Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California. I do that respectfully.

H.R. 2 includes a substantive, enforceable, and supportive work requirement for work-capable adults 18 to 59. That is 20 percent of the population, 6 million individuals.

Waivers and exemptions were modified and even tightened to ensure that only the most vulnerable work-capable adults were waived from the requirement. Waivers take into consideration those areas with excessively high rates of unemployment, while exemptions assist those who need short-term reprieve because of temporary hardship.

Allowing for married couples to fulfill one requirement disengages recipients from the workforce. Work is more than just a paycheck. It provides dignity, social impact, opportunity, and creates the only path to self-sufficiency. One spouse fulfilling a 20-hour-per-week requirement does not lead to self-sufficiency. It does the exact opposite; it creates a lifetime dependency trap.

H.R. 2 provides equitable treatment to all households when promoting work, including those that house cohabiting adults or married adults.

Currently, 42 States choose not to use education and training funds to invest in childcare, which is an allowable investment. Reducing the age of the child from 6 to 3 is an undeniable barrier that disincentivizes employment more so than the current programming.

Requiring education and training providers to use E-Verify on all participants who depend on them for services is just plain cruel. SNAP has eligibility standards in place, and illegal immigrants are not eligible for benefits. This is simply a means to shut out the very organizations and entities that provide these necessary supports for individuals in need.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I ask support in opposing this amendment from my friend and colleague from California.

To my friends across the aisle who keep asking for bipartisan opportunity, you blew the first one. That was in subcommittee, where we could have amendments, and we are not seeing amendments from Members here. So there has been plenty of opportunity for bipartisan work.

I do appreciate the recommendations that my Democratic friends made in writing to both the ranking member and the chairman. All of those points and all the titles, I believe, were--I know in the nutrition title they were all incorporated into the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source