[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2538-2541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HUNGER IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Abraham). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight our important 
Federal nutrition programs, and I rise today to remind my colleagues 
that we have a hunger problem in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a single congressional district in this 
country that is hunger free. Every community--whether urban, suburban, 
or rural--faces hunger. One in seven Americans experience hunger, 
including 16 million children. We are the richest, most powerful 
country in the history of the world. It is shameful that even one child 
goes to bed hungry.
  In every community across the country, there are dedicated, 
passionate local antihunger organizations that do incredible work to 
provide food assistance and support those struggling with hunger, from 
food banks to food pantries, to faith-based organizations, to community 
centers, to hospitals, and on and on and on. Charities do important, 
wonderful work, but they cannot do it alone. The demand is simply too 
high. Charities need a strong partner in the Federal Government if we 
are ever going to end hunger.
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which used to 
be known as food stamps, is our Nation's premier antihunger program. It 
is effective and it is efficient, with an error rate of less than 4 
percent, which includes both overpayments and underpayments.
  By the way, underpayments are when a recipient receives less than 
they are eligible for, and that happens often.
  Find me a Pentagon spending program with such a low error rate. The 
fact of the matter is SNAP is one of the most successful--if not the 
most successful--Federal programs that we have.
  The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children, or WIC, provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy 
eating, and breastfeeding support to more than 8 million low-income 
women and children at nutritional risk. WIC gives infants and young 
children the healthy, nutritious start that they need for critical 
early development and lifelong learning. It is an incredibly vital 
program.
  The National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and the Summer Food 
Service Program provide nutritious foods for millions of children and 
teens in educational and community settings. These important programs 
ensure that our young people are ready to learn and that they can 
succeed.
  The Meals on Wheels program provides home-delivered meals to millions 
of homebound seniors. Not only does Meals on Wheels improve senior 
nutrition, it also enables seniors to live independently longer while 
receiving daily check-in visits from volunteers.
  These are just a few of the vital Federal antihunger programs that 
are the backbone of our fight to end hunger once and for all in this 
country. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I am coming to this 
floor today is I am deeply worried that they are coming under attack by 
the Republican majority in this House.
  Unfortunately, it is fashionable right now to demonize Americans 
living in poverty and to belittle their struggles. We hear that all too 
often on this House floor. We hear that all too often in this 
Presidential campaign that is going on. The fact of the matter is it is 
hard work to be poor in America. It is not easy. Yet millions of 
families are struggling, trying to raise their kids and living on a 
paycheck that doesn't provide enough to put food on the table.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I spent a night at a homeless 
shelter in Worcester, Massachusetts, called the Interfaith Hospitality 
Network. It is a family homeless shelter. As you know, there are not 
enough shelters that accommodate entire families. Usually families get 
split up. But what I wasn't prepared for when I spent the night at this 
shelter was that every one of these families had at least one adult 
that was working. They were working in a job. They all had unique 
situations that put them in a very difficult situation. But the fact of 
the matter is they were working. They were earning just enough that a 
lot of their benefits were reduced, but they were not earning enough to 
be able to put a down payment on an apartment and afford rent.

[[Page 2539]]

  These are parents that love their kids every bit as much as I love my 
kids and my colleagues love their kids. They want to be good parents, 
but they are struggling. They are looking for a hand up, not a handout. 
They are looking for a little bit of assistance so they can get back on 
their feet.
  The bottom line is that their plight is not unique. I will tell my 
colleagues that their plight does not fall into a neat stereotype. Too 
often when people here in this Chamber talk about the homeless or the 
hungry, they talk about people who are addicted to drugs, or they talk 
about people who don't work or who don't want to work. That is not the 
reality. That is not the face of poverty in this country. It is much 
more complicated than that. And yet, to justify deep cuts in programs 
to actually help people get back on their feet, we hear the false 
narrative repeated over and over and over again, the demonization of 
these people who are struggling in poverty.
  The rhetoric that we hear on the floor all too often is hurtful, and 
it is sometimes hateful. It is seeping into the discourse in this 
Congress, and it is seeping into some of the decisionmaking that is 
going on by the current leadership in this Congress.
  It seems like just now Republican leaders are finally coming around 
to the idea that they need to talk about poverty. We heard the Speaker 
say that he wants a national conversation about poverty. But I have got 
to tell you I am a little worried, because while we need this 
conversation and while we need to come up with solutions, I have this 
sinking feeling that something else is going on, that this so-called 
conversation on poverty is really kind of a masquerade for cutting 
deeply into programs that will help put food and nutrition on people's 
tables and provide people the shelter that they need when they are 
struggling. I worry that this congressional task force that the Speaker 
announced, when I look at it, is made up of Members, all of whom have 
supported block-granting SNAP.
  What block-granting means is that States can do almost whatever the 
heck they want to do with the SNAP benefit. They don't necessarily have 
to use it to provide people food. They can use it for other things; 
and, therefore, it puts that benefit at risk, especially during 
difficult economic times.
  But every one of the people who is on this task force has voted for 
Republican budgets that support block-granting. Every one of the people 
on this so-called poverty task force voted to cut SNAP by $40 billion 
during the last farm bill--$40 billion.
  Now, they would say: Oh, we are just trying to trim the program and 
make it more efficient. I would just say to my colleagues that the 
average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal per day--$1.40.
  I bet most of my colleagues who are calling for deep cuts in SNAP 
have no idea what the benefit is. They have no idea how inadequate the 
benefit is. In fact, it is so inadequate that most families who are on 
SNAP end up having to rely on food banks, having to rely on churches, 
synagogues, and mosques at the end of the month to be able to put food 
on their table. It is $1.40 per person per meal per day. That is the 
average benefit. Yet my colleagues, those who are on this so-called 
poverty task force, almost unanimously, on the other side of the aisle, 
voted to cut the program by $40 billion.
  I would ask my colleagues, what are you thinking? What are you 
thinking? We have an obligation to be there for the most vulnerable in 
this country. That is what government is supposed to be for. Donald 
Trump doesn't need government. He is a zillionaire. He doesn't have to 
worry about where his next meal is going to come from. Yet there are 
millions of people, millions of families in this country who do. They 
are looking for a little compassion. They are not looking for a 
handout. They are looking for a hand up so they can get their lives in 
order and they can progress.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do better.
  I will just say one other thing, and then I am going to yield to my 
colleague from Virginia.
  There is another kind of nasty discussion going on by my Republican 
colleagues. They have a new proposal to drug-test SNAP recipients. The 
fact of the matter is this proposal has no basis in reality. It is 
nothing more than a mean-spirited attack on poor people to fire up 
their rightwing base. It is insulting. It is insulting.
  We have seen drug test laws in Florida and Georgia struck down as 
unconstitutional and end up wasting taxpayer dollars to identify very 
few drug users. In fact, those receiving public assistance test 
positive for illicit drugs at a lower rate than the general 
population--at a lower rate than the general population. It doesn't fit 
into the rightwing narrative of who comprises those who live in poverty 
in America, but it is the fact. It is the fact.
  Why aren't Republicans in this bill calling for drug testing for 
wealthy CEOs and oil company executives who receive taxpayer subsidies? 
Why aren't they calling for Members of Congress to undergo drug tests? 
After all, our salaries are paid by the taxpayers in this country. Why 
don't you call for all Members of Congress to undergo drug tests? Maybe 
that might explain why we do some of the things we do here in this 
Congress.
  But, instead, again, they only pick on one sector of the population--
poor people. They are the ones who are being blamed for the economy. 
They are the ones who are being demonized, and they are the ones who 
are being belittled. It is beneath this Chamber and this House to 
engage in that kind of discussion.
  We need to be making real, meaningful progress to end hunger and 
poverty in this country. First and foremost, we need to protect and 
strengthen our
important Federal nutrition and antihunger programs. We need bold 
action that will help people rather than make hunger and poverty worse. 
That is why I continue to call for a White House conference on food, 
nutrition, and hunger to develop a holistic plan to end hunger in 
America, because I think we can do better. I think we need to get all 
of our Federal agencies and our State agencies to work better together 
and to connect the dots so that we can deal with this so-called cliff 
that so many people struggling to get out of poverty hit when they 
start to make a little bit of money.

                              {time}  1615

  We need to figure out a holistic plan with benchmarks that will 
actually end hunger. We have a lot of programs, quite frankly, that 
deal with different aspects of hunger, but I am not sure we have a plan 
that will actually end it.
  Here is the deal. Hunger is a political condition. It is solvable. We 
have everything to solve it except the political will. One of the 
things we should be doing is developing that political will and not 
going down the road of demonizing some of the most vulnerable people in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts not only for yielding, but also for his 
years of work fighting hunger. He is one of the strongest advocates we 
have in Congress in fighting the scourge of hunger. I want to thank him 
for all of those years of good work.
  It is my privilege to be the ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. In that perspective, we played an integral 
role in the reduction of food insecurity and lowering the prevalence of 
debilitating health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, and 
others.
  Our committee is tasked with making sure all children have an equal 
shot at success. One important way is to ensure that by providing 
healthy, nutritious meals.
  There is a Federal role in ensuring that every child has access to a 
quality education, regardless of where they live or their family's 
income, and nutrition is a part of making sure they can get that 
education.
  More than 60 years ago, when Congress enacted the first Federal child 
nutrition program--the National School Lunch Program--Congress 
acknowledged that feeding hungry children was not only a moral 
imperative,

[[Page 2540]]

but also an imperative for the health and security of our Nation.
  The National School Lunch Program was actually a response from the 
military community who were complaining that so many of our young 
military age youth were unprepared for military service because they 
were malnourished.
  Regrettably today, we are faced with the same crisis that impacts our 
Nation's national security. Too many of our children are now obese, too 
obese to enlist in our Nation's military. One-third of the children in 
this country are overweight, and childhood obesity has tripled in the 
last 30 years.
  While all segments of the population are affected, low-income 
families are especially vulnerable to obesity and other chronic 
diseases because they end up eating unhealthy food.
  Unfortunately, the poorest among us have the least access to healthy 
foods, many times without a full-service grocery store or farmer's 
market in their community.
  We still have a long way to go, but there have been positive signs of 
progress through the implementation of our child nutrition programs.
  Thanks to the introduction of stronger standards brought about by the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, enacted just a few years ago, students 
across the country are experiencing healthy school environments with 
more nutritious meal options.
  One area in dire need of increased access to child nutrition programs 
and nutritious meals they provide is Flint, Michigan. As everybody 
knows, the residents of Flint are struggling with the consequences of 
exposure to high levels of lead as a result of the city's contaminated 
municipal water supply.
  Lead exposure is especially damaging to infants, toddlers, and 
expectant mothers and can cause behavioral and cognitive problems that 
last a lifetime.
  Although there is no cure for lead poisoning, research shows that a 
healthy diet, including zinc, vitamin C, iron, and calcium, can 
mitigate some of the harmful effects.
  Federal supplemental funding for nutrition programs, especially the 
WIC program, would allow access to healthier diets.
  Funding for a nutrient-rich third meal, an extension of WIC benefits, 
to 10 years of age for all eligible children would go a long way to 
help the residents of Flint, Michigan, deal with lead poisoning.
  Mr. Speaker, our committee is now working on a child nutrition 
reauthorization bill. With this reauthorization, we have a great 
opportunity to continue to improve the way that children eat, to expand 
access to nutritious meals, and to end the crisis of childhood hunger 
in this country.
  These efforts do not end with the school year or even the school day. 
Whether in schools, childcare settings, or summer programs, our goal 
should be to provide high-quality and nutritious food to all of 
America's children.
  We have a choice to make. We can put money into these important 
programs now and support healthy eating in our schools and other 
settings or we can cut corners and spend more money down the road on 
chronic diseases and other social services, putting the well-being of 
our children and our Nation's security at risk. Make no mistake. Either 
way, we will spend the money.
  A few years ago medical expenditures to treat obesity in the United 
States were estimated to be $147 billion, 16.5 percent of all U.S. 
medical expenditures.
  Investing in the front end, by maintaining strong nutrition standards 
and increasing access to healthy meals, is obviously a better choice 
for our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members of Congress to continue to 
invest in our Nation's future by moving forward, not backward, on 
issues of food insecurity and child nutrition.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts again for his 
longtime advocacy, for his efforts to reduce hunger and to provide 
better nutrition for our Nation's children.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his 
leadership, and I thank him for pointing out the links between good 
nutrition and good health.
  We actually will save money in the long run if we provide our people, 
our young people in particular, nutritious food. We can prevent 
diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.
  If people aren't moved by the human aspect of feeding the hungry and 
all they care about is the bottom line, they ought to join with us to 
make sure that these nutrition programs are adequately funded.
  In addition, you can't learn in school if you are hungry. A breakfast 
and a lunch to a young child who is hungry is every bit as essential to 
that child's ability to learn as is a textbook.
  We need to understand that. We need to stop nickel-and-diming these 
nutrition programs and understand that every dollar we invest, every 
penny we invest, pays us back in ways that can't even be quantified, 
quite frankly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), a leader on this issue, a woman who is on the Appropriations 
Committee, who, again, has been a champion for many, many years on this 
issue of combating hunger in America.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman, and I thank my colleagues. I am 
so proud to join with you tonight
  And to Congressman McGovern, your unrelenting efforts to address the 
issue of ending hunger and doing it now, you have been singularly an 
individual who has never missed a beat in trying to address this issue 
and bring it to the floor and the public.
  And to my colleague from Virginia, who has taken his platform of the 
Education and the Workforce Committee and have had a focus on how, in 
fact, we improve the opportunities for our children and whether it is 
their health or their education, he is at the forefront.
  I see we have been joined by Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, 
someone who can talk about her own deep personal experiences with 
hunger and with the food stamp program and what it means to be able to 
work your way out of these efforts. She has done it to a fare-thee-
well.
  Mr. Speaker, over 50 million people--nearly one in four--live in 
hunger in the United States. Don't ever let anybody use the terminology 
``food security.'' It is plain and simple hunger.
  Kids are hungry in the United States of America. Hunger exists in 
virtually every community in this country. Social safety net programs 
are vital tools for reducing the prevalence of poverty and hunger.
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP--food stamps, 
yes--is one of the most powerful programs that we have for ending 
childhood hunger in the United States. It helps millions of hardworking 
American families every year.
  SNAP works for those who need it most. It has been incredibly 
successful in alleviating hunger, lifting people out of poverty, and 
supporting our economy.
  SNAP continues to do more than any other government assistance 
program to lift Americans out of poverty. The numbers speak for 
themselves.
  In 2014 alone, the program lifted 4.7 million people out of poverty, 
including 2.1 million children. SNAP also lifted more than 1.3 million 
children out of deep poverty. What is deep poverty? It is 50 percent of 
what the poverty line is in this Nation.
  The program impacts children well beyond their childhood years. 
Research shows that, among children who grow up in disadvantaged 
households with access to SNAP, there is an 18 percentage point 
increase in the likelihood of completing high school.
  There has also been evidence of significant improvements in overall 
health and economic self-sufficiency among women.
  SNAP is an extremely efficient program. More than half of all of the 
benefits go to households in deepest poverty, and over 70 percent of 
all benefits go to households with children.
  Despite what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would say about fraud, waste, and abuse, the food stamp program has the 
lowest error rate of any Federal Government program, the lowest error 
rate.

[[Page 2541]]

  Based on this anecdote that it is rife with fraud, waste, and abuse, 
they would deny children food. The data speaks loud and clear about the 
lowest error rate of any Federal program.
  Of course, it is not just children. SNAP helps millions of seniors, 
people with disabilities, veterans, low-wage workers, and others.
  However, Speaker Ryan and other Republican House Members say that we 
spend trillions of dollars on these programs and, yet, the poverty rate 
does not change. This is simply not true.
  I talked about the statistics earlier on in my comments. Without 
these critical safety net programs, more Americans would go hungry. As 
we have said, SNAP kept about 4.8 million people out of poverty, 
including 2.1 million children.
  The data belies what their conversation is and the stories they want 
to tell and, quite frankly, fabricate around the food stamp program.
  The Republican proposals for SNAP include a push to enact block 
grants, which my colleague, Mr. McGovern, mentioned before, an idea 
that Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Biden 
called ``one of the most destructive ideas in poverty policy.''
  Let me mention some of the statistics that have been compiled by 
Children's Health Watch in Boston, Massachusetts.
  If the SNAP benefits were reduced either through block granting or 
some other mechanism to reduce food stamp benefits so as to create 
instability in these households, this is what they say would be likely 
to occur: 23 percent would be more likely to have households that are 
food insecure; 70 percent more likely children would be food insecure; 
36 percent more likely to be in poor health if this happens; 70 percent 
more likely to be at risk for developmental delays--this is about our 
kids, about our children--12 percent more likely to be hospitalized; 
children in kindergarten through third grade would be more likely to 
have measurably lower reading and math test scores; and reduced SNAP 
benefits would decrease the likelihood of mothers having a baby with a 
healthy weight and of a low-birth-weight baby surviving.
  This is not Jim McGovern or Gwen Moore or Bobby Scott or Rosa DeLauro 
making up these statistics. They come from an organization which tracks 
all of these measures.

                              {time}  1630

  My colleagues, it would include drug testing policies for SNAP 
recipients and prohibitions for certain food purchases.
  What kind of priorities are these?
  We can't continue to wage a war against food stamp recipients. Nobody 
is asking for any other recipients who get Federal subsidies to be drug 
tested. Let's start with the Crop Insurance people. Let's start with 
that. Let's take all of the programs at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture where there is a subsidy and a recipient to that subsidy. 
Let's get them all drug tested.
  We are going to continue to stand up against unconscionable attacks 
on America's poor working families. I urge my colleagues to stand with 
us in ensuring that the Federal budget does not harm working families 
and children by decimating the hunger programs in this Nation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman so much for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in praising Mr. McGovern for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Of the many people who are hungry, none of them have the money to 
lobby folks--the kids, the disabled people, the seniors, the elderly--
but we have a champion in this House, Jim McGovern.
  With the few seconds remaining, I want to talk a little bit about our 
economy. We have a capitalist economy, and it is countercyclical. The 
SNAP program works to provide a safety net so that when we have a 
Hurricane Katrina or when we have a Hurricane Sandy, the food stamp 
rolls go up, and when there are jobs, the food stamp rolls go down. It 
ain't broke, you all, so let's not try to fix it.
  I am very, very disturbed that when the Budget Committee meets next 
week, it will try to make structural changes to the SNAP program, to 
throw it into a reconciliation process where only 51 Members of the 
Senate have to vote for it, out of this body, in order to change the 
structure of it so that it is not responsive to people during economic 
distress.
  I am concerned about the numbers of people who are going to ask for a 
waiver to limit the number of benefits, in a 36-month period, that 
those who are unemployed can receive. People who are unemployed don't 
have any control over our economy. When unemployment is up, the SNAP 
program, as it is currently structured, is responsive to unemployment, 
and we ought to stick to that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________