[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 121-122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WAR ON POVERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 50th anniversary of the 
war on poverty--a dedicated legislative and policy effort by President 
Lyndon Johnson to reduce and eventually eliminate poverty in America. 
Yet, despite the many successes of the war on poverty--and there have 
been many successes over the past 50 years--there are those in this 
country and in this House who would destroy the programs that help 
people in need, those who have replaced the war on poverty with a new 
war on poor people.
  Unfortunately, that is what is happening right now with the farm 
bill. I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee and as a 
member of the farm bill conference committee. I want--and America 
needs--a strong, comprehensive, and forward-thinking bill. I represent 
farmers and farms, conservationists, and agriculture research 
institutions, and like every other Member of Congress, I represent 
people who rely on the nutrition programs in the farm bill to put food 
on their tables.
  That has been my primary focus as a conferee--to support and fight 
for the hungry in America. I believe the nutrition title--where SNAP, 
formerly known as food stamps, is authorized--is the most important 
part of the farm bill. This program provides food to 47 million food-
insecure Americans--people who don't know where their next meal is 
coming from. Food insecurity, Mr. Speaker, is another way to say 
hunger. These people are hungry and they get food because they are on 
SNAP.
  We have been told that the House may vote on a farm bill conference 
report as early as next week. According to some reports, the bill would 
cut $8 billion from SNAP. Unlike the cut that took effect on November 
1, where all 47 million SNAP beneficiaries saw their benefits cut by an 
average of $30 a month for a family of three, this $8 billion cut is 
more targeted. That doesn't mean it is any less harmful.
  This cut would change the way SNAP benefits are affected when a 
beneficiary gets a LIHEAP benefit. Many have described the application 
of this SNAP/LIHEAP connection--sometimes called ``Heat and Eat''--as a 
loophole, but calling this a loophole avoids the real issue at hand.
  The truth is that changing the way that Heat and Eat works--closing 
this so-called loophole--will reduce an already meager benefit for 
millions of Americans, a benefit that didn't last a full month even 
before the November 1 across-the-board cuts took effect.

                              {time}  1015

  Even worse, closing this so-called ``loophole'' would 
disproportionately affect poor seniors and the disabled--precisely the 
kinds of Americans we should be looking out for during difficult 
economic times. There has to be a better way.
  SNAP has been cut twice to pay for other programs--first, to offset 
programs that help teachers, firefighters and other social services, 
and a second time to offset improvements in the Child Nutrition Act. 
Now, these are good programs that deserve to be funded, although not at 
the expense of the hungry. I am all for compromise when all sides 
negotiate in good faith, but why does compromise in Washington always 
mean helping those who are well off at the expense of the poor?
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, this cut will reduce the SNAP benefit by about 
$90 a month for ``heat and eat'' households. Three million poor 
families would see their food assistance cut by an average of $90 a 
month. And would these billions of dollars in cuts go back to helping 
other needy people? No. In a farm bill that continues to subsidize big 
agribusiness and special interests and that further subsidizes a crop 
insurance program that is rife with fraud, waste and abuse, it is just 
one more cut to a program that helps our most vulnerable neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, the November 1 cuts were devastating for 47 million 
hungry people. Just ask any food bank director in the country. Adding 
another $8 billion cut to another 3 million families will cause even 
more damage. If my friends insist on changing the LIHEAP provision, 
then they should at least have the decency to reinvest those savings 
into SNAP.
  Both Democrats and Republicans are talking a lot these days about the 
issue of income inequality. That is a good thing. So why on Earth would 
we pass a farm bill that makes the rich get richer and the poor get 
poorer? We can and must do better.
  It is a scandal that in the richest country in the history of the 
world we have a hunger problem. Members of Congress rush to the 
microphones to promote tax cuts and ease resolutions on Wall Street. 
All the while, there are people in this country--men, women and kids--
who do not have enough to

[[Page 122]]

eat. I will oppose any farm bill that makes hunger worse in America, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  In conclusion, let me say to my colleagues: there are some things 
worth fighting for. Ending hunger--making sure our fellow citizens have 
enough to eat--is absolutely worth fighting for.

                          ____________________