[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6052-6053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
                       END HUNGER NOW--SNAP WORKS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marshall). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House Agriculture Committee has held 
21 hearings during the past 2 years on the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, known as SNAP. The committee has heard over 30 
hours of testimony from over 60 experts, both liberal and conservative, 
from all across the country. We have heard from academics, advocacy 
groups, Federal and State government officials, charitable 
organizations, and even a few people who have relied on SNAP for food 
assistance.
  All of our witnesses have confirmed what we know to be true: SNAP 
works. It is a powerful program that helps to alleviate poverty and 
food insecurity, and it is worthy of our support.
  Today I would like to share with my colleagues a few of the most 
important takeaways from the 21 hearings I participated in as ranking 
member of the Nutrition Subcommittee.
  First, SNAP benefits should not be cut. Forty-two million Americans, 
including working families, veterans, seniors, children, and the 
disabled, struggle to put food on the table. In the richest country in 
the history of the world, I find that unconscionable. SNAP is a vital 
tool that helps struggling Americans get back on their feet, and 
participation has steadily declined as economic conditions have 
improved.
  Second, the current SNAP benefit is inadequate. On average, SNAP 
households receive about $225 a month. The average benefit per person 
is about $126 per month, which works out to be a meager $1.40 per 
person per meal. You can't buy a Starbucks coffee for that.
  Pamela Hess with the Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food and 
Agriculture, said it best during her testimony before the Agriculture 
Committee: ``. . . people can't parent well and raise happy, healthy 
children who are ready to learn, and you can't work well if you

[[Page 6053]]

are hungry, if you are wondering where your next meal is coming from. . 
. .''
  Cutting this meager benefit would be a rotten and heartless thing to 
do, especially as so many in our country continue to face incredible 
hardships.
  Third, SNAP does not discourage work. The majority of people on SNAP 
who can work, do work. Almost 70 percent of SNAP recipients aren't 
expected to work because they are kids, they are elderly, disabled, or 
caring for a young child or disabled family member. More than half of 
SNAP households with at least one working-age, nondisabled adult do 
work while receiving SNAP, and more than 80 percent work in the year 
before or after receiving benefits.
  Under current law, able-bodied adults without dependents, known as 
ABAWDs, are limited to 3 months on SNAP out of every 3 years if they 
aren't working. I don't agree with that provision, but I have come to 
learn that some of my Republican colleagues want to shorten that time 
that these very vulnerable adults can remain in the program. Make no 
mistake, such a move wouldn't help people find jobs; it would only make 
them hungry and more vulnerable.
  As Sherrie Tussler of the Milwaukee Food Bank noted in her testimony 
before the Agriculture Committee: ``Somehow, we have determined that 
punishing people with hunger will motivate them towards work. Hunger 
doesn't motivate. It dulls and it makes people sick.''
  Fourth, case management requires a well-funded, multiyear commitment. 
Case management that helps connect those in need with tailored services 
to move out of poverty can be successful, but those investments cost 
money. We need to adequately fund these efforts.
  Lastly, block grants threaten programs that provide an economic 
ladder. Past Republican budgets have proposed block-granting SNAP, but 
we know from decades of experience that funding for block-granted 
programs erodes over time and does not provide the same responsiveness 
to economic conditions that SNAP does.
  SNAP expands during times of economic hardship and contracts as the 
economy recovers. It successfully reaches those in need and is only 
limited by the modest benefit calculation and hurdles to access like 
the ABAWD time limit. There is no reason whatsoever, based on all of 
our hearings, to undermine SNAP through structural changes, block 
grants, further restrictions, more onerous requirements, or cuts.
  At a minimum, the next farm bill must do nothing to make hunger worse 
in this country--period. Instead, we should focus on strengthening our 
antihunger safety net to make sure anyone who needs modest food 
assistance benefits has access to them. We need to support and expand 
innovative programs that help to increase the purchasing power of SNAP, 
and we need to increase SNAP benefits to provide families who benefit 
from the program access to more nutritious foods that last them through 
the month.
  Mr. Speaker, today, chefs and advocates from across the country are 
on the Hill with Food Policy Action and Environmental Working Group to 
discuss issues related to the farm bill, including our antihunger 
safety net. I urge my colleagues to listen to these chefs--they are 
food experts--and pay attention to them, especially when they ask you 
to support policies that will be aimed at ending hunger now.

                          ____________________