Nutrition Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source