[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16651-16652]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              FOOD STAMPS

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that was very good debate. I would share 
the concern of Senator Johanns. I remember we backed off this dangerous 
trend of changing the rules when we fixed the filibuster politically in 
this political institution. We need to figure out a way to solve this 
problem. I would say, without any doubt in my own mind, the real reason 
we have had to filibuster is because the majority leader, to a degree 
unprecedented in history, is controlling and blocking the ability of 
the minority party to even have amendments on bills. That goes against 
the great heritage of the Senate and cannot be accepted. That is why we 
are having this problem.
  I wanted to share a few thoughts this morning about the food stamp 
program and some of the developments that have been going on. America 
is a generous and compassionate Nation. We do not want and will not 
have people hungry in our country. We want to be able to be supportive 
to people in need.
  But every program must meet basic standards of efficiency and 
productivity and wisdom and management. This program is resisting that. 
It is the fastest growing major program in the government. In the year 
2000 we spent $20 billion on food stamps nationwide. Last year it was 
$80 billion. It has gone up fourfold in 10 years. That is a dramatic 
increase. It is increasing every year and virtually every month. The 
most recent report in September had one of the largest increases in the 
program's history--another 600,000 added to the rolls, totaling now 
47.7 million. One out of every six Americans is receiving food stamps. 
Oddly, when we attempted to confront our debt and our spending, we had 
huge reductions for the Defense Department. Some other departments took 
big cuts. The food stamp program was set aside. President Obama and the 
Democratic leaders said: We will not even talk about it. No less money, 
no savings, no review of food stamps. It cannot be changed. It should 
be left alone.
  Well, that is not a good plan. As the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee, I have begun to look at the program to see how it is we have 
had such great increases. The agriculture establishment says every 
single dollar that is spent is needed for hungry people. I offered an 
amendment that would have reduced spending over 10 years from $800 
billion total to $789 billion, reducing spending by $11 billion based 
on closing a loophole, a categorical eligibility gimmick that should 
not be there, allowing people to receive benefits who did not qualify 
for them.
  It was said: Oh, you want people to be hungry. It was voted down. I 
thought it was a very modest, reasonable change. By the way, 
agriculture spending in our government is different than a lot of 
people--Mr. President, what is the status of our time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 
another 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is where we are, I think, in terms of spending on 
the program and the need to examine it and see how it works. The 
establishment says every dollar is needed, not a dime can be reduced. I 
certainly agree that no one should be hungry in America. But we must 
know that the SNAP program, the food stamp program as it is commonly 
known, is not the only benefit that people have.
  Indeed, an average family without income in America today would 
receive as much as $25,000 in total benefits per year from the 
government if they did not have an income. They get things such as 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they get SSI, housing 
allowance, free health care through Medicaid. They get food stamps and 
other benefits totaling at least $25,000.
  By the way, if you took all of the means-tested welfare-type programs 
that are in existence in America today, there are over 80. If you 
divide it up by the number of households who fall below the poverty 
line in America, it would be $60,000 per household--$30 per hour, on 
average, for a 40-hour work week. That is how much it would amount to.
  The median income in America is less than that. The median income--
and they pay taxes on that--is maybe $25 an hour. This would be over 
$30 an hour based on if we were just to divide up our welfare programs. 
So to say we should not examine those programs and ask ourselves can we 
do better is a mistake. The question I would ask is, can we improve it? 
Can we help more people move from dependence to independence? Is the 
program functioning as we would like it to function?
  I have been asking questions of the Secretary of Agriculture Tom 
Vilsack. He provided some information that was very troubling to me. I 
have submitted additional information to him. Now we are not getting 
any more answers. They have just shut the door. The Secretary basically 
said: Well, you are a Member of the Senate. You are asking too many 
questions. I am not giving you any more information. You raise concerns 
when I give you information. You point out problems. I do not like 
that. You are not getting any more.
  I would note in some of our first inquires in the examination of 
their program, we found they are on a determined effort to expand the 
number of people who get on welfare or food stamps even if they do not 
want to be on food stamps. One of the things that is interesting is 
they gave a person in western North Carolina, one of the agricultural 
people, an award for overcoming ``mountain pride.'' Basically what they 
said was this lady should be given an award because when people in the 
mountains who are independent and believe they can take care of 
themselves, thank you--without the Federal Government--she overcame 
that. They have a brochure telling people what to say when people say, 
I do not need food stamps, to get them to sign up for food stamps.
  I have to say, and I am not happy about it. So now the Secretary has 
failed to comply with oversight requests from the Senate Budget 
Committee. Secretary Vilsack has missed the October deadline that we 
asked him to meet by nearly 2 months. My staff has been provided no 
update despite repeated requests, and apparently

[[Page 16652]]

no letter is being drafted from the Department in response to our 
request. Just stiff you guys.
  Well, last I heard he worked for the American people. So do I. And 
one of my jobs is to make sure the American people's money is well 
spent. I am asking him about how he is spending our money, and he does 
not want to respond.
  My letter asked questions about two main issues: First, the USDA's 
acknowledged relationship with Mexico to place foreign nationals almost 
immediately on food stamps. One of the questions I asked was simply how 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture interprets the Federal law.
  Well, we make Federal law, we pass laws. I would like to know how 
they are enforcing them and what standards they are using. Federal law 
says those likely to be reliant on welfare cannot be admitted to the 
United States. If they want to come to the United States, and they meet 
the qualifications, they get to come. But they have to show they are 
not going to be dependent on the government for their food, aid, and 
health and everything when they come.
  We have lots of people who want to come to America. Most of those 
people probably can come and sustain themselves. Why would we be 
admitting those who can't, who are going to immediately go on the 
government assistance programs? But this law is effectively not being 
enforced.
  Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Roberts are ranking members on key 
committees, and I sent a letter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So another question I asked was concerning the 
Department's goal to place more people on food stamps. Here is part of 
the question from the letter: According to USDA, ``only 72 percent of 
those eligible for SNAP benefits participated,'' adding, ``their 
communities lose out on the benefits provided by new SNAP dollars 
flowing into local economies.''
  If USDA's enrollment goals were reached, we asked, how many people 
would be receiving food stamps today? We have gone up dramatically; how 
many more would be of benefit? I would simply ask that question.
  I will ask him again on the Senate floor. How many millions more 
people would be on the Food Stamp Program if 100 percent of those 
qualified had enrolled? In 2011 USDA gave a recruitment award, as I 
mentioned, for overcoming ``mountain pride.'' They produced a pamphlet 
instructing their recruiters on how to ``overcome the word `no.''' The 
USDA claims the chief obstacle to recruitment is a ``sense the benefits 
aren't needed.'' That is an obstacle.
  USDA asserts that ``everyone wins when eligible people take advantage 
of benefits to which they are entitled,'' claiming that ``each $5 in 
new SNAP benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic 
activity for the community.''
  Well, I guess we just ought to do it another fourfold. That would 
really make America prosperous.
  USDA produced a Spanish-language ad in which the main character is 
pressured into accepting food stamps.
  This is what is on the video: The lady said, ``I don't need anyone's 
help. My husband earns enough to take care of us.'' Her friend mocks 
her and replies--this is the Department of Agriculture pitch--``When 
are you going to learn?'' Eventually, she gives in to her friends who 
are pressuring her and agrees to enroll.
  Is this the right approach for America? We need to work, to help 
people with pride, help people to assume their own independence, to be 
successful, take care of their own families and move them from 
dependence to independence. That ought to be the fundamental goal of 
our system. It was the goal in the reform of 1996 in the welfare reform 
that worked very well. More people prospered, fewer people are in 
poverty, and more people are taking care of themselves. It really was a 
success. We have been drifting back away from that.
  What I sense is when you ask questions about it, you are treated as 
someone who doesn't care about people who are hungry, who do need our 
help. We want to help. All we are asking is, Can't we do it better? 
Can't we look back to the principles of independence, individual 
responsibility, and individual pride that Americans have and nurture 
that and use that as a way to help reduce dependence in this country? 
So those are the things I wanted to share.
  I would just say this: The Secretary of Agriculture has the 
responsibility to answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I don't want to get in a fight with it, but, if 
necessary, I will use what ability I have in the Senate to insist that 
we get responses.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________