Providing for Consideration of H.R. Protect and Serve Act of Providing for Consideration of S. Veterans Cemetery Benefit Correction Act; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Empowerment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 891.
Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act.
Section 3 of House Resolution 891 states that: ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act that this rule may not be considered.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, it was a Republican bill passed in a Republican Congress, but this act was supposed to stop Congress from passing bills that forced huge new costs on State and local governments without giving them the money to pay for those costs.
Well, apparently it didn't work, because the farm bill, which is part of this rule, would impose massive new mandates on State and local governments in the Republican majority's quest to kick families off of SNAP.
For anyone unfamiliar, that is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps to feed millions of struggling American families every day. But one provision in the farm bill would force States to deny SNAP benefits to families with an absent parent unless those households cooperate with child support enforcement agencies.
According to the CBO, that is the Congressional Budget Office, it is a nonpartisan group of experts that analyze this stuff. This additional burden on single-parent families would save the Federal Government $4 billion, but my Republican colleagues don't seem to have thought this through, because it would cost child support agencies over $7 billion to recoup those child support payments. So they are spending $7 billion to recoup $4 billion.
CBO, that is the group of nonpartisan experts, says that the cost to States, who have no say in this matter, would be over $1 billion.
Now, I don't know who wrote this provision, since it sure didn't come out of the Agriculture Committee or the hearings that we conducted, but whoever it was, they really need to work on their basic arithmetic skills.
When you spend $7 billion to recoup $4 billion, that is what I call a terrible idea, not legislating.
Now, another unfunded mandate would require States to offer employment and training services to SNAP recipients as part of the bill's devastating new work requirements. But according to CBO, again, these are the nonpartisan experts, the bill won't provide States with enough funds to implement those training programs.
So not only are Republicans heartlessly kicking 1 million Americans off of SNAP with these additional burdens, but they also are not providing States with enough money for training programs so that these people can find jobs and get their benefits back. I mean, you seriously can't make this stuff up.
CBO, again, the Congressional Budget Office, those nonpartisan experts, reported yet another intergovernmental mandate that would prevent communities from restricting the use of dangerous pesticides, even if they determine the restrictions are necessary to protect children's health, like stopping harmful insecticides from being sprayed near schools or hospitals.
This bill also requires that every State allow the sale of all legal agricultural products from other States, preempting States' food safety and environmental standards.
Now, you heard me right. The Republicans are preventing local communities from protecting their children from toxic chemicals and forcing States to allow products that break laws meant to protect the health and safety of their own citizens.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Republicans were supposed to be all about States' rights. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was a Republican bill, as I mentioned.
What about the rules of this institution? It is actually against House rules, believe it or not, to bring a bill to the floor that imposes unfunded mandates on State and local governments.
Not a problem, Mr. Speaker. The Republican-controlled Rules Committee, or as I like to call it, the ``Break the Rules'' Committee, waived that rule and gave this disastrous farm bill a get-out-of-jail- free card.
But it turns out that waiving the unfunded mandates rule is also against the rules of the House. That is right. Republicans, once the party of States' rights, are rigging the rules and ignoring the law so that they can pass this disastrous bill.
So here is a moment, I think, where liberals and conservatives can come together, where all my Republican friends who oppose unfunded mandates can join with many of us on the Democratic side and actually do something. This is your chance to prove it and to stand up and to be counted.
Don't let the Rules Committee run roughshod over your values in the name of passing this lousy bill. Or maybe unfunded mandates on State and local governments are actually fine with my conservative friends just so long as they are imposed on a process that takes SNAP benefits away from millions of people.
As I find myself saying far too often these days, a bad process produces bad policy. And this farm bill is a bad policy, plain and simple. It is not thought out. It is a bunch of unfunded mandates. It is a disaster.
It is bad for the millions of working families, children, older adults, and other vulnerable Americans who will be kicked off of SNAP or see their benefits reduced. It is bad for farmers and ranchers, who are already suffering from low prices, low overhead, and market uncertainty, not to mention a new trade war, courtesy of Donald Trump. It is bad for State and local governments, who will have massive unpaid-for costs despite having no input whatsoever on the drafting of this bill.
So let's send it back to the drawing table so we can sit down in a bipartisan way, in the bipartisan tradition of the Agriculture Committee, and come up with smart, compassionate, forward-thinking legislation instead of this.
So I ask my colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan way against considering this rule, which ignores the costs this bill imposes on State and local governments, in violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
If you believe unfunded mandates are wrong, then you shouldn't support this rule. I mean, where are my conservative friends? Where is the Freedom Caucus, who rail about unfunded mandates? Where are you? I mean, I hope you are going to stand up and have the courage of your convictions and vote with us on this and send this bill back to committee, where we ought to do a farm bill in a bipartisan and a thoughtful way.
This process has been lousy from the beginning, and now we have a bill that has all kinds of protections, because there are all kinds of unfunded mandates on our States.
Wait till your governors begin to read the fine print in this farm bill, wait till your local agencies read the fine print in this farm bill.
So if you are for unfunded mandates, then vote against what I am suggesting here today. But if you want to put an end to these unfunded mandates, then you need to take a stand.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague and anybody else to do something radical: actually read the CBO study.
Basically, what it says here is that the bill would impose intergovernmental mandates by amending SNAP eligibility requirements, placing new responsibilities on States as administrators of child support enforcement, and requiring new State activities in the SNAP program.
For large entitlement programs like SNAP and child support enforcement, UMRA defines an increase in the stringency of conditions on States and localities as an intergovernmental mandate if affected governments lack authority to offset those costs while continuing to provide required services. The bill's requirements would increase the workload of State agencies in areas where they have limited flexibility to amend their responsibilities and offset additional costs and, thus, would be intergovernmental mandates.
In other words, on a whole range of issues, this bill requires States to do so much more, and the Federal Government does not provide the funding to meet those obligations. So if States want to provide SNAP benefits to their citizens, which I think every State continues to want to do, they are going to have to embrace all these unfunded mandates, add all these additional costs on to what they are already paying.
These are big, fat unfunded mandates. And I want to tell you, when your Governors read this bill, when you read this bill, you are going to be amazed about all these additional burdens that are going to be imposed on States and localities. If this isn't an unfunded mandate, if this wasn't what that Republican initiative was all about when it was first implemented, I have no idea what it is.
But I will tell you, even on the work training programs, this bill would provide maybe about $30 per person for education and training. We are told that education and training programs, on average, range from $7,000 to $14,000 to be effective. So this is an unfunded mandate, plain and simple. If you care about unfunded mandates, you are going to support us in our initiative here today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, nays 181, not voting 23, as follows: [Roll No. 184] YEAS--223 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amodei Arrington Babin Bacon Banks (IN) Barletta Barr Barton Bergman Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Blum Bost Brady (TX) Brat Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burgess Byrne Calvert Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Cheney Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comer Comstock Conaway Cook Costello (PA) Cramer Crawford Culberson Curbelo (FL) Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney Denham DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donovan Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Dunn Emmer Estes (KS) Faso Ferguson Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flores Fortenberry Foxx Frelinghuysen Gaetz Gallagher Garrett Gianforte Gibbs Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Griffith Grothman Guthrie Handel Harper Harris Hartzler Hensarling Herrera Beutler Hice, Jody B. Higgins (LA) Hill Holding Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Hultgren Hunter Hurd Issa Jenkins (KS) Jenkins (WV) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jordan Joyce (OH) Katko Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger Knight Kustoff (TN) LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Latta Lesko Lewis (MN) LoBiondo Long Loudermilk Love Lucas MacArthur Marchant Marino Marshall Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers McSally Meadows Messer Mitchell Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Newhouse Noem Norman Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Paulsen Pearce Perry Pittenger Poe (TX) Poliquin Posey Ratcliffe Renacci Rice (SC) Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney, Francis Rooney, Thomas J. Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce (CA) Russell Rutherford Sanford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smucker Stefanik Stewart Stivers Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tipton Trott Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Weber (TX) Wenstrup Westerman Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Zeldin NAYS--181 Adams Aguilar Amash Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Boyle, Brendan F. Brady (PA) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Capuano Carbajal Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Crist Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio Delaney DeLauro DelBene Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Ellison Eshoo Espaillat Esty (CT) Evans Foster Frankel (FL) Fudge Gallego Garamendi Gomez Gonzalez (TX) Gottheimer Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Hanabusa Hastings Heck Higgins (NY) Himes Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jones Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Khanna Kihuen Kildee Kilmer Kind Krishnamoorthi Kuster (NH) Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lieu, Ted Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan, Ben Ray Lynch Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Matsui McCollum McEachin McGovern Meeks Meng Moore Moulton Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Nolan Norcross O'Halleran O'Rourke Pallone Panetta Pascrell Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Peterson Pingree Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Rosen Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Sherman Sinema Sires Smith (WA) Soto Speier Suozzi Swalwell (CA) Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tonko Torres Tsongas Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters, Maxine Watson Coleman Welch Yarmuth NOT VOTING--23 Beyer Brown (MD) Cardenas Chu, Judy DeGette Engel Gabbard Gutierrez Labrador Lipinski Luetkemeyer Lujan Grisham, M. McNerney Reed Reichert Richmond Rogers (KY) Roskam Shea-Porter Shuster Thornberry Webster (FL) Wilson (FL)
Ms. KAPTUR, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just said one rule three bills, which has become kind of a habit around here where we try to bunch a whole bunch of bills together in one rule so we don't actually focus on any one issue in a way that is meaningful. It is, I think, an attempt to try to stifle debate.
We have a bill that would protect our police. We have a bill that would deal with veterans. And then we have the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on the farm bill, if I may.
I have served on the Agriculture Committee since 2011. Historically, it has been one of the most--if not the most--bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives. That is how farm bills are normally crafted, through compromise and through a coalition of Members from urban and rural America coming together to get something done.
That is why I have always had faith in this process--faith that minority views would be heard. Even when it wasn't easy and even when the final product wasn't perfect, the end product was traditionally bipartisan. Until today.
The process for this farm bill was a sham. In no way did it reflect the Agriculture Committee's long, bipartisan tradition. I am the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, and even I wasn't able to see a word of text until this bill was publicly released. I am not even sure when Republicans on the subcommittee first saw the language.
Over the last 2\1/2\ years, the Agriculture Committee held 23 hearings on SNAP. Apparently, they were just for show, because not a single witness--Democrat or Republican--recommended any of the drastic cuts or draconian policy changes to SNAP included in this Republican farm bill.
When our distinguished ranking member on the committee, Mr. Peterson, was finally asked for Democratic feedback on the nutrition title, he gave a long, thoughtful list of objections and suggested changes. His input was ignored with the majority changing barely a handful of words in this whole bill.
The Republican farm bill is filled with controversial provisions, and no one will tell us how they even got into the bill. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have asked. I can't get an answer. Maybe President Trump's ethically challenged White House opened its doors even wider to lobbyists and let them write key parts of this bill. Or perhaps an arch-conservative think tank was given the chance to airdrop its wish list into the bill.
But I suspect something more mundane and damaging. I think the Speaker viewed this bill as his last chance to enact sweeping cuts to safety net programs before he retires. Even the number of this bill, H.R. 2, was always reserved by the Speaker for his so-called welfare reform bill.
So I warn my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: make no mistake. This legislation is a transformation of our social safety net dressed up as a farm bill. It beats up, belittles, and demonizes poor people all across this country. It doesn't even try to put lipstick on this pig.
Mr. Speaker, last week it was reported that the Republican Conference brought in communicator Frank Luntz to try to wordsmith how Republicans can justify supporting this bill. They must be terrified. They know that just explaining the reality would appall and enrage most Americans.
Now, Mr. Luntz is the same guy who helped craft Speaker Gingrich's Contract with America. He earned PolitiFact's lie of the year in 2010 for one of his debunked claims on healthcare reform and even tried once in an interview to turn the term Orwellian into something positive. Mr. Speaker, he has his work cut out for him here because I don't even think Mr. Luntz can wordsmith something so cruel into something positive.
Now, here is how mean this bill really is. SNAP is our Nation's premier anti-hunger program, our first line of defense against hunger. People, including the most vulnerable among us--kids, the disabled, and the elderly--turn to it when there is no other option. For them, there is no plan B when they are struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from. With this bill, Republicans are cutting SNAP by over $20 billion. Millions of people would see their benefits slashed, and many would be cut off from assistance entirely.
Why are the Republicans doing this?
To pay for hoisting their latest unproven and way underfunded State- based workforce bureaucracy experiment on the entire Nation. That is why. I say ``unproven'' because I don't see any evidence or studies suggesting that any of this will even work. In fact, I have a study here that points out the flaws in this proposal.
It expands work requirements for poor parents while making millionaires and billionaires eligible for subsidies even if they don't live or work on a farm.
You can't make this stuff up. There is no evidence that this approach is effective. We have no idea whether States have the manpower or infrastructure to take this on. We have no idea how much it will cost States to put a recipient through a job training program. This bill would give States just $30 to train each person, when we know it costs thousands of dollars per person to fund robust job training programs.
Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable if this weren't so serious.
Currently, States are testing the effectiveness of job training programs as a way to help SNAP recipients move out of poverty. But we aren't expecting to get the results of these pilot programs until 2021.
Shouldn't we wait to see the results of State pilot programs? Shouldn't we wait until we know what might work and what doesn't? Why should we force our Governors and States to gamble on a sweeping, untested bureaucracy that appears doomed to failure?
Clearly, the Republicans aren't going to let a lack of facts stop them from creating this massive, new government bureaucracy that will affect millions of vulnerable Americans. This is from a party that claims to want a government so small, they could drown it in a bathtub. Apparently, they want a government just small enough to leave millions of poor and working Americans with nowhere to turn.
This isn't about helping people; this is about putting up roadblocks that make nutrition assistance difficult, if not impossible, to get.
This legislation also severs the link between SNAP and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. This connection is what has allowed disabled and working families to receive credit for out-of- pocket heating and cooling expenses without unnecessary trips to the SNAP office. But the changes in this bill would force recipients to make those unnecessary trips, and they would lead to more hassles and avoidable errors and people falling through the cracks.
I think the Republican leaders in the House are the only people on this planet who believe that creating unnecessary hassles count as some kind of laudable reform.
The Republican farm bill would also eliminate broad-based categorical eligibility. This has been a critical option that States have used to help working families with kids and seniors during tough times. More than 40 States today use this option, including 12 States with Republican Governors. Eliminating it would cause 400,000 eligible households--close to 1 million people--to lose their food benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 265,000 students will lose access to free school lunches if this bill were to become law.
You know, when I was growing up, it was school bullies that went after kids' lunch money; it wasn't the United States Congress. This is shameful.
But let's also be clear here that eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility would throw close to 1 million people off of SNAP who work. Basically, it would deny SNAP benefits to people who earn under $16,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, what the hell is wrong with this place?
These people can't get through the year on that. That is not enough to feed one's self or one's family.
The Republican Congress, who rushed to raise taxes on 86 million middle class families to pay for a tax cut for large corporations and the richest 1 percent, is now trying to stop kids from getting school lunches and taking assistance away from families struggling with hunger.
This entire Congress has been one long, slow march toward making life harder for the poor, the hungry, and working Americans. I am tired of a Congress that prioritizes the rich, that looks out only for the wealthy.
The legislation we take up here today should reflect our values. But this bill doesn't reflect my values, Mr. Speaker. This is a farm bill that doesn't even make significant improvements to our agricultural programs to help farmers who are caught in the middle of the President's trade war.
It is an attack on those living in poverty. It trades in stereotypes to justify shredding our social safety net, and it is hell-bent on making hunger worse in this country. This Republican farm bill is disgusting, and the process that got us here is disgusting.
By the way, just so Members are clear, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. I say to my colleagues, you try living on that.
Under this bill, somebody who is working and earns like $15,800 a year up to like $23,000 a year, who works right now, and who currently receives SNAP would lose it under this. This is how you are rewarding their work. I just find that appalling.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments. I think, again, if the gentleman reads this bill, he and his farmers should be concerned about this bill because it does not increase support for our farm safety net and support prices. So we have a lot of farmers who are deeply concerned about that part of the bill as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, which provides the fix needed to implement the VA MISSION Act to ensure that it is not hindered by budget caps.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss that proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we aren't done, so if the gentleman would like to yield me some time, that would be great.
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to read the bill. Broad- based categorical eligibility gives States the flexibility to offer people who are struggling--more people, the SNAP benefit. There are many States, including mine, that basically offer SNAP to people who are at 200 percent of the poverty level. That is about $24,000. This bill changes the criteria.
So you could be working and making anywhere from $24,000 to like $15,900, and, right now, you are working and that is what you make and you are eligible for SNAP. This bill says you no longer can get that benefit. These are people who work, and this bill takes this nutrition benefit away from them.
I don't know how anybody could think that that is a good thing to do. I don't know how that reward works. What that does is punish people. That punishes individuals who are doing everything they possibly can to try to make ends meet.
And a lot of people, by the way, who qualify for SNAP who aren't working, qualify maybe for a month or two because they are out of work for only a month or two. This idea that SNAP creates this culture dependency is just a myth. The majority of people on SNAP work--who are able-bodied work. I want to make that point clear.
Blunt Rochester).
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I originally had some things written down on paper, but based on the last comments, I just want to echo the sentiments of my colleague and also share that I served as Secretary of Labor in the State of Delaware. I served as head of State personnel.
Jobs are important to us. I had the opportunity to work on WIA, WIOA, all of those great pieces of legislation for workforce development. And I want to talk about some myths.
There is a myth that the majority of people on SNAP aren't working or won't work in a year. That is a myth. Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, and people with disabilities. People don't realize that. And there are 6 million unfilled jobs. So, for me, the problem with this bill, the biggest problem is that it was a missed opportunity.
If we are truly serious about employing people who are returning from prison, people who maybe have a disability-- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, if we are truly serious, then we will come to the table. But when the table is set in stone, then we don't get an opportunity to really work on those things that will support the American people.
The other piece that was disappointing to me is, I came to this as a person who wanted to be on this committee because of its bipartisan nature and that the American people are waiting and watching to see us come together for them. This is a loss of confidence, and it is also a missed opportunity.
I am excited and hopeful that we will come together because the people are watching.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that I wrote to Secretary Perdue, because there were a lot of questions and assumptions that were never answered even in our markup. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 11, 2018. Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Perdue: I am writing to request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) respond to my inquiries regarding H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, which is also known as the Farm Bill. As a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I am one of 46 Members sitting on the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation. Given the breadth of the proposed changes in the Farm Bill, I want to take this opportunity to reach out to the agency that will be responsible for implementing the provisions in the bill.
During the markup of the Farm Bill on April 18, 2018, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were only able to direct questions to Chairman Conaway. However, I believe it is essential that we hear from the experts involved in running these programs to ensure we are advocating for policies that are evidence-based. As a result, I respectfully ask that you address the following questions and provide a timely response. Workforce Programs
My understanding is that we would need anywhere between three to five million more slots in workforce training programs across the country if all eligible SNAP participants would like to enroll in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) programs. The bill would provide a new federal E&T grant of $1 billion per year to finance the newly mandated work program, which comes out to less than $30 per person per month. Upon what evidence and or best practices has this number been arrived at? Does the USDA believe this is sufficient? If not, what does the USDA think is sufficient to implement a meaningful workforce development program and move people into work?
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis says it would take a decade to set up a program for everyone to get a work slot. If state E&T costs are greater than their annual federal grant, will states bear the additional costs associated with operating the work programs? What breakdown does USDA expect in administration expenses between job training, IT, administrative costs, and other programs? What are the ramifications for states of not fully implementing their work programs?
What additional capacity would USDA require to oversee this new work program? Would states experience increased administrative costs under this proposal?
When specifically will we hear the results from the 2014 Farm Bill SNAP E&T Pilot Projects? Under current law, what are your expectations for sharing these findings and building them into USDA oversight of state E&T? If H.R. 2 were to be enacted as proposed, when will you be able to incorporate the findings from the pilot projects into the SNAP program, based on how this bill is written?
I appreciate your timely consideration and the work you do for farmers, families, and communities across the country. Sincerely, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Committee Member, House Committee on Agriculture.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, who are very strongly opposed to this farm bill. Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities, Washington, DC, May 7, 2018. Re H.R. 2, Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (Farm Bill). Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi, The undersigned members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) urge you to continue the longstanding bipartisan commitment to protect and strengthen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by rejecting proposals to restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, cap or reduce funding, or make harmful structural changes to SNAP in the Farm Bill.
CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations working together to advocate for federal public policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society.
In the United States, all too often food insecurity and disability go together. Families that include people with disabilities are two to three times more likely to experience food insecurity than families that have no members with disabilities. Similarly, people experiencing food insecurity have increased likelihood of chronic illness and disability.
SNAP is vitally important for people with disabilities and their families. By increasing access to adequate, nutritious food SNAP plays a key role in reducing hunger and helping people with disabilities to maximize their health and participate in their communities.
Using an inclusive definition of ``disability,'' in 2015 an estimated 11 million people with disabilities of all ages received SNAP, representing roughly one in four SNAP participants.
Roughly 4.4 million households with non-elderly adults with disabilities received SNAP in 2016.
Non-elderly adults with disabilities who receive SNAP have very low incomes, averaging only about $12,000 per year in 2016.
SNAP benefits are extremely modest, averaging $187 per month for non-elderly people with disabilities in 2016--or just $6 per day.
Existing SNAP time limits are harsh, unfair, and harm many people with disabilities and their families by cutting off essential food assistance. Federal law currently limits SNAP eligibility for adults between the ages of 18 to 49 without dependents to just three months out of every three years-- unless they can engage in work or job training activities at least half time, or qualify for an exemption. These provisions cut off food assistance at a time when people need it most and do not result in increased employment and earnings. At least 500,000 low-income individuals nationwide lost SNAP in 2016 due to this time limit.
Many people with disabilities are already hurt by SNAP time limits, despite existing exemptions for people who receive governmental or private benefits on the basis of a disability or are able to document that they are ``physically or mentally unfit for employment.''
For example, in a study of SNAP participants subject to time limits referred to participate in work activities in Franklin County, Ohio, one-third reported a ``physical or mental limitation''.
Cutting off food assistance from SNAP would only make it harder for people to work and increase their economic self- sufficiency. We strongly oppose any action that would cut off or reduce SNAP benefits, narrow eligibility, or force more people to navigate harsh and unnecessary program rules, including people with disabilities and their families.
In particular, we are concerned that the Farm Bill advanced by the House Committee on Agriculture on April 18, 2018 includes a number of provisions that would harm people with disabilities and their families. Small increases in the proposed bill are insufficient to make up for significant benefit reductions.
New work requirements with highly punitive rules would cut off SNAP benefits for many people--including in families with children, adults, and seniors with disabilities. It may seem simple to assert that ``people with disabilities will be exempt,'' but converting such a statement into an effective policy process is complicated, expensive, and fundamentally flawed. Many people with disabilities receive SNAP, but do not meet SNAP's statutory definitions of ``disability'' or have not been so identified. Under SNAP, states have no obligation to help people prove they are exempt, even if they have difficulty obtaining the necessary records or verification from a doctor. In addition, states are under no obligation to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the full array of services they might need to work--such as accessible transportation, supported employment, and personal care aide services. People with disabilities often want to work, but need additional supports and services to obtain and keep jobs, in addition to facing discrimination and misconceptions about their ability to work.
Underfunded work programs would be woefully inadequate to meet training needs. Proposed new investments in SNAP employment and training programs--funded in large part by benefit cuts--amount to only about $30 per person per month. This amount would be grossly insufficient to provide adequate employment services for people subject to proposed new work requirements, including jobseekers with disabilities.
New reporting requirements would create major hurdles to benefits. Proposed new reporting requirements related to eligibility, employment and training, and time limits would be extremely difficult for many people with disabilities to navigate and comply with. For example, ending a decades-old simplification measure and instead requiring people to share utility bills with the SNAP office--or else, see their benefits reduced--is harsh, unnecessary, and burdensome both for SNAP participants and states.
If Congress wishes to explore meaningful opportunities for SNAP participants to increase self-sufficiency through employment, we recommend awaiting the results of the Employment & Training pilot projects authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) awarded pilot grants in 2015, all 10 state programs are operational, and evaluation activities will operate through 2021. Already, a number of pilot states have cited multiple barriers faced by participants, including ``health issues.'' It will be important for USDA and the evaluators to carefully explore the experiences and outcomes of people with disabilities and their families in these pilot programs. Congress should await the final pilot evaluations before considering any changes in these areas.
We call on you to reject proposals that would weaken SNAP's effectiveness as our nation's foremost anti-hunger program by limiting access, reducing benefits, or creating administrative hurdles. We urge all Members to vote no on the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 as approved by the Agriculture Committee on April 18, and instead to work on a bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect SNAP as part of the Farm Bill. Sincerely,
CCD members:
ACCSES, Allies for Independence, American Association of People with Disabilities, American Association on Health and Disability, American Diabetes Association, American Foundation for the Blind, American Network of Community Options and Resources (ANCOR), American Psychological Association, Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), Autism Society, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Brain Injury Association of America, Center for Public Representation, Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, Council of Administrators of Special Education, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC), Easterseals.
Epilepsy Foundation, Institute for Educational Leadership, The Jewish Federations of North America, Justice in Aging, Lutheran Services in America Disability Network, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), National Association of State Head Injury Administrators, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Disability Institute, National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome Congress, National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (NOSSCR), School Social Work Association of America, SourceAmerica, TASH, The Arc of the United States, United Spinal Association.
Joined by:
Lakeshore Foundation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from No Kid Hungry, Share Our Strength, an initiative strongly opposed to this bill. [From No Kid Hungry, May 15, 2018] Congress Must Vote No on Farm Bill
Washington, DC.--This week the House of Representatives will vote on the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), also known as the Farm Bill. The following is a statement from Share Our Strength's Senior Vice President Lisa Davis about the harmful impact the bill would have on struggling families in America. Share Our Strength officially opposes the bill.
``This week, the House of Representatives will vote on the Farm Bill. On balance, this bill will ultimately increase poverty and hunger in the United States and Share Our Strength cannot support it.
Thirteen million children today are growing up in families that worry about hunger. Even more live in families on the brink, just one lost job, one medical emergency, one broken water heater away from hunger. Consider:
A study by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all Americans couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency expense.
Another study from the National Center for Children in Poverty shows that nearly half of all children in the United States live ``dangerously close'' to the poverty line. 6 in 10 Americans will spend at least one year of their lives in poverty.
And in another survey recently conducted on behalf of No Kid Hungry, two-thirds of low-income parents said they would not be able to afford enough food for their families if they were hit with a single, unplanned expense of $1,500.
These are families trying to do their best to survive. These are the families we all know. It's the single working mom in California, worried about whether to pay the electricity bill or pay for groceries this month. It's the grandmother trying to raise her grandkids in Appalachia. And it's the military veteran trying to find enough work hours to support his son in Central Pennsylvania.
And while this legislation includes some needed improvements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), such as increasing asset limits and indexing them to inflation, these changes are significantly outweighed by harmful ones, such as eliminating Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) and increasing administrative burdens on states and imposing penalties on adults who are unable to comply with the expanded work requirements in a given month.
We believe a good job is the best pathway out of poverty, but there is little reason to think the policies in this Farm Bill will increase employment. It imposes harsh penalties on beneficiaries who drop below the required number of hours in a month, locking them out of SNAP for a full year the first time and 3 years if it happens again. imagine a single mom barely getting 20 hours of work a week whose child gets strep throat or the flu. Or the rural dad whose car breaks down. Or the 55-year-old house cleaner whose back goes out.
This is all counterintuitive. Adding hurdles and punitive restrictions won't help people find jobs or get back on their feet. But it will increase hunger and hardship for many families.
In addition, the Congressional Budget Office also reports that this legislation will lead to more than 265,000 kids losing free school meals during the school year, a double whammy for poor, working families. Research demonstrates the deep connections between hunger and health, particularly for children. When kids don't get the fuel they need to nourish their developing minds and bodies, they are more likely to get sick and do poorly in school, and they are much less likely to access a future free from poverty.
We urge members of the House of Representatives to take a stand for children and families and oppose this legislation.'' ABOUT NO KID HUNGRY
No child should go hungry in America, but 1 in 5 kids will face hunger this year. Using proven, practical solutions, No Kid Hungry is ending childhood hunger today by ensuring that kids start the day with a nutritious breakfast, are able to get the nutrition they need during the summertime, and families learn the skills they need to shop and cook on a budget. When we all work together, we can make sure kids get the healthy food they need. No Kid Hungry is a campaign of national anti-hunger organization Share Our Strength.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from a coalition of over 60 child advocacy organizations opposed to the bill. May 9, 2018.
Dear Representative: As child advocates in the areas of hunger and nutrition, poverty, health, welfare, housing, and education, we are writing to express our opposition to the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), which will harm the millions of children who rely on federal nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for access to consistent, healthy food. In the interests of our nation's babies, children and youth we strongly urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2.
SNAP is a proven anti-hunger and anti-poverty program for children, which also lowers the odds of household and child food insecurity, and of children's anemia, poor health, hospitalization for failure to thrive, and developmental delays. Research has also found that receiving SNAP in early childhood improved high school graduation rates, adult earnings, and adult health. Today, nearly 20 million children participate in SNAP, representing 44 percent of the program's recipients and receiving nearly half of every SNAP dollar. In addition, school breakfast and lunch programs provide many of these same children a nutritious morning and lunchtime meal each day. Because children experience both poverty and food insecurity at higher rates than the general population, federal nutrition programs such as SNAP and school meals are critical supports that help them develop, learn, and succeed. To that end, we are very concerned about the impact H.R. 2 would have on our nation's children. In fact, several provisions in the Nutrition Title of H.R. 2 directly threaten access to vital nutrition programs for the countless children and youth that we represent:
Drastic Program Eligibility Changes: H.R. 2 Makes several harmful changes to state options that simplify SNAP eligibility requirements to improve access to SNAP for poor and low-income families with children. These changes would:
Expose Low-Income Children to a SNAP ``Benefit Cliff'': H.R. 2 eliminates Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which gives states additional flexibility and efficiency in granting SNAP eligibility. This change will reinstate a benefit cliff in a majority of states, jeopardizing food assistance for 400,000 households who are scraping by on earnings just above 130 percent of the Federal poverty line.
Undermine the Ability of Poor and Low-Income Families with Children to Build Savings: Similarly, the virtual elimination by H.R. 2 of Categorical Eligibility will mean many states will have to introduce a counterproductive and costly process of asset testing for SNAP eligibility. As a result, H.R. 2 would cause many families to lose eligibility solely because of red tape, and force other families choose between meeting their basic need for food and building up the savings and resources that would help them achieve economic mobility.
Threaten Poor and Low-Income Children's Access to School Meals: Under current law, children who receive SNAP are directly certified for free school meal programs. These meals help combat childhood hunger, while playing an important role in improving academic achievement and test scores and reducing absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline referrals. By forcing families off of SNAP due to changes in categorical eligibility, H.R. 2 would break this vital link between SNAP receipt and school meals for low-income and poor children. As a result, some 265,000 children stand to lose access to free school meals.
Undermine SNAP benefits for Poor and Low-Income Children Whose Families Rely on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): LIHEAP is a program that helps low-income households afford their monthly utility bills. Under current law, some states allow households to use LIHEAP benefits greater than $20/month as proof of significant energy expenses, creating a streamlined method for families to access a modest increase in their SNAP benefit. However, H.R. 2 removes this option for households that do not have an elderly member, effectively requiring poor and low-income families with children to provide substantial documentation of energy bills on a frequent basis for caseworkers to determine their utility allowance, which could discourage them from seeking the larger benefit or decrease its size.
Harsh Work Requirements: Under current law, existing SNAP work requirements aimed at childless adults already have unintended and harmful consequences for children (for instance, those who rely on pooled resources from extended family and Non-Custodial Parents) and youth (such as those aging out of foster care.) Yet in spite of limited supporting evidence, H.R. 2 intensifies and expands work requirements, reduces state flexibilities for exemptions, and requires states to implement costly training and employment programs that will take funds from food benefits to support a bureaucracy that will not provide quality services to people. The consequences of these changes could be devastating for countless children and youth, including:
The 13.4 million school-aged children on SNAP: H.R. 2 takes the unprecedented step of expanding work requirements to adults with school-aged children. This provision risks the wellbeing of children whose parents or guardians are: 1) acting as a caretaker for a loved one such as a child with a disability; 2) have physical or mental health disabilities that don't qualify as a disability under the legal definition; 3) face substantial barriers to work, including substance abuse issues or domestic violence; 4) working but struggling to meet the 20 hour per week threshold or the burdensome documentation requirements; and 5) have difficulty obtaining childcare or transportation. For these parents or guardians, losing SNAP translates to a benefit cut for their whole household, meaning there will be less food on the table for their children. Some parents and guardians may also erroneously believe that their inability to meet these new work requirements makes their children ineligible for SNAP as well, and as a result opt out of applying for or renewing benefits for the entire family.
In addition, children in very vulnerable families may be impacted by the new requirements, such as:
Children in the Care of Grandparents: Today, more than 2.5 million children are being raised by their grandparents or other relatives, in part because families are dealing with parental alcohol and substance abuse issues, which are growing rapidly due to the opioid epidemic. And already, these families face barriers to accessing the full array of benefits and services they need. H.R. 2 would further threaten the ability of grandparents and other older relatives to care for children because it expands work requirements for adults up to age 60 who are caring for children over six years of age.
Children in Families with a History of Family Violence: H.R. 2 requires parents fleeing family violence with their children to meet the new work requirements unless they receive a state exemption. In addition, H.R. 2 requires parents to cooperate with state Child Support Enforcement (CSE) efforts in order receive SNAP benefits--a drastic change from current law, under which 45 states, DC, and the Virgin Islands have declined to link the two. Yet H.R. 2 effectively eliminates existing state flexibility around CSE cooperation, meaning parents who would like to apply for SNAP but are afraid of CSE requirements which would link them to their abusers are forced to choose between safety and feeding their children.
Children in Military and Veteran Families: Many veteran and military families need help feeding themselves and their children. Today, households that include a veteran with a disability are nearly twice as likely to lack access to adequate food as households that do not include someone with a disability, and sadly, food insecurity rates are nearly double among post-9/11 veterans. Furthermore, currently- serving military families often experience food insecurity because of financial emergencies, low pay, and crisis levels of chronic unemployment or underemployment of military spouses in a society where most families need dual incomes to live. By subjecting these parents, including those suffering from PTSD, to the new work requirements, H.R. 2 penalizes families in need who have already sacrificed so much for our nation.
Youth aging out of foster care and unaccompanied, homeless youth: Youth aging out of foster care often face various challenges, including homelessness, difficulty affording education, and finding employment. Unaccompanied homeless youth and young adults (who lack safe stable housing and who are not in the care of a parent or guardian) experience similar difficulties, especially when they reach age 18. Existing SNAP work requirements already create a substantial barrier for these young people from accessing food assistance, because they technically meet the definition of a childless adult. Under the harsh requirements in H.R. 2, these vulnerable young adults will face even larger obstacles to food assistance.
The Farm Bill represents an important opportunity for policy solutions that will strengthen and improve nutrition programs for our nation's children. Instead, H.R. 2 is slated to reduce spending on SNAP benefits by more than $20 billion over 10 years and will disproportionately hurt children through its harmful provisions. We urge you to protect our nation's children and vote NO on H.R. 2.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Signed,
1,000 Days, African American Health Alliance, Afterschool Alliance, American Academy of Pediatrics, Arizona Council of Human Service Providers, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, Campaign for Youth Justice, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America, Child Labor Coalition, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Leadership Council, Children's Advocacy Institute, Coalition on Human Needs, Covenant House International, Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC), Every Child Matters, Families USA, Family Focused Treatment Association.
Family Focused Treatment Association, First Five Years Fund, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center, Forum for Youth Investment, Generations United, Healthy Teen Network, Jumpstart, Lutheran Services in America, Methodist Children's Home Society, MomsRising, National Alliance of Children's Trust & Prevention Funds, National Association for Family Child Care, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Counsel for Children, National Center on Adoption and Permanency, National Consumers League, National Council of Jewish Women, National Diaper Bank Network, National Health Law Program.
National Human Services Assembly, National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Migrant Seasonal Head Start Association, National Network for Youth, National PTA, National Urban League, National WIC Association, National Women's Law Center, Oral Health America, Parents as Teachers, Partnership for America's Children, PolicyLink, Prosperity Now, Public Advocacy for Kids, Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition.
RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, SchoolHouse Connection, Share Our Strength, Social Advocates for Youth San Diego, SparkAction, StandUp For Kids, The Criminalization of Poverty Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, The National Association for Bilingual Education, The W. Haywood Burns Institute, UnidosUS, Western Regional Advocacy Project, Youth Villages, YWCA USA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Education Association strongly opposed to this bill. National Education Association, Washington, DC, May 15, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association and the 50 million students they serve, we strongly urge you to VOTE NO on the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2) and oppose any amendments that further weaken the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This bill makes unnecessary changes to eligibility requirements that could reduce the number of students certified for free school meals. The bill also imposes additional work requirements for adults that will make it harder for some people to get or keep critical nutrition benefits. Votes associated with this issue may be included in NEA's Report Card for the 115th Congress.
The Farm Bill, as this reauthorization is commonly known, provides funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is our nation's largest anti-hunger program. By providing monthly benefits to eligible low-income people to purchase food, SNAP plays a critical role in reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, and improving family security, child and adult health, and employment. SNAP reaches key vulnerable populations--78 percent of SNAP households include a child, an elderly person, or a person with disabilities; 84 percent of all SNAP benefits go to such households. SNAP lifted 3.6 million Americans out of poverty in 2016, according to the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure. By providing much needed economic support, SNAP allows families to have sufficient nutrition during times of unemployment, fluctuating incomes, and low-wage work.
Children living in households that receive SNAP benefits are eligible to receive free school meals. The healthy meals that low-income children receive at school fight hunger, improve academic performance, and help reduce absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline referrals. According to the Food Research and Action Center, linking children in SNAP households to school meals is so important that Congress required all school districts participating in the National School Lunch Program to directly certify their students for free school meals.
H.R. 2 undermines the important link between SNAP and free school meals in the 28 states that have chosen a broad based categorical eligibility option under current rules that expands SNAP eligibility to assist working families that still struggle to make ends meet. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), this could impact as many as 265,000 students nationwide. While students could apply for school meals via a burdensome paper process, there is no guarantee that they will still be eligible for the program or recertified in a timely manner. This would cost their families even more when they have just lost SNAP benefits. Further, this puts an enormous administrative burden on schools to revert to a costly paper-based system,
Direct Certification for SNAP also provides the foundation for the Community Eligibility Provision, a hugely successful option that allows over 20,000 high-poverty schools to offer free breakfast and lunch to their students. The provision eliminates the need for schools to collect and process school meal applications, which allows schools to focus on providing healthy and appealing meals instead of processing paperwork. Schools are eligible to implement community eligibility if at least 40 percent of their students are certified to receive free school meals without submitting an application.
Reducing the number of students who are directly certified by changing the rules for broad-based categorical eligibility means that fewer schools will be eligible to implement community eligibility, and many schools that are eligible will find that it is no longer financially viable, because fewer of their meals would be reimbursed at the free rate. This would increase unnecessary paperwork for schools and inhibit student success.
The proposed changes in H.R. 2 to broad-based categorical eligibility will result in working families losing much needed food benefits. It also means that their children could lose free school meals, amplifying the negative impact of the cut. It will mean more children go hungry at home as well as at school.
The bill further imposes aggressive new work requirements, which are unnecessary, unworkable and likely to do more harm than good. It would require SNAP participants ages 18 through 59 who are not disabled or raising a child under 6 to prove-- every month--that they're working at least 20 hours a week, participating at least 20 hours a week in a work program, or a combination of the two. These new requirements would force states to develop large new bureaucracies that would need to track millions of SNAP recipients, but likely would do little to boost employment, particularly given that the new funding provided in the bill for job training and work slots would amount to just $30 per month for those recipients who need a work slot to retain SNAP benefits, according to the CBPP. Further, the requirements would leave low-income people with barriers to employment--such as limited job skills or family members with illness--with neither earnings nor food assistance.
We also have particular concern about amendments filed for Rules Committee consideration that would undermine the nutrition guidelines for school meals programs. These guidelines are currently being implemented in schools, and have already led to increased fruit and vegetable consumption by students. Good nutrition is particularly important for students from low-income families, who may eat as many as half of their calories every day at school. Additionally, USDA has only recently published an interim rule for school meals that provides additional flexibility on the guidelines for schools. These amendments would only add uncertainty to this process and threaten the nutritional quality of the meals offered to students.
We urge you to oppose any amendments that could threaten mandatory safety net programs beyond SNAP, such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
The bill further includes $65 million in loans and grants administered by the Department of Agriculture to support Association Health Plans (AHP) offered through organizations that will eliminate coverage of essential health benefits (categories of care). These plans may appear to be a less expensive option than current small group market plans that include comprehensive coverage and consumer protections. However, in light of recently proposed rules, AHPs will soon not be required to cover services such as prescription drugs, mental health and maternity care leading to insufficient and inadequate care for children and adults.
We strongly urge you to Vote No on the Farm Bill, any amendments aimed at weakening the healthy guidelines for school meals, and any amendments that make it even more difficult for SNAP participants to receive critical nutrition benefits. Sincerely, Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations, National Education Association.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I am the ranking member in the Nutrition Subcommittee, and I sat through 23 hearings. I heard Republican witnesses and Democratic witnesses, and all of them said the same thing: the SNAP program is important; don't mess around with it.
I didn't hear anybody--anybody hint at embracing what is in this farm bill under the nutrition title, a title, by the way, which I, as the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, didn't even see until it was made public.
My friend from Georgia talks about bipartisanship. I mean, give me a break. I mean, you can say it all you want, but the bottom line is that it doesn't exist in the Agriculture Committee. The process was offensive, and even more offensive is what the end product is going to do to vulnerable people in this country.
You know, this is not a debate about able-bodied adults who aren't working. You know, that is a very complicated population. I actually asked for a hearing on that population, and I was denied that right. You ought to know who this population is. It is a complicated population.
Many of these able-bodied adults without dependents who are not working or who are not in the job training programs are our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan having difficulty reintegrating in the community; they are young people graduating out of foster care; they are people with undiagnosed mental illnesses. If we did a hearing, you would know who this population is. This is more than a press release.
I am sick and tired of people being stereotyped all the time. And by the way, you punish people who are working. You know, by eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, there are people right now who are working, who make, you know, between $50,800 a year and maybe $24,000 a year, they work, and they get this benefit to put food on the table.
And yet you are making changes that will deny them that benefit. They are working. You say you want to reward work. Well, what are you thinking when you take this nutrition benefit away from these people, who are doing everything right. When you take this SNAP benefit away from adults, you are taking it away from their children as well. And you heard over and over and over again that when people lose their SNAP benefit, their kids lose access to a free breakfast and lunch at school. This is awful.
Send this bill back to committee. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just mischaracterized the very partisan process that occurred in the Agriculture Committee in which Democrats were totally shut out.
I want to know: What are the remedies that we have at this point in the debate to be able to correct the record so we can correct the misrepresentations?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that nobody walked away from the table; only after we were totally shut out of the process.
As I mentioned in my opening statement--if the gentleman were paying attention--the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, actually tried to offer suggestions and was totally shut out.
I am the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee. You mentioned the ranking members usually get informed as to what is going on. I didn't see it until it was made public.
This was the most offensive process I have ever witnessed.
And, by the way, the product in this ag bill--which I don't think the gentleman has read, based on some of the things he has said--but this final product does not represent any of the hearings we had.
So this process in the Agriculture Committee, which has been, historically, probably the most bipartisan committee in the Congress, was basically thrown into chaos as a result of the behavior of the majority.
I just say to the gentleman: You can try to spin this all you want, but the bottom line is that this has never happened before. And Collin Peterson--I just want to say--is probably the most bipartisan Member of this House. If you can't strike a bipartisan deal with Collin Peterson, you can't strike a bipartisan deal with anybody.
But that is not what this was about. This was about advancing an agenda, quite frankly, that is going to hurt millions of vulnerable people in this country, and I find it offensive.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source