[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5694-H5721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUTRITION REFORM AND WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2013
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3102
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Nutrition
Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is the following:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
[[Page H5695]]
TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Sec. 101. Preventing payment of cash to recipients of supplemental
nutrition assistance benefits for the return of empty
bottles and cans used to contain food purchased with
benefits provided under the program.
Sec. 102. Retailers.
Sec. 103. Enhancing services to elderly and disabled supplemental
nutrition assistance program participants.
Sec. 104. Food distribution program on Indian reservations.
Sec. 105. Updating program eligibility.
Sec. 106. Exclusion of medical marijuana from excess medical expense
deduction.
Sec. 107. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy
assistance payments.
Sec. 108. Eligibility disqualifications.
Sec. 109. Repeal of State work program waiver authority.
Sec. 110. Ending supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits for
lottery or gambling winners.
Sec. 111. Improving security of food assistance.
Sec. 112. Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of mobile
transactions.
Sec. 113. Use of benefits for purchase of community-supported
agriculture share.
Sec. 114. Restaurant meals program.
Sec. 115. Mandating State immigration verification.
Sec. 116. Data exchange standardization for improved interoperability.
Sec. 117. Pilot projects to improve Federal-State cooperation in
identifying and reducing fraud in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 118. Prohibiting Government-sponsored recruitment activities.
Sec. 119. Repeal of bonus program.
Sec. 120. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 121. Monitoring employment and training programs.
Sec. 122. Cooperation with program research and evaluation.
Sec. 123. Pilot projects to reduce dependency and increase work effort
in the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 124. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 125. Limitation on use of block grant to Puerto Rico.
Sec. 126. Assistance for community food projects.
Sec. 127. Emergency food assistance.
Sec. 128. Nutrition education.
Sec. 129. Retailer trafficking.
Sec. 130. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 131. Tolerance level for excluding small errors.
Sec. 132. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program.
Sec. 133. Annual State report on verification of SNAP participation.
Sec. 134. Termination of existing agreement.
Sec. 135. Service of traditional foods in public facilities.
Sec. 136. Testing applicants for unlawful use of controlled substances.
Sec. 137. Eligibility disqualifications for certain convicted felons.
Sec. 138. Expungement of unused supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits.
Sec. 139. Pilot projects to promote work and increase State
accountability in the supplemental nutrition assistance
program.
Sec. 140. Improved wage verification using the National Directory of
New Hires.
Sec. 141. Feasibility study for Indian tribes.
TITLE II--COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS
Sec. 201. Commodity distribution program.
Sec. 202. Commodity supplemental food program.
Sec. 203. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition
projects.
Sec. 204. Processing of commodities.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Farmers' market nutrition program.
Sec. 302. Nutrition information and awareness pilot program.
Sec. 303. Fresh fruit and vegetable program.
Sec. 304. Additional authority for purchase of fresh fruits,
vegetables, and other specialty food crops.
Sec. 305. Encouraging locally and regionally grown and raised food.
Sec. 306. Review of public health benefits of white potatoes.
Sec. 307. Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Sec. 308. Review of sole-source contracts in Federal nutrition
programs.
Sec. 309. Purchase of Halal and Kosher food for emergency food
assistance program.
TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
SEC. 101. PREVENTING PAYMENT OF CASH TO RECIPIENTS OF
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE BENEFITS FOR
THE RETURN OF EMPTY BOTTLES AND CANS USED TO
CONTAIN FOOD PURCHASED WITH BENEFITS PROVIDED
UNDER THE PROGRAM.
Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2012(k)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and hot foods'' and inserting ``hot
foods''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``and any deposit
fee in excess of amount of the State fee reimbursement (if
any) required to purchase any food or food product contained
in a returnable bottle or can, regardless of whether such fee
is included in the shelf price posted for such food or food
product,''.
SEC. 102. RETAILERS.
(a) Definition of Retail Food Store.--Section 3(p)(1)(A) of
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)(1)(A))
is amended by striking ``at least 2'' and inserting ``at
least 3''.
(b) Alternative Benefit Delivery.--Section 7(f) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Imposition of costs.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary shall require participating retailers
(including restaurants participating in a State option
restaurant program intended to serve the elderly, disabled,
and homeless) to pay 100 percent of the costs of acquiring,
and arrange for the implementation of, electronic benefit
transfer point-of-sale equipment and supplies.
``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt from
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) farmers' markets and other direct-to-consumer
markets, military commissaries, nonprofit food buying
cooperatives, and establishments, organizations, programs, or
group living arrangements described in paragraphs (5), (7),
and (8) of section 3(k); and
``(ii) establishments described in paragraphs (3), (4), and
(9) of section 3(k), other than restaurants participating in
a State option restaurant program.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Termination of manual vouchers.--
``(A) In general.--Effective beginning on the effective
date of this paragraph, except as provided in subparagraph
(B), no State shall issue manual vouchers to a household that
receives supplemental nutrition assistance under this Act or
allow retailers to accept manual vouchers as payment, unless
the Secretary determines that the manual vouchers are
necessary, such as in the event of an electronic benefit
transfer system failure or a disaster situation.
``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt categories of
retailers or individual retailers from subparagraph (A) based
on criteria established by the Secretary.
``(5) Unique identification number required.--In an effort
to enhance the antifraud protections of the program, the
Secretary shall require all parties providing electronic
benefit transfer services to provide for and maintain a
unique business identification and a unique terminal
identification number information through the supplemental
nutrition assistance program electronic benefit transfer
transaction routing system. In developing the regulations
implementing this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider
existing commercial practices for other point-of-sale debit
transactions. The Secretary shall issue proposed regulations
implementing this paragraph not earlier than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
(c) Electronic Benefit Transfers.--Section 7(h)(3)(B) of
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(3)(B))
is amended by striking ``is operational--'' and all that
follows through ``(ii) in the case of other participating
stores,'' and inserting ``is operational''.
(d) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food
Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2018) is amended--
(1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a)(1) by striking ``;
and (C)'' and inserting ``; (C) whether the applicant is
located in an area with significantly limited access to food;
and (D)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) EBT Service Requirement.--An approved retail food
store shall provide adequate EBT service as described in
section 7(h)(3)(B).''.
SEC. 103. ENHANCING SERVICES TO ELDERLY AND DISABLED
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS.
(a) Enhancing Services to Elderly and Disabled Program
Participants.--Section 3(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'', and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) a governmental or private nonprofit food purchasing
and delivery service that--
``(A) purchases food for, and delivers such food to,
individuals who are--
``(i) unable to shop for food; and
``(ii)(I) not less than 60 years of age; or
``(II) physically or mentally handicapped or otherwise
disabled;
``(B) clearly notifies the participating household at the
time such household places a food order--
``(i) of any delivery fee associated with the food purchase
and delivery provided to such household by such service; and
``(ii) that a delivery fee cannot be paid with benefits
provided under supplemental nutrition assistance program; and
``(C) sells food purchased for such household at the price
paid by such service for such food and without any additional
cost markup.''.
[[Page H5696]]
(b) Implementation.--
(1) Issuance of rules.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue regulations that--
(A) establish criteria to identify a food purchasing and
delivery service referred to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 as amended by this Act, and
(B) establish procedures to ensure that such service--
(i) does not charge more for a food item than the price
paid by the such service for such food item,
(ii) offers food delivery service at no or low cost to
households under such Act,
(iii) ensures that benefits provided under the supplemental
nutrition assistance program are used only to purchase food,
as defined in section 3 of such Act,
(iv) limits the purchase of food, and the delivery of such
food, to households eligible to receive services described in
section 3(p)(5) of such Act as so amended,
(v) has established adequate safeguards against fraudulent
activities, including unauthorized use of electronic benefit
cards issued under such Act, and
(vi) such other requirements as the Secretary deems to be
appropriate.
(2) Limitation.--Before the issuance of rules under
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Agriculture may not approve
more than 20 food purchasing and delivery services referred
to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
as amended by this Act, to participate as retail food stores
under the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
SEC. 104. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
Section 4(b)(6)(F) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2013(b)(6)(F)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2016''.
SEC. 105. UPDATING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.
Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014) is amended--
(1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a) by striking
``households in which each member receives benefits'' and
inserting ``households in which each member receives cash
assistance'', and
(2) in subsection (j) by striking ``or who receives
benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``or who
receives cash assistance under a State program''.
SEC. 106. EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM EXCESS MEDICAL
EXPENSE DEDUCTION.
Section 5(e)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2014(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Exclusion of medical marijuana.--The Secretary shall
promulgate rules to ensure that medical marijuana is not
treated as a medical expense for purposes of this
paragraph.''.
SEC. 107. STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE RECEIPT OF
ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.
(a) Standard Utility Allowances in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.--Section 5(e)(6)(C) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (i) by inserting ``, subject to clause (iv)''
after ``Secretary''; and
(2) by striking subclause (I) of clause (iv) and inserting
the following:
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), if a State
agency elects to use a standard utility allowance that
reflects heating and cooling costs, the standard utility
allowance shall be made available to households that received
a payment, or on behalf of which a payment was made, under
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8621 et seq.) or other similar energy assistance program, if
in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12
months, the household either received such payment, or such
payment was made on behalf of the household, that was greater
than $20 annually, as determined by the Secretary.''; and
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2605(f)(2)(A) of the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8624(f)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, except that, for purposes of the
supplemental nutrition assistance program established under
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.),
such payments or allowances were greater than $20 annually,
consistent with section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of that Act (7
U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)), as determined by the Secretary
of Agriculture''.
(c) Effective Date and Implementation.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section and the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with respect to
certification periods that begin after such date.
(2) State option to delay implementation for current
recipients.--A State may, at the option of the State,
implement a policy that eliminates or reduces the effect of
the amendments made by this section on households that
received a standard utility allowance as of the date of
enactment of this Act, for not more than a 180-day period
that begins on the date on which such amendments would
otherwise apply to the respective household.
SEC. 108. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS.
Section 6(e)(3)(B) of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2015(e)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``section;'' and
inserting the following: ``section, subject to the condition
that the course or program of study--''
``(i) is part of a program of career and technical
education (as defined in section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302))
that may be completed in not more than 4 years at an
institution of higher education (as defined in section 102 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); or
``(ii) is limited to remedial courses, basic adult
education, literacy, or English as a second language;''.
SEC. 109. REPEAL OF STATE WORK PROGRAM WAIVER AUTHORITY.
Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2015(o)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(D) by striking ``(5), or (6)'' and
inserting ``or (5)'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4);
(3) in paragraph (6)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
(i) by striking subclause (II);
(ii) in subclause (V) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting
``(4)''; and
(iii) by redesignating subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) as
subclauses (II), (III), and (IV), respectively;
(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``(G)'' and inserting
``(H)'';
(C) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and each subsequent
fiscal year'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2013'';
(D) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``and each subsequent
fiscal year'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2013''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Fiscal year 2014 and thereafter.--Subject to
subparagraph (G), for fiscal year 2014 and each subsequent
fiscal year, a State agency may provide a number of
exemptions such that the average monthly number of the
exemptions in effect during the fiscal year does not exceed
15 percent of the number of individuals identified as
`Nondisabled Adults Age 18-49 in Childless Households' in the
table `B.5 Distribution of Participating Households by
Household Composition and by State' of the report entitled
Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Households: Fiscal Year 2011 (Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Report No. SNAP-12-CHAR) prepared for and
published by the Office of Research and Analysis of the Food
and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture in
November 2012.''; and
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
SEC. 110. ENDING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
BENEFITS FOR LOTTERY OR GAMBLING WINNERS.
(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(r) Ineligibility for Benefits Due to Receipt of
Substantial Lottery or Gambling Winnings.--
``(1) In general.--Any household in which a member receives
substantial lottery or gambling winnings, as determined by
the Secretary, shall lose eligibility for benefits
immediately upon receipt of the winnings.
``(2) Duration of ineligibility.--A household described in
paragraph (1) shall remain ineligible for participation until
the household meets the allowable financial resources and
income eligibility requirements under subsections (c), (d),
(e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
``(3) Agreements.--As determined by the Secretary, each
State agency, to the maximum extent practicable, shall
establish agreements with entities responsible for the
regulation or sponsorship of gaming in the State to determine
whether individuals participating in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program have received substantial
lottery or gambling winnings.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)) is amended in the 2d
sentence by striking ``sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g)'' and
inserting ``subsections (b), (d)(2), (g), and (r) of section
6''.
SEC. 111. IMPROVING SECURITY OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.
Section 7(h)(8) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2016(h)(8)) is amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``card fee'' and inserting
``of cards'';
(2) by striking ``A State'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Fees.--A State''; and
(3) by adding after subparagraph (A) (as so designated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(B) Purposeful loss of cards.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions
established by the Secretary in accordance with clause (ii),
if a household makes excessive requests for replacement of
the electronic benefit transfer card of the household, the
Secretary may require a State agency to decline to issue a
replacement card to the household unless the household, upon
request of the State agency, provides an explanation for the
loss of the card.
``(ii) Requirements.--The terms and conditions established
by the Secretary shall provide that--
``(I) the household be given the opportunity to provide the
requested explanation and meet the requirements under this
paragraph promptly;
``(II) after an excessive number of lost cards, the head of
the household shall be required to review program rights and
responsibilities with State agency personnel authorized to
make determinations under section 5(a); and
``(III) any action taken, including actions required under
section 6(b)(2), other than the
[[Page H5697]]
withholding of the electronic benefit transfer card until an
explanation described in subclause (I) is provided, shall be
consistent with the due process protections under section
6(b) or 11(e)(10), as appropriate.
``(C) Protecting vulnerable persons.--In implementing this
paragraph, a State agency shall act to protect homeless
persons, persons with disabilities, victims of crimes, and
other vulnerable persons who lose electronic benefit transfer
cards but are not intentionally committing fraud.
``(D) Effect on eligibility.--While a State may decline to
issue an electronic benefits transfer card until a household
satisfies the requirements under this paragraph, nothing in
this paragraph shall be considered a denial of, or limitation
on, the eligibility for benefits under section 5.''.
SEC. 112. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ON ACCEPTANCE OF BENEFITS OF
MOBILE TRANSACTIONS.
Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(14) Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of
mobile transactions.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pilot the use of
mobile technologies determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate to test the feasibility and implications for
program integrity, by allowing retail food stores, farmers
markets, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing
outlets to accept benefits from recipients of supplemental
nutrition assistance through mobile transactions.
``(B) Demonstration projects.--To be eligible to
participate in a demonstration project under subsection (a),
a retail food store, farmers market, or other direct
producer-to-consumer marketing outlet shall submit to the
Secretary for approval a plan that includes--
``(i) a description of the technology;
``(ii) the manner by which the retail food store, farmers
market or other direct producer-to-consumer marketing outlet
will provide proof of the transaction to households;
``(iii) the provision of data to the Secretary, consistent
with requirements established by the Secretary, in a manner
that allows the Secretary to evaluate the impact of the
demonstration on participant access, ease of use, and program
integrity; and
``(iv) such other criteria as the Secretary may require.
``(C) Date of completion.--The demonstration projects under
this paragraph shall be completed and final reports submitted
to the Secretary by not later than July 1, 2016.
``(D) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate that includes a finding, based on
the data provided under subparagraph (C) whether or not
implementation in all States is in the best interest of the
supplemental nutrition assistance program.''.
SEC. 113. USE OF BENEFITS FOR PURCHASE OF COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED
AGRICULTURE SHARE.
Section 10 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2019) is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting
``agricultural producers who market agricultural products
directly to consumers shall be authorized to redeem benefits
for the initial cost of the purchase of a community-supported
agriculture share,'' after ``food so purchased,''.
SEC. 114. RESTAURANT MEALS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 11(e) of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23)(C) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) if the State elects to carry out a program to
contract with private establishments to offer meals at
concessional prices, as described in paragraphs (3), (4), and
(9) of section 3(k)--
``(A) the plans of the State agency for operating the
program, including--
``(i) documentation of a need that eligible homeless,
elderly, and disabled clients are underserved in a particular
geographic area;
``(ii) the manner by which the State agency will limit
participation to only those private establishments that the
State determines necessary to meet the need identified in
clause (i); and
``(iii) any other conditions the Secretary may prescribe,
such as the level of security necessary to ensure that only
eligible recipients participate in the program; and
``(B) a report by the State agency to the Secretary
annually, the schedule of which shall be established by the
Secretary, that includes--
``(i) the number of households and individual recipients
authorized to participate in the program, including any
information on whether the individual recipient is elderly,
disabled, or homeless; and
``(ii) an assessment of whether the program is meeting an
established need, as documented under subparagraph (A)(i).''.
(b) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food
Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2018) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Private Establishments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no private
establishment that contracts with a State agency to offer
meals at concessional prices as described in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (9) of section 3(k) may be authorized to accept and
redeem benefits unless the Secretary determines that the
participation of the private establishment is required to
meet a documented need in accordance with section 11(e)(24).
``(2) Existing contracts.--
``(A) In general.--If, on the day before the effective date
of this subsection, a State has entered into a contract with
a private establishment described in paragraph (1) and the
Secretary has not determined that the participation of the
private establishment is necessary to meet a documented need
in accordance with section 11(e)(24), the Secretary shall
allow the operation of the private establishment to continue
without that determination of need for a period not to exceed
180 days from the date on which the Secretary establishes
determination criteria, by regulation, under section
11(e)(24).
``(B) Justification.--If the Secretary determines to
terminate a contract with a private establishment that is in
effect on the effective date of this subsection, the
Secretary shall provide justification to the State in which
the private establishment is located for that termination.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after
September 30, 2014, and 90 days after the last day of each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate on the effectiveness of a program under this
subsection using any information received from States under
section 11(e)(24) as well as any other information the
Secretary may have relating to the manner in which benefits
are used.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3(k) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended by
inserting ``subject to section 9(h)'' after ``concessional
prices'' each place it appears.
SEC. 115. MANDATING STATE IMMIGRATION VERIFICATION.
Section 11(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2020(p)) is amended to read as follows:
``(p) State Verification Option.--In carrying out the
supplemental nutrition assistance program, a State agency
shall be required to use an income and eligibility, or an
immigration status, verification system established under
section 1137 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7),
in accordance with standards set by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 116. DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED
INTEROPERABILITY.
(a) Data Exchange Standardization.--Section 11 of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(v) Data Exchange Standards for Improved
Interoperability.--
``(1) Designation.--The Secretary shall, in consultation
with an interagency work group established by the Office of
Management and Budget, and considering State government
perspectives, designate data exchange standards to govern,
under this part--
``(A) necessary categories of information that State
agencies operating such programs are required under
applicable law to electronically exchange with another State
agency; and
``(B) Federal reporting and data exchange required under
applicable law.
``(2) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required
by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary,
searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible
Markup Language;
``(B) contain interoperable standards developed and
maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the
National Information Exchange Model;
``(C) incorporate interoperable standards developed and
maintained by Federal entities with authority over
contracting and financial assistance;
``(D) be consistent with and implement applicable
accounting principles;
``(E) be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and
improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
``(F) be capable of being continually upgraded as
necessary.
``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to require a change to existing data
exchange standards for Federal reporting found to be
effective and efficient.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall issue a proposed
rule within 24 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The rule shall identify federally required data
exchanges, include specification and timing of exchanges to
be standardized, and address the factors used in determining
whether and when to standardize data exchanges. It should
also specify state implementation options and describe future
milestones.
SEC. 117. PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION
IN IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING FRAUD IN THE
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2021) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Pilot Projects To Improve Federal-State Cooperation
in Identifying and Reducing Fraud in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.--
[[Page H5698]]
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under
such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary,
pilot projects to test innovative Federal-State partnerships
to identify, investigate, and reduce retailer fraud in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program, including allowing
States to operate retail Food Store investigation programs.
At least 1 such pilot project shall be carried out in an
urban area that is among the 10 largest urban areas in the
United States (based on population) if the supplemental
nutrition assistance program is separately administered in
such area and if the administration of such program in such
area complies with the other applicable requirements of such
program.
``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected
based on criteria the Secretary establishes, which shall
include--
``(A) enhancing existing efforts by the Secretary to reduce
retailer fraud;
``(B) requiring participant States to maintain their
overall level of effort at addressing recipient fraud, as
determined by the Secretary, prior to participation in the
pilot project;
``(C) collaborating with other law enforcement authorities
as necessary to carry out an effective pilot project;
``(D) commitment of the participant State agency to follow
Federal rules and procedures with respect to retailer
investigations; and
``(E) the extent to which a State has committed resources
to recipient fraud and the relative success of those efforts.
``(3) Evaluation.--
``(A) The Secretary shall evaluate the projects selected
under this subsection to measure the impact of the pilot
projects.
``(B) Such evaluation shall include--
``(i) each pilot project's impact on increasing the
Secretary's capacity to address retailer fraud;
``(ii) the effectiveness of the pilot projects in
identifying, preventing and reducing retailer fraud; and
``(iii) the cost effectiveness of such pilot projects.
``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30,
2017, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate, a
report that includes a description of the results of each
pilot project, including an evaluation of the impact of the
project on retailer fraud and the costs associated with each
pilot project.
``(5) Funding.--Any costs incurred by the State to operate
the pilot projects in excess of the amount expended under
this Act for retailer fraud in the respective State in the
previous fiscal year shall not be eligible for Federal
reimbursement under this Act.''.
SEC. 118. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RECRUITMENT
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Administrative Cost-Sharing and Quality Control.--
Section 16(a)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(a)(4)) is amended by inserting after
``recruitment activities'' the following: ``designed to
persuade an individual to apply for program benefits or that
promote the program via television, radio, or billboard
advertisements''.
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds Authorized To Be
Appropriated Under Act.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(g) Ban on Recruitment and Promotion Activities.--(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no funds authorized to
be appropriated under this Act shall be used by the Secretary
for--
``(A) recruitment activities designed to persuade an
individual to apply for supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits;
``(B) television, radio, or billboard advertisements that
are designed to promote supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits and enrollment; or
``(C) any agreements with foreign governments designed to
promote supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits
and enrollment.
``(2) Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to programmatic
activities undertaken with respect to benefits made available
in response to a natural disaster.''.
(c) Ban on Recruitment Activities by Entities That Receive
Funds.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Ban on Recruitment by Entities That Receive Funds.--
The Secretary shall issue regulations that forbid entities
that receive funds under this Act to compensate any person
for conducting outreach activities relating to participation
in, or for recruiting individuals to apply to receive
benefits under, the supplemental nutrition assistance program
if the amount of such compensation would be based on the
number of individuals who apply to receive such benefits.''.
SEC. 119. REPEAL OF BONUS PROGRAM.
Section 16(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(d)) is repealed.
SEC. 120. FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
``$90,000,000'' and all that follows through ``$79,000,000'',
and inserting ``$79,000,000 for each fiscal year''.
SEC. 121. MONITORING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
(a) Reporting Measures.--Section 16(h)(5) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(5)) is amended to
read:
``(5)(A) In general.--The Secretary shall monitor the
employment and training programs carried out by State
agencies under section 6(d)(4) and assess their effectiveness
in--
``(i) preparing members of households participating in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program for employment,
including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for
employment; and
``(ii) increasing the numbers of household members who
obtain and retain employment subsequent to their
participation in such employment and training programs.
``(B) Reporting measures.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Labor, shall develop reporting measures
that identify improvements in the skills, training education
or work experience of members of households participating in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Measures shall
be based on common measures of performance for federal
workforce training programs, so long as they reflect the
challenges facing the types of members of households
participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance
program who participate in a specific employment and training
component. The Secretary shall require that each State
employment and training plan submitted under section
11(e)(19) identify appropriate reporting measures for each of
their proposed components that serve at least 100 people.
Such measures may include:
``(i) the percentage and number of program participants who
received employment and training services and are in
unsubsidized employment subsequent to the receipt of those
services;
``(ii) the percentage and number of program participants
who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, including a
registered apprenticeship, or a regular secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent, while participating in
or within 1 year after receiving employment and training
services;
``(iii) the percentage and number of program participants
who are in an education or training program that is intended
to lead to a recognized postsecondary credential, including a
registered apprenticeship or on-the-job training program, a
regular secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent, or unsubsidized employment;
``(iv) subject to the terms and conditions set by the
Secretary, measures developed by each State agency to assess
the skills acquisition of employment and training program
participants that reflect the goals of their specific
employment and training program components, which may
include, but are not limited to--
``(I) the percentage and number of program participants who
are meeting program requirements in each component of the
State's education and training program; and
``(II) the percentage and number of program participants
who are gaining skills likely to lead to employment as
measured through testing, quantitative or qualitative
assessment or other method; and
``(v) other indicators as approved by the Secretary.
``(C) State report.--Each State agency shall annually
prepare and submit to the Secretary a report on the State's
employment and training program that includes the numbers of
supplemental nutrition assistance program participants who
have gained skills, training, work or experience that will
increase their ability to obtain regular employment using
measures identified in subparagraph (B).
``(D) Modifications to the state employment and training
plan.--Subject to the terms and conditions established by the
Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the state
agency's performance with respect to employment and training
outcomes is inadequate, the Secretary may require the State
agency to make modifications to their employment and training
plan to improve such outcomes.
``(E) Periodic evaluation.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions
established by the Secretary, not later than October 1, 2016,
and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to review existing
practice and research to identify employment and training
program components and practices that--
``(I) effectively assist members of households
participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance
program in gaining skills, training, work, or experience that
will increase their ability to obtain regular employment, and
``(II) are best integrated with statewide workforce
development systems.
``(ii) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a
report that describes the results of the study under clause
(i) to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry in the Senate.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4(c) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)), the
Secretary shall issue interim final regulations implementing
the amendment made by subsection (a) no later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act. States shall include
such reporting measures in their employment and
[[Page H5699]]
training plans for the 1st fiscal year thereafter that begins
no sooner than 6 months after the date that such regulations
are published.
SEC. 122. COOPERATION WITH PROGRAM RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.
Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2026) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Cooperation With Program Research and Evaluation.--
States, State agencies, local agencies, institutions,
facilities such as data consortiums, and contractors
participating in programs authorized under this Act shall
cooperate with officials and contractors acting on behalf of
the Secretary in the conduct of evaluations and studies under
this Act and shall submit information at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary may require.''.
SEC. 123. PILOT PROJECTS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY AND INCREASE
WORK EFFORT IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2026), as amended by section 121, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(m) Pilot Projects To Reduce Dependency and Increase Work
Effort in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under
such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate, pilot projects to identify best practices for
employment and training programs under this Act to raise the
number of work registrants who obtain unsubsidized
employment, increase their earned income, and reduce their
reliance on public assistance, including but not limited to
the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected
based on criteria the Secretary establishes, that shall
include--
``(A) enhancing existing employment and training programs
in the State;
``(B) agreeing to participate in the evaluation described
in paragraph (3), including making available data on
participants' employment activities and post-participation
employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt;
``(C) collaborating with the State workforce board and
other job training programs in the State and local area;
``(D) the extent to which the pilot project's components
can be easily replicated by other States or political
subdivisions; and
``(E) such additional criteria that ensure that the pilot
projects--
``(i) target a variety of populations of work registrants,
including childless adults, parents, and individuals with low
skills or limited work experience;
``(ii) are selected from a range of existing employment and
training programs including programs that provide--
``(I) section 20 workfare;
``(II) skills development for work registrants with limited
employment history;
``(III) post-employment support services necessary for
maintaining employment; and
``(IV) education leading to a recognized postsecondary
credential, registered apprenticeship, or secondary school
diploma or its equivalent;
``(iii) are located in a range of geographic areas,
including rural, urban, and Indian reservations; and
``(iv) include participants who are exempt and not exempt
under section (6)(d)(2).
``(3) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide for an
independent evaluation of projects selected under this
subsection to measure the impact of the pilot projects on the
ability of each pilot project target population to find and
retain employment that leads to increased household income
and reduced dependency, compared to what would have occurred
in the absence of the pilot project.
``(4) Report to congress.--By September 30, 2017, the
Secretary shall submit, to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, a report
that includes a description of--
``(A) the results of each pilot project, including an
evaluation of the impact of the project on the employment,
income, and public benefit receipt of the targeted population
of work registrants;
``(B) the Federal, State, and other costs of each pilot
project;
``(C) the planned dissemination of the reports' findings
with State agencies; and
``(D) the steps and funding necessary to incorporate
components of pilot projects that demonstrate increased
employment and earnings into State employment and training
programs.
``(5) Funding.--From amounts made available under section
18(a)(1), the Secretary shall make $10,000,000 available for
each of the fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 to carry out
this subsection. Such amounts shall remain available until
expended.
``(6) Use of funds.--
``(A) Funds provided under this subsection for pilot
projects shall be used only for--
``(i) pilot projects that comply with the provisions of
this Act;
``(ii) the costs and administration of the pilot projects;
``(iii) the costs incurred in providing information and
data to the independent evaluation under paragraph (3); and
``(iv) the costs of the evaluation under paragraph (3).
``(B) Funds made available under this subsection may not be
used to supplant non-Federal funds used for existing
employment and training activities.''.
SEC. 124. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2016''.
SEC. 125. LIMITATION ON USE OF BLOCK GRANT TO PUERTO RICO.
Section 19(a)(2)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Limitation on use of funds.--None of the funds made
available to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under this
subparagraph may be used to provide nutrition assistance in
the form of cash benefits.''.
SEC. 126. ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS.
(a) Definition.--Section 25(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034(a)(1)(B)(i)) is
amended--
(1) in subclause (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (III) by striking ``or'' at the end and
inserting ``and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(IV) to provide incentives for the consumption of fruits
and vegetables among low-income individuals; or''.
(b) Additional Funding.--Section 25(b) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Funding.--
``(A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less
than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year
thereafter. Of the amount made available under this
subparagraph for each such fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be
available to carry out subsection (a)(1)(B)(I)(IV).
``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this section, the funds transferred under subparagraph (A)
without further appropriation.
``(C) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under
subparagraph (A) shall supplement (and not supplant) other
Federal funding made available to the Secretary to carry out
this section.''.
SEC. 127. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE.
(a) Purchase of Commodities.--Section 27(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and
inserting ``2013 through 2016'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), and inserting the following:
``(A) for fiscal year 2013, $265,750,000;
``(B) for fiscal year 2014, the dollar amount of
commodities specified in subparagraph (A) adjusted by the
percentage by which the thrifty food plan has been adjusted
under section 3(u)(4) between June 30, 2012 and June 30,
2013, and increased by $70,000,000;
``(C) for fiscal year 2015, the dollar amount of
commodities determined for fiscal year 2014 under
subparagraph (B) adjusted by the percentage by which the
thrifty food plan has been adjusted under section 3(u)(4)
between June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014;
``(D) for fiscal year 2016, the dollar amount of
commodities determined for fiscal year 2015 under
subparagraph (C) adjusted by the percentage by which the
thrifty food plan has been adjusted under section 3(u)(4)
between June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015, and reduced by
$50,000,000; and
``(E) for each subsequent fiscal year, the dollar amount of
commodities determined for the preceding fiscal year adjusted
to reflect the percentage by which the thrifty food plan has
been adjusted under section 3(u)(4) for the 12-month period
ending on the preceding June 30.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Funds availability.--For purposes of the funds
described in this subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) make the funds available for 2 fiscal years; and
``(B) allow States to carry over unexpended balances to the
next fiscal year pursuant to such terms and conditions as are
determined by the Secretary.''.
(b) Emergency Food Program Infrastructure Grants.--Section
209(d) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C.
7511a(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2016''.
SEC. 128. NUTRITION EDUCATION.
Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2036a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``and physical
activity'' after ``healthy food choices''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$401,000,000;'' and
inserting ``$372,000,000; and'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``(F) for fiscal year
2016'' and inserting ``(E) for fiscal year 2015''.
SEC. 129. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 29. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
the Department of Agriculture
[[Page H5700]]
with additional resources to prevent trafficking in violation
of this Act by strengthening recipient and retailer program
integrity. Additional funds are provided to supplement the
Department's payment accuracy, and retailer and recipient
integrity activities.
``(b) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less
than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1)
without further appropriation.
``(3) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under
paragraph (1) shall supplement (and not supplant) other
Federal funding for programs carried out under this Act.''.
SEC. 130. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
(1) in subsection (g) by striking ``coupon,'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``coupon'';
(2) in subsection (k)(7) by striking ``or are'' and
inserting ``and'';
(3) by striking subsection (l);
(4) by redesignating subsections (m) through (t) as
subsections (l) through (s), respectively; and
(5) by inserting after subsection (s) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(t) `Supplemental nutritional assistance program' means
the program operated pursuant to this Act.''.
(b) Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2013(a)) is amended by striking ``benefits'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``Benefits''.
(c) Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
(1) in the last sentence of subsection (i)(2)(D) by
striking ``section 13(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section
13(b)''; and
(2) in subsection (k)(4)(A) by striking ``paragraph
(2)(H)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(G)''.
(d) Section 6(d)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(vii) by moving the left margin 4
ems to the left, and
(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii) by moving the left margin 6
ems to the left.
(e) Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by redesignating the 2d paragraph
(12) as paragraph (13).
(f) Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2021) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3)(C) by striking ``civil money
penalties'' and inserting ``civil penalties''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``(7 U.S.C. 1786)''
and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 1786)''.
(g) Section 15(b)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2024(b)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by
striking ``an benefit'' both places it appears and inserting
``a benefit''.
(h) Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(a)) is amended in the proviso following paragraph
(8) by striking ``, as amended.''.
(i) Section 18(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027(e)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking
``sections 7(f)'' and inserting ``section 7(f)''.
(j) Section 22(b)(10)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(b)(10)(B)(i)) is amended in the last
sentence by striking ``Food benefits'' and inserting
``Benefits''.
(k) Section 26(f)(3)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2035(f)(3)(C)) is amended by striking
``subsection'' and inserting ``subsections''.
(l) Section 27(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2036(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``(Public Law
98-8; 7 U.S.C. 612c note)'' and inserting ``(7 U.S.C.
7515)''.
(m) Section 509 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3056g) is amended in the section heading by striking
``FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS'' and inserting ``SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM''.
(n) Section 4115(c)(2)(H) of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1871) is
amended by striking ``531'' and inserting ``454''.
(o) Section 3803(c)(2)(C)(vii) of title 31 of the United
States Code is amended by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)''.
(p) Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)''; and
(3) in subsection (e)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)''.
(q) The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7
U.S.C. 612c) is amended--
(1) in section 4(a) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 1977''
and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
(2) in section 5--
(A) in subsection (i)(1) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of
1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
(B) in subsection (l)(2)(B) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of
1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''.
(r) The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in the heading of section 453(j)(10) by striking ``food
stamp'' and inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance'';
(2) in section 1137--
(A) in subsection (a)(5)(B) by striking ``food stamp'' and
inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(4) by striking ``food stamp program
under the Food Stamp Act of 1977'' and inserting
``supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
(3) in the heading of section 1631(n) by striking ``Food
Stamp'' and inserting ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance''.
SEC. 131. TOLERANCE LEVEL FOR EXCLUDING SMALL ERRORS.
The Secretary shall set the tolerance level for excluding
small errors for the purposes of section 16(c) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(c))--
(1) for fiscal year 2014 at an amount no greater than $25;
and
(2) for each fiscal year thereafter, the amount specified
in paragraph (1) adjusted by the percentage by which the
thrifty food plan is adjusted under section 3(u)(4) of such
Act between June 30, 2012, and June 30 of the immediately
preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 132. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS PILOT
PROGRAM.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--Prior to establishing the pilot program
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall conduct a study to
be completed not later than 2 years after the effective date
of this section to assess--
(A) the capabilities of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition
assistance program in the same manner in which the program is
operated in the States (as defined in section 3 of the Food
and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)); and
(B) alternative models of the supplemental nutrition
assistance program operation and benefit delivery that best
meet the nutrition assistance needs of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands.
(2) Scope.--The study conducted under paragraph (1)(A) will
assess the capability of the Commonwealth to fulfill the
responsibilities of a State agency, including--
(A) extending and limiting participation to eligible
households, as prescribed by sections 5 and 6 of the Act;
(B) issuing benefits through EBT cards, as prescribed by
section 7 of the Act;
(C) maintaining the integrity of the program, including
operation of a quality control system, as prescribed by
section 16(c) of the Act;
(D) implementing work requirements, including operating an
employment and training program, as prescribed by section
6(d) of the Act; and
(E) paying a share of administrative costs with non-Federal
funds, as prescribed by section 16(a) of the Act.
(b) Establishment.--If the Secretary determines that a
pilot program is feasible, the Secretary shall establish a
pilot program for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition assistance
program in the same manner in which the program is operated
in the States.
(c) Scope.--The Secretary shall utilize the information
obtained from the study conducted under subsection (a) to
establish the scope of the pilot program established under
subsection (b).
(d) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2019, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report on the pilot program
carried out under this section, including an analysis of the
feasibility of operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands the supplemental nutrition assistance program
as it is operated in the States.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Study.--Of the funds made available under section
18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Secretary
may use not more than $1,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2014
and 2015 to conduct the study described in subsection (a).
(2) Pilot program.--Of the funds made available under
section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, for
the purposes of establishing and carrying out the pilot
program established under subsection (b) of this section,
including the Federal costs for providing technical
assistance to the Commonwealth, authorizing and monitoring
retail food stores, and assessing pilot operations, the
Secretary may use not more than--
(A) $13,500,000 in fiscal year 2016; and
(B) $8,500,000 in each of fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
SEC. 133. ANNUAL STATE REPORT ON VERIFICATION OF SNAP
PARTICIPATION.
(a) Annual Report.--Not later 1 year after the date
specified by the Secretary in the 180-period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
each State agency that carries out the supplemental nutrition
assistance program shall submit to the Secretary a report
containing sufficient information for the Secretary to
determine whether the State agency has, for the then most
recently concluded fiscal year preceding such annual date,
verified that households to which such State agency provided
such assistance in such fiscal year--
[[Page H5701]]
(1) did not obtain benefits attributable to a deceased
individual;
(2) did not include an individual who was simultaneously
included in a household receiving such assistance in another
State; and
(3) did not include, during the time benefits were
provided, an individual who was then disqualified from
receiving benefits.
(b) Penalty for Noncompliance.--For any fiscal year for
which a State agency fails to comply with subsection (a), the
Secretary shall reduce by 50 percent the amount otherwise
payable to such State agency under section 16(a) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to such fiscal year.
SEC. 134. TERMINATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENT.
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
memorandum of understanding entered into on July 22, 2004, by
the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States Department
of Agriculture and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Mexico and known as the ``Partnership for
Nutrition Assistance Initiative'' is null and void.
SEC. 135. SERVICE OF TRADITIONAL FOODS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Food service program.--The term ``food service
program'' includes--
(A) food service at a residential child care facility with
a license from an appropriate State agency;
(B) a child nutrition program (as defined in section 25(b)
of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1769f(b));
(C) food service at a hospital or clinic or long term care
facility; and
(D) a senior meal program.
(2) Indian; indian tribe; indian tribal organization.--The
terms ``Indian''; ``Indian tribe''; and ``Indian Tribal
Organization'' have the meanings given those terms in section
4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(3) Traditional food.--
(A) In general.--The term ``traditional food'' means food
that has traditionally been prepared and consumed by an
Indian tribe.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``traditional food'' includes--
(i) wild game meat;
(ii) fish;
(iii) seafood;
(iv) marine mammals;
(v) plants; and
(vi) berries.
(b) Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary shall allow the donation to and serving of
traditional food through a food service program at a public
facility, nonprofit facility, including facilities operated
by an Indian tribe or tribal organization that primarily
serves Indians if the operator of the food service program--
(1) ensures that the food is received whole, gutted,
gilled, as quarters, or as a roast, without further
processing;
(2) makes a reasonable determination that--
(A) the animal was not diseased;
(B) the food was butchered, dressed, transported, and
stored to prevent contamination, undesirable microbial
growth, or deterioration; and
(C) the food will not cause a significant health hazard or
potential for human illness;
(3) carries out any further preparation or processing of
the food at a different time or in a different space from the
preparation or processing of other food for the applicable
program to prevent cross-contamination;
(4) cleans and sanitizes food-contact surfaces of equipment
and utensils after processing the traditional food; and
(5) labels donated traditional food with the name of the
food and stores the traditional food separately from other
food for the applicable program, including through storage in
a separate freezer or refrigerator or in a separate
compartment or shelf in the freezer or refrigerator.
(c) Liability.--Liability for damages from donated
traditional food and products to the participating food
service program shall not be subject to civil or criminal
liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or
condition of donated food.
SEC. 136. TESTING APPLICANTS FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES.
Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015), as amended by section 109, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(s) Testing Applicants for Unlawful Use of Controlled
Substances.--
``(1) Nothing in this Act, or in any other Federal law,
shall be considered to prevent a State, at the full cost to
such State, from--
``(A) enacting legislation to provide for testing any
individual who is a member of a household applying for
supplemental nutrition assistance benefits, for the unlawful
use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving
such benefits; and
``(B) finding an individual ineligible to participate in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program on the basis of
the positive result of the testing conducted by the State
under such legislation.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, term `controlled
substance' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act ((21 U.S.C. 802).''.
SEC. 137. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN CONVICTED
FELONS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as amended by sections 109 and 135, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(t) Disqualification for Certain Convicted Felons.--
``(1) In general.--An individual shall not be eligible for
benefits under this Act if the individual is convicted of--
``(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title
18, United States Code;
``(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States
Code;
``(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United
States Code;
``(D) a Federal or State offense involving sexual assault,
as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)); or
``(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney
General to be substantially similar to an offense described
in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
``(2) Effects on assistance and benefits for others.--The
amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an
eligible household under this Act shall be determined by
considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not
to be a member of such household, except that the income and
resources of the individual shall be considered to be income
and resources of the household.
``(3) Enforcement.--Each State shall require each
individual applying for benefits under this Act, during the
application process, to state, in writing, whether the
individual, or any member of the household of the individual,
has been convicted of a crime described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)), as amended by
section 109, is amended in the 2d sentence by striking ``and
(r)'' and inserting ``, (r), and (t)''.
(c) Inapplicability to Convictions Occurring on or Before
Enactment.--The amendments made by this section shall not
apply to a conviction if the conviction is for conduct
occurring on or before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 138. EXPUNGEMENT OF UNUSED SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS.
Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2020), as amended by section 115, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(w) Expungement of Unused Benefits.--The State agency
shall expunge from the EBT account of a household benefits
that are not used before the expiration of the 60-day period
beginning on the date such benefits are posted to such
account.''.
SEC. 139. PILOT PROJECTS TO PROMOTE WORK AND INCREASE STATE
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Pilot Projects.--Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2026), as amended by sections 122 and
123, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Pilot Projects To Promote Work and Increase State
Accountability in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out pilot
projects to develop and test methods allowing States to run a
work program with certain features comparable to the State
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), with the intent of
increasing employment and self-sufficiency through increased
State accountability and thereby reducing the need for
supplemental nutrition assistance benefits.
``(2) Agreements.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall enter into cooperative agreements with States
in accordance with pilot projects that meet the criteria
required under this subsection.
``(B) Application.--To be eligible to enter into a
cooperative agreement to operate a pilot project under this
subsection, a State shall amend its State plan under section
11(d) to include a description of its pilot project and
explanations of how such project meets the criteria required
under this subsection. The Secretary may not disapprove a
pilot project which meets the requirements under this
subsection.
``(C) Assurances.--A State shall include in its plan
assurances that its pilot project will--
``(i) operate for at least three 12-month periods but not
more than five 12-month periods;
``(ii) have a robust data collection system for program
administration that is designed and shared with project
evaluators to ensure proper and timely evaluation; and
``(iii) intend to offer a work activity described in
paragraph (3) to adults assigned and required to participate
under paragraph (4)(A) and who are not exempt under paragraph
(4)(B).
``(D) Number of pilot projects.--Any State may carry out a
pilot project that meets the requirements of this subsection.
``(E) Extent of pilot projects.--Pilot projects shall cover
no less than the entire State.
``(3) Work activity.--(A) For purposes of this subsection,
the term `work activity' means any of the following:
``(i) Employment in the public or private sector that is
not subsidized by any public program.
``(ii) Employment in the private sector for which the
employer receives a subsidy from public funds to offset some
or all of the wages and costs of employing an adult.
``(iii) Employment in the public sector for which the
employer receives a subsidy from public funds to offset some
or all of the wages and costs of employing an adult.
[[Page H5702]]
``(iv) A work activity that--
``(I) is performed in return for public benefits;
``(II) provides an adult with an opportunity to acquire the
general skills, knowledge, and work habits necessary to
obtain employment;
``(III) is designed to improve the employability of those
who cannot find unsubsidized employment; and
``(IV) is supervised by an employer, work site sponsor, or
other responsible party on an ongoing basis.
``(v) Training in the public or private sector that is
given to a paid employee while he or she is engaged in
productive work and that provides knowledge and skills
essential to the full and adequate performance of the job.
``(vi) Job search, obtaining employment, or preparation to
seek or obtain employment, including--
``(I) life skills training;
``(II) substance abuse treatment or mental health
treatment, determined to be necessary and documented by a
qualified medical, substance abuse, or mental health
professional; or
``(III) rehabilitation activities, supervised by a public
agency or other responsible party on an ongoing basis.
``(vii) Structured programs and embedded activities--
``(I) in which adults perform work for the direct benefit
of the community under the auspices of public or nonprofit
organizations;
``(II) that are limited to projects that serve useful
community purposes in fields such as health, social service,
environmental protection, education, urban and rural
redevelopment, welfare, recreation, public facilities, public
safety, and child care;
``(III) that are designed to improve the employability of
adults not otherwise able to obtain unsubsidized employment;
and
``(IV) that are supervised on an ongoing basis; and
``(V) with respect to which a State agency takes into
account, to the extent possible, the prior training,
experience, and skills of a recipient in making appropriate
community service assignments.
``(viii) Career and technical training programs (not to
exceed 12 months with respect to any adult) that are directly
related to the preparation of adults for employment in
current or emerging occupations and that are supervised on an
ongoing basis.
``(ix) Training or education for job skills that are
required by an employer to provide an adult with the ability
to obtain employment or to advance or adapt to the changing
demands of the workplace and that are supervised on an
ongoing basis.
``(x) Education that is related to a specific occupation,
job, or job offer and that is supervised on an ongoing basis.
``(xi) In the case of an adult who has not completed
secondary school or received such a certificate of general
equivalence, regular attendance--
``(I) in accordance with the requirements of the secondary
school or course of study, at a secondary school or in a
course of study leading to such certificate; and
``(II) supervised on an ongoing basis.
``(xii) Providing child care to enable another recipient of
public benefits to participate in a community service program
that--
``(I) does not provide compensation for such community
service;
``(II) is a structured program designed to improve the
employability of adults who participate in such program; and
``(III) is supervised on an ongoing basis.
``(B) Protections.--Work activities under this subsection
shall be subject to all applicable health and safety
standards. Except as described in clauses (i), (ii), and
(iii) of subparagraph (A), the term `work activity' shall be
considered work preparation and not defined as employment for
purposes of other law.
``(4) Pilot projects.--Pilot projects carried out under
this subsection shall include interventions to which adults
are assigned that are designed to reduce unnecessary
dependence, promote self-sufficiency, increase work levels,
increase earned income, and reduce supplemental nutrition
assistance benefit expenditures among households eligible
for, applying for, or participating in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program.
``(A) Adults assigned to interventions by the State shall--
``(i) be subject to mandatory participation in work
activities specified in paragraph (3);
``(ii) participate in work activities specified in
paragraph (3) for a minimum of 20 hours per week per
household;
``(iii) be a maximum age of not less than 50 and not more
than 60, as defined by the State;
``(iv) be subject to penalties during a period of
nonparticipation without good cause ranging from, at State
option, a minimum of the removal of the adults from the
household benefit amount, up to a maximum of the
discontinuance of the entire household benefit amount; and
``(v) not be penalized for nonparticipation if child care
is not available for 1 or more children under 6 years of age.
``(B) The State shall allow certain individuals to be
exempt from work requirements--
``(i) those participating in work programs under a State
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for an equal or greater
number of hours;
``(ii) those with 1 or more dependent children under 1 year
of age;
``(iii) 1 adult family member per household who is needed
in the home to care for a disabled family member;
``(iv) an adult who is receiving temporary or permanent
disability benefits provided by a governmental entity; and
``(v) those with a good cause reason for nonparticipation,
such as victims of domestic violence, as defined by the
State.
``(5) Evaluation and reporting.--
``(A) Evaluation.--
``(i) Independent evaluation.--
``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for each
State that enters into a cooperative agreement under
paragraph (2) an independent, longitudinal evaluation of its
pilot project under this subsection to determine total
program savings over the entire course of the pilot project
with results reported in consecutive 12-month increments.
``(II) Purpose.--The purpose of the evaluation is to
measure the impact of interventions provided by the State
under the pilot project on the ability of adults in
households eligible for, applying for, or participating in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program to find and
retain employment that leads to increased household income
and reduced dependency.
``(III) Requirement.--The independent evaluation under
subclause (I) shall use valid statistical methods which can
determine the difference between supplemental nutrition
assistance benefit expenditures, if any, as a result of the
interventions as compared to a control group that--
``(aa) is not subject to the interventions provided by the
State under the pilot project under this subsection; and
``(bb) maintains services provided under 16(h) in the year
prior to the start of the pilot project under this
subsection.
``(IV) Option.--States shall have the option to evaluate
pilot projects by matched counties or matched geographical
areas using a constructed control group design to isolate the
effects of the intervention of the pilot project.
``(V) Definition.--Constructed control group means there is
no random assignment, and instead program participants (those
subject to interventions) and non-participants (control
described in subclause (III)) are equated using matching or
statistical procedures on characteristics that may be
associated with program outcomes.
``(B) Reporting.--Not later than 90 days after the end of
fiscal year 2014 and of each fiscal year thereafter, until
the completion of the last evaluation under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, a report
that includes a description of--
``(i) the status of each pilot project carried out under
this subsection;
``(ii) the results of the evaluation completed during the
previous fiscal year; and
``(iii) to the maximum extent practicable--
``(I) baseline information relevant to the stated goals and
desired outcomes of the pilot project;
``(II) the impact of the interventions on appropriate
employment, income, and public benefit receipt outcomes among
households participating in the pilot project;
``(III) equivalent information about similar or identical
measures for control groups;
``(IV) the planned dissemination of the report findings to
State agencies; and
``(V) the steps and funding necessary to incorporate into
State employment and training programs the components of
pilot projects that demonstrate increased employment and
earnings.
``(C) Public dissemination.--In addition to the reporting
requirements under subparagraph (B), evaluation results shall
be shared broadly to inform policy makers, service providers,
other partners, and the public in order to promote wide use
of successful strategies, including by posting evaluation
results on the Internet website of the Department of
Agriculture.
``(6) Funding.--
``(A) Additional available funds.--From amounts made
available under section 18(a)(1), the Secretary shall make
available--
``(i) up to $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014
through 2017 for evaluations described in paragraph (5) to
carry out this subsection, with such amounts to remain
available until expended; and
``(ii) amounts equal to one-half of the accumulated
supplemental nutrition assistance benefit dollars saved over
each consecutive 12-month period according to the evaluation
under paragraph (5) for bonus grants to States under
paragraph (7)(B).
``(B) Administrative expenses.--
``(i) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in clause (ii)--
``(I) if, in carrying out a pilot project under this
subsection during a fiscal year, a State incurs costs that
exceed the amount allocated to the State agency under section
16(h)(1), the Secretary shall pay such State an amount equal
to 50 percent of such costs; and
``(II) the Secretary shall also reimburse the State in an
amount equal to 50 percent of the total amount of payments
made or costs incurred by the State agency in connection with
transportation costs and other expenses reasonably necessary
and directly related to participation in a pilot project
under this subsection, except that the amount of the
reimbursement for dependent care expenses shall not exceed an
amount equal to the payment made under section
6(d)(4)(I)(i)(II) but not more than the applicable local
market
[[Page H5703]]
rate, and such reimbursement shall not be made out of funds
allocated under section 16(h)(1).
``(ii) Limitation.--For any fiscal year, the Secretary may
not pay under clause (i) to a State an amount the exceeds the
amount equal to the product of--
``(I) the amount of administrative expenses that would be
reimbursable for such fiscal year to such State under clause
(i) without regard to this clause; and
``(II) $277,000,000 (plus the amount carried over, if any,
under clause (iii)), divided by the aggregate amount of
administrative expenses that would be reimbursable for such
fiscal year to all of the States under clause (i) without
regard to this clause.
``(iii) Carryover.--The amount by which $277,000,000
exceeds the aggregate amount paid under clause (i) for a
particular fiscal year shall remain available for payments
under such clause for any subsequent fiscal year.
``(C) Other funds.--Any additional funds required by a
State to carry out a pilot project under this subsection may
be provided by the State from funds made available to the
State for such purpose and in accordance with State and other
Federal laws, including the following:
``(i) Section 403 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
603).
``(ii) The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 9201
et seq.).
``(iii) The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) and section 418 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618).
``(iv) The social services block grant under subtitle A of
title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.).
``(7) Use of funds.--
``(A) Specific uses.--Funds provided under this subsection
for evaluation of pilot projects under paragraph (6)(A)(i)
shall be used only for--
``(i) pilot projects that comply with this subsection;
``(ii) the costs incurred in gathering and providing
information and data used to conduct the independent
evaluation under paragraph (5); and
``(iii) the costs of the evaluation under paragraph (5).
``(B) Limitation.--Funds provided for bonus grants to
States for pilot projects under subparagraph (6)(A)(ii) shall
be used only for--
``(i) pilot projects that comply with this subsection; and
``(ii) any State purpose, not to be restricted to the
supplemental nutrition assistance program or its beneficiary
population.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 16, as amended by section 121 of this Act--
(A) in subsection (a) by striking ``subsection (k)'' and
inserting ``subsections (k) and (h) and section 20''; and
(B) in subsection (h)--
(i) in paragraph (1)--
(I) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``under sections
6(d)(4) and 17(n)'' after ``programs''; and
(II) by striking subparagraph (E);
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3), and inserting the
following:
``(2) Exclusion of reimbursement for administrative
costs.--No funds may be paid under subsection (a) to a State
agency for administrative costs incurred to carry out any of
such programs in such fiscal year.'';
(iii) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``or 17(n)'' after
``section 6(d)(4)''; and
(iv) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(2) in section 20 by amending subsection (g) to read as
follows:
``(g) Exclusion of Reimbursement for Administrative
Costs.--No funds may be paid under this section to a State
agency for administrative costs incurred to carry out a
workfare program operated under this section.''; and
(3) in section 22(d)(1)(B)(ii) by striking ``, (g), (h)(2),
and (h)(3)'' and inserting ``and (g)''.
SEC. 140. IMPROVED WAGE VERIFICATION USING THE NATIONAL
DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 11(e) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and after compliance
with the requirement specified in paragraph (24)'' after
``section 16(e) of this Act'',
(2) in paragraph (22) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(3) in paragraph (23) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) that the State agency shall request wage data
directly from the National Directory of New Hires established
under section 453(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
653(i)) relevant to determining eligibility to receive
supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits and
determining the correct amount of such benefits.''.
SEC. 141. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDIAN TRIBES.
Section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2013) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Feasibility Study for Indian Tribes.--
``(1) Study.--Subject to the availability of appropriations
to carry out this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of a tribal demonstration
project for tribes to administer all Federal food assistance
programs, services, functions, and activities (or portions
thereof) of the agency.
``(2) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the probable effects on specific programs and program
beneficiaries of such a demonstration project;
``(B) statutory, regulatory, or other impediments to
implementation of such a demonstration project;
``(C) strategies for implementing such a demonstration
project;
``(D) probable costs or savings associated with such a
demonstration project;
``(E) methods to assure quality and accountability in such
a demonstration project; and
``(F) such other issues that may be determined by the
Secretary or developed through consultation with pursuant to
paragraph (4).
``(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the effective
date of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of
the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives. The report shall contain--
``(A) the results of the study under this subsection;
``(B) a list of programs, services, functions, and
activities (or portions thereof) within each agency with
respect to which it would be feasible to include in a tribal
demonstration project;
``(C) a list of programs, services, functions, and
activities (or portions thereof) included in the list
provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) that could be included
in a tribal demonstration project without amending a statute,
or waiving regulations that the Secretary may not waiver; and
``(D) a list of legislative actions required in order to
include those programs, services, function, and activities
(or portions thereof) included in the list provided pursuant
to subparagraph (B) but not included in the list provided
pursuant to subparagraph (C), in a tribal demonstration
project.
``(4) Consultation with indian tribes.--The Secretary shall
consult with Indian tribes to determine a protocol for
consultation under paragraph (1) prior to consultation under
such paragraph with the other entities described in such
paragraph. The protocol shall require, at a minimum, that--
``(A) the government-to-government relationship with Indian
tribes forms the basis for the consultation process;
``(B) the Indian tribes and the Secretary jointly conduct
the consultations required by this subsection; and
``(C) the consultation process allows for separate and
direct recommendations from the Indian tribes and other
entities described in paragraph (1).
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
$1,000,000.''.
TITLE II--COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM.
Section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended in
the 1st sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2016''.
SEC. 202. COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.
Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of
1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of subsection (a) by
striking ``2012'' each place it appears and inserting
``2016'';
(2) in the 1st sentence of subsection (d)(2) by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2016'';
(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Eligibility.--Except as provided in subsection (m),
the States shall only provide assistance under the commodity
supplemental food program to low-income individuals aged 60
and older.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Phase-Out.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an individual who receives assistance under the
commodity supplemental food program on the day before the
effective date of this subsection shall continue to receive
that assistance until the date on which the individual no
longer qualifies for assistance under the eligibility
criteria for the program in effect on the day before the
effective date of this subsection.''.
SEC. 203. DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES TO SPECIAL
NUTRITION PROJECTS.
Section 1114(a)(2)(A) of the Agriculture and Food Act of
1981 (7 U.S.C. 1431e(2)(A)) is amended in the 1st sentence by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2016''.
SEC. 204. PROCESSING OF COMMODITIES.
(a) Section 17 of the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and
WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by--
(1) striking the heading and inserting ``COMMODITY
DONATIONS AND PROCESSING''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(c) Processing.--For any program included in subsection
(b), the Secretary may, notwithstanding any other provision
of State or Federal law relating to the procurement of goods
and services--
[[Page H5704]]
``(1) retain title to commodities delivered to a processor,
on behalf of a State (including a State distributing agency
and a recipient agency), until such time as end products
containing such commodities, or similar commodities as
approved by the Secretary, are delivered to a State
distributing agency or to a recipient agency; and
``(2) promulgate regulations to ensure accountability for
commodities provided to a processor for processing into end
products, and to facilitate processing of commodities into
end products for use by recipient agencies. Such regulations
may provide that--
``(A) a processor that receives commodities for processing
into end products, or provides a service with respect to such
commodities or end products, in accordance with its agreement
with a State distributing agency or a recipient agency,
provide to the Secretary a bond or other means of financial
assurance to protect the value of such commodities; and
``(B) in the event a processor fails to deliver to a State
distributing agency or a recipient agency an end product in
conformance with the processing agreement entered into under
this Act, the Secretary take action with respect to the bond
or other means of financial assurance pursuant to regulations
promulgated under this paragraph and distribute any proceeds
obtained by the Secretary to one or more State distributing
agencies and recipient agencies as determined appropriate by
the Secretary.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 18 of the Commodity Distribution
Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is
amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) The term `commodities' means agricultural commodities
and their products that are donated by the Secretary for use
by recipient agencies.
``(2) The term `end product' means a food product that
contains processed commodities.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 3 of the
Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987
(7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 100-237) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) the program established under section 4(b) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking ``the Committee on
Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on
Education and the Workforce'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``section 32 of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)'' and
inserting ``section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7
U.S.C. 612c)'';
(3) in subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii) by striking subclause (II)
and inserting the following:
``(II) the program established under section 4(b) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and
(4) in subsection (k) by striking ``the Committee on
Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on
Education and the Workforce''.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM.
Section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``SENIORS'';
(2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use to carry
out and expand the farmers market nutrition program
$20,600,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2016.
``(2) Additional funding.--There is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this
subsection for each of the fiscal years specified in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the funds
made available to carry out this section in any fiscal year
shall be used to provide assistance to seniors.'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``seniors''; and
(B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, and low-income
families who are determined to be at nutritional risk'' after
``low-income seniors'';
(4) in subsection (c) by striking ``seniors'';
(5) in subsection (d) by striking ``seniors'';
(6) in subsection (e) by striking ``seniors'';
(7) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
(8) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) State Grants and Other Assistance.--The Secretary
shall carry out the Program through grants and other
assistance provided in accordance with agreements made with
States, for implementation through State agencies and local
agencies, that include provisions--
``(1) for the issuance of coupons or vouchers to
participating individuals;
``(2) establishing an appropriate annual percentage
limitation on the use of funds for administrative costs; and
``(3) specifying other terms and conditions as the
Secretary deems appropriate to encourage expanding the
participation of small scale farmers in Federal nutrition
programs.''.
SEC. 302. NUTRITION INFORMATION AND AWARENESS PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 4403 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3171 note; Public Law 107-171) is repealed.
SEC. 303. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM.
Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``FRESH'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``fresh'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``fresh''; and
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``fresh''.
SEC. 304. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF FRESH FRUITS,
VEGETABLES, AND OTHER SPECIALTY FOOD CROPS.
Section 10603 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 612c-4) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2016'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Pilot Grant Program for Purchase of Fresh Fruits and
Vegetables.--
``(1) In general.--Using amounts made available to carry
out subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall
conduct a pilot program under which the Secretary will give
not more than five participating States the option of
receiving a grant in an amount equal to the value of the
commodities that the participating State would otherwise
receive under this section for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2016.
``(2) Use of grant funds.--A participating State receiving
a grant under this subsection may use the grant funds solely
to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution to
schools and service institutions in the State that
participate in the food service programs under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.).
``(3) Selection of participating states.--The Secretary
shall select participating States from applications submitted
by the States.
``(4) Reporting requirements.--
``(A) School and service institution requirement.--Schools
and service institutions in a participating State shall keep
records of purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables made
using the grant funds and report such records to the State.
``(B) State requirement.--Each participating State shall
submit to the Secretary a report on the success of the pilot
program in the State, including information on--
``(i) the amount and value of each type of fresh fruit and
vegetable purchased by the State; and
``(ii) the benefit provided by such purchases in conducting
the school food service in the State, including meeting
school meal requirements.''.
SEC. 305. ENCOURAGING LOCALLY AND REGIONALLY GROWN AND RAISED
FOOD.
(a) Commodity Purchase Streamlining.--The Secretary may
permit each school food authority with a low annual commodity
entitlement value, as determined by the Secretary, to elect
to substitute locally and regionally grown and raised food
for the authority's allotment, in whole or in part, of
commodity assistance for the school meal programs under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751
et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771
et seq.), if--
(1) the election is requested by the school food authority;
(2) the Secretary determines that the election will reduce
State and Federal administrative costs; and
(3) the election will provide the school food authority
with greater flexibility to purchase locally and regionally
grown and raised foods.
(b) Farm-to-School Demonstration Programs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish farm-to-school
demonstration programs under which school food authorities,
agricultural producers producing for local and regional
markets, and other farm-to-school stakeholders will
collaborate with the Agriculture Marketing Service to, on a
cost neutral basis, source food for the school meal programs
under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) from local farmers and ranchers in lieu
of the commodity assistance provided to the school food
authorities for the school meal programs.
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--Each demonstration program carried out
under this subsection shall--
(i) facilitate and increase the purchase of unprocessed and
minimally processed locally and regionally grown and raised
agricultural products to be served under the school meal
programs;
(ii) test methods to improve procurement, transportation,
and meal preparation processes for the school meal programs;
(iii) assess whether administrative costs can be saved
through increased school food authority flexibility to source
locally and regionally produced foods for the school meal
programs; and
[[Page H5705]]
(iv) undertake rigorous evaluation and share information
about results of the demonstration program, including cost
savings, with the Secretary, other school food authorities,
agricultural producers producing for the local and regional
market, and the general public.
(B) Plans.--In order to be selected to carry out a
demonstration program under this subsection, a school food
authority shall submit to the Secretary a plan at such time
and in such manner as the Secretary may require, and
containing information with respect to the requirements
described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A).
(3) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance to demonstration program participants to
assist such participants to acquire bids from potential
vendors in a timely and cost-effective manner.
(4) Length.--The Secretary shall determine the appropriate
length of time for each demonstration program under this
subsection.
(5) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate among
relevant agencies of the Department of Agriculture and non-
governmental organizations with appropriate expertise to
facilitate the provision of training and technical assistance
necessary to successfully carry out demonstration programs
under this subsection.
(6) Number.--Subject to the availability of funds to carry
out this subsection, the Secretary shall select at least 10
demonstration programs to be carried out under this
subsection.
(7) Diversity and balance.--In selecting demonstration
programs to be carried out under this subsection, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure--
(A) geographical diversity;
(B) that at least half of the demonstration programs are
completed in collaboration with school food authorities with
small annual commodity entitlements, as determined by the
Secretary;
(C) that at least half of the demonstration programs are
completed in rural or tribal communities;
(D) equitable treatment of school food authorities with a
high percentage of students eligible for free or reduced
price lunches, as determined by the Secretary; and
(E) that at least one of the demonstration programs is
completed on a military installation as defined in section
2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 306. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF WHITE POTATOES.
The Secretary shall conduct a review of the economic and
public health benefits of white potatoes on low-income
families who are determined to be at nutritional risk. Not
later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review
to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
SEC. 307. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6951 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 242. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to enhance
the authorities of the Secretary to support efforts to
provide access to healthy food by establishing an initiative
to improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas, to
create and preserve quality jobs, and to revitalize low-
income communities by providing loans and grants to eligible
fresh, healthy food retailers to overcome the higher costs
and initial barriers to entry in underserved areas.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Community development financial institution.--The
term `community development financial institution' has the
meaning given the term in section 103 of the Community
Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994
(12 U.S.C. 4702).
``(2) Initiative.--The term `Initiative' means the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative established under subsection
(c)(1).
``(3) National fund manager.--The term `national fund
manager' means a community development financial institution
that is--
``(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this
section; and
``(B) certified by the Community Development Financial
Institution Fund of the Department of Treasury to manage the
Initiative for purposes of--
``(i) raising private capital;
``(ii) providing financial and technical assistance to
partnerships; and
``(iii) funding eligible projects to attract fresh, healthy
food retailers to underserved areas, in accordance with this
section.
``(4) Partnership.--The term `partnership' means a
regional, State, or local public-private partnership that--
``(A) is organized to improve access to fresh, healthy
foods;
``(B) provides financial and technical assistance to
eligible projects; and
``(C) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may
establish.
``(5) Perishable food.--The term `perishable food' means a
staple food that is fresh, refrigerated, or frozen.
``(6) Quality job.--The term `quality job' means a job that
provides wages and other benefits comparable to, or better
than, similar positions in existing businesses of similar
size in similar local economies.
``(7) Staple food.--
``(A) In general.--The term `staple food' means food that
is a basic dietary item.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `staple food' includes--
``(i) bread;
``(ii) flour;
``(iii) fruits;
``(iv) vegetables; and
``(v) meat.
``(c) Initiative.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
initiative to achieve the purpose described in subsection (a)
in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Implementation.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the
Secretary shall provide funding to entities with eligible
projects, as described in subparagraph (B), subject to the
priorities described in subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Use of funds.--Funds provided to an entity pursuant
to clause (i) shall be used--
``(I) to create revolving loan pools of capital or other
products to provide loans to finance eligible projects or
partnerships;
``(II) to provide grants for eligible projects or
partnerships;
``(III) to provide technical assistance to funded projects
and entities seeking Initiative funding; and
``(IV) to cover administrative expenses of the national
fund manager in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the
Federal funds provided.
``(B) Eligible projects.--Subject to the approval of the
Secretary, the national fund manager shall establish
eligibility criteria for projects under the Initiative, which
shall include the existence or planned execution of
agreements--
``(i) to expand or preserve the availability of staple
foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low-income
populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail
outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and
staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those
areas; and
``(ii) to accept benefits under the supplemental nutrition
assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(C) Priorities.--In carrying out the Initiative, priority
shall be given to projects that--
``(i) are located in severely distressed low-income
communities, as defined by the Community Development
Financial Institutions Fund of the Department of Treasury;
and
``(ii) include 1 or more of the following characteristics:
``(I) The project will create or retain quality jobs for
low-income residents in the community.
``(II) The project supports regional food systems and
locally grown foods, to the maximum extent practicable.
``(III) In areas served by public transit, the project is
accessible by public transit.
``(IV) The project involves women- or minority-owned
businesses.
``(V) The project receives funding from other sources,
including other Federal agencies.
``(VI) The project otherwise advances the purpose of this
section, as determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$125,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) the authority of the Secretary to establish and carry
out the Health Food Financing Initiative under section
242.''.
SEC. 308. REVIEW OF SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS IN FEDERAL
NUTRITION PROGRAMS.
The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of sole-source
contracts in Federal nutrition programs, and the effect such
contracts have on program participation, program goals,
nonprogram consumers, retailers, and free market dynamics.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review
to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
SEC. 309. PURCHASE OF HALAL AND KOSHER FOOD FOR EMERGENCY
FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7
U.S.C. 7502) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Kosher and Halal Food.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
finalize and implement a plan--
``(1) to increase the purchase of Kosher and Halal food
from food manufacturers with a Kosher or Halal certification
to carry out the program established under this Act if the
Kosher and Halal food purchased is cost neutral as compared
to food that is not from food manufacturers with a Kosher or
Halal certification; and
``(2) to modify the labeling of the commodities list used
to carry out the program in a manner that enables Kosher and
Halal food bank operators to identify which commodities to
obtain from local food banks.''.
[[Page H5706]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition
Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.
As we all know, in July, the House passed a farm bill--farm bill
only. This legislation did not include title IV, which consists of the
nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or SNAP.
Since that time, our Leader Cantor has put together a working group,
of which I was a part, to create a bill that better targets Federal
nutrition programs to serve those in need of assistance. H.R. 3102 is
the by-product of that effort.
Before I begin to highlight some of its provisions, let me take a
moment to say what we all know to be true. There's no denying that SNAP
provides important support for many Americans who are struggling. It
serves a noble purpose: to help you when you hit bottom. But it's not
meant to keep you at the bottom, and that's why it's important we
ensure the integrity of the program, so that it's working in the most
effective and efficient way, that it works to get you back up on your
feet.
{time} 1600
Let me highlight some of the provisions that make this possible.
First, it incorporates all of the savings and reforms that were in
H.R. 1947 that was favorably reported by the House Agriculture
Committee in a large bipartisan vote. H.R. 1947 saved more than $20
billion by eliminating categorical eligibility to ensure that States
are enforcing the asset and income test in SNAP law. It closed the
heat-and-eat loophole to prevent States from sending out $1 LIHEAP
checks to SNAP recipients to artificially increase their benefit
levels.
It ended the practice of giving States bonuses for responsibly
administering SNAP, which is their duty. It tightened restrictions to
prevent lottery winners and traditional college students from
participating in the program. And it restricted the Department of
Agriculture from advertising SNAP on radio and television shows, such
as soap operas. The bill we are considering today also incorporates
many reforms that were adopted on the floor when the House considered
H.R. 1947 in June.
And, finally, the efforts of the working group. This bill includes
additional reforms that eliminate a State's ability to waive the
current work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. It
encourages employment and training by providing cost-share funds to
States that adopt provisions under a new work pilot program. And it
increases funding for food banks, which have been successful in
effectively utilizing government dollars and securing private-sector
donations in order to feed hungry Americans.
Ultimately, this bill encourages and enables work participation and
makes commonsense reforms, closes program loopholes and eliminates
waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP program, saving the American
taxpayer nearly $40 billion.
I will admit to you this has been an unusual process. But it remains
my goal to get a 5-year farm bill enacted. I'm doing everything
possible to make sure that that happens this year. This is a step
toward that goal. It is my hope that we'll pass this bill so the farm
bill process will continue. We have a responsibility to get this done.
Quite simply, it shouldn't be this hard to pass a bill that ensures all
of us in this economy have enough to eat. And that's what a farm bill
does.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill
so the process can continue.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I ask my colleagues in this House, Why are we here today? The
original farm bill, H.R. 1947, passed out of the Agriculture Committee
with bipartisan support. While this bill eventually died when it came
to the floor, I have to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their leadership and desire to work together for the common good of all
of the American people.
Today's exercise is nothing more than a waste of our time and an
insult to every American in need. The Cantor bill includes the same
toxic amendments that derailed the farm bill's passage the first time
around. The fact that we are considering this legislation makes me
question whether the Republican leadership even wants a farm bill to
pass.
The Cantor bill guts nutrition for those most in need and says to the
poor, to hungry children, to the disabled, seniors and our veterans,
You don't matter. You are not worthy of our help.
They deserve better.
I've heard the stories from my constituents who struggle every month
on whether to pay for medicine or food because they cannot afford both.
SNAP recipients will already see a reduction in their benefits
beginning November 1 when the 2009 Recovery Act temporary benefit boost
ends. It will be reduced by as much as $300 per year for some people.
That is a staggering amount.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at SNAP
purely from a dollars-and-cents standpoint. Earlier this year, I
participated in a panel on poverty. One of the young ladies from
Witnesses to Hunger said:
People do a lot of talking about us. They refer to SNAP
beneficiaries as statistics. But I'm not a statistic, I'm a
real person struggling to get by.
This bill would abandon 5.7 million people during a time when they
need us the most. No one can justify a bill of $40 billion in cuts when
47 percent of all SNAP recipients are children under the age of 18. I
cannot justify such cuts when 16.5 percent of all SNAP households
include seniors. This bill is more than a sucker punch to those in
need. It may be their fatal blow.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), and I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the issue of our veterans as it relates to H.R. 3102. I
commend you for working to include important reforms of the SNAP
program in this bill. However, some concerns have been raised regarding
the bill's impact on veterans who rely on SNAP benefits.
While the eligibility and work requirement reforms included in this
legislation are important, I believe they will have unintended
consequences on our veterans. Some of our veterans returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan live in a world that is somewhere between battle
fatigue and PTSD. That means they may need a little extra time to
transition from service to employment than their fellow citizens. And,
unfortunately, veterans have been hit hard during the recession. They
are unemployed at higher rates than the rest of the country. In
Michigan alone, there are 25,000 unemployed veterans staring down at a
north of 9 percent unemployment rate.
I ask the chairman if he would commit to work with me in conference
to include language ensuring veterans remain protected in the future
the way they are protected today. While this would not impact a large
number of soldiers, sailors, and marines, it would have a huge impact
on the confidence our servicemembers have in their government to keep
our promise to them. And that promise is that when you put your life on
the line for the United States of America, you will have the support,
especially in these difficult economic times, of the people of the
United States.
Our Nation's veterans have sacrificed for this country, and it is
especially important that in difficult times they have this support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from
Michigan knows because he's been a leader in this area, this Congress
is committed to ensuring that our Nation's veterans have the support
they need to enter successful civilian careers after their military
service. This House led by passing the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, a
comprehensive jobs bill to reduce veteran unemployment by retraining
veterans to make them more competitive in today's job market. I'm
pleased that the Senate followed our lead and that the VOW Act is now
law.
[[Page H5707]]
This bill does not target veterans, though I understand the concerns
you have raised today. So long as a veteran meets the asset and income
test currently in SNAP law and complies with the applicable work
requirement, he or she will continue to receive nutrition benefits. As
with all disabled adults, veterans who have a physical or mental
disability are exempt from work requirements. There are also numerous
Federal job training and education programs specifically targeting
veterans that spend over $10 billion a year to ensure our veterans can
get back to work. Additionally, we currently provide up to 73 weeks of
unemployment benefits for veterans in our highest unemployment States.
Even so, I know I speak for the entire Agriculture Committee when I
say we are committed to protecting our veterans in a way that honors
their service and sacrifice to our Nation, and I look forward to
working with the gentleman to make sure that the final conference
committee agreement does just that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
Today, the House of Representatives has the opportunity to pass a
bill that makes the greatest reforms to SNAP since the bipartisan 1996
welfare reform act, and results in less spending. Opposing this bill is
a vote for the status quo in Washington.
Our goal throughout this process has not been to take millions of
people off of food stamps but to restore the integrity of the program
and ensure this safety net is preserved for the families most in need.
The arguments you will hear from the other side of the aisle are just
theatrics. If you listen to them out of context, you would assume that
we're destroying or eliminating the entire SNAP program. But we are not
talking about eliminating the SNAP program. We're committed to finding
solutions that work with the resources we actually have.
Today, we have an opportunity to modernize the nutrition program, to
close loopholes, and most importantly, keep the safety net intact for
qualified American families who depend on this assistance every day.
This bill rids nutrition policy of provisions that have weakened the
system. It will seek to limit the public assistance program to those
who qualify and close the loopholes that have been used to game the
system. It will also create a more efficient and effective program for
the Americans who really need it. This bill gives people the tools to
become self-sufficient, find work, and make a better life for
themselves and their children.
The Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act is a good bill that
reforms nutrition policy and returns accountability to the food stamp
program. And yes, Madam Speaker, it does reduce spending.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support this good work.
Ms. FUDGE. Let me just say that I find it's not theatrics that 5,000
Active Duty families would be kicked off of food stamps if this bill
passes as it is given to us today.
Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), our assistant Democratic
leader.
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3102, the latest
attempt by the Republican majority to add more insults to the injuries
that have been inflicted upon many working families, making their lives
much more difficult.
It's become clear to me that some of my colleagues on the other side
either don't believe or don't care that their preferred policies would
make the poor poorer and the hungry hungrier. They seem unmoved by the
arguments of many, including former Senate majority leader and
Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, that this bill would make it
more difficult for millions of Americans to feed themselves and their
families.
For the last half century, the farm bill has always included both
agriculture subsidies and nutrition assistance. This combination makes
a lot of sense. Every time the EBT card is swiped, farmers--large and
small--grocers--national chains to local mom-and-pop stores, and
banks--Wall Street and Main Street--all benefit. For American farmers
and agribusiness industry to succeed, they need consumers to purchase
the food that they produce.
With the comprehensive nature of past farm bills, it is no surprise
that 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, energy,
and crop insurance groups oppose the Republican leadership's cynical
ploy to separate nutrition assistance from the rest of the farm bill.
We talk about how SNAP's benefits go to individuals, but if the truth
be told, the real beneficiaries are local communities and enterprises.
My Republican colleagues claim to be big supporters of small
businesses. But you can't support small businesses if you don't support
their customers. This ill-advised legislation would also hurt
businesses that have nothing to do with food.
In my district, the average household income among SNAP recipients is
less than $25,000 a year. If these low-income people lose access to
nutrition assistance, money they would otherwise spend on other needs
would be spent instead on food, taking customers away from other
businesses throughout our economy.
Out-of-a-job supermarket workers will also have less money to spend.
Less demand means fewer jobs. An analysis by the Department of
Agriculture of similar SNAP cuts last year found that more than 50,000
jobs would be affected. SNAP funding is crucial to our economy because
those dollars go directly into the local economy.
My Republican colleagues and I might differ on how to grow the
economy, but at the very least, we should be able to agree that we
can't grow the economy by shrinking it.
Madam Speaker, I recognize that there are legitimate philosophical
differences between the two parties on the role of the federal
government.
But if you disagree with me about the moral consequences of this
legislation, I hope you will pause to consider its harmful economic
consequences and vote down this bill.
{time} 1615
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my subcommittee chairmen.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3102, the
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This legislation takes a
significant step in reforming the food stamp program by preserving
benefits for Americans truly in need of help, while holding accountable
those who are capable of helping themselves.
Throughout the Obama Presidency, we have seen the food stamp program
grow exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye
to a system fraught with abuse. This legislation will no longer allow
States to exploit various loopholes, such as artificially making people
eligible simply by mailing a TANF brochure, or substantially increasing
benefits by sending a nominal LIHEAP check.
This legislation also no longer allows States to waive work
requirements that were put in place in the 1996 welfare reform law. As
another Arkansan, President Bill Clinton, said when he signed the
reform bill into law, we are making ``welfare what it was meant to be,
a second chance, not a way of life.''
The reforms in this bill will give people a second chance by ensuring
food stamps will be there when people fall on hard times, but promoting
self-sufficiency through employment training programs so able-bodied
Americans can get back to work.
Madam Speaker, this bill preserves and protects the food stamp
program for the most vulnerable Americans by putting an end to
institutional abuses that threaten its future viability. We can't
expect to continue to provide assistance to the poor if we allow abuse
to bankrupt the food stamp system.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may
restore integrity to the program and continue to provide for those in
need.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, let me just say that the First District of
Arkansas, which my colleague represents, has a SNAP recipient
percentage of 18.2 percent.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
[[Page H5708]]
from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), one of my fellow subcommittee
ranking members on the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, on Monday I visited a food bank in my
district to discuss the importance of healthy food for healthy
families. It is clear from their example, among many, that a healthy
mind and a healthy body means a healthy workforce and a more productive
economy.
In May, the Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan farm bill with
reforms to nutrition that would have saved almost $40 billion. That
bill was defeated, and now we're considering a bill with serious
ramifications that have proposed cuts that are not bipartisan and that
go way too far. They will take away food from children, seniors,
veterans, and military families.
Our children are our future, and ensuring their access to healthy
meals at school and at home is critical. The Greatest Generation paved
our path to prosperity. How dare we not honor our seniors and we take
food from them on their tables.
Third, those who serve in our military, we should keep our promises
and make sure that they and their families and our veterans do not go
hungry. As one who has worked with both sides of the aisle, I implore
my colleagues to oppose this bill. Work together. Find a bipartisan,
commonsense solution that stays true to our Nation's commitments to our
children, our seniors, our veterans, and our military families. For I
was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat.
General Leave
Mr. LUCAS. Madam 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 H.R. 3102.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King), the primary subcommittee chairman on this important
issue.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I
rise in support of H.R. 3102.
Madam Speaker, I'd like to explain my position with this bit of a
narrative. When I came into this Congress a little over a decade ago, I
was watching the growth in the nutrition program, the food stamp
program--and I'm well aware that it was established to try to put an
end to malnutrition in America. Now, it was growing too fast for me at
that time. At that time there were 19 million Americans that were on
the food stamp program. By 2008, there were then 28.2 million Americans
on the program. The cost in 2003 was about $25 billion. The cost in
2008 was $37.6 billion. Today, our number is knocking on the door of 47
million people. From 19 million to 47 million people, from $25 billion
to $78.4 billion, and we're watching an administration that has been
advancing the expansion of the signup of the nutrition program by
spending millions of dollars in advertising to get more people to sign
up, and hiring people to go out and recruit people to sign up for more
food stamps.
I listened to the testimony before the committee that we had from La
Raza that said that food insecurity is now a reason for obesity in
America; that people have insecurity about where some of their future
meals might come from. Therefore, they tend to overeat when they do get
food. And we can help solve this obesity problem by giving an unlimited
supply of food stamps, the EBT benefits, to people. Then we will
somehow get thinner.
This thing has been turned completely around on its head from a
problem of malnutrition to a problem of obesity--all tried by Democrats
to solve with the same solution, which is more and more spending into a
program.
There won't be needy people that are taken off this. There isn't
going to be food coming out of the mouths of babes. This is
categorical. This is so that the resources are available to the people
that need it, those that are truly hungry.
By the way, this remark that it is a cynical ploy I completely
disagree with. This is a sincere effort to manage our budget.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the ranking member on
the subcommittee that oversees SNAP--who has not called one meeting all
year--that he has 10 percent SNAP recipients in his district.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Costa), another of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the
Agriculture Committee and a member of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus,
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
irresponsible nutrition bill.
Should these cuts take effect, hundreds and thousands of Californians
in need will lose access to a very important lifeline. This would
include one of my constituents, Pazong Moua, a mother of two who works
33 hours a week and goes to school part time in hopes of becoming a
teacher to get out of this network, this lifeline that she is presently
in.
For her, the working poor--and in many cases some of the most
vulnerable veterans across our country--SNAP is a hand ``up,'' not a
hand ``out.'' It is a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle.
As we emerge from the Great Recession, now is not the time to play
politics with hunger. With our rich agricultural heritage, we are also
a Nation that has a duty to fight hunger here at home.
Former President Reagan maybe said it best:
As long as there is one person in this country who is
hungry, that is one person too many.
Let's do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this bill and fix it.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I thank my colleague for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Nutrition Reform and
Work Opportunity Act.
The unfortunate reality is that one in seven people in this country
is on food stamps. Spending on the program has doubled since 2008, and
the number of Americans on SNAP has doubled since 2003.
Just as I believe that we must take care of fellow Americans who
truly need the help, I also believe that we must address fraud and
abuse in the SNAP program and provide opportunities and encouragement
to put people back to work.
When unemployment declines, the number of food stamp recipients still
increases under our current system. This is simply unsustainable.
It's time for some real change. This bill enforces the work
requirements of able-bodied adults without dependents, similar to the
reforms in Bill Clinton's 1996 bipartisan welfare reform bill. It
eliminates taxpayer-funded advocacy campaigns, closes the ``heat and
eat'' loophole, eliminates categorical eligibility to ensure program
integrity, and ends State bonuses for administering the program.
I also support the work and job-training requirements in this bill.
These programs offer real work skills. Investing in these skills will
make individuals more marketable in the workplace. I have introduced a
bill on the same topic. It's called the Opportunity Knocks Act. It's
going to encourage Americans to take job-training courses while still
being able to keep their unemployment benefits. These types of
initiatives put Americans back to work.
The most important step we can take to help those 47 million
Americans on SNAP is to grow our economy and promote opportunities to
put our family, friends, and neighbors back to work.
The farm bill is a jobs bill. Let's move the process forward and
support these reforms so that the taxpayers' dollars are spent much
more wisely.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. Job training is
great, but there is nothing in this bill that ensures any money will go
towards job training.
I also want to say that in Mr. Davis' district, 12.8 percent of his
residents are on SNAP.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. DelBene), one of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, we're debating an extreme bill with no
chance of becoming law, when we could be weeks into conferencing a farm
bill.
[[Page H5709]]
SNAP has prevented millions from falling into poverty. In the western
part of Washington State, 690,000 people are still experiencing hunger,
and we should not be arbitrarily cutting off aid.
This bill would force States to cut off people struggling to find a
job, also stripping them of transportation and childcare assistance. If
States don't comply, they lose funds for the SNAP employment and
training programs like the model program we have in Washington State
that has led many to self-sufficiency. Even at the height of the
recession, 60 percent in Washington's programs found employment and
more than half were off assistance 2 years after the program.
House leadership says this bill will lead to more people working. But
how does cutting programs proven to help people find jobs accomplish
this? All this bill does is cut the lifeline for 3.8 million hungry
American families, children, veterans, and seniors. This is not a
serious proposal. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman),
and I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. COFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with
Chairman Lucas.
Colorado has been a leader in training programs. And I want to
ensure, when passing this Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
reform bill, that the formulas for States to receive Federal funds for
operating training programs are done in a way that encourages States to
be active in helping individuals become self-sufficient.
To clarify, I would like to work with the chairman to make sure
Federal dollars are available to States like Colorado that actively
move people to self-sufficiency.
Mr. LUCAS. Reclaiming my time, I am aware of the leadership of
Colorado in this area. I look forward to working with the gentleman
from Colorado as we move forward with this legislation to ensure that
Federal dollars are available to States that actively move people to
self-sufficiency.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, yes, Colorado has been a leader, but the
bill specifically gives States the ability to spend savings any way
they choose.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Negrete McLeod), another one of my colleagues on the Agriculture
Committee.
Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose the proposed
cuts offered by H.R. 3102.
As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am greatly concerned that
this is a $39 billion cut to our Nation's most powerful antipoverty
tool--a tool because each month SNAP helps feed 3.4 million households
with elderly individuals.
In 2011, 4.8 million Americans over the age of 60 lacked access to
food. Some seniors are already making the decision between food and
their medicine. Cuts to SNAP will only intensify the problem, setting
seniors into deeper destitution and hunger. I ask the bill's
supporters: How will these Americans eat without the means to afford
food?
I urge my colleagues to remember the most vulnerable constituents in
their States and to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, I don't question the sincerity of our
Democrat colleagues' desire to feed the truly needy; I share in that
commitment. But, Madam Speaker, I do resent the idea that somehow
asking able-bodied adults without dependent children to at least be
looking for work as a requirement to receive these benefits is somehow
immoral.
When did America trade the dignity of a job for a culture of
permanent dependency? President Theodore Roosevelt writes in his
autobiography about his life as a North Dakota rancher. In chapter
four, ``In Cowboy Land,'' he writes:
We knew toil and hardship, hunger and thirst, but we felt
the beat of hardy life in our veins because ours was the
glory of work and the joy of living.
{time} 1630
Madam Speaker, I say let's encourage the dignity of work again and
pass these modest reforms.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my friend that able-
bodied work has always been in the farm bill. What has changed by this
bill is that it takes away the opportunities for Governors to request a
waiver when their unemployment rate is very high.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Lujan Grisham), another member of the Agriculture Committee.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I thank my colleague from
Ohio.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this disastrous bill that cuts
$40 billion from SNAP, a vital program that feeds over 442,000 New
Mexicans, half of whom are children.
I want to share the story of LaNae Havens, which shows just how much
SNAP means to the people in my district.
LaNae is a single mother with a handsome 9-year-old son named Konnor.
She works full time, but she doesn't make a lot of money. She has to
pay for childcare, rent, transportation to work, utility costs, and all
the other expenses families face. That doesn't leave much money for
food--and certainly not for the healthy, nutritious food that growing
children need.
Konnor suffers from anemia. Without her $33 a week in food
assistance, LaNae says there's no way she is able to feed her son the
protein- and iron-rich foods he desperately needs. She is terrified of
what happens if she loses SNAP.
I did the SNAP challenge, and it's just enough to get by. You can't
buy fresh vegetables. You can't buy enough protein. The thought that we
would make it even less for those Americans who need it is
unconscionable. I don't want Konnor to go hungry.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Southerland), who's worked very diligently on this bill.
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I would like to thank and commend you, Mr. Chairman,
on your great work.
Madam Speaker, there's been a lot of things talked about today and in
the past about the motivation. I've been very involved in this bill.
The ranking member, she and I have gotten to know each other, and it
has been a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. I want you to know, Madam
Speaker, that my motivation has only been to introduce the blessing of
work to able-bodied people.
Madam Speaker, from your chair, if you look down the center aisle,
you can see one of 23 faces that are at the top of this room. The face
you are looking at is the face of Moses. That is the only face that is
a full frontal view and not a side view like the other 22 faces that
surround this room. It was his work, the work of Moses, that in the
very first chapter of Genesis, God created Adam and placed him in the
garden to work it.
Work is not a penalty; work is a blessing. God's very first work was
to introduce the responsibility of an able-bodied individual to do not
just a physical activity, not just an economic activity, but, in every
sense of the word, a spiritual activity.
What we have done in this country is wrong. We have failed in
introducing the blessing of work to able-bodied people who have the
ability, who are mentally, physically, psychologically able to work,
and we have robbed them of knowing a better life that they helped
create for themselves and their families.
I want to be very clear. This bill excludes children. It excludes the
disabled. It excludes seniors. It makes sure that able-bodied
individuals who are mentally, physically, and psychologically able to
work know the blessing that God intended.
There's been a lot of talk about Scripture and a lot of talk about
God's plan. I want people to know that it was Moses--Moses--who in this
very room is placed in a position of prominence. It was his very first
chapter that he gave us God's plan for able-bodied.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I do consider Mr. Southerland a friend, but
I would just say that we cannot pick and choose what we take out of the
Bible. The Bible mentions the words ``poor'' and ``hungry'' more than
200 times.
[[Page H5710]]
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire
(Ms. Kuster), another member of the Agriculture Committee.
Ms. KUSTER. Madam Speaker, I want to address my remarks to my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I, too, believe in
work. But in the northern part of my district, we have veterans who are
unable to find work.
I recently visited the Bridge House in the rural north country of New
Hampshire which provides for the homeless, many of them veterans. It is
already hard for folks to find a job, especially for returning veterans
who had faithfully served our country, yet this bill says that they
should go hungry.
My constituents are frugal Yankees. They believe that every tax
dollar should be spent wisely or not spent at all. They agree that we
cannot afford the subsidies for agribusiness that this underlying bill
that has now gone over to the Senate continues to include.
Let's ask ourselves: Who are we as a people? Would we truly not feed
a homeless veteran? We are Americans, and Americans take care of each
other. The United States is an exceptional country, and now is the time
to prove it.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I have the honor and privilege to yield 1
minute to the majority floor leader of the United States House of
Representatives, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Oklahoma, for the leadership that he has demonstrated throughout this
process on this bill, on the farm bill, and know that his heart has
been placed into this process and know that the outcome will be one
that has been benefited by his leadership throughout the last several
years in his dedication and leadership on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I do rise today in support of the Nutrition Reform and
Work Opportunity Act. This bill is designed to give people a hand when
they need it most. Most people don't choose to be on food stamps. Most
people want a job. Most people want to go out and be productive so that
they can earn a living, so that they can support a family, so that they
can have hope for a more prosperous future. They want what we want.
If others, and there may be some, choose to abuse the system--that's
not out of the realm of possibility--frankly, it's wrong for
hardworking, middle class Americans to pay for that.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell you a story that's very fitting for
this bill. There was a woman from Arkansas. Her name was Sherry. She
moved there to that State with her two children, ages 11 and 14. She
lived with her mom. The four of them shared a two-bedroom apartment.
Sherry didn't have much work experience as a stay-at-home mom, so she
applied for help through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
otherwise known as the TANF program, the welfare program that
President Clinton and a Republican Congress reformed in 1996 to impose
work requirements for able-bodied adults. Sherry's case officer worked
with her to obtain an on-the-job training position at a local hotel
where she was hired for an entry-level position before she was quickly
promoted to being a team leader.
As the Department of Workforce Services in Arkansas reported,
Sherry's welfare case was closed and she continued her job at that
hotel, a job she loved, going so far as to equate her coworkers with
family. And like a family, when the hotel was remodeled, they gave
Sherry the hotel furniture for her own apartment.
Madam Speaker, there is dignity in work. I am supporting this bill
today because I want to see, as I know all of us do, more success
stories like Sherry's. The reforms made by this bill will put people on
the path to self-sufficiency and independence.
I also want to say, Madam Speaker, there's been a lot of demagoguery
around this bill and, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation. Because
the truth is anyone subjected to the work requirements under this bill
who are able-bodied, who are able-bodied under 50, will not be denied
benefits if only they are willing to sign up for the opportunity for
work. There is no requirement that jobs exist. There are workfare
programs. There are options under the bill for community service. This
bill is a bill that points to the dignity of a job to help people when
they need it most with what they want most, which is a job.
Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, Chairman
Lucas, for his leadership and the gentleman from Florida, who just
spoke before, Congressman Steve Southerland, for their hard work on
this issue.
I would also like to recognize a member of my staff, who I can tell
you has personally been a teacher to me on welfare policy and how the
wrong policies can destroy a person's self-identity and lull them into
a life of dependence, but how the right policies can help lift people
out of poverty and on a path to independence. Roger Mahan, Madam
Speaker, who is here in the Chamber, has dedicated his professional
life to helping lawmakers adopt the right policies. I'm privileged to
have Roger as a part of my team and as my teacher. This House and this
country benefit from his knowledge and dedication on this very
emotional issue, and I thank him for his service and guidance.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 17 minutes remaining.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that one in eight
Virginians are on SNAP and that able-bodied adults without dependents
already work if there is a job. We all know that there are three people
for every available job in this country.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Meng).
Ms. MENG. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this is the second time this
year that the other side of the aisle has proposed funding SNAP at a
level that completely disregards the purpose of the program. This
newest iteration disrespects families struggling to survive and parents
who are unable to feed their children. It doubles down on a
determination to end hunger assistance and increase the suffering of
our Nation's most vulnerable.
There is only one word that comes to mind: ``cruel''--cruel to
seniors, cruel to children, cruel to veterans, cruel to people
struggling to survive with a shred of dignity. Children, elderly,
disabled, and currently employed make up 92 percent of SNAP recipients.
Yesterday, an elderly veteran called my office about his incredible
struggle to purchase enough food. He said that without SNAP, he does
not know how he will survive.
I want to take time to thank the organizations in my district and
throughout New York City--Queens Jewish Community Council, Masbia, CPC,
KCS, South Asian Council for Social Services, and the Hispanic
Federation--for the amazing work they do every day to help our
community.
I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to the
millions of people relying on SNAP and the millions more that oppose
cutting this program.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my next-door neighbor from
across the State line.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1302.
Participation in SNAP has grown 83 percent since 2008 and will cost
us nearly $80 billion this year alone. It is imperative that Congress
takes steps to rein in this out-of-control entitlement, and I believe
this bill does that.
The work requirements in this bill go to the heart of the reforms I
have been advocating since I began working on similar bills nearly 3
years ago. It follows a simple line of thought: if you are a healthy
adult and don't have someone relying on you to care for them, you ought
to earn the benefits you receive. Look for work, start job training to
improve your skills, or do community service, but you can no longer sit
on your couch or ride a surfboard, like Jason in California, and expect
the Federal taxpayer to feed you.
I also would like to applaud my home State of Kansas for moving to
reinstate work requirements for Kansas adults. The folks in Kansas
recognize that if you want to help people get back to work, you
shouldn't pay them not to work. Washington should follow our example.
[[Page H5711]]
Support fiscal responsibility. Support a paycheck over a welfare
check. Support the bill.
{time} 1645
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the last time we considered devastating
cuts to nutrition programs, I brought messages my constituents had
written on paper plates, telling stories of how much the SNAP program
has helped them. I read aloud each plate's personal, heartbreaking
story of the difference food assistance makes for a parent, a student,
or a family, but today I have an empty plate because that's what so
many of my constituents would see if this bill became law--in fact,
27,000 to be specific. I thought about bringing 27,000 plates down
here--like this one--to make my point, but I decided not to create that
kind of a waste just to make a point that is already so obvious.
The Republicans want you to believe that we don't have the money to
feed hungry kids but that we can afford subsidies for Big Oil and tax
breaks for corporate jet owners. It is ridiculous. If this week doesn't
show the backward priorities of the Republican majority, I don't know
what will. This shortsighted, slash-and-burn approach to governing
won't get this country moving forward.
Taking food away from children?
The sad truth is, all that's being served up by the Republicans is a
lack of vision.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 3102.
This commonsense bill reforms the SNAP program and simply requires
that able-bodied adults without dependents obtain employment,
participate in job training activities, or perform voluntary community
service activities in exchange for continued benefits.
I've been hearing a lot of chatter these days about how there aren't
any jobs out there to get people back to work. Perhaps if government
weren't killing businesses through overregulation, increased taxes, and
bureaucratic delays, it might be easier to get people back to work.
The President did state 3 days ago that the economy was improving and
jobs were being created, so it seems reasonable to get people into job
training programs in order to get these job openings filled. Let's say
the President is wrong about these. Even in the most economically
challenged areas of this Nation, there are opportunities to better
one's community through volunteerism.
Who in this body can argue with work or volunteer requirements for
able-bodied adults without dependents? When did asking able-bodied
adults to look for work become an unrealistic or a demeaning request?
This bill preserves the SNAP program for those who need the
assistance while also helping them to find employment and live the
American Dream.
How does any of that sound unreasonable?
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, in Mr. LaMalfa's
district, 10 percent of all households are on SNAP.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3102.
Ending nutrition assistance for millions of hungry children and
adults in the middle of a fragile economic recovery is, frankly, close
to the very last thing we should be doing right now. As former
Republican Senate leader Bob Dole wrote in the LA Times this week,
``this is no time to play politics with hunger.''
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the district I represent has one of the
highest concentrations of veterans in all of the United States, and I
feel morally compelled to point out that the legislation before us
would end nutrition assistance for as many as 170,000 veterans who
currently receive it. These are men and women who have served our
country with honor and who were prepared to give the last full measure
of devotion to America.
So, while I absolutely appreciate Mr. Rogers' pointing out the flaw
herein, assurances, however genuine, that we will try to take care of
this later do not measure up to the sacrifices these men and women have
made. Whatever your stereotypical image in your head you carry around
of the average recipient, please understand that that includes the men
and women who wore our Nation's uniform, and when you know that, you
will vote ``no.''
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3102, the
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
I commend the chairman for his tireless work on this effort, the
effort to put in place sensible reforms and close loopholes in order to
improve this nutrition program. One reform which has been mentioned
many times is that of the modest work requirements of people who are
able to do so.
We will be able to save nearly $40 billion over 10 years. All we are
asking is that those receiving benefits--who do not have children, who
are without disabilities, and who do not have any other extreme
circumstances--simply work, volunteer, train or go to school for 20
hours a week.
Mr. Speaker, we are preserving this program for those who truly need
it. I urge my colleagues to support these important reforms so that the
truly vulnerable never go hungry.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is still left
in debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman
from Ohio has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Oklahoma has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi), another of my colleagues on the Agriculture
Committee.
(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.
Mr. Speaker, if this were only about work reforms, that would be
something, but it's far, far more. These are devastating cuts. Hunger
is real. In my northern counties, the counties along the Sacramento
River--Sutter, Glenn, Colusa, and Yuba--20 percent of the citizens are
hungry. They need food. This bill would dramatically affect that.
My daughter is a teacher. She has a community garden. She went to
find a kid from her kindergarten class who wasn't getting on the bus.
He was hidden underneath the cucumbers in the garden, stuffing his
pockets full of tomatoes and cucumbers, so that on the weekend he would
have food for himself and his brother.
Hunger is real--it's real in every one of our districts--and this
particular bill devastates the food programs for seniors, for working
men and women, and for those who desperately need help.
I oppose the bill. I would ask for compassion from our colleagues on
the Republican side and to put this bill down and get on with decent
legislation.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).
Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Anti-Poverty
Initiative, I have been blessed to work closely with the people ``on
the ground'' who are committed to lifting people out of poverty. Many
in Washington believe a hand out is a hand up. It's not. We need a
social safety net that focuses on the empowering of the individual.
The men and women I've met with all have wanted me to hear their
stories. I asked them directly: What do we do that works? What do we do
that doesn't work, and how can I make it better? All of the men and
women shared the same themes: Lift me spiritually, not just
economically. They told me they don't want to be taken care of. They
want to be able to take care of themselves and are challenged to find
and utilize the gifts God blessed them with.
I am proud to say many of the reforms in this bill didn't come from a
bunch of people in suits and ties here in Washington, D.C. They came
directly from the American families we are trying to help. This bill is
a forward-looking approach that propels
[[Page H5712]]
people towards opportunity. It fulfills the promise made in the
Declaration--that our country believes in the right to pursue happiness
however each citizen defines it.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Democratic whip, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her for her leadership
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I lament with Mr. Lucas that we don't have a bipartisan
bill, because I know that's what he wanted, that that's what he forged
and that that's what has been abandoned, unfortunately, by his party. I
think that's sad for the country. It's even sadder for the people who
will be so adversely affected.
Mr. Speaker, several weeks after House Republicans broke with
longstanding practice and cut nutrition program funding out of the farm
bill, they are now bringing a nutrition-denying bill to the floor.
Shockingly, their version of nutrition assistance is to cut $40 billion
over the next 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, called ``SNAP.''
What does this mean for the 14 percent of our fellow citizens?
Luckily, 86 percent of us are doing pretty well--we can put a meal on
the table, and we can feed our children; but 14 percent of our fellow
citizens can't have confidence that they can do that.
Has America fallen so low in its moral compass that we are not
prepared to make sure that, in the richest country on the face of the
Earth, they have food on their tables? Have we fallen that low?
It means 210,000 children dropped from the school meals program. It
means 170,000 veterans in need losing some or all of their food
assistance. It will affect Americans of all ages, and it will
especially harm seniors, students, and individuals with disabilities.
Tuesday's Census Bureau report confirms that too many Americans
remain in poverty as a result of lingering effects from the recession.
This is reflected in the rise over the past few years in the number of
Americans who rely on food assistance to eat a decent meal from day to
day. In the wealthiest country on Earth, there is no reason why so many
Americans should have to go hungry, and now is certainly not the time
for Congress to make it harder for them to feed themselves and their
families.
Do we need to bring down the deficit? We do. Do we need to do it on
the backs of the poor? We do not.
Instead, we ought to be helping Americans find jobs and access to
opportunities so they will no longer need SNAP assistance. We should go
to conference with the Senate, as I know my friend Mr. Lucas wanted to
do, which passed a bipartisan farm bill in June by a vote of 66-27.
Two-thirds of the Members of the United States Senate, a majority of
the House Agriculture Committee, and, in my view, a majority of this
House wanted to do this, but we did not do it. Of course, we should
have gone to conference weeks ago, but, sadly, this Congress remains
dysfunctional.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this punitive legislation, and I call
on the Speaker to appoint conferees for the farm bill so we can see a
compromised version reflecting the compassion and wisdom shown by
bipartisan-acting Congresses over the last four decades.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FUDGE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Lucas for his leadership, and I regret that it
is not being followed.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This is an
opportunity to enact commonsense reforms.
I would like to thank Leader Cantor and especially Chairman Lucas for
their leadership and long hours of hard work.
Mr. Speaker, food stamps and farm policy should be considered
individually and on their own merits. It's just common sense, and it's
exactly why we are here.
In July, we passed a farm-only farm bill that ended direct payments
and made other reforms. Today, we have an opportunity to continue that
work by passing a food stamp bill that doubles the savings that the
House originally considered. We can save taxpayers $40 billion by
eliminating loopholes, ensuring work requirements, and putting food
assistance on a fiscally responsible path.
In the real world, we measure success by results. It's time for
Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of
poverty and are helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington
bureaucrats spend year after year.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense step in the
right direction.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Vargas), another member of the Agriculture Committee.
{time} 1700
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this bill. Senator
Dole is right: this is no time to play politics with hunger.
I want to thank those in the faith community that have come out
against these cuts to the nutrition program because of the moral
imperative in the Bible from Matthew 25:
When I was hungry, you gave me to eat.
I want to thank in particular Reverend David Beckman, who writes:
The proposed cuts are a clear indication that some in
Congress underestimate the hunger that is present in American
homes. The bill picks on the poorest people in the country.
This is morally and economically unacceptable, especially as
some areas continue to experience high unemployment.
I also want to thank Reverend Stephen Blaire, who said:
Adequate and nutritious food is a fundamental human right
and the basic need that is integral to protecting the life
and dignity of the human person.
Please, defeat this bill. It's the wrong thing to do. In a country as
rich as our own, we can feed the poor. It's the most basic imperative
in the Bible.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is
remaining for both myself and the ranking member?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Ohio has 8\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the ranking member
that I potentially have some additional speakers, but they've not made
an appearance yet. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time to close
if they do not appear.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 1
minute to our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
thank her also for her leadership on this very important issue to the
values of our country. Her service on the Agriculture Committee is
indeed a blessing to us all as we fight for our children.
Mr. Lucas, thank you for your leadership of the committee, as well. I
know you tried to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. What happened
after that, I won't go into. I also want to salute Collin Peterson, our
colleague on the committee. We need a farm bill. We want to have a good
farm bill for our farmers, for our ranchers, for food security, for our
country. Hopefully, we can get to that place, but not by doing violence
to our children.
Mr. Speaker, this body is so magnificent because it is so diverse. We
represent districts all over the country. We represent people of
different backgrounds all over the country. But one thing, among
others, that we certainly have in common is that each one of us have
people in our districts who depend on the SNAP program for their
nutrition. There isn't one person in this room who could rise up and
say: Nobody in my district relies on the nutrition programs that are in
the farm bill. Chief among them are children, seniors, veterans and
their families. They are the real faces of hunger in America, and their
stories are the most compelling reason to reject this dangerous
Republican legislation.
In my district in San Francisco, people from all walks of life have
relied on the SNAP program to make it through tough and trying times.
One young woman I want to highlight is Catlin, now in her twenties,
worked hard at a
[[Page H5713]]
part-time job to put herself through college. As the recession took its
toll on students across the country looking for work, Catlin found that
she could not afford to pay rent and purchase food each month. Because
she qualified for the emergency food SNAP initiative, she was able to
get by, get a promotion, and now works full time.
There's Brian, 50 years old and homeless. Even though he searches
constantly for full-time employment, he spends his spare time
volunteering at St. Anthony's dining room, helping other people. This
is a place that helps other people to find food, shelter, clothes, and
compassion in our community. There he gives back what little he has to
the community, wholeheartedly serving our seniors, veterans, children,
and families who also rely on the generosity of people like Brian to
feed themselves and their loved ones.
Like Brian and Catlin, millions of people across America are working
hard and giving all they have to lift themselves up and help others get
on their feet.
One of my colleagues said something like if you don't work, you
shouldn't eat. Something to that effect. I hope I heard it incorrectly.
It's really important to note that because of the low minimum wage in
our country, a family of four, with both parents working full time and
earning the minimum wage, are below the poverty line. They don't even
come close to the 130 percent of poverty. They are below the poverty
line. So in some respects the SNAP program is subsidizing a low minimum
wage in our country, as other support does as well.
I wish that we could respect how hard it is for a family of four,
with two people working full time, not making enough money to put food
on the table, that we respect them for their struggle and for their
concern for their families and not judge them that they don't have food
on the table because our country has chosen to pay a sub-living wage to
so many people in our country.
The Republican proposal on the floor today slashes the legs on which
many of these people stand. Indeed, cutting the investments is a full
assault on the health and economic security of millions of families.
Consider this: one in five children--it is soon becoming one in four--
struggle with hunger, and nearly half of all SNAP recipients are
children. Nearly 4 million Americans over age 60 rely on nutrition
assistance. Five thousand Active Duty military families depend on SNAP.
Nearly 3 million veterans and their families don't get enough to eat
each month, and this bill would jeopardize food assistance for as many
as 170,000 veterans.
A couple of weeks ago I was in Houston, Texas, visiting my
grandchild, and we were at mass. The sermon was a beautiful one and
actually the Gospel was that day, too. Many of our colleagues have
quoted the Gospel of Matthew, ``When I was hungry, you gave me to
eat,'' and other parts of the Bible. The Gospel that day was talking
about how we have a responsibility to each other. In the sermon, the
priest said something that I think we should consider as we consider
our vote here today. He said:
You just can't come to church and pray on Sunday and go out
and prey on people the rest of the week.
This legislation is preying on people, on children, on veterans, on
seniors, on all those who are struggling to do their best in our
country.
It is our moral obligation to reject this legislation and to preserve
these investments for Americans who need them and other Americans who
want them to have it. It is our moral duty to vote down this measure
and to work across the aisle in conference on a comprehensive farm bill
that ensures food security, supports our farmers and ranchers, and
strengthens world communities.
``Community''--that should be the word of the hour. What is our
responsibility to community? It certainly isn't to say to kids, We want
you to do your best in school, but we're not going to fuel your mind by
giving you food to eat. And it certainly isn't to thank our veterans by
depriving them or our seniors for all that they have done. Something is
very wrong with this picture.
I know one thing for sure: every person who votes for this Republican
measure is voting to hurt his or her own constituents because we all
represent people who at some time need help.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act
of 2013 is rife with fraud, waste and abuse.
This bill is fraudulent in its claims that it's a benevolent bill
that merely institutes work requirements and won't hurt children. In my
very own State of Wisconsin, 4,000 children will lose free and reduced
lunch, and as the entire family will be able to be penalized, it will
also hurt the elderly and disabled who live in these households.
It's fraudulent. It's a bill that is a waste of our constituents'
belief and stewardship in us that we would do the conscientious and
right thing for the American people. We just don't throw people under
the bus when they're in a recession and they can't find employment.
It's a waste, and it is abusive of 15 percent of Americans and 22
percent of children who live in abject poverty.
I ask my colleagues to reject this bill rife with fraud, waste, and
abuse.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
Ms. SINEMA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in Arizona, one in four children live in food
insecurity, unsure of when they'll eat next or where they'll find food.
Cuts to SNAP will make this already grave situation even worse.
When I was a kid, my family went through tough times, and after my
parents got divorced, my mom relied on food stamps to feed us kids.
Later, when my stepfather was out of work and my family was homeless,
food stamps once again helped my family survive. Yet, my family was
lucky. We had friends and family and my parents' church helping us, in
addition to SNAP. Today, SNAP provides hardworking families with food
security while they're struggling to make ends meet. The program helped
me, just as SNAP is helping kids and working families in Arizona today.
Both family farmers and hungry children in Arizona are waiting on
Congress to pass a complete farm bill. I've called on Congress to put
hardworking farmers and families ahead of partisanship. Congress should
pass a bipartisan farm bill, just as it has for decades in the past.
Today's bill unfortunately isn't a solution for families or farmers.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. I thank Ranking Member Fudge for giving me this
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in the back and I heard one of the
Republicans say that what Moses would want--and he was talking about
some picture--and I just came up to say that I just talked with Moses,
and he's not in support of this legislation. As a matter of fact, he
referred me to other biblical things about how we treat the lesser of
our brothers and sisters. He directed my attention to the disparity
between the rich that we have in this country and the very poor.
I got the impression after reviewing Matthew that if we're going to
refer to Moses, you can't ignore Jesus, who had some concern about the
rich people that did not treat their brothers and sisters fairly. I
don't know how it ends, but it seems as though they were trying to get
into Heaven and he told them to go to hell.
I don't know how it spins out, but everything that seems to be
happening in
[[Page H5714]]
this House strikes against us helping the kids and the vulnerable and
helping the sick and the aged. So I would suggest that if we have to go
to the Bible, everything we're trying to do to hurt the poor is not
going to count for us when we need God the most.
{time} 1715
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 4\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. FUDGE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms.
Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, it's really hard to know what to say anymore. It's
impossible for us to rationalize what has become completely irrational,
but I'm just going to say what it is.
From the other side, this bill is mean. It's unconscionable. And it's
really just plain wrong. The rational person would ask, don't they know
that nearly 4 million people would have benefits cut and would lose
their benefits entirely? A rational person would ask, don't they know
that millions of people, beneficiaries, already work, that they go to
school, and that they're looking for work?
I know what it's like to struggle to feed a child, to wonder whether
there's food tomorrow or the next week. Don't they know that this is
what families across America are struggling with right now? I don't
know.
I'll tell you what, I see the plan--shut down government, starve
children, the elderly, the disabled, demonize the poor, blame them for
everything. But I'm going to just tell you, when I go to sleep at
night, I sleep well. After you cast this vote, after Republicans cast
this vote today, they won't sleep well.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I have only 1 minute, but I would imagine 1
minute is sufficient to plead with my colleagues to pay attention to
the facts.
The U.S. economy has not healed. We are still struggling with $7.25
an hour for minimum wage. And if you make $7.25 working all day, every
day, you're going to make slightly over $15,000 a year; and you get
approximately $4.50 a day to eat on, $4.50.
I think that there is a right thing that we all can do. We ought to
join forces to do the right thing; and the right thing is not to
approve this bill, to back away from it. I mean, we are a rich Nation
that really is having economic problems. We can deal with our poor.
Everybody in this country ought to have equal access to food.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues that this is a sad
day because the whole effort to end hunger used to be a bipartisan
issue. I would say to my Republican colleagues, remember Bob Dole and
Bill Emerson. Your party has a great tradition, a proud tradition of
being part of the effort to end hunger, working with Democrats. Don't
blow that up today.
What you are doing here is wrong; and I'm urging my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, please don't do this. Please don't do this.
Please do not do this. This is wrong. This is about how we treat the
most vulnerable in our society.
And I have to just say to all my colleagues here, we should be having
a bigger discussion about how to end hunger; and, instead, what we're
doing here today is moving in a direction where we are going to make
hunger worse in this country. You're going to throw 170,000 veterans
who are unemployed off this program; 3.8 million people will be thrown
off this program. Surely that is not what you want, but that is what
your bill does. That is what the bill that never went through the
Agriculture Committee, that was forced upon this House by the majority
leader, brought onto the floor under a closed rule does. Please rethink
this. I know that you are better than this.
Ms. FUDGE. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a unanimous
consent request.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
legislation and place a statement in the Record because those who get
food stamps are not criminals. They are just hungry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 3102, the
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
I am in opposition to this bill for four reasons: hunger is a real
problem in the United States; the solution for reducing dependence on
government subsidized food programs is full employment, this bill will
hurt the poor and most vulnerable in our country and finally the bill
is too draconian and pointedly anti-Urban.
Finding hungry people in the United States is not hard--they are in
every community. The problem is so dire that--September has been
declared hunger action month. People in the 18th Congressional District
along with people in Congressional Districts around the nation are
putting forth an extra effort to raise awareness that 1 in 6 Americans
are going without enough food to sustain a healthy life.
Although the United States is considered to be the world's wealthiest
nation 14.5 percent or almost 49 million Americans, which includes 15.9
million children face challenges to getting enough to eat.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture 50 million
people experience hunger because they have limited access to resources.
The type of resources could be adequate or reliable means of
transportation to where food can be obtained, or money to buy food.
In the United States 17 million children live in food insecure
households. Children with inadequate nutrition are affected by
cognitive and behavior development problems. Eating enough to stay
alive but not enough to meet nutrition requirements means the body will
break down muscle and tissue.
The majority of SNAP recipients which is about 68 percent do not
work--they are children, elderly, disabled or those caring for a
disabled family member in their home or for a child less than 6 years
of age.
Food insecurity is not limited to urban and suburban areas--over 2
million rural households experience food insecurity. The counties in
the United States with the highest disproportionately high rates of
food insecurity are rural not urban or suburban.
Children in food insecure homes--who do not consume healthy food on a
regular basis are more likely to experience irritability, fatigue, and
difficulty concentrating.
These children's ability to get ahead in life are demonstratively
impacted by food insecurity.
Nutrition does not need reform--we know what foods are nutritious and
how much nutritious food should be consumed by each man, woman and
child regardless of age must consume each day to remain healthy and
productive.
We should pass the American Jobs Act:
If this Congress was serious about work opportunities they would have
passed the President's American Jobs Act. The irony is that if the
American Jobs Act had become law it would have significantly reduced
the numbers of persons in need of food assistance from the government.
Prior to the financial crisis and economic recession, 26.3 million
individuals a month on average received SNAP benefits, getting an
average of $96 per month in benefits. Over the course of the ``Great
Recession'' SNAP spending has increased from $33.2 billion for fiscal
year 2007 to $78.4 billion for fiscal year 2012.
The Congressional Budget Office says the weak economy as being the
cause of the nearly 65 percent of the growth in spending on benefits
between 2007 and 2011. The Congressional Budget Office said in its May
2013 baseline update estimate that SNAP participation would begin to
decline as the economy continued to recover, falling to an average of
$34.4 million per month.
Adding the words ``Work Opportunity'' is not about work but about how
to prevent the working poor from accessing SNAP benefits.
SNAP benefits also help the working poor which includes those who
earn 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of
households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households
have gross income at or below l00% of the poverty guideline this
translates into incomes of $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013. These
households receive about 91% of all benefits.
Unemployment remains at 7.3 percent with about 11.3 million people
unemployed. We know that we have 6 million long term unemployed people
who have been searching for work 27 weeks or longer. In July,
unemployment percentages for the following states were:
Texas 6.5 percent,
California 8.7 percent
Nevada 9.5 percent,
[[Page H5715]]
North Carolina 8.9 percent,
South Carolina 8.1 percent,
Rhode Island 8.9 percent,
Tennessee 8.5 percent,
Michigan 8.8 percent,
Arizona 8.0 percent, and
Arkansas 7.4 percent.
In August 2013, there were still 2 million fewer jobs than when the
``Great Recession'' began in 2007. There are still 3 unemployed people
for every new job created by the private sector. To compound the
problem--60 percent of the jobs lost were mid-wage occupations--people
who did not need Federal or State food assistance or housing assistance
programs.
These types of mid-wage good paying jobs make up only 22 percent of
the new jobs created during the recovery. Low-wage jobs represented 21
percent of the jobs lost at the start of the recession and now make up
58 percent of the new jobs of the recovery. The number of people who
are in need of SNAP is greater because the recovery is not as strong as
it should be nor reaching the people it should reach.
The bill's version of work opportunity threatens the working poor's
opportunity to provide food for their families. Over the last decade
the number of households that were working or had no income while
receiving SNAP more than tripled, from 2 million in 2000 to about 6.4
million in 2011.
This bill will hurt the most vulnerable:
Having SNAP funds does not guarantee access to nutritious food,
according to the Department of Agriculture food deserts make it
difficult for urban, suburban and rural poor to find nutritious food. A
food desert according to the Department of Agriculture is a ``low-
access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33
percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a
supermarket or large grocery store. The USDA defines a food desert for
rural communities as a census tract where the distance to a grocery
store is more than 10 miles.
Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a
result fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits,
vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.
The result of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other
health disparities that impact minority and low income communities in
rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of
access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that support
normal metabolic functions.
Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown
in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease
and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in
food deserts are the presence of fast food establishments instead of
grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast
foods this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for
arterial disease a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a
constant diet of fast foods are also vulnerable to higher risks of
insulin resistance which results in diabetes.
In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of
residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from
a grocery store.
Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask
for help, they work to hide their situation from everyone. Hunger is
persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough
to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their
children can eat.
In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of
residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from
a grocery store.
In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6
percent of households with children experiencing food hardship. In
households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5.
Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.
The bill is too draconian and pointedly anti-Urban:
The majority seeks to do everything imaginable to make it more
difficult for people in this country to get access to affordable
healthcare, a job that will pay a livable wage or meals that are
nutritious are difficult to understand.
The bill would establish a nationwide ``pilot program'' under which
states could impose new work requirements on SNAP recipients, including
on parents of young children who are exempt under the current law. It
would not be in the best interest of young children for their parents
to leave them unattended and it would not be in the best interest of
SNAP recipients to choose between rent and childcare.
The language of the bill authorizes states to conduct drug testing of
SNAP applicants as a condition of receiving benefits. Since most of the
benefits go to children, the elderly and disabled the question of drug
testing is more a facade for a political philosophy than a real world
problem with drug addiction and Federal and State food programs.
The bill is blatantly anti-urban in calling for a pilot program to
reduce retailer fraud be conducted in a large urban area that
administers its own SNAP program. Is there a belief that Mayberry
exists in every rural area and therefore there could be no possible
cases of SNAP fraud?
The bill requires that SNAP recipients receive at least $20 or more
in aid from the state through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) before they could receive an increase in SNAP
benefits. LIHEAP and SNAP are two different programs and they serve
different purposes. LIHEAP helps when homes are not safe or are in need
of repairs to make them more safe for human occupation. The problem
with this formula is that the funds sent for LIHEAP are not nearly
enough for the numbers of persons who need housing repair. The second
problem is it would require people who have no need of housing repairs,
but who may need additional food assistance to apply for the LIHEAP
program, which is already underfunded in order to get what they really
need--more food assistance.
This formula will guarantee that people in need of additional
assistance under SNAP will never receive it.
The bill before us would prohibit a state from telling someone they
know is hungry about SNAP food programs. The bill defines this type of
communication as recruiting SNAP participants by advertising the SNAP
program.
The bill eliminates the ability of states to waive work requirements
for ``certain able-bodied'' SNAP recipients even when unemployment is
high. In addition the bill would impose new work requirements on
parents of young children.
The bill would restrict ``categorical eligibility'' this would impact
people who qualify for other low-income aid.
The bill requires that SNAP benefits be used by beneficiaries within
60 days of being posted to an account. If the benefits are not used
then they will be taken back. The reality is people make decisions
about where and when to purchase food not based on our schedule but
their own.
If they have the benefits then the benefits should be there when the
opportunity to go to a store is available to them--which may be more
than a 2 to 4 week period.
People who are poor are not criminals and we should stop trying to
treat them as if they committed a crime. This bill is right out of the
47% playbook that was defeated last year during the Presidential
Election and this bill needs to be defeated as well.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would reduce
net SNAP spending by 39 billion over 10 years and that 2.8 million
people on average would lose their benefits while 850,000 would see
benefits cut.
SNAP benefits help the disabled, which include men and women who have
served our nation during times of war. According to news reports,
nearly $53 million in food stamps had been cashed in by people eligible
to shop in base commissaries, including disabled veterans.
The use of food stamps in commissaries increased 9 percent from 2012
to 2013, when $99 million in food stamps were used on bases. In
addition, military commissaries sold about $31 million under the Women,
Infants and Children program in 2012 and nearly $15 million by June of
this year.
Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this
nation must have to exist and to prosper. Next year if this bill
becomes law the nearly $40 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Programs also known as SNAP that is proposed by this bill 4
million Americans would fall thought our nation's food safety net.
As elected representatives we should see our nation's vital interest.
At the core of our vital interest is a stable and thriving economy, a
strong and healthy population that is able to contribute to the
economic engine that fuels our economy.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bad bill and return the food
programs to the farm bill.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Lucas,
for all of his work on the farm bill.
I want to ask, though, why did we play this charade on the American
people today? Why would we use hunger and poverty as a political
football, a game, some kind of sport? This is the people's House, so
let's do what is best for the American people.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that the time is always right to do
what is right. And to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I
know there's been a lot of arm-twisting to get you to support this
bill; but, fortunately, I have many friends on that side of the aisle.
And my friends are known to be people who are compassionate, caring
patriots. And I implore
[[Page H5716]]
you to do what is right. Hopefully, you will all muster the courage to
vote your conscience and do what is morally right because if you do it,
the others who may not have as much courage as you will follow. You
will set them free to do what is right.
It is time to stand up for the American people. Vote ``no'' on this
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
My dear colleagues, on several occasions we have alluded to the
process that we have gone through now, literally, for years to try to
craft a comprehensive farm bill.
I think most of you know that I would have preferred this have been
accomplished a year ago. I was proud of the committee work done at the
time, done in a bipartisan way. I was proud, even though we had to
start over in a new session of Congress, of the bipartisan effort done
in the committee this time.
Not every Republican or every Democrat on the committee voted for it;
but we had a majority of both sides, something that seems to be kind of
difficult these days on a lot of issues. But that bill came to the
floor. And even after a number of amendments were adopted by a majority
of this body primarily focused on the nutrition title, a majority of
the body chose not to pursue that bill, not to allow it to move on. And
we were compelled to bring what I affectionately referred to as a farm
bill only to the floor, one without the critical title dealing with
nutrition, and we were successful in passing that.
But as was noted by many of my colleagues on this side of the room,
that left a critical piece out, the nutrition title. And that's the
product that we are addressing today. It incorporates all of the
efforts--I will repeat again--from the committee work dealing with
categorical eligibility and LIHEAP and advertising and all of those
things.
The language we deal with today incorporates the amendments adopted
by this body in an effort to address the committee bill, empowering
States through a pilot program to engage able-bodied individuals in
TANF-type work, ending SNAP eligibility for convicted murderers and
pedophiles and rapists--not their children, not their spouses, but
they, themselves. Language allowing the States to very clearly use drug
testing as a part of their SNAP application process was adopted by a
majority of the votes on this floor, those items. And now it includes
language that came out of the leader's working group, things that deal
with what we refer to as ``able-bodied adults without dependents,''
ABAWDs.
That first committee draft, reform to the tune of about $20 billion.
Many of the things on the floor would have added to that, perhaps not
substantially. And in the working group's language, an additional $20
billion in reform. That presents us with the bill that we're looking at
today, with virtually everybody's ideas and reform rolled into one, a
substantial amount of savings in a single bill to reform.
I would say this to all of my colleagues: you're going to vote your
conscience today. You understand the bill, each and every one of you.
You understand, I think from your perspective, the policy implications.
I happen to believe that the items in this bill are of sufficient merit
to be discussed in a conference committee; potentially, if the
conference would agree, to incorporate them in a final conference
committee report. But that discussion cannot take place if this bill is
not passed.
Remember, if this bill is not passed and we go to conference, there
are no instructions for reform from the House in effect. And what was
one of the fundamental points that I and my colleagues in the Ag
Committee discussed as we started this process a long time ago? There
would be reforms in all parts of the next farm bill--commodity title,
conservation title, nutrition title. There would be the implementation
of changes based on our experiences and our learning from the last farm
bill and series of farm bills.
I know you're going to vote your conscience; but I ask you, let me go
to conference with the Senate with the maximum number of options to
work through because, ultimately, whatever comes out of that conference
has to be a comprehensive farm bill. It has to address our ability to
raise the food and fiber safety net. It has to address the safety net
that affects all of our consumers.
I will simply close by saying this: as I said at the beginning of
this debate, it should not be this hard to pass a bill to make sure
that the consumers in this country and around the world have enough to
eat. It shouldn't be this hard, but everything seems to be hard these
days. So let's do the hard things. Let's get our work done. Let's go to
conference. Let's put a final bill together. Let's fulfill our
responsibilities.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this misguided attempt
to cut almost $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. I do not believe that depriving between 4 and 6 million
Americans, and 105,000 Oregonians, of access to food will change an
individual's motivation to find work. It's particularly ridiculous as
work requirements already exist; this bill simply takes away a state's
ability to allow for flexibility when there are no jobs or work-
training programs available. I also find it ironic that this Congress
has refused to apply the same means testing principles it requires for
the nutrition program to the crop insurance program, which subsidizes
wealthy farmers without regard to their financial need.
I oppose this legislation and it saddens me to see it on the House
floor today.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3102.
A vote for this bill is a vote to cut $40 billion from U.S. food-aid
programs, specifically to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or SNAP. It's a vote to take food away from millions of
Americans in poverty, and it's a vote to poison America's economic
growth from the ground up.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cuts
in this bill will cause 14 million people to lose SNAP benefits in the
next decade.
The head of the local food bank in my District, the Second Harvest
Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, told me yesterday that
her organization [quote] ``simply cannot fill the meal gap these cuts
would create'' [unquote]. This means children, the elderly, veterans,
single mothers, and others who rely on SNAP will go hungry.
SNAP benefits are part of America's social safety net. Like
unemployment insurance, SNAP is a part of our economic recovery
strategy.
And it's been a successful strategy.
According to the Census Bureau, SNAP lifted 4 million people out of
poverty in 2012--the highest level on record. That's in addition to
making tens of millions more Americans less poor by reducing the gap
between their income and the poverty line.
Seventy-five percent of households receiving SNAP benefits have a
senior citizen, a child, or a person with a disability. Fifty percent
of households receiving SNAP benefits live below the poverty line.
These are the faces of our fellow Americans. These are the people
who will be hurt by this pernicious bill.
Vote no on H.R. 3102.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to HR
3102, the majority's extreme legislation to cut 4 million seniors,
working families, and individuals with disabilities from the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
SNAP is an effective, short-term anti-poverty program designed to
help families stay on their feet when they face tough times and to
ensure seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to the
food they need.
On average, SNAP recipients receive about $4.80 a day for food. How
many on the floor of this chamber spent more than that on their cup of
coffee this morning? I imagine very few of my colleagues can honestly
say they can feed themselves, let alone their families, every day for
that amount of money.
Despite these facts, the bill we debate today will gut SNAP. These
$40 billion in cuts will eliminate benefits for nearly 4 million
Americans this year and further cut 3 million people off the program
every year for the next decade. These cuts are designed to reduce SNAP
enrollment and spending but ignore the link between SNAP and our
economy. When the economy collapsed in 2008, SNAP enrollment increased
as more families struggled to make ends meet amid record high
unemployment. That is how the program is supposed to work, and as our
economy continues to recover and more Americans go back to work, SNAP
enrollment and spending has gone down and will continue to decrease.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that if we do nothing and let
the economy improve, SNAP spending will return to its low 1995 levels
as a percent of GDP in the next six years.
The majority claims this bill will increase incentives for SNAP
recipients to work. That claim belies the fact that millions of
Americans
[[Page H5717]]
who do work still rely on SNAP to meet their needs. Further, in New
York State, the bill would actually have the opposite effect. The state
receives nearly $170 million in federal funding, and leverages nearly
$140 million in local funding, for job training and placement efforts
to get SNAP recipients back in the workforce and transition them away
from government assistance. Yet this bill would eliminate or severely
cut funding for those programs, making it harder for individuals to
find work and get back on their feet.
Rather than rewarding states for helping unemployed individuals, in a
perverse twist, the only actual incentive this bill contains is one for
states to kick SNAP recipients out of the program if they cannot find a
job or job training. That approach will only serve to push more
families on to government programs instead of lifting them out of
poverty.
If we really want to reduce the number of people who use SNAP, we
should focus on job creation legislation to assist the millions of
Americans looking for work and on passing a budget that supports
instead of undermines our economic recovery. Putting people back to
work and rebuilding our economy is the only responsible way to ensure
seniors and working families have the food and the resources they need.
But instead, we are voting to slash this vital safety net program and
telling millions of Americans: good luck. Good luck putting food on
your table tonight and ensuring your children succeed in school without
the food they need. Good luck affording your prescription medication
and making your mortgage payment this month.
Mr. Speaker, I will not turn my back on those millions of Americans
who rely on SNAP to feed their families and get back on their feet. I
urge my colleagues to vote no on these extreme cuts.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, Republicans have
succeeded at taking a bad bill and making it even worse. I
categorically oppose the bill before the House today, which heartlessly
cuts nearly $40 billion from nutrition assistance programs, which
assist the most vulnerable in our communities to stave off hunger and
poverty. To enact this into law is outright shameful and runs counter
to our most fundamental values as a nation. For seniors, children in
low-income families, the disabled, and those who have lost jobs; food
and nutrition programs are a lifeline and must be preserved.
Nearly 49 million Americans and 17.6 million U.S. households are food
insecure, while nearly 17 million of these individuals are children, 5
million are seniors and 300,000 are elderly veterans. Last month, the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a report
stating that in the aftermath of the recession, food hardship remained
extremely high as more than 8 million Americans lost their jobs. From
the unemployed factory worker to the teacher who lives paycheck to
paycheck, hunger and poverty affect every community in America.
Certainly, the need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP
can fill, and food banks and charities have stepped up to the plate to
address these additional needs. Demand for assistance at food banks has
increased 46 percent during the recession, so it's no surprise they are
having a hard time keeping up with the current levels of need.
Yet last month, rather than moving forward to pass a full Farm Bill
last month, Republicans are doubling down on a failed strategy that
only serves to undermine the health of millions of Americans and has no
chance of becoming law since this bill will not pass the Senate or be
signed into law by the President. Indeed, one would think that House
Republicans' failure to pass their comprehensive, five-year Farm Bill,
or subsequent partisan bills, should compel them to work with Democrats
on behalf of the food and economic security of hardworking Americans,
yet that is not the path they have chosen.
It's time for Republicans to trade in their pointless and partisan
agenda for responsible solutions that will promote, expand, and
strengthen America's middle class.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition
to the draconian Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
Rather than consider a bipartisan Farm Bill that would help hungry
Americans and provide certainty for farmers and ranchers over the next
five years, the House has instead decided to bring to the floor a
partisan measure that would hurt those most in need and has no chance
of passage in the United States Senate.
This legislation is wrong on many levels. First, the nutrition
provisions were never intended to be considered separately from the
other titles of the Farm Bill, as has been the bipartisan tradition for
the past several decades.
As the distinguished former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said,
``stripping the nutrition title from the [Farm Bill] . . . has severed
the vital tie that helps connect our food system with those who
struggle with hunger in our own backyard.''
This bill, in fact, is all pain and no gain.
It is estimated that the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act
will cause between four to six million low-income individuals to lose
their SNAP benefits entirely. As many as 210,000 children potentially
could lose their school meals and 850,000 households could see their
benefits slashed by an average of $90 per month.
In Georgia's Second Congressional District. which I represent and
where 26 out of the 29 counties are sparsely populated and rural,
nearly a quarter of the households receive SNAP benefits. Many of them
could be in jeopardy of reduced benefits or a loss of benefits
altogether if these cuts are enacted.
I know that supporters of this legislation are claiming that the
reductions in SNAP benefits are intended to crack down on waste, fraud,
and abuse in the program. They ignore the fact that the SNAP program
actually has one of the lowest error and overpayment rates of any large
federal program.
Last year, the SNAP overpayment rate was 2.77%, and that includes
overpayments due to errors and due to fraud. By contrast, the rate of
error and fraud in the federal income tax system is about 15%.
Supporters of the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act also
claim that the legislation particularly the tough work requirements--
will move people off of SNAP benefits and into full-time employment,
leading to self-sufficiency. In fact, the bill immediately eliminates
the ability of states to waive SNAP work requirements in areas of high
employment or where no jobs are available.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this
provision would end SNAP benefits to 1.7 million individuals whom live
in high unemployment areas, even if they want to work and are looking
for employment, but either cannot find a job or a place in a training
program.
Mr. Speaker, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act would
devastate the safety net and lead to millions of hungry Americans
throughout the nation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, once again on the Floor today we have a
program with historic bipartisan support made divisive by the most
extreme wing of the Majority party.
For decades, the Farm Bill has coupled programs for our nation's
farmers with food assistance for our most vulnerable citizens,
including children and the elderly. In June, the Senate passed a Farm
Bill with a bipartisan vote of 66-27. But here in the House, rather
than working together for a solution that gives certainty to farmers
and maintains the safety net for the hungry, we have seen a one-sided
process that first stripped food assistance from the Farm Bill
altogether and now proposes draconian cuts to the program.
Slashing $40 billion from SNAP would eliminate benefits for 4 million
Americans. It would damage the safety net for our most vulnerable
citizens--nearly half of SNAP recipients are children and 16.5% of
households receiving benefits include seniors. Many are veterans or
Americans out of work through no fault of their own in high
unemployment areas. These are not lavish benefits--in my home state of
Maryland, the average SNAP benefit is only $128 per month. These are
critical dollars that help fight hunger as American families work to
get back on their feet after the recession.
The current Farm Bill is set to expire at the end of this month. But
rather than move forward, the majority has brought forth an extreme
proposal that is a nonstarter with the Senate and the President. It's
time to stop these partisan games--I urge a no vote.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the blatant disregard for
our Nation's poor displayed on this floor today. This bill before us
cuts over forty billion from nutrition assistance programs, stripping
away desperately needed food assistance benefits from over four million
Americans, including up to 170,000 of our veterans. In addition, over
two hundred thousand hungry children would be kicked off the school
lunch program as a result of this Republican bill. That is an absolute
disgrace. Who would agree to send all of those children to school
hungry? Who would want to literally take food out of the mouths of our
children?
As a father I cannot even imagine doing such a thing to one child
much less hundreds of thousands. For decades I have been involved in
helping create a better environment for our students in schools. How
can we expect our Nation to move forward when our students are
literally starving while trying to better themselves while learning on
empty stomachs?
If this bill becomes law it will be devastating. I plead with my
Republican colleagues. Do not be so cruel to our most vulnerable
citizens, to our children, and to our veterans. Vote down this bill.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit two articles into
the Congressional
[[Page H5718]]
Record. The first is an op-ed that I wrote about the importance of
federal nutrition assistance that was published in the St. Paul Pioneer
Press. The second is a powerful story published in the Star Tribune and
written by Sue Bulger, a Minnesotan, whose family uses SNAP benefits.
As Members of Congress, we cannot ignore the harm enacting the
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act (H.R. 3102) will have on
millions of our fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this bill and instead come together to craft a bill that strengthens
SNAP and ends hunger in America.
Congress Must Help Eliminate Hunger
(By Betty McCollum)
For too many Minnesotans, a steady job no longer provides
the guarantee of being able to always afford food for their
family. One out of five children in the United States,
including thousands in Minnesota, lives in a household
struggling to put enough food on the table.
As many families continue to work toward recovery from one
of the worst economic recessions, Congress must commit itself
to helping struggling families make ends meet and providing a
brighter, healthier future for their children.
The Supplemental Nutrition Access Program makes it possible
for more than 45 million low-income families, people with
disabilities and seniors to avoid hunger when times are
tough. Simply put, SNAP helps our most vulnerable neighbors
feed their children and themselves when they would otherwise
run out of food before the next payday.
Working to eliminate hunger should be a bipartisan goal,
but House Republicans have put SNAP on the fiscal chopping
block. In July, Republicans tried to eliminate nutrition
benefits for nearly 2 million Americans, including more than
30,000 Minnesotans, by cutting $20.5 billion from SNAP. That
harmful attack failed to pass the House. Instead of finding a
bipartisan solution to fight hunger, Republicans have decided
to double down on increasing hunger.
On Monday, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-
Okla.) put forward a bill to cut an estimated $39 billion
from SNAP over the next decade. This latest Republican attack
could eliminate benefits for as many as 3.8 million Americans
and force many more struggling families to stretch their
limited budgets even further. It would also cut funding for
SNAP Nutrition Education, which supports nutrition education
and teaches healthy food choices.
SNAP Ed programs help Minnesotans stretch an average daily
food budget of less than $4 to buy and prepare healthy meals.
Hands-on cooking classes and interactive grocery store tours
are offered to help individuals make smart, beneficial
decisions. With less money to spend on groceries each month,
the necessity of nutrition education becomes even more real.
Last month, I attended a Cooking Matters nutrition
education class in St. Paul sponsored by University of
Minnesota Extension and Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry
campaign. Since 2011, more than 1,600 Minnesota families have
been empowered with the skills, knowledge and confidence to
prepare nutritious, affordable meals. These extension classes
are critical to ensure that households can continue putting
healthy food on the table for their children. Studies
demonstrate that children who get enough of the healthy food
they need grow up facing fewer health problems, perform
better in school, lead more productive lives and are less
likely to struggle with hunger as adults. Nutrition education
programs like Cooking Matters are essential to helping
families gain the skills they need.
These GOP cuts will do nothing except increase hunger and
poverty across America. Throughout the summer, I heard from
faith leaders, community advocates, government officials and
other Minnesotans deeply concerned by the Republican efforts
to eliminate SNAP for struggling Americans. The local focus
is on ending hunger. As Patricia Lull, executive director of
the St. Paul Area Council of Churches, put it, ``No more
hungry neighbors!''
SNAP is the most powerful and effective anti-hunger program
for children that exists. To reduce childhood hunger in
Minnesota and across America, we must continue to invest in
SNAP and nutrition education services.
The Republican plan will deny nutrition assistance to
millions of Americans and cruelly increase hunger. Congress
needs to defeat this cruel and immoral proposal. To keep all
our families healthy, strong and hunger-free it is critical
that Congress fully fund SNAP, not cut it.
____
Shamed in Edina for Using Food Stamps
(By Sue Bulger)
To the irritated lady at the Cub Foods, I should have told
you to your face that you were being presumptuous.
This is an apology to the lady behind me in line at Cub
Foods in Edina on a recent Sunday night. This is also a
reminder to me and to others who have ever slipped into
believing that we are just a little better than others we
encounter.
We were at the checkout, and just as the cashier started
ringing me up, I saw you come to the line with a small order
in your basket. My first apology is that I could not let you
go ahead of me, but the checkout process had already begun.
My second apology was for pulling out my pile of discount
coupons for the order, and especially when one required the
manager's assistance. I know I was holding you up.
And then I swiped my payment method and you lost your
patience. It was EBT--``food stamps.''
I did not observe you, but my daughter was with me packing
the groceries and saw it all: ``EBT: Yeah, right,'' you
muttered, with that look of disgust that would have shattered
someone feeling just a little bit of shame over needing food
stamps.
As we walked to the car, my daughter told me what had
happened, and I sensed her resolve about having made the
right decision to work for social justice as she starts her
senior year in a social-work program.
We talked about you all the way to the car, and about how
sorry we felt for people who were judged because they
depended on support from others. But my real apology is that
I did not make eye contact with you and get out of the car to
talk with you as you got into your car right next to mine.
Instead, I did what many people would do: I felt ashamed
and humiliated and angry about your ignorance.
If I'd had the guts to talk with you, I would have told you
about my disabled 28-year-old son living with us. We have
never asked for public support for him.
But recently we have decided that it is our responsibility
to introduce him to the programs that will have to support
him when we are no longer here to care for him. We started
small: He is eligible for food support, and he agreed to
receive it to be able to feel that he is contributing his
share to the food bill, since he is unable to work.
I know we looked like people you might think need EBT: a
bit unkempt in sweatpants and T-shirts. If I'd had the guts
to talk to you, I would have told you that I'd just had an
emergency surgery and that my daughter came home from college
five hours away to help for the weekend because my husband
had scheduled surgery two days after mine. I haven't been
able to put on real clothes yet, and I can't lift a bag of
groceries.
I thought I could handle your disdain, since I am a
professional working at a local corporation where I am
surrounded every day by people who respect me and care about
me. But it still made me feel a little dirty--unworthy--and I
still went home and cried in the privacy of my shower so my
family would not know I was hurt by you.
I am sorry I did not tell you all of this in person. What
my daughter and I resolved is that we will never let my son
(her brother) go to the store alone with his Electronic
Benefits Transfer card and be subjected to this humiliation.
We all have our stories, and no one is any better than
another. Everyone deserves the respect they want for
themselves, even if they use an EBT card to pay for their
groceries.
Sue Bulger lives in Minneapolis.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concern
about H.R. 3102: the so called ``Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity
Act of 2013''. At a time when so many Americans are still struggling to
recover from one of the greatest periods of economic downturn in our
history, it is an outrage to me that Congress would once again seek to
cut vital food assistance programs.
These are programs that ensure our children, our parents and
grandparents, and America's working families get basic nutritional aide
when they've fallen on hard times. And the timing couldn't be worse.
Just last year, as a result of the short sighted budget cuts known as
sequestration, many of our seniors were already hit hard by cuts to
programs like Meals on Wheels. Some estimates put those cuts as high as
19 million fewer meals each year. And now Congress wants to cut food
stamps for millions of Americans?
Let me be clear, food stamps are critical to the health and wellbeing
of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. In New Jersey's 8th
District, nearly thirty eight thousand (38,000) households rely on this
benefit to feed their families. Statewide, 45 percent of recipients are
children and nearly 25 percent are either elderly or disabled adults.
I understand the need to bring our budget under control, but I
encourage my colleagues to find a smarter path forward. Let us not
balance the budget on the backs of those among us who are the most
vulnerable.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the draconian
cuts in the SNAP program being proposed by H.R. 3102. This bill would
cut $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and
deny many vulnerable people the opportunity to feed themselves and
their families. SNAP has already been reduced to dangerous levels and
if this bill becomes law, 3.8 million people will no longer be able to
receive this help by 2014. This is in addition to the drop in benefits
that will occur when the provisions of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act expire at the end of October. This bill unnecessarily
targets state and territorial governments struggling with high
unemployment and ex-offenders trying to turn their lives around.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on misconceptions about the SNAP
Program. These
[[Page H5719]]
misconceptions have led some of my colleagues to believe that SNAP is
out of control, or that it needs reasonable work requirements or that
there are loopholes that allow people who don't need it, to get it.
This is far from the truth. SNAP is not out of control, it is now
being used by the many households that slid from the middle class into
poverty during the Great Recession. The number of eligible households
have increased and the urgent caseload has been expanded. In my
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands there are over 9,000 households who
receive this vital assistance monthly. Twenty-one million participate
across the country. We cannot and should not leave these people behind.
This bill also wants to take SNAP assistance away from those who get
LIHEAP assistance, and for my district, which has some of the highest
energy costs in the country, it would be catastrophic for those
families who are already struggling to keep the lights on.
There are already work requirements for childless unemployed adults
who can only receive SNAP for three months every three years unless
they are working 20 hours per week or more. This bill wants to remove
the ability of Governors to waiver these requirements when their states
and territories have high unemployment. I can tell you as the
representative of a territory whose unemployment has skyrocketed due to
a plant closure, through no fault of the workers who are left behind
and must now utilize food stamps even though they prefer to work, this
would be catastrophic and leave many people without resources.
Loopholes can and should be addressed, but not at the expense of
those who are vulnerable, like children who need the free school meals,
that are sometimes their only real meal of the day. I took the food
stamp challenge, and believe me, it is barebones, no luxuries there,
only sustenance for those who need it most.
Mr. Speaker, Hungry people in America did not create the Great
Recession or the financial downturn or the wars that have drained our
treasury. They should not have to pay with hunger or a lack of a life
line.
I urge my colleagues to oppose these cuts to this vital food program.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to oppose the
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act (H.R. 3102) to cut SNAP
funding by $40 billion over the next ten years.
H.R. 3102 denies SNAP to millions of poor, jobless adults without
children whose incomes average only about one-fifth of the poverty
line--and ends benefits for entire families if a parent is not working
at least 20 hours per week. States will cut off families without
considering high unemployment or care for small children to receive
rewards promised in the bill.
The need for food assistance has increased dramatically during our
nation's economic slump. Texas's rate for food insecurity is 27.6%--
more than one in four Texas children is food insecure. As of the 2011
Census, over 42,000 residents of the 29th District receive SNAP
benefits.
The impacts to Texas would be devastating, including 171,000 people
immediately off of SNAP and the elimination of almost 500 million meals
from hungry Texans.
Meeting the need for food assistance is especially critical for our
most vulnerable citizens--pregnant and nursing women, infants,
children, and seniors for whom the consequences of hunger and poor
nutrition are the most severe. It is critical that we maintain support
for the charitable food system and funding for SNAP.
I have been a strong supporter of SNAP in Congress to help those who
are food insecure during their time of need. Our office works closely
with the Houston Food Bank, the largest in the Country, and the Texas
Food Bank Network to help end hunger in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GALLEGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed in its current form.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gallego moves to recommit the bill (H. 3102) to the
Committee on Agriculture, with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of title I of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 142. PROTECTING VETERANS, SENIORS, PREGNANT WOMEN, AND
CHILDREN FROM HUNGER.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, or the amendments
made by this Act, shall result in a delay in issuing or
providing benefits otherwise provided or available to a
veteran, elderly or disabled member, pregnant woman, or minor
child in the case of a Government shutdown or default.
(b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the
definitions of ``elderly or disabled members'' and
``benefit'' shall have the respective meanings as defined in
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012).
Mr. LUCAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes on his motion to recommit.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, Members, we all know the rule that this
motion doesn't kill the bill or send it back to committee. It just adds
an amendment before proceeding to final passage.
There's a lot of confusion even here as the debate goes back and
forth about whether or not veterans or kids are or are not included.
There is a lot of apprehension around and across the country about the
sequester and the budget and the government shutdown and how that
impacts many, many different services.
Because SNAP is a hybrid program, part automatic and part not, the
benefits that it provides are in jeopardy. So regardless of whether or
not SNAP and the cuts here today affect kids or veterans, this is a
safety net.
This motion to recommit simply says that there will be no delay in
benefits for kids, for the elderly, for the disabled, or for pregnant
women in case of a government shutdown or a default.
{time} 1730
Much has been made of this huge philosophical divide in this Chamber,
but the truth is that there is a lot of consensus, too, a lot of
commonality. All of us--all of us--want efficient government. We all
love our kids. We're all taught to respect our elders, and we are all
grateful for the services of our veterans.
And yet, in typical Congressional fashion, this bill decimates an
efficient program that's not even broken. It has only a 3 percent error
rate, a very low error rate. Ninety-seven percent of SNAP beneficiaries
get SNAP because they need it. Ninety-one percent of SNAP benefits go
to households below the poverty level. That's $11,000 for an individual
or $19,000 for a family of three people.
I want to particularly focus that 82 percent of the households
receiving SNAP have kids or elderly. 210,000 kids will lose their
school lunch, and for many, it's the only good and reliable meal that
they have. As a parent of a young son, I bet I know some of those kids.
And you know what? I bet you know some of those kids, too.
The nonprofit group Feed Our Vets says that there are many vets who
already don't have enough to eat, and yet 170,000 veterans have their
SNAP benefits impacted under this legislation.
We can have that fundamental philosophical divide about the budget or
about the debt or about many things, but we should all agree that we
should take care of our kids. And we can all agree that we owe an
obligation to our veterans.
Already, in November, without any action by this Congress, SNAP will
automatically lose its ARRA funding. The average beneficiary gets $133
a month. That's about $1.40, a little under, per meal. Try eating for
$1.40 a meal or $133 per month.
San Antonio's food bank already serves 58,000 people per week.
Imagine how many they'll serve if this bill goes into effect.
And speaking of San Antonio, there's a young lady there, a working
mother of three kids. Her name is Delaney. She works full-time at a
doctor's office. That's 40 hours a week. She raises three young boys,
one the age of my own son.
Delaney said to me, I'm trying my best. I'm working hard. She'd like
to
[[Page H5720]]
get a second job, but there'd be nobody at home to take care of the
kids.
SNAP isn't a luxury for her, by any means--it's a necessity. The
family relies on that, especially towards the end of the month when
their budget is tight, to help them put food on the table.
If we can make the program more efficient, let's look at that; but
this bill cuts $40 billion without public testimony, without public
hearings, without investigation, without input. Somebody just decided
that $40 billion needed to be cut. It is not a well-reasoned or a
reasonable approach. Our veterans deserve more than that. Our kids
deserve better than that.
Regardless of what happens on the debt ceiling or the government
shutdown, let's not make our kids and our veterans casualties of a
prolonged conversation. Let's be sure that there is no delay in SNAP
benefits for kids, for veterans, for the elderly, for the disabled, or
for pregnant women in the event of a government shutdown or default.
I'd ask all of you, because this is simply a safety net, to please
vote ``yes'' on this motion, because all it says is, in the event of a
government shutdown, these people--the veterans, the kids, the elderly,
and the disabled--will be protected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma wish to
withdraw his reservation on the point of order?
Mr. LUCAS. I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side can say the
same thing over and over again, but it does not make it true. This
motion does nothing.
Food stamps are not affected by a government shutdown. No one--not a
struggling mother, not a child, a veteran, or any person in need--will
be denied benefits if they meet the program's current law and
eligibility requirements.
All this bill does is ask them, just as we did in a bipartisan way in
1996, to prepare for work or participate in their communities in
exchange for services.
But those much-lauded welfare reforms of 1996 have been thrown aside
without the input of this Congress for years and has undermined the
well-being of families participating in this program.
Work has been proven to be a beneficial part of the physical and
mental health of every individual. It raises their family income and
improves the outcomes of their children.
Why do the opponents of this bill want to undermine this successful
strategy for reducing hunger in America by increasing workforce
participation and increasing incomes of American families?
I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful motion and support the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 3102, if ordered, and approval of the
Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 230, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 475]
YEAS--193
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--230
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Braley (IA)
Cleaver
Davis, Danny
Engel
Herrera Beutler
Johnson (GA)
McCarthy (NY)
Polis
Rush
{time} 1759
Messrs. REED, COBLE, ROONEY, MARCHANT, STIVERS, ROGERS of
[[Page H5721]]
Alabama, and HUNTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WELCH, CAPUANO, SHERMAN, HOYER, and Mrs. CAPPS changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 475, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 210, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 476]
YEAS--217
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boehner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--210
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--6
Davis, Danny
Engel
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Polis
Rush
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1807
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________