Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2014, and Providing for Consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 2642, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say that it is outrageous, absolutely outrageous, that the Republican leadership has combined a major piece of antiabortion legislation with the farm bill conference report into one single rule, restricting our ability to debate both of these important issues.

There is an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP in this conference report, a cut that will only affect poor families, primarily the elderly and the disabled. Besides being cruel and heartless, this cut is also an unfunded mandate. If States, cities, or towns want to prevent hunger from getting worse, they will have to spend more money out of their own budgets.

Now, I know my Republican friends are in a big hurry to go off to their issues retreat at some luxurious resort, but maybe we could have found another hour somewhere.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I was honored to serve on the conference committee for the farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson and all of my colleagues for their hard work.

I want a farm bill. I want to support the farm bill conference. But from the beginning of this process, I made my position very clear that I will not vote for a farm bill that makes hunger worse in America. And this farm bill fails that basic test. If this bill passes, hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans will have less to eat, period.

Now, some people will say, well, an $8 billion cut in SNAP is better than what the House Republicans wanted to do. That is a strange argument, Madam Speaker. It is like saying thank goodness the burglar only took the silver, because he could have taken the jewelry, too.

The fact of the matter is that any cut to SNAP will be piled on top of the cut that already went into effect last fall. And any cut to SNAP will result in more Americans going hungry. And any cut in SNAP will increase the financial burdens on State and local governments.

There are those, Madam Speaker, who claim that the Heat and Eat program is some sort of a loophole. It isn't. It is a policy decision. It is a way for States to help some of our neighbors who are struggling through very difficult times. But even if this is a loophole, I ask my friends, of all the loopholes in Federal law, of all of the special interest giveaways, this is the one you are going to target? This is the one that is in your crosshairs, a program that helps poor people get enough food to eat? My goodness.

There are those who say that States and local governments or food banks or food pantries should pick up the slack. Have any of those people actually ever been to a food bank? Have they ever talked to a director of a food pantry? Because they are already at capacity, Madam Speaker. They can't meet the needs of the clients that they already have.

My Republican friends have made their priorities very clear. They want to dismantle the social safety net. They want to get the Federal Government out of the business of helping people get enough to eat.

But I also want to say that I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, in the people in my own party, here in the Congress and in the White House, who are going along with this.

Tonight, the President of the United States will stand in this Chamber and deliver the State of the Union; and when he talks about income inequality and helping people get into the middle class, all of us Democrats--and I hope some Republicans--will stand up and cheer. But before that happens, we have an opportunity to put our votes where our cheers are; we have a chance to match our actions with our rhetoric. And the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

So I say to my fellow Democrats, if cutting SNAP or other programs that help poor people is the price of admission to get anything done, any piece of major legislation passed, then we have strayed very, very far from our principles. Madam Speaker, again, I want to remind my colleagues that this is an unfunded mandate because there will be an increased burden on States, cities and towns to deal with this issue of hunger.

By the way, Madam Speaker, when people are hungry, when kids are hungry, they don't learn in school. When people are hungry, they end up going to the emergency room more often. When children are hungry, when they get a common cold, they end up staying in the hospital for a period of time. That all costs us a great deal in terms of not only Federal money but State and local money. So, in my opinion, this is an unfunded mandate, and this is a burden on the States.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5 1/2 minutes remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the conference report on the farm bill was made public at around 7:30 last night. With nearly 1,000 pages dumped on us at the last minute, we know that no one has had a chance to read the entire thing. I'm a conferee, and even I had an extra few hours to try to digest this monstrosity of a bill, but who knows what is in this bill? That is why I'm raising this earmarks point of order.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is most troubling to me and a number of my colleagues, again, is this attack on poor people and is this attack on SNAP, a program that does nothing more than provide food to people.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a letter that was addressed to Congress from the mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, the District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Tucson urging us in both the House and the Senate to reject these SNAP cuts. These mayors have made it very clear that it would have an adverse impact on the people that they represent. They have stressed in this letter the importance of SNAP to help people to be able to put food on the table for their children.

I also would like to reference a statement from the Food Research and Action Center, otherwise known as FRAC. They are urging us to vote against this conference committee report if these SNAP cuts remain in the bill. They have said that SNAP is essential to the nutrition, the health and the well-being of 47 million Americans each month, but every participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last November 1.

As the gentlelady from Connecticut made mention of, on November 1, an $11 billion cut in SNAP went into effect. All 47 million beneficiaries received a cut. Food prices didn't go down, but their benefit went down, and now we are going to pile on. There are some who say, well, it doesn't affect all 47 million. It is only going to be about 1 million or so people that will be adversely impacted, but those people that will be adversely impacted stand a great deal to lose. The November 1 cut for the average family of three resulted in a $31 a month benefit cut. You add this on top of it, and it is another $80 to $90. So that family of three will receive about $120 to $130 less per month.

What are they going to do? Even before these cuts went into effect, they were going to food banks, they were going to charities looking for help because their benefit was so meager to begin with. What are they supposed to do? I think in this House of Representatives, I don't care what your political party or ideology is, it should never, ever, ever be acceptable that anybody in this country--the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world--should go hungry.

The fact that we are moving forward with the farm bill--a deal that contains this $8.6 billion in cuts--I think is outrageous. I'm all for a deal. I want a farm bill. I'm willing to swallow a lot of things in this bill that I don't like, but the price of doing that should not be to increase hunger and poverty in this country, and that is what this bill does.

We talk about deals. Behind these deals are real people. They are our neighbors. They are in every community. There is not a congressional district in our country that is hunger free. These people are everywhere. We have an obligation to not turn our backs on them. SNAP is one of the most efficiently run Federal programs with one of the lowest error rates.

This is important. SNAP in and of itself is not going to solve the problem of hunger or poverty. The bottom line is by cutting it the way we are doing, we are making things worse for people. I stood on the floor today, and I read the descriptions of individuals in Massachusetts who, if this farm bill passes, will see a significant cut in their benefit, and their question to me is, what do I do? Where do I go? Tell me how to put food on the table for my kids. Tell me how I'm going to survive.

We should not be making the lives of people who are suffering more miserable. That is not our job.

I will also insert for the Record the entire Food Research and Action Center statement.

Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts alone there will be 125,000 SNAP households that could suffer up to a $70 to $80 a month cut in SNAP benefit if this farm bill goes through as it is. There is no reason in the world that we should be cutting this program. This is not an ATM machine to pay for big farm subsidies. This is not an ATM machine to make up for the fraud, the waste and the abuse in the crop insurance program.

Again, I will repeat to my colleagues, tonight we are going to hear the President talk about income inequality, and my criticism here, it is a bipartisan criticism. I'm critical of the Republicans for the cruel cuts that were proposed in the original farm bill--up to $40 billion--and I'm frustrated that there are people in my own party, including in this White House, who don't believe this is worth a fight. Well, this is worth a fight. If this is not worth a fight, I don't know what the hell we are here for. If making sure people in this country don't go hungry is not a priority, then I don't know what we are doing here.

We can explain this away, we can rationalize it and justify it. I have heard all the talking points. My favorite is that nobody will actually lose their benefit.

What that neglects to tell you is that your benefit will be cut down to almost nothing. Yes, they will still get a little benefit, but it might be $15 a month instead of $115 a month. I mean, is that the best we can do, on both sides of the aisle? This never used to be a partisan issue. This never used to be a polarizing issue, and now all of a sudden it has become one. Again, I plea with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together and get a farm bill done, but not at this price.

And I urge the White House to stand up and fight alongside of us on this. They should be taking a greater leadership role on this. It is not enough to just talk about income inequality; you have to fight for it, too.

Mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Tucson,

January 27, 2014.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Colin Peterson,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Cochran, Chairman Lucas, and Ranking Member Peterson: As mayors of major cities across the United States, we write to express our serious concerns about provisions under discussion in the Farm Bill reauthorization conference that could make it much more difficult for millions of Americans to put food on their tables. These provisions include billions of dollars in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We urge you to work to remove these cuts to a program that provides essential food support to low-income families and individuals across the country.

SNAP provides food support for approximately 47 million Americans, more than half of whom are children and seniors. As mayors, every day we see the importance of SNAP benefits and how they have helped millions of Americans to feed their families during an extended period of economic uncertainty and high unemployment. Although the economy is showing signs of recovery, unemployment rates are still above pre-recession levels and we are still faced with rates above the national average in many cities across the country.

In addition, since every dollar in SNAP benefits generates up to $1.80 in local economic activity, cuts will also have a negative impact on our urban economies.

At this critical juncture in our recovery, we urge you eliminate changes to the SNAP program that will reduce a support as basic as food to so many struggling Americans and could undermine our local economies.

Sincerely,
Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City; Karen Freeman-Wilson, Mayor, City of Gary; Todd Gloria, Interim Mayor, City of San Diego; Melvin L. ``Kip'' Holden, Mayor, City of Baton Rouge; Edwin M. Lee, Mayor, City of San Francisco; Bill de Blasio, Mayor, City of New York; Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles; Vincent Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia; Kevin Johnson, Mayor, City of Sacramento; Nancy McFarlane, Mayor, City of Raleigh; Ed Murray, Mayor, City of Seattle; Mike Rawlings, Mayor, City of Dallas; Pedro E. Segarra, Mayor, City of Hartford; Angel Taveras, Mayor, City of Providence; A C Wharton, Jr., Mayor, City of Memphis; Svante L. Myrick, Mayor, City of Ithaca; Jonathan Rothschild, Mayor, City of Tucson; Paul R. Soglin, Mayor, City of Madison; Martin J. Walsh, Mayor, City of Boston.

--

From: On Behalf of Food Research and Action Center
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014
To: Ellen Teller
Subject: FRAC Statement on the Farm Bill
[From FRAC, Food Research and Action Center, Jan. 28, 2014]
SNAP Cuts in Farm Bill Will Lead to Less Food for Vulnerable People

WASHINGTON, DC.--The Farm Bill moving from conference committee to the floor of the House and Senate will cut SNAP benefits to an estimated 850,000 households by an average of $90/month. The Food Research and Action Center is encouraging members to vote ``No'' on the bill because of the pain this provision will cause for so many of the most vulnerable members of our society, making monthly food allotments fall even further short of what is needed.

SNAP is essential to the nutrition, health and well-being of 47 million Americans each month. But every participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last November 1st. Demand at emergency food providers around the country has skyrocketed. Now the Farm Bill, if passed, will considerably worsen the already bad situation for nearly a million households.

The SNAP cuts in the conference bill amount to $8.6 billion over 10 years. The bill has modest boosts in nutrition supports in respects (e.g. for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), for ``double bucks'' farmers' market programs, for improved SNAP education and training programs, for Healthy Food Financing). These are small positive steps but are far from commensurate to the SNAP damage in the bill.

We appreciate that key conferees and other Senators and House members spoke and acted to reject the far larger harmful cuts proposed by the House. But FRAC believes the $8.6 billion SNAP cut is deeply harmful.

This cut has been opposed by major newspapers, anti-poverty and anti-hunger groups and food banks across the county. It is inconsistent with polls showing voters--across party, age and other demographics--reject food stamp cuts. It is inconsistent with the President's proposals to improve, not harm, SNAP benefits. In a bitter irony, the bill goes to the floor almost exactly a year after an expert Institute of Medicine committee found that SNAP benefits are already inadequate for most families to purchase an adequate, healthy diet; and it comes in the same month that researchers issued a new study showing that low-income people have increased hypoglycemia-related hospital admissions late in the month because they run out of food. The SNAP cuts will be a blow to health and nutrition, and to the government's long-term fiscal well-being as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source