct job search activities for at least 56 hours a week. Those recipients who failed to do so would lose their SNAP benefits for at least two months. The amendment failed by a vote of 175 to 250. [House Vote 283, 6/20/13; House Report 113-117, 6/19/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 230; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Amendment Required SNAP Participants To Conduct Job Search For At Least 56 Hours A Week. The bill included a reauthorization of SNAP; the amendment would have required each state participating in SNAP to create a "work activation program," and required, among other things, that "each able-bodied individual participating in the program [...] shall, each month of participation in the program, participate in [...] 2 days of supervised job search for 8 hours per day at the program site; and [...] 5 days of off-site activity for 8 hours per day." [House Report 113-117, 6/19/13]
USDA: "Fiction" To Say That SNAP Recipients All Unemployed. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the statement that "People on SNAP benefits are not employed" is "Fiction" because "Many SNAP recipients are currently employed but they still need some assistance so that they can put nutritious food on the table for their families. More than 29 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2009, and 40 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings. For these households, earnings were the primary source of income." [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 6/24/11]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Cutting SNAP Spending By $31 Billion. According to CQ.com, . In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 that would have, according to CQ.com, "would create additional work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients and raise[d] the total reduction in spending to $31 billion." The un-amended bill, according to CQ.com, would have cut SNAP spending by $20.5 billion. The amendment failed by a vote of 175 to 250. [House Vote 283, 6/20/13; CQ.com, 6/18/13; CQ.com, 6/20/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 230; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Cut $39 Billion From Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for reauthorizing food stamps and nutrition assistance for three years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill reauthorizes the food stamp program (formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and other nutrition programs for three years, through FY 2016. It eliminates the ability of states to waive work requirements for certain able-bodied SNAP recipients when unemployment is high and calls for states to impose new work requirements on parents of young children. It also restricts so-called 'categorical eligibility' under which individuals become eligible for food stamps based on their receipt of other low-income aid." This bill contained all the SNAP-related provisions from the original 2013 farm bill that the House had rejected in June 2013, but also included new ones, including the elimination of the state high-unemployment waivers. The House approved the bill by a vote of 217 to 210. The bill was later attached to a bill containing the other half of the House's proposed 2013 farm bill, and the combined bill was then sent to a conference committee. [House Vote 476, 9/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/7/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3102]
The Bill Would Cut An Estimated $39 Billion From SNAP Over 10 Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House bill would save $39 billion over 10 years, about 5 percent of current spending." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13]
Conservatives Supported The Bill Because It Contained Work Requirements For SNAP. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Conservatives say the House vote sends a political and policy message to Senate farm bill negotiators: SNAP must be reined in, particularly for people who are able to work. 'Anyone subjected to the work requirements under this bill who are able-bodied, under 50 will not be denied benefits if only they are willing to sign up for the opportunity for work,' House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13]
Heritage Action: SNAP Benefits' "Runaway Spending" Is Due To "Culture Of Dependency." According to Heritage Action for America, SNAP has experienced "runaway spending [...] [it] doubled between 2001 and 2006 and again from 2008 to 2012. This year, taxpayers spend roughly $80 billion on food stamps. [...] As with most Great Society-era programs, the food stamp program has created a culture of dependency. The number of Americans receiving benefits has soared to 46.3 million; that is 1 in 7 Americans, compared to just 1 in 50 Americans in the 1970s." [Heritage Action for America, 6/19/12]
Democrats Opposed The Bill Because Cuts To The Program Would Affect Unemployed, Childless Adults In High-Unemployment Areas. According to Congressional Quarterly, "For anti-hunger advocates, the vote signals that SNAP may be vulnerable to far-reaching changes by lawmakers who view it as a costly social program rather than a safety net for the poor. Democrats pointed to CBO projections that the proposal could cut 3.8 million people from SNAP in 2014. According to the Agriculture Department, 47.8 million people received SNAP benefits in June. 'The biggest cut affects millions of unemployed, childless adults who live in areas of high unemployment,' said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. 'These are poor people. Many don't have the skills or education they need to find a job.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Claim That SNAP's Growth Was "Relentless And Unsustainable" Was False. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed plan to convert SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) to a block grant and cut the program by almost 20 percent rests on the false claim that the program is experiencing 'relentless and unsustainable growth.'" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: "SNAP's Substantial Growth Of Recent Years Has Come Primarily In Response To The Battered Economic Circumstances." According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "SNAP's substantial growth of recent years has come primarily in response to the battered economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans, showing that, in fact, the program is working as intended --- not that it is out of control and contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problem." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP "Nation's Most Important Anti-Hunger Program," Helped Almost 47 Million Americans Each Month In 2012. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. In 2012, it helped almost 47 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet in a typical month. It also is an important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Almost 75 Percent of SNAP Participants In Families With Children. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Over 25 Percent of SNAP Participants Are In A Household With Seniors Or Persons With Disabilities. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "[M]ore than one-quarter of [SNAP] participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP Second Most Responsive Federal Program For Providing Aid During A Recession. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "After unemployment insurance, SNAP is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against The 2014 Farm Bill, Which Cut An Estimated $8.6 Billion From The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In January 2014, Schweikert voted against the 2014 Farm Bill, which reauthorized federal farm and nutrition assistance programs -- including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- through fiscal year 2018. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The conference agreement on HR 2642, Agricultural Act of 2014, extends most major federal farm, nutrition assistance, rural development and agricultural trade programs through FY 2018. [...] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would reduce net direct spending by $16.6 billion over 10 years compared with CBO's May 2013 baseline (or $23 billion in total savings when $6.4 billion in already-enacted sequester savings are factored in). Reductions include $14.3 billion over 10 years from commodities programs, $8.6 billion from food stamps and $4 billion from conservation programs, while crop insurance spending would increase by $5.7 billion. [...] CBO estimates that total mandatory spending under the agreement would be $956 billion over 10 years, including $756 billion (79% of the total) for nutrition, primarily food stamps." The House adopted the conference report on the bill by a vote of 251 to 166. After the Senate agreed to the conference report, the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 31, 1/29/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
SNAP Is Largest Federal Food Safety Net Program, Providing Benefits To 47.3 Million People In September 2013. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Food stamps are the single largest nutrition safety net provided by the federal government. Agriculture Department figures for September 2013 (released on Dec. 6, 2013) show 47.3 million individuals receiving an average of $133.20/month, or 23 million households receiving an average of $273.97/month, under SNAP. In FY 2007, before the [G]reat [R]ecession and financial crisis hit, an average of 26.5 million individuals per month were receiving SNAP benefits." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Taking Advantage Of SNAP Benefits Formula, Some States Had Used Nominal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Payments To Increase Residents' SNAP Benefits. According to Congressional Quarterly, "LIHEAP assists low-income families with home energy bills for heating and cooling, energy crises, and weatherization and energy-related minor home repairs and is administered locally by the states. Under current law, receipt of fuel assistance through LIHEAP automatically makes a household eligible to claim heating or cooling expenses and to use the state's standard utility allowances (SUA) in determining the level of SNAP eligibility. States set their own SUAs, which is a fixed dollar amount assigned for a household's utility expenses (heating, electricity, garbage collection, water and sewer fees, telephone costs); it is not tied to what an individual family actually pays, however, and is often much higher. When determining SNAP eligibility and benefits, applying a state's SUA reduces an individual's calculated income and increases SNAP benefit levels. To boost SNAP benefits to its residents, some states have been sending LIHEAP payments of as little as $1 to households with no utility costs so that the household can use the SUA and receive increased SNAP benefits (this has been dubbed the 'Heat and Eat' policy)." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Bill Required That A Person Receive At Least $20 From LIHEAP To Receive Automatic SNAP Benefit Increase. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Like the House bill, the agreement requires that an individual receive at least $20 or more in aid from the state through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) before that individual's SNAP benefits may be automatically increased. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce spending by $8.6 billion over 10 years. [...] By requiring states to provide individuals with at least $20 in LIHEAP benefits in order to use the SUA in calculating SNAP benefits, the agreement seeks to end that practice." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Bill Permitted Up To 10 States To Add Work Or Job Training Requirements For SNAP, And Provides $200 Million In Funding Over The Next Two Years For Developing SNAP Employment And Training Programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It does not include House provisions that would have restricted 'categorical eligibility' for SNAP or restricted the ability of states to waive SNAP work requirements for certain able-bodied adults, but it does create a pilot program to help get more SNAP recipients working by allowing states to require work and job training as part of receiving SNAP benefits. [...] Specifically, it directs the Agriculture Department to conduct a pilot program in up to 10 states to develop and test employment and training programs for SNAP recipients that would raise the number of individuals who obtain unsubsidized employment, increase recipients' income and reduce reliance on public assistance. It provides $200 million in mandatory funding to operate the pilot program: $10 million for FY 2014 and $190 million for FY 2015. States that participate in the pilot program must not supplant existing employment and training funds. The pilot projects must be in a range of geographic areas; include mandatory and voluntary participation; and target individuals with varying skills and work experience. The department must provide for an independent evaluation of the projects and must report to Congress on their success. CBO estimates that the measure's work and job training pilot program would increase direct spending by $250 million over 10 years." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Rules Limiting How States May Punish Those Who Do Not Meet Work Requirements Remained Unchanged, Even For Approved New Work Or Job Training Programs. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The conference agreement would allow up to ten states to receive additional funding to test [Employment and Training] E&T strategies designed to enable more SNAP participants to obtain unsubsidized employment, raise SNAP participants' earnings, and reduce their reliance on public assistance. The types of E&T programs states could operate would include any existing SNAP E&T components and services, as well as work and education and training programs allowed under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. [...] The pilot projects would operate within the structure of current SNAP E&T rules (except that some additional TANF-authorized activities would be permitted), including which SNAP participants would be exempt from requirements and states' options to sanction participants for noncompliance. The conference agreement would make $200 million available for the pilot projects, the independent evaluation, and related administrative costs." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/3/14]
Bill Prohibited States From "Recruit[ing]" For SNAP Programs, Advertising SNAP, And From Promoting SNAP Benefits In Cooperation With Foreign Governments. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement prohibits states from conducting activities to recruit SNAP participants, advertising the SNAP program and entering into agreements with foreign governments to promote SNAP benefits. It terminates the U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative, an agreement made between the Agriculture Department and government of Mexico in 2004 to improve the access of eligible Mexicans in the United States to federal nutrition assistance programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: Bill Would Remove "Virtually No Individuals" From SNAP. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The conference agreement removes virtually no individuals from SNAP --- in sharp contrast to the House-passed farm bill, which would have cut off nearly 4 million people, including some of the nation's most destitute adults as well as many low-income children, seniors, and families that work for low wages." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/3/14]
Heritage Action Opposed Farm Bill Conference Report, Saying Bill Contained "Miniscule Reforms" To SNAP. According to Heritage Action for America, "Once again, about 80 percent of the bill's spending goes towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps. There are now nearly 48 million individuals on food stamps, compared with nearly 31 million in 2008 and 17 million in 2000. Even after the dramatic loosening of eligibility standards contributed to one in seven Americans now collecting food stamps, the conference report contains minuscule reforms. All told the proposal is expected to save just one percent. That is below the 5-percent cut passed by the House last September and well below the 17-percent reduction outlined in the House-passed budget. [...] Indeed, the conference report lacks serious reforms. While it does close the 'heat-and-eat' loophole, it does not contain a repeal of broad-based categorical eligibility and states are able to completely bypass asset tests for food stamp applicants. Additionally, states will be able to continue receiving waivers to undo what minimal work requirements were in place. [...] Heritage Action opposes the conference report on H.R. 2642 and will include it on our legislative scorecard" (emphasis omitted). [Heritage Action for America website, 1/28/14]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote No And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The Final 2018 Conference Report Farm Bill Which Reauthorized Farm Programs And Food Stamps. In December 2018, Schweikert voted against the 2018 farm bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, and several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program). It would create new pilot programs that would test strategies for improving the accuracy of the SNAP income verification process. It would allow industrial hemp to be grown in the United States, subject to close regulation at the state level. It would modify the activities permitted on land contracted under the conservation reserve program." The vote was on the conference report. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 369 to 47. The Senate had earlier passed the bill and was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 434, 12/12/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies And Reauthorized SNAP, But With New Work Requirements. In June 2018, Schweikert voted for the House GOP Farm Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would require individuals receiving SNAP benefits, who are 18-59 years old, to work or participate in work training programs for a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a database to track individuals receiving SNAP benefits. The bill would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, the current sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program) and would modify certain utility standards in the Home Energy Assistance Program to require SNAP benefits recipients to provide documentation of such expenses in order to receive increased benefits using the Standard Utility Allowance. The bill would authorize, with modifications, the farm risk-management program, which gives agriculture producers a choice of receiving price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, for the 2019 through 2023 crop years. The bill would reauthorize several conservation programs, and would increase the conservation reserve program from 24 to 29 million acres and reduce from 750,000 to 500,000 acres the cap for Farmable Wetland Program enrollment. It would also increase the amount authorized annually for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, with a maximum authorization of $3 billion in 2023. It would eliminate the conservation stewardship program and would also allow the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the survival of a federally designated threatened or endangered species, or the habitat of such a species, without having to consult with federal agencies." The vote was on passage. The House adopted the bill by a vote of 213 to 211. A modified version of the bill that did not include the GOP's work requirements was later signed into law. [House Vote 284, 6/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
SNAP Already Has Certain Work Requirements; Recipients Must For Example, Accept A Job If Offered And Childless Adults Can Only Receive Benefits If They Work At Least 20 Hours Per Week Or Face Reduced Benefits. According to the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, "SNAP already requires working-age adults (with limited exceptions) to register for work and accept a job if offered. States can go further and impose very tough work requirements (up to 30 hours a week) and cut off benefits for people who don't comply. And, individuals aged 18-49 without children can only participate for three months out of every three years unless they are working 20 hours per week, a policy that has led many poor participants to lose SNAP." [Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/6/18]
House GOP Farm Bill Would Increase Work Requirements By Requiring Many Beneficiaries, Even Those With Children Six And Older, Work At Least 20 Hours, Were Part Of A Work Program, Or Received An Exemption Every Month. According to the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, "The House bill would impose an even harsher policy, requiring most adult SNAP participants, including parents who have no children under age 6 and older workers up to age 60 (among others), to prove every month that they worked, participated in a work program for at least 20 hours a week, or qualified for an exemption. Workers whose employers don't provide enough hours or who don't have paid sick leave, and recipients, including caregivers and those with disabilities, who can't navigate a bureaucratic exemption process could lose SNAP benefits." [Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/6/18]
Two Million Americans Would See Reduced Benefits. According to House Democrats on the Budget committee, "Despite the benefits of SNAP, the Republican farm bill would massively disrupt the current program, forcing millions to face benefit cuts or lose benefits entirely. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the government will essentially save no money over the next ten years under the GOP farm bill, but two million Americans would see their benefits lowered or disappear completely." [House Budget Committee Minority, 5/16/18]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies And Reauthorized SNAP With New Work Requirements. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for the House GOP Farm Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would require individuals receiving SNAP benefits, who are 18-59 years old, to work or participate in work training programs for a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a database to track individuals receiving SNAP benefits. The bill would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, the current sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program) and would modify certain utility standards in the Home Energy Assistance Program to require SNAP benefits recipients to provide documentation of such expenses in order to receive increased benefits using the Standard Utility Allowance. The bill would authorize, with modifications, the farm risk-management program, which gives agriculture producers a choice of receiving price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, for the 2019 through 2023 crop years. The bill would reauthorize several conservation programs, and would increase the conservation reserve program from 24 to 29 million acres and reduce from 750,000 to 500,000 acres the cap for Farmable Wetland Program enrollment. It would also increase the amount authorized annually for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, with a maximum authorization of $3 billion in 2023. It would eliminate the conservation stewardship program and would also allow the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the survival of a federally designated threatened or endangered species, or the habitat of such a species, without having to consult with federal agencies." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 198 to 213. The House later took a revote several weeks later and passed the bill. A modified version of the bill that did not include the GOP's work requirements was later signed into law. [House Vote 205, 5/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
SNAP Already Has Certain Work Requirements; Recipients Must For Example, Accept A Job If Offered And Childless Adults Can Only Receive Benefits If They Work At Least 20 Hours Per Week Or Face Reduced Benefits. According to the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, "SNAP already requires working-age adults (with limited exceptions) to register for work and accept a job if offered. States can go further and impose very tough work requirements (up to 30 hours a week) and cut off benefits for people who don't comply. And, individuals aged 18-49 without children can only participate for three months out of every three years unless they are working 20 hours per week, a policy that has led many poor participants to lose SNAP." [Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/6/18]
House GOP Farm Bill Would Increase Work Requirements By Requiring Many Beneficiaries, Even Those With Children Six And Older, Work At Least 20 Hours, Were Part Of A Work Program, Or Received An Exemption Every Month. According to the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, "The House bill would impose an even harsher policy, requiring most adult SNAP participants, including parents who have no children under age 6 and older workers up to age 60 (among others), to prove every month that they worked, participated in a work program for at least 20 hours a week, or qualified for an exemption. Workers whose employers don't provide enough hours or who don't have paid sick leave, and recipients, including caregivers and those with disabilities, who can't navigate a bureaucratic exemption process could lose SNAP benefits." [Center on Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/6/18]
Two Million Americans Would See Reduced Benefits. According to House Democrats on the Budget committee, "Despite the benefits of SNAP, the Republican farm bill would massively disrupt the current program, forcing millions to face benefit cuts or lose benefits entirely. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the government will essentially save no money over the next ten years under the GOP farm bill, but two million Americans would see their benefits lowered or disappear completely." [House Budget Committee Minority, 5/16/18]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Block Granting Food Stamps. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Assumes $125 Billion In Food Stamp Cuts And Block Grants The Program. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for block granting the Food Stamp program and assumes $125 billion in savings. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget assumes savings of $125 billion over 10 years by converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) into block grants to states at reduced funding levels, with states given greater flexibility to tailor their own programs." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Assumes $125 Billion In Food Stamp Cuts And Block Grants The Program. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for block granting the Food Stamp program and assumes $125 billion in savings. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget assumes savings of $125 billion over 10 years by converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) into block grants to states at reduced funding levels, with states given greater flexibility to tailor their own programs." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Assumes $125 Billion In Food Stamp Cuts And Block Grants The Program. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for block granting the Food Stamp program and assumes $125 billion in savings. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget assumes savings of $125 billion over 10 years by converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) into block grants to states at reduced funding levels, with states given greater flexibility to tailor their own programs." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Recommend That Food Stamp Funding Be Converted To A Block Grant As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for recommending that food stamps be converted to a block grant. According to the Republican Study Committee, "This budget recommends that the House Agriculture Committee put forward legislation that would authorize the food stamp program as a block grant, with funding subject to the annual appropriations process." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut SNAP By An Estimated $137 Billion Over 10 Years, Leading To Millions Of Americans Having Either Their SNAP Benefits Cut Or Losing Their SNAP Eligibility Entirely, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan includes cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) of $137 billion --- 18 percent --- over the next ten years (2015-2024), which would necessitate ending food assistance for millions of low-income families, cutting benefits for millions of such households, or some combination of the two. Chairman Ryan proposed similarly deep SNAP cuts in each of his last three budgets." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/4/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
From 2015 To 2018, The Ryan Budget Would Cut SNAP By $12 Billion By Implementing The Major SNAP Program Changes Passed By The House In September 2013, But Not Included In The Final 2014 Farm Bill. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Ryan's budget "includes every major benefit cut in a House-passed version of the recent farm bill that Congress ultimately rejected when enacting the final farm bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the House cuts, which amount to $12 billion over the 2015-2018 period, would have terminated benefits to 3.8 million low-income people in 2014." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/4/14]
Beginning In 2019, Ryan Would Transform SNAP Into A Block Grant Program That Would Be Funded So As To Cut $125 Billion From The Program's Costs Between 2019 And 2024. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Ryan's budget "would convert SNAP into a block grant beginning in 2019 and cut funding steeply -- by $125 billion (or almost 30 percent) over 2019 to 2024. States would be left to decide whose benefits to reduce or terminate. They would have no good choices --- the program already provides an average of only $1.40 per person per meal, primarily to poor children, working-poor parents, seniors, people with disabilities, and others struggling to make ends meet." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/4/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Converting State Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits Into A Block Grant Program Beginning In 2016 And Adding Work Requirements As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for converting SNAP benefits into a block grant program, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, the "This budget retools federal aid to low-income families in two ways. First, it eliminates the incentive for states to sign up as many recipients as possible. After employment has recovered, it converts SNAP into a block grant, indexed for inflation and eligibility. [...] Second, it calls for time limits and work requirements" The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13]
Currently, SNAP Is An Entitlement Program, Which Means Funding Is Not Capped And Is Available To Cover Providing Benefits To All Who Legally Qualify. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who qualifies under the program's rules can receive benefits. As a result, SNAP responds quickly and effectively to support low-income families and communities during times of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers. In this way, SNAP helps families to bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. If a parent loses her job or has a job that pays low wages, SNAP can help her feed her children until she is able to improve her circumstances." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Under A Block Grant Scheme, Overall Funding Is Capped. According to the Washington Post, "The survey data [on hunger in the United States] comes as congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the GOP vice presidential nominee, are pushing for large cuts in funding for the food stamp program to curb enrollment growth and to help balance the federal budget. Republicans in the House have voted to convert food stamps to a block grant in 2015 that would cap funding." [Washington Post, 9/7/12]
Heritage Foundation: SNAP Benefits' "Runaway Spending" Is Due To "Culture Of Dependency." According to the Heritage Foundation, SNAP has experienced "runaway spending [...] [it] doubled between 2001 and 2006 and again from 2008 to 2012. This year, taxpayers spend roughly $80 billion on food stamps. [...] As with most Great Society-era programs, the food stamp program has created a culture of dependency. The number of Americans receiving benefits has soared to 46.3 million; that is 1 in 7 Americans, compared to just 1 in 50 Americans in the 1970s." [Heritage Foundation, 6/19/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Claim That SNAP's Growth Was "Relentless And Unsustainable" Was False; Growth Was "Primarily In Response To The Battered Economic Circumstances." According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed plan to convert SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) to a block grant and cut the program by almost 20 percent rests on the false claim that the program is experiencing 'relentless and unsustainable growth.' SNAP's substantial growth of recent years has come primarily in response to the battered economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans, showing that, in fact, the program is working as intended --- not that it is out of control and contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problem" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP "Nation's Most Important Anti-Hunger Program" And Second Most Responsive Program Assisting During Economic Downturns, Helped Almost 47 Million Americans Each Month In 2012. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. In 2012, it helped almost 47 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet in a typical month. It also is an important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes. [...] After unemployment insurance, SNAP is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns."" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Almost 75 Percent of SNAP Participants Were In Families With Children And Over One Quarter Were In A Household With Seniors Or Persons With Disabilities. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Converting SNAP Into A Block-Grant Program Meant The Program Would Lose Ability To Respond To Rising Need For Food Aid During Economic Downturn. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Converting SNAP to a block grant and exacting deep cuts, as the House passed budget resolution (for FY2012) proposes to do beginning in 2015, would hurt the tens of millions of Americans who rely on the program. SNAP would largely lose the ability to respond to rising need, forcing states during economic downturns to cut benefits or create waiting lists for needy families." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Convert Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits Into A Block Grant Program. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support converting SNAP benefits into a block grant program, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, the "This budget embraces the Republican House budget's reform of SNAP [...] In a block grant system, a dollar of fraud saved by a state can go directly to help those in need, while the current funding structure only allows states to keep a fraction of every dollar of waste they find." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Currently, SNAP Is An Entitlement Program, Which Means Funding Is Not Capped And Is Available To Cover Providing Benefits To All Who Legally Qualify. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who qualifies under the program's rules can receive benefits. As a result, SNAP responds quickly and effectively to support low-income families and communities during times of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers. In this way, SNAP helps families to bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. If a parent loses her job or has a job that pays low wages, SNAP can help her feed her children until she is able to improve her circumstances." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Under A Block Grant Scheme, Overall Funding Is Capped. According to the Washington Post, "The survey data [on hunger in the United States] comes as congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the GOP vice presidential nominee, are pushing for large cuts in funding for the food stamp program to curb enrollment growth and to help balance the federal budget. Republicans in the House have voted to convert food stamps to a block grant in 2015 that would cap funding." [Washington Post, 9/7/12]
Heritage Foundation: SNAP Benefits' "Runaway Spending" Is Due To "Culture Of Dependency." According to the Heritage Foundation, SNAP has experienced "runaway spending [...] [it] doubled between 2001 and 2006 and again from 2008 to 2012. This year, taxpayers spend roughly $80 billion on food stamps. [...] As with most Great Society-era programs, the food stamp program has created a culture of dependency. The number of Americans receiving benefits has soared to 46.3 million; that is 1 in 7 Americans, compared to just 1 in 50 Americans in the 1970s." [Heritage Foundation, 6/19/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Claim That SNAP's Growth Was "Relentless And Unsustainable" Was False. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed plan to convert SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) to a block grant and cut the program by almost 20 percent rests on the false claim that the program is experiencing 'relentless and unsustainable growth.'" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: "SNAP's Substantial Growth Of Recent Years Has Come Primarily In Response To The Battered Economic Circumstances." According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "SNAP's substantial growth of recent years has come primarily in response to the battered economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans, showing that, in fact, the program is working as intended --- not that it is out of control and contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problem." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP "Nation's Most Important Anti-Hunger Program", Helped Almost 47 Million Americans Each Month In 2012. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. In 2012, it helped almost 47 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet in a typical month. It also is an important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Almost 75 Percent of SNAP Participants In Families With Children. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Over 25 Percent of SNAP Participants Are In A Household With Seniors Or Persons With Disabilities. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "[M]ore than one-quarter of [SNAP] participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP Second Most Responsive Federal Program For Providing Aid During A Recession. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "After unemployment insurance, SNAP is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Converting SNAP Into A Block-Grant Program Meant The Program Would Lose Ability To Respond To Rising Need For Food Aid During Economic Downturn. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Converting SNAP to a block grant and exacting deep cuts, as the House passed budget resolution (for FY2012) proposes to do beginning in 2015, would hurt the tens of millions of Americans who rely on the program. SNAP would largely lose the ability to respond to rising need, forcing states during economic downturns to cut benefits or create waiting lists for needy families." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Direct The GAO To Create A Pilot Program To Collect Data On What Items Are Purchased By Food Stamps. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "direct[ed] the Government Accountability Office to establish a pilot program in nine states to collect data on items purchased under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps." The underlying bill was the 2013 Farm Bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 79 to 346. [House Vote 266, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 199; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Converting State Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits Into A Block Grant Program Beginning In 2016 And Adding Work Requirements As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for converting SNAP benefits into a block grant program, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, the "This budget retools federal aid to low-income families in two ways. First, it eliminates the incentive for states to sign up as many recipients as possible. After employment has recovered, it converts SNAP into a block grant, indexed for inflation and eligibility. [...] Second, it calls for time limits and work requirements" The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13]
Currently, SNAP Is An Entitlement Program, Which Means Funding Is Not Capped And Is Available To Cover Providing Benefits To All Who Legally Qualify. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who qualifies under the program's rules can receive benefits. As a result, SNAP responds quickly and effectively to support low-income families and communities during times of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers. In this way, SNAP helps families to bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. If a parent loses her job or has a job that pays low wages, SNAP can help her feed her children until she is able to improve her circumstances." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Heritage Foundation: SNAP Benefits' "Runaway Spending" Is Due To "Culture Of Dependency." According to the Heritage Foundation, SNAP has experienced "runaway spending [...] [it] doubled between 2001 and 2006 and again from 2008 to 2012. This year, taxpayers spend roughly $80 billion on food stamps. [...] As with most Great Society-era programs, the food stamp program has created a culture of dependency. The number of Americans receiving benefits has soared to 46.3 million; that is 1 in 7 Americans, compared to just 1 in 50 Americans in the 1970s." [Heritage Foundation, 6/19/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Claim That SNAP's Growth Was "Relentless And Unsustainable" Was False; Growth Was "Primarily In Response To The Battered Economic Circumstances." According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed plan to convert SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) to a block grant and cut the program by almost 20 percent rests on the false claim that the program is experiencing 'relentless and unsustainable growth.' SNAP's substantial growth of recent years has come primarily in response to the battered economic circumstances of tens of millions of Americans, showing that, in fact, the program is working as intended --- not that it is out of control and contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problem" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/7/11]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: SNAP "Nation's Most Important Anti-Hunger Program" And Second Most Responsive Program Assisting During Economic Downturns, Helped Almost 47 Million Americans Each Month In 2012. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. In 2012, it helped almost 47 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet in a typical month. It also is an important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes. [...] After unemployment insurance, SNAP is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns."" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
Almost 75 Percent of SNAP Participants Were In Families With Children And Over One Quarter Were In A Household With Seniors Or Persons With Disabilities. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Spending By $8.7 Billion By Eliminating Increased SNAP Benefits For Those Who Receive A Small Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Payment. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for prohibiting states to qualify people for SNAP based on receiving small amounts of LIHEAP assistance. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "modifies SNAP formulas to prevent automatic increases in SNAP benefits for households that receive a nominal payment under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) from states, and it ends the bonuses that the Agriculture Department awards to states for administering SNAP." The provisions were part of a bill that reauthorized SNAP through FY 2016; it not only contained all the SNAP-related provisions from the original 2013 farm bill that the House had rejected in June 2013, but it also included new ones, such as the elimination of state high-unemployment waivers. The House approved the bill by a vote of 217 to 210. The bill was later attached to a bill containing the other half of the House's proposed 2013 farm bill, and the combined bill was then sent to a conference committee. [House Vote 476, 9/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/7/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3102]
The Formula Change Would Reduce Spending By An Estimated $8.7 Billion Over 10 Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "CBO estimates that this provision would reduce SNAP spending by $8.7 billion over 10 years." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/13]
The Bill Prohibited States From Qualifying Someone For SNAP Who Received LIHEAP Assistance Of Less Than $20, Ending The Practice Of Qualifying People Who Received $1 In LIHEAP For SNAP. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires that an individual receive at least $20 or more in aid from the state through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) before that individual's SNAP benefits may be automatically increased. [...] To boost SNAP benefits to its residents, some states have been sending LIHEAP payments of as little as $1 to households with no utility costs so that the household can use the SUA and receive increased SNAP benefits (this has been dubbed the 'Heat and Eat' policy). By requiring states to provide individuals with at least $20 in LIHEAP benefits in order to use the SUA in calculating SNAP benefits, the bill seeks to end that practice." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit States From Automatically Making Non-Cash Aid Or Low-Income Service Program Recipients Also Eligible For The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for prohibiting states to qualify people for SNAP based on non-cash aid or services they already receive. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House measure builds on a provision from the original Agriculture Committee bill that would no longer allow states to qualify people for SNAP based on non-cash aid or services they receive from other programs for low-income people. Only those who get at least $20 monthly in cash aid from state general-assistance programs, the federal Supplemental Security Income program and the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program would receive SNAP benefits." The overall bill reauthorized SNAP through FY 2016; it not only contained all the SNAP-related provisions from the original 2013 farm bill that the House had rejected in June 2013, but it also included new ones, including the elimination of state high-unemployment waivers. The House approved the bill by a vote of 217 to 210. The bill was later attached to a bill containing the other half of the House's proposed 2013 farm bill, and the combined bill was then sent to a conference committee. [House Vote 476, 9/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3102]
The Bill Restricted Who Became Eligible For SNAP Benefits Based On Already Participating In Other Government Assistance Programs By Restricting The Number Of Government Assistant Programs That Had Cross Eligibility. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure significantly restricts so-called 'categorical eligibility,' under which individuals become eligible for SNAP benefits based on their participation in other low-income assistance programs. Under the bill, categorical eligibility would be restricted to only those households receiving cash assistance from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or other state general assistance programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
The Only Programs That Would Be Cross-Eligible Under The Bill Were Supplemental Security Income, TANF, And Other State Assistance Programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the bill, categorical eligibility would be restricted to only those households that receive actual cash assistance from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or other state general assistance programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/13]
The White House Threatened To Veto The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The White House threatened to veto the House bill. 'These cuts would affect a broad array of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, including working families with children, senior citizens, veterans and adults who are still looking for work,' its official statement said. " [Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Allow States To Impose Work Requirements On All State Nutritional Assistance Program Recipients. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the House's 2013 Farm Bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "direct[ed] the Agriculture secretary to administer a pilot program that would allow states to impose work requirements on individuals receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. It would [have] void[ed] work requirement waivers in states that participate in the pilot project." The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 227 to 198, but later rejected the overall bill. Subsequently, the House passed a new SNAP bill that included the provisions of this amendment. As of mid-December 2013, that bill is part of an overall House-Senate conference on the 2013 Farm Bill. [House Vote 284, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/7/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 231; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Amendment Would Permit States To Deny Benefits To People Actively Looking For Work But Who Were Unable To Find One, Or Those Who Were Unable To Find A Spot In A Job Training Program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Proponents of the Southerland provision and some news accounts of the farm bill have mischaracterized this provision as a 'work requirement' that would be based on the requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. In fact, the provision is not really a work requirement; it could deny benefits to large numbers of low-income people who want to work but cannot find a job, and it would incentivize states to cut such people off by giving them large amounts of new federal funding --- to spend on whatever they choose --- if they use the Southerland provision to cut their SNAP caseloads. [...] The Southerland provision would authorize states to require most adults who are receiving or applying for SNAP, including parents with children as young as 1 year old, to work or participate in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week or else have their SNAP benefits cut off. It would allow states to keep half of the federal savings from cutting people off, which state politicians would be allowed to use for any purpose, including tax cuts and special-interest subsidies. Of particular note, the provision provides no jobs and no additional funds for work program or training slots to enable families to meet these stiffened requirements. Nor does it require a state to provide any work or training slots to people who cannot find jobs. In other words, it allows states to cut unemployed people off and leave them without food assistance because they cannot find jobs. Aggravating this problem, the provision authorizes states to cut off an entire family's benefits, including the children's benefits --- and for an unlimited time --- if the parents can't find a job" (footnotes omitted). [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/9/13]
Pilot Program Based On 1996 Welfare Reform Work Requirement. According to The Hill, "The amendment to the farm bill from Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) is modeled after the 1996 welfare reform, which had a work requirement and which Republicans say is responsible for helping people get off welfare. 'The amendment ... before us today builds on that successful approach and will give states the opportunity to test whether the same successful strategies that were used in past welfare programs in the 1990s will help food stamp recipients gain and retain employment and boost their earnings today,' Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said in support of the bill Thursday." [The Hill, 6/20/13]
Democrats Claimed 1996 Welfare Reform Was A Poor Model To Follow Because It Led To People Getting Thrown Off Program. According to The Hill, "Democrats objected to the language and said the 1996 welfare reform bill is not a model to follow. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said people left the welfare rolls in response to that law because 'we literally threw them off.'" [The Hill, 6/20/13]
Amendment Allowed States That Opted In To Keep Half Of Funds Saved By Imposing Work Requirement And To Use Them Without Restriction. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Southerland provision would encourage states to cut off families that can't find work in a weak economy. It would require an evaluation in each state that adopted the provision to measure the 'total program savings [under the project] ... with results reported in consecutive 12-month increments.' The Secretary of Agriculture would be required to pay a 'bonus grant' to each state in 'an amount equal to half of the accumulated [SNAP] benefit dollars saved over each consecutive 12-month period, according to the evaluation.' As a result, states would be paid for half of the cumulative savings from the caseload reduction that occurred each year. The provision would allow states to use these federal funds for 'any state purpose, not to be restricted to the supplemental nutrition assistance program or its beneficiary population.' (It should also be noted that funding for the evaluation would be only $1 million a year nationally, an amount insufficient to conduct a rigorous evaluation in even a single state. This strongly suggests the evaluation will largely be an exercise in identifying caseload reductions so that states can reap their bonus payments, not a rigorous assessment of the impact of state actions on household employment and earnings.)" (footnotes omitted). [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/9/13]
Amendment's Sponsor Said States Should Be Able To Have Sensible Work Requirements For SNAP Recipients. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) said, "My amendment empowers the States to require work for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. We apply the same sensible work preparation, job training, and community service activities that are at the heart of welfare reform. Our plan is endorsed by several States' Human Services Secretaries who approached us because they understand how important work can be for individuals truly in need. The simple fact, Mr. Chairman, is that 'work' works. We must have a system in place that provides a helping hand to the most vulnerable among us. By requiring work for able-bodied SNAP recipients, we can ensure that the resources get to those in need more effectively and efficiently." [Congressional Record, 6/20/13]
Opponents Said Amendment Incentivizes States To Remove As Many People From The Program As Possible. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said, "Unemployment is at 7.5 percent. One in seven people today is availing himself of food stamps because there is a need to. People are struggling in our economy today. They want to work. They cannot find a job. Everyone is experiencing that in their own communities. This amendment would allow an unlimited number of States to require an adult to receive or even apply for food stamps to be working or in job training, or else they lose their food stamp benefits. Why would a State want to do this? Because the amendment also allows States to keep part of the savings from cutting people off the program, use the money for whatever purpose the State officials want, instead of feeding people with those dollars. States can cut taxes for companies or even maybe support special interest subsidies. And as my colleagues said, there is no funding in this bill for the creation of jobs; and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they refuse to deal with the issue of job creation and there is no worker-training money in this bill. So there is no funding to do what they would like to do." [Congressional Record, 6/20/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Cut Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Spending By $19 Billion By Eliminating A State's Ability To Waive SNAP's Work Requirements In Areas Of High Unemployment. In September 2013, Schweikert voted to limit state waivers for the requirement in SNAP that recipients work a certain number of hours or receive a certain amount of job training in order to receive SNAP. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The legislation (H.R. 3102) incorporates all of the SNAP cuts and other nutrition provisions of the farm bill that House leaders sought unsuccessfully to pass in June, which would cut $20.5 billion from SNAP over ten years. It also adds new provisions designed to cut at least another $19 billion in benefits, primarily by eliminating states' ability to secure waivers for high-unemployment areas from SNAP's austere rule that limits benefits for jobless adults without children to just three months out of every three years" (italics omitted). The House approved the bill by a vote of 217 to 210. The bill was later attached to a bill containing the other half of the House's proposed 2013 farm bill, and the combined bill was then sent to a conference committee. [House Vote 476, 9/19/13; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/7/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3102]
The Bill Eliminated A State's Ability To Wave Work Requirements In Areas Where There Was High Unemployment. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill eliminates the ability of states to waive SNAP work requirements for certain able-bodied adults without dependents in situations where unemployment is high or available jobs don't exist --- but it retains states' authority to exempt up to 15% of that population from those work requirements." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/13]
Provision Would Terminate Assistance For Nearly 2 Million Poor Jobless Individuals Looking For Work. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The legislation would end the waiver authority immediately, which (in conjunction with other provisions in the bill) would terminate assistance for at least 1.7 million poor jobless individuals who live in high unemployment areas, even if they want to work and are looking hard for a job, but can't find a job or a place in a work or training program. As noted above, states do not have to provide work or training slots for these individuals." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13]
50,000 Jobless Veterans Could Lose Food Stamps Due To Elimination Of The Waivers. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "Substantial numbers of low-income veterans are among those who would be affected by the legislation. [. . .] The second is the provision that would require states to terminate food aid after three months to unemployed people aged 18 to 50 not raising minor children who live in areas of high unemployment and cannot find a job or a place in a work or job training program. According to the Census data, about 50,000 veterans could be at risk of losing SNAP under this provision." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13]
When House Republicans Added SNAP Work Requirements In 1996, They Included Waivers To Limit Requirements' Impact In A Weak Economy. According to the Center for Budget And Policy Priorities, "A SNAP provision of the 1996 welfare law limits adults between ages 18 and 50 who aren't disabled or caring for minor children to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years, unless they are working at least 20 hours per week or participating in a qualifying workfare or job training program. [. . .] To mitigate the provision's impact when the economy is weak, the provision's authors (two conservative House Republicans successfully offered it as an amendment on the House floor in 1996) designed it to allow states to request a temporary waiver from the three-month cut-off for areas with high unemployment. [. . .] But the new legislation would eliminate the waiver authority, so it no longer could be used in areas that continue to have high unemployment --- or in future recessions." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted For A Bill To Allow States To Impose Work Requirements On All Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Recipients And To Gives Sates 50 Percent Of Any Resulting Savings. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for a pilot program that would increase work requirements for SNAP and give states a monetary incentive to participate by allowing them to get 50 percent of all federal funds saved from reducing SNAP spending. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the program, states could apply work requirements similar to those under TANF, with individuals being required to work or participate in job training for at least 20 hours a week to keep their SNAP benefits. Single parents with children under age 1 would be exempt, as would parents with children under age 6 if child care is not available (under current SNAP work requirements, parents with children under age 6 are exempt). [...] The Agriculture Department must arrange for an independent evaluation of each state's program each year, and states would receive from the federal government 50% of the savings achieved from reducing SNAP spending. Those funds could be used by the state either for the pilot project or for any other state purpose. Additionally, states that do not impose the new work requirements under the pilot program would lose all federal matching funds for their SNAP employment and job training programs." The overall bill reauthorized SNAP through FY 2016; it not only contained all the SNAP-related provisions from the original 2013 farm bill that the House had rejected in June 2013, but it also included new ones, including the elimination of state high-unemployment waivers. The House approved the bill by a vote of 217 to 210. The bill was later attached to a bill containing the other half of the House's proposed 2013 farm bill, and the combined bill was then sent to a conference committee. [House Vote 476, 9/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/13; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/7/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3102]
Provision Would Permit States To Deny SNAP Benefits To People Actively Looking For Work But Who Were Unable To Find One, Or Those Who Were Unable To Find A Spot In A Job Training Program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Proponents of the Southerland provision and some news accounts of the farm bill have mischaracterized this provision as a 'work requirement' that would be based on the requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. In fact, the provision is not really a work requirement; it could deny benefits to large numbers of low-income people who want to work but cannot find a job, and it would incentivize states to cut such people off by giving them large amounts of new federal funding --- to spend on whatever they choose --- if they use the Southerland provision to cut their SNAP caseloads. [...] The Southerland provision would authorize states to require most adults who are receiving or applying for SNAP, including parents with children as young as 1 year old, to work or participate in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week or else have their SNAP benefits cut off. It would allow states to keep half of the federal savings from cutting people off, which state politicians would be allowed to use for any purpose, including tax cuts and special-interest subsidies. Of particular note, the provision provides no jobs and no additional funds for work program or training slots to enable families to meet these stiffened requirements. Nor does it require a state to provide any work or training slots to people who cannot find jobs. In other words, it allows states to cut unemployed people off and leave them without food assistance because they cannot find jobs. Aggravating this problem, the provision authorizes states to cut off an entire family's benefits, including the children's benefits --- and for an unlimited time --- if the parents can't find a job" (footnotes omitted). [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/9/13]
Critics Said That A Monetary Incentive To States To Participate In The Work Training Programs Would Result In States Needlessly Removing Households From SNAP In Order To Receive Funds. According to Politico, "Participating states would be expected to front the added employment and training costs but would also share half of any savings that resulted from reducing food stamp costs. This last feature most infuriated food stamp advocates for fear that states will seize the chance to profit from squeezing households off the rolls. 'The amendment would shift SNAP's basic purpose from feeding hungry people to lining state coffers,' said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive Washington-based nonprofit. 'I can't remember a time when policymakers ever considered giving states a kickback for refusing to serve unemployed mothers with young children.' " [Politico, 6/26/13]
Opponents Said That Since The Amendment Did Not Provide Funding For Job Training Programs And Would Lead To More People Being Moved Off The Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, "SNAP provided provides monthly food benefits to more than 46 million low-income people. Cantor said the welfare work requirements had moved people into jobs and the results should be duplicated in SNAP. He called the amendment well-crafted. Opponents, including Peterson, said the amendment provided no money for training and would lead states to move people off SNAP in order to get incentive money they can use without restrictions." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]