[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     WE CAN WIN THE WAR ON POVERTY

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 8, 2014

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th Anniversary of 
President Lyndon Johnson's declaration of the ``unconditional war on 
poverty.'' The question we must now ask is whether we will continue to 
fight to win the war on poverty or whether we will allow those who 
would rather wage war on the poor themselves carry the day.
  No one can argue that we have won the war on poverty. We have only to 
look at the nearly 50 million Americans who are living below the 
official poverty line--including more than 16 million children. But we 
can argue--and should do so vigorously--against those who call the war 
on poverty a failure and want to raze its very foundation.
  The war on poverty was based on the idea that we should make sure 
every American has access to a good education, economic opportunity, 
sufficient food, housing and health care to climb out of poverty, reach 
their full potential, and contribute to the economic strength of our 
country.
  Consider what life would be like without Medicare and Medicaid, Head 
Start and college assistance, food stamps (now the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program), the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Jobs 
Corps and expanded unemployment insurance benefits, and Section 8 
housing. How would we protect Americans in economically trying times 
without them?
  Researchers tell us they make a difference. The EITC lifts six 
million Americans--half of them children--out of poverty, and SNAP does 
the same for almost five million people--also almost half of whom are 
children. In 2011, Medicaid kept almost 3 million Americans out of 
poverty. Unemployment insurance has kept 11 million people out of 
poverty since 2008. Without programs that help reduce poverty, almost 
twice as many Americans--nearly 30 percent--would live below the 
poverty line.
  Are these programs perfect? No. Are there ways we can improve them? 
Of course, and many of us have been working to do so--to add new tools 
to lower prescription drug costs and eliminate fraud, to improve 
education by providing universal pre-K and making college more 
affordable, and to create jobs that will help the unemployed find work.
  What we cannot do is follow the Republican Budget Proposal--which 
would give the average millionaire a $245,000 tax cut and pay for that 
by gutting SNAP funding, slashing education funding, cutting 
infrastructure investments, voucherizing Medicare, and cutting Medicaid 
by more than $800 billion over the next decade. Aside from my moral 
opposition to cutting those vital priorities, there is an economic 
reason: cutting them will hurt economic growth by preventing low-income 
Americans an opportunity to succeed and to contribute to our economic 
growth.
  Instead, we should commit to strengthening the programs that have 
contributed to a reduction in poverty. Rather than cutting off 
unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans--and costing our 
economy more than 200,000 jobs in the process--we should extend the 
program so that those struggling to find work have the support they 
deserve in a time of need. Rather than weakening our education system, 
we should invest in universal pre-K and provide affordable student 
loans so that all students have a fair shot. Rather than cutting SNAP, 
we should restore the Recovery Act's boost to the program and ensure 
that it has adequate resources to prevent hunger in this country. 
Rather than cutting Section 8 and other housing assistance programs, we 
should make it our goal to ensure that everyone has a safe place to 
live. Rather than ending the guarantee of Medicare, we should ensure 
that it is strong and that our seniors have the health care they need 
and deserve. Rather than allowing workers to be paid less--in real 
terms--than at any time since the 1960s, we should commit to raising 
the minimum wage so that employment will mean escaping poverty.
  Those investments, and others, can be made by asking the wealthiest 
Americans to contribute a little more and by closing loopholes that 
allow American corporations to avoid their fair share in taxes. Those 
policies do not represent ``class warfare,'' they represent reality: if 
we are to end poverty, we need to invest in our people. In fact, I 
believe that what truly constitutes class warfare is the gutting of 
programs and policies that prevent poverty. If we make needed 
investments in preventing and reducing poverty, we will have an even 
stronger workforce, a more sound economy, and a brighter future for 
every American.

                          ____________________