[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8783-8789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me just say I 
am truly honored tonight to anchor this Special Order on the farm bill 
on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And I just want to 
thank our cochairs, Congressman Keith Ellison and Congressman Raul 
Grijalva, for their tremendous leadership and for giving us the 
opportunity to really speak to the American people once a week about 
what has truly taken place here in Washington, D.C.
  As the cochair of the Out-of-Poverty Caucus, which we founded 
actually during the Bush administration, and now chair of the new 
Democratic Whip Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, let me just 
highlight how truly important it is to continue to support programs 
that lift Americans out of poverty.
  Even as our economy slowly recovers, income inequality continues to 
grow. Unfortunately, too many people who are working are poor, and 
they're living on the edge.
  I want to take a moment now and just yield a few minutes to my 
colleague from Minnesota, the cochair of the Progressive Caucus, and I 
will return and complete what I have to say, but I know he has to 
leave, and I would like for him to be able to engage in this discussion 
at this point.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlelady from 
California, Barbara Lee, who has been leading this country for years on 
the question of economic justice, civil rights and human rights. This 
issue of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as 
food stamps, is critical. We have a farm bill that contemplates a $20 
billion cut in the food stamp program, and I think it's just important 
that Americans know just a few basic things about the food stamp 
program. One is that many people on food stamps have jobs and work 
every day. These folks work hard. They work in jobs that pay so little 
that they don't have enough money to make it without some assistance. 
But these are the people who probably are making sure that the office 
buildings we go into are clean and sanitary. These are the folks who 
prepare fast-food. These people are the folks who make sure that it's 
safe, because some of the security guards making very low wages.
  In fact, in 2010, 41 percent of SNAP recipients lived in a household 
with earnings. That means 41 percent were earning some income, but they 
still didn't earn enough money to make a go of it. So this idea that 
food stamps promote dependency is wrong.

                              {time}  1850

  In fact, what food stamps do is provide enough food for families to 
make it, nearly half of whom are working a job.
  It's also important to bear in mind, too, that 76 percent of SNAP 
households include a child, a senior citizen, or a disabled person, and 
about 45 percent of SNAP recipients are in fact

[[Page 8784]]

children. The reality is that if you have a problem with SNAP, then 
we're talking about children, seniors and disabled people, three-
quarters of whom are those households that receive SNAP.
  Now, it is also true that there are some single adults who get SNAP. 
I had a chance to meet one on Monday. This young fellow is 19 years 
old, and he had been looking for work, going from place to place. He 
hadn't eaten in a few days and actually got so dizzy that he fell. His 
friends picked him up, got him some supplemental food quickly, and then 
he somehow got into the SNAP program. But when I looked in the eyes of 
this young fellow, I didn't see somebody who didn't want to work. I saw 
a hardworking Minnesotan who wanted to make a contribution, but who had 
tough times and was down on his luck for a little while. He wanted to 
work, he is still looking for a job, but the food stamps got him in a 
position where he could look for a job.
  I just want to share with you, Mr. Speaker and Congresswoman Lee, on 
Monday, my good friend Betty McCollum and I were at the State 
legislature in St. Paul, Minnesota. Betty represents St. Paul, I 
represent Minneapolis. We came together and we listened to some people 
who really know the firsthand experience. We talked to people from the 
faith community. Patricia Law of St. Paul Church of Christ. We talked 
to Marie Ellis of Catholic Charities, and Judith Tannenbaum of Maison. 
All three of them talked about how if we cut SNAP to the tune that is 
proposed in the farm bill--the charities that they run are already 
stretched to the limit--therefore it would be very difficult for them 
to try to pick up the slack that the government would drop if the 
government quit.
  Patricia Lull of the St. Paul Council of Churches--I said Church of 
Christ, I made a mistake, it was Council of Churches--has a slogan: 
``No More Hungry Neighbors.'' She talked about 18,200 people seeking 
assistance from food shelves in Minnesota every day, which was pretty 
upsetting.
  Another thing that I'd like to share with the Speaker, too, is that 
there was a woman who spoke from Hennepin County; she's a health 
administrator, and her name is Jennifer DeCubellis. She talked about 
the negative health effects of reduced nutrition access caused by SNAP 
cuts. So she is trying to describe how so many people who end up in the 
ER or who have medical problems, their underlying problem is that 
they're food insecure or housing insecure.
  She talked about a woman who was not taking her meds. And they said, 
well, why don't you take the meds? She said, well, they hurt my 
stomach. Well, why do the meds hurt your stomach? Well, have you eaten? 
No, I don't have any money for food. So she's supposed to be eating 
this food, eating regularly, and she's not. So she's not taking the 
meds because they hurt her stomach. Getting food literally helps her 
take her medication. I just thought to myself, look, what are we doing? 
Richest country in the history of the world can't take care of some 
people who happen to have some tough times?
  The bottom line is most people on SNAP don't use the program 
forever--some do use it for a long time--but many only use it for about 
a year when they need it. And as I said, 41 percent are working. I 
personally don't mind, as an American taxpayer, helping seniors, 
children, and people with disabilities have a good, healthy nutritious 
meal.
  So I have to abandon my friends now; I'm sorry to have to do that. 
But I am so proud that we're here tonight saying that it's not 
weakness; you're not some kind of a sucker if you have compassion for 
your fellow Americans who don't have enough food. You're not throwing 
away money. You're doing something that is absolutely necessary, and 
any compassionate society would have a way to help people who cannot 
eat.
  It's simply not the case that our churches, our synagogues, our 
mosques and other charities can pick up the slack if the government 
drops out of helping people who are food insecure.
  So I'm going to then thank my good friend from California for 
carrying on this great tradition. We're going to stay there for the 
folks on SNAP tonight.
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank our cochair of the Progressive 
Caucus, Congressman Ellison, for, once again, his tremendous 
leadership, but also for that very powerful and very graphic statement, 
sharing the stories of people who are struggling just to survive. 
That's what this is really about. The majority of people on SNAP do not 
want to be on SNAP; they want to work. They want to take care of their 
families, and they want to live the American Dream.
  Let me yield now to the gentlelady from Connecticut, Congresswoman 
DeLauro, a member of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Ag. 
I don't know of anyone who has fought the good fight on behalf of the 
poor, low-income individuals, middle-income individuals, the most 
vulnerable--our seniors--more than Congresswoman DeLauro. So I want to 
thank the gentlelady for really staying true to the cause and for being 
here tonight with us.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you so much. It's an honor to join with you. I 
know where your heart, your head and your courage lie with regard to 
this issue. And we applaud you for your efforts with regard to the one 
caucus around this place that says that our goal and our mission is to 
make sure that people who are poor today, let us help them move out of 
that being poor. Let us help them move into the middle class, because 
in fact they do want to work, they do want to take care of their 
families. They're not just statistics. They are people to be upheld and 
respected and not to be vilified in so many ways as they are there. So 
I congratulate you and your efforts.
  I'm proud to be here with you tonight and with my colleague, 
Congressman Ellison, and the Progressive Caucus for his comments and 
remarks. I see that we are also joined by our colleague, Mr. Johnson. I 
want to thank you for your efforts as well.
  As you're talking about, what tonight is all about is highlighting 
severe immoral cuts that are made to anti-hunger and nutrition 
programs, particularly the food stamp program; And that is coming from 
the House of Representatives in the farm bill that passed out of 
committee.
  Everybody knows millions of families are struggling in this economy. 
Across this country, nearly 15 percent of American households were food 
insecure in 2010. Nearly 50 million Americans--over 60 million 
children--are struggling with hunger right now. It is about children; 
it is about the disabled; it is about seniors. And this is a problem 
all across this land.
  My State of Connecticut, in my district--Connecticut statistically is 
the richest State in the Nation because we have Fairfield County, and 
some parts of the State are known as the Gold Coast, with very affluent 
people. But we have such pockets of hunger that, in my district, one 
out of seven is food insecure.
  I'm tired of the commentary on food insecurity. What that means--and 
my colleague knows this, we've talked about this--it is about being 
hungry. These folks, one out of seven doesn't know where their next 
meal is coming from.
  In Mississippi, 24.5 percent suffer food hardship, nearly one in four 
people. West Virginia and Kentucky, that drops to just over 22 percent, 
one in five. In Ohio, nearly 20 percent. California, just over 19 
percent.
  The estimates of Americans at risk of going hungry here in this land 
of plenty are appalling. And at times such as this, our key Federal 
food security programs become all the more important.
  This is especially true of food stamps, our country's most important 
effort to deal with hunger here at home and to ensure that American 
families can put food on the table for their kids. Right now, food 
stamps are helping over 47 million Americans--nearly half of them 
children--to meet their basic food needs. They make a tremendous 
difference for the health and the well-being of families, as our 
colleague, Mr. Ellison, pointed out with his examples.

[[Page 8785]]

  Food stamps have been proven to improve low-income children's health, 
their development, reduced food insecurity, and have a continuing 
positive influence into adulthood.
  You know, I listen to people that talk about waste, fraud, abuse. 
Food stamps always has one of the lowest error rates of any government 
program.

                              {time}  1900

  Go to the IRS, go to Defense, go to a crop insurance program, and you 
will find waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Food stamps are good for the economy. Economists agree that food 
stamps have a powerful, positive impact on economic growth.
  Last month, Bloomberg ran an article called, ``Best Stimulus Package 
May Be Food Stamps,'' because they get resources into the hands of 
families who are going to spend those dollars right away.
  Most importantly, food stamps are the right thing to do. Ninety-nine 
percent of food stamp recipients have incomes below the poverty line. 
It is the job of good government to help vulnerable families get back 
on their feet. In the words of Harry Truman:

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

  This is something that everyone in Washington used to agree on. In 
the past, there's been a strong tradition of bipartisanship on hunger 
and nutrition. From the left, leaders like George McGovern, and from 
the right, leaders like Bob Dole, came together. They made a difference 
for families who were in need.
  Over the past 30 years, policies aimed at debt and deficit reduction 
to keep programs that help the most vulnerable among us to get by have 
always been protected on a bipartisan basis from deep cuts. But the 
farm bill coming out of the House right now seeks to destroy that 
tradition. In the name of deficit reduction, the bill slashes food 
stamps by more than $20 billion, hurting millions of Americans in our 
economy.
  By eliminating categorical eligibility, their bill would force up to 
2 million low-income Americans to go hungry. Their bill kicks 210,000 
low-income children from the free school lunch program. It changes the 
relationship between SNAP and LIHEAP to take benefits from more low-
income Americans--mostly seniors and working families with kids.
  Let's be clear: this has nothing to do with deficit reduction and 
everything to do with the ideological priorities of a House majority. 
Ever since the Speaker took the gavel, this majority has tried to slash 
through the most crucial threads of our American social safety net.
  Their Ryan budget cut over $130 billion from food stamps, mostly by 
converting it to an inadequate block grant. Last year, when the House 
Ag Committee had to identify $33 billion in 10-year savings from the 
programs of their jurisdiction, they singled out food stamps for all of 
the cuts--not direct payments, not crop insurance--just food stamps for 
the entire cut.
  This is terrible policy. It will cause hunger and more health 
problems. These cuts are lopsided and are a dereliction of our 
responsibility to the American people, and of our moral responsibility.
  Let me quote the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They said last 
year:

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

  And as Catholic leaders wrote last month:

       Congress should support access to adequate and nutritious 
     food for those in need and oppose attempts to weaken or 
     restructure these programs that would result in reduced 
     benefits to hungry people.

  The House farm bill does the opposite. It jeopardizes the growth and 
development of our children, it jeopardizes seniors, and it puts at 
risk those disabled Americans.
  In my district yesterday, I went to the Cornerstone Christian Church 
in Milford, Connecticut, and the representatives there were the woman 
who volunteers in their food bank program, Reverend Stackhouse of the 
Church of the Redeemer, Lucy Nolan of End Hunger Connecticut, Nancy 
Carrington, who heads up the Connecticut Food Bank, and a young woman 
whose name was Penny.
  She had worked all of her adult life. She lost her job. She thought 
it was going to be easy to get another job and to be able to make her 
mortgage payments and all of the other financial obligations that she 
had. In the midst of this financial crisis, she and her husband 
separated, putting the burden of the family on her shoulders. She 
didn't know where to turn. She didn't know how she was going to put 
food on the table.
  She went to the Connecticut food bank. They helped her to be able to 
access the food stamp program. That's where she is now--still looking 
for a job, still wanting to work. Her pride enables her to continue to 
look for that job. The courage of speaking before this group yesterday 
and the press, and to tell that story, took great courage--like so many 
others are telling that story, my colleagues tonight.
  We do have an obligation. These are not statistics that we are 
talking about. These are flesh and blood Americans who are looking for 
a bridge. They don't want to be there forever. They want to be able to 
take care of themselves and their families.
  It's a genius of the food stamp program to say in times of need: 
we're there and, yes, we rise in the participation. When it gets better 
economically, those numbers drop.
  We have an obligation to those people--not to the statistics, but to 
those individuals who look to the Federal Government that says in a 
time of challenge: give me a little help, that's all I'm asking. I 
don't want everything. I know you don't have all those resources. Help 
me in this hour of need. That's what where our moral responsibility is.
  Again, I say thank you to my colleagues for participating and for 
your steadfastness in dealing with this issue.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentlelady for that very 
powerful--in many ways, very sad--statement. We shouldn't have to 
listen to you say this in the wealthiest and most powerful country in 
the world. These stories should not have to be told here, Congresswoman 
DeLauro.
  Thank you also for reminding us--and I know that you are a person of 
tremendous faith, and there are many in this body who are believers who 
have a faith and who care about the least of these. However, when we 
look at this $20 billion cut, you have to wonder where the people of 
faith are and how they understand this scripturally, I have to say. So 
thank you for raising this.
  Ms. DeLAURO. If I can make one more point, because in the committee--
and the people shall be nameless--there was a lot of quoting of 
scripture when people voted for and passed a $20 billion cut. I think 
it was one individual who said that in the scripture it says: If you 
don't work, then you don't eat.
  I went back to find out what kinds of subsidies from farm programs 
that the individual had access to. Quite frankly, it's in the millions 
of dollars. I'm delighted that this individual can take care of family, 
but he's doing it with the largesse and the kindness, if you will, of 
the Federal Government. That doesn't seem to bother the individual at 
all. But providing food for a child or a senior or a disabled 
individual is a bridge too far. We need to stop that and we need to 
call attention to it, and the people of this Nation need to know what 
is happening in this institution.
  Ms. LEE of California. Absolutely. Thank you for that.
  I just want to also remind us tonight that--well, first, I'm on the 
Budget Committee also. We had a debate about poverty. Both sides had 
something to say. Thank goodness at least we had a debate. But when it 
came to looking at the Ryan budget and the cuts that were enacted or 
that would be enacted if the Ryan budget passes, I can't for the life 
of me understand how anyone on the

[[Page 8786]]

other side who wants to reduce poverty--as they said they do--could 
support the Ryan budget, because it cuts every single government 
program which lifts people out of poverty into the middle class and 
will actually put more people into poverty if the Ryan budget cuts are 
sustained.

                              {time}  1910

  Ms. DeLAURO. I know my colleague Mr. Johnson is here to speak--and I 
think you understand this--but I think people need to know this. I want 
to take that crop insurance program for a moment--and I'm for crop 
insurance. I wish it covered people in my community, in my State.
  My comment is, in the crop insurance program, 60 percent of those 
costs are picked up by the U.S. taxpayer. That doesn't include 
administrative costs. There is no income test, no wage threshold, no 
asset test, all of which apply to food stamp recipients. There are 26 
individuals in this Nation who have received at a minimum $1 million in 
a premium subsidy, and they don't have to follow conservation programs. 
They don't have to do anything but accept that premium subsidy, and we 
can't find out who they are because they are statutorily protected. Do 
you want to look at a program from which we could get money to deal 
with the deficit? Go there, and don't hurt poor kids, seniors and the 
disabled. Those folks in that program who are getting at least $1 
million are eating high on the hog. They are doing well.
  So that's what we have to do, and that's what this country needs to 
know about. We are a good country. People have good values, and they 
will turn their backs on this effort as well.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you for being with us tonight and for 
making it very clear.
  Let me now yield a few minutes to my colleague from Georgia, 
Congressman Hank Johnson, who has been a tremendous leader on so many 
issues. He will talk about these bags that he brought here to the floor 
and about the food stamp challenge, which many of us have mounted and 
which I will speak to later.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you. I am very happy to participate in 
this Special Order, especially with the esteemed women who are here--
yourself, Barbara Lee, and Rosa DeLauro, a person of great justice and 
passion who represents truth and righteousness and tries to do the 
right thing and fights for those who need a voice to fight for them.
  I appreciate you, Rosa, for being here and for everything that you 
do.
  Barbara Lee--I've said it before--you are just a tremendous patriot, 
a wonderful person with a heart of gold, but with a fist of steel when 
it comes to what you believe in.
  I deeply respect and honor both of those women.
  Today, in a Judiciary Committee meeting in which we were engaged in 
the war on women--another abortion bill--I happened to notice that on 
the other side of the aisle there were no women on the panel. In fact, 
I discovered, to my horror, that there are no women on the Judiciary 
Committee, period, and here we are in the year 2013. On this side of 
the aisle, we've got some great women, like Rosa DeLauro from 
Connecticut, Barbara Lee from California and so many others--Nancy 
Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I can just name them forever, and 
I just appreciate being able to serve with them.
  I'll tell you that I'm not always out doing a lot of shopping, but I 
had to go shopping today because I decided to take what we call the 
food stamp challenge. It mandates that we go out and that we spend no 
more than $31.50 for one-week's worth of food. I'm just coming back 
from the local Safeway. Maybe I shouldn't give that name out because I 
might have gotten a better deal at Publix--I don't know--but I went to 
Safeway, and here is my bill. It is for $29.76. I went through the 
supermarket, trying to find a week's worth of food that could get me 
through.
  Pardon me for my choice of food, but I had to go back to my standard 
Quaker Oats oatmeal. I'm trying to be healthy. I can use this for 
breakfast or for dinner, but I got these for breakfast, my Homestyle 
waffles. They already have butter in them, so I didn't have to buy the 
butter. I did have to come up, of course, with some sugar-free syrup. I 
got that. I was pleased to find Oscar Mayer bacon on sale--two for $5 
and, I think it was, 99 cents. I got these two of the Oscar Mayer 
bacon. I didn't mean to get the maple, I meant to get the regular. 
Anyway--boom--that was $5, $6. I bought some milk, and I did splurge on 
some tea. I'm sorry. I splurged on some tea, but I did get some hot 
dogs and topped them off with some ramen noodles. I used to eat those a 
lot when I was in college, too. So I have 6 of those in there and 10 of 
these in here. Then to splurge I also bought some bananas.
  That all ended up costing $29.76. I actually had an over-ring because 
I bought two heads of broccoli. Do we call those ``heads'' of broccoli? 
But two things of broccoli, I bought those. Those ran me over, so I had 
to go through the indignity of standing there while the cashier called 
for an over-ring. They had to come over there and fix that and redo the 
whole thing with people in line behind me and everything, and with 
people trying to get in and out of the store. They would have looked at 
me even more funny if I'd had food stamps to make the purchase, and 
they would have wondered why was I eating Oscar Mayer bacon.
  This is what I'm going to be eating for the next 7 days starting 
tomorrow. It's going to be a challenge. I certainly will not be eating 
three meals a day. I will eat in the morning, and then I will eat in 
the evening. So between this meat, these starches, that fruit--and this 
is a starch here, with no greens--I think they had greens at Safeway, 
but there are some places--they call them food deserts--in the central 
cities where there is no supermarket, where there are no fresh fruits, 
even if I'd had the money to buy them. Nonetheless, this is not the 
most healthy of diets, but it will keep the hunger pangs away, I 
believe, for a week. If I were a child who was living on this and going 
to school every day, I'm not sure how angry or depressed or how, 
really, ready to learn I would be.
  This is reality, so I am looking forward to participating in this. I 
understand you've done it now for a number of years, Barbara. This will 
be my first year. I can't say that I've been looking forward to it, but 
I have been getting ready for it.

                              {time}  1920

  Ms. LEE of California. Let me first thank the gentleman for that very 
powerful statement and also sharing with us what you were able to 
purchase. Also, much of what you purchased has a high sodium content 
and, as you said, very few fresh fruits and vegetables.
  But what is just so tragic is that as Members of Congress, we don't 
live on this budget each and every day. There's an end in sight for us. 
But for millions of Americans, there is no end in sight. This is their 
existence.
  What we're trying to do is to make sure that that is no more and that 
people have the right to eat healthy, nutritious foods without worrying 
about health consequences, without worrying about the $20 billion which 
will cut substantially their ability to buy even the kinds of foods 
that are unhealthy.
  So thank you very much for being here with us.
  Let me now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who serves on 
the Agriculture Committee, chairs our Hunger Caucus and has been a 
tremendous and consistent champion on behalf of those who are hungry, 
not only here, but throughout the world, and also fights for food 
security. I just want to thank him for being with us tonight, and thank 
you for your leadership.
  Congressman McGovern has also taken the food stamp challenge many 
times and has really helped organize all of us here to be very focused 
on what is the real deal as it relates to the least of us.
  Thank you again.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from 
California for organizing this and for her leadership on this and so 
many other issues aimed at trying to eliminate poverty in

[[Page 8787]]

this country. I also want to thank all my colleagues who have already 
spoken on this issue.
  I want to come to the floor just to remind people that hunger is a 
real problem in the United States of America. We have close to 50 
million of our fellow citizens who are hungry, and 17 million are kids. 
We are the richest, most prosperous Nation in the world, and we have 
close to 50 million people in this country who are hungry. I'm ashamed 
of that fact. We all should be ashamed of that fact. What is 
particularly maddening about this issue is that it is solvable. This is 
a solvable problem.
  Hunger is a political condition. We have the food. We have the 
resources. We have the infrastructure. We have everything but the 
political will to end it.
  Hunger is a problem that costs us dearly. People say to me, Oh, we 
can't spend any more money; we have a tough budget situation. I remind 
them that we can't afford not to. The cost of hunger in this country is 
astronomical.
  We pay an incredible amount in terms of avoidable health care costs. 
People who don't eat on a regular basis, their immune systems are 
compromised and they end up spending more time in a hospital. Senior 
citizens who can't afford their prescription drugs and their food take 
their prescription drugs on an empty stomach and end up in hospitals. 
There's a cost to that. There is a human cost and there's a financial 
cost to it. Children who are hungry who go to school don't learn. 
Workers who are hungry and go to work lack in productivity. We pay for 
this.
  This is solvable. It is solvable.
  Now, I have come to this floor every week for the last 13 weeks with 
this sign, ``End Hunger Now,'' and I have given a speech every week 
about what we need to do to end hunger, a different perspective on 
hunger. I have tried to raise awareness on this issue because there is 
not a single community in the United States of America, not a single 
congressional district that is hunger free.
  One of the tools that we have to combat hunger is the SNAP program. 
It is not the answer to everything. It is not a perfect program, but it 
is one of the tools that we utilize to help alleviate hunger in this 
country. And we are now considering a farm bill next week, which is 
stunning to me, because rather than being a bill that helps expand 
opportunities for our farmers and helps alleviate hunger, it will be a 
farm bill that makes hunger worse.
  The House of Representatives is going to consider a bill that came 
out of the House Agriculture Committee that cuts SNAP by $20.5 billion. 
Two million people will lose their benefits. Hundreds of thousands of 
kids who qualify right now for free breakfast and lunch at school 
because their parents are on SNAP will lose that benefit.
  I've had people say to me, Well, you know, those people ought to go 
out and look for a job. The fact of the matter is that millions and 
millions and millions of people who are on SNAP right now work. They 
work full-time, but they earn so little they still qualify for this 
benefit.
  We ought to have a debate in this Congress about ensuring that work 
pays a livable wage, that when people go to work and they work full-
time, they ought not have to live in poverty. But that, unfortunately, 
is not the reality as we speak. The reality is that there are millions 
of people who are working and earn so little that they need this 
benefit to feed their kids and feed their families.
  As we emerge from this difficult economic crisis, we need to make 
sure that this safety net is in place. We need to ensure that people 
have enough to eat. That shouldn't be a controversial issue.
  To my Republican friends, I would say that this used to be a 
bipartisan issue. The great antihunger programs that our country has 
emerged as a result of bipartisan cooperation. In the 1970s, Senator 
Bob Dole of Kansas and Senator George McGovern of South Dakota worked 
together to help strengthen these programs to the point that in the 
1970s we almost eliminated hunger in America. We made progress. We came 
close.
  Then we undid all of this. We turned our backs on those who were 
struggling, and now we have close to 50 million people who are hungry 
in this country. That, to me, is a national scandal. And rather than 
putting forward a farm bill that makes hunger worse, we ought to be 
talking about a farm bill that helps solve this problem.
  I've urged the White House to call a conference or a summit on food 
and nutrition to bring us all together, all the various agencies that 
have some role in combatting hunger: the charities, the food banks, the 
churches, the synagogues, the mosques, the doctors, the teachers, the 
nutritionists, the people who are involved in this issue one way or 
another. Let's bring us all together and actually come up with a plan 
to end this scourge. We can do this.
  You're not going to solve a problem without a plan, and we do not 
have a plan. But as we wait to develop that plan, let's not take away 
what is there right now to help keep people from being hungry to 
literally starving.
  When you cut a program like this by $20 billion--by the way, a 
program with one of the lowest error rates of any Federal program that 
we have. I wish I could find a missile program that the Pentagon is 
championing that has a lower error rate than the SNAP program. It would 
be phenomenal, quite frankly. It would save billions of dollars if the 
Pentagon ran their missile programs as efficiently as this program is 
run. Yet it has been demonized and it has been diminished. People have 
demagogued this program. All it does is provide people the ability to 
buy food; that's all it does. The fact that we would be taking away 
this safety net at this difficult time is something I don't think we 
should do.
  To my Democratic colleagues who are saying that we ought to support a 
farm bill even though it has $20 billion of cuts in it, we'll send it 
to conference and hopefully it will all get better, don't do that. Our 
priority, if it stands for anything--we have stood by and for those who 
are poor, those who are struggling, those who are vulnerable--let's not 
throw that away. Let's not trash our principles. This is not the bill 
that should be moving forward, not a bill that makes hunger worse.
  I want to also call attention to the fact that I joined with 
Congresswoman Lee and others in taking the food stamp challenge today, 
and I just will remind you that this SNAP challenge that we took today 
means that we live on an average SNAP benefit, which is $1.50 a meal 
and it is $4.50 a day. I mean, how much does a Starbucks coffee cost? 
This is what people live on.

                              {time}  1930

  Critics will say this is meant as a supplement, not to be the entire 
food budget. Well, I'm going to tell you something: things are tough 
for a lot of people. This is their entire food budget. In fact, what 
they do is they utilize this modest benefit, and then they go to food 
banks and they go to their churches and they go to their charities and 
look for additional food because this doesn't provide enough.
  And so those of us in Congress who are trying to call attention to 
the fact that this is an important program--and by the way, it's not an 
overly generous program. We are doing the SNAP challenge. Some say this 
is a gimmick, it's a stunt. Well, you know what? We're trying to call 
attention to a real problem in this country. And if you think it's a 
gimmick or a stunt, you take the challenge. You live on this for a 
week. You see how difficult it is. It's hard to be poor. It takes a lot 
of time to try to make ends meet, to try to put a grocery list together 
that will get you through the week. And we're doing it just for 
ourselves. Imagine doing it when you have kids. I'm a parent of a 15-
year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl. I couldn't imagine the anguish of 
wondering whether or not I could put food on the table to make sure 
they have enough to eat. This is the United States of America. We 
should be trying to lift people up, not put people down.
  Let me just say finally, none of us here believe that this should be 
a permanent condition. In fact, what we need to do is have a 
conversation about

[[Page 8788]]

how to extend these ladders of opportunity for people so they can climb 
out of poverty, so they won't need this, so they can be on their own, 
so they can have a job. That's why so many of us have been complaining 
about the fact that we have a lot of debates here on the floor, a lot 
of bills, but we don't seem to have many bills that deal with job 
creation. That's the answer. That's the answer. You want to get people 
off of SNAP, give them a job that pays a livable wage.
  I'll just say in conclusion that I appreciate the opportunity to be 
able to highlight this issue. I'll tell you, I have spent an awful lot 
of time as cochair of the House Hunger Caucus meeting with people who 
are struggling in this country and meeting with families who have kids 
who are hungry. You meet a child who is hungry, it breaks your heart. 
You can't get it out of your mind. And that there are hungry children 
in this country--in this country--is something that should not be.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come 
together and reject these cuts in the farm bill. Reject these cuts in 
SNAP, and let's try to figure out a way to restore those moneys so that 
people will not go without, and then let's have a farm bill that we can 
be proud of. If we cannot reverse the $20.5 billion in cuts in SNAP, 
then there's no way we should support that farm bill. No way. 
Republicans and Democrats should join together and say no, we're not 
going to support a farm bill that makes hunger worse.
  I appreciate this opportunity, and I look forward to working with the 
gentlewoman from California and others in trying to find ways to make 
sure that people in this country have enough to eat, and also make sure 
that we develop a plan to help people transition off of this assistance 
so they can be independent and productive like all of the people we 
know who are struggling want to be.
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts very 
much for that very powerful and clear presentation, but also for what 
you do each and every day for the last 13 years. This is part of your 
life's work. So thank you very much for not only talking about why we 
need to not cut the $20 billion, but also why we need to build these 
ladders of opportunity so that people can get a good-paying job and 
lift themselves out of poverty.
  Congressman McGovern mentioned the food stamp challenge that many of 
us are taking: Congressman Johnson; our Congressional Black Caucus 
chair, Marcia Fudge; Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky; our Democratic 
Caucus vice chair, Mr. Crowley. Approximately 25 Members will be taking 
part in this food stamp challenge, in addition to who will speak next, 
the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, because we need to raise the level of awareness of what 
is taking place not only here in Washington, D.C., in this body, but in 
the District of Columbia where we all have to thank Congresswoman 
Norton, who is our representative during the week. We need to make sure 
that we recommit ourselves to fighting hunger, fighting poverty, and to 
not voting for this agriculture bill if the $20 billion cut remains.
  So, Congresswoman Norton, thank you very much, and thank you for 
allowing us to be at your grocery stores today and to work with people 
in your district to really see and understand what is going on here in 
the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady from California for her 
consistent, heartfelt, energetic leadership on this issue for many 
years. And I see the gentleman from Georgia is here. I am so pleased he 
brought down his stash for the week. I had to ask him, Did you really 
get those bananas? He budgeted so well that he was able to stay within 
the $31.50 for the week.
  Now we've done this before, and I can tell you, it's not pleasant if 
you're really adhering to this budget. But we had an effect before. 
When Members joined together and took the challenge, we were able not 
only to keep the cuts from occurring, but to raise the level for those 
on food stamps.
  I was interested to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts talk about 
the low error rate, something like 3 percent. I just sat through a 
committee hearing this morning, and the discussion was about how much 
waste and fraud reported in a 2011 report about the wars in Afghanistan 
and Iraq. They reported that about 30 percent was attributed to waste 
and fraud. Here we have poor people in a program with the lowest error 
rate I've seen in a long time.
  I want to thank all of the Members who visited at what I call our 
neighborhood Capitol Hill Safeway at 14th and D Streets, Southeast, 
where we had the help of employees who helped guide us toward the least 
expensive food.
  What we're talking about here is the House outdoing the Senate. The 
Senate bill already cuts $4 billion. The House wants to up that five 
times. How much damage can we do and sit up straight and feel that we 
are worthy to be in the Congress of the United States?
  We succeeded because of the stimulus in raising the per meal amount 
from $1.40 a day--isn't that an amazing number--to $4.50 a day. When I 
was going down the aisle, one of the clerks said to me, Don't you want 
to get some water? I said, God, go to the spigot, please. I hope people 
are not buying water on the food stamp challenge because you'll have to 
eat it. Bottled water is very expensive--and unnecessary.
  We believe at least 20 million children will be affected, and 10 
million of them are labeled in deep poverty. These people are going to 
be off the rolls altogether. The reason they are on food stamps at all 
is because in our wisdom, food stamps, SNAP, has become an entitlement. 
There are some on the other side who want to take that away from them. 
I don't know where poor people would be. TANF, for example, its rolls 
have not increased. So what people have at least been able to do is 
eat.
  And let me tell you about eating. The calculation is that the monthly 
amount of food stamps will last you about 2\1/2\ weeks. If you're 
eating anywhere near what you should be on $4.50 a day, it's going to 
last you, according to all the statistics, 2\1/2\ weeks. What do you 
think people do the rest of the month on a month's worth of food stamps 
that lasts 2\1/2\ weeks? They go to the churches or the food pantries. 
They get the rest of what they need from the pantries, which is why the 
charities' cupboards are bare. You go there, and even the food 
charities are begging for food because so many people are coming to the 
pantries because food stamps cannot sustain a family. These are the 
poorest people. So all we're trying to do is just try to raise the 
consciousness really right here in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1940

  If we got even where the Senate was, that would mean hundreds of 
thousands of people losing foods stamps that have no other sustenance.
  What more can we do to people on food stamps?
  It seems to me we have hit bottom, with a provision in the Senate 
bill that seeks to ban certain ex-convicts from receiving food stamps 
for life.
  Now, wait a minute. I understand--they list certain kinds of violent 
crimes, and it's very easy to get everybody worked up about giving them 
any food. I mean, if this is what you want to do to them, why don't you 
just give them a life sentence and leave them in jail where they'll be 
fed three meals a day.
  But this provision means that if you committed one of these crimes, 
and they do mean only murders, rapists and pedophiles, so these are not 
people for whom anybody will speak up. If you've committed one of those 
crimes, even if it was a single crime, even if it was decades ago, even 
if you've been doing well--but, of course, if you committed one of 
those crimes you're not doing well, perhaps, so you may need food 
stamps. Not only would you not be permitted food stamps, but the family 
allotment would be decreased by your portion.
  What are we trying to do?
  By the way, don't they say they have a lot of Christians on the other 
side of

[[Page 8789]]

the aisle, Christian conservatives? Where are they? Where are they?
  Aren't these the people that Jesus would have reached out to and 
said, let me feed you because nobody else will?
  I just don't think that when you hit people when they're down as low 
as they can get, you ought to be proud of yourselves as a Congress.
  We even find, among low-income workers, if I could make just one 
point, most of them try to keep from getting on food stamps. And you 
have some States going out and saying, Instead of going hungry, these 
are low-income people who work on the pantries--I think you're entitled 
to SNAP.
  We had people in the streets here in the District of Columbia, just 
last month, who work in these iconic buildings, Federal buildings, for 
retail, and some of these are great big retailers, like fast food who 
pay them the minimum wage with no benefits. Guess who pays?
  Those who, in fact, have some knowledge, supplement their low incomes 
with food stamps. And guess where they get their health care? You and 
me, the taxpayers.
  Why are we allowing people to pay people so little that they depend 
upon the taxpayers to make up the rest?
  So my good friend from California, I say to you, thank you for taking 
your usual leadership here and again, particularly your leadership on 
the SNAP challenge.
  Don't feel sorry for us. We're going to have plenty to eat before and 
after. It doesn't begin, I think, until the 13th, for a week. We ask 
only that you think deeply about those who we will represent on this 
SNAP challenge.
  I yield, and thank the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentlelady from the District 
of Columbia, first of all, for working day and night on behalf of the 
residents of the District of Columbia.
  Secondly, for really laying out additional impacts and how this $20 
billion cut and what the bill will actually do in a very negative way. 
I mean, the whole, all of the issues that you raised, many people don't 
even know are in the bills. And so that's why we try to beat the drum a 
little bit down here on the floor, and you certainly have awakened 
America in terms of what some of the really critical issues are in this 
bill. So thank you again for your leadership and your friendship.
  How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady has 3 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me just conclude, before I yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Now, I am a former food stamp recipient myself. Of course, I'm not 
proud of that, but I am. I didn't talk about it for a long time because 
of the stigma associated with being on public assistance and on food 
stamps. But I decided a couple of years ago, when we started to see 
these tremendous cuts and assaults on these safety net programs, to 
really talk about my personal experience.
  And I was going to college, raising two little boys who are 
phenomenal young men now raising their own families. But it was very 
difficult, very difficult. I would not be here if it were not for the 
lifeline that the American people extended to me when I was a single 
mother struggling to care for my kids.
  No one wants to be on food stamps. I did not want to be on food 
stamps. Everyone wants a job. Everyone wants to take care of their kids 
and their family, but there are bumps in the road sometimes, and the 
economy hasn't turned around for a lot of people. And so that bridge 
over troubled waters, that needs to be there. You know, that needs to 
be there.
  And so I hope that Democrats and Republicans reject these cuts. We 
need to stop sequestration. We need to start creating jobs and build 
these ladders of opportunity for people.
  And I hope, and many of us hope, that the President will veto this 
bill if it gets off this floor with this $20 billion cut because, first 
of all, it's morally wrong, it's fiscally irresponsible, it will hurt 
our economy, and we need to lift people, build these ladders of 
opportunity and lift the economy for all.
  Let me now yield to the gentleman from Georgia for a concluding 
statement.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Barbara Lee. Thank you, Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, for what you bring to the table to this Congress. And on 
behalf of your constituents, one of whom is me, during the week, as I'm 
a D.C. resident. I mean, I'm a D.C. native; I had to move to Georgia 
before I could come to Congress.
  But anyway, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Safe Climate Caucus, and as 
a member of the Armed Services Committee, I'd like to take a moment to 
discuss two major implications of climate change for the Department of 
Defense.
  First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles and 
missions that the Department undertakes. It may have significant 
geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to greater 
competition for more limited and critical life-sustaining resources 
like food and water.
  While the effects of climate change alone do not cause conflict, they 
may act as accelerants of instability or conflict in parts of the 
world.
  Second, the Department will need to adjust to the impacts of climate 
change on its facilities and infrastructure.
  With that, after pointing out that we're spending $3 billion on an 
east coast missile defense system which is totally unnecessary, I will 
yield back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from California 
has expired.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SNAP works.

                          ____________________