[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1898-H1905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       HUNGER AND THE RYAN BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in tonight's Democratic Special Order, we 
will be highlighting the severe and immoral cuts made to antihunger and 
nutrition programs in the House Republican budget.
  Right now, millions of American families and children are suffering 
from food insecurity. As the map here clearly shows, food hardship is a 
national tragedy. It is present in each and every congressional 
district. The districts that are highlighted in pink and in red have 
the most food hardships, while the districts in yellow are not far 
behind. Districts highlighted in blue have the lowest food hardship, 
but the national average is that nearly one in five Americans struggles 
with food hardship. Simply put, they are at risk of going hungry.
  According to a study done by the Center for Budget Policy and 
Priorities, the Republican budget, composed by Chairman Paul Ryan and 
endorsed by Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, would ``impose 
extraordinary cuts in programs that serve as a lifeline for

[[Page H1899]]

our Nation's poorest and our most vulnerable citizens.'' Not the least 
of these are America's critical antihunger initiatives like food stamps 
and the Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, program, all of which the 
Ryan Republican budget threatens to slash by as much as 19 percent.
  That means, for example, that over 8 million men, women, and children 
could be cut from food stamps, and 2\1/2\ million pregnant and post-
partum women, infants and children may be slashed from the WIC program. 
The Ryan budget slashes these antihunger initiatives while preserving 
subsidies for Big Oil, tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. It is a 
reverse Robin Hood budget that, in the words of Robert Greenstein, the 
head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, would ``likely 
produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top 
in modern U.S. history, and likely increase poverty and inequality more 
than any other budget in recent times and possibly in the Nation's 
history.''
  As many religious and ethical observers have noted this week, the 
decisions made in this budget are antithetical to our basic moral 
values. Last Friday, 60 Catholic leaders and theologians wrote a letter 
to Chairman Ryan arguing that his budget was ``morally indefensible and 
betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation, and a 
commitment to the common good. A budget that turns its back on the 
hungry, the elderly, and the sick while giving more tax breaks to the 
wealthiest few can't be justified in Christian terms.''
  This Ryan Republican budget is particularly cruel when you consider 
the scale of need in the current economy where 13 million are 
unemployed and one in six are living below the official poverty line.
  As another group of Christian leaders, the Circle of Protection, has 
urged, Congress should ``give moral priority to programs that protect 
the life and the dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these 
difficult times.''
  Our antihunger initiatives like food stamps and WIC are just such 
programs. Tonight, I'm proud to be joined by my colleagues. We will 
discuss the profound impact the Ryan-Romney Republican budget will have 
on these programs.
  With that, I am so pleased to ask my colleague from California (Mr. 
Farr), who is the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, to continue our dialogue for this evening.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I call you Chair because 
you were chair when I was on the committee, and I always respect your 
leadership in this field.

  As was stated, I am ranking member of the House Appropriations 
Agriculture Subcommittee, and that is responsible for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The 
entire budgets of those administrations are bigger than the budget of 
all of California. It is a very important program, and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture is responsible for food policy. Most of our 
food policy in the United States is about health care. It's about 
feeding people and assisting those who don't have adequate access to 
fresh fruits and vegetables through creation of farmers markets and 
things like that.
  I'm here tonight because I'm deeply disturbed by the attention and 
sort of the media satisfaction that some are getting when they hear 
about the Ryan budget cut, squeeze, and trim; and I want to talk 
tonight a little bit not only to the families that receive the benefits 
but to the farmers who grow the food in this country.
  The Ryan budget is one you ought to look at before you leap, because 
if you look at it in detail, you will find that it has a lot to do with 
knowing about the price of everything and the cost of everything, but 
very little about knowing the value of what these programs are all 
about.
  Look, food in America is very important, and we wouldn't be having 
all these health care debates and issues if it weren't for the issues 
of health care. Health care begins with food. If you're going to grow 
healthy people, it has to do with what they eat, and we also know it 
has to do with the exercise that they participate in.
  Of about a $100 billion budget, $65 billion of that is in food and 
nutrition. It's about feeding people. We feed a lot of people in the 
government. We certainly feed everybody in the military. We feed people 
in public institutions. We feed children in schools, and we also give 
families a choice of what they want to buy with the old food stamp 
program, now known as the SNAP program, Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program.
  In my district, one out of every five families is receiving this 
assistance. And what do they do with that? They can buy, because we 
produce so much fresh fruits and vegetables, a much healthier diet than 
they would have otherwise. Indeed, if we're going to prevent illness in 
America, we have to keep people healthy.
  Who grows this food? Who produces this food? It's the farmers of 
America. They don't give it away. We buy it from them.
  A huge percentage of the income to farmers in this country comes from 
the food they produce for our institutional feeding and for our health 
care programs. The Ryan budget devastates that. He cuts, squeezes, and 
trims the farmers in this country, the growers, the people that create 
the food security in America.
  So look before you leap. This budget does a lot more harm than good.

                              {time}  1930

  And, frankly, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program is a 
very good program. We even have spouses and children of military 
families that are receiving this because at some locations the pay 
isn't great enough to be able to give them all of the nutritional foods 
that they need.
  So if we're going to grow a healthy America, we've got to keep this 
program, and we've got to avoid falling in love with the Ryan budget 
which will do everything but create a healthier, safer, sounder and 
more fiscally capable government. I urge the defeat of that budget and 
the support of the American farmers.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from California. And as this is, 
as I said, an issue that is coast to coast, I'd like to recognize our 
colleague from Massachusetts, someone who has been an unbelievable 
champion of eliminating hunger in the United States, Jim McGovern from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut for her 
passion and for her leadership on this issue, and for reminding us all 
of a terrible truth, and that is, there is not a single community in 
the United States of America that is hunger-free; that there are 
millions of our fellow citizens, men, women and children of every age 
and every background you can imagine, who are hungry or who are food 
insecure. They don't have enough to eat, can't put a nutritious meal on 
the table for their families. They go without meals on a regular basis.
  This is happening in the United States of America, the richest 
country on this planet; and every one of us, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, should be ashamed of that fact.
  I tell people all the time that hunger is a political condition. We 
have the food. We have this incredible natural resource in this country 
that we're able to produce enough food to be able to feed our 
population. We have this incredible agriculture community, wonderful 
farmers from coast to coast who can grow our food. And yet millions of 
our citizens go without.
  We have the food, we have the infrastructure, we know what to do. We 
have everything but the political will to eradicate hunger in America.
  Now, look, we all agree that we have a problem with our debt, and we 
need to get our budget under control. But it's hard to believe that the 
first place the Republicans are looking to balance the budget are on 
the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in this country, on the 
backs of people who are hungry, because tomorrow in the Agriculture 
Committee, following in line with the Ryan budget, the Republican 
leadership is going to ask that the Agriculture Committee cut $33 
billion out of the SNAP program.
  That's how they're going to balance the budget. First thing out of 
the box, going after the SNAP program, a program that has worked to 
keep millions of people not only out of hunger, but out of poverty.
  I will insert an article into the Record that appeared in The New 
York

[[Page H1900]]

Times talking about how the SNAP program has prevented millions of 
Americans from going into poverty.

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 9, 2012]

          Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds

                         (By Sabrina Tavernise)

       Washington.--A new study by the Agriculture Department has 
     found that food stamps, one of the country's largest social 
     safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially 
     during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally 
     known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or 
     SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, 
     the most recent year included in the study, a significant 
     impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed 
     by policy makers.
       The food stamp program is one of the largest antipoverty 
     efforts in the country, serving more than 46 million people. 
     But the extra income it provides is not counted in the 
     government's formal poverty measure, an omission that makes 
     it difficult for officials to see the effects of the policy 
     and get an accurate figure for the number of people beneath 
     the poverty threshold, which was about $22,000 for a family 
     of four in 2009.
       ``SNAP plays a crucial, but often underappreciated, role in 
     alleviating poverty,'' said Stacy Dean, an expert on the 
     program with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a 
     Washington-based research group that focuses on social 
     programs and budget policy.
       Enrollment in the food stamp program grew substantially 
     during the recession and immediately after, rising by 45 
     percent from January of 2009 to January of this year, 
     according to monthly figures on the U.S.D.A. Web site. The 
     stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by 
     Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a 
     temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in 
     the recession.
       But the steady rise tapered off in January, when enrollment 
     was down slightly from December, a change in direction that 
     Ms. Dean said could signal that the recovery was having an 
     effect even among poor families.
       The program's effects have long been known among poverty 
     researchers, and for Ms. Dean, the most interesting aspect of 
     the report was the political context into which it was 
     released.
       In a year of elections and rising budget pressures, social 
     programs like food stamps are coming under increased scrutiny 
     from Republican legislators, who argue that they create a 
     kind of entitlement society.
       In an e-mail to supporters on Monday, Representative Allen 
     B. West, a Florida Republican, called the increase in food 
     stamp use a ``highly disturbing trend.'' He said that he had 
     noticed a sign outside a gas station in his district over the 
     weekend alerting customers that food stamps were accepted.
       ``This is not something we should be proud to promote,'' he 
     said.
       Kevin W. Concannon, the under secretary of agriculture for 
     food, nutrition and consumer services, argued that since the 
     changes to the welfare system in the 1990s, the food stamp 
     program was one of the few remaining antipoverty programs 
     that provided benefits with few conditions beyond income 
     level and legal residence.
       ``The numbers of people on SNAP reflect the economic 
     challenges people are facing across the country,'' Mr. 
     Concannon said. ``Folks who have lost their jobs or are 
     getting fewer hours. These people haven't been invented.''
       The study, which examined nine years of data, tried to 
     measure the program's effects on people whose incomes 
     remained below the poverty threshold. The program lifted the 
     average poor person's income up about six percent closer to 
     the line over the length of the study, making poverty less 
     severe. When the benefits were included in the income of 
     families with children, the result was that children below 
     the threshold moved about 11 percent closer to the line.
       The program had a stronger effect on children because they 
     are more likely to be poor and they make up about half of the 
     program's participants.
       ``Even if SNAP doesn't have the effect of lifting someone 
     out of poverty, it moves them further up,'' Mr. Concannon 
     said.

  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take on a myth that some of my Republican 
friends have been propagating that somehow the SNAP program is a 
wasteful program. I've heard over and over and over again that the 
amount we've spent on SNAP has risen over the last decade. It has, in 
part, because we've gone through a terrible economic crisis. More and 
more of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty, have had to rely 
on SNAP.
  CBO tells us that they expect what we spend on SNAP to go down as the 
economy gets better. And this is a social safety net. This is a program 
that provides protection for people when they hit difficult economic 
times. So that is why spending has increased. It has nothing to do with 
fraud or waste or abuse.
  In fact, the GAO and the USDA have reported time and time again that 
SNAP is one of the most efficiently run programs in the Federal 
Government. Less than 3 percent error rate, and that includes people 
who get underpaid what they're entitled to.
  I dare anybody here to find me a program at the Pentagon that has 
such a low error rate in terms of the utilization of taxpayer money.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: what we're talking about here 
is not just a program, is not just numbers. We're talking about people. 
We're talking about our neighbors. And we're talking about not just 
people who are unemployed. We're talking about working people. Millions 
of working families benefit from SNAP. They're out there working trying 
to make ends meet, but they don't earn enough. So because of that, we 
have this program called SNAP to help them get by and to put nutritious 
food on the table for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, we can talk all we want about our budgetary problems. I 
want to close with this. You know, people say to me, well, we can't 
afford to spend any more on hunger programs because, you know, things 
are tough and the budget need to be tight.
  But I would counter, Mr. Speaker, by saying we can't afford not to. 
There is a cost to hunger in America and that cost we all pay for: 
avoidable health care costs, lost productivity in the workplace. 
Children who go to school without enough to eat can't learn in school. 
That all adds up. That is a huge cost of billions and billions of 
dollars that we all have to pay. And that doesn't even count what we 
invest in programs like SNAP and WIC and other programs designed to 
provide nutrition and food for our fellow citizens.
  So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the 
battle against hunger has historically been a bipartisan one. We've 
been able to come together, Republicans and Democrats, and be able to 
stand together to support programs that provide a circle of protection 
for our most vulnerable citizens.
  And all of a sudden, you know, my Republican colleagues and some of 
the Presidential candidates are using hunger as a wedge issue, calling 
President Obama the Food Stamp President. Well, I'm proud that in this 
country we care about our fellow citizens, especially when they fall on 
hard times.
  I urge my colleagues, especially on the Republican side, to stand up 
against your leadership and to stand with us and to stand with people 
who are in need. If government is not there for the neediest, then I'm 
not sure what good government is.
  Mitt Romney doesn't need government. He's a multi-millionaire. Donald 
Trump doesn't need government. But there are millions of our fellow 
citizens who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a 
difficult economic situation who rely on these programs.
  It is beyond comprehension to me that tomorrow the Republicans want 
to cut $33 billion out of SNAP. With all the places they could look for 
savings, they're going after programs to help the most vulnerable. That 
is unacceptable and unconscionable, and I hope that the majority in 
this House stand up strongly against that.
  I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague. I want to thank him for 
his eloquence. He makes a comment that these are not just statistics 
about the people who are being hurt. The fact of the matter is last 
week in my district during our district break I did an event on hunger 
in our community. And there I had the head of the Connecticut food 
bank, the woman who heads up the End Hunger Connecticut organization, 
and a young woman, her name was Susan Vass from Branford, Connecticut. 
She stood up and with tears in her eyes talked about her circumstances. 
Out of a job, that's someone who is a former pension adviser, a human 
resources director who's now unemployed, cannot find a job. She has 
three boys 18, 14 and 10 years old. They eat--she stood there crying--
one meal a day. If we cut back on food stamps, and because she's now 
not eligible, she can't get them because her unemployment benefits take 
her over the mark, so she relies on the Connecticut food bank.
  And when the food stamps are cut, the food banks don't get the 
emergency assistance program funding. So her ability to feed her family 
will continue to drop.

[[Page H1901]]

  It's wrong. It's immoral in a land that has plenty and we are 
bountiful with food in this Nation.
  I'm so delighted that our colleague, Jackie Speier from California, 
has joined us tonight for this conversation.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, who says it better 
than any of us and with such great fervor and passion.
  You know, there are times here when I am elated, and there are times 
here when I'm sick to my stomach. And tonight is one of those times 
when I am sick to my stomach. I am embarrassed for this body.
  I'm embarrassed that the Republicans want to stuff polar bears and 
bring them back to this country as trophies for their hunters, but they 
do not want to stuff the bellies of poor kids in our country. There is 
something fundamentally wrong, and I say that with a great deal of 
remorse, really.
  One in seven Americans now is in poverty and needs to be part of the 
SNAP program. You know, I think it's really important for us to say it 
over and over again. This program is not filled with fraud.

                              {time}  1940

  This program is one of the best programs that we run in the 
government, where the error rate and the fraud is less than 3 percent.
  Now, I took the Food Stamp Challenge last fall, and I've got to tell 
you that it was a humbling experience. And for every one of my 
colleagues who want to cut the food stamp program by $33 billion, I 
challenge them to live on the equivalent of food stamps for just 5 
days. I did it for 5 days, $4.50. There were no lattes in my diet. 
There were no Big Macs in my diet. There was no sushi in my diet. My 
diet consisted of canned tuna, eggs, one head of lettuce, and tomatoes 
for 5 days, and a can of instant coffee from the dollar store. That's 
how I survived. At the end of 5 days, I thought to myself, I just did 
this for 5 days. How about the family that needs to do this day in, day 
out, month after month.
  What we don't say often enough on this issue is that you are only 
eligible for the SNAP program if you are a family of four making less 
than $22,000 a year. If you make more than $22,000 a year, you are not 
eligible, and the only place you can go to is the food banks.
  So if we really are going to be a country that thinks about the 
poorest among us, we cannot reduce this program. We cannot say to those 
who are just making it, who are making less than $22,000 as a family of 
four, that we're not going to help you put food into the bellies of 
your kids.
  I say to my Republican colleagues: Don't do this. If you are, in 
fact, going to vote for this budget, then you take that Food Stamp 
Challenge for 5 days. You see what it's like and then vote for it. I 
thank my colleague.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlelady. Your words are poignant. If 
anybody would like to do this, they really should walk in people's 
shoes and understand what it's about. When the American people say that 
they don't believe Congress understands what their lives are about, in 
this instance you bear it out. Thank you.
  Someone whom we are deeply going to miss in the next session of this 
Congress, there hasn't been a greater champion for women and their 
families in the House of Representatives than our colleague from 
California, Congresswoman Woolsey.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the Congresswoman from Connecticut for this 
Special Order and for those kind words. Thank you very much.
  So let me see, do I have this right? Am I getting it? My colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle think it's just fine for the wealthiest 
Americans to avoid their fair share of the tax burden, that it's fine 
for a millionaire to pay a lower Federal tax rate than his secretary. 
So, tell me who they believe should make do with less in order to close 
the budget deficit. Just who do they want to sacrifice? Oh, of course, 
those Americans who are barely getting by, who can't afford life's 
basic necessities without support from the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, to convert SNAP into a block grant program and cut 
nutrition assistance would cut a giant hole in the social safety net. 
Actually, the SNAP program is a smart investment in Americans who need 
help the most. It stimulates the economy, it increases worker 
productivity, it's good for our children's development and academic 
performance. At this very moment, when a harsh economy is threatening 
the security of so many families, we should be increasing these 
investments. We shouldn't be standing here talking about scaling them 
back.
  You know, Mr. Speaker--you probably don't know--I know what it's like 
to be working and still not earn enough to put food on the table. I was 
a single mother, it was 45 years ago. I had three small children, they 
were 1, 3, and 5 years old. Their dad was ill, he abandoned us. I went 
back to work to support my family. In fact, I had to lie about my 
marital status and about my childcare arrangements just to get a job--
remember, that was 40 years ago. My salary was not enough to provide 
for the four of us, so to help my paycheck cover the basic needs of my 
family I went on public assistance--kept on working--and that was how I 
could make ends meet. But without food stamps, we never could have made 
ends meet. As I said, my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old. They had 
needs.
  Eventually, we got through the rough patch and my children grew up to 
be healthy, successful adults--they're amazing, by the way--but I don't 
know what we would have done or how we would have survived without that 
help. In fact, isn't that what America is about? When our fellow 
citizens fall on hard times, don't we pitch in to help them? Well, 
that's not what the Republican philosophy is. It's quite different than 
that. I believe that they believe every man and woman is on their own 
and should be fending for themselves.
  Millionaires and billionaires deserve the special breaks that they 
don't need. And more hardship for Americans who are suffering enough 
already is just what they have to do when they happen not to be very 
wealthy, or in need. It's appalling, and it's shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, you don't need to have my personal experience; nobody 
needs to. I didn't have to do the food stamp test for 5 days--I know 
what it's like to live on food stamps. But we, as Americans, as Members 
of Congress, have to fight with everything that we have to protect the 
nutrition programs that we have in this country because families in 
America depend on it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlelady for her words, and for her 
telling about her personal experience.
  I'd like to recognize the vice chair of our Democratic Caucus, the 
Honorable Xavier Becerra of California--which, by the way, has over a 
19 percent food hardship rate.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut, my good friend 
Rosa DeLauro, for not just this evening, but for the years of work that 
she has done in committee, for her district, and simply in Congress as 
being one of the champions of not just children and families who are in 
need, but the fight to make sure that all these families have an 
opportunity to have access to real nutrition, not just food, but real 
nutrition. Because there were days when ketchup was called a vegetable. 
And some people made the fight to make sure that nutrition really meant 
good food, so that if we were going to help Americans--as we want to, 
as good Americans, help our fellow Americans--then let's be sure we're 
doing it so that they end up healthy Americans as well.

  So we're here to talk about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, SNAP. SNAP is the acronym. But really what we're here to talk 
about is the fact that in America children still go to bed hungry. It's 
hard to believe, but that's the way it is for too many families in our 
country.
  Now, the numbers are staggering. They're staggering because of the 
Bush recession which left so many Americans in a place they had never 
been before. In fact, you had to go back some 70, 80 years to find a 
situation similar, when we saw the Great Depression in America.
  We went from somewhere in the mid-twenties, some 26 million Americans 
who qualified for SNAP assistance, to over 45 million, around 45 
million families during the height of this Great Recession who 
qualified for benefits. Most of those folks who qualified included 
families with children, or seniors, or persons with disabilities. It 
should come as no surprise. But what's really disheartening is to see 
how many

[[Page H1902]]

Americans live in extreme poverty, a life that most of us would not 
recognize.

                              {time}  1950

  When we talk about extreme poverty, we are talking about Americans 
who are living on less than $2 a day. The number of Americans who were 
living on less than $2 a day doubled during the Bush recession. The 
number of poor children who were in extreme poverty doubled during the 
Bush recession. Most of the people we're talking about, as my 
colleagues have said earlier, are living on less than $22,000 a year as 
a family of four. Those in extreme poverty are living on, obviously, 
far less. With an individual, not a family but just an individual, 
we're talking about someone who would have to have an income of $11,000 
or less to be able to qualify for any assistance with the SNAP program.
  What probably makes it the most difficult for many of us here in 
Congress and for most Americans to really grapple with as to this issue 
of food insecurity and children in America going to sleep hungry is the 
fact that this Congress is taking on legislation which would actually 
provide tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this very moment 
that we speak about food insecurity. So it is difficult to comprehend 
how we could say to Americans today, who are working hard but earning 
very little and who are trying to figure out how to keep their kids 
from going to sleep hungry at night, that we still have the money to 
provide tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires but that we can't 
figure out a way to continue a great program called SNAP that relies on 
our farmers to grow this food and then to make some of it available at 
a discounted rate to American families who are having a tough time.
  This is all about values. This is all about the American family. It's 
all about whether we believe in the better days still to come for our 
country.
  I happen to be someone who grew up in a very tiny house--about a 600-
square-foot home--with my three sisters. My father got about a sixth 
grade education. My mother came from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, when 
she married my father at the age of 18. They came to Sacramento, 
California, with only the money they had in their pockets. They never 
once had to ask for assistance. They worked very hard. They were 
fortunate that they always found a way to make ends meet. I never had 
the Converse or the Keds or the Levi's jeans. My first bike was a bike 
that my friend was willing to sell to my father and me because he had 
just gotten a new one, but I never went to sleep hungry.
  So I will tell you right now that it's a different thing to 
experience something where the thing you want the most before you go to 
sleep is a bite to eat. Too many of our kids are upset that they didn't 
get to watch that television program or didn't get to play on the 
computer very much at night. There are still too many American children 
who are concerned that, when they go to bed, they wish they'd have 
something else in their stomachs. I believe America has the moral fiber 
to say that we're going to deal with this problem.
  I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for, once again, continuing 
the fight, because the reality is that we could figure out a way to 
help millionaires and billionaires continue to be successful and create 
the next wave of wealthy and successful Americans. At the same time, we 
should be able to figure out a way to make sure that the SNAP program 
is there for Americans who, through no fault of their own, find 
themselves without work and who, through no fault of their own, are 
trying to figure out how they will let their children go to bed with 
full stomachs. If we do this the right way, we'll get it solved.
  I sat on the Bowles-Simpson Commission a year and a half ago, which 
found a way to save $4 trillion in our budget. It did not touch the 
SNAP program. I sat on the supercommittee, which was supposed to also 
fashion a budget deficit reduction deal, and that task force was also 
going to come up with a deal that would not have touched the SNAP 
program. We can certainly do far better than what we see in the House 
Republican budget, which is going after the SNAP program. I encourage 
all of my colleagues to stand up, not just for the SNAP program but for 
Americans today, because there are some families who tonight are trying 
to figure out how they can keep their children from going to bed 
hungry.
  So I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for all she has done for 
so long to champion this issue.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  I think one of the most important things that you commented on 
tonight was the number of U.S. households living below the World Bank 
measure of severe poverty in developing nations. That means they're 
living on less than $2 a day per person. At the start of 2011, we had 
1.4 million households, 2.8 million children--that's 800,000 
households--who were living on $2 a day, and we have colleagues in this 
institution who want to take food out of the mouths of those children.
  Mr. BECERRA. Some people don't believe that that's the case. That is 
America.
  Ms. DeLAURO. That is.
  Now I would like to say ``thank you'' to our colleague from New 
Jersey, Congressman Holt, and ask him to join our conversation this 
evening.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I thank Mr. Becerra for 
his heartfelt and very moving remarks, and I thank Ms. Speier from 
California.
  Look at this. Look at this map: 46 million Americans rely on SNAP. 
More than 9 million others rely on WIC, which is the Women, Infants, 
and Children food assistance. In New Jersey, my home State, more than 1 
million residents rely on SNAP benefits to keep food on the tables. 
Then the budget, the Republican-Ryan budget, endorsed by Mitt Romney, 
would shred our social safety net while cutting taxes for the wealthy. 
It would cut food stamps, as these are generally known, by $133 billion 
over 10 years.
  The authors of this or anyone who voted for it should walk a little 
bit in those shoes. I've walked in the shoes. More specifically, I've 
walked down the supermarket aisle with beneficiaries, with people who 
work in the food assistance programs, with food bank representatives. 
How does it go? Well, you can't buy that. No, you can't afford that. 
Oh, Mommy, can I have this? No. We're going to have to put that back on 
the shelf.

  $31.50 a week. Nobody is doing this to have a little taste of luxury. 
Yet we have people come to the floor here in the House and say, before 
any of these millions of people get this assistance, they should have 
drug tests or means tests. I call them suspicion tests. Somehow they're 
trying to rip us off.
  No, these are not welfare queens. Look, the average recipient is on 
these benefits for less than a year. More than half of them go to 
households where the income is below half the poverty line. The poverty 
line is low enough, but half of these recipients are at half that rate. 
Nearly 75 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children, 
and about half are working. These are working families who are trying 
to make it.
  Is anybody who voted for this budget suggesting that the millionaires 
who might get an extra $100,000 on average submit to a drug test? 
submit to a means test? Are we suspicious of them? How about the 
executives of the oil companies who are getting billions of dollars of 
benefits in this? Are we going to subject them to drug tests or to 
means tests in order to show that they're deserving?
  My friend from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) already mentioned the United 
States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They wrote:
  As pastors and teachers, we remind Congress that these--meaning the 
budget decisions--are economic, political and moral choices with human 
consequences.
  Please, respectfully, they urge the rejection of any efforts to 
reduce funds or to restructure programs in ways that harm struggling 
families and people living in poverty.
  I thank my colleague so much for shedding a bright light on this 
heartbreaking subject.

                              {time}  2000

  Ms. DeLAURO. It is a heartbreaking subject. And when you think about 
in that budget when we talk on averages, the number is a $150,000 or a 
$187,000 tax break to the wealthiest people in

[[Page H1903]]

the Nation. They don't worry what they're picking up at the grocery 
store. They're eating well. Their kids are eating well. Their grandkids 
are eating well, as ours are in this institution. But it's the people 
that we represent who are in difficulty, and they need to know to look 
to us to help them when it is so tough out there economically. This 
program is working in the way that it should.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Now someone who knows what is going on really in the heartland of our 
country where they have suffered severe economic depression, and that 
is in the State of Ohio. Let me welcome to this conversation, our 
colleague, Congresswoman Fudge.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentlelady so much, and I thank you for your 
passion on this subject.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a cold and cruel war being waged on the poor 
and hungry in America. I stand today with my colleagues as a voice for 
the more than 46 million Americans who depend on the food stamp 
program. I cannot and I will not stand by as my Republican colleagues 
attempt to balance the budget on the backs of these Americans.
  Yesterday, the House Agriculture Committee unveiled the 
Reconciliation Act of 2012. The drafters of this legislation could have 
proposed cuts to any program within the Agriculture Committee's 
jurisdiction; yet they decided to satisfy reconciliation targets by 
cutting only one program: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, better known as SNAP. The proposal would cut more than $33 
billion from SNAP over 10 years.
  Some may try to make you believe these cuts only apply to 
administrative costs, or they will say that the proposal is an attempt 
to reduce fraud or waste. They are misleading the public, Mr. Speaker. 
A majority of the cuts will come from benefits. These cuts will take 
food out of our seniors' refrigerators and food from the mouths of 
babies.
  Nearly half of all SNAP participants are children. The Republican 
proposal would not only affect children being fed at home. Oh, no. That 
would probably be bad enough. This proposal goes further. The 
Congressional Budget Office predicts this proposal would prevent more 
than 280,000 children from receiving free meals in school. A school 
lunch is the only meal many poor children have every day. Millions of 
children already go to school hungry, Mr. Speaker. Now my Republican 
colleagues want to exacerbate the problem. I wonder, what did children 
do to deserve these proposed cuts? Of all the programs that could be 
cut, why attempt to balance the budget on the backs of schoolchildren?
  In Ohio, more than 1.5 million people depend on the SNAP program. 
These are our neighbors and our friends who live in rural, suburban, 
and urban Ohio. SNAP is a powerful antipoverty program that has helped 
make our economy stronger. SNAP is the safety net for millions of 
people who find themselves unemployed for the first time in their 
lives. Without SNAP benefits, the disabled would suffer. Without SNAP 
benefits, seniors would be forced to make the choice between food or a 
roof over their heads. Without SNAP, children would go hungry. The 
hungry and the poor and the most vulnerable people cannot afford these 
cuts. Mr. Speaker, they cannot pay all of our bills by themselves.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman, and I also recognize the 
gentleman from Ohio who as well understands what the effects of this 
recent recession have been to his community, his State, and the people 
that he represents, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady, and I'm glad I have the 
opportunity to follow the gentlelady from Cleveland because my district 
is just south of her district.
  As you can see from the map of Ohio, there is severe poverty and food 
insecurity in the northeastern part of Ohio, but all the way down, as 
you can see, all the way into the south. And the SNAP program is one 
program that we're highlighting here tonight.
  But I think it's important for us to recognize how this fits into the 
context of an overall budget that also cuts the Medicaid program by a 
third. Think about the stress, A, regarding the SNAP program if you're 
utilizing it. What is that family going to do if a third of the 
Medicaid budget is cut and early childhood is cut and Pell Grants are 
cut and student loan rates go up and all the way down the line? We're 
talking about putting a huge squeeze on the poorest people in our 
society when we only have 300 million or 400 million people and we're 
trying to compete with 1.4 billion people in China and 1.3 billion or 
1.4 billion people in India. How are we going to be a competitive 
country? That's the question that we have to ask here if you can't even 
get enough food in a kid's belly before they go to school.
  We need to look at this in the context of what are the investments we 
need to make in order to be a successful country, period. We've heard a 
lot of amazing stories here tonight, heart-wrenching stories of people 
who ended up being Members of Congress because of some of these 
programs. Who is the next generation of leadership? Are we going to 
invest in them, or are we going to say, You're on your own?
  We have now on the other side, Mr. Speaker, the nominee of a major 
political party in the United States of America saying: ``I'm not 
concerned about the poor,'' and making light of us asking people with 
the Buffett rule to maybe pay a little bit more. You know what? They 
say, oh, that's not that much money. It's only 11 hours of government 
spending and blah, blah, blah. You know what? That Buffett rule can 
help put food in people's bellies. For the 175,000 people in my 
congressional district in northeast Ohio that are living in poverty, 
that Buffett rule would help pay for the SNAP program. Is it 
insignificant now?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  My God, what we could do if we had the will to do it. That's what 
this is about. It's a question of our values and where our priorities 
are. Is it about our kids, or is it about the richest 1 percent of the 
people in this Nation getting $150,000 or $187,000 in a tax break?

  The gentlewoman from California has been extraordinary in her fight 
for the food stamp program, and she hasn't been afraid to take on 
anyone in any party on this issue of making sure that the food stamp 
program is secure. I recognize the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much.
  First, let me thank my colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro, for yielding 
and those kind words. But let me just thank you for not only organizing 
this Special Order, but for really continuing to beat the drum so that 
the country can understand how important nutrition programs are to our 
Nation. This is not just a job for Congresswoman DeLauro. This is about 
her life's work. So I just have to thank her for her leadership.
  Republicans are preparing to attack families on food stamps. They are 
planning to take an axe to one of the most important protections for 
the poor, children, seniors, the disabled, which is, of course, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. They are attempting to cut 
up to $33 billion from critical, anti-hunger programs even, mind you, 
as they bring up this bill, H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act, 
which is another $46 billion tax holiday for the very wealthy. They are 
trying to bring this up at the same time.
  When Republicans target programs that protect vulnerable Americans 
from massive cuts that risk making millions of children suffer hunger 
and depravation, they are doing so unfortunately in the name of fiscal 
responsibility and deficit reduction. Yet in the very next breath when 
they want to give away tax breaks to the already wealthy businesses, 
then those same deficits don't seem to matter.
  Mr. Speaker, making cuts on struggling families during hard times is 
not only heartless and mean and immoral, but it also makes no sense 
because it doesn't reduce the deficit, nor create jobs. Critical 
programs like SNAP and WIC not only feed hungry children and families, 
but they support the overall economy. Every single dollar of SNAP 
benefits generates a $1.84 in economic activity, and the Congressional 
Budget Office rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most 
cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting 
growth and jobs in a weak economy.

[[Page H1904]]

  Let me tell you today I really had the privilege to speak--and, 
Congresswoman DeLauro, I want to say to you thank you again for this 
because I know, as I said earlier, this is your life's work. This is 
not just about your job, okay. This is about you as a human being. This 
is about us and our values.
  But let me tell you, many years ago while I was raising my two small 
children, two little boys as a single mother, I fell upon some very 
difficult times like Congresswoman Woolsey. She encouraged me to talk 
about this when I came here because, you know what, I was so 
embarrassed I never talked about it until Lynn Woolsey encouraged me to 
begin to share my story.

                              {time}  2010

  But I had to go on food stamps to help me just feed my kids during 
that very difficult period in my life, and it was hard. Again, I was 
very embarrassed. But to this day, mind you, to this day I want to 
thank my government and the people of the United States for extending 
this helping hand to me as a bridge over troubled waters.
  Even though I was embarrassed and didn't want to be on public 
assistance, I had to for a while, and it was not that I was a welfare 
queen, but this was a very difficult time. Most families, 95, 98 
percent of the families, don't really want to be on food stamps. They 
want to trade their book of food stamps for a living-wage paycheck. 
That's what they want.
  Cutting SNAP, it simply doesn't make any sense. There are still four 
job seekers for every one job in America, and so we can't cut the 
benefits that help to keep food on their tables and provide that bridge 
over troubled waters until they can get their job.
  For the life of me, it's really hard, it's really hard to understand 
how people of faith have forgotten what the Scriptures say, that we are 
our brothers' keepers, we are our sisters' keepers. This is the United 
States of America. This is not a poor developing country.
  What the Republican budget proposes is that we will create a country 
that we won't even recognize, one that says go for what you know, one 
that says I got mine, you get yours. This 11 percent cut in food 
stamps, which the Republicans propose, it says you're on your own, mind 
you. You're on your own, unless you are very wealthy.
  I know the American people aren't going to go for this. Our values as 
a country won't allow this kind of cut in the SNAP program. Americans 
care about the common good, and so I am confident that the Republicans, 
the Tea Party Republicans, they are going to hear from the American 
people on this.
  Congresswoman DeLauro, once again I just thank you for giving us the 
opportunity to do this. I thank you because it is a privilege to be 
able to stand up for the 46 million people who need this helping hand, 
as one who needed a helping hand at a point in my life, and it helped 
me to live the American Dream for myself and for my family.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I want to 
make sure that we have the opportunity to hear from three more of our 
colleagues and our colleague from New York, Congressman Tonko. Thank 
you for being here tonight. And then we will hear from Congresswoman 
Schakowsky and Congressman Larson.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative DeLauro, and thank you for 
leading us in what is a very important hour of discussion as we address 
some of the critical choices before this House. As my good friend and 
colleague, Rosa DeLauro, from Connecticut indicated, our budget, our 
budget outcomes are a sum total of our priorities, what has value in 
our society. What are those sensitivities that we express? What are 
those outright requirements, basic foundational requirements of our 
society?
  I would suggest to you that one of those basic needs is to enable 
people to have the soundness of nutrition, to enable us to feed 
families that have stumbled across difficult times. What we have at 
risk as we speak here this evening on this House floor is the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  The SNAP program touches one in seven Americans. That is a staggering 
statistic, and for every $5 in new SNAP benefits that we offer, they 
generate as much as $9 in economic activity, almost a two-time economic 
factor. In my home district in upstate New York, in the Capital Region, 
some 23,000 households are utilizing SNAP funds. One in four of those 
SNAP recipients are 60-years-old and older.
  Then we also have situations where three and four have had at least 
one member of the family out of work in the past 12 months. We have 
many children; one in two on SNAP are under 18 years of age.
  This tells us there's a growing need out there. We have had a tough 
economy, and people have stumbled across tough times. Why is this so 
important to discuss right now? Because before the end of this month 
there will be an effort made through this House--they are asking that 
the Ag Committee come up with cuts that are brutal.
  They are asking for the Ag Committee to come up with a sum total of 
$33.2 billion. Put right onto the chopping block are SNAP funds. So we 
are affecting the weakest amongst us, the most hungry amongst us, and 
we're not recognizing that those dollars invested in these families 
will recirculate into our regional economies.
  This is a sound program that ought to be continued. There needs to be 
sensitivity shown, there needs to be prioritization of a very important 
factor here. That is sound nutrition for our American families. I have 
seen it, I have witnessed it firsthand in our district. It works, it 
works well. We need to set this as a high priority, and I thank 
Representative DeLauro for allowing me a few moments of time to share 
concerns on behalf of the good people that I represent in the 21st 
District of upstate New York.
  Ms. DeLAURO. You represent them well. I thank my colleague.
  I want to be in a trench with the gentlewoman from Illinois, 
Congresswoman Schakowsky. She is a tough fighter, and at the base of 
that it's about families and their children. Congresswoman Schakowsky.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you so much for the opportunity to 
participate in this debate where so many of our colleagues have come 
down to the floor to talk about it.
  This is the richest country in the world, and yet one out of five of 
our children is considered food insecure, goes hungry. That is such a 
moral outrage.
  You know, the average food stamp benefit is $1.50 a meal. That's what 
you get when you're lucky enough to be part of the SNAP program. And as 
this chart shows, this map shows, it's everywhere. I actually live in a 
district that was considered one of the least hard-hit by food 
insecurity, but that's all relative.
  In the Ninth Congressional District in Illinois, more than 11 percent 
of the households are experiencing food hardship, the inability to put 
enough food on the table. And even the least of the hard-hit districts 
has 7 percent of its families unable to put enough food on the table in 
the richest country in the world. It's intolerable.

  You know, the headline today in Politico, ``Republicans Ax Aid to the 
Poor'' makes me so sad. Who are we as a country? What are we as a 
country where a candidate for President, a Republican candidate for 
President, denigrates Barack Obama by calling him the food stamp 
president. I'm proud that this President wants to defend, protect, and 
save a program that feeds so many people.
  And here's what the Catholic bishops say:
  SNAP, also known as food stamps, helps feed millions of households. 
At this time of economic turmoil and growing poverty, the committee 
should oppose cuts in this effective and efficient anti-hunger program 
that helps people live in dignity.
  I just want to say we are asking for dignity for Americans that are 
struggling. The average food stamp recipient is only on it for 9 
months. One of the former recipients called it a trampoline that helps 
you get past it.
  I'm asking for dignity for Americans and saving the nutrition 
programs, especially the SNAP program, the food stamp program.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlelady. I am delighted to be joined by 
my colleague from Connecticut, who is chair of the Democratic Caucus 
and

[[Page H1905]]

whose career, whether it was in the State senate in Connecticut in our 
legislature there or his work here, has been remarkable. At its core, 
again, are our children and our families.
  I recognize Congressman John Larson of Connecticut.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut 
and the dean of our delegation, the deaness, I should say, for her 
tireless work and advocacy on the part of not only the citizens of the 
Third Congressional District of Connecticut but across this great 
Nation and, I daresay, this globe.
  I never cease to be amazed by the eloquence of our Members, so many 
of them coming forward and speaking their minds and speaking from their 
heart about the people that we're sworn to serve and represent. This 
week in Congress we face, again, legislation, rather ironically, where 
we are deeming, deeming a budget passed, almost as though we would deem 
that the hungry be fed.
  Franklin Roosevelt, in another time, recognized the great sacrifice 
that a nation had to endure, and President Obama this past January 
called upon the shared sacrifice that is required amongst a nation, a 
nation that needs to pull together in a very difficult recessionary 
time.

                              {time}  2020

  And in this time it's a time where you have to make choices. And 
those choices have to be based on your values and have to be based, as 
the President said, on sacrifice. Roosevelt called for the warm courage 
of national security that comes from a shared sacrifice.
  Forty-six million people receive assistance, primarily women and 
children, who get fed and nourished. We're going to have a debate on a 
budget that strikes at the core of this at a time when we would give 
tax breaks of $47 billion, while we're taking away from the neediest 
amongst us?
  Roosevelt said the problem with our colleagues on the other side is 
they can become frozen in the ice of their indifference towards their 
fellow citizens, everyday Americans serving and struggling in this 
recessionary period. And what do we get in return? We get RomneyCare, 
we get tax breaks for BainCapital. We get tax breaks that are coming to 
the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent at a time where we ask the middle 
class, who is struggling, to pay for it.
  We're out here today talking about a very important program that 
provides nutrition to the least amongst us, and we're calling for cuts 
that are not only going to take from them but are going to take from 
students that are trying to be able to pay off their educational loans. 
This has got to stop. We're a better country than this.
  I commend the gentlelady from Connecticut for bringing this to our 
attention and focusing on the needs of a great Nation that in a time of 
budgetary concerns has to choose the appropriate values for the 
country, that has to make the appropriate choices. We all agree on the 
need to sacrifice, but it has to be shared and shouldn't be balanced on 
the backs of the middle class and the poorest amongst us.
  I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for her leadership.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman and I thank my colleagues for 
joining us tonight.

                          ____________________