this proposed rule does just that. It reduces benefits by singling out a group that USDA assumes is less deserving.

we can't just use that to tell us everything that we need to know about a recipient of SNAP benefits.

We support Congressman Panetta's legislation to align USDA farmworker housing programs with the low-income housing tax credit amongst other important reforms.

The rhetorical framing of these proposals, and the proposals themselves, seek to punish struggling Americans with harsh penalties for conditions beyond their control.

Does USDA truly believe that the receipt of SNAP benefits prevents unemployed ABAWDs from seeking and securing gainful employment?

Is government-imposed hunger--forcing people off needed benefits without adequate training or opportunities--an appropriate function of the Federal Government?

I appreciate you bringing this up as a topic because I see it every day, how important it is to have immigrants continuing to be a part of our country.

We unequivocally oppose the proposed rule change, which would restrict states' flexibility to provide vital nutrition support to people who struggle to feed themselves and their families.

one of the reasons why that proposal failed was because there was absolutely no evidence that those proposals would work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1 so that more Americans can exercise their right to vote. On election day of last year, voters in my district on the central coast of California set a new record for turnout in a midterm…

Thank you very much for being here.