[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 15 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1425-H1428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SNAP CUTS IN THE FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hudson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for 30 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. First, let me say thank you to my colleagues who are 
leaving the floor for your great work on the issue of wage stagnation 
and the inability for upward mobility for people in this Nation. You 
have done a great service here tonight with laying out what the facts 
are. What we need to do is to be able to increase people's income and, 
therefore, give them the economic wherewithal to take care of 
themselves and their families and have a road to economic security. So 
I thank you very, very much.
  I also want to say a thank you to my colleague from Rhode Island, 
Congressman Cicilline, who will join me in this 30-minute Special Order 
for tonight.
  Tonight, I want to talk about the severe and immoral cuts being made 
to anti-hunger and nutrition programs, and particularly the 
continuation of devastating food stamp cuts being made in the proposed 
conference farm bill. We have said here that food stamps--food stamps--
are an economic safety net.
  As written, the farm bill would force 850,000 households--1.7 million 
men, women, children and veterans across America--to go hungry, even 
while wealthy agri-businesses continue to get generous crop subsidies. 
Low-income seniors, working poor families with children, and 
individuals with disabilities would be particularly impacted by the 
cruel cuts in this bill.
  Meanwhile, the conference has decided to reopen the loopholes that 
the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan way, closed; and those 
loopholes as they reopen them will make sure that millionaires and 
billionaires are getting crop subsidies. One has to ask the question, 
Who are we working for here? In effect, this is reverse Robin Hood 
legislation. It steals food from the poor to help pay crop subsidies to 
the rich. And when I see Members supporting the immoral cuts in this 
legislation, Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder if some people in this 
institution have really lost their perspective and understand why we 
are here and what our moral responsibility is.
  Across this country--this great country--nearly 50 million Americans, 
including over 16 million children, are

[[Page H1426]]

struggling with hunger right now. Think for a moment about what that 
means. In 1974, a writer at Time magazine explained it this way:

       The victim of starvation burns up his own body fats, 
     muscles and tissues for fuel. His body quite literally 
     consumes itself and deteriorates rapidly. The kidneys, liver 
     and endocrine system often cease to function properly. A 
     shortage of carbohydrates, which play a vital role in brain 
     chemistry, affects the mind. Lassitude and confusion set in, 
     so that starvation victims often seem unaware of their 
     plight.

  That is what we are talking about here. Hunger is agonizing. It is a 
curse. We are talking about men and women experiencing real physical 
torment, children who cannot concentrate in school because all they can 
think about is food. Seniors are forced to decide, in this virulent 
winter season, this polar vortex that we talked about, whether or not 
they will go hungry or whether or not they will go cold.
  This is a problem all across this land. The estimates of Americans at 
risk of going hungry, here in the land of plenty, are appalling. In my 
Connecticut district, nearly one in seven households is not sure if 
they can afford enough food to feed their families. In Mississippi, 
24.5 percent suffer food hardship. That is nearly one in four people. 
In West Virginia and Kentucky, 22 percent, one in five people, suffer 
food hardship; in Ohio, nearly 20 percent; and in California, just over 
19 percent.
  The continued existence of hunger in America is a disgrace and, quite 
frankly, an indictment of this institution. As the late Senator George 
McGovern, a champion against hunger, wrote:

       The Earth has enough knowledge and resources to eradicate 
     this ancient scourge. Hunger has plagued the world for 
     thousands of years. But ending it is a great moral imperative 
     now more than ever before, because for the first time 
     humanity has the instruments at hand to defeat this cruel 
     enemy at a very reasonable cost. We have the ability to 
     provide food for all within the next three decades.

                              {time}  2030

  Or as President John F. Kennedy put it:

       We have the ability, we have the means, and we have the 
     capacity to eliminate hunger from the face of the Earth. We 
     need only the will.

  Mr. Speaker, that will seems to be lacking in the Congress right now. 
Instead of working to end hunger for good, this farm bill takes food 
from the plates of 1.7 million Americans. And again, we are talking 
about seniors, veterans, children, families who are playing by the 
rules and many of whom are working full-time, all the time.
  The farm bill, this one that is being proposed, would force Americans 
to go hungry. And at the same time, the conference has chosen, against 
the will of the House and the Senate, to reopen loopholes and strip out 
payment limits so that millionaires and wealthy agribusinesses can 
continue to get handouts.
  It is unconscionable what has happened here. On its own cognizance, 
and in violation of the congressional rule that provisions passed by 
both bodies should not be changed, the conference more than doubled the 
annual dollars on primary payments. They said you now get $50,000 for a 
primary payment for your commodities, we are now going to raise that to 
$125,000. That loophole was closed. They then reopened the loophole 
closed in the House and the Senate that allows large wealthy farmers to 
collect far, far more than that nominal payment limit. And they did 
this while they cut $8.5 billion from food stamps.
  What is interesting, what is very interesting and cruel, if you will, 
is that those folks who are upper-income scale, the wealthiest of 
farmers, they don't have to have any income threshold or test to see 
how much they make before they qualify for these payments. They don't 
have to tell us about what assets they have before they qualify for 
these payments. We don't have a cap on the payments that we give them. 
These are millionaires. And yes, for food stamp recipients, we have an 
asset threshold, an income threshold. We say, if you make so much 
money, you are not eligible for $1.40 per meal. You are not eligible. 
But if you are a millionaire, all bets are off. All bets are off. And 
you know those folks at the top rung, they are eating well. They are 
getting three squares a day. They are feeding their kids. And what we 
are going to do is to take food away from food stamp recipients--men, 
women, seniors, children, and veterans.
  Where are the values of this great Nation? We have lost our way. We 
have lost our way.
  In the past, there has been a strong tradition of bipartisanship on 
fighting hunger and supporting nutrition, from the left, leaders like 
George McGovern, and from the right, leaders like Bob Dole who would 
come together to make a difference for families in need. In fact, 
Senator Dole called the egregious cuts to food stamps in the House 
version of the bill ``an about-face on our progress fighting hunger.'' 
This is because food stamps is our country's most important effort to 
deal with hunger here at home and to ensure that American families can 
put food on the table for their kids. They help over 47 million 
Americans, nearly half of them children, meet their basic food needs, 
and they make a tremendous difference for the health and well-being of 
families. Food stamps have been proven to improve low-income children's 
health and development, reduce food insecurity, and have a continuing 
positive influence into adulthood.
  Children's Health Watch researchers found, after collecting 14 years' 
worth of data on over 20,000 low-income families, that when families 
experience a loss or reduction in food stamp benefits, they are more 
likely to be food insecure, be in poor health, and their children 
experience intensified developmental delays relative to their peers.
  Food stamps also have one of the lowest error rates of any government 
program. It is around 3.8 percent. That includes overpayments and 
underpayments. I defy to go to any other agency--let's look at the crop 
insurance program and find out what their error rate is all about.
  Food stamps are good for the economy, a positive impact on growth, 
because food stamps not only help to feed the hungry, they get 
resources into the hands of families who will spend them right away. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture research shows that every $5 of 
Federal food stamp benefits generates nearly twice that in economic 
activity.
  Most importantly, of course, they are the right thing to do. Ninety-
nine percent of food stamp recipients have incomes below the poverty 
line. It is the job of good government to help vulnerable families get 
back on their feet. In the words of Harry Truman:

       Nothing is more important in our national life than the 
     welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first 
     in attaining this welfare.

  That is why, when he declared that ``the moment is at hand to put an 
end to hunger in America,'' Richard Nixon called for a significant 
expansion of the food stamp program to ``provide poor families enough 
food stamps to purchase a nutritionally complete diet.''
  This is something we all used to agree on. But now we are seeing a 
farm bill that cuts deeply into food stamps, and I ask again, how can 
anyone possibly support this?
  Keep in mind, food stamps have already seen deep and dangerous cuts. 
If you look at the fridge in the picture that I am holding up, this 
represents where we should be in terms of access to food. But because 
of the recent expiration of the Recovery Act provisions, food stamps 
have already been cut by $5 billion next year, and they will be cut by 
$11 billion over the next 3 years.
  On November 1, 2013, SNAP benefits were reduced, about $36 less for a 
family of four each month. This means that a family of four loses $36, 
or 16 meals a month, in support. That is the difference between health 
and hunger.
  Now this Congress wants to enact another $8.5 billion in cuts, 
meaning an additional $90 per month, and that much more food taken away 
from 850,000 households. This is the proposed farm bill. SNAP cuts 
would result in 850,000 households, 1.7 million people, losing almost 
$90 a month in monthly benefits.

  And already, for far too many Americans, the last few weeks of the 
month, this is what their fridge looks like. Why would we put any more 
hardship on the most vulnerable families in our Nation, families who 
are already battling food insecurity and hunger? They will have an 
empty refrigerator. No one should go hungry due to food stamp cuts.
  However you cut it, this is a terrible policy. Cutting food stamps 
will cause more hunger and health problems. These cuts are a 
dereliction of our responsibility as Members of Congress

[[Page H1427]]

and our moral responsibility to help the least fortunate among us.
  As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has said:

       We must form a ``circle of protection'' around programs 
     that serve the poor and vulnerable in our Nation and 
     throughout the world.

  Or in the words of Pope Francis:

       The scandal that millions of people suffer from hunger must 
     not paralyze us, but push each and every one of us to act--
     singles, families, communities, institutions, governments--to 
     eliminate this injustice.

  Mr. Speaker, this farm bill takes us in the wrong direction. Instead 
of helping to end hunger, it cuts food stamps by $90 a month for 1.7 
million people. It forces poor families to choose between food on the 
table or warmth, and it does all of this while preserving loopholes and 
maximizing handouts for wealthy farmers and agribusinesses. We have to 
do better.
  I hope all of my colleagues in both parties will stand up against the 
outrageously misplaced priorities in this farm bill. I hope we can 
rekindle the strong bipartisan support that existed for decades for 
ending hunger in America.
  The astronaut Buzz Aldrin once said, ``If we can conquer space, we 
can conquer childhood hunger,'' and we can. This institution has the 
power. It has the potential to make that transformative change. We have 
the ability. We have the means, and we have the capacity to eliminate 
hunger in America. We only need the will to do what is right.
  With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, 
who is such a strong supporter of families in this Nation and who has 
seen the ravages of families who have lost their unemployment benefits; 
and now what we intend to do is not only have they lost their 
unemployment benefits, we want to make sure, with this farm bill, what 
it would mean is that they are hungry and that they are cold. I thank 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for being here tonight.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 
for her extraordinary work and for her incredible passion on this very, 
very important issue and for giving me an opportunity to speak on this 
serious issue tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut has been a great 
champion for policies that fight hunger and protect a crucial safety 
net for our Nation's most vulnerable children and families. I am very 
proud to stand with her tonight against these devastating cuts to the 
SNAP program. You don't end hunger by cutting nutrition programs; you 
make it worse.
  We should be working together to find ways to end hunger in America. 
We can do that. This is the greatest country on Earth. We should be 
certain that no man, woman, or child in this country goes hungry.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues filed the farm bill conference 
report that would be absolutely devastating to families struggling to 
get by. For just a moment, I would like to walk through some of the 
cuts being proposed.
  In States like mine with cold winters, many working families already 
struggling to buy food face the additional burden of expensive monthly 
utility bills to heat their homes. Faced with this reality, some 
parents are forced to decide what is more important for their child: a 
good, nutritious meal or a warm home. For decades now, the SNAP program 
has worked to provide additional benefits to struggling families facing 
both food insecurity and high heating or housing costs.
  For example, in my home State of Rhode Island, individuals who 
receive even nominal assistance through the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, are also eligible for additional 
assistance under SNAP. This policy, often called Heat and Eat, makes 
sense for two reasons. First, this kind of policy helps prevent some of 
our most vulnerable families from having to face the difficult choice 
between a warm home and a good meal. Let's not forget, these families 
are living in the worst kind of poverty, the poorest and most needy 
members of our community, and they very often face the real threat of 
hunger and a freezing home.
  The second reason this program is important is because it makes both 
programs more efficient and streamlines the application process. 
Without this policy, the same family would be forced to navigate a maze 
of bureaucracies to access resources in a time of tremendous need. 
Instead, under this policy, struggling families can access critical 
resources more easily and focus on the things that matter, like getting 
back on their feet or finding work. In a time of limited Federal 
resources for the poor, Heat and Eat helps. It helps States coordinate 
assistance programs and leverages funding from SNAP and LIHEAP so no 
family is faced with that impossible choice.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have called this a 
loophole, but it is not a loophole. This is a policy, an effective 
policy, designed to address a real problem for families facing 
especially hard times. The conference report that was filed tonight 
cuts and undermines States' efforts to coordinate food and heating 
assistance, and it will make the lives of our neediest families even 
more difficult.
  I know many of my colleagues will think that this is an easy pill to 
swallow. Why? Because it places the burden of further reductions to 
nutrition problems on the backs of a smaller group of individuals in a 
limited number of States. Only 16 States administer Heat and Eat 
programs, primarily cold weather States like Rhode Island and 
Connecticut, and it is a cruel twist that my colleagues have decided to 
target cold weather States right after many parts of the country faced 
record-breaking cold and incredibly high heating costs.

                              {time}  2045

  According to the previous estimates of this policy, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office said that about 850,000 households would 
see their benefits cut by an average of about $90 a month. Of course, 
many of the households affected by this cut will be low-income seniors, 
veterans, people with disabilities, children, and the working poor. In 
total, this cut impacts 1.7 million people struggling to put food on 
the table, and it imposes all of these cuts on only those families 
living in 16 States.
  The same people that are proposing these cuts in nutrition programs 
are more than happy to provide agricultural companies with extremely 
generous subsidies to purchase crop insurance. They are happy to spend 
$40 billion over the next 10 years in commodity programs. They are 
happy to undermine payment reform, like limits on total commodity 
payments for personnel, reforms that were approved and voted on by the 
full House last June and that could result in even higher subsidies for 
the wealthiest farmers.
  In fact, one of the architects of this bill has tried to make the 
case for maintaining certain agricultural subsidies by saying, ``The 
safety net still has to exist.'' Apparently, to protect the safety net, 
the wealthiest farmers, children, and families in 16 States will be 
forced to struggle even harder to put food on the table. It is a sad 
day in this country when the safety net for wealthy farmers is more 
important than the safety net for hungry families.
  I thank the gentlelady for all of the work that she has done and for 
the information she just shared about how effective and important this 
program is.
  I just want to end with two quotes from important religious groups 
who have spoken to this issue that I hope my colleagues will hear and 
rethink this decision and reject this proposal and speak to our values 
as a country.
  The National Association of Evangelicals said:

       As you determine the policies and appropriations for the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, please maintain 
     this vital program at or near its current level of funding, 
     and refrain from enacting policies that could damage our most 
     vulnerable citizens.

  And a U.S. Catholic bishop said:

       How the House chooses to address our Nation's hunger and 
     nutrition programs will have profound human and moral 
     consequences.

  I hope we will all hear those words and do what is right for 
families, will speak to our values as a country and protect those most 
in need from any additional cuts that will adversely impact their 
families and their ability to feed themselves.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I can't thank the gentleman enough for your eloquence 
and

[[Page H1428]]

what clarity you brought to the discussion around the connection 
between the low-income energy assistance program and the food stamp 
program and taking it out of the realm of what people are trying to do, 
which is to demean it and talk about it as a scheme or a loophole, none 
of which is true. We can talk about some schemes and some loopholes in 
this bill, but they don't apply where it has to do with the food stamp 
beneficiaries.
  I want to pick up on a point that you made about the safety net. The 
farm bill--and I had the opportunity to work in 2008 on the farm bill, 
and particularly the nutrition piece--has always been a safety net for 
farmers and for those who are the beneficiaries of the nutrition 
programs. That is the link that was established, so that the benefits 
would go nationwide, not to a particular region of the country, not to 
a particular population, but a safety net so that we could make sure 
that people in bad times, in difficult times, could be able to sustain 
themselves. That is what has been broken apart here with this farm 
bill.
  The point is that where the farm bill conferees will say that they 
are cutting back on these payments to farmers, what they have done is 
to create a series of other programs where these folks can make 
themselves whole through crop insurance, through putting more farm 
managers on the land and no restrictions as to how many you can put at 
$125,000 a pop. So they found ways in terms of which they make these 
folks whole.
  The only beneficiaries in the farm bill who have no place to go when 
you cut back on that $90 a month are the food stamp recipients. So you 
have yanked the safety net away from them and you have done it to 
benefit the wealthiest farm interests in the Nation. It is wrong.
  That bipartisan support we had in the past for a safety net is what 
created strength. I am sad to tell you that that has been rent asunder, 
and we cannot let that happen.
  I am going to encourage my colleagues--and I know you will--that we 
will defeat this effort to leave people without sustenance in this 
Nation.
  I thank the gentleman for participating tonight.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________