[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6798-H6804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1830
                           PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cook). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here today on behalf of 
the Progressive Caucus, along with other members of the Progressive 
Caucus. We have long fought for the middle class and those aspiring to 
be in the middle class. Today, specifically, we want to address 
Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty in this Nation.
  Needless to say, we were excited to find out a Republican wanted to 
talk about poverty, given the votes that we have had this session in 
this body. Whether it be the draconian cuts that appeared in the House 
Republican budget, the slashing of food stamps and assistance to the 
most needy in this country, to see a Republican finally stand up and 
talk about poverty, we were excited. And we want to have that 
conversation this evening.
  So just what is in Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to help alleviate 
poverty? I am sure it must be something about raising the minimum wage 
to $10.10 in the next 3 years so that we can help lift people who are 
making $15,000 a year out of poverty. I am sure it addresses equal pay 
for equal work so that men and women are paid for doing the same work. 
But it doesn't appear that is part of Paul Ryan's plan.
  I am sure it addresses some educational issues. I am sure it helps 
people pay back their loans at lower rates and makes sure we have 
expanded Pell grants available so that no one should be denied a higher 
education simply because they can't afford it. No, that is not part of 
the Ryan plan either.

[[Page H6799]]

  I am sure there is an investment in early childhood education, 
because every person in this room must surely know that if we help 
invest at those earliest years, you can have a lifetime of experiences 
and opportunities for someone. That is not in the plan either.
  Surely, it must address investments in infrastructure. We have 
crumbling roads and bridges. We have bridges and roads that are old 
enough that they are eligible for Medicare in this country. Surely, 
putting people back to work at a time like this and investing in our 
infrastructure would make sense. It is also not in the Ryan plan.
  Let me try one more thing. It has got to be here. We must provide 
incentives to create good-paying jobs here in America rather than 
overseas. Clearly, the 21st century Make It In America Act must not be 
in the plan either.
  All those things that I just mentioned--raising the minimum wage, 
making sure we have equal pay for equal work, expanding opportunity 
through expanded Pell grants and helping people refinance their student 
loans, helping people get access to early education and investing in 
our infrastructure and jobs here at home--are part of the House 
Democratic Middle Class Jumpstart program. They are what we would do in 
our first 100 days if we were to take over the majority after this 
fall.
  But surely there must be something we could talk about today in Paul 
Ryan's plan. There has got to be something equally bold and, hopefully, 
not just old, a bunch of old ideas warmed over, brought back to us in 
versions of block grants and not really providing any real assistance 
that the most needy in this country need.
  I am joined by a number of my colleagues today who are going to 
address exactly what is in Paul Ryan's plan and perhaps how we can 
offer a little different perspective to help the most needy in our 
country.
  I would like to start out with a very esteemed and respected 
colleague from Illinois, Representative Danny Davis.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much. I am pleased to 
be here to join you, Mr. Pocan, and other members of the Progressive 
Caucus as we talk about the real deal in terms of what it is that you 
do to reduce poverty.
  I read some of what we are talking about, and I really couldn't 
believe that that had anything to do with the reduction or any efforts 
to seriously reduce poverty.
  We have made some progress in the last 50 years, but it is 
unacceptable that 49.7 million people, including 13 million children, 
were poor in 2012. In my congressional district alone, 41 percent of 
children, or 67,000 children, live in poverty. It also is shameful that 
racial disparities remain in the experience of poverty, with child 
poverty for African Americans being 29.2 percent, in 2012, compared to 
9 percent for their White peers.
  And so I welcome working with anybody that would like to reduce 
poverty. As a matter of fact, ever since I have been here, I have 
championed two of the chief proposals mentioned by the Ryan plan: 
expanding the earned income tax credit to childless and noncustodial 
parents, as well as reducing incarceration among low-risk and 
nonviolent offenders.
  The earned income tax credit is one of the most effective antipoverty 
programs that we have. A Brookings Institution report highlights that 
the high rate of incarceration in our country exacts considerable cost 
from American taxpayers, especially from State governments and 
families.
  However, I am extremely concerned about the proposed way of paying 
for these programs. Rather than asking large corporations to pay their 
fair share of taxes or closing international tax loopholes that allow 
large, multinational companies to evade billions of dollars in taxes, 
the Ryan plan would eliminate or eviscerate many important programs 
like the Social Services Block Grant and the Economic Development 
Administration.
  So I don't know what Mr. Ryan is really talking about. It seems to me 
that he is talking the same talk we have heard so often.
  Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POCAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Davis, you are a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee so perhaps we can seek some clarification on the earned 
income tax credit expansion, which you say you have championed, and 
that is a very effective antipoverty program, one of the elements in 
the Ryan antipoverty program that you say is a good feature but you 
object to the pay-for for the expansion of the earned income tax 
credit.
  In order to expand it to folks up to age 64, as he proposes, which is 
a great idea--and incentives work, because he says a lot of poor people 
don't want to work--this would enable low-income people to have that 
subsidy through the Tax Code, as we benefit many corporations that same 
way.
  Just recently, the Ways and Means Committee just extended about $618 
billion of corporate taxes. I am wondering what the pay-for for these 
corporate extenders were.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. They didn't really deal with pay-
fors. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons that many of us objected 
to the piecemeal way in which the Republicans are looking at what we 
call tax reform is we have been trying to move towards comprehensive 
tax reform where you look at all of the taxation that we are doing. And 
yes, there would be what is called some losers and some winners, but 
you wouldn't cherry pick and just give corporate giveaways and not do 
things like make sure that you have got the new market tax credits in, 
which are designed to help redevelop, restore, and reconstitute 
communities that are hurting, that are seriously underfunded and don't 
have things.

  Many communities in my district which were actually burned out by the 
riots after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King are still burned out.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Davis, that was very confusing to me, and I will take 
my seat, but I just wanted clarification on that.
  The earned income tax credit, which is a benefit that is provided to 
ordinary Americans through the Tax Code, we are required to eviscerate 
programs like Meals on Wheels for elders through the Social Services 
Block Grant and to get rid of maybe some of the low-income heating 
programs that heat homes in places like Chicago that are cold in order 
to pay for an expansion of the earned income tax credit, but the $618 
billion in tax cuts which were designed to be just temporary but you 
made permanent the other day, I guess you pay for it by not giving 
unemployment compensation to people.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Let's say the majority on the 
committee made it permanent because we voted--that is, those of us who 
are Democrats voted against it. That is why I think it is so important 
that we are here this evening.
  I just simply want to again commend Mr. Pocan for taking the 
leadership to bring us together and give us the opportunity to discuss 
these issues.
  I just say: Right on, my brother. I am glad to be here with you.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Davis, so much for all of your 
advocacy on behalf of those who are struggling to be in the middle 
class and for making sure we can try to reduce poverty.
  Representative Davis is right. There are a couple of nuggets that are 
in the Ryan proposal that make sense. I think there could be bipartisan 
support for criminal sentencing reform. There should be, and it is long 
past due, and it is good to see that proposed in the plan.
  As Representative Gwen Moore from Milwaukee so eloquently put forth, 
expanding tax credits for childless workers is something through the 
earned income tax credit we would support except that, perhaps, the 
Ryan proposal doesn't quite fund it in a way that makes sense.
  So there are a few nuggets in there, but there is an awful lot that 
really doesn't do much about reducing poverty and, in fact, would 
probably, very likely, increase poverty in the near term.
  I would like to yield to another colleague of mine, to someone who 
has been this body's, really, most outspoken person in talking about 
poverty. She is leading a task force for the Democratic Caucus that 
specifically addresses poverty. I would like to yield to my great 
colleague from the State

[[Page H6800]]

of California, Representative Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much.
  Let me thank you, Mr. Pocan, for yielding but also for organizing, 
not only this Special Order tonight, but for having these Special 
Orders in order to really raise a level of awareness with regard to 
these important issues facing millions of Americans in our country. We 
know that you are here every week, sometimes by yourself, but I have to 
thank you for your tremendous leadership and for helping the 
Progressive Caucus continue to beat the drum on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know today that, of course, the Republican Budget 
Committee chair, Paul Ryan, rolled out his expanding opportunities for 
all plan for addressing poverty in America. That is what it is called.
  I can say, like you, I am happy to see that there are some areas we 
can work on together in this plan. That includes fixing our broken 
criminal justice system, expanding and supporting the earned income tax 
credit if we don't, as his plan calls for, rob Peter to pay Paul. I am 
glad to see that the conversation on poverty in this country is finally 
catching up and catching on with my Republican colleagues at the 
national level.
  We have been working for a long time--our task force, you, all of us 
here tonight on this floor and others--to try to get this urgent issue 
the attention it really requires here in the House of Representatives, 
but we know that, ultimately, most of Mr. Ryan's recommendations are 
more about rhetoric than reality.
  My question in looking at his list of proposals is, first of all: 
Where is the jobs plan? We all know that the primary means and pathway 
out of poverty is a good-paying job with benefits.
  Add to that that his proposal has, really, the same--I call it--old-
time block granting proposals that we have seen, once again, for, I 
guess, 4 years in the Ryan budget. In fact, if you will recall, the 
Ryan Republican budget takes more than two-thirds of its cuts from 
programs that serve low-income and vulnerable Americans. When he talks 
about consolidating programs, including SNAP, into block grants, it is 
as if he is forgetting that his budget cuts $300 billion in these 11 
programs for the next 10 years. I can't quite figure out why the 
rhetoric in the plan lays this out, but yet his budget takes the same 
plan and cuts $300 billion.
  It does nothing, as I said, to create jobs. It does nothing to 
provide Americans a living wage or to extend unemployment insurance to 
the 3.3 million long-term unemployed. People really need to understand 
that this plan is not about substance. It is about Republicans trying 
to put a compassionate face on their draconian policies. That is what 
this is about.
  Some of us have raised some key questions about this proposal, and I 
would like to just lay out some of these questions when we are 
evaluating his plan. The House Ways and Means Committee, under the 
tremendous leadership of our ranking member, Sandy Levin, laid out some 
of these questions, which include:
  Does compassionate conservatism really just mean cutting spending 
while saying you are about caring for the poor?
  Will this plan include proposals that have been shown to both reward 
work and reduce poverty, such as increasing the minimum wage and 
extending benefits to the long-term unemployed who are looking for 
work?
  Will Representative Ryan support flexible assistance to States to 
help struggling Americans or will he push States to cut such 
assistance?
  Will Mr. Ryan's proposal fit into a balanced approach to address the 
deficit?
  I just have to say, Mr. Pocan and others who are listening tonight, 
in this block granting proposal and in many of his proposals, there are 
work requirements. For any of the services or for any of the programs, 
you have to have a job. They have cut workforce training, and they have 
not created any jobs, so their work requirement as eligibility for 
programs that help provide this bridge over troubled waters just 
doesn't make any sense. It is wrong. Unless you have got a full-
employment economy and unless the recession has really ensured that 
everyone has a good-paying job, then a work requirement to be eligible 
for benefits in order to help reduce poverty or to help lift you out of 
poverty is just counterproductive, and it doesn't make any sense. This 
is something that we have to continue to work on in terms of Mr. Ryan. 
We need this conversation. It needs to be bipartisan.
  This week, some of us are taking the Live the Wage Challenge from the 
Raise the Wage coalition. We are living on $77 a week, which is what a 
minimum wage employee in this country has to live on after taxes and 
housing expenses. We are doing this, though, to raise awareness of the 
everyday struggles of millions of our constituents. We will be off of 
this $77-a-week budget in a week, but millions of our constituents 
won't be. I wish that this plan would really have a pathway so that 
millions of our constituents would be able to live off of a good-paying 
job with benefits.
  Finally, let me just say that this Congress should focus on 
supporting and expanding programs that are working to lift people out 
of poverty--programs that have worked for the last 50 years since the 
war on poverty began--such as Head Start. I will tell you that we have 
got a long way to go. We shouldn't talk about cutting these programs. 
They have helped people move into the middle class. We know that. We 
should not play politics with poverty.
  I hope the Republicans really get real about reducing poverty rather 
than trying to fool the public, and that is what is happening now. They 
are trying to fool the public with this new brand, and it is a new 
brand of conservative compassion, but I will tell you that this 
rhetoric has nothing to do with the reality of the Ryan budget. This is 
where the rubber meets the road.
  Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to talk about this.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Lee.
  Representative Lee and I and Representative Moore all serve on the 
Budget Committee, and we have had a lot of time to see the Paul Ryan 
Republican budget.

  When you talk about the SNAP program, I will just give one example. I 
remember, in this body, we had a debate as to whether we were going to 
cut $20 billion or eventually $39 billion from the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program. Yet we knew, when the Ryan budget was 
proposed--the Republican budget that was voted on in this body--the 
cuts to the SNAP program were $135 billion. Either there has been a 
rebirth in how we look at poverty from the other side of the aisle or, 
perhaps, there is just a little different packaging of some of the same 
bad ideas that just sound a little better, and I really appreciate your 
bringing those out.
  Ms. MOORE. Before you leave, I wanted to know if you would respond to 
a question, Ms. Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Yes.
  Ms. MOORE. You mentioned in your remarks that, in the Budget 
Committee and on the budget that this House passed, there were 300--was 
it ``billion'' dollars in cuts?
  Ms. LEE of California. It was $300 billion by consolidating the 11 
programs that he wants to block grant to the States.
  Ms. MOORE. But what he says in his rollout is that this is budget 
neutral, which means that it won't cost taxpayers any more. It is 
budget neutral, and it won't cost taxpayers any more, but it also will 
not cut programs. It is a really clever sort of budgeting trick on one 
hand, don't you think, to say you are not going to cut it from where 
you have already cut it?
  Ms. LEE of California. It is more than clever. I think it is wrong to 
mislead the public as it relates to the numbers. It is cooking the 
books. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It may be budget neutral, but, 
definitely, the cuts will take place in order to get to a budget 
neutral plan, and that is the problem I have with this. By 
consolidating all of these programs and by block-granting these 
programs, who is going to see the cuts and feel the cuts of the block 
granting? It is going to be the most vulnerable.
  Thank you very much for raising that, but it is true. We see this on 
the Budget Committee each and every day.
  Mr. POCAN. Representative Lee, if you would yield to one more 
question

[[Page H6801]]

since we are talking about the bad math that we all too often see from 
the other side of the aisle: Didn't we also, during the budget, see 
some incredibly bad math when it came to the budget's repealing the 
benefits of the Affordable Care Act but its somehow trying to keep the 
revenue in savings? Wasn't that bad math something like $2 trillion 
worth of bad math, and now we are supposed to accept this $300 billion, 
allegedly, ``no cuts'' to the program? What were those numbers?
  Ms. LEE of California. It was very interesting. Of course, they have 
opposed the Affordable Care Act and have tried to repeal it--what?--50-
some times now, but yet have captured the savings, which the Affordable 
Care Act is very clear on having made, to base their budget on those 
captured savings.
  I think that, again, it is fuzzy math, and it is a way to deceive the 
public. It is a way to promote their policies of making sure that those 
who have access to affordable health care now don't have it in the 
future and that those who need it will be prevented from gaining it 
through the Affordable Care Act.
  Ms. MOORE. I just want to ask you one more question about this fuzzy 
math, Congresswoman, since you serve on the Budget Committee.
  The SNAP program is an entitlement program. What it means is, if you 
are eligible for food stamps, you receive them. Food stamps were 
critical in getting people over the hump in the recession. People 
sometimes reported that their only income was these food stamps.
  So, if you see block grant SNAP--and correct me if I am wrong--what 
that means is that no matter how bad the economy becomes--because we 
have a countercyclical economy if we get a recession or a depression--
and no matter how many people are eligible for food stamps, once you 
get your block grant, your some certain amount of money, and once that 
money runs out, then you will find yourself on a waiting list or not 
being served. Is that how you understand a ``block grant''?
  Ms. LEE of California. Exactly, Congresswoman Moore. I am glad you 
raised that because that is exactly what happens.
  First of all, there will be some requirements of the States but not 
many, and once the States run out of money, it is too bad. Food stamp 
recipients may or may not receive the type of assistance they need to 
help them with this as a bridge over troubled waters. It is not a fair 
system. We would see more people being cut from SNAP rolls, and we 
would also see more people needing food stamps because of the safety 
net being eroded even further. So it is a catch-23. Block-granting all 
of this to the States would harm the most vulnerable.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you.
  Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you, Representative Lee. I appreciate it. 
Your final comments about how hard it is to actually be able to eat a 
block grant, perhaps, is part of the problem of why we don't quite 
trust what we see in that it will work as presented. Thank you so much 
for your time.
  I would like to yield to another colleague of mine who is also from 
the State of California. He is one of my fellow freshman colleagues, 
Representative Mark Takano.
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Earlier today, your colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) released his 
long-awaited antipoverty plan. This is a bold step for Mr. Ryan 
because, if you look at the history of the Republican Party, there is a 
clear and undeniable pattern of implementing policies that help the top 
2 percent but that do nothing for those struggling to make ends meet. 
Of course, they have proposed various ``reforms'' over the years, but 
those initiatives were never anything other than safety net cuts or 
ineffective, recycled ideas disguised as reform. I am thinking of a 
childhood jingle, ``Jack and the Beanstalk''--Fee-fi-fo-fum. I smell 
the budget of faux reform.

                              {time}  1900

  That appears to be the case here.
  Mr. Ryan calls his new plan an ``Opportunity Grant,'' as it would 
consolidate safety net programs such as food stamps and housing 
vouchers into a single grant to States.
  If that sounds familiar, that is because an ``Opportunity Grant'' is 
nothing more than block grants under a new name, and block grants have 
been shown to have limited impact in helping to lift people out of 
poverty.
  Now, if Mr. Ryan really wanted to lift people out of poverty, he 
would support a raise in the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage 
will increase the take-home pay for more than 28 million workers, add 
$35 billion to the economy in higher wages through 2016, and create 
85,000 new jobs as a result of increased economic opportunity.
  At the very least, I know that my colleague, Barbara Lee from 
California, is, as I am, undertaking the challenge to live on a minimum 
wage by living off of $77, the average amount of money left over for 
full-time minimum wage workers after taxes and housing expenses.
  I would challenge Mr. Ryan to step inside the shoes of someone who is 
living on that minimum wage. Although I know I could never fully 
understand what it is like, this challenge will give me a small glimpse 
into the lives of many people in my district.
  So I would like to invite Mr. Ryan to participate in the challenge so 
he can, for a brief moment, understand what it is like for people in 
poverty to live on such a wage. Perhaps then Mr. Ryan will understand 
that the same old recycled ideas will not help those who really are in 
need.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Takano, for all the work you are 
doing.
  Mr. Speaker, next I would like to yield to a colleague of mine from 
the great State of Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a great friend of mine going 
back to the days in the State legislature, not only a great friend, but 
a great mentor to me.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Pocan. And I want to join my other 
colleagues for thanking you for your stewardship with the Progressive 
Caucus and putting this Special Order together.
  I won't waste a lot of time complimenting our fellow Wisconsinite for 
at least listening to some of the ideas that have come from the 
Democratic side in his poverty plan. I think that looking at mandatory 
minimums is a long overdue sort of proposal that needs to get some 
traction.
  Certainly, expanding the earned income tax credit for millions of 
Americans will make a true difference in many people's lives, and I 
just want to congratulate Mr. Ryan for that.
  But let me be really clear. You don't have to really go through the 
entire 70 pages of his proposal because he starts right out in the 
beginning telling you that he doesn't believe that the safety net 
programs, that the efforts to help people get out of poverty for all 
these years, have been very helpful. He starts off by calling them a 
failure.
  We all know that many of the programs created under FDR and President 
Lyndon Baines Johnson literally ended poverty among the elderly, for 
example. And we have seen poverty, as compared to what it would have 
been, cut at least by half because of Medicaid, because of Medicare, 
because of food stamps, because of other sorts of programs.
  Yet, I guess Mr. Ryan believes that if you just keep saying it enough 
times, it will come true. We have heard Mr. Ryan lecture all of us, all 
over the country, about how the so-called entitlement programs are 
going to down our economy. He doesn't believe that the $618 billion 
worth of corporate tax breaks that he passed last week is a detriment 
to our economy, but he has called for, on a consistent basis, for 
privatizing Social Security, for block-granting Medicaid--not in this 
particular plan.
  In case people don't understand what block-granting is, just think 
chopping block. You give the States some certain amount of money, and 
when they run out, they just run out. You are no longer categorically 
eligible.
  He has proposed voucherizing Medicare, giving seniors some certain 
amount of money. You do very well if all you need is a flu shot. But if 
you have a heart attack or a stroke, that is not going to go very far 
toward your health care.
  He has consistently--and now, in this particular proposal, block-
granting one of the great entitlement programs, the SNAP program, which 
worked beautifully in the last recession. We now see the food stamp 
rolls going down, as

[[Page H6802]]

the economy improves. And when the economy is bad, the food stamp rolls 
go up.
  That did not happen with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
Act. It was not responsive to our countercylical economy. So what that 
really means is that these block-granted programs were fixed, framed, 
and frozen, starting out with a $300 billion cut. Eventually we will 
see that they will become totally inadequate toward ameliorating 
poverty, and we will see the poverty rolls creep up, and it will be 
particularly egregious on women and children.
  Women and children: women, are disproportionately adversely impacted 
and benefit from these safety net programs. Food stamps: women 
disproportionately need food stamps, disproportionately use these 
programs.
  The pay-fors, it is just egregious to say that we will provide the 
earned income tax credit and we will start by cutting programs like 
Meals on Wheels for the elderly and the food and nutrition programs for 
children.
  Go right for the food, right at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs. 
Go right straight there and take food, literally, out of poor people's 
mouths in order to pay for the earned income tax credit expansion.
  I wish we had sort of done that last week when we passed the $618 
billion of corporate welfare without a pay-for at all.
  So I just say that this is yet another chapter in a book we have seen 
before. This is just another incarnation of an idea that there is some 
moral hazard to helping poor people, that you have got to restrict and 
limit how much you do for them, and that most of the money that is 
generated through our economy ought to be plowed back into helping 
corporations and not people.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Moore. You have been an advocate 
your entire life for those who are most needy, those trying to aspire 
to be in the middle class. Thank you for all that you do, and so 
articulately explaining the problems with Paul Ryan's proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to another colleague of mine, 
a colleague from the great State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is 
the chair of our very important policy and steering committee, and a 
good friend and colleague of mine in the Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I can't thank you enough for the 
great work that you are doing and being such a leader on issues that 
focus on what this institution has, by way of offering opportunity for 
people. That is its mission. We know that.
  I thank you for coming to the Congress for the right reasons, and for 
helping to try to make a difference in people's lives.
  A rose is a rose is a rose. Once again, Chairman Ryan has come 
forward with what he and the Republican majority purport to be a 
serious plan for addressing poverty in America. And once again, the 
centerpiece of his plan is the same old bad idea.

  Chairman Ryan wants to dismantle all of the major Federal antipoverty 
programs that have long been proven to work for families in need. He 
wants to convert them into a block grant for the States. He now calls 
them Opportunity Grants.
  That is a message. It sounds good. They are block grants, pure and 
simple. They put decisions in the hands of the States. They cut the 
funding, and they take all of the safeguards out and they fray the 
social safety net. That is what it is about. They have been consistent 
about this year after year after year.
  I will just tell you about the food stamp program. Congressman Pocan, 
you were not here 17 years ago. I was, when the then-Speaker of the 
House, Newt Gingrich, said we need to block-grant the SNAP program, 
Medicaid, and a variety of other programs. It is the same failed policy 
over and over and over again.
  Let me talk about food stamps for a second. Food stamps helped to 
lift 5 million Americans above the poverty line in 2012, 2.2 million of 
them children.
  Every single dollar invested in food stamps generates $1.79 in local 
economic activity. But what would Chairman Ryan do?
  He would end food stamps, our Nation's most important antihunger 
initiative, in favor of a block grant, just like he would end the low-
income energy assistance program, LIHEAP, child care fund, 
weatherization assistance, public housing, temporary assistance for 
needy families, community development grants, and dislocated worker 
grants.
  If you read his report, it is almost diabolical in the sense that the 
language that is used, and it is language, and it is a message, and it 
does nothing to provide opportunity or to help the poor in this 
country.
  There are some good parts of his antipoverty plan. Expanding the EITC 
for childless workers. But even that issue is infected with bad ideas.
  To pay for this EITC expansion already introduced by the Democratic 
Party, Mr. Ryan would end programs like the social services block 
grant, which helps roughly 23 million Americans, half of them children, 
with child care assistance, child abuse prevention, and community-based 
care for seniors and disabled persons.
  He also wants to end the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which--it 
is madness--which reaches over 115,000 students in 14 States with 
healthy foods. And then he will decry people who are on food stamps and 
say they are selecting the wrong foods for their families, when he will 
just cut the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program.
  What have we come to here?
  What is this harshness that has come over our public policy, that 
mean-spiritedness that has come over our public policy?
  For over a year now, Chairman Ryan has tried to pretend that he wants 
to put forth serious proposals to alleviate poverty in America. But the 
proof is in the pudding.
  Look at his most recently proposed budget. Two-thirds of the cut in 
that budget fall on low and middle-income families. It tries to turn 
Medicare into an underfunded voucher program, shreds our social safety 
net, block-grants food stamps and Medicaid, slashes the WIC program, 
that is Women, Infants and Children, by $595 million.
  It cuts spending that we do every year on health issues, on worker 
training, on education. He tries to cut that program by $791 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  It slashes the child care assistance program, as I said, job training 
program, Pell grants, and medical research.
  I am a cancer survivor. I am alive because of the grace of God and 
biomedical research. Why shouldn't other people have the advantage of 
biomedical research?
  Why would he want to cut that?
  And he does this all while cutting taxes for the wealthiest.

                              {time}  1915

  I am glad to see that Chairman Ryan at least recognizes that he and 
his party need to be doing more to help end poverty and hunger in our 
Nation, and I hope we can engage in a constructive dialogue on issues 
like the EITC expansion and sentencing reform.
  If Chairman Ryan and the Republican majority want to get serious 
about helping families in need, they can start tomorrow. They need to 
make sure that their Republican child tax credit bill--so generous to 
those who can afford it--that they need to make sure that that helps 
low-income kids as well.
  That child tax credit program will cut the child tax credit for 
450,000 veterans. What are our veterans doing? They are serving. They 
are sacrificing themselves and their families, and he wants to cut 
their child tax credit. That is what is in there.
  Then he talks about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Let 
me ask Chairman Ryan: What about low-income kids? What about them? What 
about the infants and toddlers? Tell us, Mr. Chairman, who are the 
``deserving'' infants and toddlers? Who are the ``undeserving'' infants 
and toddlers? We need an answer to our question.
  Our colleagues could join us in raising the minimum wage, something 
that is long overdue, but until then, actions speak louder than words.
  The bulk of this new plan, I am afraid, is the same old snake oil, 
the same tired, discredited, ideological attacks on the social safety 
net that Chairman Ryan and this majority have been putting forward time 
and again

[[Page H6803]]

since coming to power in 2010. It will not wash. It is harsh. It is 
cruel, and it is mean-spirited.
  That is not why we came to this institution, Mr. Pocan. It is not why 
you came. It is not why I came. It was the hope and the dream and the 
opportunity to provide opportunity for the people of this Nation, to 
make this institution do what our Founding Fathers thought it should do 
and to give people a chance.
  This Expanding Opportunity in America will take away people's 
opportunities, and the American public knows it.
  Thank you for what you are doing. It is an honor to work with you and 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), Congressman Ryan of Ohio, 
and our other colleagues who stood on this floor tonight to decry this 
shame of a document.
  Mr. POCAN. Again, thank you so much, Representative DeLauro, for your 
many years of service to this body and to the people of the country and 
fighting for those who need help the most.
  I now would like to yield to another colleague of mine, but I am not 
going to say ``Representative Ryan'' because that might be confusing, 
given the conversation we are having, but let's say maybe the Budget 
Committee's other Representative Ryan, the Democratic Representative 
Ryan from the State of Ohio.
  So I yield to another Budget Committee member, Representative Tim 
Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  My office does get a lot of phone calls against this budget, but they 
are not realizing that I am supporting them against the Paul Ryan 
budget. I think these reforms--and I was able to come a little bit 
earlier and listen to some of my colleagues talk about what is in this 
document that is supposed to be a new idea, a new way, a new approach--
and while I commend Chairman Ryan for trying to come up with some new 
ideas, I am all about innovation. I am all about a new approach.
  I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) hit the nail 
on the head when she was talking about the fruits and vegetables and 
the healthy food.
  If we are going to move forward as a country, if we want to make sure 
we take care of the issue of half the country in the next 10 years is 
going to either have diabetes or prediabetes--and it is going to drive 
up Medicaid costs, it is going to drive up Medicare costs, it is going 
to drive up private insurance--one of the issues we need to focus on is 
how do we get more money into programs that are going to make sure 
young kids have access to fresh foods, period.
  We don't need to get really complicated. We don't need to come up 
with any new grand scheme. We have already got it. It is already in 
there, and Chairman Ryan is taking it out, deinvesting in the very 
things that are going to drive down health care costs, make kids better 
able to learn and focus and concentrate on the classroom, so they are 
not having a Fruit Roll-Up and think that it is fruit. They are having 
fruits and vegetables and access to food over the weekends and all of 
these things.
  I find it extremely interesting that a majority of the cuts that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) proposed to reduce poverty--and in 
his budgets, two-thirds of the savings in the FY15 Republican budget 
came from programs that serve these populations, including moving 
millions out of the SNAP program.
  So a new approach is great, innovation is fantastic, but we know what 
we need to do, and it starts with diet. It starts with wellness. It 
starts with some of these other things that are going to allow that 
person who may be living in poverty to be as strong and capable, as 
healthy as they possibly can, so they can work themselves out of 
poverty.
  Nobody here is defending the status quo--oh, great, people are 
accessing public funds or public programs--we want to get people on a 
ladder out of poverty. That is what America should be all about, but we 
are failing miserably, and this program and the cuts that Chairman Ryan 
is talking about are going to make it worse.
  I think we rank 10th or 11th in people coming up from poverty, lower 
socioeconomic status, and finally making their way to the middle class. 
We rank down from other countries--Nordic countries and the rest.
  I want to thank the gentleman for doing this. I think this is an 
amazing opportunity for us to provide some contrast to what Chairman 
Ryan has proposed, but let me say I think one of the most direct 
benefits for the war on poverty is an increase in the minimum wage, and 
today--ironically enough--is the 5-year anniversary since the minimum 
wage has been increased.
  Some States are higher than the $7.25 Federal minimum wage. In Ohio, 
it is $7.95 and is indexed for inflation, which is better, but it is 
not anywhere near where we need to be.
  I wanted to come and talk for a couple of minutes about what we need 
to do and what the benefits would be, and I know we normally hear from 
somebody who is going to say this is going to cost jobs, this is going 
to slow down economic growth and all the rest, and I will share with 
them a study that just came out from Labor that said that the 13 States 
that increased the minimum wage this year had some increase--whether 
indexed for inflation or through legislation--saw an increase in the 
minimum wage, had more rapid job growth than all of the other States.
  For those people who don't understand how that could be--because we 
hear so much rhetoric: this is going to cost jobs, this is going to 
cost jobs--if the average family has more money in their pocket to go 
out and buy things, that is good for the economy.
  Imagine if the Walmarts and the Sam's Clubs and all the rest had a 
higher minimum wage, if those folks were making an extra couple bucks 
an hour--and it doesn't have to happen tomorrow. We can do it and stage 
it over the course of the next few years to make sure it doesn't have a 
dramatic impact on business--but if all of those folks made an extra 
$16 or $20 a day, an extra $100 a week, an extra $200 every two weeks 
of pay, an extra $400 a month, that is a lot of money.

  That is enough to go out and get a Chevy Cruze made in Lordstown, 
Ohio, and pay the insurance and the rest on that. What does that do for 
the economy if the 1.5 million people in the country--the 62,000 people 
in my congressional district who make the minimum wage go out and have 
a little bit of extra money? That is how you are going to move the 
economy.
  Maybe we could get rid of some of these programs because that family 
will have access to the food because they will have a little bit more 
money in their pockets, so they will be able to afford the fruits and 
vegetables and the kinds of food they need to stay healthy, prevent 
disease, and be able to concentrate and focus in the classroom.
  I just want to make two last points. The first is zero increase in 
the minimum wage, and if you are in the private sector, you have seen a 
10 percent increase in earnings, just 10 percent over the past 4 or 5 
years since 2009. If you want to go out and get apples, 16 percent 
increase--bacon has gone up 67 percent; cheddar cheese, 20 percent; 
milk, 20 percent; eggs, 30 percent; gas, there has been a 44.5 percent 
increase in gas since 2009.
  Now, if you are making minimum wage and all of these costs are going 
up--for eggs and milk and gas and bacon and coffee, coffee went up 27 
percent, the kinds of things that are basic staples to the American 
diet--how are you going to keep up? How are you going to say, oh, I 
want to send my kid to a basketball camp in the summer or maybe an 
afterschool program or I need a baby sitter or I need to catch a cab? 
You don't have any extra money. You just don't.
  I think it is essential for us, if we are going to close the income 
inequality gap between the wealthiest in our country and the poorest in 
our country, if we are going to close that, if we want people to work 
hard and play by the rules and then benefit, this is something that is 
very simple.
  We get a lot of rhetoric. We heard it in the last Presidential 
election: 47 percent of the country are takers, they want to be on the 
dole, they don't want to work.
  Then we have something that is going to benefit the people who are 
working, doing the jobs that many Americans don't want to do, cleaning

[[Page H6804]]

the hotel rooms, working at the gas station, the wear and tear on their 
bodies over the years, the long hours, swing shifts, and the whole lot. 
This increase will not just benefit minimum wage workers. It is going 
to go up and benefit everybody.
  The last point--I promise--we need minimum wage workers who are out 
there to be organized. We didn't always have a 40-hour workweek. We 
didn't always get time-and-a-half over 40 hours. We didn't always have 
a 5-day workweek. We didn't have a National Labor Relations Act. We 
didn't have Social Security. We didn't have Medicare.
  These were things that came about because average people got 
organized, and they said enough is enough. We are not going to have our 
senior citizens work until they die. We are not going to have our 
senior citizens not have health care. We are not going to have people 
working in unsafe factories--and you are going to work 40 hours a week.
  From our side, we expect people to go out and work and work their 
butts off to get ahead. Our job is to stay organized, to make sure that 
policies are in place that are both good for the economy and good for 
families in the United States.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) for the opportunity 
to come here and share just briefly. I look forward to working with 
you. Hopefully, we can get a vote on the House floor sometime soon. I 
don't think we will. I am not really optimistic about it, but I hope 
that we can organize over the next few months and years to make this a 
reality for all of those families in the United States.
  Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ryan, for 
all you have done in your relentless fight on behalf of the workers in 
your district, and thank you so much, again, for being here today.
  Finally, I would like to yield to a colleague of mine--another 
freshman colleague of mine from the great State of New York, 
Representative Hakeem Jeffries.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from the Badger State, for yielding to me, as well as for the 
tremendous leadership that you continue to exhibit week after week in 
leading the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Special Order hour, 
championing issues important to working families and the poor and the 
sick and the afflicted, those who need our government to be more 
compassionate, giving them the assistance they need in order to pursue 
the American Dream.
  I appreciate that advocacy, and I appreciate this opportunity to 
speak briefly on the plan presented by Chairman Paul Ryan, Expanding 
Opportunity in America.
  I would like to believe that that is the objective, and I certainly 
am of the view that the chairman is acting in good faith, as it relates 
to his willingness to try to tackle the issue of poverty in America, 
but if you put it all in the context of the Ryan budget that has come 
to the floor of the House of Representatives year after year after year 
since the Republicans claimed the majority, which passed with 
overwhelming support from their caucus, the question is: Is their real 
interest in expanding opportunity in America, or is the fundamental 
objective really to expand inequality in America?

                              {time}  1930

  What Paul Ryan are we talking to in attempting to have this 
conversation? Is it the Chairman Ryan whose budget cut $125 billion in 
supplemental nutrition assistance in a country where 50 million people 
are food insecure, 18 million of those individuals children? We can't 
have a real conversation about opportunity if that is still the 
position of Chairman Ryan, his Budget Committee, and the majority.
  Are we having a conversation with a chairman whose budget cut $260 
billion in higher education funding, threatening to rob young Americans 
from their pursuit of their dream of obtaining a college education and 
being all that they can be in America? We can't have a real 
conversation about opportunity with individuals who want to cut $260 
billion in higher education spending.
  I want to believe that we can proceed in good faith and try and 
tackle this issue. But are we entering into a discussion with the same 
group of individuals, the chairman whose budget cut $732 billion in 
Medicaid, a program designed to benefit, in significant numbers, poor, 
elderly, and disabled individuals? That is not expanding opportunity in 
America. That is expanding inequality in America.
  Certainly, there are some proposals contained in the document that 
was unveiled today that we can embrace and have a meaningful discussion 
about in trying to arrive at common ground--sentencing reform as well 
as the notion of expanding the earned income tax credit. But there is 
no minimum wage enhancement. There is no infrastructure investment. 
There is no unemployment compensation insurance renewal. There is no 
equal pay for equal work, and there is no real effort to deal with the 
issues that we are prepared to work on to solve the problem of poverty 
for millions of Americans. For that reason, I am skeptical that this is 
a step in the right direction.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Jeffries. I, too, am skeptical. 
Having served on the Budget Committee with you, we have seen two 
different Paul Ryans. We are hoping that maybe this is a reformed Paul 
Ryan, but we are also fearful this is just a repackaged Paul Ryan. So 
thank you so much.
  Finally, I would like to yield to a colleague from the Progressive 
Caucus from the great State of Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson 
Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I can't thank you enough for leading this Special 
Order. Again, the passion that you have shown in your service here in 
the United States Congress really speaks to what Americans send their 
representatives to the Congress for, to be problem solvers.
  I am going to use the word ``pray.'' I pray that there is a reformed 
Chairman Ryan, Congressman Ryan, because I have come from my district, 
you go to your district, and we see the pain. I see the pain of those 
who have not been able to secure an unemployment insurance extension. I 
live with the value of the earned income tax credit. I am going to 
spend a little time on that.
  My son, some many years ago as a young man, volunteered with the HOPE 
Project. He went to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina and was 
able to work with the victims--the survivors, they like to be called, 
and they were--of Hurricane Katrina in applying for their earned income 
tax credit. It was a lifeline for people who had worked.
  So I just want to end on this note by thanking you, by saying that 
there are people who are waiting for the Congress to act, to pass the 
earned income tax credit, raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment 
insurance, pass the middle class package of the Democrats, and work on 
behalf of the American people.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Jackson Lee, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                          ____________________