[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 688-689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE COSTLY PROBLEM OF HUNGER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we live in the richest country in the 
history of the world, and yet hunger is a problem in the United States 
of America--a very costly problem. A recent report published in the 
journal ``Health Affairs'' shows that poor people are getting sick 
because they are running out of food at the end of the month. Hunger 
increases the likelihood that people will get other ailments. 
Specifically, this analysis shows that poverty and exhausted food 
budgets may be a reason for increased health risk due to dangerously 
low blood sugar. We know that poor families prioritize which bills they 
pay and that food--grocery bills--often fall behind other 
responsibilities like rent and utilities.
  I will include for the Record an article from The New York Times 
entitled ``Study Ties Diabetic Crises to Dip in Food Budgets.''
  Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the war on 
poverty. One of the programs that is key in this war on poverty--in our 
attempts to reduce and eliminate income inequality--is the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Act, or SNAP--formerly known as food stamps. SNAP 
is a lifeline for 47 million Americans; 47 million of our fellow 
citizens rely on this program to help put food on the table for their 
families. But SNAP has become a major target in this Congress by those 
who believe it is simply a government handout.
  SNAP is many things, but it is not a poorly run government handout. 
To the contrary, it is a program that is among the most efficient and 
effective, if not the most efficient and effective, of Federal 
programs. Despite this fact and despite the fact that millions of 
Americans turn to SNAP precisely because they saw their incomes drop or 
disappear because of the recession, SNAP was cut by $11 billion on 
November 1, 2013. And on top of that, we are told that the farm bill 
that is still in negotiation would cut another $8.5 billion to $9 
billion above that November 1 cut.
  These cuts have real impacts. Some families who already saw a cut of 
$30 a month on November 1 will see their SNAP benefit cut by another 
$90 a month if the farm bill passes with these cuts. That is a cut of 
$120 a month for a family of three in a State like California or 
Massachusetts or New York, for example.
  According to a study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 
and the Pew Charitable Trust, a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps 
could trigger an increase in $15 billion in medical costs for diabetes 
over the next decade. The insistence of many in this Congress--
Republicans, and I'm sad to say some Democrats--that SNAP be cut, will 
have serious, long-term impacts on the health of poor people who are 
just trying to get by, and any cuts will cost us more. They will save 
us nothing.
  Being poor is hard. It is expensive. We shouldn't be making the lives 
of those who struggle with poverty even harder by cutting safety net 
programs like SNAP. We should not be making poor people sicker because 
we want to cut Federal spending on SNAP while increasing spending for 
the Defense Department or giving corporate welfare in the form of crop 
insurance or other farm subsidies. Many of these excesses are contained 
in the farm bill that we may see in the next couple of weeks.
  I oppose the SNAP cuts included in the farm bill. They are misguided, 
they are hurtful, and they are wrong. They will do real damage to real 
people who just want to earn a paycheck and provide for their families. 
I urge my colleagues to stand with me and oppose this farm bill if, in 
fact, it contains these $8 billion to $9 billion in cuts in SNAP. I 
would remind my colleagues that behind all these numbers and behind all 
the statistics and behind all the rhetoric, there are real people.

                              {time}  1015

  These cuts that have already been made actually hurt people. Let's 
not pile on. Antihunger advocates have warned that further cuts to SNAP 
will increase hunger in America. Go to any food bank in America; they 
are at capacity right now. Leading economists have told us that further 
cuts to SNAP will undermine the economy. SNAP is actually a stimulus. 
People who get SNAP have to spend it on food, and it helps our economy 
grow. Doctors and medical researchers have documented time and time 
again with a gazillion studies that further cuts to SNAP will cause 
avoidable health care costs to millions of our fellow citizens.
  Sometimes I wonder when we have these debates is if anybody is paying 
attention. My question to this Congress is: Is anybody listening? Why 
would anybody cut this program more and more and more and more? Why are 
so many in this Chamber so indifferent to this problem that affects 
close to 50 million of our fellow citizens?
  I plead with my colleagues to say ``no'' to any further SNAP cuts, 
and I appeal to this administration to work with Congress to develop a 
plan so that nobody in this country goes hungry. The silence on this 
issue in this Congress and in this administration is sad, and it is a 
missed opportunity to do something meaningful and positive for millions 
of our fellow citizens. We can do more. We can do better. We can end 
hunger now, but not by coldly, callously, and arbitrarily cutting SNAP.

[[Page 689]]



                [From the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2014]

           Study Ties Diabetic Crises to Dip in Food Budgets

                         (By Sabrina Tavernise)

       Poor people with diabetes are significantly more likely to 
     go to the hospital for dangerously low blood sugar at the end 
     of the month when food budgets are tight than at the 
     beginning of the month, a new study has found.
       Researchers found no increase in such hospitalizations 
     among higher-income people for the condition known as 
     hypoglycemia, suggesting that poverty and exhausted food 
     budgets may be a reason for the increased health risk.
       Hypoglycemia occurs when people with diabetes have not had 
     enough to eat, but continue taking medications for the 
     disease. To control diabetes, patients need to keep their 
     blood sugar within a narrow band. Levels that are too low or 
     too high (known as hyperglycemia) can be dangerous.
       Researchers found a clear pattern among low-income people: 
     Hospital admissions for hypoglycemia were 27 percent higher 
     at the end of the month than at the beginning. Researchers 
     said they could not prove that the patients' economic 
     circumstances were the reason for the admission, but the two 
     things were highly correlated.
       The study, published online Monday in the journal ``Health 
     Affairs,'' comes as Congress continues to debate legislation 
     that includes the food stamp program for poor Americans. 
     House Republicans are advocating $40 billion in cuts to the 
     program, a step that Democrats oppose.
       About 25 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, 
     have diabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention. The poor are disproportionately affected. The 
     United States spends more than $100 billion a year treating 
     people with the disease, the agency estimates.
       Researchers from the University of California, San 
     Francisco, matched hospital discharge records from 2000 to 
     2008 on more than two million people in California with those 
     patients' ZIP codes. People living in the poorest ZIP codes, 
     where average annual household income was below $31,000, were 
     counted as low income.
       The researchers then examined cases of patients admitted 
     for hypoglycemia. The symptoms include dizziness, sweating or 
     nausea. In rare cases, hypoglycemia can cause death.
       For each 100,000 admissions of poor people, about 270 of 
     them were given a primary diagnosis of hypoglycemia, more 
     than the 200 per 100,000 among people of higher incomes. Dr. 
     Hilary Seligman, assistant professor of medicine at U.C.S.F., 
     and the study's lead author, said the difference was 
     statistically significant.
       Dr. Seligman said that she and her colleagues, aware of the 
     debate about food stamps, sought to document whether running 
     out of food stamps or money to buy food at the end of the 
     month damaged people's health. Previous research had already 
     established that people often give a higher priority to 
     paying monthly bills for rent or utilities, for example, than 
     to buying food, which is managed from day to day.
       ``People who work minimum wage jobs or live on benefits 
     often have this typical pay cycle pattern,'' Dr. Seligman 
     said. ``We wanted to examine whether there were adverse 
     health consequences to running out of money at the end of the 
     month.''
       Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at 
     George Washington University who was not involved in the 
     study, said the findings were persuasive.
       ``The patterns here are significant,'' she said. ``The 
     researchers obviously can't say if food deprivation was the 
     definitive triggering event, but the findings show a strong 
     association between lack of food and adverse health 
     consequences.''

                          ____________________