[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3579-H3581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  WHO WILL BE HARMED BY THE FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week after turning their backs on 
bipartisanship, Republicans on the Agriculture Committee advanced a 
highly partisan farm bill that hurts our most vulnerable constituents. 
The farm bill cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known 
as SNAP, by over $23 billion. It eliminates State flexibility. It 
erects new barriers to assessing the program and creates a massive new 
untested and underfunded bureaucracy.
  Most troubling, the bill reduces or eliminates benefits for nearly 2 
million kids, veterans, working families, and other vulnerable adults. 
The bill was drafted in secret and is not reflective of the 23 hearings 
that our committee held on SNAP over the past 2\1/2\ years. In fact, I 
am having a difficult time determining where some of these 
controversial provisions originated.
  Were they cooked up at some far-rightwing think tank? Did they come 
from some outlier in the Trump administration? Were they the creation 
of Speaker Ryan, who is desperate to pass his extreme welfare reform 
agenda before he retires at the end of this Congress? This secretive, 
closed process has left me with more questions than I have answers, Mr. 
Speaker. It is awful. And it is not the way the people's House should 
operate. It is not fair to our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, last week I came to the House floor and outlined some of 
the most troubling provisions Chairman Conaway and House Republicans 
insisted on including in this bill. Today I would like to take a few 
minutes to share with my colleagues who will be harmed if this reckless 
proposal is allowed to advance.
  Provisions in the Republican farm bill specifically target millions 
of older adults, over the age of 50, who rely on SNAP to put food on 
the table when times are tough. While SNAP law already includes strict 
work requirements and time limits, House Republicans are now seeking to 
completely cut off assistance for people who are unable to find work or 
a suitable job training program, and they are doing this without a 
serious plan that would actually help them find work. It is a rotten 
thing to do.
  To make matters worse, Republicans are extending these mandatory work 
requirements to people up to the age of 60. The AARP, our country's 
leading voice for those over 50, has cautioned Chairman Conaway and 
Republicans in Congress that it is particularly difficult for 
individuals over 50 to find

[[Page H3580]]

consistent work. In a letter to our committee, AARP's senior vice 
president for government affairs, Joyce Rogers, said this bill could 
``increase food insecurity and likely have negative consequences on 
health.''
  Mr. Speaker, this damaging mandatory work proposal does not just 
impact older Americans; it extends to other groups as well. For 
example, under this bill, thousands of veterans would lose access to 
SNAP benefits if they can't find work or a job training program. 
Veterans, Mr. Speaker, men and women who have put their lives on the 
line for us. The least we could do--the very least--is ensure that they 
have access to modest food benefits when they fall upon hard times.
  Among the other vulnerable adults who will be subjected to mandatory 
work requirements are teenagers just aging out of foster care, people 
with underlying mental health issues, chronically homeless individuals, 
and ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn. Are these the people we 
want to be turning our backs on, Mr. Speaker? Their lives are already 
challenging. This Republican Congress should not be making it more 
difficult for them to survive.
  Other provisions in this terrible bill target working families with 
kids. The bill eliminates an important provision that provides States 
with the flexibility to raise income cutoffs and ease asset limits. 
Taking away this State option cuts 400,000 eligible households--900,000 
adults and kids--off of SNAP and takes free school meals away from 
265,000 kids.
  Sadly, this bill also limits access to benefits for people with 
disabilities. It imposes new paperwork requirements on SNAP recipients 
with out-of-pocket utility costs, placing more burdens on those living 
with disabilities. While there appear to be some exceptions to the 
burdensome work requirements I noted earlier for people with 
disabilities, many others who may not meet the statutory definition, 
who have not yet been identified, would be cut off of assistance.
  That is why the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities sent our 
committee a letter strongly opposing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from AARP and the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.

                                      AARP Real Possibilities,

                                   Washington, DC, April 17, 2018.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
     Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on 
         Agriculture, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway & Ranking Member Peterson: On behalf 
     of our members and all Americans age 50 and older, I am 
     writing to urge you to modify H.R. 2, the Agriculture and 
     Nutrition Act of 2018, to avoid the negative impact the 
     current bill would have on the millions of Americans, 
     including older Americans, who rely on the Supplementation 
     Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). AARP, with its nearly 38 
     million members in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
     and the U.S. territories, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 
     nationwide organization that strengthens communities and 
     fights for the issues that matter most to families such as 
     health care, employment and income security, retirement 
     planning, affordable utilities and protection from financial 
     abuse.
       The changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP) included in H.R. 2 will put at risk the 
     critical food and nutrition assistance for 43 million 
     Americans who depend on this program. In 2016, 8.7 million 
     SNAP households had at least one adult age 50 or older. As we 
     stated in a letter sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
     the Committee on April 10, 2018, the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical part of the safety 
     net available to low-income families, including many older 
     Americans and people with disabilities. It has been shown 
     that participating in SNAP can lead to improvements in a 
     household's food security status, especially for those with 
     very low food security.
       Categorical eligibility is essential to improving access to 
     SNAP for low-income Americans of all ages and must be 
     protected, as was done in the last farm bill. Categorical 
     eligibility advances the goals of simplifying administration, 
     easing entry to the program for eligible households, 
     emphasizing coordination among low-income assistance 
     programs, and reducing the potential for errors in 
     establishing eligibility for benefits. Individuals who have 
     already undergone determinations for programs such as 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN F) and 
     Supplemental Security Income (SSI) bypass the income and 
     resource tests and have their SNAP benefits approved. This 
     streamlined process leads to individuals receiving their SNAP 
     benefits faster and reduces the number of individuals who may 
     be facing hunger.
       Most individuals who receive SNAP benefits and are required 
     to work already do work. Unfortunately, those individuals who 
     are not working are likely to have chronic health conditions, 
     which prevent them from holding employment. Over 1.7 million 
     low-income older workers have a health difficulty. Expanding 
     work requirements for SNAP would be especially burdensome for 
     older workers ages 50-59. Workers ages 50 and older typically 
     take longer than younger workers to find employment after 
     being unemployed. Denying individual's access to SNAP 
     benefits for up to three years for not being able to comply 
     with tougher work requirements could increase food insecurity 
     and likely have negative consequences on health. One recent 
     study showed how healthcare and food insecurity causes are 
     inexorably linked, finding the risk for hospital admissions 
     for low blood sugar spike 27 percent in the last week of the 
     month as compared to the first week of the month when food 
     and SNAP budgets of low-income populations have often been 
     exhausted.
       We urge you, as this bill heads into mark-up, to protect 
     the critical assistance that SNAP provides and preserve the 
     program's ability to carry out its important mission in 
     providing nutrition to America's vulnerable populations. We 
     ask you to work in a bipartisan manner, bringing all 
     perspectives to the table, and prioritizing the needs of the 
     individuals being served. If you have any questions, please 
     feel free to reach out to me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Joyce A. Rogers,
     Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            with Disabilities,

                                   Washington, DC, April 17, 2018.
     Re H.R. 2, Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (Farm Bill)

     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson: On 
     behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) 
     Poverty Ad Hoc Task Force, we urge you to continue the 
     longstanding bipartisan commitment to protect and strengthen 
     the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by 
     rejecting proposals to restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, 
     cap or reduce funding, or make harmful structural changes to 
     SNAP in the Farm Bill.
       CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations 
     working together to advocate for federal public policy that 
     ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, 
     integration and inclusion of children and adults with 
     disabilities in all aspects of society.
       In the United States, all too often food insecurity and 
     disability go together. Families that include people with 
     disabilities are two to three more likely to experience food 
     insecurity than families that have no members with 
     disabilities. Similarly, people experiencing food insecurity 
     have increased likelihood of chronic illness and disability.
       SNAP is vitally important for people with disabilities and 
     their families. By increasing access to adequate, nutritious 
     food SNAP plays a key role in reducing hunger and helping 
     people with disabilities to maximize their health and 
     participate in their communities.
       Using an inclusive definition of ``disability,'' in 2015 an 
     estimated 11 million people with disabilities of all ages 
     received SNAP, representing roughly one in four SNAP 
     participants.
       Roughly 4.4 million households with non-elderly adults with 
     disabilities received SNAP in 2016.
       Non-elderly adults with disabilities who receive SNAP have 
     very low incomes, averaging only about $12,000 per year in 
     2016.
       SNAP benefits are extremely modest, averaging $187 per 
     month for non-elderly people with disabilities in 2016--or 
     just $6 per day.
       Existing SNAP time limits are harsh, unfair, and harm many 
     people with disabilities and their families by cutting off 
     essential food assistance. Federal law currently limits SNAP 
     eligibility for adults between the ages of 18 to 49 without 
     dependents to just three months out of every three years--
     unless they can engage in work or job training activities at 
     least half time, or qualify for an exemption. These 
     provisions cut off food assistance at a time when people need 
     it most and do not result in increased employment and 
     earnings. At least 500,000 low-income individuals nationwide 
     lost SNAP in 2016 due to this time limit.
       Many people with disabilities are already hurt by SNAP time 
     limits, despite existing exemptions for people who receive 
     governmental or private benefits on the basis of a disability 
     or are able to document that they are ``physically or 
     mentally unfit for employment.'' For example, in a study of 
     SNAP participants subject to time limits referred to 
     participate in work activities in Franklin County, Ohio, one-
     third reported a ``physical or mental limitation''.
       Cutting off food assistance from SNAP would only make it 
     harder for people to work and increase their economic self-
     sufficiency. We strongly oppose any action that

[[Page H3581]]

     would cut off or reduce SNAP benefits, narrow eligibility, or 
     force more people to navigate harsh and unnecessary program 
     rules, including people with disabilities and their families.
       In particular, we are concerned that the draft Farm Bill 
     released last week includes a number of provisions that would 
     harm people with disabilities and their families. Small 
     increases in the proposed bill are insufficient to make up 
     for significant benefit reductions.
       New work requirements with highly punitive rules would cut 
     off SNAP benefits for many people--including in families with 
     children, adults, and seniors with disabilities. It may seem 
     simple to assert that ``people with disabilities will be 
     exempt,'' but converting such a statement into an effective 
     policy process is complicated, expensive, and fundamentally 
     flawed. Many people with disabilities receive SNAP, but do 
     not meet SNAP's statutory definitions of ``disability'' or 
     have not been so identified. Under SNAP, states have no 
     obligation to help people prove they are exempt, even if they 
     have difficulty obtaining the necessary records or 
     verification from a doctor. In addition, states are under no 
     obligation to ensure that people with disabilities have 
     access to the full array of services they might need to 
     work--such as accessible transportation, supported 
     employment, and personal care aid services. People with 
     disabilities often want to work, but need additional supports 
     and services to obtain and keep jobs, in addition to facing 
     discrimination and misconceptions about their ability to 
     work.
       Underfunded work programs would be woefully inadequate to 
     meet training needs. Proposed new investments in SNAP 
     employment and training programs--funded in large part by 
     benefit cuts--amount to only about $30 per person per month. 
     This amount would be grossly insufficient to provide adequate 
     employment services for people subject to proposed new work 
     requirements, including jobseekers with disabilities.
       New reporting requirements would create major hurdles to 
     benefits. Proposed new reporting requirements related to 
     eligibility, employment and training, and time limits would 
     be extremely difficult for many people with disabilities to 
     navigate and comply with. For example, ending a decades-old 
     simplification measure and instead requiring people to share 
     utility bills with the SNAP office--or else, see their 
     benefits reduced--is harsh, unnecessary, and burdensome both 
     for SNAP participants and states.
       If Congress wishes to explore meaningful opportunities for 
     SNAP participants to increase self-sufficiency through 
     employment, we recommend awaiting the results of the 
     Employment & Training pilot projects authorized under the 
     2014 Farm Bill. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     awarded pilot grants in 2015, all 10 state programs are 
     operational, and evaluation activities will operate through 
     2021. Already, a number of pilot states have cited multiple 
     barriers faced by participants, including ``health issues.'' 
     It will be important for USDA and the evaluators to carefully 
     explore the experiences and outcomes of people with 
     disabilities and their families in these pilot programs. 
     Congress should await the final pilot evaluations before 
     considering any changes in these areas.
       We call on you to reconsider proposals that would weaken 
     SNAP's effectiveness as our nation's foremost anti-hunger 
     program by limiting access, reducing benefits, and creating 
     administrative hurdles. We urge all Members to vote no on the 
     draft Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 released last 
     week, and instead to work on a bipartisan basis to strengthen 
     and protect SNAP as part of the Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
     CCD Poverty Ad Hoc Task Force Co-Chairs:
     Lisa Ekman,
       National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
     Representatives.
     Chris Rodriguez,
       National Disability Institute.
     T.J. Sutcliffe,
       The Arc of the United States.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I could spend hours pointing out the bad 
provisions in this bill, but I'll close by once again urging this 
Republican leadership to stop their attacks on those living in poverty. 
Pull this bill. Pull this awful bill.
  Let's work together to craft a bipartisan farm bill that supports our 
farmers and our nutrition programs. Let's advance a bill that we can 
all be proud of. Negotiate a bipartisan bill. Stop insisting on this 
$23 billion cut to SNAP benefits. Let's pass a good farm bill, not this 
partisan nightmare.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republican leadership in this Congress to 
join with us to end hunger now. Stop trying to make hunger worse. Let's 
join together and end hunger now. It is our moral imperative.

                          ____________________