Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I do want to say a few words, and that is, I am trying to understand this amendment, because I really don't understand the point of it.
Under current law, children can still get SNAP even if their parents fail to comply with work requirements. That is the current law. H.R. 2, the farm bill, does nothing to change this, so I am unsure why this amendment has been offered.
I think I would classify this amendment as a covering-your-rear-end amendment, because the bottom line is that there is a lot in H.R. 2 that I think does harm to children, because when their parents are thrown off of SNAP, while they may not be thrown off of SNAP, the overall household allowance for food gets decreased, and so there is less food for the entire family.
I would say that if the majority really cared about the impact H.R. 2 would have on children, then they would address the changes that have been made in broad-based categorical eligibility, which will throw working parents off of SNAP.
According to CBO, the nonpartisan experts that we rely on to give us data, over 265,000 students will lose access to free school meals.
So there is nothing to be opposed to, I guess, because this is already current law. But I would say to the gentleman that broad-based categorical eligibility, the changes in this bill, are going to adversely impact a number of individuals in New Jersey.
With that alone, 35,000 individuals are going to lose their SNAP benefits. That is just on this one part of the bill. Many of them have kids, and the changes are going to affect these kids.
So, if you really care about these kids, I would urge you to reject this bill. Send it back to the Agriculture Committee. Let's work in a bipartisan way and construct a nutrition title which everybody understands, which is clear, which has been vetted, and which we can come to the floor and say with certainty that it will not adversely impact kids. Because this underlying bill, no matter how you want to slice and dice it, will have a negative impact on kids.
And this amendment, you go home and maybe do a press release on it, but it doesn't change the impact of this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss. We have no opposition to this amendment, but let's be honest with each other and let's be honest with our constituents. H.R. 2 will hurt families, will hurt working families, will hurt kids.
You know one thing that is also explicit, Mr. Chairman? According to CBO, 265,000 kids will be thrown off of the free breakfast and lunch program. That is according to CBO.
The other thing that is clear is that there are working families-- there are working families, Mr. Chairman, people who work, who now get SNAP benefits, who, because we are eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, a number of them will lose their benefits. And they still work. Their family households, therefore, will have less of a food allowance. That will impact these kids. That is undeniable.
So don't sit here and say this shows that we are going to protect kids. The law is the law. If you want to restate the law, restate it. Restate it 100 times, ``don't hurt kids.'' That doesn't change the fact that this bill will hurt kids.
That is why so many of us on this side of the aisle and, hopefully, a number of you on your side of the aisle are going to stand strong and oppose this.
This is not right. There was a right way to do this farm bill, and there was a wrong way to do this farm bill. This was the wrong way.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the CBO, the nonpartisan experts that we all rely on, says that over 400,000 households will lose their benefits because of the changes in H.R. 2 with regard to categorical eligibility. We estimate that to be a million people. That is undeniable.
So you can sit here all you want and say this is going to hold everybody harmless and that kids won't suffer. It is just not true. I mean, read the CBO score. Better yet, read the bill.
But make no mistake about it, the overall food allowance in that household will decrease. That is a fact. That will impact those kids.
So, if you truly want to help kids, if you truly care about kids, you will vote ``no'' on this bill. You will vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.
You will make sure that this bill goes back to committee, that we have a bipartisan process, and we have a bill that comes to the floor that helps our farmers and that helps those in need in this country.
This is not it. This does not help kids. This amendment does nothing. This is a covering-your-rear-end amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This proposal opens the door to sweeping changes in how States can operate SNAP. The amendment, which was never debated or discussed by the committee, could result in tens of thousands of American jobs being shipped overseas. I know Donald Trump wants to create more jobs in China, but I don't think we do.
This risks good-paying civil service jobs and puts benefits and services to vulnerable households at risk. SNAP's merit system ensures workers' aim is to effectively implement program rules unhindered by private interests or profit motives. Some SNAP operational functions can be appropriately turned over to private contractors, such as computer systems, custodial services, or debit card issuance in order to leverage businesses' competitive advantage.
Some, however, like eligibility determination, must remain a government function. Some SNAP clients, including many elderly, have very complex cases that require trained professional civil service workers to dedicate significant time to appropriately screen and verify their information, and ensure they receive the correct benefit levels, which is important.
Good local jobs likely could be exported out of the area or overseas. In many areas, including rural regions, civil service jobs offer some of the best paying, most stable employment for local workers. Privatizing core SNAP functions would mean many of these jobs would be moved to other locations, including overseas. Why do we want to do that?
Privatization could also compromise the security of a participant's data. SNAP collects detailed information about applicants and participants, including Social Security numbers, household composition and income, and employment information. Handing private data of millions of individuals over to private companies raises serious concerns about their ability to keep it secure, and their interest in using it for other purposes.
I respect the gentleman's intentions, I guess, but I think if we had spent some time in the committee actually discussing this, some of these concerns that I raise would be apparent.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I am not going to reconsider my opposition. I think this is a bad amendment, plain and simple. And I think the issues like determining eligibility for who can receive SNAP should not be contracted out to some private company. I do worry about creating more jobs overseas and losing very good jobs here at home.
So if you are concerned about keeping good jobs--and these are good jobs, civil service jobs--here in the United States, then you have got to oppose this amendment.
Shifting core SNAP functions to private workers could disrupt timely and accurate benefits. In H.R. 2, we are going after vulnerable populations in a very, very harsh way, and I think this would complicate things even worse.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Let me very quickly say that my first statement is my opposition to this bill. I can't imagine the cut of $23 billion out of our food nutrition program, nor can I understand the breaching of the relationship between our support for farmers and our support for poor people.
I appreciate my good friend, Mr. Faso, but I have to stand in strong opposition to his amendment which would authorize States to privatize and contract out program eligibility and other administrative functions.
Mr. Chair, I come from Texas. We tried it. It was an enormous drain on the budget. It didn't work. It was costly. People lost their benefits. It is a terrible idea because removing SNAP's merit staffing requirement would prioritize profit, disrupt access to food assistance, and export good jobs.
The SNAP merit system ensures that an employee's core mission objective is to effectively implement program rules unhindered by private interests or profit motives. Many SNAP clients, including the elderly and disabled, have complex cases that require trained professional civil service workers to dedicate significant time.
When these functions are turned over to for-profit companies, there is a different priority, Mr. Chairman. They focus on the bottom line rather than providing comprehensive support. Your constituents of this program are the elderly and children and disabled. In the early 2000s, Texas transferred most of the operational aspects of its eligibility determination system to a private contractor with disastrous results. Services deteriorated as backlogs and other inefficiencies increased. There were 127,000 children who were dropped from health insurance. I am opposed to this legislation. Let's do what is right, Mr. Chairman, for the children.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from New York, Congressman Faso, which would authorize states to privatize and contract out program eligibility and other administrative functions.
This is a terrible idea because removing SNAP's merit staffing requirement would prioritize profit, disrupt access to food assistance, and export good jobs.
SNAP's merit system ensures that an employee's core mission objective is to effectively implement program rules unhindered by private interests or profit motives.
Many SNAP clients, including the elderly and disabled, have complex cases that require trained, professional civil service workers to dedicate significant time to appropriately screen and verify their information and ensure they receive the correct benefit levels.
When these functions are turned over to for-profit companies, they focus on the bottom line rather than providing comprehensive support to the needy.
This is what we saw in Texas when the state experimented with privatization.
In the early 2000's Texas transferred most of the operational aspects of its eligibility determination system to a private contractor with disastrous results.
Services deteriorated as backlogs and other inefficiencies increased.
The contractor's monthly abandoned call rate was four times higher than what was called for in the contract; more than 127,000 children were dropped from health insurance between December 2005 and April 2006; and thousands of experienced state employees were laid off or quit and replaced by poorly trained, low-paid vendor employees.
Former Texas Comptroller, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, after conducting an audit of the system, stated that the ``project has failed the state and the citizens it was designed to serve'' and called the privatization effort a ``perfect story of wasted tax dollars, reduced access to services and profiteering at taxpayers' expense.''
Additionally, the Faso Amendment puts at risk good local jobs that likely could be exported out of the area or overseas.
In many areas, including rural regions, civil service jobs offer some of the best-paying, most stable employment for local workers.
Privatizing core SNAP functions would mean many of these jobs would be moved to other locations, including overseas.
Diminishing the pool of good jobs with steady hours and benefits could leave many out of work or with less stable options, hurting local economies.
An added danger of privatization is that it could compromise the security of participants' data.
SNAP collects detailed information about applicants and participants, including social security numbers, household composition, and income and employment information.
Handing private data of millions of individuals over to private companies raises serious concerns about their ability to keep it secure and their interests in using it for other purposes.
Shifting core SNAP functions to private workers could disrupt timely and accurate provision of benefits.
During the early 2000's, Texas experimented with privatizing key pieces of the eligibility process, including accepting applications, advising clients on program requirements and eligibility, and verifying eligibility.
The results were disastrous.
Thousands were unable to apply or were given misinformation and many received incorrect benefit allotments.
Individuals' private information was released, compromising their security.
And taxpayer dollars were wasted--none of the promises of improved performance or cost-savings were realized.
I urge all Members to join me in voting no to Amendment No. 13.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source