[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 130 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5547-S5548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk for a few minutes 
about our farm bill. As you know, our farm bill is the primary 
agricultural and food policy tool of the United States. We pass it 
every 5 years. We just passed it this year. The bill is going to 
conference. As you know, the Senate passed its own farm bill and the 
House passed its farm bill, so we will go to conference and try to work 
it out. The bill was a 5-year bill, but it spends $860 billion in 
taxpayer money. Let me say that figure again--$860 billion in taxpayer 
money.
  We throw a billion around these days in Washington as if it were a 
nickel. A billion is a lot. If I started counting to a billion right 
now and counted one numeral a second, I would finish in 2050. I 
probably wouldn't finish; I would probably die first. That is how much 
a billion is. This bill is about $860 billion. Seventy-five percent of 
it deals with our food stamp program.
  In the House version of the farm bill, there is a work requirement 
for food stamps, and this is what it says: The American taxpayer will 
happily give you his or her hard-earned money to help you get back on 
your feet. We don't want you to be hungry. But if you are between the 
ages of 18 and 59, the House bill says, and you are not disabled and 
you don't have a child under 6, then in return for those food stamps, 
we are going to require you to get a job. You don't have to work a full 
week; you just have to work 20 hours a week. And if you don't want to 
work, you can go to job training for 20 hours a week.
  That is what the House bill says. The Senate bill is silent on that--
crickets. It doesn't even address it.
  I am speaking today to try to encourage our friends in the House to 
stand firm and insist that their work requirement for food stamps 
remain in the bill. I would like to spend a few minutes to explain why.
  I get a little tired of politicians and others saying: Oh, the 
American people--they are stingy. They don't help their neighbor.
  That is not true. The American people are the most generous people in 
the world. They are the most generous people in the history of the 
world. Think about it. First, we spend about $1 trillion a year--$1 
trillion a year--in State and local programs that are funded by 
people's money. The money to fund those programs didn't fall from 
Heaven. We thank Heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets, 
and we spend $1 trillion a year--State and local tax money--helping our 
neighbors who are less fortunate than we are.
  In our country--and I am very proud of this--if you are homeless, we 
will house you; if you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your 
doctor; and if you are hungry, we will feed you. That separates this 
country from just about every other country in the world, and it is one 
of the reasons that so many people across the world want to come to 
America--because our people are so generous. I mean, when is the last 
time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into Russia? When is the 
last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into North Korea? When 
is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into China? I 
mean, we should be complimented, and it is because of our giving 
spirit. But it doesn't do any good, in my judgment, to be generous with 
people who need our help without also helping them get out of the 
circumstances for which we need to be generous.
  Let me put it another way. By suggesting we need a work requirement 
for food stamps, I am not trying to take away food stamps from people 
in need. I do not want to take away food stamps from people in need, 
but I do want fewer people to need food stamps. The best way we can do 
that for those who are able to work is to help them get a job.
  The Brookings Institution, as the Presiding Officer knows, is hardly 
a bastion of liberalism. They recently did a study. The Brookings 
Institute said: If you do these four things, you have only a 2-percent 
chance of living in poverty in America. This is Brookings, now.
  The Brookings Institution says that if you do these four things you 
have only a 2-percent chance of living in poverty: No. 1, get a job--
any job--even if it is minimum wage; No. 2, don't get married until you 
are 21; No. 3, don't have a child before you get married.
  I said four, but I will say that, even if you do these three things--
get any job, don't get married before you are 21, and don't have a 
child before you get married--you only have a 2-percent chance in this 
country of living in poverty. Obviously, a job is a critical part of 
that.
  This is what the House bill does. I hope we in the Senate will join 
with

[[Page S5548]]

our colleagues in the House and keep this provision in the bill. If you 
are between the ages of 18 and 59, you are not disabled, and you don't 
have a child under 6, then we will gladly give you food stamps, but in 
return we are going to ask you to work 20 hours a week, and we will 
help you get a job.
  If you look at the numbers, right now we have about 21 million people 
on food stamps who are able-bodied. Let me tell you how I define that 
universe. There are 21 million people, 18 to 64 years old. So the 
numbers are slightly different from the House. They are not disabled. 
Those 21 million able-bodied Americans receive about $34 billion a year 
in food stamps.
  Of those 21 million able-bodied Americans who do not work and who are 
not disabled, 40 percent of them don't have children, 63 percent of 
them are White, and 50 percent of them are under 35.
  The House bill is even more generous, if you will. It is just 18 to 
59, no child under 6, and you can't be disabled. In return for the food 
stamps, we would ask you to get a job.
  I want to repeat what I started with. The purpose of this bill is not 
just my idea. The House provision is not meant to punish anybody. I 
don't want to take food stamps away from people who are in need, but I 
want fewer people who need food stamps. If people don't need food 
stamps, that will free it up for other people who need food stamps, and 
it might free up a nickel or two for other things like kids, roads, and 
cops.
  The Senate, in its wisdom, decided not to put in a work requirement. 
Some of my colleagues say: We already have a work requirement for food 
stamps. No, we don't. No, we don't. It is optional for the Governors.
  Guess what my Governor did. He implemented a food stamp work 
requirement without work. I mean, it looks beautiful on paper. Except, 
when you actually read the thing, it is a work requirement without 
work.
  The House bill is different. It is getting serious about this 
problem.
  I hope our conferees will open their minds and open their hearts and 
open their ears and listen to our House colleagues, and I hope our 
House colleagues will stand firm.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation? Are we in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.

                          ____________________