[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 59 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3196-H3204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FARM BILL AND NUTRITION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the 
opportunity to be here tonight to join with my colleagues for this 
Special Order.
  Over the past 3 years, the House Agriculture Committee has been 
diligently working on the next farm bill, which sets agriculture and 
food policy for our Nation every 5 years.
  As chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, I am 
pleased that we can discuss this important topic tonight, nutrition, 
and I want to thank Chairman Conaway for his great leadership and 
commitment putting forward the best farm bill possible.
  Tonight, we are here to talk about the nutrition title, specifically 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which we used 
to call food stamps. SNAP accounts for 80 percent of spending in the 
farm bill, and it is an important safety net for low-income families to 
help ensure that no one in America goes hungry when times get tough. 
Far too many Americans are living in poverty, and many have been for a 
generation.
  There is no worse feeling for a parent than to see their child go 
without something as basic as food, yet food insecurity exists for so 
many. That is why, since 2015, the Nutrition Subcommittee has hosted 21 
hearings on SNAP. It has heard from more than 80 witnesses on how we 
can improve the program and work to end hunger in America.
  In fiscal year 2017, SNAP provided 42.2 million Americans with food 
benefits at a cost of $63.7 billion. That is nearly 21 million 
households, Mr. Speaker.
  In my district, Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, nearly 
35,000 households received SNAP benefits for fiscal year 2015. Thirty 
percent of those homes have one or more people over the age of 60, and 
nearly half, 45.9 percent, of those homes have children who are under 
the age of 18.
  What this farm bill does is ensure that SNAP benefits continue to be 
available for those who truly need the help, especially children, 
seniors age 60 and older, and the disabled, who represent nearly two-
thirds of the program's participants.
  Unfortunately, though, many Americans may not have the skills 
necessary to find a family-sustaining job or may have encountered 
roadblocks while trying to get ahead. This new farm bill makes a 
historic investment in work programs so SNAP recipients have a

[[Page H3197]]

chance to learn new skills and climb the rungs on the ladder of 
opportunity.
  Now, this investment will equip States with resources to arm 
participants with the soft skills--job search skills, certifications, 
and education--needed to succeed in today's economy, truly, on-ramps to 
opportunity.
  Now we have a unique opportunity to expand funding and resources for 
these life-changing programs by closing loopholes and improving 
opportunities for individuals who have been marginalized by a lack of 
employment, education, or, quite frankly, life circumstances. By doing 
this, SNAP can provide immediate food assistance in the short term, 
while also helping those in need learn skills to help them permanently 
escape poverty.
  Now, let me be clear. We are not removing anyone from receiving the 
SNAP benefits. What we are doing is providing the tools necessary to 
help individuals escape the cycle of poverty. I believe that there are 
many pathways to success in life, and sometimes we do need that 
critical safety net to take care of our families and help us get back 
on our feet.

  With a rebounding economy and an increased focus on workforce 
development, I know we are going to be able to open new economic doors 
for many, because all Americans deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
allowing me to speak this evening.
  Today, we introduced H.R. 2, which is the Agricultural Nutrition Act 
of 2018. H.R. 1 was the tax bill, and so leadership, the Speaker in 
particular, believed that this issue is important enough that he gave 
us that rare opportunity to have a single-digit bill number.
  My colleagues will join us tonight at the microphone and we will talk 
about more of the details, but 3 years ago we began this quest to 
reform SNAP. We wanted to start with basically as blank a sheet of 
paper as we could get. We didn't want to be constrained by spending or 
resources. We just wanted to find the best policy we could possibly get 
to so it would let us know our guideposts.
  We did that. We had it scored. It comes in at a budget-neutral 
position, which is what our commitment to the broader conference was, 
and accomplished that on not only SNAP, but also with the rest of the 
title as well.
  We did six listening sessions around the country this past year. 
Three-hundred-plus good citizens stepped to the microphone to speak to 
Members of Congress about what was on their heart, what was working 
with the farm bill, all aspects of it. I specifically remember a young 
woman who stood at the microphone, incredibly brave young lady, who 
said: I am the reason that SNAP needs to stay in place.
  She said: I was 18 years old, a single mother of a 3-year-old, and I 
didn't like my future, and I wanted to go to college.
  And SNAP and the other benefits that were available, her hard work, 
her sweat equity, but, yes, our helping hand up allowed her to get a 
college education.
  She became an educator. She then got an advanced degree and is now in 
administration. She said for her and her daughter, public assistance is 
now defined by what they do for other folks as opposed to what gets 
done for them.
  That is the success we want to drive. That is how we want to measure 
SNAP and all of our programs as against a yardstick that says we want 
to give folks a helping hand up. We want folks to break that cycle of 
poverty.
  I believe that the good policies we put in place with the SNAP 
program that were released today, as people begin to understand what we 
are doing and begin to understand a bunch of the misinformation that 
has been in the public arena over the last several weeks about what we 
were trying to do, that that will dissipate and our colleagues across 
both sides of the aisle will see the wisdom of what we are going to do 
with respect to SNAP.
  I am proud of the work that we have done. I am particularly proud of 
G.T. Thompson's leadership the last year on our Nutrition Subcommittee. 
He has done incredibly good work, and I am looking forward to him and 
my other colleagues continuing this process.
  The bill we introduced today is a work in progress, and it is not 
what will get to the President's desk; but we are excited about the 
process of marking it up in committee, coming to this House floor, 
having those fulsome conversations with our colleagues about what is 
working, what is not working, and then getting this to the President's 
desk once the Senate does their work.
  So a great step forward for the Agriculture Committee today. I am 
proud of the work we have done and look forward to working with my 
colleagues to get this even further along the path.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his leadership and for leading what has been one of the most 
transparent processes. The amount of hearings that we have had, over 20 
hearings just on nutrition, 80 witnesses--a job well done.
  You know, there is a saying that we have always heard. What is it? 
The doctor knows best. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Marshall), another member of the Agriculture Committee, a 
physician, who really understands health and healthy nutrition.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding to me today to speak on one of my favorite topics.
  Perhaps I look at the importance of SNAP through a different set of 
lenses than some of my peers who sit among me. I spent nearly the last 
30 years as a physician counseling and advising expecting moms.
  Starting a family is a special and scary time for many of my 
patients. Almost all of them would come to me with a list of questions 
and problems. And despite the variety of their concerns, many could be 
solved with proper and improved nutrition.
  SNAP assisted many of my patients in providing nutrient-dense foods 
for my mothers and children. The importance of nutrition in the weeks 
prior to conception, during pregnancy, while breastfeeding, and within 
the early years of infancy can never be overestimated.
  In the United States, one in eight people identify as being food 
insecure. To put that into perspective, of the 5,000 babies I 
delivered, 625 of them are food insecure today. The thought of this, 
alone, weighs on our hearts and makes them heavy, and that is why I am 
so proud of this farm bill's nutrition component and why we worked so 
hard to get it right.
  Our farm bill increases nutrition education, incentivizes our SNAP 
recipients to make healthier choices, and increases access to 
nutritious foods.
  And for those people who live in our Nation's food deserts with 
limited access to grocery stores, we thought about you, too. We have to 
incentivize retailers to want to invest in these underserved 
communities. That is why we have extended and improved the Healthy Food 
Financing Initiative that gives grants to retailers to open businesses 
in areas that lack the access to healthy foods.

  So I ask you today: How could anyone vote against a bill that looks 
at the food insecurity problem in this country from so many angles 
through the eyes of so many people?
  We all know that food is health and that, truly, we are what we do 
eat. This bill will help all Americans become more healthy and to stay 
more healthy, and that is why I am so proud to support this bill and 
look forward to its passage, getting it on through the Senate and on to 
our President to sign.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
being part of this Special Order.
  All of the hearings that we had were bipartisan, great bipartisan 
input into the hearings, and there is nothing in the nutrition title 
that really hasn't come out as a part of those hearings.
  In fact, I know my colleagues, my friends across the aisle, our 
Democratic members of the committee I have been so honored to work with 
and be a part of these hearings, they submitted specific priorities for 
the nutrition title under title IV, and I am proud to say that all 
those priorities are included within this farm bill.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), a friend 
of mine, who is also part of our leadership with the Agriculture 
Committee, a subcommittee chairman, from the First District of 
Arkansas.

[[Page H3198]]

  

  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for doing such a great job on this. I know he has worked 
really, really hard on it.
  We have talked about the number of committee hearings that have been 
dedicated to just nutrition. That is because the nutrition title of the 
farm bill accounts for about 80 percent of the total authorization. So 
it is really important that we get it right.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express support for the Agriculture and 
Nutrition Act, specifically, the improvements that we are making here 
in the critical nutrition title under the leadership of my friend Mr. 
Thompson, who has done a fantastic job.
  Currently, there is a loophole related to heating and cooling 
allowances that is often used to artificially increase SNAP benefits. 
States are given the flexibility under the previous iteration of the 
SNAP program to use the standard utility allowances for heating and 
cooling to ease SNAP administration.
  Households automatically qualify for the SUA if they receive Low 
Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, it is called the LIHEAP 
program, payments, if they receive payments from that program. States, 
in order to increase SNAP benefits, provide LIHEAP payments of just 
greater than a $20 minimum threshold, allowing households to qualify 
for the SUA, thus increasing the SNAP benefits the household receives, 
even though the household may not have actual heating and cooling 
expenses.
  Our bill requires demonstrated heating or cooling expenses in order 
to receive a standard allowance for such expenses. We basically removed 
the automatic availability of the SUA for heating and cooling and ask 
that households demonstrate actual utility costs to receive the State-
determined SUA.
  Note that we exempt the elderly from that requirement of 
documentation, so we will make sure that people understand that they 
are not being adversely impacted.
  My home State of Arkansas is already demonstrating how to implement 
this practice. In our State, we currently require folks who want to be 
a part of this program--and, by extension, eligible for SNAP--to 
demonstrate that they, in fact, have utility bill expenses.
  This reform will take what my State is doing and implement it across 
the entire Nation and ensure that SNAP's initial purpose of helping 
those who need this program the most is being achieved.

                              {time}  1815

  Much of the frustration of my constituents, and many folks across the 
country, has been about the explosion of enrollees in programs who, 
quite frankly, don't need the benefits in the first place and are 
deemed eligible through an administrative shortcut.
  It is my hope that more States will see this the same way that my 
home State of Arkansas does and realize that Federal resources are not 
infinite and being responsible stewards of this program serves those 
who need the serving the most. If we enact this reform, they will 
always be taken care of.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman again for his steadfast 
leadership and his diligence in all of the hearings that we have had 
over the last 4 years.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
being a part of this important Special Order tonight, because nutrition 
matters and farmers feed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to a gentleman from another part 
of our Agriculture Committee leadership from the State of Illinois. He 
is the chairman of the Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research 
Subcommittee.
  He actually did a great job yesterday convening a briefing where he 
brought in 4-H leaders from all over the country to share their 
experiences as a part of that great organization.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney 
Davis) from the 13th Congressional District.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and all of the colleagues that I see on 
this floor who are part of the Agriculture Committee team--and we are a 
team.
  We are a team that I got to watch work 4 years ago together to pass a 
bill that the Congressional Budget Office said was only going to save 
taxpayers $23 billion in mandatory spending. As a matter of fact, that 
was the largest, single spending cut that was projected in my entire 
freshman term.
  Well, they came back over the recent weeks and told us that they were 
wrong. Those savings have actually been $111 billion in mandatory 
spending. This is why good policies matter. The bill that we introduced 
today is an example of good policies that save taxpayer dollars, but, 
just as importantly, it helps American families who are trapped in a 
cycle of poverty.
  They have suffered from food insecurity and depend on SNAP to feed 
themselves and their families; and some of these men and women are 
capable of working, but they lack the access to adequate skills 
training to obtain a job that provides meaningful income and a chance 
to improve their family's future.
  We want to change that. Just like we wrote good policy 4 years ago, 
we have written good policy again because we are going to change that 
by shifting the antipoverty conversation from one purely focused on 
benefits to one focused on helping someone climb the economic ladder 
and developing a strong workforce.
  We have created a streamlined, simplified work requirement, paired 
with meaningful investments in workforce training. This farm bill 
requires and funds sufficient education and training slots, 
guaranteeing access to all SNAP participants subject to being able to 
work.
  We have modernized the components of SNAP employment, education, and 
training to include assessment and case management, include additional 
options like supervised job search apprenticeships, time-limited 
volunteer work, subsidized employment, and financial history.
  Last week, Caterpillar, in Decatur, Illinois, hosted an event to 
recruit more welders and machinists. They have jobs available, but not 
enough people are trained to fill these skilled jobs.
  I visited the Bridgestone tire plant in Bloomington, Illinois, last 
week, and I heard the same thing. Jobs are available, but there is no 
one to take them.
  Our economy is growing; jobs are growing. We must do more to get 
people the education and training that they need to take these 
available, skilled jobs and help themselves and help their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his leadership and for joining us here this evening.
  One of the things I really love about the Agriculture Committee is, 
quite frankly, what we do. Everyone eats, nutrition matters, and our 
Agriculture Committee is represented by Members from all over the 
country, including Tennessee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. DesJarlais), another member of the Agriculture Committee from 
Tennessee's Fourth Congressional District.
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Thompson. We really 
do appreciate his leadership on this issue and his passion. He spent so 
much time and effort to get this right, and it is really rare in this 
country where you can get so many people to come together--especially 
in these times--and agree on one thing.
  But when it comes to work-capable people between age 18 and 59 
contributing to the workforce, about 80 percent of Americans agree on 
this. This is across the aisle. This is Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents. It is hard to get people to agree on anything, but this 
is just such a commonsense, humane thing to do.
  I don't fully understand who the 2 in 10 are who would disagree with 
this. Maybe they are people who are not working who are able-bodied. 
But at any rate, this is something that is designed to help lift people 
from poverty, break the cycle of debt, and get people to work and feel 
good about themselves.
  I would urge everyone listening to call their Representatives and 
their Senators and urge them to support this farm bill because it is 
well thought out. The time is right. The jobless claims are down in 
this country, yet there are people all over our districts

[[Page H3199]]

who are clamoring to us about the lack of skilled workers.
  All throughout Tennessee's Fourth District, there are people asking 
me: How do we get people to come and work? And here is a solution that 
we have people who can go out and get good-paying jobs, break the 
cycle. They are able to work. They are capable of working, but for some 
reason just haven't reentered the workforce. And, frankly, our 
government has made it too easy for people not to work. They have made 
it too comfortable. We have been bad parents.

  It is time to do the right thing. We all need to contribute to this 
country. We have record debts, and getting people back to work is the 
answer.
  But when you hear folks who are opposed to work requirements for 
people who are able-bodied, I just would ask you to ask them why. It 
does not help their self-esteem. It does not help their country. It 
does not help their families. And what we are offering here is an 
opportunity to work 20 hours a week. If you are still in need of 
assistance, you will get it. If you don't have the proper training, 
this will allow you to get training. We are making this mandatory.
  So either you are going to become a part of the workforce, you are 
going to be trained to become part of the workforce, or you are simply 
going to choose not to work; and, in that case, you might lose your 
food stamps benefits. But that is the whole point of this, is to help 
people make the right decision, make good choices; and, again, 80 
percent of the country agrees with this across the aisle. So there 
should be no real controversy on this. There should be no reason that 
people don't want to support this bill.
  It is the right thing to do. It is the right time. There are jobs 
available. It is just simply a matter of people breaking that cycle, 
getting out, contributing, and feeling good about themselves again. I 
really can't understand why we have opposition to this great piece of 
work that was put together. It is great that it is coming in the form 
of the farm bill.
  I stand in strong support of this and am grateful for the gentleman's 
work and the work of so many on the committee, and the Members, and the 
staff to help get people in the right place, back to work, and still 
protecting and preserving the safety-net program that is vital for so 
many people.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
being a part of the Agriculture Committee and thank him for his great 
work on behalf of the folks in Tennessee.
  As the gentleman from Tennessee was saying, what we are talking about 
is, part of the nutrition title is really looking at making 
improvements to it. We are not really doing anything to people. We want 
to do things for people. And, quite frankly, for 65 percent of the 
folks who find themselves in a situation where they are on the SNAP 
program, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, I don't want to 
say nothing is going to change, but it is just going to get better. We 
are going to get them greater access to healthy foods.
  Those are the 65 percent of the folks who are under the age of 18 or 
over the age of 65, or living with a disability. And so for the 35 
percent that find themselves on this program--usually for temporary 
times--it is because of financial situations. And that is their number 
one need. They are unemployed, underemployed. Maybe they have been 
living in poverty for generations.
  And, yes, we want to provide that safety net for food, but we want to 
provide them actually an onramp to opportunity as the gentleman talked 
about.
  We don't force anybody to do anything. If you are able-bodied and you 
fall within that category, that age of 18 to 59--and I guess if you 
don't want to take access, take the opportunity for that job training, 
then you can self-select out of the SNAP program. But why would you 
want to do that?
  What we are investing in, education and training, we are actually 
guaranteeing a training slot in every State. We are providing the 
support to the States to be able to do that, to provide--most 
importantly, I think--case management.
  Because case management--the gentleman is a physician as well. I am a 
rehab therapist and a former manager in rural hospitals, and case 
management plays an important role helping lead people through the 
process when they have a time of need. And that is what this bill does.
  So from Tennessee to New York, I am really pleased to yield to 
another member of the Agriculture Committee, representing New York's 
19th Congressional District.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso). I 
thank the gentleman for being a part of the discussion tonight.
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank G.T. Thompson, my colleague 
from Pennsylvania, our subcommittee chairman on the Nutrition 
Subcommittee for his leadership.
  G.T. Thompson deeply feels about the condition that people have who 
may be living in poverty, who may be suffering from food insecurity for 
themselves and their family. And I say to Chairman Thompson that it has 
been a pleasure to serve for the last 15 months under his leadership on 
the Nutrition Subcommittee.
  The reforms that we are seeking to implement in H.R. 2 in the SNAP 
program, in this 2018 farm bill, are truly intended to assist people 
out of dependency and into employment.
  I have heard from so many employers throughout my district in the 
Catskills and Hudson Valley and in central New York that they have jobs 
available, but they simply can't find qualified people to meet those 
jobs and to fulfill those responsibilities.
  In fact, this morning in the Budget Committee, we had the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office before us, and one of the topics that 
was raised was the fact that there are very low workforce participation 
rates among able-bodied people between 18 and 65 in our Nation. And 
this is part of the problem that we have a workforce participation rate 
nationally of approximately 63 percent.
  In a number of the counties that I represent in the 19th 
Congressional District in New York State, that workforce participation 
rate for able-bodied, employable people between 18 and 65 hovers at 60 
percent or slightly below 60 percent. There are plenty of jobs that are 
there, but, unfortunately, people do not have the skills, the training, 
sometimes the work ethic, and the notion of what it means to get up and 
go to work every day and meet the need of that employer and customers 
of that employer.

  So this is a real serious issue in our country. If we are going to 
deal with the looming fiscal crisis that we have for mandatory spending 
programs like Social Security and Medicare, for instance, we need to 
get more people in the workforce. We need to create more opportunities 
to give people a hand-up, and not simply a handout.
  Now, one of the things that is truly important about this SNAP reform 
that Chairman Thompson and Chairman Conaway are leading the way in H.R. 
2 on, in this 2018 farm bill, is that we are going to make it easier 
for people who are on the SNAP program to qualify for the program 
without having every nickel of any asset that they possibly have to 
count against their qualification.
  So, for instance, this legislation will allow a family on SNAP to 
have a savings account of up to $2,000 without that counting against 
the asset test. Today, that simply isn't the case. So a family that 
might need money for fixing their car, or having their kids go to the 
orthodontist or the dentist, or some other kind of family emergency--to 
buy a washing machine, for instance--they are not even allowed under 
SNAP's asset test rules to have a $2,000 savings account. That is 
wrong, and it is simply an outmoded notion that we have precluded that.
  The other thing that I think is very interesting in this proposal, in 
this reform proposal, is that we are going to raise the asset test on 
the value of an automobile from about $4,650 to $12,000. I represent a 
rural part of upstate New York. My district is larger than the State of 
Connecticut. Many times people have to drive 40, 50 miles one way to 
get to a job.
  Well, we can't expect someone who is struggling with difficult 
economic circumstances for them or their family to be able to qualify 
for SNAP and have an asset of a vehicle--which they need

[[Page H3200]]

desperately to get to work every day--we can't have that asset limited 
to a $4,600 vehicle.

                              {time}  1830

  So this legislation which Chairman Thompson and Chairman Conaway are 
spearheading would raise that vehicle asset test up to $12,000. So 
these are logical, rational things. That asset test has been at $4,650 
for many decades now. So these are the kinds of commonsense reforms 
that are contained within this proposal that I hope that our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle will pay heed to and carefully study 
because we welcome their input in this.
  But we also know that the American people are demanding that we have 
reform in these programs and that we encourage and we really bring the 
job opportunities and the job training counseling to people who are 
dependent. There are over 3 million people in the SNAP program today 
who are able-bodied adults, who are capable of working, between 18 and 
59, who have no children at home. We know that, in today's economy, 
many, many parents and many Americans go into the workforce with minor 
children at home. They are out there working. They are out there 
pitching in trying to improve the lot for themselves and their 
families. There is absolutely no reason why an able-bodied adult with 
no children whatsoever should not be in a work program and should not 
be required to participate in a State-sanctioned, State-supervised 
employment counseling and training program.
  So these are the things that we are trying to do: increase 
opportunity, obviously reduce fraud and people who might be benefiting 
from the program who might be working off the books somewhere but still 
qualifying for benefits. But that is not the main impetus here. The 
main impetus is: How are we going to create more opportunity for people 
who need a hand-up in the economic ladder?
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Thompson so much for leading 
the way on this. We had numerous hearings and listening sessions, 
including one in my district in Schoharie County at SUNY Cobleskill. 
The overwhelming consensus in dealing with the Food Stamp program or 
SNAP program is that we need to keep it, we need to make sure that 
people who are on it and who are able to work have the opportunities 
and are certainly encouraged to move into the workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article which I wrote in the 
Albany Times Union which appeared on April 9, 2018, about the SNAP 
reform and the need to include healthy measures for food but also 
enhanced work requirements.

              [From the Albany Times Union, Apr. 9, 2018]

             SNAP Must Include Work, Healthy Food Mandates

                          (By Rep. John Faso)

       With over 42 million Americans--and over 2.8 million New 
     Yorkers--receiving critical nutrition assistance, it is a 
     self-evident fact that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP) helps people in meaningful ways. SNAP reduces 
     hunger in low income households, and when it provides 
     benefits to families with children, it has been shown to 
     improve health outcomes for those children.
       Like any program of this size, SNAP is not without flaws. 
     The program insufficiently promotes self-sufficiency; too 
     many recipients could be working, but are not.
       There continues to be too much fraud and abuse in the 
     program, and the program also needs to be much more effective 
     in promoting proper nutrition. Congress will soon reauthorize 
     SNAP as part of the 2018 Farm Bill and now is the time to fix 
     the program.
       Let's address these issues one at a time.
       First, the program needs to better focus on encouraging and 
     helping non-working recipients find and retain employment. 
     While many receiving SNAP benefits do work--and others are 
     seniors, children or disabled, and therefore can't be 
     expected to work--a large group of those currently receiving 
     benefits are neither disabled nor employed. In 2016, there 
     were over 11 million non-disabled people aged 18 through 59 
     receiving SNAP, who aren't working.
       A purpose of benefit programs such as SNAP should be to 
     help people gain self-sufficiency. We would be more 
     successful at reducing systemic hunger and poverty if states 
     required able-bodied adults to participate actively in 
     employment and training programs that put them on a path 
     toward stable employment.
       Alternatively, if someone does not wish to participate, 
     they could actively self-select and unenroll from the 
     program. This approach was successful in increasing earnings 
     and reducing poverty in the wake of President Bill Clinton's 
     sweeping welfare reform in the 1990s, and it will work again 
     if applied to SNAP's current entitlement structure.
       Second, fraud and the improper use of benefits is still too 
     rampant in the SNAP program. Only in Washington is losing 
     roughly $650 million per year due to fraud and failures in 
     program integrity considered a ``good job'' because it is a 
     small percentage of the total amount of taxpayer money spent. 
     That is still $650 million that is not being used as 
     intended, which is to feed families.
       There must be zero tolerance when it comes to fraud and 
     abuse. Hiding income, failing to disclose assets, trafficking 
     benefits or utilizing unscrupulous food vendors are 
     activities we need to stop. Congress needs to allow state and 
     local officials who see this fraud right before their eyes to 
     pursue and penalize this activity.
       Finally, the SNAP program is not doing enough to promote 
     nutrition and reduce childhood obesity. Obesity is an issue 
     for far too many American families and childhood obesity in 
     low-income families is growing. The program's title suggests 
     that it promotes healthy and nutritious food options but does 
     nothing to limit the ability to purchase products that no one 
     will argue are part of a healthy diet. Hundreds of millions 
     of dollars' worth of SNAP benefits are spent on sugary 
     beverages, and it's past time that Washington prohibits the 
     use of SNAP benefits to purchase soda. Every dollar not spent 
     on soda can go toward a healthier alternative. While some 
     will contend we are limiting choice for the poor, tax dollars 
     should only pay to encourage healthier choices.
       At the same time, we should also fix some of the asset 
     tests for eligibility, such as allowing a recipient to have a 
     car worth over $12,000 instead of the $5,000 limit today. If 
     we expect someone to work, they need a reliable vehicle to 
     get to the job. We should also allow a recipient to have 
     savings up to $2,000, without affecting eligibility.
       Over the next decade, SNAP benefits will total more than 
     $630 billion in taxpayer dollars. We must do more to ensure 
     that we assist able-bodied recipients in joining the job 
     market, while at the same time continuing to assist those for 
     whom nutrition assistance is a necessity.
       John Faso, R-Kinderhook, represents the 19th Congressional 
     District.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, the timing is good for our approach here, isn't it? We 
have an economy where, for the first time maybe in 10, 15 years, we see 
wages rising and we see job creation. Even before this most recent 
economic surge, I guess for lack of a better word to call it, there are 
an estimated 5 million jobs that are open and available in the United 
States. These are jobs that most of them do not require a 4-year degree 
or a 6-year degree. These are jobs that require some skills-based 
education, maybe a certification, a specialization. It is kind of 
perfect with what we are looking at.
  There is some confusion that is out there. Some people are saying 
this is creating a brand new level of bureaucracy. I know for a fact 
that the people I serve with here wouldn't go for anything that is 
creating more bureaucracy. The fact is we are actually taking advantage 
of, first of all, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA. 
That is our Career Links. That is where people go today, where if they 
are unemployed or underemployed, to be able to get a job. That is where 
employers look to find qualified and trained employees. So we are going 
to be able to utilize that existing infrastructure.
  But community colleges, apprenticeships, and private companies that 
want to engage in training, there are a lot of opportunities out there 
for this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Hartzler), who is another absolute friend and leader of agriculture. 
She is a former teacher and leads our chair's Values Action Team which 
I am proud to be a part of. Representative Vicky Hartzler represents 
the Fourth Congressional District of Missouri.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much Chairman Thompson's 
leadership on this to provide just a wonderful, wonderful program to 
help people have that onramp to opportunity. I also appreciate the 
chairman's heart because I know in the meetings and the opportunities I 
have had to have conversations with the gentleman how much he cares 
about people, and he has provided that care to many people.
  This is just a wonderful package. The chairman just mentioned that 
community colleges are going to be involved in this. I just had one of 
my community colleges in my office this afternoon. We were talking 
about this very proposal. They are so excited about this because they 
were emphasizing the point that so many of my colleagues

[[Page H3201]]

here tonight have made in that the businesses and the manufacturers in 
my district and everywhere across this country cannot find enough 
skilled, able people who can fill these jobs that are out there.
  They were sharing that the salaries are really good--really good. As 
I visit with some of the manufacturers, they say a welder can start at 
$60,000 or a truck driver can start at $60,000 or $70,000. I was a 
teacher. I went into education, and I have a bachelor's degree and then 
went on to get a master's degree. When I was teaching, I never got near 
close to that. So there is so much opportunity out there. There is such 
a need.
  That is why I am excited about the plan that we have here to help 
expand the current program we have to give individuals the personalized 
training that they need to be able to connect with the job.
  It is a wonderful, wonderful opportunity. As has been said, as the 
chairman said, there are 5.9 million jobs sitting there waiting for 
individuals, yet we have people at home right now who want to fill 
them, but they just don't have those skills. So we are going to provide 
that.
  I want to share a little bit about what we have done in Missouri so 
far with this program. The SNAP employment and training in Missouri has 
operated as a partnership between the University of Missouri Extension, 
community colleges, and local job boards. MU Extension provides the 
most extensive interactions with each applicant by providing a coach, 
training, and wraparound services to support the individual in building 
the skills necessary to fill open positions in Missouri. Those have 
included and are including nursing, over-the-road trucking, warehouse 
logistics and management, and welding, just to name a few. MU 
Extension's niche component is coaching, helping those with the most 
barriers like homelessness, lack of transportation, or having no high 
school diploma to gain the necessary skills to fill the jobs in their 
community.
  MU Extension has focused their efforts on short-term certificate 
programs or vocation programs to ensure success of those who may not 
have been successful in the past and who face the greatest challenges 
to education and employment. This intensive coaching led to a 96.6 
percent graduation rate for those participants completing training last 
year. Those individuals who secured employment report making annualized 
salaries of between $20,800 and $93,600. Can you imagine going from 
being on public assistance, having SNAP in order to be able to feed 
your family, going through this program, and getting a job at $96,000 a 
year? That is exciting. People are excited about this.
  Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with one of the 
participants of this program. His name is Joe. After spending 10 years 
in prison, Joe knew he needed a new start. He signed up for an HVAC 
program using the SNAP employment and training funding. Joe, today, is 
working full time, and he gets great reviews from his employer. He no 
longer needs any Federal benefits, and he has the confidence and skills 
needed to be a productive member of society.
  So this bill, the 2018 farm bill, provides this unique opportunity to 
expand funding for these life-changing programs to ensure all SNAP 
recipients have access to education and training resources. Not just 
some, all of them will have access to this training so that they can 
secure employment.
  A major increase in the SNAP employment and training funding will 
provide States with the vital resources to help their residents break 
the cycle of poverty.
  Smart, commonsense reforms can produce great results like the story I 
told about Joe, and it can break the cycle of poverty. SNAP employment 
training currently being implemented across Missouri now can be 
expanded everywhere. So by supporting this enhanced employment training 
program, we are augmenting someone's future by supporting them in 
achieving their goals.

  Jobs are available, the need is great, and the time for action is 
now. Let's help families make their dreams of self-sufficiency a 
reality.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her enthusiasm for this.
  Congratulations to Joe. Actually, that is a great story.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. He is a great guy.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, for someone who was 
incarcerated, that is difficult to overcome; but through the programs, 
it gave a great example of how that occurs.
  Contrast that also with what Mr. Faso from New York was saying about 
those cliffs, what I refer to as poverty cliffs. We try to incentivize 
folks to do better for themselves. We are making improvements because 
right now the way the program is, like most of our programs, if you 
make a dollar more than the limit, an arbitrary limit, the government 
pulls the rug out from beneath you.
  The fact that we are going after some of those, how much assets you 
can have and the value of your car--the folks who are most at risk need 
reliable transportation. I am just really proud that we are addressing 
all that, and I thank the gentlewoman for being a part of all of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Rouzer), who is a great member of the Agriculture Committee from North 
Carolina's Seventh Congressional District. Congressman Dave Rouzer is a 
man I am proud to serve with.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It is a 
great honor to be with the gentleman here tonight, and I commend him 
for his great leadership on this issue.
  This really, really is a great, great bill. The Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, as we all 
know it, is a nationwide food assistance program that provides a 
nutritional safety net for low-income families and individuals who meet 
certain eligibility requirements.
  Now, I think the vast majority of Americans would agree that, if you 
work, you should be better off than if you don't work. Our farm bill 
makes commonsense reforms to ensure that recipients of these benefits, 
those who are perfectly capable of work, have a pathway to upward 
mobility, can get good jobs, and ultimately can use their God-given 
talents to achieve a very rewarding career. That is what this is all 
about.
  As we drafted this farm bill, we stayed focused on providing those 
who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances the ability to lift 
themselves up and the ability to succeed and contribute to society.
  Another aspect of the farm bill I want to highlight is in the 
nutrition title as well. It provides assistance to low-income seniors 
through the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. This vital 
program increases the consumption of good quality food by expanding, 
developing, and aiding in the development and expansion of domestic 
farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture 
programs.
  It does so by providing seniors with coupons that can be exchanged 
for eligible foods such as fruits, vegetables, honey, and fresh-cut 
herbs.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the commonsense reforms included 
in the 2018 farm bill among many, many more. I hope that my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle will take the time to really study and 
understand what these reforms will mean to our farm families, rural 
America, and the upward mobility created for those individuals and 
families in this country who need a helping hand.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to 
see many coming out in favor of this proposed farm bill and 
specifically the nutrition title.
  Two articles came out today. The first one is from USA Today 
entitled, ``Food-Stamp Work Requirements Will Lift Americans Out of 
Poverty,'' by our own agriculture chairman, Mike Conaway. He was joined 
by Lee Bowes who is the CEO of America Works of New York which is a 
training placement company. Also, there is an article that was 
published in The Wall Street Journal entitled: ``Working on Food 
Stamps: A House GOP reform would help the able-bodied get off the 
dole.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these two articles.

[[Page H3202]]

  


                            [Apr. 12, 2018]

    Food-Stamp Work Requirements Will Lift Americans Out of Poverty

                    (By Mike Conaway and Lee Bowes)

       There is a fundamental link between poverty and work.
       Individuals who hold full-time employment (https://
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/
demo/P60-259.pdf) are 10 times less likely to be poor than 
     people who are out of work during at least part of the year.
       But not every American has the skills and training needed 
     to hold full-time employment.
       Teaching these skills takes time and resources, which is 
     why for so long our nation has taken a piecemeal approach to 
     supporting work and training to help move people out of 
     poverty. Instead, we've focused the conversation on poverty 
     around benefits--on the dollars spent and the meals served.
       Benefits are critically important and serve a vital role in 
     the safety net aimed at catching people if they should fall 
     into poverty. But equally important is a focus on helping 
     these same people climb back out of poverty.
       That point is underscored by a 2016 poll from the American 
     Enterprise Institute and the Los Angeles Times. Forty-one 
     percent of the poor people included in the survey viewed 
     their circumstances as temporary (http://www.aei.org/
publication/2016-poverty-survey/).
       People want to believe the American dream is attainable.
       That's why we need to shift the conversation on poverty in 
     this country from one focused purely on benefits to one about 
     improving futures.
       And as the House Agriculture Committee releases its new 
     farm bill (https://agriculture.house.gov/news/
documentquery.aspx?IssueID=14904)--legislation that governs 
     the policy for our nation's nutrition programs--that is 
     precisely what we aim to do.
       Our proposal is straightforward: help those on the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) who are 
     work-capable find employment to support their households.
       Under this proposal, work-capable SNAP recipients will need 
     to work for at least 20 hours per week. That can take a 
     variety of forms they can work, participate in a work 
     program, or participate in a SNAP employment and training 
     (E&T) program. This bill makes a significant investment in 
     training and case management to guarantee access to an E&T 
     slot to anyone who wants one.
       But to ensure this investment yields results, we're also 
     making these work requirements mandatory. No more loopholes 
     that create disincentives to work.
       We are equipping states with resources to arm participants 
     with the skills, certifications and education needed to 
     succeed in today's economy.
       And that's a critical point, because our economy is 
     supporting more jobs and a higher standard of living for ALL 
     Americans. Jobs that were once unavailable are now at an 
     individuals' fingertips if aided with the proper training and 
     skill set.
       SNAP recipients want to be beneficiaries of this economic 
     growth. They want to take advantage of opportunities and meet 
     the needs of our nation's businesses.
       It is also important to note that for nearly two-thirds of 
     SNAP recipients (https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/able-
bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawds-rules) who are 
     currently exempt from work-related programs, nothing will 
     change. That group includes seniors, those who are mentally 
     or physically disabled, children and various other 
     individuals who would not be subject to our proposed 
     modifications to work.
       But for work-capable adults, if they want to receive 
     benefits, they'll be expected to work. And if they don't 
     work, they are self-selecting to remove themselves from the 
     program.
       People will try to demonize what we are doing here and say 
     that this proposal is too much, too fast, too soon.
       They will try to claim that this bill is about kicking 
     people out of the program to save money. But that couldn't be 
     further from the truth.
       Under this work proposal, only an individual who chooses 
     not to participate in a guaranteed E&T slot will lose 
     eligibility for SNAP.
       Others will claim that these modifications aren't needed 
     because most SNAP recipients who can work, do work (https://
www.cbpp.org/snap-households-with-working-age-non-disabled-
adults-have-high-work-rates-6). And under our bill those 
     individuals can have the peace of mind that their benefits 
     will not be compromised.
       While critics will say SNAP isn't meant to be a jobs 
     program, we believe these modifications can support nutrition 
     for families in need while also creating new opportunities 
     that emphasize work and independence and provide the 
     resources needed to move people forward.
       Advocating for the status quo has never and will never lift 
     someone out of poverty.
       That's why we need to begin to define success differently--
     not by how many people we serve, but rather how many people 
     we aid in climbing the economic ladder.
                                  ____


                            [Apr. 11, 2018]

                         Working on Food Stamps

                        (By The Editorial Board)

       A common refrain from businesses is that they can't find 
     enough workers. The unemployment rate is a low 4.1%, but one 
     reason for the shortage are government benefits that corrode 
     a culture of work. So credit to House Republicans for trying 
     to fix disincentives in food stamps amid what are sure to be 
     nasty and dishonest attacks.
       House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway on Thursday will 
     introduce a farm bill, though food stamps absorb much of the 
     cost. More than 40 million Americans are in the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program, the official name for food 
     stamps, and the figure is up from about 17 million in 2000. 
     The size of the benefits has also increased, and the program 
     cost has exploded to about $70 billion a year.
       More Americans need assistance during recessions like 2008, 
     but the question is why so many have stayed on food stamps 
     even amid the long expansion. The American Enterprise 
     Institute's Robert Doar in 2014 compared the post-2008 
     recovery to the recession in the early 1980s. If folks had 
     left the program at similar rates to the 1980s, food stamps 
     would have had 36 million beneficiaries by 2013. Instead 
     there were 47.6 million.
       One result is that many Americans haven't returned to the 
     labor force. Enter the House's first proposal: A 20 hours a 
     week work requirement for able-bodied adults, ages 18 through 
     59. This usually elicits panic about child labor or single 
     moms, but the requirement does not apply to seniors, 
     children, the disabled, or anyone who cares for a child under 
     six or is pregnant. That exemption covers roughly two-thirds 
     of everyone on food stamps.
       The folks subject to the work rule have many ways to 
     satisfy the requirement, including apprenticeships that could 
     contribute to higher earnings later. States will have to 
     offer access to training programs, which can also count as 
     work. The bill stipulates case management and other 
     techniques to help people transition off assistance.
       Food stamps already has a de minimis work rule for some 
     participants, but states have applied for waivers and 
     exemptions that have diluted it. Yet the results of real 
     welfare work requirements in states have been encouraging, 
     including former Governor Sam Brownback's reform in Kansas. A 
     Foundation for Government Accountability paper last year 
     noted that Kansas tracked 6,000 families who moved off 
     welfare and went to work in 600 different industries. Incomes 
     on average more than doubled over a year.
       The House proposal includes other good ideas, notably 
     eliminating ``broad-based categorical eligibility.'' This is 
     a notorious loophole that declares someone eligible for food 
     stamps because he received a brochure on heating assistance 
     or a number for a hot line. The bill retains cross-
     eligibility that allow the truly needy to qualify for 
     multiple programs without redundant asset tests.
       The politics of all this are tough. The House Freedom 
     Caucus will pan such changes as ``welfare reform lite.'' The 
     Senate won't want to take hard votes in an election year. Yet 
     this isn't a budget slasher and merely reorients money and 
     incentives. That will make it harder for Senators to pretend 
     this ``guts'' the program, as some falsely said about 
     Medicaid last year.
       Democrats have attacked the plan with packaged lines that 
     the GOP will kick millions off the rolls. The work rule 
     doesn't bounce a single person. One irony is that the left 
     says work requirements are misguided because most recipients 
     already work. Then why fight a requirement?
       Those who stop receiving benefits because of a work 
     requirement will fall into two categories: They refused to 
     work or train for work. Or they found a job and no longer 
     need assistance, which is supposed to be a success story. The 
     GOP's work requirements--explained accurately--poll well with 
     the public because Americans think working is a fair trade 
     for helping those who have fallen on tough times.
       The program is supposed to be ``supplemental,'' but 
     progressives have transformed it into a permanent 
     entitlement. The GOP's 1996 welfare reform was an historic 
     success, and fixing food stamps is a chance to do it again.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), who is another great leader within the 
Agriculture Committee.
  The Congressman is a man I have been really pleased to serve with. He 
has been a Bible study buddy of mine. He represents Georgia's Eighth 
Congressional District and actually chairs the Subcommittee on 
Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 
colleague for yielding. As we have talked a little bit, the question 
is: How do we help people get off of government programs? Not kick them 
off but give them a path off the programs.
  I think one of the things that has not been talked about enough is 
the fact that the current system is a trap, and the harder people work 
and the more they make, sometimes the less they have.
  So what we have done in our farm bill that is coming up is to change 
the assets that a household can have and remain on the SNAP program 
until they graduate off the SNAP program.
  Under current law, households without an elderly or disabled member

[[Page H3203]]

could not have counted liquid assets above $2,250. Households with an 
elderly or disabled member could not have liquid assets above $3,250.

                              {time}  1845

  These dollar limits should have been annually indexed for overall 
inflation and then rounded down to the next $250. But our bill raises 
the asset limits for an eligible household from $2,250 to $7,000. I 
want to say that again: $2,250. That asset limit is raised to $7,000 
for an eligible household consisting of at least one elderly or 
disabled family member. It moves from $3,250 to $12,000. We want people 
who are out there doing the best they can to have the ability to work 
hard, save some money, and continue to improve their lives.
  We also exclude in this legislation the first $12,000 in the value of 
any licensed driver's vehicle in a SNAP household from the applicant's 
assets for purposes of eligibility determination. For many people on 
the SNAP program, they have to travel a long way to work or to get 
groceries, and we want them to be able to have that vehicle to get them 
there, especially in rural areas like the 24 counties that I represent. 
So excluding these vehicle assets is another benefit that we give to 
people in helping them have that avenue to graduate off of the SNAP 
program.
  Our bill also permits SNAP applicants to maintain up to $2,000 in a 
savings account. That is $2,000 that will not count towards the $7,000 
asset threshold. So again, we are trying to help people who work hard, 
who do the best they can, be allowed to save some assets so that they 
are very comfortable when they graduate off of the SNAP program.
  One other thing I would like to point out: Resources of a household 
member who receives SSI or PA benefits, those benefits are excluded as 
well. Under our current farm bill, SNAP recipients are caught between a 
rock and a hard place: You work hard, you save a little money, you 
invest in a vehicle, and you get kicked off the program.
  Our farm bill actually fixes a lot of those things that people who 
want to graduate off of the SNAP program need fixed. So I am very 
pleased to be a supporter of this bill, and I think that this bill 
moves the law in a great direction to help those people who are out 
there actually working and doing the best they can graduate off of the 
SNAP program. And these asset threshold increases, along with the 
incentives to work, I think, move our legislation in a very good 
direction. And I am looking forward to having the vote on the floor and 
supporting this.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and for being a part of the Special Order.
  I am now pleased to yield to a former chairman of the full 
Agriculture Committee and currently the Judiciary Committee chairman, 
who obviously has a lot of experience in this area and with 
agriculture. And so it is my pleasure and privilege to yield to the 
gentleman from Virginia's Sixth Congressional District (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. I really appreciate your 
organizing this Special Order.
  I am glad you picked this topic because we need to tell the story of 
what the great provisions are in this farm bill, but also how important 
it is to Republicans that we work with America's agricultural community 
to make sure that we continue to provide the safest, most abundant, 
most affordable food supply in the world.
  Americans today, right now, enjoy one of the lowest percentages of 
their average income being spent on food of any country in the world, 
at any time in the world's history. Back when our country was founded, 
90 percent of Americans lived on farms and basically produced enough 
food to just take care of themselves and then maybe have a little bit 
left over to sell to buy some implement for their family. Today, 2 
percent of America's farmers do that, provide all of that food and 
nutrition, including what goes into these important programs for low-
income people. So making sure these programs are protected but also 
making sure that they work fairly and honestly is the objective of this 
farm bill.
  I want to talk tonight about a program that helps get food directly 
into the hands of those who are in need in communities throughout the 
country, including in Virginia's Sixth Congressional District that I 
have had the honor of representing. The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, known as TEFAP, is a Federal program that helps to supplement 
the diets of low-income Americans, including elderly people, by 
providing them with emergency food assistance at no cost.
  TEFAP provides commodities to the States, who then distribute the 
food through local agencies, like the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank and 
Feeding America Southwest Virginia in my district. This program is a 
good model of efficiency and allows State and local organizations to 
play a leading role in helping to meet the nutritional needs of those 
in their communities.
  Food banks are an existing, strong network for food delivery to those 
in need. However, it is also important to note that many farmers often 
still have excess fruits and vegetables that go to waste. The solution 
is to establish a farm-to-food bank program, allowing States to enter 
into agreements with farmers to procure this excess for distribution.
  To achieve this, we are expanding funding in H.R. 2 for TEFAP, using 
a portion of that increase for a farm-to-food bank program, a State-
administered agriculture surplus clearance program, that provides an 
inexpensive source of food for low-income families while supporting 
producers.
  I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Chairman Conaway for their hard 
work to ensure that TEFAP remains a viable resource for American 
families.
  Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your hard work and for organizing 
this opportunity to share some of the great things in this farm bill 
with the American people.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Chairman Goodlatte, thank you for your 
leadership and your mentoring. Greatly appreciated.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Excellent. I will take advantage of 
that opportunity. If we have some other Members who come in, I will 
yield to them.

  The nutrition title for me, personally, is important. When I was just 
starting out in life, I had graduated from Penn State, I was working 
with people facing life-changing disease and disability, and married. 
We were pregnant with our first son, Parker, and so it was during that 
first pregnancy. And I was making, I think, maybe a whopping $8,000 a 
year working full time.
  There wasn't a time when we visited my parents or Penny's parents, my 
wife's parents, where we didn't come back with a bag of groceries. 
People do that. Families step in and they help. We did what we could, 
but we always came home with a bag of groceries.
  We also found ourselves WIC eligible. The Women, Infants, and 
Children program is not under the farm bill. That is on the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce side.
  But we know what it was like. It was difficult, actually. It was 
embarrassing to be able to use that voucher, but it was important that 
Penny and our unborn son at that point, now a 30-some-year-old dad with 
two boys of his own, got the nutrition that they needed. So I have been 
there, I have experienced that, and I know how important nutrition is.
  Nutrition title, for me, I kind of relate it to, Mr. Speaker, what I 
would say is the worst part about living and growing up in a rural 
area, outside a small town, that everybody knew your business. I would 
be out playing with my brother and my sister, and if I did something 
wrong, when I got home, mom and dad already knew about it.
  But the best part about living in that rural area, in rural America, 
is that everybody knows your business. I have a cousin, and about a 
month and a half ago their house burned to the ground. It was a 
terrible fire. They were lucky to get out. They just barely got out of 
the house. Yet, as the fire was just breaking through the roof of their 
home and the volunteer fire department was on the scene, they were 
surrounded by loved ones, friends, neighbors, and strangers who were 
there to offer their assistance, whether it was their love, their 
support, money, clothing, whatever, all kinds of things.
  That is what the nutrition title is. Nutrition title is about helping 
neighbors in need, whether those neighbors

[[Page H3204]]

live in the most densely populated city or whether they live back on 
long country lanes. So that is why I'm so proud of the bipartisan work 
we have done up to this point, because there is nothing, again, in this 
nutrition title in this farm bill that wasn't a part of all those, over 
21, hearings that we had.
  Some of the things that are in there, in fact, are some of the 
priorities. I enjoy working across the aisle in a bipartisan way. I 
dedicate myself to that. So I was pleased to see my Democratic 
colleagues who communicated their four priorities into this bill to the 
committee.
  Their first one was to incentivize nutrition education and healthy 
eating through a continuation of the Food Insecurity Nutrition 
Incentive Program, what we call FINI. I am pleased to report that the 
Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018--that is what we are calling the 
farm bill--which includes the nutrition title, Title IV, maintains the 
FINI Program and enhances it with a technical assistance center 
allowing for best practices in operations and delivery to be housed and 
used for current and future grantees.
  Additionally, the bill provides $275 million for FINI over the life 
of the farm bill, actually establishes a baseline funding of $65 
million a year, allowing for expansion of opportunities to bring 
together stakeholders from the distinct parts of the food system to 
foster understanding of how they might improve nutrition and the health 
status of participating households and the people who live in those 
houses.
  Their second priority, which I am pleased to report on, was--and I 
appreciated them putting this forward; it was important--to maintain 
our commitment to food banks with adequate funding for The Emergency 
Food Assistance Program. You just heard the former Agriculture 
Committee chairman, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia, talk about TEFAP.
  The farm bill increases TEFAP, funding for our food banks, by $45 
million. We have been funding it at $15 million. It goes to $60 million 
and directs $20 million of that in a very innovative way, that funding, 
to establish a farm-to-food bank program in all States. It allows 
States to access agriculture surplus products directly from the 
farmers. The freshest of foods is the way I like to look at it. What a 
great enhancement, Mr. Speaker.
  The third priority I am pleased to report on that is a part of this 
farm bill that they communicated was to promote the use of cutting-edge 
technology to ensure that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, or SNAP, retailers and recipients have secure, reliable, and 
efficient benefit processing. The farm bill introduces the concept of a 
national gateway, which is a system modernization that gives the USDA 
real-time oversight over the flow of transactions. It helps control 
costs.
  It allows USDA to develop more tools to ensure integrity, assist in 
controlling access to individuals' payment information, and it sets the 
stage for the USDA to handle future developments in payment technology. 
With that increase in accountability, in those rare instances where 
fraud and abuse may occur, it allows for identification of that. And we 
incentivize States. States are now able, when they actually identify 
fraud, to keep a greater amount of that money that is recovered, 
although it has to be reinvested back into the nutrition title.
  It is about to go for more program integrity, to make sure we are 
doing a better job of serving the needs of our neighbors who find 
themselves in those circumstances.
  And finally, the last one was to continue to encourage States to 
collaborate with business and education leaders to provide innovative 
employment and training solution opportunities and programs. That is 
what we have been talking about this evening, largely. It is about the 
workforce solutions. This was put forward by my friends across the 
aisle that I am proud to serve with, the Democratic members of the 
Agriculture Committee. This was their goal.

  We were able to do that. We have provided significant attention and 
considerable investment to improve SNAP workforce and education 
development services for recipients. I appreciate what they put forward 
as a part of this process, and I appreciate the fact that we have 
stepped up and we see this as a part of the text of this farm bill.
  The updates to employment and training include best practices taken 
from beneficiary, industry, and State feedback. It includes interim 
education and training pilot reports. It partners with the workforce-
to-innovation opportunity works that are already in place across our 
communities and our counties all across this great country. And it 
heightens emphasis on public-private partnerships and nutrition 
education and also allows recipients to continue to receive a 
supportive suite of services to address both food insecurity and upward 
mobility.
  That is what we are trying to achieve. We want to make families food 
secure. We want to provide them access to the rungs on the ladder of 
opportunity.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, we have also done something for populations very near 
and dear to my heart as the dad of an Active Duty soldier, and that is, 
when individuals join the military later in life, they tend to enter 
with a spouse and a couple of kids, and it is hard to support a family 
on a private salary. Most privates are usually 18, 19 years old. They 
don't have that family support, and they do fine.
  In fact, we just provided all of our military a 2.9 percent pay 
increase, the largest in over a decade. But for those who are joining 
later in life, it is difficult. Their families live off base and they 
get a basic housing allowance to help pay for that, but in the past, 
basic housing allowance, 100 percent, with no contribution, no 
assistance, counted towards their eligibility for the SNAP program. 
They need that SNAP program to be able to make sure that their family 
gets support.
  We have addressed that by providing moneys that would go toward an 
allowance, more or less, that would go towards to help them to truly to 
be able to receive those benefits and to be eligible for the SNAP 
program.
  And so I am just so thankful for, really, the good bipartisan work 
that we have done up to this point, with all these hearings--over 100 
hearings on the farm bill, as a whole; over 20 hearings for the 
nutrition title, title IV of this farm bill. We had over 80 witnesses. 
There is nothing in this farm bill that didn't come out there. There 
were some rumors of something about a Harvest Box, which was a terrible 
idea. That is not a part of the farm bill, never had any intentions of 
including that as a part of the farm bill.
  I am appreciative to all the hard work that has gone into the bill, 
preparing this at this point, and I look forward to next week, next 
Wednesday. We will be marking this bill up in the Agriculture 
Committee. And I am pleased at the timing too. Normally, when we talk 
about reauthorizing the farm bill, we are 6 months, 12 months after it 
expired.
  Quite frankly, we can't afford to do that. The farm income has been 
down for 4 years now, and this total farm bill is so important to 
providing for a robust rural America, and that is important to every 
American. Because without a robust rural America, people everywhere, 
including the cities, will wake up in the dark, in the cold, and 
hungry, because that is what the people of rural America, those farm 
families, provide for each and every one of us.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to be joined by 
so many colleagues tonight on this topic, and I thank you for your 
attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________