[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 76 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3006-H3013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Horsford) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, tonight the Congressional Black Caucus 
comes before this body and the American people for the next hour to 
talk about important issues facing our country.
  Tonight, we will discuss the problem of poverty in America and what 
we can do to bring more Americans into the middle class. From SNAP to 
the earned income tax credit, from Head Start to TRIO and GEAR UP, we 
have effective programs that reduce poverty and open

[[Page H3007]]

 up opportunities for people in the low income. Unfortunately, these 
programs are often the first targeted for cuts.
  When you are worrying where your next meal is going to come from, you 
probably don't have a lot of time to lobby Congress. Well, tonight, 
we're here to speak to these important issues, and we're also here to 
listen. So, hopefully, we will be able to answer some questions from 
our constituents from across America.
  If you're watching and you have something that you'd like to let us 
know about, get on Twitter and tweet #CBCtalks, and we'll do our best 
to answer your questions.
  At this time, I'd like to turn to the chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, the gentlelady from Ohio, the woman providing tremendous 
leadership to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to bring 
forward the issues that are facing so many American families, and those 
families particularly in poverty today, they have a voice, and for the 
next hour we're going to bring their voice to this body here in 
Congress.
  Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so very, very much for yielding. And I, as 
always, want to thank Congressmen Horsford and Jeffries for leading the 
Congressional Black Caucus hour.
  Today's topic is critically important. The rapid rise of poverty and, 
particularly, the rapid growth of poverty in minority communities, is 
troubling. The latest Census Bureau numbers report that 15 percent of 
Americans live in poverty.
  The poverty rate among African Americans is nearly double the 
national rate, 27 percent. And almost 1 in 4 African American children 
lives in poverty. I'm not sure how many children you come in contact 
with each day, but this statistic means that every fourth African 
American child you see lives a life of struggle. Food is scarce in 
their home. Their neighborhoods are riddled with crime. There is no 
guarantee that the lights and heat will be on when they come home from 
school each day.
  As our economy sputters and more Americans slip below the poverty 
line, Federal anti-poverty programs are essential. Yet, over the last 
year, conservatives on and off the Hill have begun to spin a story of 
how anti-poverty programs have done nothing but foster a culture of 
dependency.
  On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have used this narrative over and over 
again, giving them license to place social safety net programs on the 
chopping block. While the Republican budget retains tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans, it places Social Security and Medicare on the 
chopping block.
  House leadership will send a farm bill to the floor that reduces 
total spending by almost $40 billion over 10 years. And what's most 
troubling, more than half of the cuts come from the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, otherwise known 
as food stamps. This bill alone would cut off nearly 2 million people 
from SNAP.
  Making matters worse, anti-poverty programs around the country are 
reducing services because of sequester. Our communities cannot continue 
to face cut after cut, while Washington does little to create economic 
opportunity.
  This week we will consider the Military Construction and Veterans' 
Affairs appropriations bill. I want to make sure we bring attention to 
the vast poverty plaguing veterans. As our troops come home from Iraq 
and Afghanistan, the United States must prepare for their return. Many 
of our vets will need help from local safety net programs; but due to 
budget cuts, help is not guaranteed. As the statistics show, 
homelessness will be the reality of thousands of returning veterans.
  This Congress cannot continue to ignore poverty in our communities. 
This Congress cannot ignore the fact that nearly 1\1/2\ million 
veterans live in poverty. America cannot be complicit in allowing 
families, children, and our Nation's veterans to struggle without 
assistance, not now, not ever.

                              {time}  1940

  The CBC will continue to advocate for policies that eliminate 
persistent poverty. We will rightfully defend critically important 
antipoverty programs. Our goal is to create opportunities for all 
Americans--opportunities that help improve lives and move people closer 
to achieving their version of the American Dream.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you for your leadership and for fighting the 
fight on this very important issue of poverty in America.
  Over the last week, we had our work period. And I had the opportunity 
to be in my district, Mr. Speaker. One of the things we did was an 
outreach event where we had a ``Commuting with your Congressman.'' I 
boarded a bus--public transportation in my district--and I met and 
listened to my constituents for 4 hours as we traveled throughout the 
various corners of my district--from Centennial Hills to downtown to 
the new veterans' hospital, where our veterans literally board a bus in 
a wheelchair--to listen to the struggle that so many Americans are 
facing; the fact that they are even struggling to make ends meet. There 
was a mom who boarded the bus who said it takes 2 hours each way to get 
to work. They can't always make it to a town hall meeting. They can't 
always come to our district offices. But they deserve to have a voice 
here in Washington on these important issues.
  So much of what this Congress is talking about is the budget and the 
priorities of the budget. Well, that mom is a priority of mine. That 
veteran who takes public transportation to get to their veterans' 
appointment is a priority of mine. That young man who is 17 years old 
and going to his first job interview so that he can work his way 
through college is a priority of mine. And it's a priority of my 
colleagues who are here tonight, along with the cochair for the CBC 
hour, Mr. Jeffries from New York. We're going to bring a voice to these 
issues tonight--and everyday--as the CBC does.
  At this time I would like to turn to my colleague who cochairs 
Poverty and the Economy for the CBC, as well as chairing the whip's 
task force on eliminating poverty, the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank my colleague for your 
tremendous leadership and yourself and Congressman Jeffries for leading 
the charge on another timely and important topic: the ongoing crisis of 
poverty. You both are continuing in the tradition of the Congressional 
Black Caucus being the conscience of the Congress. And so thank you 
very much for your leadership and for your commitment to the least of 
these. I think in your remarks, Congressman Horsford, you laid it out 
as clear as anyone could lay it out.
  As the cochair of the Congressional Black Caucus' Poverty and Economy 
Task Force, as well as, as Congressman Horsford said, the chair of the 
new Whip Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, let me just highlight 
how truly important it is to continue to, first, fund programs that 
lift Americans out of poverty. Income inequality continues to grow. 
Unfortunately, too many people who are working are poor, and they're 
living on the edge. It's truly unacceptable that 46 million people in 
our country live in poverty in the richest and most powerful country in 
the world. And 16 million of those are children. In communities of 
color, poverty rates are even worse. A staggering 27 percent of African 
Americans are living in poverty. And so the Congressional Black Caucus, 
through the tremendous leadership of our chairwoman, Congresswoman 
Marcia Fudge, has made the eradication of poverty a key priority.
  Our policies and programs addressing poverty have not kept pace with 
the growing needs of millions of Americans. It is time that we make a 
commitment to confront poverty head on, create pathways out of poverty 
and provide opportunities for all. Yes, we want to make sure the middle 
class is strong and survives and the middle class does not fall back 
into poverty. But we have many, many people who are not even part of 
the middle class and who are striving and working hard just to maintain 
and take care of their families and who would one day like to be part 
of the middle class. And so the Congressional Black Caucus and our whip 
task force and many in this body continue to speak on their behalf and 
represent them.
  That's why many of our CBC colleagues and I came together to 
introduce H.R. 2182, which is the Half-in-Ten Act of 2013. The Half-in-
Ten Act would

[[Page H3008]]

establish the Federal agency working group on reducing poverty. The 
working group will develop and implement a national strategy to reduce 
poverty in half in 10 years, as well as provide regular reports of its 
progress to Congress and the American people. Our Nation needs a 
coordinated and comprehensive plan to bring an end to poverty in 
America. It is morally right, economically sound, and fiscally prudent.
  So I urge all of our colleagues to join us and support the Half-in-
Ten Act. It's beyond time that we put the ongoing crises of poverty on 
the front burner for this country. Yet the draconian sequester and 
harmful budget cuts to vital human-needs programs are only making 
things worse for struggling families.

  I serve on the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee. It 
was mind-boggling to hear the other side talk about a commitment to 
reducing poverty. Yet they gut the vital programs, the ladders of 
opportunity, the pathways out of poverty such as the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps; the Women, 
Infants, and Children program, or WIC; Meals on Wheels; the Earned 
Income Tax Credit, and all of these programs that lift people out of 
poverty.
  Our chair mentioned the House farm bill. Let me emphasize this again. 
The reauthorization includes more than $20 billion in harmful and 
fiscally irresponsible cuts to the food stamp program, our Nation's 
first line of defense against hunger. Not only is cutting SNAP morally 
wrong, it's economically bankrupt. Cuts to nutrition programs will cost 
the government more money in the long run, but also it is just probably 
the worst thing that I have ever seen proposed.
  As a former food stamp recipient myself, I know firsthand how 
important these safety net programs are. I would not be here today if 
it were not for the lifeline that the American people extended to me 
when I was a single mother struggling to care for my kids. No one wants 
to be on food stamps. No one. Everyone wants a job. They want to take 
care of their kids. But there are bumps in the road and the economy has 
not turned around for many. And so that bridge over troubled waters 
needs to be there.
  So a $20 billion cut, people cannot afford that. Our economy cannot 
support that. Hungry children do not deserve these cuts. And cuts to 
any hunger program will have further cascading impacts that will create 
a bleaker future for our children. Communities of color, again, 
especially African American communities, will feel these impacts even 
more. African American communities have higher infant mortality rates, 
diabetes, HIV and AIDS and are more likely to be uninsured. If we 
continue to balance our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, we 
will surely push these families over the edge. That is why members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus will do everything in our power to 
ensure that our Nation's most vulnerable are protected.
  Starting next week, in an effort to highlight the impact of any 
further cuts to our Nation's food and nutrition programs, myself, as 
well as Congressman Jim McGovern; our Congressional Black Caucus chair, 
Marcia Fudge; Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky; our Democratic vice chair, 
Joe Crowley; and others are, leading and taking part in the food stamp 
challenge.

                              {time}  1950

  We need to raise the level of awareness of what is taking place here 
in Washington, D.C. So we are going to commit ourselves to limiting our 
food budget to the average SNAP benefit for a week; that's $1.50 per 
person per meal. We will show how vital it is to strengthen and fully 
fund SNAP, and we're asking all of those who can do so to join with us. 
We will just be on this for a day or a week. Millions of people will 
live daily on $4.50 with no end in sight.
  Finally, let me just say we must protect the most vulnerable and grow 
the economy and our antipoverty programs like SNAP, which is one of the 
best programs to do that.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject these cuts, stop sequestration, and 
let's work together to create jobs--because that's what everyone needs 
and wants--and lift the economy for all.
  Thank you again for your leadership.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me just engage you for a 
moment because you hit on a number of points.
  I want, again, to make sure that we are providing a voice to these 
very important issues. And to follow the conversation, if you're tuning 
in, go to our hashtag at #CBCTalks.
  But you focused on the fact that nearly 46 million people in our 
country live in poverty; 16 million of them are children. You talked 
about the poverty line. In 2013, the poverty line for an individual is 
$11,490. For a family of four, it's $23,550.
  So can you elaborate further on the SNAP program, how that program 
provides for a safety net for individuals and how is it that a family 
of four in America can survive on $23,550 a year?
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much, Congressman Horsford, for 
that question and for laying the facts out.
  There's no way a family can survive on $23,000 a year in America, I 
don't care what region that they live in. Secondly--and Congressman 
Ellison is going to speak in a moment--the Progressive Caucus held a 
hearing, and we talked with low-wage workers, workers who are actually 
working for Federal Government contractors in our Nation's capital 
making $6, $7, $8 an hour. You know what? These are working men and 
women who need food stamps. They're working each and every day, 10, 12 
hours a day.
  So when you look at what a cut like this would do, first, you have 
people who are making $6 or $7 an hour, living on $23,000 a year, 
family of four, and then you're going to cut their food supply. I mean, 
people are going to go hungry. We are going to see an increase in 
hunger both in rural communities and in urban communities in our 
country. In the long run, it's going to just cost us. If people just 
care about the fiscal impact--which I hope everyone in this body cares 
about, first, the human and the moral impact, but also the economy and 
the economic impact--you know, we're going to pay in the long run.
  So it's just wrong and it doesn't make any economic sense. There's no 
way people in this country, in America, the wealthiest and most 
powerful country in the world, can survive off of $23,000 a year. We 
need to, first of all, raise the minimum wage. We need a living wage. 
In my region, it would be about $25 an hour. People deserve to live the 
American Dream, and they're not.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Well, I know the challenge is something that you have 
called upon for people to accept. This is a reality for 16 million 
children, 46 million Americans who are living at this level now. The 
average meal is $1.48 per meal.
  Ms. LEE of California. $4.50 a day, Congressman Horsford. And let me 
tell you, these people are living in our districts, in Democratic 
Members of Congress' districts and Republicans' districts and 
Independents' districts. They're in rural communities and in urban 
communities. So, unfortunately, it's an equal opportunity.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Poverty is not partisan.
  Ms. LEE of California. No way. So we need bipartisan support to begin 
to eliminate poverty.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Lee. Thank you for 
your leadership and for those solutions that you're offering to help 
move people out of poverty and into the middle class and recognizing 
that many of these programs that those on the other side propose to cut 
are actually safety nets.
  The sequester alone would cut $85 billion but would directly affect 
50 million Americans living below the poverty income line. So they're 
hurting the very people that we should be sustaining during these 
difficult economic times.
  Ms. LEE of California. Adding insult to injury. That's what's 
happening here.
  Mr. HORSFORD. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to my 
colleague, the gentlelady of Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the alum of TRIO. 
She is a dynamic leader who talks so much about the need to help young 
people get the quality education, particularly first generation college 
students. I know we're having a college student debate right now on 
whether or not

[[Page H3009]]

 we're going to allow student loan rates to double on July 1. The 
Republican plan puts students in debt, provides no certainty. We're 
hoping that between now and July 1 we will come up with a bipartisan 
solution that will keep our college loan rates and will address the 
more comprehensive need to make college more affordable.
  I defer to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Congresswoman Moore.
  Ms. MOORE. I want to thank you so much, Representative Horsford from 
Nevada--and Representative Hakeem Jeffries as well, who is here with 
us--for focusing on this effort and to conduct, this evening, this 
Special Order on lifting Americans out of poverty.
  You know, it was very, very difficult to listen to Representative 
Barbara Lee provide those data and those statistics of the numbers of 
Americans who are living in poverty. Reflecting on my own personal 
experience, reflecting on what I see every single day among my 
constituents, the stark poverty, especially of children, it is very, 
very difficult to talk about this because this is just not abstract; 
this is very real.
  For the purposes of this discussion though, with your permission, 
Representative Horsford, I would like to just modify your motto or your 
theme for one moment. Instead of talking about lifting Americans out of 
poverty, I'd like to talk about lifting America out of poverty.
  You see, America is heading down the road to not just having 46 
million Americans living in poverty, not just having half of Americans 
during the recession relying on food stamps and having that as their 
only means of support, not just having African Americans or Hispanics 
or those living in stark rural poverty being the victims of poverty, 
but having poverty pervade our entire community. Because we, by not 
investing in educational opportunity of young people, are eating our 
seed corn.
  Rice farmers have taught us not to eat our seed corn. They say that 
when we do that, when you plant something, you eat a certain portion of 
it and you preserve some of it so that you can plant and have a harvest 
for the future. Those people who eat their seed corn are committing an 
act of desperation. And that is what we're doing by cutting off 
educational opportunity to programs.
  I'm specifically talking about TRIO. TRIO is a set of federally 
funded college and university-based educational opportunity outreach 
programs that modify and support students from low-income backgrounds 
from first generations. It's not a race-based program, but it includes 
military veterans, students with disabilities. Currently, they serve 
about 790,000 students from middle schools through postgraduate 
studies.
  These programs are very, very important because we have found that 
there aren't enough trust fund kids, Representative Horsford, to really 
put this country on a sustainable course of graduating enough high-
skilled workers and innovators for our country to enjoy the kind of 
economic hegemony in a global economy. There aren't enough.
  If we graduated every high school senior this June, if every single 
high school senior went to college, it still would not be enough in 
order for us to reach those goals of maintaining global hegemony. Yet 
we have allowed, since 2005, the TRIO programs to lose $66 million in 
funding, which translates into 88,000 fewer low-income and potential 
first-generation students--including adult learners, military veterans, 
and students with disabilities--to study.
  Of course, under sequestration, which went into effect March 1, TRIO 
has received another $42 million cut, which means that in the beginning 
of the 2013-2014 program year, individual grant awards will be reduced 
by 5 percent. That translates into 40,000 fewer students to be served 
by TRIO.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, as I indicated in the beginning of my discussion here, this 
program is a set of programs that seek to identify brilliant students, 
but for their income, or but for their having not been born into a 
family where college was a tradition, who can contribute to the growth 
of our economy in our society.
  Talent Search is a very low-cost early invention program which 
identifies students with college potential in grades 6 through 12. They 
really work toward giving students information about going to college. 
Seventy-nine percent of Talent Search participants were admitted to 
postsecondary institutions.
  Upper Bound is an intensive intervention program that prepares 
students for higher education. Seventy-seven percent of these students 
who participated in Upper Bound enrolled in college.
  The Upper Bound Math/Science program--which we know we need more of 
them--is a model similar to Upper Bound; 86.5 percent of these students 
go on to college.
  We have Veterans Upper Bound and Student Support Services. Again, the 
numbers are very, very high for students who matriculate and complete 
in these programs.
  The Educational Opportunity Centers is a program where we have 
reached back for displaced workers, people who have not been in 
college, and bring them back into the fold. We have seen a 57 percent 
increase in the number of participants who have been college dropouts 
that have re-enrolled or displaced workers.
  We also have the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement 
Program--named after the famous astronaut who lost his life--which 
prepares low-income minority students for doctoral programs.
  I will yield to you for questions, Mr. Horsford, but just let me 
finish this segment by reiterating this point. If we fail to invest in 
young people, I mean starting out with starving them--you know I'm 
still reeling from the comments of my colleague Barbara Lee because the 
food stamp bill that is before us will have nearly a quarter of a 
million students lose their free lunch program. And the majority of 
folks who are served by the food stamp program are not these welfare 
queens or slick hustlers; they're elderly children and disabled 
people--so if we as a country have decided that we don't need to feed 
babies, we're eating our seed corn, and that is an act of desperation 
that will take us down a perilous road.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Congresswoman Moore. I couldn't agree with 
you more when you talk about, first and foremost, your last point, 
which is if we fail to invest in our children, in our elderly, and in 
the disabled, then we have done a disservice to them and to society as 
a whole.
  Ms. MOORE. That's exactly right, because we can't lift America out of 
poverty without lifting Americans out of poverty. We are a family.
  Mr. HORSFORD. And so a lot of times when these programs get talked 
about, the various acronyms, billions of dollars here and billions of 
dollars there--waste, fraud, and abuse I know gets brought up 
oftentimes as kind of the red herring in the room in a lot of our 
committee hearings--but really the reality is there's a face behind 
each one of these programs. There's real people depending on them--as 
you indicate, the 250,000 children who would lose free and reduced-cost 
lunches.
  How is a child supposed to learn if they're hungry? How are they 
supposed to focus if they haven't been able to see a doctor or see a 
dentist? These are real issues that are facing this Congress. And I 
know a lot of times, again, those on the other side somehow want to 
make this out to be more than what it is on people, and how it affects 
people.
  Ms. MOORE. Well, I can tell you, we can have a society by design or 
by default. We can just let it all go as it will.
  I was very moved earlier by the tribute that our colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis made to Senator Lautenberg upon his passing. And once 
again, here's an example of an American who ultimately became very 
wealthy, but it was because America embraced him with their values.
  He went to school on the GI bill. He was able to go to school. He did 
not have any wealth. And because he was an American and an American 
soldier, he was able to benefit from our community of interests to 
build not only a great senator, but great economic enterprises and a 
lot of jobs that he created. That's the way America is supposed to 
work. And we need to realize that educational opportunity is one of our 
basic strategies for staying on top in a global economy.

[[Page H3010]]

  Mr. HORSFORD. ``Opportunity'' I think is the key word there, Mr. 
Speaker. This isn't about a handout, this isn't about providing social 
services; it's about opportunity. Education is one of those most 
fundamental opportunities. And you, again, as an alum of TRIO programs 
and an advocate for funding up TRIO/GEARUP, these programs which 
provide tremendous opportunity to particularly first generation college 
students, those who may not have even had the knowledge of how to go 
about applying to enroll, let alone financial aid and scholarships--but 
yet it's that opportunity, that door to opportunity that then leads to 
careers and their ability to contribute, to sustain for themselves and 
their family.

  That's what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is providing that 
opportunity. And right now we're having this big debate of whether that 
opportunity should come with a huge burden of debt.
  Ms. MOORE. Exactly.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Because if they finish school, when they finish school, 
should they be so far in debt they can't afford to buy a home, to buy a 
car, to start saving for their future, or should they be focused on 
paying $1,000, $1,500, $2,000 a month in debt for college loans?
  Ms. MOORE. And that is an extremely important point, because these 
young people who are going to college are doing us a favor to become 
educated. The jobs, you know, making the widgets, are dying out from 
not only technology but from outsourcing.
  We are going to only win this game by having the highest skilled 
worker, whether it be in farming or manufacturing or research and 
development. And to see this Congress gutting research and development, 
anything that looks academic or associated with intelligence or 
studying at all, it's just across the board decimating it. Again, it's 
eating our seed corn. Hopefully we can reverse this curse before they 
get too far down the line.
  Thank you so much for letting me participate in this Special Order.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Of course. And with your voice and your continued 
participation I'm sure we will do just that, which is to continue to 
advocate for these as priorities.
  And I do want to go, as I turn to my colleague from North Carolina, 
the vice chairman of the CBC, to a quick question that came in from the 
Twitter line. It's from Dr. Davis 920, who asks: How can we increase 
money in underserved areas for students from high school to college 
instead of doing more with less funding?
  I'm going to ask our vice chairman if he would tackle that question 
as he provides his response.
  I yield now to the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman 
Butterfield.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Well, let me thank you, Mr. Horsford. I have a few 
points that I want to make.
  Do you have an idea of how much time we have remaining so I can 
allocate my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada has 26 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Horsford, I think the question that has been 
raised by the gentleman is a very pertinent point.
  We have seen over the last 18 to 24 months some very deep cuts in our 
Federal budget. There are some who believe that discretionary spending 
is too much and that we need to engage in what I call ``draconian 
cuts'' to discretionary spending. Because of that, we've seen 
discretionary accounts reduced significantly, and it's going to affect 
what the gentleman has in mind. It's going to affect not only higher 
education but public education as well.
  Mr. Horsford, I want to thank you for allowing me to say a few words 
here this evening. This is a very appropriate conversation for the 
Congressional Black Caucus to have. I want to thank you and Mr. 
Jeffries for coming to the floor each week and for lifting up the 
issues that the Congressional Black Caucus feels are so vitally 
important for us to debate here in this Congress.
  Ms. Fudge has left the floor, but I certainly want to thank Marcia 
Fudge of Ohio, the chair of our caucus, for all that she does. She 
somehow just stays in perpetual motion, and her staff works so very 
closely with her. I just want to thank her publicly for all that she 
does, not only for the people of Ohio, but for us here in the Congress.
  And what can I say about Barbara Lee? Barbara Lee has been talking 
about issues of poverty ever since I came to this place 9 years ago, 
and I just want to associate myself with everything that she has said 
and with everything that Congresswoman Gwen Moore said just a moment 
ago.
  Mr. Horsford, I don't know much about your State of Nevada, but I can 
tell you a lot about my State of North Carolina. I can tell you that 
these are some tough times. These are tough times for poor people. 
These are tough times for rural communities all across America. I 
represent one of the poorest districts in the whole country in which 
one in four people in my district, Mr. Speaker, including 36 percent of 
children, live at or below the poverty level. That's a statistic that 
is worth bearing. I want to repeat it: 36 percent of the children who 
live in my congressional district live below the poverty level. That is 
unacceptable.
  The poverty problem in America is actually getting worse. At a time 
when it should be getting better, it is actually getting worse. There 
is a huge difference, there is a huge gap, between the haves and the 
have-nots. The poverty rate now is the highest that it has been in the 
last 20 years; and in rural North Carolina, median household incomes 
have dropped since the year 2000.
  My district has vivid and unfortunate illustrations of poverty. For 
example, nearly one in 20 homes in some counties does not have a 
telephone or a kitchen. A lot of my friends in urban communities cannot 
relate to that, but nearly one in 20 homes in some counties does not 
have a telephone or a kitchen. Many of my constituents are still living 
without indoor plumbing in the year 2013. The time to invest in our 
children and in our Nation's future is now.
  We must first undo the cuts from sequestration. The gentleman who 
sent us the message a few moments ago may have been referring to 
sequestration. We must undo the cuts that we are seeing involving 
sequestration. They are devastating to our communities all across the 
country. Sequestration has slashed Head Start funding, impacting 
thousands and thousands of children. It has cut job search assistance 
for thousands of people. It eliminated millions of dollars from the 
meals for low-income seniors program. Sequestration cut nutrition 
funding for 600,000 women and children all across the country, housing 
and emergency shelter funding for nearly 100,000 homeless people and 
emergency unemployment compensation benefits by nearly 11 percent.
  Instead of indiscriminately cutting funding for critical economic 
development programs, we must invest in programs. I think, Mr. 
Horsford, that's what you've been saying each week that we have this 
conversation. We must invest in programs which give people a hand up 
toward making it on their own, important programs such as emergency 
unemployment insurance, the Workforce Investment Act, the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, and the special supplemental nutrition 
program for Women, Infants, and Children--we call it the WIC program--
which gives people the ability to provide for their families.
  The House version of the farm bill, which has been alluded to by the 
two previous speakers, cuts $20 billion from the SNAP program. That is 
unthinkable. The House version of the farm bill has cut $20 billion 
from the SNAP program. SNAP is not a government throwaway or a handout. 
SNAP moneys go directly to needy families that are in need the most. We 
are talking about seniors and children and families who need it the 
most. Republican proposals to slash funding for a program that feeds 
poor people is simply unacceptable.
  There is hope on the horizon for some of our country's poor and 
uninsured. We can be encouraged that the Affordable Care Act will be 
fully implemented in just a few months, helping some of the one and a 
quarter million uninsured people in my State qualify for affordable 
health coverage through the marketplace.
  I will say in closing that the Congressional Black Caucus is very 
concerned about poverty. We have constructed a plan to address 
persistent poverty. We

[[Page H3011]]

 are alarmed that so many communities all across the country have 
experienced a poverty level that exceeds 20 percent and that has 
persisted now for more than 30 years. So our plan in the Congressional 
Black Caucus is to target Federal resources and Census tracts that have 
high levels of unemployment and high levels of poverty. We call it the 
10-20-30 plan. We must do it. We have to do it for the sake of America.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you again to our vice chairman for the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina.
  I really want to commend you for being very plain with how desperate 
the situation is for so many people. You talked about 36 percent of the 
people in North Carolina, in parts of your district, who are living in 
poverty and about the fact that they are going without basic 
fundamentals, things that many of us probably just take for granted in 
America. There are people in America who are going without the basics, 
and that is not something often that's talked about here in Washington, 
definitely not in this House. When so much attention is placed on 
corporate special interests and subsidies for big corporations, it's 
time that we start changing the debate and focusing on the people who 
most need government support, and those are the people you just talked 
about, so I commend you for that.

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Poverty is all around us, Mr. Horsford, whether it's 
in my district or in your district or in any of my colleagues' 
districts. Poverty is persistent, and it's all across America. It's 
within the shadows of this Capitol. When I drive home in just a few 
minutes here in Washington, I will go right through some very poor, 
low-income communities within blocks of this Capitol. We must do 
better. We have got to address as a Congress the whole issue of 
poverty.
  Mr. HORSFORD. You were very clear, and I know Mr. Clyburn would 
expect nothing less than for us to lay out what our position is.
  I know some people ask: What is the Congressional Black Caucus' 
position on how to address poverty?
  You touched on it. It's the 10-20-30 policy. This means that 10 
percent of funds from certain accounts would be directed to areas that 
have had a poverty rate of 20 percent for the last 30 years in America.
  So, rather than spending money everywhere, let's spend it where there 
is the most need, the most critical need, and where there has been a 
generational need now for 30 years so that we can see the type of 
outcomes, the return on investment and the change that people so 
desperately need.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Absolutely.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Now I would like to turn to the cochairman of the Progressive Caucus, 
the gentleman from Minnesota. I want to commend the gentleman and the 
Progressive Caucus because I know you had a hearing before the recess 
in which you brought low-income wage earners and had a special hearing 
to listen to their concerns and on how working people, really the 
working poor, are struggling. I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from Minnesota at this time.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Congressman 
from Nevada, my friend Steve Horsford, and Hakeem Jeffries are doing 
such an awesome job. I'm so proud to see you gentlemen holding forth 
about the issues that affect this whole country and things that the 
Congressional Black Caucus, of which we are all members, are doing.
  I also just want to let people know who may be tuned in, Mr. Speaker, 
there are people in this Congress who believe that hard work should be 
rewarded, who believe that when people get up in the morning, pound it 
out all day to put food on the table for their families, that it is 
nothing less than an insult for somebody else who is living in plenty 
to look back on them and say, You're not working hard enough; you're 
not doing quite enough.
  The fact is that sometimes hardworking people need the help of their 
government. There's no shame in that. There is nothing wrong with that. 
Lord knows, Apple Computer agrees that sometimes hardworking people 
need the help of their government.
  The fact of the matter is that we did have a hearing and that hearing 
did involve low-wage workers, people making $7, $8, $8.25 an hour, some 
of whom were working for contractors who had contracts with the Federal 
Government, people who were literally working in buildings like Union 
Station, like the Reagan building, Federal buildings across Washington 
but also across this country, who were not working for the Federal 
Government but were working for contractors who had contracts with the 
Federal Government, paying them $8 an hour, a wage that is not livable, 
is not sustainable.
  Folks often speak derisively, Mr. Speaker, about low-income folks. 
They'll say, Why don't they make more money? What's wrong with them? 
They're working 8 hours a day. They're working 40 hours a week. They're 
working three jobs, but they can still barely put food on the table, 
and they're raising their children. They need food stamps. And if we 
cut the food stamp budget by $20 billion, we're going to be cutting 
families who work hard at two or three jobs every day.
  I've heard my Republican friends talk about this cultural dependency. 
Somehow that moral judgment--you know, the Good Book says, Judge not, 
lest ye be judged.
  Mr. HORSFORD. What's ironic about the culture of dependency is they 
never talk about it when we bring up corporate welfare and corporate 
entitlements.
  If we really want to talk about entitlements and who is depending 
upon government, then let's put it all on the table: the billions of 
dollars that go to special interests, but yet we want to take away 
services for poor, needy children, families, the elderly, and the 
disabled. That's really the comparison.
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentleman is absolutely right.
  I mean, it is utter hypocrisy to sit up here and talk about the 
cultural dependency and not talk about corporate welfare.
  Senator Bernie Sanders and I--an awesome gentleman, by the way--have 
a bill called the End Corporate Welfare Act in which we identify $110 
billion worth of corporate giveaways to Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big 
Natural Gas.
  Look, these are industries that are making record profits. ExxonMobil 
is not having any trouble. Why do they need the American people's 
money? Why do they need a subsidy? Well, they're getting one, and yet 
people in this very body are willing to stand back and say that poor 
folks working three or four jobs need to have their money cut. I mean, 
it is astounding. It is shocking how hypocritical some of things that 
we see go on now.
  I just want to the say this, Mr. Speaker. This is a country of, by, 
and for the people. It's a country designed to let the voice of the 
people be heard, and yet sometimes the people's voice is muted because 
it's so difficult for the average person to take off time to come down 
here to talk about what they want to talk about, to be able to access 
their government.
  So these are times when you and Mr. Jeffries can come down here and 
talk about the importance of food stamps, of TRIO, and talk about the 
absolute concentration of wealth at the very tip-top of the economic 
stream in this committee.
  I'm going to wrap up here, Mr. Horsford, but I just want to wrap up 
by saying this: working people around this country need to know that 
when poverty increases, the money just doesn't disappear; it goes to 
the very top of the economy. That is why, since about 2008, if you look 
at the newly created wealth in this economy, about 93 percent of it 
went to the top 1 percent.
  My friends in the Republican caucus believe that rich people don't 
have enough money and poor people have too much, which is why they want 
to cut food stamps and cut taxes for the richest people. One of them 
even said to me one time, Keith, a poor person has never given me a 
job.
  Like, wow. That's the attitude we're dealing with.
  The bottom line, Mr. Horsford, is that low-income workers are taking 
matters in their own hands. Low-income workers in Detroit and Chicago 
and New York and St. Louis, even here in Washington, D.C., have come 
together and had strikes--even McDonald's workers--in order to get 
better

[[Page H3012]]

 pay. They are brave and they are courageous. They're taking their 
families' needs in their own hands. We wish them the best. We had a 
hearing so they could let their voices be heard.
  But if we had a functioning National Labor Relations Board, would 
they need to go on strike and risk their jobs? If we had a social 
safety net, would they be in such dire straits? If we made sure that 
American workers had an increase in the minimum wage and we were paying 
a livable wage, would they be in this situation?
  The American people are standing up for a better life, but the truth 
is public policies are failing them and we've got to do better. We can 
start by getting rid of sequester and getting rid of this very bad idea 
of cutting $20 billion out of supplemental nutrition.
  Thank you for your excellent work.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you to the gentleman from Minnesota, and, again, 
thank you for your leadership. On behalf of the Progressive Caucus, we 
work together here to try to bring these issues forward and we 
appreciate your hard work.
  I'm so pleased to be joined by the coanchor for this hour, my good 
friend, the gentleman from New York, who represents, I think, a 
community that has constituents who are struggling, like many 
constituents in my district, the Fourth District in Nevada.
  So I just want to pose the question to you, Mr. Jeffries, around this 
whole issue of income inequality that we just spent nearly the hour 
talking about. The fact that it's increased by more over the last 3 
years than in the previous 12 years, that under the Republican 
policies, the budget that they proposed, middle class families with 
children pay, on average, $3,000 more in taxes, but yet higher tax 
cuts, upwards of $245,000, were given to some of the wealthiest in 
America, and here we've heard about so many programs such as SNAP to 
GEAR UP to TRIO, funding for K-12 education, for Head Start, $20 
billion cuts to SNAP that are on the cutting board, and yet we are 
giving tax cuts to wealthy Americans and corporate subsidies, what do 
you say about that, my friend from New York?
  I yield to you at this time.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from the Silver State, for once again anchoring this the CBC 
Special Order, this hour of power where, for the 60 minutes that we've 
been allotted, we in the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity 
to speak directly to the American people on an issue of great 
significance, income inequality, which, as you have pointed out 
Representative Horsford, has increased, has gotten worse, not better, 
in recent years and, in fact, in recent decades. It's a very troubling 
trend.
  The fact is, in America, we celebrate success, celebrate 
entrepreneurship and the ability of people to prosper. But we in the 
CBC think that America is at its greatest when we promote progress for 
everybody, when we work as hard as we can in this Congress and this 
country to lift the entire civic participation rates and economic 
participation rates of everybody in this country.
  For the last several decades, objectively and empirically, the rich 
have gotten richer. They've seen their incomes increase since 1979 in 
excess of 275 percent. In isolation, that wouldn't be problematic. But 
when you consider what has happened to the least of those amongst us, 
to middle-income Americans as well, the situation is extremely 
troubling. The poor in many instances have gotten poorer, and working 
families and middle class folks and those who aspire to be part of the 
middle class are still struggling. In many instances, they've been left 
behind.

                              {time}  2030

  Now it has often been said that when Wall Street catches a cold, many 
low-income Americans get a fever. Well, we know in 2008, Wall Street, 
in fact, Representative Horsford, got the flu. And ever since, many 
low-income communities across this great country have been dealing with 
economic pneumonia. That's bad for the country, that's bad for our 
democracy, and we here in the country ought to do something about it.
  Now, since the collapse of the economy in 2008, one of the things 
that has exacerbated the income and inequality dynamic is the fact that 
some Americans have recovered, but others have been left behind. We are 
in the midst of a very schizophrenic economic situation right now. 
Corporate profits are way up. The stock market is way up. The 
productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet unemployment remains 
stubbornly high and wages for working families and for low-income 
Americans has remained stagnant.
  That's why we're arguing in the CBC that what we should be doing in 
America right now is investing in our economy, lifting up low-income 
workers and working families and those who aspire to be part of the 
middle class; invest in education; invest in job training; invest in 
research and development; invest in transportation and infrastructure 
and technology and innovation. Invest in America in these ways. Put 
people back to work so we can increase consumer demand; and if you 
increase consumer demand, the economy is going to grow. And if the 
economy grows, then the deficit as a percentage of GDP will reduce 
itself, and everybody benefits.
  So if you can't find the compassion simply to do the right thing for 
those low-income Americans who are struggling here in this great 
country, basic economic theory suggests that the right thing to do 
would be to provide support to those Americans who will spend that 
additional income that they have, put it into the economy in order to 
help create a more robust recovery.
  So I thank the gentleman from Nevada for his leadership on this issue 
of great importance.
  Mr. HORSFORD. I thank, again, my good friend from New York, Mr. 
Jeffries. I just want to ask you, the proposal by the CBC which 
supports a 10-20-30 policy for Federal spending, how do you feel this 
would improve outcomes, address prioritizing of resources, and create 
the type of positive impact that would ultimately lead to reduced 
poverty in America?
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, we don't need slash-and-burn budgets that reduce 
our investment in social safety net programs that are an important part 
of who we are in America. What we should be doing, consistent with the 
10-20-30 proposal, is targeting our investment in a way that is 
nonpartisan in nature, that will direct resources to rural America and 
to urban America, to blue States and to red States, that will focus on 
the poverty problem in a way that will benefit Americans no matter 
where they might be. That's what we should be doing as a Congress. 
That's what 10-20-30 is all about, and I'm hopeful that we can find our 
way to a bipartisan meeting of the minds, find common ground, and 
engage in investing in programs that will lift people out of poverty in 
this great country.
  Mr. HORSFORD. I thank my friend and co-anchor and those who have 
listened for the last hour. Thank you for joining the conversation at 
#CBCTalks, and we are going to continue this conversation because 46 
million people in our country live in poverty; 16 million of them are 
children. The U.S. poverty rate has risen and approaches a 50-year 
high. There's no way in America a family of four can live on $23,550 
and not expect some type of support.
  So these are the issues that we're confronting, Mr. Speaker. We want 
to work with our colleagues on the other side, but we want to do it in 
a way that addresses the root causes of the issue.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
additional materials on this topic and also House Resolution 242.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
discuss the ongoing crisis of poverty in some of the most vulnerable 
communities in our country. In the United States, one out of every 
three African American children lives in poverty, which is three times 
higher than the rate of white American children living in poverty. Over 
30 percent of African American children suffer from food insecurity--
more than twice the rate of food insecurity among white children. At 
the same time, residents of predominantly black or Hispanic 
neighborhoods have access to about half as many social services as 
residents of predominantly white neighborhoods.
  These disparities are unacceptable. Every American deserves enough 
food to eat and an equal opportunity to get a quality education, a good 
job, and safe housing.

[[Page H3013]]

  Our Nation's basic social safety net improves access to affordable 
housing, childhood education, and adequate nutrition, and serves as a 
lifeline for millions of Americans. Providing a helping hand to the 
nearly 50 million Americans who are living in poverty should be at the 
forefront of Congress' priorities. Instead, we are still living with 
the sequester, which has delivered devastating cuts to many of our 
essential safety net programs. I call on my colleagues to prioritize 
our most vulnerable communities and replace the sequester with an 
agreement that protects vital safety net programs.
  In particular, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or 
SNAP, helps low-income families across the country put food on the 
table. Of the 47 million Americans who rely on SNAP for access to 
nutritious food, nearly half are children. Even more strikingly, nearly 
half of all American children will receive SNAP benefits at some point 
in their lives. SNAP is one of our Nation's most effective anti-poverty 
programs, helping families get back on their feet while providing an 
economic stimulus to the local economy.
  We must not balance our budget on the backs of children and families 
struggling to make ends meet. With our economy still recovering, it is 
time to invest in Americans and in our Nation's future, by supporting 
important programs like SNAP.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Mr. Horsford and Mr. 
Jeffries for leading this important effort for the CBC this evening--so 
that we can discuss a particularly important issue for me, my district, 
and this nation, and that is: ``Lifting Americans out of Poverty.''
  As many of my constituents and colleagues already know, the great 
recession cost this country roughly 13 trillion dollars in household 
wealth, and pushed millions of Americans into poverty.
  The poverty rate is at levels not seen in twenty years, and the most 
recent numbers show that more than 46 million Americans are currently 
living below the poverty line.
  The most distressing fact is that the youngest Americans represent a 
disproportionate share of the poor in the U.S.
  Though children make up less than a quarter of the population, they 
constitute more than one-third of Americans in poverty.
  And, studies by the American Psychological Association have found 
correlations between poverty in children and higher rates of illness, 
abuse, neglect, developmental and educational delays, participation in 
risky behaviors such as smoking or sexual activities, and problems with 
self-esteem and depression.
  And worse, growing up in poverty has a lasting negative impact on 
lifetime earning potential.
  As a joint Princeton University--Brookings Institute study reported, 
the U.S. has decreasing income mobility, and increasing income 
inequality.
  This means that more than ever, youths that grow up in poverty are 
more likely to remain in poverty for the duration of their lives.
  But we have programs designed to buffer our youth from some of the 
harshest effects of situations for which they deserve no blame, and 
over which they have no control.
  Programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program which 
provides nutritional support for the most vulnerable families, and 
which will face cuts in just a few months without intervening 
Congressional action.
  Or programs like Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The Housing 
Choice Vouchers provide subsidies to landlords directly by public 
housing agencies, to create housing options for very low-income 
families.
  Though it varies from state to state, on average, a family earning 
$26,000 per year would be making too much to be eligible.
  This program for the least fortunate among us will likely have to cut 
aid to 125,000 families immediately, due to cuts from sequestration.
  Or programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit. This tax credit for 
low-to moderate-income couples, primarily those with qualifying 
children, not only provides a tax refund to the most deserving, but it 
dually functions to incent work even if the pay isn't great.
  This is the type of progressive tax system that encourages self-
sufficiency and in the long-run can reduce the need for government 
dependence.
  Yet even this simple, long-standing beneficial tax credit is being 
offered up by some as ripe for elimination.
  I can talk about the children and families who need these programs, 
in the abstract, as if they are some sort of different Americans--
people who didn't work hard, or didn't spend wisely.
  But the reality is: this type of poverty can happen to anyone.
  Anyone in this Chamber, or watching at home on Wall Street or Main 
Street--this can happen to you.
  One unexpected illness, one lost job due to ``just a bad economy,'' 
or one elderly family member whose medical and caretaking bills 
continue to pile up, and anyone can find themselves unable to make it 
without a little help.
  That's what these vital programs do. That's why these programs are so 
important.
  We as legislators have the opportunity and obligation to make sure 
that we put safeguards in place to ensure that no one is left out from 
the chance to pursue the American dream.
  It's not just about helping the poorest Americans. It's about doing 
the right thing to help our neighbors, knowing that at any time, the 
shoe could be on the other foot.
  I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this most important 
issue.

                          ____________________