[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 73 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3766-H3773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      PROTECTING SOCIAL SAFETY NET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mast). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for holding 
this Special Order hour, the CBC Special Order hour this evening, as we 
discuss SNAP and other efforts by the President and the GOP to shed the 
social safety net.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
Chairman Richmond, for allowing me to have this opportunity to lead 
what we call the ``Conscience of the Congress'' of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, who is the one who has led this and come up with this 
idea for us.
  As we paint a picture of the Black community in 2018, it is clear 
that we have a lot to lose. Too many of our neighborhoods are, 
unfortunately, still plagued by rampant poverty, dysfunction, and 
crime. These are very serious issues that our community has to deal 
with.
  But instead of the GOP Congress working with us side by side in a 
bipartisan manner, we have a group, Mr. Speaker, hell-bent on enacting 
jaded, outdated, economic backwards legislation in the form of SNAP 
that would throw thousands of recipients off the roles. According to 
the nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP is the 
country's most effective antihunger program helping one in five 
Americans afford a basic diet.
  For over 15 years, State and Federal policymakers have worked on a 
bipartisan basis to strengthen SNAP. The GOP would take a large step 
backwards, reducing or eliminating benefits for more than 1 million 
households with more than 2 million people. And let me be clear, it is 
not just about programs, policies, and laws being enacted by the GOP 
and President Trump, it is about the overall tone that has been set by 
this President, who regularly raises insults, instead of engaging in 
meaningful policy discussions.
  The President's review of welfare programs is an immoral attempt to 
get the programs that provide a basic standard of living for Americans 
struggling to make ends meet, all to pay for the massive tax cuts for 
himself and the richest 1 percent. Instead of taking food out of the 
mouths of poor children or kicking the elderly off of Medicare, 
President Trump and congressional Republicans should work with 
Democrats to put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans.
  Let me be clear: this executive order is a thinly veiled attempt to 
restrict access to healthcare, housing, food, and many other basic 
living programs by adding onerous so-called work requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a 
person who I admire and had the chance of visiting with her in the 
great State of Alabama. She has a lot of experience firsthand and knows 
and understands what it means to be close to the people.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) for leading this Special Order hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I especially want to acknowledge the Congressional Black 
Caucus for always being the ``Conscience of the Congress'' and for 
taking on the topic of tonight, which is the social safety net and how 
important it is as a lifeline for so many Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the efforts to 
dismantle our social safety net and the programs that help working 
Americans make ends meet.
  Our Federal health, antihunger, and poverty programs are the lifeline 
for millions of Americans and their families. Every year, our 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, feeds 9.5 million 
families. Social Security keeps over 22 million Americans from falling 
into poverty. And Medicare ensures that 44 million men, women, and 
children have access to the care they need to stay healthy. These 
families are hanging by a thread, and with every cut to our health and 
antihunger programs, that thread becomes thinner and thinner.
  In Alabama, I have seen the difference that these programs can make 
firsthand. I have met working parents who rely on SNAP to put food on 
the table for their children. I have met seniors who, after a lifetime 
of work, are able to get by only because of their Social Security 
check. I have met mothers who could not feed their children if it 
weren't for the maternity care that they get through Federal health 
programs. For these working parents, seniors, and children, our social 
safety net means the difference between a warm home and homelessness. 
It means a difference between a hot meal and going to bed hungry.
  Last year in Alabama, I met a farmer named Hank, who was able to 
afford healthcare for the first time in his life because of the 
Affordable Care Act. And after Hank signed up for ObamaCare, tragedy 
struck. His hand was caught in a hay baler, requiring immediate 
emergency care. But because of the healthcare he received through the 
Affordable Care Act, Hank was able to pay for his trip to the emergency 
room and, most importantly, his family did not lose that farm.
  That is what our social safety net does. It helps people when their 
time of need is most. It is a promise that no matter the hardship you 
face, we will never let you fall between the cracks. We, America, the 
land of plenty. We, Americans, don't let other Americans fall through 
the cracks. Whether your family faces a health crisis or layoffs; or 
you are caring for a new child, we are not going to let you fall into 
poverty.
  Giving up on this promise is what I believe the Republican agenda has 
done. Giving up on this promise is what makes the Republican attacks on 
our social safety net so disturbing. It is a promise that we, as 
Americans, make to other Americans, that we will have a social safety 
net that will capture people in their most vulnerable time of need.
  The tax bill that Congress and the Trump administration passed in 
December repealed the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. That 
move drove healthcare costs for families and will result in 13 million 
more uninsured Americans. It was unnecessary, but it was a step that 
this administration took. It was a step that ripped from 13 million 
Americans their health insurance.

[[Page H3767]]

  Just 2 months after the passage of the tax bill, President Trump 
proposed a budget, the President's budget, that would cut $500 billion 
from Medicare, $1.4 trillion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social 
Security disability. If these proposals were signed into law, more 
children would have gone hungry, more seniors would have fallen into 
poverty, and more Americans would be unable to afford to get sick.

  In the Ways and Means Committee this week, Republicans are holding a 
hearing to discuss limiting access to Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families, TANF. At the same time, the House is debating reauthorizing a 
farm bill that would eliminate food assistance for 400,000 families and 
cut school lunches for 265,000 students.
  This Congress is not just cutting a hole in our social safety net. 
Republicans are selling the net in its entirety in order to pay for the 
tax scam bill that they passed in December.
  When President Trump and this Congress passed the GOP tax scam bill, 
they mortgaged the future of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to 
give massive tax breaks to Wall Street and the richest Americans. They 
put our health and antihunger programs into jeopardy and on a chopping 
block in exchange for more trickle-down economics.
  Mr. Speaker, after decades of stagnant wages, my constituents are no 
longer willing to wait for trickle-down economics to trickle down to 
them, especially when it means massive cuts to the Federal programs 
working families rely on.
  Lives are at stake, Mr. Speaker. That is why the Congressional Black 
Caucus, led ably tonight by my colleague from Pennsylvania, is 
discussing the social safety net and why we will continue to discuss 
those programs that are the lifeline of so many Americans.
  Why am I here? I am here because I represent Alabama's Seventh 
Congressional District, a district which is my home district. I proudly 
hail from the Seventh Congressional District. The Seventh Congressional 
District is the poorest district in the State of Alabama. The median 
income for a family of four is $32,000. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not 
asking for a handout, we are asking for a hand up. We need Federal 
assistance to make sure that our children don't go hungry, to make sure 
that those who work a lifetime have Social Security to live on when 
they are old.
  It is important that we remember that these social safety net 
programs keep Americans afloat and keep working Americans still 
working, being able to provide food and nutrition to their children, 
being able to buy drugs that are lifesaving for them to continue to 
live. It is critically important that we remember that the social 
safety net is not just for minorities, it is for all Americans when 
they need it--when they need it. It is a promise that America has made 
and a promise that the GOP and this administration continues to break.
  Lives are on the line. That is why I am calling on this Congress and 
this administration to abandon its attacks on the social safety net. 
Instead, we should be passing legislation that puts working people 
first. I am calling on this Congress to help keep our promise to the 
American people that no one will be left behind. As the richest Nation 
in the world, keeping that promise is not only within our power, it is 
our obligation.
  Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague, Congressman Evans from 
Pennsylvania, and the Congressional Black Caucus for this Special Order 
hour and for continuing to remind people that we are Americans and we, 
as Americans, don't break our promise. Let's not break our promise when 
it comes to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security; let's not break 
our promise when it comes to the nutrition of our students; and let's 
not break our promise when it comes to working people who have worked 
all their lives for Social Security and need only to live off of it 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, I again thank the Congressional Black Caucus for its 
courage to continue to speak power to truth.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Alabama 
(Ms. Sewell) one quick question.
  She raised a very good point about promise. Does she have any last 
thought about the element of promise; could she just take a minute or 
so, just really from her own experience and her own constituents, what 
the meaning of that promise means today?
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely will.
  As my colleague just said, I think what I want people to remember is 
that we, as Americans, do make promises to other Americans. We do it 
all of the time.
  The promise that I am talking about with social safety net is a 
promise that we won't leave other Americans behind. We can't be the 
land of plenty and have people struggling each and every day.
  In my district, there are parts of my district that have water and 
sewer issues, sanitary issues, in 2018. No one in America should not 
have a flushing toilet. In my district, there are people who live like 
that.
  I believe that the promise of America is a promise that we will do 
all we can to make sure that no American falls through the cracks.
  We have to remember that all of us go through trying times. These 
programs are transitional programs. They are there to catch people when 
they are falling, to give people the opportunity and the training that 
they need to get back on their feet, to give them the opportunity to be 
working Americans again, and to give them a dignity to continue to be 
able to afford to take care of themselves.
  I think that we need to remember that the American Dream comes with 
it an obligation, and I believe that that obligation is an American 
promise to all Americans that we won't rip social safety net programs 
away from them, but, instead, we will thoughtfully provide 
opportunities for training. The skills gap is real, and I think it is 
really important that we, if we are to address the future of work in 
America, acknowledge that we are leaving lots of Americans behind, and 
we, as a Federal Government, should take that as a challenge and meet 
that challenge to close the skills gap.
  In many ways, the skills gap is an opportunity gap as well. In order 
to provide people who need opportunities the most, we have to be 
willing to step up and provide the resources for them to be able to 
retrain and retool.

                              {time}  1945

  It is critically important. The dignity of work is something that is 
critically important to most Americans, all Americans.
  My district has the largest unemployment. When I took office in 2011, 
the average unemployment in my 14 counties was near 15 percent. It was 
14.7 percent. And while Tuscaloosa is doing great and Birmingham is 
doing great, cities like Selma, that I grew up in, had 21 percent 
unemployment.
  What people needed was an opportunity to get back on their feet. I 
dare to think about all the Americans who were helped by having the 
Affordable Care Act, by having Medicare and Medicaid, by having the 
assistance of the Federal Government to get back on their feet.
  I am happy to report that the average unemployment in my 14 counties 
is not where we want to be, but we are at 6.3 percent. So it is not at 
the 3.9 or so that the national average is, but we are a far cry better 
than we were at the 15 percent. So these people are working.
  So social service programs were meant to help people get back on 
their feet. I just think that people think about the fraud and abuse.
  None of us want fraud and abuse when it comes to our programs, but I 
can tell you that 70 percent of the folks who receive SNAP in my 
district have children under the age of 17.
  So when I fight for SNAP, when I fight against the massive cuts that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have, I am 
fighting for those children to have food to eat. I am fighting for the 
millions of seniors who are on food stamps who depend upon it to 
provide nutritional assistance.
  So I think that that promise is something that we all should not only 
honor, but take as a badge of honor here in the Nation's Capital and 
fight every day to provide opportunities for all Americans.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Seventh 
District of Alabama. I really appreciate her comments.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout this next 45 minutes, I am going to be 
introducing

[[Page H3768]]

some of my colleagues, but I want to read a letter that was sent to me 
on April 27, 2018.
  As the gentlewoman from Alabama said, I am from Pennsylvania; and 
being from Pennsylvania, our Governor wrote a letter, and this is what 
he said:
  ``I write today to express my concerns regarding the text of the 
Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, or the farm bill released last 
week. The importance of the farm bill to Pennsylvanians cannot be 
overstated. As you know, Pennsylvania farmers are facing the same 
challenges impacting the agricultural industry throughout the country. 
With trending towards lower farm incomes and a recent market loss for 
42 Pennsylvania dairy farmers, the farm bill should be an opportunity 
to support our Commonwealth's most vulnerable agricultural industry. 
Unfortunately, the House Agriculture Committee has released a partisan 
bill that will punish struggling Pennsylvanians--especially seniors, 
individuals with disabilities, and working families in all your 
congressional districts.
  ``The farm bill has always been a bipartisan effort because hunger is 
not a political issue. For more than 40 years, Pennsylvanians have 
relied on the SNAP program to help put food on the table during tough 
times. Nearly 14 percent of our State's population is experiencing food 
insecurity. Cuts to SNAP will only increase that number.''
  Mr. Speaker, the exact number in my congressional district, the 
Second Congressional District, is 215,195 individuals. In the new 
district, the Third Congressional District, it is 207,441 people who 
will be affected by these cuts.
  ``Let's be clear--SNAP recipients already face work requirements. 
This bill increases them and institutes lengthy ineligibility periods 
for individuals who are noncompliant just for 1 month. In this bill, by 
2021, all nondisabled individuals ages 50 to 59 would face work 
requirements and by 2026, the required number of work hours per week 
will increase from 20 to 25. Yet this legislation does not include 
adequate funding for States to provide job training or allow 
individuals a period of time to engage in educational activities to 
help residents meet these new threshold requirements. In Pennsylvania, 
that would translate to an additional 199,000 individuals who will be 
affected. Let me repeat that. In Pennsylvania, that will translate to 
199,000 individuals between 50 and 59 who would face cuts to SNAP. It 
is more difficult for older individuals to find work when unemployed, 
and many people want to work more than 25 hours but cannot due to lack 
of available hours, children, or age.''
  Time limits on SNAP, Mr. Speaker, believe me, would have a 
devastating affect in Pennsylvania.
  ``SNAP is a critical social net for our seniors and families'' and 
veterans. ``SNAP recipients receive on average of $126 per month, which 
translates to around $1.40 per meal,'' Mr. Speaker. ``According to 
Feeding America, the average meal in Pennsylvania costs $2.93. These 
cuts are an attack on our most vulnerable citizens. If the goal of the 
House leadership''--that is, the Republican leadership--``is to 
decrease the amount of money the Federal Government spends on SNAP, I 
suggest''--this is Governor Wolf--``you raise the Federal minimum wage 
to $12 per hour'' so that people can have a real chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the Governor of Pennsylvania 
that there is an attack on poor people, and the Governor of the great 
State of Pennsylvania has gone on record in saying that we are moving 
in the wrong direction.
  Someone whom I have a lot of respect for, and she has served in the 
great State of Wisconsin in the State legislature, and I have known her 
before I had this opportunity to come to Congress, is a person who is 
not shy about the things that she expresses. She speaks truth to power. 
That is the great woman from the Fourth District of Wisconsin, Mr. 
Speaker, Congresswoman Gwen Moore.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Evans for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate having time here on this Congressional 
Black Caucus hour to discuss so-called welfare reform and efforts on 
the part of the majority to shred the safety net.
  Mr. Speaker, I think you just have to sort of sympathize with the 
majority, given the conundrum that they have put themselves into. What 
they did, in an effort to have some sort of win and to take advantage 
of having the majority in the House of Representatives, in the United 
States Senate, to be holding power in the White House with the new 
President, even seizing the Supreme Court, this was a very opportune 
time to do what the majority thought, and I give them credit for 
thinking that they wanted to implement and execute their greatest 
policy imperative, and that was to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest 
Americans and to corporations. They wanted to take this one opportunity 
to do that because, in their opinion, that is what would move our 
economy forward.
  In December, they were able to accomplish it over the protests of 
economists, over the protests of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office that said if, in fact, these $1.9 trillion in tax cuts are given 
to the wealthiest Americans and corporations, that we would see 
deficits for the next decade at about $1.5 trillion, and that would add 
to the deficit we are already experiencing.
  Of course, that is the conundrum for the majority party, which out of 
one side of their mouth they have always been concerned about deficits, 
and now they were implementing a policy that would add to the deficit. 
Well, the explanation for that was that somehow this $1.9 trillion 
would materialize in a brand-new concept called trickle down; that 
somehow by cutting these taxes for the wealthiest Americans, that 
somehow this would create jobs, that wages would be raised, that there 
would be new capital expenditures; and although trickle down had not 
worked for 30, 40 years, that somehow this was going to happen.
  Well, the supposition is that these tax cuts would just sort of 
magically pay for themselves and that we should just give it a little 
bit of time. So when these tax cuts were put into place, we saw 
companies immediately lining up to provide bonuses, one-time-only 
bonuses--not raising the wages of workers, not building new factories.
  Now we see one of our favorite companies, one of my favorite 
companies--we all own a nice Apple phone--they just paid $100 billion 
buying back shares. Of course, shareholders are not Americans who live 
on Main Street. They are the wealthiest people not only in America, but 
all over the world. You don't know who the shareholders are. They are 
probably not your next-door neighbors.
  Well, you have to empathize with the majority party, because they now 
have to figure out how to pay for these tax cuts. They have got to pay 
for them.
  We don't have to guess how they are going to pay for them. The 
Speaker has told us how he plans to pay for them. The President has 
told us how they plan to pay for these tax cuts.
  I was so happy that the gentlewoman from Alabama was here earlier, 
and I just want to remind you of what she shared with us. She reminded 
us that the President, in his budget, his proposed budget, proposed 
cutting $1.4 trillion--that is ``trillion'' with a T; that is like 12 
zeros after that 1--out of Medicaid.
  I know from sitting on the Budget Committee with the Speaker for so 
many years that this is a dream come true for our Speaker, who has 
always wanted to block grant--as in put on the chopping block--
Medicaid, a program that provides security mostly for our seniors for 
them to have a dignified end-of-life experience instead of living like 
a dog in the back room somewhere living out their last days.
  We know from what they have put on paper--you can't make this stuff 
up--they want to cut $500 billion--that is ``billion'' with a B--out of 
Medicare, the program that has reduced and almost eliminated poverty, 
between that and Social Security, for our elders.
  You have heard it said time and again that a nation is judged by how 
it treats its young and its elderly. We know now that the White House 
and our President is fuming because this $1.9 trillion problem that 
they have created has now got to be solved.
  Well, that is just not enough money. That is only $2 trillion between 
Medicare and Medicaid. So they said, ``Wait a minute. We can cut some 
out of Social Security,'' this so-called sacred

[[Page H3769]]

cow. They say, ``We can cut, from Social Security Disability, $72 
billion,'' but that is not enough.
  We have in front of us a farm bill, and proposals in that bill would 
cut $23.8 billion out of it, pushing 9.5 million people deeper into 
poverty, food insecurity, and hunger.

                              {time}  2000

  That is the framework for paying for the wealthiest people, for these 
poor corporations that we have got to provide a safety net for, for 
these poor 1 percent of our population rich, the wealthiest 1 percent 
who need relief from the government. We are going to pay for it by 
cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and food stamps.
  Well, it doesn't sound like that is enough for the majority. The 
President has said we are going to just review any program that 
targets, aids, and supports low-income or hardworking people.
  How about housing vouchers? So many Americans--there was a book 
written about my community by Mr. Matthew Desmond, titled, ``Evicted,'' 
and it pointed out how so many Americans work hard, but 50 percent, 60 
percent of their income has to go toward housing because, in fact, we 
haven't seen a raise in the minimum wage for over a decade. People are 
working two, three jobs.
  I have known people who have gone to work and go home at night to the 
homeless shelter. People cannot afford to pay 50 percent of their 
income, so there are hardworking Americans who have benefited from 
housing vouchers, Section 8, subsidized Community Development Block 
Grant funds.
  But, of course, we have heard from our Secretary of HUD that we want 
to reform that program and require disabled folks, elderly folks, 
perhaps some of our veterans who live in subsidized housing, to pay 35 
percent of their income versus 30 percent of their income.
  This doesn't increase the pool of people who are eligible for 
housing. It does two things: It reduces the number of people who are 
eligible for subsidized housing, and then it raises the costs for those 
who are squeaking by every single day.
  So I just am inflamed about this, and I guess I want to ask the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania some questions because I might have the 
wrong perspective on this.
  I am a person who has benefited from these programs. I have fed my 
family with SNAP, food stamps. I have used Medicaid to take my children 
to the doctor and to give birth. I have paid my rent using welfare 
benefits.
  I am wondering if the gentleman doesn't think that vilifying poor 
people is an insidious and nefarious effort to create the atmosphere 
where Americans would be much more willing to take these programs away 
from them.
  I mean, there is this notion, somehow, that there are just lazy 
people who refuse to go work who need SNAP; that there are just lazy 
people who are ne'er-do-wells, and they are fraudulent, they have 80 
Social Security numbers, and they are welfare queens.
  I was just wondering if the gentleman could just get it straight for 
me, share some things with me:
  How many families receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families?
  Are people eating lobsters on SNAP?
  Are these homes filled with able-bodied people who refuse to work and 
they just want to get SNAP?
  Can the gentleman just give me a profile of the kind of people who we 
are trying to help.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marshall). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). I will give her something that is firsthand from 
a mayor who is on the forefront.
  I have a letter here from the mayor of the city of Philadelphia, 
which Philadelphia has about 1.5 million people. It is one of the 
biggest poor cities in America, so I am going to give you somebody 
specifically who can state that he wrote a letter, and I want to read 
what he has said.
  He said: ``In Philadelphia''--remember, where America started, the 
Liberty Bell, the Constitution Center, Ben Franklin. You remember that, 
right? That is where it all started, right?
  This is what he said: ``In Philadelphia, approximately 480,000 
individuals receive SNAP to help buy food they need to survive and feed 
their families.''
  There are more SNAP recipients who can work and do not work and would 
prefer to work, more than if they could.
  ``SNAP is critical to helping low-wage and part-time workers who 
can't find steady employment, veterans''--those who fought for our 
country, those who have been out on the forefront--``people who are 
homeless. . . . ''
  The number that came from HUD in the city of Philadelphia was in the 
ballpark of 6,000 to 15,000 people homeless. Now remember, that is 
where the Liberty Bell is, Independence Hall is, Betsy Ross' house. You 
remember all of that, right?
  So it is clear that SNAP is critical.
  ``It also helps families with children, seniors, and people with 
disabilities put food on their table.'' And think of this: ``It doesn't 
cost much--the benefits average about $1.34 per person per meal--but it 
helps Philadelphians fulfill basic needs. And it also has been found to 
have long-term positive impacts on health, as well as on children's 
educational attainment. SNAP also contributes to the Philadelphia 
economy. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates $1.70 in economic 
activity in Philadelphia's grocery stores,'' grocers who depend a great 
deal on the importance of this initiative.
  Remember, where America started, in Philadelphia, this is occurring. 
So here there is a letter from the mayor stating very clearly that 
cutting off SNAP will not help Philadelphians get their jobs but will 
just make it harder for them to pay for their food they need.
  So, in other words, those work requirements and the things the 
gentlewoman described, we have an evidence-based letter of a mayor who 
is on the front line, who has to deal with these things every single 
day.
  And the fact of the matter is you can document the statistics. In the 
congressional district that I represent, which is a part of the city of 
Philadelphia, there is 26 percent poverty, 195,000 people. There is 
a food bank in one of our major universities in the city of 
Philadelphia.

  In the suburban district, which I have a letter from Montgomery 
County, which is supposed to be one of the richest counties outside of 
Philadelphia, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you ask the right 
questions and you raise the right issues all on the basis, as you 
described, on that framework and what you described, paying for that 
giveaway or taxes.
  It is not an accident that that tax issue was H. Res. 1 and the farm 
bill is H. Res. 2. So you think about the order of that, you think 
about H. Res. 1, H. Res. 2, you see for yourself.
  So the gentlewoman's whole theory is definitely not incorrect, and 
what she has laid out is very clear that this is an attempt to beat up 
on poor people, beat up on people in these communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to you that we, as the Congressional Black Caucus, 
are not just going to sit silent. We are going to make sure people hear 
us. We are going to make sure people know that we are just not going to 
accept this.
  So I say to the gentlewoman, I heard her message and I have described 
it to her.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that.
  I just want to tell him how outraged I am by the propaganda against 
poor people. I am outraged by it.
  If you look at a family that uses SNAP, formerly called food stamps, 
this program works perfectly well in a capitalist society, in a 
countercyclical economy. When we almost had a depression in 2008, the 
food stamp rolls went up, and now they are coming back down because 
people are more connected with work.
  Two-thirds of these families that receive SNAP have at least one 
working person in it. And guess what. They have veterans in them and 
elders, children and disabled people. Eighty percent of the people who 
receive SNAP, someone has worked the year before or the year after, so 
it is not an issue of people not wanting to work.

[[Page H3770]]

  And think about it: we now have given $1.9 trillion in tax cuts to 
the wealthiest people. We hear the White House bragging about how we 
have increased those jobs, we have increased jobs by 164,000 people. 
Let me tell you, I happen to know in my own community people got two or 
three of those jobs because that is what they need to hold it down.
  Before I finish, I will just say that we ought not fall for the 
okeydoke, because poor people are not those other people. They are you; 
they are your cousins; they are people who go to your church; they are 
your kids' classmates; they are people who worked every day and lost 
their jobs due to technology or downsizing. And when you are 50 years 
old, it is not because you don't want to work. You can't work.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the great State 
of Wisconsin for her comments.
  I want to introduce someone else who is also on the Budget Committee, 
who I have watched a long time in the short period of time that I have 
been here. She has been a real fighter, and she speaks to the issues. I 
have not seen anyone intimidate her, and she is from the great 18th 
District of Texas.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished manager for 
yielding to me and for the eloquent statements of our colleagues, 
including Congresswoman Sewell and Congresswoman Moore.
  I thank our chairman, Mr. Richmond, for his persistence that members 
of the Congressional Black Caucus come to the floor of the House to be 
able to address these concerns that are very important.
  I am going to be very brief, but I want to join my colleagues on what 
I think is a striking and provocative discourse, and it is a hurting 
discourse.
  The reason why I want to make sure that my voice is heard is because 
I have constituents who are living poor, but their spirit is not poor. 
Their commitment to success is not poor. Their desire for better 
opportunities for their children is not poor. Yet we want to condemn or 
malign this group that may be living in poverty.
  It strikes me as a difficult proposition to know that the Speaker of 
the House, for example, is seeking, again, welfare reform which, when I 
first came to the United States Congress, I enthusiastically voted 
against. And I was right because so many people were turned off the 
rolls; so many lives were ruined; so many children did not get the 
needs that they needed; so many poor mothers could not tend to their 
newborn babies because resources were lost.

                              {time}  2015

  Now we come again to a concept of welfare reform, and we are not 
concerned, I guess, about the different health conditions of different 
ethnic and racial populations.
  The age 60 for some, maybe 80, in terms of a physical condition that 
they are facing, and so a flat number of 60, cut you off or you can't 
have coverage that is necessary, is a sad state on this great country.
  The other point that I think is important is that the President has 
offered a review of the programs that help the poor.
  Now, right now today, Houston is still suffering from the impact of 
Hurricane Harvey. And as I heard my colleague, good times today and bad 
times tomorrow. Or making ends meet today or yesterday, and not making 
them meet today.
  We are still seeing students and families who were displaced during 
Hurricane Harvey losing everything and barely getting back on their 
feet, and this is May, and we are about to enter the hurricane season 
again.
  So the idea of a safety net that the $1.7 trillion tax cut cuts right 
into, that is the point. A safety net is not a handout.
  This reverse Robin Hood tax bill takes from individuals who are part, 
again, of the greatness of America. We are always hearing of the 
stories of the person from the little red schoolhouse or rural America 
who was great and made it to a success story. They made it through the 
Helping Hands. They made it through the Pell grants. They made it 
through Medicare. They made it through Medicaid.
  In 1965, we saw more seniors living after 1965, when President 
Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid.
  So the idea that we are reviewing programs that are impacting people 
who suffer from poverty or that we would think it is more important to 
have this major tax cut that is creating this huge deficit so the 
people who are victimized are the people who, in fact, are part of 
America's greatness and have every right to have an opportunity of 
success in their lives.
  Seventy percent of Americans rely on at least one means-tested 
Federal program. The nutrition program, the SNAP program, the Disaster 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, was a lifeline for 
Houstonians and people in Harris County during Hurricane Harvey.
  I remember getting an extension, and 30,000 people came and stood in 
the hot Sun for 3 days just to be able to get a voucher that would 
carry them through the Christmas holiday. That was what you call 
emergency supplemental nutrition.
  What we have now, the SNAP program, $1.40 per meal. And then the 
President was offering: Let's don't do that. Let's send a box. Let's 
send a brown box to the house and have some dry milk and whatever other 
nonperishables could be in there.
  These people have children. They have pre-K. They need childcare.
  Have you heard the fact that HUD may be tripling the rents that low-
income Americans are receiving that housing Federal subsides would have 
to pay? So they get a Federal subsidy and they have to pay three times 
the rent? That seems to be a little absurd.
  If we are concerned about what is a hand up, what is, in fact, the 
opportunity for individuals to meet their promise and their greatness, 
we would not have passed such an atrocious tax bill that really eats at 
the flesh of survival of this country and many Americans.
  For example, the top 1 percent's tax cut, if they didn't get that tax 
cut--of which many have said: We don't want it, didn't need it--
childcare would be able to be provided for 19 children, job training 
for 27 workers, Pell grants for 38 students, and providing substance 
use disorder treatment for 21 people. The CHIP program would be 
stronger; and, of course, the ability for individuals suffering from 
the opioid crisis, we would have far more dollars to be able to assist 
them to restore their lives.
  So it is very important that the debate tonight not be, as it has 
been characterized, about poor people or the impoverished, or that the 
debate is about handouts.
  It is the safety net that every single American desires but is really 
owed to have. It is the very safety net that has the world looking to 
America as the greatest Nation in the world.
  I have many friends in many countries around the world, and some of 
these countries have a billion-plus people. The safety net that they 
have is a nonsafety net. So the level of disaster and devastation in 
populations is almost unbelievable as compared to here in this country.
  But the reason why we are this country is because people expect us 
not to be those countries. They expect us to be the America with 
resources, and we do have resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very much for yielding to 
me to explain, one, the devastation of this trillion-plus tax cut bill 
that we fought vigorously in the Budget Committee and offered any 
number of amendments to correct and protect Medicaid, Medicare, 
education, and benefits that really give us stair steps of opportunity.
  But I hope, as we move forward, that we will not go down this very 
disastrous pathway of changing welfare to make it a punitive 
legislative initiative so that the people hurt the most are those in 
the sunset of their life, seniors, those who are suffering from opioid 
addiction, and our children.
  I hope we don't totally implode the valuable safety net that brought 
us through the depression that FDR developed in the 1940s with the WPA 
and then on into the 1960s when President Johnson had the great 
society.
  Where is the America that cares? Where is the America that 
understands?
  Mr. Speaker, It is important for me to be standing here.

[[Page H3771]]

  This is the Reverse Robin Hood Tax Bill.
  Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
  This tax law takes from the very poor and gives to the very rich.
  Last year, the GOP passed its tax cuts for the richest among us.
  Now no one should be surprised that this happened.
  It is crystal clear that President Trump, a man who comes from 
wealth, doesn't understand the challenges facing the working poor.
  His constant effort to undermine programs that help these Americans 
maintain a basic standard of living does nothing more than reinforce 
deeply racialized myths that poor Americans are lazy and undeserving.
  This couldn't be further from the truth. Millions of Americans who 
are beneficiaries of these programs work two or more jobs just to keep 
food on the table and a roof over their heads for their families.
  In addition, the vast majority of full-time workers live paycheck to 
paycheck.
  In fact, 70% of Americans rely on at least one means tested federal 
program throughout their lives.
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) only provides 
$1.40 per meal.
  Not to mention that only one in five qualifying families actually 
receives housing assistance.
  At the end of the day, our constituents should be able to support 
their children with one full-time job.
  This requires increasing the minimum wage, strengthening job training 
programs, and creating good-paying jobs.
  Ultimately, we need to give families the tools they need to rise out 
of poverty, not undercut programs that keep them afloat.
  Instead, the current president has made the least of these pick up 
the tab.
  And he's doing this while his cabinet nominated officials are feeding 
at the trough.
  Take for example the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD).
  Just last week, HUD indicated that they would triple the rents that 
low-income Americans receiving housing federal subsidies would have to 
pay.
  This was done while Secretary Carson spent $30,000 in taxpayer money 
on a dining room table, proposed tripling the rent for low-income 
Americans receiving federal housing subsidies.
  Last month, the president issued an executive order to restrict 
access to healthcare, housing, food, and many other programs that help 
the working poor.
  President Trump's plan to cut funding for healthcare, food, and 
housing programs in order to give tax cuts to billionaires will do 
nothing more than make a bad situation worse.
  The fact of the matter is that programs that help the working poor 
have been under constant attack for the last 30 years and, in many 
cases, don't go far enough.
  Only one in four qualifying families with children actually receives 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) only provides 
$1.40 per meal.
  Not to mention that only one in five qualifying families actually 
receives housing assistance.
  Federal programs should do more to help the working poor who are 
forced to spend 70-80% of their income on rent and utilities.
  To give you a snapshot of who is harmed by this tax scam, and how it 
harms those needing a hand up, consider that the average tax cut for 
someone in the Top 0.1%, that money could mean:
  Childcare for 19 children.
  Job training for 27 workers.
  Pell grants or 38 students.
  Providing substance use disorder treatment for 21 people.
  Health coverage through the Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
  So when we consider who this helps and who this hurts, it is clear 
that this bill hurts those seeking help caring for their families.
  It hurts those seeking training and a professional gateway to another 
profession.
  It seeks those looking for assistance to education.
  And in this age of the Opioid crisis, where tomorrow we will be 
having a hearing on this matter, an average tax cut would provide 
substance use disorder treatment for 21 people.
  So it is clear that this bill is not for the middle class.
  By now, the GOP's playbook is well known: campaign as if you support 
the middle class and those striving to enter it, but once elected use 
the levers of government to favor the rich and the powerful.
  That's why time on the GOP is coming up.
  The American People are watching and they know that the Democrats 
offer a better deal.
  And Democrats stand ready to offer #ABetterDeal.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from the great 
State of Texas in the 18th District for her comments adding to this 
discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Governor of 
Pennsylvania, who indicated 1.8 million people are on SNAP; the city of 
Philadelphia, where it all started here in terms of America, 400,000 
individuals on SNAP, a letter from the mayor of the city of 
Philadelphia; and a letter from the chair, Chairwoman Arkoosh, who is 
chair of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, the third 
largest county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where 50,000 people 
are on SNAP.

                                 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

                                   Harrisburg, PA, April 17, 2018.
     Hon. Dwight Evans,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Evans: I write today to express my 
     concerns regarding the text of the Agriculture and Nutrition 
     Act of 2018 or the Farm Bill released last week. The 
     importance of the Farm Bill to Pennsylvanians cannot be 
     overstated. As you know, Pennsylvania farmers are facing the 
     same challenges impacting the agricultural industry 
     throughout the country. With trending low farm incomes and a 
     recent market loss for 42 Pennsylvania dairy farmers, the 
     Farm Bill should be an opportunity to support our 
     commonwealth's valuable agricultural industry. Unfortunately, 
     the House Agriculture committee has released a partisan bill 
     that will punish struggling Pennsylvanians especially 
     seniors, individuals with disabilities, and working families 
     in your congressional district.
       The Farm Bill has always been a bipartisan effort because 
     hunger is not a political issue. For more than 40 years, 
     Pennsylvanians have relied on the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program (SNAP) to help put food on the table 
     during tough times. Nearly 14 percent of our state's 
     population is experiencing food insecurity. Cuts to SNAP will 
     only increase that number. In February of this year, over 1.8 
     million Pennsylvanians were enrolled in SNAP, including 
     215,195 individuals in the 2nd Congressional District and 
     207,411 in the new 3rd Congressional District. Over 80% of 
     SNAP dollars are distributed to households with children, 
     seniors, or an individual with a disability according to the 
     US Department of Agriculture.
       Let's be clear--SNAP recipients already face work 
     requirements. This bill increases them and institutes lengthy 
     ineligibility periods for individuals who are non-compliant 
     for just one month. In this bill, by 2021 all nondisabled 
     individuals ages 50 to 59 would face work requirements and by 
     2026 the required number of work hours per week will increase 
     from 20 to 25. Yet this legislation does not include adequate 
     funding for states to provide job training or allow 
     individuals a period of time to engage in educational 
     activities to help residents meet these new threshold 
     requirements. In Pennsylvania that would translate to an 
     additional 199,000 individuals between 50-59 who would face 
     cuts to SNAP. It is more difficult for older individuals to 
     find work when unemployed and many people want to work more 
     than 25 hours but cannot due to lack of available hours, 
     children, or age. Time limits on SNAP would now apply to 
     parents of children older than 6. Over 20% of Pennsylvania's 
     SNAP recipients have children in the household. These parents 
     already face significant barriers to meet the current work 
     requirements. Increasing them makes it more likely their 
     children will face hunger which creates barriers to academic 
     success and results in poorer health outcomes and a higher 
     risk of chronic conditions. Combined, each of these things 
     contributes to a cycle of poverty that can be almost 
     impossible to break.
       Cuts to SNAP do not just affect those who receive SNAP 
     benefits. In the 2017 fiscal year, SNAP recipients in 
     Pennsylvania spent more than $2.7 billion in benefits. These 
     dollars do not only benefit the recipient but flow to local 
     business that provide jobs and economic stability to the 
     commonwealth. SNAP spending currently accounts for more than 
     10 percent of all spending on food purchased to be eaten at 
     home. It is estimated that each SNAP dollar spent provides 
     nearly double the impact in local communities. Cuts to SNAP 
     are cuts to cuts farms, food processors, and grocery stores 
     as well.
       SNAP is a critical safety net for our seniors and families. 
     SNAP recipients receive on average of $126 per month, which 
     translates to around $1.40 per meal. According to Feeding 
     America, the average meal in Pennsylvania costs $2.93. These 
     cuts are an attack on our most vulnerable citizens. If the 
     goal of House leadership is to decrease the amount of money 
     the federal government spends on SNAP, I suggest you raise 
     the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour and lift millions 
     of Americans out of poverty that way instead of taking food 
     off the table for Pennsylvanians. I urge you to reject this 
     partisan legislation and instead work together on a bill that 
     can pass both chambers with bipartisan support. My 
     administration is ready and eager to engage in conversations 
     on legislation to benefit all Pennsylvanians. Thank you for 
     the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Tom Wolf,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                         City of Philadelphia,

                                                 Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Representative Evans: I am writing to provide you with 
     information about the

[[Page H3772]]

     impacts of changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP) that are proposed in the Agriculture and 
     Nutrition Act of 2018 under consideration in the House, which 
     include cuts to SNAP benefits and expansion of time limits 
     and work requirement. My administration has made work and 
     workforce a priority--in fact we recently announced the 
     City's workforce strategy: Fueling the Philadelphia's Talent 
     Engine. We believe that work is key to success for families 
     and for our communities. But adding bureaucratic requirements 
     and harsh penalties to a program that helps people stave off 
     hunger is not the way to increase employment.
       In Philadelphia approximately 480,000 individuals receive 
     SNAP to help buy the food they need to survive and feed their 
     families. Most SNAP recipients who can work do work, and 
     would prefer to work more hours if they could. This bill 
     expands SNAP time-limits and work requirements and adds harsh 
     penalties--12 and 36 months ineligibility for food 
     assistance--for those who are not in compliance, even if they 
     are trying to find work. The bill proposes reducing the 
     spending on direct food assistance to needy families in order 
     to pay for implementation of these bureaucratic new 
     requirements. Research indicates aggressive new work 
     requirements are likely to cause families in need to lose 
     food assistance, while doing little to increase employment.
       SNAP is critical to helping low-wage and part-time workers 
     who can't find steady employment, veterans, people who are 
     homeless, and people struggling with addictions. It also 
     helps families with children, seniors, and people with 
     disabilities put food on the table. It doesn't cost much--the 
     benefits average about $1.34 per person per meal--but it 
     helps Philadelphians fulfil basic needs. And it also has been 
     found to have long-term positive impacts on health, as well 
     as on children's educational attainment. SNAP also 
     contributes to the Philadelphia economy. Every dollar spent 
     in SNAP generates $1.70 in economic activity in 
     Philadelphia's grocery stores and farmer's markets.
       We believe that one group of Philadelphians who would be 
     disproportionately impacted by the penalties related to work 
     requirements is people with criminal records. Having an 
     arrest any time in one's life continues to decrease a job 
     seeker's prospects more than any other factor. Returning 
     residents want work, but if their criminal record prevents 
     them from finding employment they would be unable to fulfil 
     the work requirement and would lose SNAP benefits as a 
     penalty.
       Cutting off SNAP will not help Philadelphians get jobs but 
     will just make it harder for them to pay for the food they 
     need while they struggle to find work.
       I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to focus on 
     policies that help create jobs and boost wages rather than 
     punishing people who are already facing economic hardship.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James F. Kenney,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                           Montgomery County Board


                                             of Commissioners,

                                   Norristown, PA, April 17, 2018.
     Hon. Dwight Evans:
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Evans: I am writing today to oppose the 
     changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     (SNAP) that are outlined in the Agriculture and Nutrition Act 
     of 2018. The proposed strict eligibility requirements would 
     eliminate as many as one million recipients that rely on SNAP 
     to feed themselves and their families.
       In Montgomery County, more than 50,000 residents receive 
     SNAP benefits, and more than 21,000 of those recipients are 
     children. Another 8,000 are senior citizens, and more than 
     7,500 are disabled adults. For these residents, the SNAP 
     program makes the difference as to whether or not these 
     vulnerable individuals have a meal each day.
       With an average monthly benefit of $123.51 for SNAP 
     recipients, it is already difficult for recipients to receive 
     proper nutrition. Not only that, but Montgomery County has a 
     large population that is food insecure, but earn just enough 
     to disqualify them for SNAP benefits. An estimated 58 percent 
     of those who experience hunger in our county are ineligible 
     for assistance. We need to extend SNAP benefits, not shrink 
     them, for our most vulnerable county residents.
       In Pennsylvania, one in 12 workers use SNAP to supplement 
     their nutritional needs. Many of the workers on SNAP earn low 
     wages, have unstable schedules and cannot rely on enough 
     hours to feed their families each week, or are in between 
     jobs. SNAP assists workers in the service industry, sales and 
     retail workers, teaching assistants, construction and other 
     seasonal workers, and agricultural workers among many others. 
     These individuals are a critical component of our local 
     economy and yet still struggle to put food on the table for 
     their families.
       As a doctor, I know that access to healthy, affordable food 
     and safe housing are key factors in the health of children 
     and adults. SNAP has an impact on the health of its 
     recipients--they have lower healthcare costs than people who 
     are eligible for SNAP, but do not use it. Food insecurity 
     also has a particularly negative impact on children, who 
     account for nearly half of SNAP recipients in Montgomery 
     County, and pregnant women, as it is linked to infant 
     mortality.
       Any cuts to SNAP benefits, or restrictions that attempt to 
     broaden the circle of who legislators believe deserve to go 
     hungry, are bad for our residents. No one deserves to go 
     hungry--not the children in our county, and not their parents 
     who may sacrifice their own meals so there is more food for 
     their little ones.
       SNAP is helping many families keep their heads above water, 
     and we should be finding more ways to expand the program to 
     assist those families, instead of trying to cut the rope. 
     Please contact my office if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,

                                  Valerie A. Arkoosh, MD, MPH,

                                    Chair, Montgomery County Board
                                                 of Commissioners.

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a little bit from Ms. 
Arkoosh's letter.
  ``In Montgomery County, more than 50,000 residents receive SNAP 
benefits, and more than 21,000 of those recipients are children. 
Another 8,000 are senior citizens, and more than 7,500 are disabled 
adults. For these residents, the SNAP program makes the difference as 
to whether or not these vulnerable individuals have a meal each day.
  ``With an average monthly benefit of $123.51 for SNAP recipients, it 
is already difficult for recipients to receive proper nutrition. Not 
only that, but Montgomery County has a large population that is food 
insecure, but earn just enough to disqualify them for SNAP benefits. An 
estimated 58 percent of those who experience hunger in our county are 
ineligible for assistance. We need to extend SNAP benefits, not shrink 
them, for our most vulnerable county residents.
  ``In Pennsylvania, 1 in 12 workers use SNAP to supplement their 
nutritional needs. Many of the workers on SNAP earn low wages, have 
unstable schedules, and cannot rely on enough hours to feed their 
families each week. . . . ''
  This is a major county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I give this as further evidence that clearly we are 
going in the wrong direction. So let's be clear. With the President's 
executive order, which is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict access to 
healthcare, housing, food, and many other basic living programs, by 
adding on onerous work requirements, it is not surprising that this 
President is ordering a mass review of the social safety net programs 
that help the poorest of the poor the same week that the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office projected a massive deficit as a result of 
the Republican's tax scam.
  Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. Democrats sounded the alarm months ago 
when the Republicans passed a massive $1.9 trillion tax cut. That is 
because Republicans employed this terrible three-step process before.
  First, cut the tax rate for top income earners and corporations. 
Claim that it will magically pay enough through economic growth. We 
have heard that before.
  Second, balloon the deficit when economic growth does not pay for the 
tax cut and pretend to be shocked.
  Third, insist on massive cuts in critical programs that provide a 
basic standard of living for all Americans, like eliminating Meals on 
Wheels for seniors and benefits for Americans with disabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen this plan before, and it is very 
unfortunate. We all need to understand, as Dr. King talked about, a 
beloved community. We are our brothers' and sisters' keeper.
  What is worse, Mr. Speaker, the President's budget and executive 
action to make it harder for struggling Americans to get the help they 
need is officially step three.
  The President and the conservatives who control this agenda paint a 
racist and inadequate portrait of poor people as lazy welfare queens 
who would rather depend on the government than pull themselves up by 
the boot straps.
  But nothing could be further from the truth. It is a reality that a 
million Americans face. Everybody would like to work, Mr. Speaker. So 
let's be very clear. Everybody, if they have a good, decent job and a 
decent income, no one--no one, Mr. Speaker--wants to be on the SNAP 
program.
  However, Mr. Speaker, understanding the cyclical nature of our 
economy, there is a need. Food banks cannot do it alone. We all know, 
the reality is there is a direct connection between what is happening 
in our economy.
  So let's be clear. Our Nation's societal safety net already has 
failed to help the families they need. Already, in

[[Page H3773]]

the State of Pennsylvania, nearly 14 percent of our population, many of 
them in Philadelphia, are hungry. And, unfortunately, they will be 
joined by more Pennsylvanians if this farm bill is to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not something to be taken lightly. This is not 
something that we should smile and joke about because this is no joke. 
There are an awful lot of people out here, Mr. Speaker. And the 
Congressional Black Caucus stands today to work with anyone who is 
trying to move us forward and not backwards.
  So it is clear, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the effects that we are 
having, this is something that we shouldn't take lightly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a little announcement about the 
person who does all the staff work, because it is important to 
recognize staff.
  She has been the guiding force behind these Special Orders, and I 
want to thank her personally and go on the record that Caren Street has 
been a fantastic person. She is just leaving the Congressional Black 
Caucus, but she will still be around and be available.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Caren for all she has done for the 
people of this country and particularly for the Congressional Black 
Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________