A proposed overhaul of food stamps, the largest federal public assistance program in the country, has created a partisan fight over the Farm Bill in the House Agriculture Committee, traditionally one of the most bipartisan committees in Congress. Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which used to be known as food stamps, makes up around [80 percent](https://www.farmpolicyfacts.org/farm-policy-history/) of mandatory spending in the Farm Bill. It provides around [42 million Americans](https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.pdf) with an average of about [$125 a month per person] (https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf) to buy groceries and other necessities, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The House Agriculture Committee voted last week to introduce a new Farm Bill to the House on a strict party-line vote (26 to 20). The new measure, which would replace the old law set to expire in September, is largely uncontroversial, leaving many of the current farmers' subsidies unchanged. The major point of contention has to do with proposed changes to SNAP that would enact stricter requirements on aid recipients. All able-bodied recipients between the ages of 18 and 59 would be required to enroll in state-run employment or training programs for [20 hours a week](https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/agriculture_and_nutrition_act_of_2018_section_by_section.pdf) in order to receive food aid. Those who aren't enrolled would be ineligible for benefits for 12 months. The bill also allocates $1 billion a year for states to establish those mandatory education and training programs. These changes to the food aid program offer "beneficiaries a springboard out of poverty to a good paying job, and opportunity for a better way of life," said the committee’s chairman, Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), in a [statement](https://agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4277) last week. House Speaker Paul Ryan praised the proposed plan, and said it was “the precise thing we need to get people from welfare to work.” The Farm Bill requirements are similar to those included in a recent [executive order issued by President Trump](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/trump-work-requirements-assistance-programs.html) that would require low-income recipients of federal aid or housing assistance to work or risk losing their benefits. Democrats on the committee said such requirements would result in millions of the country's most vulnerable citizens kicked out of a program they rely on to survive. Furthermore, the ranking member of the subcommittee on nutrition, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the bill was drafted without Democrats' input. “We held 23 hearings on SNAP. Nothing in the Farm Bill reflects those hearings,” McGovern said Tuesday in an interview with Cheddar. “The majority of people who are on SNAP are not expected to work ー they’re kids, they’re seniors, they’re people who are disabled. Of those who can work, the majority work,” said McGovern. He also said that the new funding for education and training amounts to only about $25 to $30 per person ー far short of what is needed. The Congressional Budget Office will release its own analysis of the bill and it could reportedly reach the floor for a vote in early [May](https://about.bgov.com/blog/farm-bill-slated-house-floor-action-week-may-7/). For the full interview, [click here](https://cheddar.com/videos/rep-jim-mcgovern-d-ma-is-sick-and-tired-of-republicans-beating-up-on-poor-people).

Share:
More In Politics
Why Democrats Losing Hispanic Voters
Chuck Rocha, host of 'Nuestro' podcast and opinion contributor at The New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss why Democrats are losing Hispanic voters.
Return-to-Office Mandates Might Be Hurting the Middle Class
More businesses are requiring workers to return to the office, but there is concern that many employees in the middle class, especially women and people of color, need remote work options for reasons including childcare and financial security. Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, joined Cheddar to discuss why office mandates could be detrimental to the middle class. She noted that while companies claim a return to offices would help foster more collaboration and efficiency, reports show that they are successfully able to do their jobs from home.
California Governor Explores Texas-Like Law to Ban Assault Weapons
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow the controversial Texas abortion law to remain in effect, banning abortion at six weeks and allowing any private citizen to sue a person or doctor aiding or abetting someone seeking an abortion. Outraged at this decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom is working to draft a proposal in line with the law as it relates to guns. Shawn Hubler, California correspondent at the New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss.
Getting Into the Vaccine Mandate Debate as Google Implements Its Own
Even as tech giant Google implements a vaccination mandate, charging its employees to declare their vaccine status within a time frame or risk dismissal, the federal government is tangled up in the court system trying to impose one of its own. Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Harry Nelson, founder and managing partner of Nelson Hardiman LLP, joined Cheddar to debate the ethics, efficacy, and legality surrounding the issue. While Cohn noted that she thinks the federal mandate might be legally sound, her organization is also concerned with a separate question of privacy. "At EFF what we're most interested in is the digital surveillance that's going along with some of these attempts to try to track and confirm whether people are vaccinated or not," she said.
Load More