[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20269-20274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               WELFARE INTEGRITY AND DATA IMPROVEMENT ACT

  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3659) to reauthorize the program of block grants to States 
for temporary assistance for needy families through fiscal year 2012, 
and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3659

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Welfare Integrity and Data 
     Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Extension of program.
Sec. 4. Data standardization.
Sec. 5. Spending policies for assistance under State TANF programs.
Sec. 6. Technical corrections.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

       (a) Family Assistance Grants.--Section 403(a)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `` each of fiscal 
     years 1996'' and all that follows through ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal year 2012'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by inserting ``(as in effect just before the enactment 
     of the Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act)'' after 
     ``this paragraph'' the 1st place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``(as so in effect)'' after ``this 
     paragraph'' the 2nd place it appears; and
       (3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.
       (b) Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood 
     Grants.--Section 403(a)(2)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(2)(D)) is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.
       (c) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 409(a)(7) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     all that follows through ``2013'' and inserting ``a fiscal 
     year''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
       (A) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2012,''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``407(a) for the fiscal year,'' and 
     inserting ``407(a),''.
       (d) Tribal Grants.--Section 412(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     612(a)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by 
     striking ``each of fiscal years 1997'' and all that follows 
     through ``2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2012''.
       (e) Studies and Demonstrations.--Section 413(h)(1) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``each of 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``fiscal year 
     2012''.
       (f) Census Bureau Study.--Section 414(b) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 614(b)) is amended by striking ``each of fiscal years 
     1996'' and all that follows through ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal year 2012''.
       (g) Child Care Entitlement.--Section 418(a)(3) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``appropriated'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``appropriated 
     $2,917,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
       (h) Grants to Territories.--Section 1108(b)(2) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``for fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2012''.
       (i) Prevention of Duplicate Appropriations for Fiscal Year 
     2012.--Expenditures made pursuant to the Short-Term TANF 
     Extension Act (Public Law 112-35) or section 403(b) of the 
     Social Security Act for fiscal year 2012 shall be charged to 
     the applicable appropriation or authorization provided by the 
     amendments made by this section for such fiscal year.
       (j) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. DATA STANDARDIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 411 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 611) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Data Standardization.--
       ``(1) Standard data elements.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an 
     interagency work group which shall be established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, and considering State and 
     tribal perspectives, shall, by rule, designate standard data 
     elements for any category of information required to be 
     reported under this part.
       ``(B) Requirements.--In designating the standard data 
     elements, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(i) ensure that the data elements are nonproprietary and 
     interoperable;
       ``(ii) incorporate interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by an international voluntary consensus standards 
     body, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, such 
     as the International Organization for Standardization;
       ``(iii) incorporate interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the 
     National Information Exchange Model; and
       ``(iv) incorporate interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by Federal entities with authority over 
     contracting and financial assistance, such as the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulatory Council.
       ``(2) Data reporting standards.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an 
     interagency work group established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and considering State and tribal 
     perspectives, shall, by rule, designate standards to govern 
     the data reporting required under this part.
       ``(B) Requirements.--In designating the data reporting 
     standards, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, 
     incorporate existing nonproprietary standards, such as the 
     eXtensible Business Reporting Language. Such standards shall, 
     to the extent practicable--
       ``(i) incorporate a widely-accepted, nonproprietary, 
     searchable, computer-readable format;
       ``(ii) be consistent with and implement applicable 
     accounting principles; and
       ``(iii) be capable of being continually upgraded as 
     necessary.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to information required to be 
     reported on or after October 1, 2012.

     SEC. 5. SPENDING POLICIES FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER STATE TANF 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) State Requirement.--Section 408(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(12) State requirement to prevent unauthorized spending 
     of benefits.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall maintain policies and practices as 
     necessary to prevent assistance provided under the State 
     program funded under this part from being used in any 
     electronic benefit transfer transaction in--
       ``(i) any liquor store;
       ``(ii) any casino, gambling casino, or gaming 
     establishment; or
       ``(iii) any retail establishment which provides adult-
     oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform 
     in an unclothed state for entertainment.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) Liquor store.--The term `liquor store' means any 
     retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily 
     intoxicating liquor. Such term does not include a grocery 
     store which sells both intoxicating liquor and groceries 
     including staple foods (within the meaning of section 3(r) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(r))).
       ``(ii) Casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment.--
     The terms `casino', `gambling casino', and `gaming 
     establishment' do not include a grocery store which sells 
     groceries including such staple foods and which also offers, 
     or is located within the same building or complex as, casino, 
     gambling, or gaming activities.
       ``(iii) Electronic benefit transfer transaction.--The term 
     `electronic benefit transfer transaction' means the use of a 
     credit or debit card service, automated teller machine, 
     point-of-sale terminal, or access to an online system for the 
     withdrawal of funds or the processing of a payment for 
     merchandise or a service.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) Penalty for failure to enforce spending policies.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, within 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, any State has not reported to 
     the Secretary

[[Page 20270]]

     on such State's implementation of the policies and practices 
     required by section 408(a)(12), or the Secretary determines, 
     based on the information provided in State reports, that any 
     State has not implemented and maintained such policies and 
     practices, the Secretary shall reduce, by an amount equal to 
     5 percent of the State family assistance grant, the grant 
     payable to such State under section 403(a)(1) for--
       ``(i) the fiscal year immediately succeeding the year in 
     which such 2-year period ends; and
       ``(ii) each succeeding fiscal year in which the State does 
     not demonstrate that such State has implemented and 
     maintained such policies and practices.
       ``(B) Reduction of applicable penalty.--The Secretary may 
     reduce the amount of the reduction required under 
     subparagraph (A) based on the degree of noncompliance of the 
     State.
       ``(C) State not responsible for individual violations.--
     Fraudulent activity by any individual in an attempt to 
     circumvent the policies and practices required by section 
     408(a)(12) shall not trigger a State penalty under 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 409(c)(4) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``or (13)'' and 
     inserting ``(13), or (16)''.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Section 404(d)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 604(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``subtitle 1 of 
     Title'' and inserting ``Subtitle 1 of title''.
       (b) Sections 407(c)(2)(A)(i) and 409(a)(3)(C) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(A)(i) and 609(a)(3)(C)) are each amended 
     by striking ``403(b)(6)'' and inserting ``403(b)(5)''.
       (c) Section 409(a)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(2)(A)) is amended by moving clauses (i) and (ii) 2 ems 
     to the right.
       (d) Section 409(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting a comma after ``appropriate''.
       (e) Section 411(a)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)(1)(A)(ii)(III)) is amended by striking the last close 
     parenthesis.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3659, legislation to extend Temporary 
Assistance For Needy Families and related programs through the end of 
this fiscal year, as well as to ensure that these funds are spent 
appropriately.
  Now, before describing the legislation in greater detail, I note that 
these same provisions were already approved by the House as part of 
H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, on Tuesday 
of this week. But given some of the uncertainty about that legislation, 
it makes sense to ensure that the TANF program continues to assist 
families past December 31, when its current authorization expires. 
That's the first and most important thing that this bill will do.
  The TANF program has been generally successful at reducing welfare 
dependence and encouraging work. This success is partly evidenced by 
the fact that since it began in 1996, TANF caseloads have fallen by 56 
percent through June of this year. And a key reason why this happened 
is because TANF is designed to promote and also support work. 
Unfortunately, it is one of the only anti-poverty programs that 
actually does so, focusing on helping move people from government 
checks to paychecks.
  And especially, given that the focus and the fact that this program 
helps so many single parents with children, we need to continue TANF so 
low-income parents have the dignity of working and supporting their 
family.
  But we also can't stop there. Extending TANF will also provide us the 
opportunity to develop long-term solutions to some of the problems 
revealed in a subcommittee hearing earlier this year, such as making 
sure that work requirements apply in all the cases that they should.
  In discussing this issue with Subcommittee Chairman Geoff Davis, I 
know that that remains a key focus of the Human Resources Subcommittee 
agenda in the coming year.
  Aside from extending TANF and related programs, this bill contains 
two important and bipartisan program integrity provisions. First, it 
requires that States apply specific data standards to the TANF 
information they use when administering benefits and reporting data to 
the Federal Government. This will help ensure that States have reliable 
data to use in matching within TANF and across other programs, to 
ensure that the right people are receiving the right benefits.
  Unfortunately, today that is not always the case. The absence of such 
data standards undermine program integrity and results in the waste of 
taxpayer funds; and that needs to end. This data provision is identical 
to provisions affecting child welfare programs signed into law by the 
President in September as part of the Child and Family Services 
Improvement and Innovation Act. And I know Subcommittee Chairman Davis 
and the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, Mr. Doggett, have worked 
together throughout the year on this effort.

                              {time}  1320

  The second program integrity provision closes what some have dubbed 
the ``strip club loophole.'' This loophole currently allows individuals 
to access welfare benefits at ATMs in strip clubs, liquor clubs, and 
casinos. This provision insists that all States will take the necessary 
steps to end this abusive practice which has been highlighted in news 
stories across the country.
  Some States have already implemented policies to close this loophole, 
ensuring that welfare benefits are spent to support children and 
families. This bill ensures that all States take action to close this 
loophole.
  I note that this policy is the same as that introduced by Senators 
Hatch and Baucus, the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the 
Senate Finance Committee, so it has strong bipartisan support in the 
other body as well.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, by continuing funding for TANF and 
related programs at their current levels, this bill does not add one 
penny to the deficit.
  Again, this legislation continues TANF and related programs for 9 
months, while making needed changes to improve program integrity. More 
does need to be done to further improve TANF, especially on how it 
helps parents go and get to work. This legislation will allow that 
process of reform to continue into next year, while ensuring that 
important TANF benefits remain available beyond their current December 
31 expiration.
  I want to thank Representative Geoff Davis, the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, for his work and effort on 
this issue, as well as Dr. Boustany and Mr. Schock for their important 
efforts and cosponsoring this measure that we're bringing forward to 
the House today.
  I ask all my colleagues to support it and pass it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in reluctant support of this measure, asking for its approval, 
because without approval, Federal funding for Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families will expire on New Year's Eve. My reluctance centers on 
the incomplete nature of this extension.
  It's incomplete, first, in terms of time. In September, Republicans 
declined to extend this necessary funding for more than 3 months. Now 
they extend it only for another 9 months, assuring that during the 
height of the 2012 campaign season next year they'll have an 
opportunity to blame the poor for whatever questionable anecdote arises 
in the meantime.
  This type of short-term extension at a time of a budgetary crisis in 
many of our States reduces the ability to plan and to reform. It 
assures that direct assistance to our most vulnerable neighbors will 
just barely hang on. It

[[Page 20271]]

postpones any meaningful action on responding to the Census Bureau 
report that more Americans were poor in 2010 than at any recent time.
  In my home county in the capital of the State of Texas, the 
percentage of children living in poverty grew from 18.3 percent in 2007 
to 24.5 in 2010--almost one in every four children, in our area, 
impoverished.
  And today's bill is incomplete in terms of coverage. An important 
part of the 1996 reform of the welfare law, a reform that I personally 
supported, an important part is omitted today, the TANF supplemental 
grants. These are funds that are allocated to help those States like 
Texas that were negatively affected by the Federal formula in place at 
the time.
  Without any good explanation or justification, Republicans allowed 
this initiative to expire last summer, and they continue to do so 
today. This means that a State government in Texas that is largely 
indifferent to the needs of its poor citizens has even less capacity to 
respond to those needs. Because of this deliberate and unjustified 
omission, Texas loses $500 million; and together with 16 other States, 
they lose a total of $3 billion over the next decade. This is money 
that will not be there to assist struggling families and to promote 
work. Termination of these grants is really a breach of the agreement 
of 15 years ago as a part of welfare reform.
  But as we pass this bill, a few points need to be noted that are 
positive in nature.
  First is the one my colleague refers to as bipartisan legislation 
that I have worked on with Chairman Geoff Davis. It is designed to 
assure that Health and Human Services does have common data points so 
that we ferret out any waste and abuse among various programs and, at 
the same time, help eligible Americans to receive the assistance to 
which they are entitled. This has already been incorporated into the 
child welfare legislation that was also approved by our subcommittee on 
a bipartisan basis and has been signed into law.
  A second provision that is described as ``program integrity'' 
certainly does sound good in speeches, and it probably does address a 
problem in Las Vegas and a few other areas that for speech purposes has 
been described as the so-called ``strip club loophole.'' I'm in favor 
of closing every loophole that takes public money that needs to go to 
needy children and diverts it for some other purpose, whether it's at a 
strip club or it is a pharmaceutical manufacturer who has milked 
Medicaid and Medicare for millions of dollars.
  Earlier this week, we heard from TANF administrators across the 
country, Republicans and Democrats, questioning this provision, and we 
know that it is also the subject of a study by the Government 
Accountability Office. I think that we need to ensure no dollars are 
wasted here, and I certainly wouldn't let this newly added provision 
slow up a must-pass piece of legislation to assure that the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families program is continued to next September.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Welfare Integrity and Data 
Improvement Act, and I want to thank Chairman Davis for his work on 
this as well as Ranking Member Doggett. But I also want to express my 
deep appreciation for the inclusion of my bill, the Welfare Integrity 
Now--WIN--for Children and Families Act, H.R. 3567, in this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on 
Oversight, I am determined to continue to fight waste, fraud, and abuse 
on behalf of the taxpayer. This legislation ensures that taxpayer 
dollars in this program are being used in the manner that they are 
intended to be used, and that is to help those that need it most.
  The abuse of funds on EBT cards has to stop. Prohibiting welfare 
funds on EBT cards from being accessible in strip clubs, liquor stores, 
and casinos, my bill, H.R. 3567, seeks to prevent the fraudulent misuse 
of funds within the TANF system.
  Families across America will continue to receive the necessary 
assistance that they need during these very tough economic times.
  The Win for Children and Families Act also holds States accountable 
for not complying with this provision. So I'm pleased that the 
provision has been included in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
member of this subcommittee and the full committee, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. We surely 
need to ensure that the TANF program does not expire, which is the 
basic purpose of this extension, but we would be remiss if we didn't 
say that the status quo falls short of what is needed in these 
difficult times.
  Nearly one out of every two Americans is scraping by in poverty or 
with very low income. We're talking about people below $44,000. That's 
the people who are just barely making it with a family of four in this 
country. That's what the Census Bureau found when they used the new 
supplemental poverty measure based on legislation I proposed in the 
Congress. That means about 150 million Americans are struggling to get 
by.

                              {time}  1330

  Just 2 days ago on this floor, the response to this epidemic of 
suffering from the Republicans was to just suggest that we ought to cut 
off unemployment benefits to millions of Americans. Now, imagine 
yourself in the middle class--and there are a lot of people who think 
they're in the middle class. Think about what that means when somebody 
says, We're going to make it harder for you to get unemployment 
benefits when you need them.
  It is morally wrong and is terrible economic policy. We need to 
follow a much different path, one that focuses on reforming programs so 
that they better respond to Americans in need.
  I was here when we did the reform of 1996. In 1996, this country was 
going like a bat. We were really making money, and anybody could find a 
job if he was willing to go in and ask, which is not the situation 
today. This welfare program is not meeting the needs of what's going on 
out there.
  Now, if you've watched television recently, you could have seen on 
``60 Minutes'' families who are living in cars. Now, how do you get to 
a car? Well, first you lose your job. Then you get on unemployment 
insurance. You lose your health care, too, by the way when you lose 
your job. Then your unemployment insurance runs out. You've got 99 
weeks of that, and it's gone. Where are you now? Well, um, you've still 
got the house. You've been paying for that on the unemployment, but now 
your house is in foreclosure. The next thing you know, you're living in 
the car.
  We've got thousands of people in this country who are in that 
circumstance. They are increasingly taking all of the money out of 
their IRAs and all the money out of their pension plans. Every single 
dime they've got is gone. They're losing their homes, and all they 
have, if they're usual families, are food stamps. That's what we offer 
them. In the richest country in the world, one in two people is in 
poverty or near it, and we're offering them food stamps, and are 
saying, Go find a job, when there are four people looking for every job 
out there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Only one out of every five poor children in America 
receives any direct assistance from this program we're talking about 
today, and those few who do get helped receive very little. As more and 
more people lose their unemployment benefits, this hole in the TANF 
safety net is

[[Page 20272]]

going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. We ought to start repairing 
that hole rather than ignoring it as it grows.
  We are crushing the middle class in this country with our social 
policy at this point. The data show that our social safety net works 
but that the real problem is that we don't fund it and that we haven't 
kept it up to date with what the modern economy is doing. People used 
to go unemployed, and then in a while the job came back. The jobs are 
not coming back anymore. Technology is changing it all.
  I support extending TANF, but today's bill is a Band-Aid of 
underfunding an outdated policy that hasn't kept up with the problems 
that struggling Americans are facing every day. We must do better by 
the middle class in this country--or Occupy Wall Street is going to be 
everywhere.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I may have one additional speaker if the gentlelady 
makes it in time, but let me close on this note:
  Mr. Speaker, at this time of year, we have largely a Norman Rockwell 
picture of American families gathered around the Christmas tables, with 
their turkeys and their gifts, and their Christmas trees are lit. That 
is the story of millions of American families, but it's not the story 
of many as well.
  I've seen those families firsthand. I see them two doors down from my 
house in East Austin when they line up on a Saturday morning, in need 
of help, at the Olivet Baptist Helping Hand. I saw it last Saturday at 
the recreation center in southeast Austin, in Dove Springs, where 
parents were lined up for blocks to get their children one toy for 
Christmas. I've also seen it across the south and west sides of San 
Antonio--good families, hardworking people caught up in the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. They face great challenges, and 
our safety net in this country remains in tatters.
  My concern is that this bill today does so little to address that 
tattered safety net, which is increasingly more hole than net. We see 
the statistics of homelessness for these families: 38 percent growth 
over 3 years of the recession. We see it in threadbare cupboards and 
church pantries and in food centers across the country. Yesterday we 
saw in a report in The New York Times that in 37 States families are 
worse off in terms of child care.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), to discuss the challenges that are faced by some 
of our most vulnerable neighbors. I know she shares many of these 
concerns about the unmet needs of those families who won't be fortunate 
enough to look like a Norman Rockwell painting this Christmas.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3659.
  This bill was taken out of the 360-page tax extenders bill, and 
essentially the authors of this bill have brought it up so that they 
could just have another kick at poor people. The bill sort of suggests 
that people who are poor are of very low moral character and that they 
can't be trusted to use their EBT cards in liquor stores or casinos, so 
therefore we need to make some restrictions on how they can use EBT 
cards.
  But before we start kicking poor people yet another time, I just want 
to remind everyone of data that were just released today which indicate 
that one half of all Americans are poor and that these people may find 
themselves eligible for benefits under this Electronic Benefit Transfer 
card.
  Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I tried to strike this 
language from the bill--with no success.
  The provision that blocks EBT cards from being used in liquor stores, 
casinos and strip clubs doesn't consider a couple of things. It doesn't 
consider the tremendous cost that this will have on financial 
institutions, which will have to reconfigure their cards. It also 
doesn't consider the distance for many Americans. There are 23 million 
Americans who live in so-called ``food deserts'' where there is not 
access to a grocery store or to an EBT machine within walking distance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. MOORE. Before I close, I would just like to mention one personal 
experience that I had just this last week.
  After having suffered an aneurysm, one of my sisters was on her way 
back to the hospital this morning. Because I didn't have access to a 
vehicle, I went and purchased the last meal that I gave her before I 
journeyed back to Washington, D.C. I bought her 100 percent orange 
juice from a liquor store that was within walking distance of my home.
  So it may be an unintended consequence, but this is just a mean-
spirited effort to, one more time, kick the poor people who are now 
half of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. Like a broken record the 
Republican leadership continues to play the same sad song. One that 
claims to help the poor and middle class but in the end will only 
exacerbate our already weak economy.
  As always, the devil is in the details. This so called Welfare 
Integrity and Data Improvement Act will only help to make an already 
broken program worse while also restricting access for our most 
vulnerable families.
  But be careful.
  New Census data released today reveals that 1 in 2 Americans have 
fallen into poverty. One half of all Americans are now either poor or 
low-income!!!
  The rate at which women and children are being thrown under the bus 
is a strong indication that TANF has systematically failed to close the 
expanding poverty gap, build pathways to sustainable employment, and 
has done little to alleviate the problem of growing chronic poverty.
  Now, as we go into TANF's third extension, Republicans want to impose 
additional barriers on families to further hinder their ability to 
access much needed benefits in these tough economic times.
  This bill includes a harmful provision that blocks EBT cards from 
being used at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of access. In many neighborhoods, the 
closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store.
  We don't want to encourage people to go to liquor stores or casinos 
but what are low-income families supposed to do when they can't even 
access benefits to feed their families in their own neighborhoods?
  There has been no consideration of the cost associated with 
implementing this policy, or to the kinds of burdens that it will 
undoubtedly place on states and financial institutions who will have to 
reconfigure thousands of ATMs.
  Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I attempted to strike 
this language from the tax extenders bill, but Republicans refused to 
consider any amendments both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.
  Here we are. Up against many deadlines and someone took the time to 
pull this language out of a 370 page bill so that they could kick 
people who are down with further restrictions.
  I hope that the American people can see that Republicans are simply 
playing political theater, trying to further humiliate and marginalize 
poor people while stonewalling any and all efforts for Democrats to 
pass meaningful legislation that will truly provide opportunities for 
all people.

            [From the Economic Research Service, June 2009]

                Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food

    Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences


                           Report to Congress

       Increases in obesity and diet-related diseases are major 
     public health problems. These problems may be worse in some 
     U.S. communities because access to affordable and nutritious 
     foods is difficult. Previous studies suggest that some areas 
     and households have easier access to fast food restaurants 
     and convenience stores but limited access to supermarkets. 
     Limited access to nutritious food and relatively easier 
     access to less nutritious food may be linked to poor diets 
     and, ultimately, to obesity and diet-related diseases. 
     Congress, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 
     directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct 
     a 1-year study to assess the extent of the problem of limited 
     access, identify characteristics and causes, consider the 
     effects of limited access on local populations, and outline 
     recommendations to address the problem.

[[Page 20273]]

       This report presents the findings of the study, which 
     include results from two conferences of national and 
     international authorities on food deserts and a set of 
     commissioned research studies done in cooperation with the 
     National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. It 
     also includes reviews of existing literature, a national-
     level assessment of access to supermarkets and large grocery 
     stores, analysis of the economic and public health effects of 
     limited access, and a discussion of existing policy 
     interventions. A variety of analytical methods and data are 
     used to assess the extent of limited access to affordable and 
     nutritious food and characteristics of areas with limited 
     access.


                                Findings

       Access to a supermarket or large grocery store is a problem 
     for a small percentage of households. Results indicate that 
     some consumers are constrained in their ability to access 
     affordable nutritious food because they live far from a 
     supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy 
     access to transportation. Three pieces of evidence 
     corroborate this conclusion:
       Of all U.S. households, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live 
     more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to 
     a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2 
     percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile 
     and do not have access to a vehicle.
       Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people 
     live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of 
     the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal 
     poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a 
     supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these 
     23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are 
     restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income 
     areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total 
     U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile 
     from a supermarket.
       Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in 
     low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more 
     time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the 
     national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those 
     who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to 
     the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household 
     member drove.
       These distance and time-based measures are national 
     estimates that do not consider differences between rural and 
     urban areas in terms of distance, travel patterns, and retail 
     market coverage.
       Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized 
     by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income 
     inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food 
     access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most 
     defining characteristic.
       These area- or distance-based results are in line with a 
     nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted 
     in 2001. Responses to direct questions about food access show 
     that nearly 6 percent of all U.S. households did not always 
     have the food they wanted or needed because of access-related 
     problems. More than half of these households also lacked 
     enough money for food. It is unclear whether food access or 
     income constraints were relatively greater barriers for these 
     households.
       Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices 
     than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in 
     areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery 
     or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed 
     for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other 
     food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of 
     similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the 
     prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels. 
     These analyses use proprietary household-level data that 
     contain information on food items purchased by approximately 
     40,000 demographically representative households across the 
     United States. Results from these analyses show that when 
     consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar 
     goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets.
       Low-income households shop where food prices are lower, 
     when they can. Findings also show that food purchases at 
     convenience stores make up a small portion of total food 
     expenditures (2 to 3 percent) for low-income consumers. Low- 
     and middle-income households are more likely to purchase food 
     at supercenters, where prices are lower. Administrative data 
     on SNAP benefit redemptions from 2008 show that 86 percent of 
     SNAP benefits were redeemed at supermarkets or large grocery 
     stores. Research that considers the prices paid for the same 
     food across household income levels indicates that while some 
     of the very poorest households--those earning less than 
     $8,000 per year--may pay between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent 
     more for their groceries than households earning slightly 
     more, households earning between $8,000 and $30,000 tend to 
     pay the lowest prices for groceries, whereas higher income 
     households pay significantly higher prices.
       The study also examined food shopping behavior and the 
     types of food purchased for SNAP participants and other low-
     income households. Data from the 1996/1997 NFSPS show that 
     SNAP participants were, on average, 1.8 miles from the 
     nearest supermarket. However, the average number of miles 
     both SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants traveled 
     to the store most often used was 4.9 miles. These same data 
     show that SNAP participants who did not shop at supermarkets 
     purchased less noncanned fruit, noncanned vegetables, and 
     milk than SNAP participants who shopped frequently at a 
     supermarket.
       Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to 
     specific healthy foods, may be a more important factor in 
     explaining increases in obesity. Many studies find a 
     correlation between limited food access and lower intake of 
     nutritious foods. Data and methods used in these studies, 
     however, are not sufficiently robust to establish a causal 
     link between access and nutritional outcomes. That is, other 
     explanations cannot be eliminated as the cause of lower 
     intake. A few studies have examined food intake before and 
     after healthy food options become available (either within 
     existing stores or because new stores opened). The findings 
     are mixed--some show a small but positive increase in 
     consumption of fruits and vegetables, while others show no 
     effect.
       The causal pathways linking limited access to nutritious 
     food to measures of overweight like Body Mass Index (BMI) and 
     obesity are not well understood. Several studies find that 
     proximity of fast food restaurants and supermarkets are 
     correlated with BMI and obesity. But increased consumption of 
     such healthy foods as fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, or 
     whole grains does not necessarily lead to lower BMI. 
     Consumers may not substitute away from less healthy foods 
     when they increase their consumption of healthy foods. Easy 
     access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific 
     healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining 
     increases in BMI and obesity.
       Understanding the market conditions that contribute to 
     differences in access to food is critical to the design of 
     policy interventions that may be effective in reducing access 
     limitations. Access to affordable and nutritious food depends 
     on supply (availability) and consumer demand. Consumer 
     behavior, preferences, and other factors related to the 
     demand for some foods may account for differences in the 
     types of foods offered across different areas. Food retailer 
     behavior and supply-side issues such as higher costs to 
     developing stores in underserved areas may also explain 
     variation across areas in which foods are offered and what 
     stores offer them.
       If high development costs serve as a barrier to entry for 
     supermarkets in some areas with low access, then subsidy 
     programs or restructured zoning policies may be effective 
     solutions. If consumer demand factors, such as inadequate 
     knowledge of the nutritional benefits of specific foods, 
     contribute to differences in access by reducing demand, then 
     a public health campaign may be a preferred strategy. Several 
     local and State-level efforts are underway that could provide 
     the basis for a better understanding of the types of 
     interventions that may work best.
       Food has been used as a tool for community development. 
     Projects such as farmers' markets, community gardens, 
     promotion of culturally specific foods for ethnic minorities 
     and Native Americans, local food production and promotion, 
     youth agricultural and culinary training programs, and many 
     other types of programs have all been implemented in a 
     variety of settings, both urban and rural. USDA's Community 
     Food Projects Competitive Grant program has much experience 
     in funding and nurturing such programs.
       The current state of research is insufficient to 
     conclusively determine whether some areas with limited access 
     have inadequate access. Future research should consider 
     improved methods to measure access levels, availability, and 
     prices of foods faced by individuals and areas. More research 
     is needed to understand how access, availability and price 
     affect the shopping and consumption behaviors of consumers.
       Data linking information on the types of foods consumers 
     purchase and eat with measures of consumers' levels of access 
     and the prices they face could help explain the economic 
     consequences of food access. Studies that use improved 
     methods and data to determine how food access affects diet, 
     obesity, and other health outcomes are also needed to help 
     explain the health consequences of food access.


                                Methods

       To conduct the analysis of the extent of food deserts, a 
     comprehensive database was developed that identified the 
     location of supermarkets and large grocery stores within the 
     continental United States. Food access was estimated as the 
     distance to the nearest supermarket or large grocery store. 
     The analysis was refined by examining households without 
     vehicles and specific socio-demographic subpopulations drawn 
     from the 2000 Census. Multivariate statistical analysis was 
     applied to identify the key determinants of areas with low 
     access to supermarkets and large grocery stores.
       Research also examined national-level data on questions of 
     household food adequacy and access from the 2001 Current 
     Population Survey. This information was complemented with 
     national-level data on time spent traveling to grocery stores 
     from the

[[Page 20274]]

     2003-07 American Time Use Survey. To consider the economic 
     consequences of limited access, ERS also analyzed demand for 
     certain nutritious foods for a sample of participants in the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the 
     Food Stamp Program), using data from the National Food Stamp 
     Program Survey (NFSPS) of 1996/1997. Variation in prices for 
     similar foods purchased at different store types, as 
     indicated by hedonic models and data from the 2006 Nielsen 
     Homescan panel, was also estimated.
       ERS collaborated with other agencies and institutions to 
     complete this study. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 
     compiled information on an extensive body of work examining 
     food access for SNAP and other low-income households. USDA's 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
     (CSREES) provided information on the Community Foods Projects 
     and lessons learned in the administration of the projects.
       The national-level food desert analysis was complemented by 
     a review of existing literature and the commissioning of 
     additional studies by experts in the field. A workshop held 
     in October 2008 convened leading experts in the study of 
     retail food and grocery store access, key stakeholders from 
     community development organizations, grocery retailer 
     organizations, other government agencies, congressional 
     members and staff, and related public interest groups. The 
     workshop included presentations and panel discussions of such 
     topics as defining and describing dimensions of food deserts, 
     implications of low access for food and nutrition assistance 
     programs, consequences of food deserts, and programs and 
     policies to mitigate the adverse effects of food deserts.
       USDA, in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at 
     the University of Michigan, commissioned several studies by 
     experts in food access to better understand concepts of low 
     access to affordable and nutritious foods and the degree to 
     which access varies across different types of areas. The 
     intent of these papers was to describe characteristics of the 
     food environment and the demographic, economic, and health 
     conditions that typify areas with low food access and to 
     complement the national-level findings with more detailed and 
     local-level information. Results from studies were presented 
     in a conference.
       USDA, in cooperation with the Institute of Medicine of the 
     National Academies, conducted a 2-day workshop in January 
     2009 on the public health implications of food deserts. 
     Workshop presentations covered methods for assessing and 
     research findings on the impacts of food deserts on such 
     outcomes as diet (including examination of specific foods, 
     such as fruit and vegetable consumption and intake of high-
     energy, low-nutrient foods), prevalence of obesity and 
     overweight; and diseases associated with poor diets. In 
     addition, presentations covered promising strategies for 
     mitigating the impacts of food deserts that have been 
     suggested, implemented, or are in the planning stages. The 
     workshop provided the basis for the review of the public 
     health literature.

  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for raising the issue about 
ensuring that TANF recipients can access their benefits in a variety of 
locations.
  I will say the bill that we are considering here on the floor today 
requires States to block access to welfare benefits in casinos, liquor 
stores, and strip clubs, as we talked about earlier. However, we do 
understand that some grocery stores, convenience stores, and local 
markets may also sell groceries and alcohol or have gambling machines 
as well. That's why there is an exception in the bill to provide 
exactly for the concerns that the gentleman from Texas raised.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. DOGGETT. While I think it would have been better to await the 
full report from the Government Accountability Office, I support those 
program integrity provisions.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of the extension of this legislative activity, and 
I want to be associated as closely as possible with the comments made 
by my colleague from Texas, who seems to have his hand on the pulse of 
where we need to go, what we need to do, and the unfortunate delays 
that we have experienced. So I thank Mr. Doggett for his leadership. I 
am in favor of extending this legislation.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just yield myself such 
time as I may consume to say that I am pleased that we are moving 
forward to extend this program, at least until the end of next 
September. But there remains much work to do.
  Many of our neighbors are in great need at the present time. Many are 
supported by churches, community nonprofits, and the like. It is a 
valuable service at a time of charity at Christmas when we all care 
about those who are the least among us.
  But just caring in that fashion is not sufficient, given the extent 
of the problem. We need a stronger safety net with reference to health 
care, child care, the support that is offered through the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families program, and to help those--yes, pull 
them up by their boots; but for those who lack bootstraps, assist them 
as well. That should be the goal of our vision as we address the needs 
of the many impoverished people in this country.
  Unfortunately, poor people have the least voice in this Congress. 
Their voice is not heard to the extent that some of those who have 
vested interests here in limousines and lobbyists are heard. But we 
need to speak up for them. And this is one of those rare opportunities 
to be able to do so and to say that this Congress has acted; but it's 
acted in a modest, limited, incomplete, and inadequate way. We would 
not hold up that little bit of help, but there is so much more that 
needs to be done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, this legislation 
continues TANF and related programs for an additional 9 months--it was 
going to run out on December 31--while making both needed and also 
bipartisan reforms and changes that are going to improve program 
integrity.
  I appreciate the comments of all of the Members here on the floor 
today who have joined us in support of the bill. I look forward to 
working with them to continually improve how TANF helps low-income 
adults work and also become self-sufficient in the months ahead.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3659, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________