[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 193 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8984-H8990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WELFARE INTEGRITY AND DATA IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3659) to reauthorize the program of block grants to States
for temporary assistance for needy families through fiscal year 2012,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3659
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Welfare Integrity and Data
Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Extension of program.
Sec. 4. Data standardization.
Sec. 5. Spending policies for assistance under State TANF programs.
Sec. 6. Technical corrections.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.
(a) Family Assistance Grants.--Section 403(a)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `` each of fiscal
years 1996'' and all that follows through ``2003'' and
inserting ``fiscal year 2012'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``(as in effect just before the enactment
of the Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act)'' after
``this paragraph'' the 1st place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``(as so in effect)'' after ``this
paragraph'' the 2nd place it appears; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2012''.
(b) Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood
Grants.--Section 403(a)(2)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(2)(D)) is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting
``2012''.
(c) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 409(a)(7)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``fiscal year'' and
all that follows through ``2013'' and inserting ``a fiscal
year''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
(A) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2012,'';
and
[[Page H8985]]
(B) by striking ``407(a) for the fiscal year,'' and
inserting ``407(a),''.
(d) Tribal Grants.--Section 412(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
612(a)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by
striking ``each of fiscal years 1997'' and all that follows
through ``2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2012''.
(e) Studies and Demonstrations.--Section 413(h)(1) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``each of
fiscal years 1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``fiscal year
2012''.
(f) Census Bureau Study.--Section 414(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 614(b)) is amended by striking ``each of fiscal years
1996'' and all that follows through ``2003'' and inserting
``fiscal year 2012''.
(g) Child Care Entitlement.--Section 418(a)(3) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``appropriated''
and all that follows and inserting ``appropriated
$2,917,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
(h) Grants to Territories.--Section 1108(b)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``for fiscal
years 1997 through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2012''.
(i) Prevention of Duplicate Appropriations for Fiscal Year
2012.--Expenditures made pursuant to the Short-Term TANF
Extension Act (Public Law 112-35) or section 403(b) of the
Social Security Act for fiscal year 2012 shall be charged to
the applicable appropriation or authorization provided by the
amendments made by this section for such fiscal year.
(j) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. DATA STANDARDIZATION.
(a) In General.--Section 411 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 611) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Data Standardization.--
``(1) Standard data elements.--
``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an
interagency work group which shall be established by the
Office of Management and Budget, and considering State and
tribal perspectives, shall, by rule, designate standard data
elements for any category of information required to be
reported under this part.
``(B) Requirements.--In designating the standard data
elements, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable--
``(i) ensure that the data elements are nonproprietary and
interoperable;
``(ii) incorporate interoperable standards developed and
maintained by an international voluntary consensus standards
body, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, such
as the International Organization for Standardization;
``(iii) incorporate interoperable standards developed and
maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the
National Information Exchange Model; and
``(iv) incorporate interoperable standards developed and
maintained by Federal entities with authority over
contracting and financial assistance, such as the Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Council.
``(2) Data reporting standards.--
``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an
interagency work group established by the Office of
Management and Budget, and considering State and tribal
perspectives, shall, by rule, designate standards to govern
the data reporting required under this part.
``(B) Requirements.--In designating the data reporting
standards, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable,
incorporate existing nonproprietary standards, such as the
eXtensible Business Reporting Language. Such standards shall,
to the extent practicable--
``(i) incorporate a widely-accepted, nonproprietary,
searchable, computer-readable format;
``(ii) be consistent with and implement applicable
accounting principles; and
``(iii) be capable of being continually upgraded as
necessary.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to information required to be
reported on or after October 1, 2012.
SEC. 5. SPENDING POLICIES FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER STATE TANF
PROGRAMS.
(a) State Requirement.--Section 408(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(12) State requirement to prevent unauthorized spending
of benefits.--
``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 shall maintain policies and practices as
necessary to prevent assistance provided under the State
program funded under this part from being used in any
electronic benefit transfer transaction in--
``(i) any liquor store;
``(ii) any casino, gambling casino, or gaming
establishment; or
``(iii) any retail establishment which provides adult-
oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform
in an unclothed state for entertainment.
``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) Liquor store.--The term `liquor store' means any
retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily
intoxicating liquor. Such term does not include a grocery
store which sells both intoxicating liquor and groceries
including staple foods (within the meaning of section 3(r) of
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(r))).
``(ii) Casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment.--
The terms `casino', `gambling casino', and `gaming
establishment' do not include a grocery store which sells
groceries including such staple foods and which also offers,
or is located within the same building or complex as, casino,
gambling, or gaming activities.
``(iii) Electronic benefit transfer transaction.--The term
`electronic benefit transfer transaction' means the use of a
credit or debit card service, automated teller machine,
point-of-sale terminal, or access to an online system for the
withdrawal of funds or the processing of a payment for
merchandise or a service.''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(16) Penalty for failure to enforce spending policies.--
``(A) In general.--If, within 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, any State has not reported to
the Secretary on such State's implementation of the policies
and practices required by section 408(a)(12), or the
Secretary determines, based on the information provided in
State reports, that any State has not implemented and
maintained such policies and practices, the Secretary shall
reduce, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant, the grant payable to such State under
section 403(a)(1) for--
``(i) the fiscal year immediately succeeding the year in
which such 2-year period ends; and
``(ii) each succeeding fiscal year in which the State does
not demonstrate that such State has implemented and
maintained such policies and practices.
``(B) Reduction of applicable penalty.--The Secretary may
reduce the amount of the reduction required under
subparagraph (A) based on the degree of noncompliance of the
State.
``(C) State not responsible for individual violations.--
Fraudulent activity by any individual in an attempt to
circumvent the policies and practices required by section
408(a)(12) shall not trigger a State penalty under
subparagraph (A).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 409(c)(4) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 609(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``or (13)'' and
inserting ``(13), or (16)''.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Section 404(d)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 604(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``subtitle 1 of
Title'' and inserting ``Subtitle 1 of title''.
(b) Sections 407(c)(2)(A)(i) and 409(a)(3)(C) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(A)(i) and 609(a)(3)(C)) are each amended
by striking ``403(b)(6)'' and inserting ``403(b)(5)''.
(c) Section 409(a)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(2)(A)) is amended by moving clauses (i) and (ii) 2 ems
to the right.
(d) Section 409(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(2)) is
amended by inserting a comma after ``appropriate''.
(e) Section 411(a)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
611(a)(1)(A)(ii)(III)) is amended by striking the last close
parenthesis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3659, legislation to extend Temporary
Assistance For Needy Families and related programs through the end of
this fiscal year, as well as to ensure that these funds are spent
appropriately.
Now, before describing the legislation in greater detail, I note that
these same provisions were already approved by the House as part of
H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, on Tuesday
of this week. But given some of the uncertainty about that legislation,
it makes sense to ensure that the TANF program continues to assist
families past December 31, when its current authorization expires.
That's the first and most important thing that this bill will do.
The TANF program has been generally successful at reducing welfare
dependence and encouraging work. This success is partly evidenced by
the fact that since it began in 1996, TANF caseloads have fallen by 56
percent through June of this year. And a key reason why this happened
is because TANF is designed to promote and also support work.
Unfortunately, it is one
[[Page H8986]]
of the only anti-poverty programs that actually does so, focusing on
helping move people from government checks to paychecks.
And especially, given that the focus and the fact that this program
helps so many single parents with children, we need to continue TANF so
low-income parents have the dignity of working and supporting their
family.
But we also can't stop there. Extending TANF will also provide us the
opportunity to develop long-term solutions to some of the problems
revealed in a subcommittee hearing earlier this year, such as making
sure that work requirements apply in all the cases that they should.
In discussing this issue with Subcommittee Chairman Geoff Davis, I
know that that remains a key focus of the Human Resources Subcommittee
agenda in the coming year.
Aside from extending TANF and related programs, this bill contains
two important and bipartisan program integrity provisions. First, it
requires that States apply specific data standards to the TANF
information they use when administering benefits and reporting data to
the Federal Government. This will help ensure that States have reliable
data to use in matching within TANF and across other programs, to
ensure that the right people are receiving the right benefits.
Unfortunately, today that is not always the case. The absence of such
data standards undermine program integrity and results in the waste of
taxpayer funds; and that needs to end. This data provision is identical
to provisions affecting child welfare programs signed into law by the
President in September as part of the Child and Family Services
Improvement and Innovation Act. And I know Subcommittee Chairman Davis
and the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, Mr. Doggett, have worked
together throughout the year on this effort.
{time} 1320
The second program integrity provision closes what some have dubbed
the ``strip club loophole.'' This loophole currently allows individuals
to access welfare benefits at ATMs in strip clubs, liquor clubs, and
casinos. This provision insists that all States will take the necessary
steps to end this abusive practice which has been highlighted in news
stories across the country.
Some States have already implemented policies to close this loophole,
ensuring that welfare benefits are spent to support children and
families. This bill ensures that all States take action to close this
loophole.
I note that this policy is the same as that introduced by Senators
Hatch and Baucus, the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the
Senate Finance Committee, so it has strong bipartisan support in the
other body as well.
Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, by continuing funding for TANF and
related programs at their current levels, this bill does not add one
penny to the deficit.
Again, this legislation continues TANF and related programs for 9
months, while making needed changes to improve program integrity. More
does need to be done to further improve TANF, especially on how it
helps parents go and get to work. This legislation will allow that
process of reform to continue into next year, while ensuring that
important TANF benefits remain available beyond their current December
31 expiration.
I want to thank Representative Geoff Davis, the chairman of the Ways
and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, for his work and effort on
this issue, as well as Dr. Boustany and Mr. Schock for their important
efforts and cosponsoring this measure that we're bringing forward to
the House today.
I ask all my colleagues to support it and pass it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in reluctant support of this measure, asking for its approval,
because without approval, Federal funding for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families will expire on New Year's Eve. My reluctance centers on
the incomplete nature of this extension.
It's incomplete, first, in terms of time. In September, Republicans
declined to extend this necessary funding for more than 3 months. Now
they extend it only for another 9 months, assuring that during the
height of the 2012 campaign season next year they'll have an
opportunity to blame the poor for whatever questionable anecdote arises
in the meantime.
This type of short-term extension at a time of a budgetary crisis in
many of our States reduces the ability to plan and to reform. It
assures that direct assistance to our most vulnerable neighbors will
just barely hang on. It postpones any meaningful action on responding
to the Census Bureau report that more Americans were poor in 2010 than
at any recent time.
In my home county in the capital of the State of Texas, the
percentage of children living in poverty grew from 18.3 percent in 2007
to 24.5 in 2010--almost one in every four children, in our area,
impoverished.
And today's bill is incomplete in terms of coverage. An important
part of the 1996 reform of the welfare law, a reform that I personally
supported, an important part is omitted today, the TANF supplemental
grants. These are funds that are allocated to help those States like
Texas that were negatively affected by the Federal formula in place at
the time.
Without any good explanation or justification, Republicans allowed
this initiative to expire last summer, and they continue to do so
today. This means that a State government in Texas that is largely
indifferent to the needs of its poor citizens has even less capacity to
respond to those needs. Because of this deliberate and unjustified
omission, Texas loses $500 million; and together with 16 other States,
they lose a total of $3 billion over the next decade. This is money
that will not be there to assist struggling families and to promote
work. Termination of these grants is really a breach of the agreement
of 15 years ago as a part of welfare reform.
But as we pass this bill, a few points need to be noted that are
positive in nature.
First is the one my colleague refers to as bipartisan legislation
that I have worked on with Chairman Geoff Davis. It is designed to
assure that Health and Human Services does have common data points so
that we ferret out any waste and abuse among various programs and, at
the same time, help eligible Americans to receive the assistance to
which they are entitled. This has already been incorporated into the
child welfare legislation that was also approved by our subcommittee on
a bipartisan basis and has been signed into law.
A second provision that is described as ``program integrity''
certainly does sound good in speeches, and it probably does address a
problem in Las Vegas and a few other areas that for speech purposes has
been described as the so-called ``strip club loophole.'' I'm in favor
of closing every loophole that takes public money that needs to go to
needy children and diverts it for some other purpose, whether it's at a
strip club or it is a pharmaceutical manufacturer who has milked
Medicaid and Medicare for millions of dollars.
Earlier this week, we heard from TANF administrators across the
country, Republicans and Democrats, questioning this provision, and we
know that it is also the subject of a study by the Government
Accountability Office. I think that we need to ensure no dollars are
wasted here, and I certainly wouldn't let this newly added provision
slow up a must-pass piece of legislation to assure that the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program is continued to next September.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Welfare Integrity and Data
Improvement Act, and I want to thank Chairman Davis for his work on
this as well as Ranking Member Doggett. But I also want to express my
deep appreciation for the inclusion of my bill, the Welfare Integrity
Now--WIN--for Children and Families Act, H.R. 3567, in this important
legislation.
[[Page H8987]]
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Oversight, I am determined to continue to fight waste, fraud, and abuse
on behalf of the taxpayer. This legislation ensures that taxpayer
dollars in this program are being used in the manner that they are
intended to be used, and that is to help those that need it most.
The abuse of funds on EBT cards has to stop. Prohibiting welfare
funds on EBT cards from being accessible in strip clubs, liquor stores,
and casinos, my bill, H.R. 3567, seeks to prevent the fraudulent misuse
of funds within the TANF system.
Families across America will continue to receive the necessary
assistance that they need during these very tough economic times.
The Win for Children and Families Act also holds States accountable
for not complying with this provision. So I'm pleased that the
provision has been included in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
member of this subcommittee and the full committee, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. We surely
need to ensure that the TANF program does not expire, which is the
basic purpose of this extension, but we would be remiss if we didn't
say that the status quo falls short of what is needed in these
difficult times.
Nearly one out of every two Americans is scraping by in poverty or
with very low income. We're talking about people below $44,000. That's
the people who are just barely making it with a family of four in this
country. That's what the Census Bureau found when they used the new
supplemental poverty measure based on legislation I proposed in the
Congress. That means about 150 million Americans are struggling to get
by.
{time} 1330
Just 2 days ago on this floor, the response to this epidemic of
suffering from the Republicans was to just suggest that we ought to cut
off unemployment benefits to millions of Americans. Now, imagine
yourself in the middle class--and there are a lot of people who think
they're in the middle class. Think about what that means when somebody
says, We're going to make it harder for you to get unemployment
benefits when you need them.
It is morally wrong and is terrible economic policy. We need to
follow a much different path, one that focuses on reforming programs so
that they better respond to Americans in need.
I was here when we did the reform of 1996. In 1996, this country was
going like a bat. We were really making money, and anybody could find a
job if he was willing to go in and ask, which is not the situation
today. This welfare program is not meeting the needs of what's going on
out there.
Now, if you've watched television recently, you could have seen on
``60 Minutes'' families who are living in cars. Now, how do you get to
a car? Well, first you lose your job. Then you get on unemployment
insurance. You lose your health care, too, by the way when you lose
your job. Then your unemployment insurance runs out. You've got 99
weeks of that, and it's gone. Where are you now? Well, um, you've still
got the house. You've been paying for that on the unemployment, but now
your house is in foreclosure. The next thing you know, you're living in
the car.
We've got thousands of people in this country who are in that
circumstance. They are increasingly taking all of the money out of
their IRAs and all the money out of their pension plans. Every single
dime they've got is gone. They're losing their homes, and all they
have, if they're usual families, are food stamps. That's what we offer
them. In the richest country in the world, one in two people is in
poverty or near it, and we're offering them food stamps, and are
saying, Go find a job, when there are four people looking for every job
out there.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Only one out of every five poor children in America
receives any direct assistance from this program we're talking about
today, and those few who do get helped receive very little. As more and
more people lose their unemployment benefits, this hole in the TANF
safety net is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. We ought to
start repairing that hole rather than ignoring it as it grows.
We are crushing the middle class in this country with our social
policy at this point. The data show that our social safety net works
but that the real problem is that we don't fund it and that we haven't
kept it up to date with what the modern economy is doing. People used
to go unemployed, and then in a while the job came back. The jobs are
not coming back anymore. Technology is changing it all.
I support extending TANF, but today's bill is a Band-Aid of
underfunding an outdated policy that hasn't kept up with the problems
that struggling Americans are facing every day. We must do better by
the middle class in this country--or Occupy Wall Street is going to be
everywhere.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. I may have one additional speaker if the gentlelady
makes it in time, but let me close on this note:
Mr. Speaker, at this time of year, we have largely a Norman Rockwell
picture of American families gathered around the Christmas tables, with
their turkeys and their gifts, and their Christmas trees are lit. That
is the story of millions of American families, but it's not the story
of many as well.
I've seen those families firsthand. I see them two doors down from my
house in East Austin when they line up on a Saturday morning, in need
of help, at the Olivet Baptist Helping Hand. I saw it last Saturday at
the recreation center in southeast Austin, in Dove Springs, where
parents were lined up for blocks to get their children one toy for
Christmas. I've also seen it across the south and west sides of San
Antonio--good families, hardworking people caught up in the worst
recession since the Great Depression. They face great challenges, and
our safety net in this country remains in tatters.
My concern is that this bill today does so little to address that
tattered safety net, which is increasingly more hole than net. We see
the statistics of homelessness for these families: 38 percent growth
over 3 years of the recession. We see it in threadbare cupboards and
church pantries and in food centers across the country. Yesterday we
saw in a report in The New York Times that in 37 States families are
worse off in terms of child care.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), to discuss the challenges that are faced by some
of our most vulnerable neighbors. I know she shares many of these
concerns about the unmet needs of those families who won't be fortunate
enough to look like a Norman Rockwell painting this Christmas.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3659.
This bill was taken out of the 360-page tax extenders bill, and
essentially the authors of this bill have brought it up so that they
could just have another kick at poor people. The bill sort of suggests
that people who are poor are of very low moral character and that they
can't be trusted to use their EBT cards in liquor stores or casinos, so
therefore we need to make some restrictions on how they can use EBT
cards.
But before we start kicking poor people yet another time, I just want
to remind everyone of data that were just released today which indicate
that one half of all Americans are poor and that these people may find
themselves eligible for benefits under this Electronic Benefit Transfer
card.
Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I tried to strike this
language from the bill--with no success.
The provision that blocks EBT cards from being used in liquor stores,
casinos and strip clubs doesn't consider a couple of things. It doesn't
consider the tremendous cost that this will have on financial
institutions, which will have to reconfigure their cards. It also
[[Page H8988]]
doesn't consider the distance for many Americans. There are 23 million
Americans who live in so-called ``food deserts'' where there is not
access to a grocery store or to an EBT machine within walking distance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. MOORE. Before I close, I would just like to mention one personal
experience that I had just this last week.
After having suffered an aneurysm, one of my sisters was on her way
back to the hospital this morning. Because I didn't have access to a
vehicle, I went and purchased the last meal that I gave her before I
journeyed back to Washington, D.C. I bought her 100 percent orange
juice from a liquor store that was within walking distance of my home.
So it may be an unintended consequence, but this is just a mean-
spirited effort to, one more time, kick the poor people who are now
half of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. Like a broken record the
Republican leadership continues to play the same sad song. One that
claims to help the poor and middle class but in the end will only
exacerbate our already weak economy.
As always, the devil is in the details. This so called Welfare
Integrity and Data Improvement Act will only help to make an already
broken program worse while also restricting access for our most
vulnerable families.
But be careful.
New Census data released today reveals that 1 in 2 Americans have
fallen into poverty. One half of all Americans are now either poor or
low-income!!!
The rate at which women and children are being thrown under the bus
is a strong indication that TANF has systematically failed to close the
expanding poverty gap, build pathways to sustainable employment, and
has done little to alleviate the problem of growing chronic poverty.
Now, as we go into TANF's third extension, Republicans want to impose
additional barriers on families to further hinder their ability to
access much needed benefits in these tough economic times.
This bill includes a harmful provision that blocks EBT cards from
being used at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of access. In many neighborhoods, the
closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store.
We don't want to encourage people to go to liquor stores or casinos
but what are low-income families supposed to do when they can't even
access benefits to feed their families in their own neighborhoods?
There has been no consideration of the cost associated with
implementing this policy, or to the kinds of burdens that it will
undoubtedly place on states and financial institutions who will have to
reconfigure thousands of ATMs.
Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I attempted to strike
this language from the tax extenders bill, but Republicans refused to
consider any amendments both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.
Here we are. Up against many deadlines and someone took the time to
pull this language out of a 370 page bill so that they could kick
people who are down with further restrictions.
I hope that the American people can see that Republicans are simply
playing political theater, trying to further humiliate and marginalize
poor people while stonewalling any and all efforts for Democrats to
pass meaningful legislation that will truly provide opportunities for
all people.
[From the Economic Research Service, June 2009]
Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food
Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences
Report to Congress
Increases in obesity and diet-related diseases are major
public health problems. These problems may be worse in some
U.S. communities because access to affordable and nutritious
foods is difficult. Previous studies suggest that some areas
and households have easier access to fast food restaurants
and convenience stores but limited access to supermarkets.
Limited access to nutritious food and relatively easier
access to less nutritious food may be linked to poor diets
and, ultimately, to obesity and diet-related diseases.
Congress, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,
directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct
a 1-year study to assess the extent of the problem of limited
access, identify characteristics and causes, consider the
effects of limited access on local populations, and outline
recommendations to address the problem.
This report presents the findings of the study, which
include results from two conferences of national and
international authorities on food deserts and a set of
commissioned research studies done in cooperation with the
National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. It
also includes reviews of existing literature, a national-
level assessment of access to supermarkets and large grocery
stores, analysis of the economic and public health effects of
limited access, and a discussion of existing policy
interventions. A variety of analytical methods and data are
used to assess the extent of limited access to affordable and
nutritious food and characteristics of areas with limited
access.
Findings
Access to a supermarket or large grocery store is a problem
for a small percentage of households. Results indicate that
some consumers are constrained in their ability to access
affordable nutritious food because they live far from a
supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy
access to transportation. Three pieces of evidence
corroborate this conclusion:
Of all U.S. households, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live
more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to
a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2
percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile
and do not have access to a vehicle.
Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people
live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of
the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal
poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a
supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these
23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are
restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income
areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total
U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile
from a supermarket.
Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in
low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more
time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the
national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those
who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to
the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household
member drove.
These distance and time-based measures are national
estimates that do not consider differences between rural and
urban areas in terms of distance, travel patterns, and retail
market coverage.
Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized
by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income
inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food
access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most
defining characteristic.
These area- or distance-based results are in line with a
nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted
in 2001. Responses to direct questions about food access show
that nearly 6 percent of all U.S. households did not always
have the food they wanted or needed because of access-related
problems. More than half of these households also lacked
enough money for food. It is unclear whether food access or
income constraints were relatively greater barriers for these
households.
Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices
than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in
areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery
or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed
for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other
food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of
similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the
prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels.
These analyses use proprietary household-level data that
contain information on food items purchased by approximately
40,000 demographically representative households across the
United States. Results from these analyses show that when
consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar
goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets.
Low-income households shop where food prices are lower,
when they can. Findings also show that food purchases at
convenience stores make up a small portion of total food
expenditures (2 to 3 percent) for low-income consumers. Low-
and middle-income households are more likely to purchase food
at supercenters, where prices are lower. Administrative data
on SNAP benefit redemptions from 2008 show that 86 percent of
SNAP benefits were redeemed at supermarkets or large grocery
stores. Research that considers the prices paid for the same
food across household income levels indicates that while some
of the very poorest households--those earning less than
$8,000 per year--may pay between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent
more for their groceries than households earning slightly
more, households earning between $8,000 and $30,000 tend to
pay the lowest prices for groceries, whereas higher income
households pay significantly higher prices.
The study also examined food shopping behavior and the
types of food purchased for SNAP participants and other low-
income households. Data from the 1996/1997 NFSPS show that
SNAP participants were, on average, 1.8 miles from the
nearest supermarket. However, the average number of miles
both SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants traveled
to the store most often used was 4.9 miles. These same data
show that SNAP participants who did not shop at supermarkets
purchased less noncanned fruit, noncanned vegetables, and
milk than SNAP participants who shopped frequently at a
supermarket.
Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to
specific healthy foods, may be a
[[Page H8989]]
more important factor in explaining increases in obesity.
Many studies find a correlation between limited food access
and lower intake of nutritious foods. Data and methods used
in these studies, however, are not sufficiently robust to
establish a causal link between access and nutritional
outcomes. That is, other explanations cannot be eliminated as
the cause of lower intake. A few studies have examined food
intake before and after healthy food options become available
(either within existing stores or because new stores opened).
The findings are mixed--some show a small but positive
increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables, while
others show no effect.
The causal pathways linking limited access to nutritious
food to measures of overweight like Body Mass Index (BMI) and
obesity are not well understood. Several studies find that
proximity of fast food restaurants and supermarkets are
correlated with BMI and obesity. But increased consumption of
such healthy foods as fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, or
whole grains does not necessarily lead to lower BMI.
Consumers may not substitute away from less healthy foods
when they increase their consumption of healthy foods. Easy
access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific
healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining
increases in BMI and obesity.
Understanding the market conditions that contribute to
differences in access to food is critical to the design of
policy interventions that may be effective in reducing access
limitations. Access to affordable and nutritious food depends
on supply (availability) and consumer demand. Consumer
behavior, preferences, and other factors related to the
demand for some foods may account for differences in the
types of foods offered across different areas. Food retailer
behavior and supply-side issues such as higher costs to
developing stores in underserved areas may also explain
variation across areas in which foods are offered and what
stores offer them.
If high development costs serve as a barrier to entry for
supermarkets in some areas with low access, then subsidy
programs or restructured zoning policies may be effective
solutions. If consumer demand factors, such as inadequate
knowledge of the nutritional benefits of specific foods,
contribute to differences in access by reducing demand, then
a public health campaign may be a preferred strategy. Several
local and State-level efforts are underway that could provide
the basis for a better understanding of the types of
interventions that may work best.
Food has been used as a tool for community development.
Projects such as farmers' markets, community gardens,
promotion of culturally specific foods for ethnic minorities
and Native Americans, local food production and promotion,
youth agricultural and culinary training programs, and many
other types of programs have all been implemented in a
variety of settings, both urban and rural. USDA's Community
Food Projects Competitive Grant program has much experience
in funding and nurturing such programs.
The current state of research is insufficient to
conclusively determine whether some areas with limited access
have inadequate access. Future research should consider
improved methods to measure access levels, availability, and
prices of foods faced by individuals and areas. More research
is needed to understand how access, availability and price
affect the shopping and consumption behaviors of consumers.
Data linking information on the types of foods consumers
purchase and eat with measures of consumers' levels of access
and the prices they face could help explain the economic
consequences of food access. Studies that use improved
methods and data to determine how food access affects diet,
obesity, and other health outcomes are also needed to help
explain the health consequences of food access.
Methods
To conduct the analysis of the extent of food deserts, a
comprehensive database was developed that identified the
location of supermarkets and large grocery stores within the
continental United States. Food access was estimated as the
distance to the nearest supermarket or large grocery store.
The analysis was refined by examining households without
vehicles and specific socio-demographic subpopulations drawn
from the 2000 Census. Multivariate statistical analysis was
applied to identify the key determinants of areas with low
access to supermarkets and large grocery stores.
Research also examined national-level data on questions of
household food adequacy and access from the 2001 Current
Population Survey. This information was complemented with
national-level data on time spent traveling to grocery stores
from the 2003-07 American Time Use Survey. To consider the
economic consequences of limited access, ERS also analyzed
demand for certain nutritious foods for a sample of
participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), using data from the
National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS) of 1996/1997.
Variation in prices for similar foods purchased at different
store types, as indicated by hedonic models and data from the
2006 Nielsen Homescan panel, was also estimated.
ERS collaborated with other agencies and institutions to
complete this study. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
compiled information on an extensive body of work examining
food access for SNAP and other low-income households. USDA's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) provided information on the Community Foods Projects
and lessons learned in the administration of the projects.
The national-level food desert analysis was complemented by
a review of existing literature and the commissioning of
additional studies by experts in the field. A workshop held
in October 2008 convened leading experts in the study of
retail food and grocery store access, key stakeholders from
community development organizations, grocery retailer
organizations, other government agencies, congressional
members and staff, and related public interest groups. The
workshop included presentations and panel discussions of such
topics as defining and describing dimensions of food deserts,
implications of low access for food and nutrition assistance
programs, consequences of food deserts, and programs and
policies to mitigate the adverse effects of food deserts.
USDA, in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at
the University of Michigan, commissioned several studies by
experts in food access to better understand concepts of low
access to affordable and nutritious foods and the degree to
which access varies across different types of areas. The
intent of these papers was to describe characteristics of the
food environment and the demographic, economic, and health
conditions that typify areas with low food access and to
complement the national-level findings with more detailed and
local-level information. Results from studies were presented
in a conference.
USDA, in cooperation with the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academies, conducted a 2-day workshop in January
2009 on the public health implications of food deserts.
Workshop presentations covered methods for assessing and
research findings on the impacts of food deserts on such
outcomes as diet (including examination of specific foods,
such as fruit and vegetable consumption and intake of high-
energy, low-nutrient foods), prevalence of obesity and
overweight; and diseases associated with poor diets. In
addition, presentations covered promising strategies for
mitigating the impacts of food deserts that have been
suggested, implemented, or are in the planning stages. The
workshop provided the basis for the review of the public
health literature.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to thank the gentleman for raising the issue about
ensuring that TANF recipients can access their benefits in a variety of
locations.
I will say the bill that we are considering here on the floor today
requires States to block access to welfare benefits in casinos, liquor
stores, and strip clubs, as we talked about earlier. However, we do
understand that some grocery stores, convenience stores, and local
markets may also sell groceries and alcohol or have gambling machines
as well. That's why there is an exception in the bill to provide
exactly for the concerns that the gentleman from Texas raised.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1340
Mr. DOGGETT. While I think it would have been better to await the
full report from the Government Accountability Office, I support those
program integrity provisions.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
I rise in support of the extension of this legislative activity, and
I want to be associated as closely as possible with the comments made
by my colleague from Texas, who seems to have his hand on the pulse of
where we need to go, what we need to do, and the unfortunate delays
that we have experienced. So I thank Mr. Doggett for his leadership. I
am in favor of extending this legislation.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just yield myself such
time as I may consume to say that I am pleased that we are moving
forward to extend this program, at least until the end of next
September. But there remains much work to do.
Many of our neighbors are in great need at the present time. Many are
supported by churches, community nonprofits, and the like. It is a
valuable service at a time of charity at Christmas when we all care
about those who are the least among us.
But just caring in that fashion is not sufficient, given the extent
of the problem. We need a stronger safety net with reference to health
care, child care, the support that is offered through the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program, and to help those--yes, pull
them up by their
[[Page H8990]]
boots; but for those who lack bootstraps, assist them as well. That
should be the goal of our vision as we address the needs of the many
impoverished people in this country.
Unfortunately, poor people have the least voice in this Congress.
Their voice is not heard to the extent that some of those who have
vested interests here in limousines and lobbyists are heard. But we
need to speak up for them. And this is one of those rare opportunities
to be able to do so and to say that this Congress has acted; but it's
acted in a modest, limited, incomplete, and inadequate way. We would
not hold up that little bit of help, but there is so much more that
needs to be done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, this legislation
continues TANF and related programs for an additional 9 months--it was
going to run out on December 31--while making both needed and also
bipartisan reforms and changes that are going to improve program
integrity.
I appreciate the comments of all of the Members here on the floor
today who have joined us in support of the bill. I look forward to
working with them to continually improve how TANF helps low-income
adults work and also become self-sufficient in the months ahead.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3659, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________