Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018
Floor Speech
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday about the big-picture numbers behind this cruel bill, how it would cut the SNAP benefits that families rely on to buy groceries by over $20 billion. That includes slashing benefits for vulnerable adults like veterans, the chronically homeless, and teenagers aging out of foster care by $9.2 billion.
There is a provision in this bill that would rip benefits away from nearly 1 million people, mostly from working families with kids, by eliminating an important State flexibility option called categorical eligibility.
The bill even included a provision that would have constructed barriers to accessing SNAP for those with disabilities who have out-of- pocket utility costs--that is, until Democrats shamed the majority into abandoning it as part of their manager's amendment unveiled late last night.
But get this: this fix didn't come without a cost, Mr. Speaker. Tucked into the manager's package--which was, yet again, written in secret--is a provision that will kick over 600,000 vulnerable adults off of SNAP in the first 2 years after enactment of this bill--2 years before their misguided work bureaucracy goes into effect. Six hundred thousand vulnerable men and women will lose their benefits before they even have the opportunity to take advantage of the majority's new make- work program.
Really? What are you thinking?
This entire bill is an embarrassment, and this manager's amendment only makes it worse. It should be scrapped and sent back to the Agriculture Committee, where we can have real bipartisan negotiations and craft a bill that actually helps people, because despite some changes around the margins, the Republican farm bill remains an unmitigated disaster.
Today I want to zoom in on that big picture and give telling examples of how this disastrous Republican bill would impact real people in their everyday lives, because that is what is at stake with the Republican farm bill. That is what we need to be focussed on, because it goes well beyond the numbers on a page.
McClatchy reported a story earlier this month that put it succinctly, entitled: ``50-Something Food Stamp Recipients Could Face Tough Job Search Under Proposed Rules.''
Take, for example, a woman named Sabrina, who was quoted in the story. She works side jobs, like cleaning houses and doing yard work, but has a difficult time finding steady employment at her age of 59. This bill will take away her benefits, because she may not meet its 20- hour-per-week requirement. She is working. She is exactly the kind of person my Republican friends say they want to support. Do they think she purposely found jobs that pay so little and have so few hours? That doesn't fit so nicely into the majority's press releases, but that is the reality.
Or take, for example, Thomas, a single dad who lost his wife a few years ago and is raising his preteen daughter on his own. He has worked diligently to find stable employment, but jobs are scarce in his community. Without SNAP and reduced-price school meals, Thomas said he and his daughter ``would not be able to survive.''
These are the kind of people my Republican colleagues are demonizing during this debate, and it is deeply frustrating.
Or take Lisa, a working mother of four kids earning about $14 per hour as a nursing assistant. Lisa has to stretch her monthly income to cover rent and utilities after-school care, clothing, and car costs so that she can get to her job. Currently, she receives a modest SNAP benefit to feed her family and her kids receive free school meals, but because her income is just over the 130 percent threshold for a family of five, she would automatically lose her SNAP benefits if this bill becomes law.
For Lisa, SNAP makes an incredible difference in her ability to feed her children.
Or take Elton, a U.S. Navy veteran who lost his benefits for 2 years because of the strict work requirements and time limits that are already part of the SNAP law. During the 2-year period he was unable to access SNAP benefits, Elton was hungry every day wondering what he could eat in order to get by.
It wasn't that Elton chose not to work. He worked physically demanding jobs his entire life, but he lost his job after an injury. He continues to struggle with health conditions and doesn't have reliable access to transportation; issues that are exacerbating his job search. Under this bill, Elton may lose his modest food benefits entirely.
These are real people, and if the majority on the Agriculture Committee actually took the time and did a hearing on the heartless nutrition title in this bill, they would have heard these and many other real-life stories.
Take a moment to think about what you are doing here. My Republican colleagues are denying food benefits to veterans, single dads struggling to find work, and working moms. Why? Because Paul Ryan asked you to? Because of a myth that people aren't struggling? It is sickening.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just legislation by sound bite; bad legislation. It demonizes the poor and trades in stereotypes, apparently just to help some in the majority with their next hit on FOX News.
This bill has real consequences. It will hurt real people, our constituents, yours and mine, in every single congressional district in this country.
Now, it is obvious that this isn't a serious attempt at legislating, because the process here was atrocious. The majority ignored the recommendations from Democratic and Republican witnesses during the Agriculture Committee's 23 hearings on SNAP. Controversial provisions were inserted into this bill without explanation on where they came from. I asked. I still can't find out. Democrats were left in the dark as this legislation was drafted, we were left to read about it in news reports; a total affront to the bipartisan tradition that has defined the farm bill for years.
Now, the majority may be calling this a farm bill, but it is really a total transformation of our social safety net. It is a farm bill that doesn't even improve the farm economy. Let me state, our farmers work hard, they should be valued, and they certainly deserve a hell of a lot better than what is contained in this bill.
If Republicans want to hurt our workers and denigrate the poor, they are going to have to do it alone, because, make no mistake about it, that is what this bill is designed to do and that is what it will do unless the responsible adults in the Republican Party join us in defeating it.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, is leaving, I would just urge him to read the bill, because if he did, he would realize that if this bill were to become law, there are 60,000 people in his home State of Washington who would lose SNAP benefits just due to categorical eligibility changes alone; more would lose their benefits, but just for this one tweak in this bill.
The majority of the people who would lose their benefits under categorical eligibility changes are working families, working families with kids. Children, Mr. Speaker, will lose their SNAP benefits and many of them will lose access to free school meals.
So, again, for all the talk on the other side about how this bill is somehow a good bill for families, read the bill. It is a pretty cruel bill for working families and for children.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that we defeat the previous question, and if so, I will offer an amendment ensuring that before the legislation can take effect, the President must certify to Congress that none of the administration's recent trade and tariff actions and negotiations will harm U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for reminding us that there were 51 amendments made in order, but he forgot to mention that 54 were blocked.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maine coming here and giving a speech to the cameras, but I would suggest he read the bill. When he says that nobody will lose their benefits, no benefits will be cut from SNAP, he is wrong. The bottom line is that benefits will be cut. Benefits will be cut to support an underfunded, unproven, ridiculous excuse for a workforce and training program.
I also should say I hope nobody wants to emulate the State of Maine when it comes to dealing with people who are struggling in poverty and who need food. I would instruct my colleagues to read an article that appeared in The Washington Post last year about what Maine's harsh policies have resulted in.
A veteran who served this country with distinction lost his job due to an injury and, because of Maine's strict work requirements, was thrown off of his SNAP benefits, became homeless, and was skinning squirrels in order to be able to survive. That is not a compassionate policy that I think any State or, certainly, this country should want to reach toward.
One of the things I am proud about the SNAP program is that it means that we recognize that we have an obligation to make sure that nobody in this country goes hungry. Why is that such a radical idea? Why has this program been so demonized?
When the gentleman talks about a life of dependency, read the statistics from the USDA. The average time somebody is on SNAP is less than a year. That is not a life of dependency. I am not sure what he is talking about.
DeLauro).
I include in the Record the article that I referred for you to read called ``Trump to Poor Americans: Get to Work or Lose Your Benefits,'' which talks about a veteran in Maine that basically was shut out of his food benefit because of Maine's policies. [From the Washington Post, May 22, 2017]
Trump to Poor Americans: Get To Work or Lose Your Benefits (By Caitlin Dewey and Tracy Jan)
For a period last year after he lost his food stamps, Tim Keefe, an out-of-work and homeless Navy veteran, used his military training to catch, skin and eat squirrels, roasting the animals over an open fire outside the tent he pitched in frigid Augusta, Maine.
The new additions to Keefe's diet resulted from a decision by state authorities to tighten work requirements for recipients of the social safety net--forcing the 49-year-old, who lost his job at a farm equipment factory because of an injury, off the food stamp rolls.
``I was eating what I could find, and borrowed from friends and strangers,'' Keefe said in testimony to the Maine legislature. ``There were many times . . . when I would go two or even three days without food. If one was inclined to lose a lot of weight, I could recommend this diet wholeheartedly.''
Now the Trump administration in its first major budget proposal has proposed more stringent work requirements-- similar to those in effect in Maine and other states--to limit eligibility for food stamps and a host of other benefits as part of sweeping cuts to anti-poverty programs.
The White House budget proposal, due to be unveiled on Tuesday, would reduce spending on anti-poverty programs from food stamps to tax credits and welfare payments by $274 billion over a decade, largely by tightening eligibility for these programs, according to administration officials. With additional reforms on Medicaid and disability insurance, total safety net cuts would top $1 trillion over 10 in years.
Making low-income Americans work to qualify for so-called welfare programs is a key theme of the budget. ``If you are on food stamps and you are able bodied, we need you to go to work,'' said budget director Mick Mulvaney during a White House briefing on Monday.
He said the strengthened requirements in the budget focuses on putting the 6.8 million unemployed or underemployed Americans back to work. ``There is a dignity to work,'' he said, ``and there's a necessity to work to help the country succeed.''
The White House did not offer details Monday on how the work requirements would be implemented, other than saying it would be ``phased in'' for able-bodied adults without dependent children.
The White House estimated the combined reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, would generate nearly $193 billion in savings over a decade.
In addition to SNAP reforms, Trump will propose taking the earned income and child tax credits away from undocumented immigrants working in the United States, many of whom pay taxes or have American born-children. That reform alone would save $40 billion over a decade, according to the White House.
Anti-poverty advocates say the White House could implement its desired reforms to SNAP in two ways: require recipients to work more than the current minimum of 20 hours a week, or cut the unemployment waivers in areas with high joblessness rates.
The influential Heritage Foundation, as well as a number of House conservatives have championed a crackdown on waivers, leading many anti-poverty advocates to conclude that is the most likely way the White House would implement its proposed reforms.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has asked the White House to prioritize work requirements, said the Trump administration needs to ``go after'' the four million able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program.
``You say to them, `We will give you assistance, but come to the office one day a week to do job search or community service,'' ' Rector said. ``When Maine did that, they found almost immediately that their caseload dropped 85 percent.''
Critics say such a change could endanger people like Keefe, a veteran who has been unable to find a job after injuring his wrist on the job at a plow factory in Rockland, Maine. As a result, Keefe now is medically unable to lift more than 25 pounds--which disqualifies him from other work in manufacturing.
The Navy veteran was one of several thousand former food stamp recipients who lost benefits when Maine, in 2015, declined to renew its waiver and reinstated statewide work requirements. He has spent much of the last year living in a tent.
``I don't wanna worry no one,'' said Keefe, who recently testified to Maine's Committee on Health and Human Services about the impact the work requirement had on him. But, he added: ``I hope they understand that people fall through the cracks.''
The Trump administration is considering other changes to SNAP. While details remain sparse, Mulvaney said the federal government would be asking states to share in the costs for the food stamps program, through a phased-in ``state match'' so they have a ``little more skin in the game.''
``We believe in, the social safety net. We absolutely do,'' Mulvaney said. ``What we've done is not to try and remove the safety net for folks who need it, but to try and figure out if there's folks who don't need it that need to be back in the workforce.''
Suspending employment waivers would hit hard in areas with high unemployment such as southern and central California, where the unemployment rate can spike as high as 19 percent, as well as cities such as Detroit and Scranton, Pa., where joblessness remains rampant. The change would also hit hard in large portions of New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Idaho and Michigan.
``It's unconscionable, cruel and ineffective,'' said Josh Protas, the vice president of public policy at MAZON, a national anti-hunger organization. ``I'm honestly not sure what their goal is.''
Critics say the changes in unemployment waivers would be devastating for Native American families living on reservations in North and South Dakota, Arizona and Montana where there is chronic poverty and high unemployment.
``The President's budget proposal will force kids in rural America to go hungry while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on misplaced priorities like a wall that won't keep us safe,'' said Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), in a statement to the Post. ``Parents in Montana and across Indian Country should not have to choose between food for their tables, gas for their cars, and shoes for their kids.''
The number of Americans on SNAP remains high, however. In 2016, 44 million Americans receive the benefits, compared to just 28 million people in 2008.
``They have not come down like we would expect them to do,'' Mulvaney said. ``That raises a very valid question: Are there folks on SNAP who shouldn't be?''
Anti-hunger advocates argue that, generally speaking, there are not. Because SNAP benefits decrease gradually with increased income, there is no incentive for people to avoid work to get benefits--a phenomenon economists call the ``welfare cliff.'' And benefits are too small for people to subsist on them without working: The average food stamp benefit was $465 a month for a family of four in 2015. Most people are on the program for between seven and nine months on average.
``The notion that people would prefer not to work to get that benefit, give me a break,'' said U.S. Representative Jim McGovern, (D-Mass.) a longtime anti-hunger advocate. ``This is a lousy and rotten thing to do to poor people. They look at SNAP as an ATM to pay for their other priorities.''
Additionally, three quarters of households using SNAP contain children, seniors, or people with disabilities, said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Without SNAP, the country would have had 3 to 4.5 million more people in poverty during the recession, she said.
More than a quarter of able-bodied adults without dependents on SNAP do not have a high school diploma, Waxman said; another 57 percent don't have college degrees--putting them at a disadvantage when it comes to finding work.
A number are also veterans, young adults aging out of the foster care system, and felons recently released from jail. SNAP recipients who cannot find work, for these or other reasons, are supposed to attend job training programs--but they're not widely available because of lack of funding.
``This is the trick. On the one hand, you want people to do something, when in fact a lot of folks may not realistically be able to find a job,'' Waxman said. ``Most states don't want to put the money in. This is a dilemma that we're in.''
The evidence that stricter work requirements actually cause people to get jobs is mixed, at best. In Kansas, which reinstated the requirements in October 2014, 40 percent of unemployed adults were still unemployed a year after being kicked off SNAP. Among former SNAP participants who lost benefits, the average annual income was only $5,562, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, a right-wing think tank based in Florida.
Progress has also been hotly debated in Maine, a state that conservatives regularly hold up as evidence that stricter work-requirements are effective. When the state dropped its waiver in 2015, the number of unemployed adults in the program immediately fell by nearly 80 percent.
But a May 2016 report by the state found that nearly 60 percent of those affected individuals did not report any income in the year after they left the program--suggesting they were still unemployed or underemployed a year later.
On the national level, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow who focuses on social welfare issues at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said he doesn't think similar mandates will have a huge impact on moving large numbers of recipients into employment or result in significant budget savings. Most SNAP recipients who can work are already working, and many of those who are not meet one of the various exemptions such as being disabled.
``It's making a statement that Republicans think people who are on public assistance should be doing all they can to get off,'' Tanner said, ``and that means working whenever possible.''
McGovern, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, said he was surprised to learn about the White House proposal given Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's testimony before the committee last week saying he did not favor any major changes to the food stamps program.
``It's been a very important, effective Program,'' Perdue said, according to a recording of the hearing. ``As far as I'm concerned we have no proposed changes. You don't try to fix things that aren't broken.''
The Trump administration is advocating other ``fixes'' to the safety net, as well. The budget will also propose requiring people to have a Social Security number to collect tax credits. Mulvaney said it is unfair that taxpayers support immigrants working illegally in this country.
``How do I go to somebody who pays their taxes and say, 'Look, I want you to give this earned income tax credit to somebody who is working here illegally? That's not defensible,'' Mulvaney said.
Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, said he also hopes Trump will prioritize work requirements for those receiving housing subsidies. Mulvaney did not address that on Monday.
Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the majority of Americans receiving housing subsidies are elderly, disabled or already include someone who works. Of the remaining households, nearly half include a preschool child or an older child or adult with a disability who needs the supervision of a caregiver.
Establishing work requirements for the remaining six percent of households who are `work able' but not employed would require state and local housing agencies already facing funding shortfalls to establish cumbersome monitoring and enforcement systems for a very narrow segment of rental assistance recipients, she said.
``This is neither cost effective nor a solution to the very real issue of poverty impacting millions of families living in subsidized housing or in need,'' Yentel said in a statement to the Post.
Correction: This story incorrectly stated the average annual income for SNAP participants in Kansas who had lost and then found jobs was $5,562. That figure applied to all SNAP participants who had lost the benefit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia suggests that we all take a mission trip around the world to see hunger and see how lucky we are here in the United States.
Let me tell the gentleman, you don't have to go halfway around the world to see hunger. I can take you halfway down the block, and you can see hunger right here in our Nation's capital and in every congressional district in this country.
There are over 41 million Americans who are hungry or food-insecure in this country. We are the richest country in the history of the world. We all should be ashamed. We ought to do something about it, and this farm bill makes hunger worse.
Plaskett), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to think of a response to the gentleman from Georgia, who is trying to defend the process in the Agriculture Committee as that somehow, with this bipartisan process, Democrats didn't want to participate.
But you know what? It is just not worth it. We have been explaining it over and over and over again. This process is indefensible. It really makes a mockery of the Agriculture Committee, and it makes a mockery of this institution.
Moore).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia: Do you have any speakers over there or anybody who wants to talk about this bill? Because we have a ton, and we just want to----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. It is an inquiry. I don't want to take it on my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. As long as it doesn't come out of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, but it is not coming out of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I am just taking note of all of the excitement on your side of the aisle on this bill.
Pingree).
The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) talked about how we are literally taking the food away from children. I want to make it clear to my colleagues, there should be no mistake: This bill is going to hurt kids.
First, it cuts 1 million people off of benefits through categorical eligibility challenges alone. These people are working families with kids. And once these kids lose their SNAP benefits, CBO, the nonpartisan group of experts that we rely on, expects 265,000 children will lose access to free school meals.
I ask my colleagues: Is that what you want out of a farm bill? We can do so much better.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Titus).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Sewell).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit where credit is due. This majority can't balance a budget; they can't even pass a budget. They can't fund the government without first shutting it down. They are so busy cozying up to the big banks and passing tax cuts for the wealthy that they ignore virtually every major issue facing our Nation. Right now as we speak, this Republican majority is trying to jam through a farm bill that won't even help most farmers.
But the one thing this Republican majority is incredibly good at, and the one thing that they do with ruthless efficiency is stick it to poor people. This majority is Robin Hood in reverse. They are master legislators for the megawealthy. They might want this Chamber to look out solely for those at the top, giving them more tax breaks, making it easier for them to pollute our planet and systematically attacking the safeguards we put in place to stop another financial collapse, but while they work with unflagging, unshakeable, and dogged determination to give a helping hand to the fat cats, they tell those struggling to get by and those begging for an opportunity and a living wage that they should just work harder.
Never mind that they didn't grow up in nice neighborhoods or in a stable home with good nutrition and a quality education. Maybe they started out in life having to play catchup. Maybe they need just a little help from the Government to make the American Dream a reality in their life. Or maybe they were born with advantages but have fallen on hard times and they need a little bit of help.
I am standing here today--Democrats are standing here today--giving a voice to our workers, the middle class, and those trying to break into the middle class. If my Republican friends actually listened to their voices, they would join us and vote against this monstrosity of a bill that attacks working American citizens and takes lunch money away from children.
It is disgusting, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule, and I urge all of you--no, I plead with all of you--to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I grew up in a family where helping those who were struggling was the right thing to do, the decent thing to do. Please send this bill back to committee. Surely we can do better. Let's demonstrate to the American people that we are here to help, that we care, and that we are decent.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia commented that we are all so emotional on this side of the aisle when we are debating this issue. You are damn right we are. We are emotional. We are angry. We are frustrated because people are going to be hurt.
Mr. Speaker, if you have ever met a hungry child, it should break your heart, and there are millions and millions in this country who are hungry. We are the greatest country in the history of the world and the richest country in the history of the world, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens are food insecure or hungry.
Why isn't that a priority? Why isn't that a bigger priority than another tax cut for a big corporation? I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle deep down inside care about those who suffer in this country. Here is an opportunity to prove it. Let's do a farm bill that actually doesn't make hunger worse in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am not even asking you to eliminate hunger, although I wish that were a priority. I am just saying: don't make it worse. This bill will throw millions of people off of a food benefit, and millions of children will be impacted.
Mr. Speaker, they are not just people who aren't working. You know better than that. Many of these people are working families, people who are working hard but can't make ends meet. You are taking away a food benefit. What is wrong with this institution? We can do better.
Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on this rule, and vote ``no'' on this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source