[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.
____________________