Está en la página 1de 3
‘AGrIcuLTURE Wee Guana GLENN “GT* THOMPSON ‘Wanner, Beata a8 EDUCATION & THE WORKFORCE “waa NATURAL RESOURCES testament Congress of the United States House of Representatives April 27, 2018 The Honorable Tom Wolf Governor 508 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Governor Wolf: Tam writing in response to your April 17, 2018 letter regarding H.R.2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 and proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). As Vice Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to correct a number of inaccurate assertions made in your letter. am pleased to the set the record straight on the policy changes H.R. 2 would bring to ensure that adequate nutrition is readily available to our neighbors in need, while simultaneously providing pathways to upward economic mobility for eligible participants. Without question, SNAP plays an important role in feeding the most vulnerable populations in Pennsylvania. H.R.2 would reauthorize SNAP for five years, while reforming and modernizing the program for the first time in decades. This will be done by maintaining funding for SNAP, strengthening existing work requirements, and providing an unprecedented investment in Employment & Training (E&T). The bill will also update the asset test and close various loopholes, ensuring that those who truly are food insecure will continue to receive assistance. Regarding workforce, I strongly support the reforms this legislation proposes, which will help put work-capable individuals on a path ‘out of poverty and ultimately on a path of self-reliance and long-term suecess. While your letter is quick to suggest the bill will “punish struggling Pennsylvanians,” as Vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, and lifelong resident of the Commonwealth — I take tremendous issue with this unfound assertion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R.2 and the nutrition title are budget neutral. Some have grossly mischaracterized the reforms to work requirements and in reality SNAP assistance will not change in any way for most recipients — especially the most vulnerable among us. Contrary to claims made in your letter, this includes children, the elderly and the disabled (two-thirds of recipients), as well as pregnant women and individuals physically or mentally incapable of work, regardless of the reason. These changes will modernize SNAP eligibility and program integrity, while simultaneously provide new opportunities for those who are work-capable, Work Requirements Your letter suggested that SNAP recipients are already subject to work requirements, but it is important to consider how these requirements have been circumvented over the years. While work mmusvune enecouy sEULeFoNTE 127 Wes Srna Smee, Sune arn 29-067 3855 en Pa, 101 eve cr Sab 6 0-707 90 awTED ON RECYCLED Papen lavnaeh ete tela eN0 FAN requirements been in statute for decades, they have been inconsistent and contain numerous loopholes that create disincentives for program participants to find work. There are two different existing work requirements: one for the general population and one for “Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents,” otherwise known as “ABAWDS.” The current ABAWD requirement for adults requires recipients to work or participate in a qualifying program for at least 20 hours per week or be time limited to receiving SNAP benefits for a total of three months. However, the current general work requirement for individuals is vague and unenforceable, and it allows most states to “check the box” by having a participant register for work while simultaneously applying for benefits. There is little accountability in this process and no follow-up is required of the states to ensure that recipients meet the income and asset tests, Consequently, the work requirements under current law have become antiquated and do not meet their intended purpose. For example, among the ABAWD population, which is estimated to be 3.5 million households, only 30 percent are actually working. In Pennsylvania, 59 of our 67 counties and 10 ‘municipalities are waived from the ABAWD time limit, including multiple counties with unemployment rates less than Commonwealth’s average. In other words, some two-thirds of SNAP recipients classified as ABAWDs, who are work capable are bypassing these requirements due to existing loopholes. While your letter also claims that the work requirements within H.R.2 would force individuals off of SNAP for lengthy periods of time if found out of compliance for even one month, the provision contained in the legislation is actually providing a one month grace period to new and returning participants as they engage in work requirements. Further, the work requirements within TLR.2 are not increased above current law and remain in place at 20 hours per week until 2026, Because the asset tests used to determine eligibility have not been updated since the 1970s, H.R.2 also modernizes them by extending the maximum value of savings from $2,000 to $7,000 for individuals; and from $3,000 to $12,000 for households with an elderly or disabled member. The bill will also increase the vehicle asset level from $4,650 to $12,000 per vehicle per household. Unlike current law, the bill also indexes these figures to inflation to provide further accuracy and consistency as economic conditions inevitably change over time. In effect, changes to the law will allow eligibility to better reflect the economy of today and into the future. Workforce Solutions Your letter claims that H.R.2 does not contain adequate funding to the states for job training, nor enough time for recipients to engage in education activities required by the legislation. In truth, H.R, 2 proposes increases to SNAP Employment & Training (E&T) from $90 million to $1 billion in 2021, more funding than the program has ever received. By 2021, the rolls will have decreased due to greater employment and should there be excess funds, they would be made available for those remaining on SNAP ~ in addition to the funds already available. Pennsylvania will continue to submit an annual State E&T plan, just as it currently does, which identifies the population, components, and how the Commonwealth will move individuals toward the outcomes specified. In the event Pennsylvania fails to provide the minimum services required, the individual is not penalized. Regarding your claim that “an additional 199,000 individuals between 50-59 would face cuts,” SNAP waivers and the state-wide 15 percent exemption allotments will remain the same as current law. ‘You have also suggested that recipients would lose coverage and be subject to harsh sanctions if they cannot meet the work requirements contained in H.R.2, due to underemployment, a personal emergency, or a sick child. The fact of the matter is that H.R. 2 does not eliminate the use of good cause and the subsequent state determination. Good cause includes circumstances beyond the individual's control, such as, but not limited to, illness, the illness of another household member requiring the presence of the member, a household emergency, the unavailability of transportation, or the lack of adequate dependent care for children who have reached age six but are under age 12. Good cause is appropriate for instances where the lack of transportation or dependent care is a short-term or temporary event. Transportation, dependent care, or other necessary participation expenses that are a ‘more chronic issue may be reason to exempt an individual from mandatory E&T participation, In short, waivers that allow SNAP recipients to deal with legitimate matters related to health, transportation, familial emergencies or underemployment will all remain in place under this legislation. Conclusion The design and modernization of the Nutrition Title of H.R. 2 was not created overnight, nor in a vacuum. Through 21 bipartisan hearings that received testimony from 81 witnesses, these policy changes were drafted over the past three years with input from rank-and-file members of the committee, stakeholders, and the states themselves. During drafting of the bill, Ranking Member Collin Peterson and his staff were engaged at every step along the way and refused to engage multiple opportunities to suggest changes prior to committee consideration. Furthermore, the minority members of the committee had every opportunity to offer amendments during the committee's consideration of H.R. 2 on April 18. Yet, not a single amendment was offered by the minority members, who were more concemed with political grandstanding than participating in the process. This is a dangerous path that abdicates the responsibilities of elected officials to participate in the process and to make effective policy changes for those they have been elected to represent. As Congress continues the process of writing the next farm bill, look forward to working with the Commonwealth to ensure that all eligible Pennsylvanians in need of SNAP will continue to receive the nutrition benefits the program provides and for those who are eligible, an opportunity to receive employment training. It is clear that we cannot feed our way out of poverty. Despite our differences, T believe there is an honest and shared desire to help break the cycle of poverty — and these modernizations will help further that goal. However, we will not be able to achieve this end through harsh rhetoric and political posturing, Rather, this debate should continue to be guided by faet and reason, while keeping farm bill programs accountable to the American taxpayer. Sincerely, Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson Member of Congress

También podría gustarte