[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3701-H3704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           NUTRITION PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Thompson) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, last week, the House 
Agriculture Committee marked up and approved H.R. 2, the Agriculture 
and Nutrition Act of 2018.
  Along with the critical farm supports, the farm bill also authorizes 
and provides funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
also known as SNAP, and formerly called food stamps. SNAP is the 
primary Federal nutrition assistance program for those in need and 
ensures that no American goes hungry.
  As a young, married man, I saw the value and the importance that a 
Federal nutrition program, such as SNAP, provided when times got tough. 
Coming from central Pennsylvania, I always say that the worst part of 
growing up in a rural area is that everyone knows your business. By the 
same token, the best thing about growing up in a rural area is that 
everyone knows your business. And when times get tough, neighbors 
always help neighbors in need.
  And that is how I think about SNAP. No matter if you lived down the 
longest rural country lane or in the middle of New York City, SNAP is 
about neighbors helping neighbors.
  Despite the rhetoric that has been espoused by some over the past few 
weeks and months about the nutrition title, I would like to discuss 
this important legislation, what H.R. 2 actually proposes to do to 
improve SNAP.
  Over the past 3 years, the Agriculture Committee has held 21 
bipartisan hearings on SNAP, while hearing

[[Page H3702]]

from 81 witnesses. We have done our homework. We have heard directly 
from those who are impacted the most. We also had not one amendment 
from my Democratic colleagues to the Nutrition Title during the 
committee markup.
  It is a sad legislative process when not only do critics dismiss the 
21 hearings, but they also fail to engage in the constructive amendment 
process to improve the bill where they see shortcomings. Republican 
Members acted to improve this bill, introducing 20 amendments in 
committee.
  Let me address work requirements and job training. And, clearly, I 
think we can all agree that putting individuals on a path to 
prosperity, helping them get better access to what I like to call 
skills-based education, is the best way to assist an individual, to 
assist a family to achieve food security. I am hard-pressed to find 
anyone who would disagree with that.

  Much has been made by some about work requirements, though. These 
work requirements have been on the books as a part of SNAP and, 
previously, the Food Stamp program since 1971, even though some States 
chose to waive them for many able-bodied adults who did not have 
dependents at home. In other words, some States have been circumventing 
work requirements.
  I like to say it as circumventing providing access to opportunity for 
the people who are the most vulnerable, the people who need it most, 
the people who are living under financial stress. Some States have been 
circumventing those work requirements for adults who are work capable 
and don't have children for years.
  H.R. 2 strengthens and streamlines these work requirements for able-
bodied adults. These folks are work capable. This bill also makes a 
historic investment into SNAP Employment and Training, and also an 
existing law, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, that this 
body, in a bipartisan manner a number of years ago, passed as a 
reauthorization to the Workforce Investment Act.
  By coupling these work requirements with job training activities, we 
can encourage a pathway out of poverty and, quite frankly, a pathway to 
long-term self-reliance.
  While education and training and the Workforce Innovation Opportunity 
Act already exist, H.R. 2 provides States with a significant 
investment: tools and options to move people forward, to provide people 
an opportunity for upward mobility.
  Upward mobility really is the American Dream. It is a dream of 
opportunity. And for too long, many have not had those tools within 
reach. H.R. 2 does some tremendous improvements to be able to restore 
that pathway to opportunity. For some people, it may be for the first 
time in their lifetime.
  This isn't about burdening the States. It is about helping SNAP 
recipients. Those are people--our neighbors, our friends, our 
relatives--who are living in difficult, challenging financial times. 
Some of it is long term, may be living in poverty for generations--
intergenerational poverty. But for many, it is short term, as a result 
of bad luck or bad planning. Whether it is unemployment or 
underemployment, these individuals deserve an opportunity to move 
forward and to move upwards.
  It is about helping SNAP recipients climb the economic ladder and 
closing the skills gap. We know that the skills gap, Madam Speaker, is 
all too real for so many Americans who wake up in the morning and are 
wondering how they are going to make ends meet, how they are going to 
pay bills.
  They see the job openings that are there, estimated to be close to 6 
million today and growing, the number of jobs. I am not talking about 
jobs that require bachelor's degrees, 4 years, or 6 years, or anything 
like that. These are jobs that largely require skills-based education.
  It may be a matter of supportive employment, which, by the way, H.R. 
2 supports, where you can actually start earning a paycheck by going to 
work to be trained through apprenticeships, supportive employment. 
These are jobs that require maybe a certification, some experience or 
on-the-job training. All that can lead to pathways to greater 
opportunity.
  It is about giving the opportunity to poor people, the people who are 
living in challenging financial circumstances, folks that you would 
consider poor. It gives them the opportunity that they deserve to 
achieve not just food security, but economic prosperity.
  These new changes only apply to able-bodied adults who do not have 
children or dependents with disabilities. For children, it is for those 
under the age of 6. Therefore, the vast majority of SNAP recipients, 
children, the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women, or individuals 
with young children will not be impacted by these changes.
  People ages 18 to 59 who are able-bodied deserve a pathway to upward 
mobility, Madam Speaker. We don't provide them that today. But with 
these changes with the farm bill, with H.R. 2, we give them that hope, 
and we give them a pathway to upward mobility.
  There are challenges for different groups. We are talking about able-
bodied folks who are ages 18 to 59. We all know folks who fall into 
that category. They may be family and friends and neighbors. Certainly, 
as Members of Congress, we all have constituents who have folks in 
those age groups that have fallen on hard times or are struggling 
financially, and they need food security. We provide that with H.R. 2, 
the farm bill 2018. But more importantly, we provide them a pathway to 
opportunity through providing better access to more effective education 
and training.
  We recognize the challenges. For those who are 18 to 29, and 
especially depending on their life circumstances, you are just working 
your way into the workforce, it is extremely challenging, and there are 
issues that are out there that may have to do with transportation. That 
is a fairly frequent one with younger individuals. Certainly, the lack 
of work experience, of being able to leverage what skills they have 
are, unfortunately, impacted by what skills they don't have--that 
skills gap.
  With what we do with this farm bill, we actually guarantee a training 
slot for each one of these individuals across the country, and we 
require case management. The case management that can be provided by 
those case managers helps people deal with those barriers that may be 
out there that stop people from making the most benefit out of the job 
training opportunities and the educational opportunities that will be 
provided.
  We are not talking about creating any new bureaucracies. It is about 
working with any willing and able partner that is in this business 
today, all of those agencies--called One-Stop Centers or CareerLink 
offices under the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act--that can help 
with this. It could be nonprofits.
  One of my favorite nonprofits that does just tremendous workforce 
development is Goodwill. They provide case management, and they have 
helped--I think the last number I looked at in 2016, they assisted over 
300,000 people, some of them with special needs, to be able to get the 
skills to be able to fill that skills gap.
  And so we recognize the challenges of 18 to 29, but also let's look 
at the other end of the spectrum of folks whom we consider work 
capable, 50 to 59.

                              {time}  2000

  It is very difficult if you lose your job during that age group, for 
many reasons, to be able to break back into the workforce. Sometimes 
employers are just looking to hire folks a little younger who they can 
pay a lower rate, or are unable to pay for the wisdom and experience, 
unfortunately. I think investing in that wisdom and experience is a 
good investment for employers, but many can be reluctant to do that.
  So we know that those individuals also need some extra help of 
breaking back into the workforce. This bill does that. This bill 
provides them that opportunity to have at least 20 hours of training a 
week. It also can be working 20 hours, and you wouldn't do the job 
training.
  But for so many, helping them retool all that experience in that age 
group to be able to find a new opportunity, to be able to take all the 
experience that you have developed and break into that workforce, that 
group would benefit.
  Madam Speaker, let me talk about categorical eligibility.
  I know that some have also questioned the proposed changes to what is 
known as broad-based categorical eligibility. We actually eliminate 
that.

[[Page H3703]]

Under the current law, SNAP recipients are deemed eligible by 
qualifying for a noncash TANF or State-funded benefit. What does that 
mean?
  Well, that means that if I hand you, literally, today--no matter what 
your income is, no matter what your assets are--if I hand you a 
brochure about SNAP benefits and you take that from me, that makes you 
SNAP eligible, even though your income may be very, very comfortable at 
supporting your needs and the needs of your family.
  If I provide you information and you exercise that information to 
call a SNAP hotline, an 800 number, that makes you eligible for SNAP 
benefits, despite that your income might be very, very comfortable and 
well above the income requirements to be SNAP-eligible.
  Why is that a problem?
  Because every dollar that is utilized inappropriately--and that is 
what happens under those scenarios--takes food out of the mouth of 
people who are truly eligible, truly food insecure, truly hungry. We 
need to dedicate ourselves to making sure that every dollar is used 
appropriately.
  We don't take all the efficiencies, certainly, out of the SNAP 
program. We actually retain two other categorical categories. One is 
based on cash assistance. But the bottom line, those other two 
categories, those two application processes, which are more efficient, 
absolutely--less paperwork, that is not a bad thing--but at the same 
time, we know that with these folks' incomes and assets, they are SNAP 
eligible. We know that they are truly experiencing food insecurity.
  So, under this bill, categorical eligibility will remain for low-
income households that are determined eligible for cash assistance or 
ongoing services such as child care, transit, counseling. They are 
still in place. They are a part of H.R. 2.
  In short, SNAP recipients will continue to receive benefits as long 
as they meet the modernized asset test limits proposed in the bill. 
Those asset test limits, by the way, are modernized. They are brought 
into the 21st century. They have been around for decades, and they have 
prevented truly hungry people who are experiencing food insecurity from 
being eligible for SNAP benefits.
  For the first time, we have changed that so the most vulnerable, 
actually, are able to save some money and have some money. We are not 
going to punish them for having up to $2,000 in savings. It is a big 
change.
  In terms of total assets, in the past, if your assets were $3,000, 
you were eligible for SNAP. At $3,001, we take the rug and pull it 
right out from underneath you. We are going to take that to $7,000 and 
we are going to index it to inflation, Madam Speaker.
  For those folks who have a person who is an older adult, elderly, or 
a disabled person with a disability in the household, we are going to 
take that from $5,000 to $12,000.
  For people who are struggling financially, paycheck to paycheck, 
right now what our government does under the current SNAP program is if 
you have a vehicle that is worth $4,650 or less, you are eligible. If 
it is $4,651 in value, you are not eligible. We pull the rug right out 
from underneath you. We take that to a $12,000 value, in terms of 
vehicles.
  Madam Speaker, I am very proud of what we have done for the first 
time. Really since the Great Society created these poverty cliffs, 
where we fixed those. We have taken those poverty cliffs away. We have 
indexed them to the Consumer Price Index increases so that they reflect 
the realities of what people are struggling with financially. Without 
this farm bill, without H.R. 2, those poverty cliffs will continue, 
Madam Speaker. It is time to end the poverty cliffs.
  Let me deal with reporting issues. The nutrition title has never been 
about money. In this whole process, we have never talked about the 
costs--we have looked at good policy--but, rather, providing good 
policy that provides the best food security for vulnerable individuals. 
That has been our goal, and that is what we have achieved with H.R. 2. 
The nutrition title has zero sum program funding, and the overall 
budget impact is neutral.
  You hear all these outrageous claims. And I don't know where this 
political speak is coming from, although November is coming. Election 
time is bearing down upon us, I guess, because there are some in this 
Chamber for whom it is all politics now. They will throw hungry people 
under the bus for the purpose of politics in November.
  We shouldn't do that, Madam Speaker. This is work that we all need to 
be very serious about. I recognize that every bill can be improved. I 
was very disappointed that some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle here offered no amendments during the markup process, because 
I believe that they have got some great ideas. I would hope that they 
would work with us when we bring this to the floor in a couple of 
weeks. We will continue to refine this.

  There were some ideas that were mentioned, but more came in the form 
of criticisms and complaints during the farm bill markup in committee. 
It would have been better if it had been put forward in serious 
thoughts as amendments. A number of them I would have supported. But we 
have opportunities to improve.
  That said, to help with program integrity, there are also a number of 
proposals in the bill that will help combat waste and fraud.
  Waste and fraud in this farm bill is estimated to be annually in the 
neighborhood of $700 million. Madam Speaker, do you know how many 
hungry children we could feed with that $700 million that is wasted or 
fraudulently taken and used by folks who aren't eligible for the 
program?
  The impact that we could have with that $700 million would just be 
amazing, actually, and the amount of folks who are experiencing food 
insecurity could find food security and they could find greater 
opportunity as a result of that.
  So the nutrition title does work to better serve eligible children 
and adults and older adults who are food insecure by making program 
integrity improvements to prevent as much fraud and abuse as possible. 
Fraud and abuse of any amount takes food support away from our most 
vulnerable citizens. Fraud and abuse, again, is estimated to be $700 
million annually.
  H.R. 2 addresses that. It incentivizes States, as they administer the 
SNAP program, to deal with it. All savings realized through the program 
integrity improvement are reinvested in nutrition title programs to 
better address food security. It is a win-win. Where States identify 
fraud and abuse, States will be able to retain 50 percent of the 
savings that they secure.
  Let me be clear, though: we expect them to invest that within the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in order to further 
address the needs of their citizens in their States experiencing food 
insecurity.
  Today, we heard firsthand details from local law enforcement about 
alarming fraud that occurred in Jacksonville, Florida, related to SNAP. 
Unacceptable. I am so thankful the law enforcement in Florida have 
identified that, made those arrests, and are prosecuting.
  Between 2012 and 2017, there were some 22,000 fraudulent SNAP 
transactions that totaled some $3.7 million in taxpayer dollars. That 
is $3.7 million, Madam Speaker, that, if used appropriately and without 
fraud, would be able to meet the food insecurity needs of our citizens 
that are truly in need. They are at risk of hunger.
  These individuals created nonexistent businesses and accepted EBT 
payments with no legitimate product in return. 198 individuals have 
been accused of selling EBT benefits. Those are the electronic benefit 
cards that we use with the SNAP program today. Even worse, a number of 
these transactions involved the purchase and exchange of illegal drugs.
  Again, as a strong supporter of nutrition assistance and helping 
those who are truly in need, this kind of activity is entirely 
unacceptable. We take measures. We incentivize States to be able to 
identify, stop, and recover that waste, fraud, and abuse. Again, we 
have them retain 50 percent of what they are able to get, but we 
require them to invest that back into making sure the food insecure 
people in our country--men, women, and children--do not go hungry. This 
kind of activity is entirely unacceptable and only underscores the need 
for more accountability and modern reforms to the law.
  Madam Speaker, if I could inquire as to how much time remains.

[[Page H3704]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, let me just deal with 
some of the rumor mongering that is happening within this Chamber.
  One of the things I hear is that the nutrition title of the farm bill 
results in a significant number of individuals from receiving SNAP. 
Frankly, Madam Speaker, that is absolutely false. Actually, without 
this change, a significant number of families experiencing food 
insecurity will continue to not be eligible for the needed nutritional 
support they have, being food-insecure families.
  The 2018 farm bill and nutrition title updates the archaic asset test 
that prevented hungry families from accessing SNAP for decades. In 
fact, Madam Speaker, many of these asset values have not been changed 
since the 1970s. We change them and we index them to inflation.
  This update to the asset test will allow individuals and families 
experiencing food insecurity to have more in savings, assets, the value 
of their vehicle, without affecting their SNAP eligibility.
  Additionally, for Active-Duty military households, SNAP's income 
determination will, for the first time, provide an exclusion of up to 
$500 monthly of their basic housing allowance.
  We have a number of folks serving Active Duty who are military and 
joined late in life and came with a spouse and kids. It is very 
difficult for them to live on what the salary would be of an entry-
level member of our military. This is the first time that we address 
that issue in this farm bill, H.R. 2, that will be on the House floor 
in a few weeks.
  There is a criticism out there that the nutrition title creates an 
excessive and unneeded new government bureaucracy to implement the SNAP 
employment and training.
  Madam Speaker, that is false. The farm bill nutrition title grants 
States the flexibility to provide services to best meet the needs of 
their State. While it provides an education and training slot for 
everyone who wants one, the States already have the springboard in 
place available through a combination of SNAP education and training, 
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and State programs.
  Under this proposal, States are granted the flexibility needed to 
provide services that best meet the needs of their States. There is no 
one-size-fits-all mandate. SNAP education and training leverages 
willing and able partners--I have mentioned many of those already this 
evening--One-Stop CareerLinks, community colleges, State human 
resources service. Also, local, State, and national employers, where 
someone who is food insecure and living in poverty could have the 
access to be able to do an apprenticeship. They could go to work and be 
trained through this program.

                              {time}  2015

  Finally, Madam Speaker, there are some who have said that more than a 
million people will come off SNAP over the next 10 years. It has been 
presented as a negative thing. We are talking about folks who will be 
coming off because they have achieved greater opportunity.
  We are talking about some folks who perhaps are on there just because 
they took a SNAP pamphlet or called an 800 number. And if those folks 
are truly eligible, they just need to do the application; they show the 
income; they meet the asset test; and they will have SNAP. Those 
families, those kids, will not come off SNAP. They will have the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  Part of those, though, that I think the CBO talked about are folks 
who truly do have a higher income and are really not eligible for this 
program, and those folks will come off if they choose not to fill out 
the application or they fill out the application and they are not 
eligible. But many of that million-plus that CBO talked about that will 
be coming off SNAP, it is because they have gotten good jobs; it is 
because they have taken advantage of the education and training 
programs that we are now providing greater access to under this 2018 
farm bill and, specifically, the Nutrition Title.
  Helping our fellow citizens to be able to achieve greater 
opportunity, to achieve the American Dream, to prosper, to have a 
living wage, that is not a bad thing. That is something that we should 
celebrate.
  Madam Speaker, we are going to bring this farm bill to the floor here 
in a couple of weeks. I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will take the opportunity to read it, to actually see what is in 
it. I look forward to working with them to help in any way in terms of 
helping them with that process, and I look forward to successfully 
passing farm bill 2018 out of the House of Representatives in the weeks 
to come.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________