Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. RYAN of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, we have 50-some percent of the people in this country who can't withstand a $500 emergency. Our pension system is collapsing. Our financial aid system is collapsing. We have got to make a decision to reinvest back in this country. And the Republican leadership here is disinvesting in the United States. We are seeing it with the stock buybacks, we are seeing it with the tax cut, and now we are seeing it with the rescissions package.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition from First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Committee for Education Funding, National Housing Conference, Service Employees International Union, faith organizations, and other national organizations. First Focus Campaign for Children, Washington, DC, June 7, 2018. Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan national organization dedicated to improving the health and well-being of our nation's children, to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3, the so-called ``Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act.'' Unfortunately, the proposed rescission of $15 billion in spending authority included in H.R. 3 targets children in about half of all the cuts. Moreover, of all the thousands of programs in hundreds of departments and agencies across the federal government, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which just went through a nearly two-year reauthorization process that was finally passed more than four months past its expiration date, is targeted for more than $7 billion of the proposed cuts. Over the two-decade history of CHIP, it has--in tandem with Medicaid and private health insurance--cut the uninsured rate for children by more than two-thirds. During this recent reauthorization process, a nationwide poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 88 percent of Americans felt that Congress should make the extension of CHIP funding a top priority. The program has always had strong bipartisan support, as it did this year. CHIP is financed as a block grant, which means that its funding is arbitrarily capped and fails to adjust to changes in unforeseen or unanticipated need, such as economic recessions, epidemics, changes in funding to the program to improve access to care, or natural disasters. Consequently, in the early years of CHIP, the program faced some difficult moments whereby some states imposed waiting lists and enrollment freezes when federal funding failed to meet the needs of children. Those indefinite waiting lists and enrollment freezes were imposed without regard to disability or need, including children with cancer, cystic fibrosis, severe asthma, and other life-threatening or severe conditions. In recognition of the fact that waiting periods and enrollment freezes were threatening the lives and well-being of children, Congress revamped CHIP's financing in a number of ways, including the creation of CHIP's Child Enrollment Contingency Fund in 2009. The CHIP contingency fund is set at 20 percent of overall CHIP spending and acts as a critically important backstop that protects against unforeseen or unanticipated federal funding shortfalls that threaten the health of children. During the lengthy two-year most recent bipartisan reauthorization of CHIP that culminated in a six-year extension and a subsequent addition of four more years for a total of 10 years, there was no discussion or debate about changing the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, as it has worked to protect the health of children. And yet, the Administration is now proposing and Congress is considering H.R. 3, which would slash the CHIP contingency fund by $1.9 billion, or nearly 80 percent, and undermine its very purpose. In making this proposal that targets CHIP for the bulk of its proposed cuts, the Administration argues that the contingency fund ``will likely not be spent'' and points to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score that the cut doesn't save any money as confirmation that it probably won't be harmful to children. And yet, during the lengthy CHIP reauthorization process, the Administration never proposed slashing the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund from 20 percent of the allotments to just 3-4 percent, as the rescission would do. Even worse, the proposed rescission of the contingency fund fundamentally fails to understand the very purpose of a contingency that, by definition, is ``a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.'' Neither the Administration nor CBO can guarantee that there will not be an economic recession, a health epidemic like Zika, or a natural disaster, which are all more likely during the forthcoming summer months. In fact, CBO doesn't ``score'' such events for that very reason. As a result, the proposed rescission or raid of the CHIP contingency fund by $1.9 billion, or 80 percent, undermines the very reason for the fund, which is to protect the health coverage of children against unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or even Hawaii's currently unanticipated erupting volcano. Another critically important point to make is that the proposed rescission to the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency Fund would not save money. The contingency fund is set at 20 percent of the overall CHIP allotment each year, so any money raided from the fund this year is automatically restored in the following year. In other words, over a two-year period, this proposed rescission would not save a single penny because any money raided from the contingency fund this year would be restored in the following year. Consequently, the only effect of the proposed $1.9 billion rescission the CHIP contingency fund would be to needlessly put the health and well-being of our nation's children at risk. In other words, H.R. 3 unnecessarily gambles with the health of our children under the guise that there probably won't be unanticipated or unforeseen events that might cause a state or states to need to tap into the contingency fund. It is also important to point out that the CHIP extensions, including the CHIP contingency fund, that were passed just a few months ago were fully paid for. In fact, according to CBO, the CHIP reauthorization saved billions of dollars. Therefore, CHIP should not be the target of a rescission package, and yet, it shockingly accounts for 46 percent or almost half of all the proposed reductions in H.R. 3. For these reasons, we stand with more than 500 other national, state, and local organizations from across the country that wrote a letter to Congress in opposition to the CHIP cuts proposed in H.R. 3. As the letter reads, ``The nine million children and families who depend on CHIP have already faced months of uncertainty, when its funding expired before Congress took long-overdue action to extend CHIP funding for ten years. After breathing a short sigh of relief, however, the long-term stability and protection these families fought to ensure is once again in jeopardy. Our organizations urge you to protect children and families, and to reject any proposed cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program.'' Sincerely, Bruce Lesley, President.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to talk about spending. Let's talk about the Republican tax cut. It was rigged for the rich. It gave 83 percent of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. They raised taxes on 86 million middle class families. It cost $1.5 trillion. We have a staggering national debt. They want to reduce that deficit. Well, then why don't they go ahead and rescind the money from the tax giveaways to the corporations? The corporations are just using it to buy back stocks and not to raise any wages. What we ought to be doing is reinvesting: create jobs; help children and families, not millionaires and billionaires. If they wanted to do something about the CHIP program, they would have made it permanent or they would take that money and reinvest it in programs that have to do with children, not send it back to the treasury. What they ought to do is to find those resources from their rich donors and others and put them back into where they belong, to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters in opposition to H.R. 3: May 22, 2018. Dear Representative: The undersigned 151 national organizations strongly urge you to reject the $15.3 billion rescissions package proposed by the Trump Administration as well as other rescissions messages that may be subsequently offered. These cuts would violate the agreement enacted in the Bipartisan Budget Act, by eliminating funds that make fairer levels of domestic appropriations possible, so that unmet needs in public health, education, job training, housing, and other essential areas may be addressed. The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is targeted for nearly half the cuts in the rescissions package. Nearly $2 billion of the rescinded funds could reduce CHIP's capacity to respond if enrollment unexpectedly rises, as in the aftermath of a disaster, large layoffs due to plant closures, or an overall economic slowdown. Congress just enacted a long-overdue 10-year reauthorization of CHIP; it should not undermine that bipartisan agreement either by tampering with CHIP in this package. Another $5 billion would renege on the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act agreement, which in part counted on the availability of unspent CHIP funds to pay for needed increases in other services of importance to children and families. The rescissions package also includes an $800 million cut to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a program which according to the Congressional Budget Office will save $3 for every $1 spent between 2017 and 2026. It makes no sense to end such a cost-effective investment. Nor does it make sense to describe this package of cuts as putting ``. . . our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path'' when the recently enacted tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy and corporations, impose a $2 trillion cost. Congress made important progress in the FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill because its bipartisan agreement allowed for increases in child care, opioid treatment, and other services. Congress should now turn its attention to building on this progress in FY 2019. Reneging on the hard-won bipartisan agreement now will make further gains extremely difficult. With the limited number of legislative days before you, please do not be distracted by undoing past progress. We cannot emphasize enough that basic needs programs have lost ground after years of reductions, making it extremely important that you do not undermine the agreement to start to reverse these downward trends. Adult and youth job training has been cut nearly 15 percent since FY 2010, adjusted for inflation. If we are serious about helping people to get good jobs, we must undo these cuts. Many other services need rebuilding, such as home heating and cooling assistance (cut nearly 38 percent since FY 2010), juvenile justice programs (cut more than 40 percent), maternal and child health programs (cut 14 percent), and special education funding (cut between 7-11 percent since FY 2010). In an analysis of more than 180 human needs programs, the Coalition on Human Needs found that nearly 70 percent are still at lower levels than in FY 2010. Please reject this rescissions package, and turn instead to your real responsibility: to provide adequate resource to address the unmet needs for education and training, child care, housing, health care, and other essential services. Sincerely, Action on Smoking and Health; ADAP Advocacy Association; Advance CTE; African American Health Alliance; AFSCME; AIDS United; Allied Progress; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Association on Health and Disability; American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges; Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs; Autism Society of America; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bend the Arc Jewish Action CAEAR Coalition; Campaign for Youth Justice; Center for Community Change Action; Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO). Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for Popular Democracy Action; Center for Public Representation; Ceres Policy Research; Child Care Aware of America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Children's Leadership Council; Children's Advocacy Institute; Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation; Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Coalition on Human Needs; Community Access National Network (CANN); Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces; Council on Social Work Education; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Dominican Sisters Conference; Dominican Sisters of Peace; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative. Equal Rights Advocates; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Every Child Matters; Faith in Public Life; Families USA; Family Focused Treatment Association Food & Water Watch; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); Forum for Youth Investment; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Friends of the Earth--US Girls Inc.; Grounded Solutions Network; Health Care for America Now; Healthy Teen Network HEAR US Inc.; Hispanic Federation; HIV Medicine Association; Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC Housing Works, Inc.; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Justice in Aging; Lakeshore Foundation; Leadership Conference of Women Religious. League of Women Voters of the United States; LIFT; Main Street Alliance; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Action Network; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Alliance of HUD Tenants; National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National Association of Counsel for Children; National Association of Regional Councils; National Association of Social Workers; National Association of State Head Injury Administrators; National Association for Bilingual Education; National Black Justice Coalition; National Coalition for the Homeless; National Coalition of STD Directors; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients). National Council of Jewish Women; National Crittenton; National Disability Institute; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education Association; National Employment Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Housing Trust; National Indian Education Association; National Juvenile Justice Network; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National Network for Youth; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Organization for Women; National Urban League; National WIC Association; National Women's Health Network; National Women's Law Center; New Progressive Alliance; North American Passionists, JPIC; People Demanding Action; People For the American Way. Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poligon Education Fund; Provincial Council Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians); Public Advocacy for Kids; Public Citizen; Rachel Carson Council; Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; RESULTS; Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition; Safer Foundation; School Social Work Association of America; Service Employees International Union; Sinsinawa Dominicans; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Sisters of Mercy South Central Community; SocioEnergetics Foundation; Somerset Development Company; SparkAction; StoptheDrugWar.org; Strategies for Youth, Inc. Students or Sensible Drug Policy; The Arc of the United States; The Children's Partnership; The John Leary Organization; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society; Transporation Learning Center; Treatment Action Group; Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; UnidosUS; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Women; Voices for Progress; W. Haywood Burns Institute; WildWest Institute; Woodhull Freedom Foundation; Woodstock Institute; Workplace Fairness; Young Invincibles; Youth Service America; YWCA USA; ZERO TO THREE.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I had an unavoidable family commitment and so I missed Roll Call vote number 207 regarding the ``Servicemembers Improved Transition through Reforms for Ensuring Progress Act (H.R. 4830).'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote number 208 regarding the ``Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2018 (H.R. 4451).'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote number 209 regarding the ``Veterans Opioid Abuse Prevention Act (H.R. 3832).'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, this week, the Republican majority won the honor of having run the most closed Congress in American history: 84 closed rules, zero open rules. What does that mean? It means that they blocked us from fully debating or amending legislation, prohibiting us from fully giving our constituents a voice in this Congress. Why are we here? Our constituents sent us here to be able to debate issues and to vote on those issues. Two weeks ago, the majority blocked my amendment to ensure equal pay for equal work. Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 to end unequal wages. Yet, in 2018, women still earn about 80 cents, on average, to a man's dollar. The gap is worse for women of color. A woman working full-time will lose $400,000 over the course of her career. African American women lose $840,000. Latinas will lose over $1 million. Since women are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of the families with children, our Nation's families and our economy suffers, which is why I offered the Paycheck Fairness Act as an amendment. It toughens remedies in the Equal Pay Act to help America's working women fight wage discrimination and receive a full paycheck. They blocked it. The strength of this institution is its potential to make a difference in the lives of the American people. That is vital when the biggest economic challenge is jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. We cannot help raise wages, improve education, or fix crumbling infrastructure when this majority, more than any in American history, has closed the House to debate and to amendments. They closed it to action. It is unacceptable. The American people deserve better.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 10th 2018, I experienced a family emergency and so I missed Roll Call vote number 178 regarding the ``Titus Amendment'' (A003). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.'' I also missed Roll Call vote number 179 regarding the ``Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018'' (H.R. 3053). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of this farm bill from President Donald Trump and the Republicans in this Congress means more subsidies for the rich and greater hunger for the poor. The food stamp program is one of the most important and successful antihunger programs in our Nation. Last year, it prevented 42.2 million people from going hungry, including 4.8 million seniors and 1.5 million low-income military veterans. And yet my colleagues in the majority are seeking to undermine food stamps as they shield farm subsidies for the rich. When you take a look at the number of people who are the farm subsidy beneficiaries and the millions of people who are the SNAP beneficiaries, what you will see is that the SNAP beneficiaries get $1,115 per year, and the farm subsidy beneficiaries get almost $10,000 a year. Farms receive more than six times the benefit of a person receiving food stamps even though the vast majority of the farm bill beneficiaries are food stamp recipients. This farm bill would kick 2 million people off of food stamps, cutting benefits by more than $23 billion. Meanwhile, Republicans refuse to include limits on subsidies provided for crop insurance, one of the few Federal programs without any eligibility caps or payment limits. That is the untold story: who benefits. In the Republican tax scam for the rich, 83 percent of the benefits went to the top 1 percent. The Republican farm bill is rigged, as well, for the rich. Farm subsidies, which the CBO says will cost $12.6 billion more than planned, are so skewed toward the rich that the top 10 percent of farms, about 76,000 farms, received over 60 percent of all farm subsidies.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, SNAP recipients have income limits, asset limits. They get $1.40 per meal. Millionaires and billionaires who pocket farm subsidies do not. SNAP recipients have work requirements. Millionaires and billionaires who pocket farm subsidies do not, even though many of them do not work the land. Nearly 18,000 people in the 50 biggest cities received farm subsidies. They do not work the land. They do not till the soil. Where are their work requirements? In fact, 23 Republican Members of this Congress who vocally oppose SNAP have financial ties to farms that receive subsidies. They are poised to support this bill. They get theirs while the kids go hungry. The country needs to know this. In the land of food abundance, in the United States, no one should go hungry. The Republican farm bill is a massive giveaway to the rich, which will deny children in our country food. It is unspeakable. We need to eradicate hunger. We do not need to eradicate the antihunger programs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to join TEAM, Inc. and the communities of Connecticut's Naugatuck Valley in extending my heartfelt congratulations and sincere thanks to Diane Stroman as she celebrates her retirement after twenty-five years of dedicated service. To say that she will be missed by this organization as well as the many local service organizations who have benefitted from her time and energies, is an understatement. Diane's compassion, advocacy, and strength of spirit have changed countless lives and we are fortunate to have had her working on behalf of our communities and their most vulnerable residents. Diane has dedicated a quarter-century to helping those most in need. In her leadership role at TEAM, Inc, an organization dedicated to strengthening our community by educating, supporting and empowering individuals and families, she has helped to shape the many programs and services offered to their clients. From Head Start, early education, and heating and energy assistance to child care, housing, financial, employment, and holiday assistance as well as elder services, Diane has helped individuals and families navigate what can be a difficult and complex social service delivery system. Diane's dedication to community involvement extends far beyond her professional life at TEAM. A board member of the Lower Naugatuck Valley Boys & Girls Club, Ansonia's Elderly Services Commission and the Valley Juvenile Review Board, she also dedicates her personal time to enriching the lives of others. Diane is an original board member of the Valley United Way, Griffin Hospital and BH Care. She was formerly on the Ansonia Board of Education, past president of the Derby-Shelton Rotary Club, and an active member of her church. Diane embodies a spirit of community service that we should all strive to achieve. I would be remiss if I did not extend a special note of personal thanks to Diane for the assistance and guidance that she has provided to myself and my staff over the years. From providing local data on programs and services to helping to organize events, Diane has always been only a phone call away. I consider myself fortunate to call her a friend and cannot thank her enough for the support and camaraderie she has shown to me. I am honored to stand today to pay tribute to Diane Stroman for her invaluable professional and personal contributions to our community. Her good work and advocacy has helped hundreds of our most vulnerable families achieve economic and social stability. While her retirement marks the end of an extraordinary career, I have no doubt that Diane will continue to find ways in which to engage and make a difference in the lives of others. I wish her, her children, and grandchildren the very best for many more years of health and happiness as she begins this new chapter.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Raskin and my other colleagues here this evening as we talk about what is going on in the lives of families in our country today. I rise to defend the Food Stamp program and to denounce the severe and immoral--I view them as immoral--cuts by the majority's farm bill. You know, everyone knows that millions of people are struggling in this country. The biggest economic problem we have is that people are in jobs that just don't pay them enough money; they can't pay the high cost of healthcare; they can't afford to put food on the table; they don't take vacations; they don't take retirement; they are barely making it. And with regard to hunger, it is truly remarkable. Over 15 million children, nearly one in four in our country, live in the heavy shadow of what is going on in working families today. In my district, the Third District of Connecticut--Connecticut is the State that is statistically the richest in the Nation, and that is because of Fairfield County and a whole variety of other issues. But one in seven people in my district don't know where their next meal is coming from. People want to talk about that, they put a nice term around it, ``food insecure.'' That is not food insecurity. It is hunger--hunger in the United States of America. So, you know, the social safety net programs are vital tools for reducing poverty and hunger, and the food stamp program is one of the most powerful programs we have for ending hunger in the United States. Last year, our Nation's largest nutrition safety net, food stamps, prevented 42.2 million people from going hungry. That includes 20 million children, 4.8 million low-income seniors, and 1.5 million low- income military veterans. Men and women who go to fight, sacrifice their families, and, in a number of instances, their lives, their families can't make it, and they are on food stamps. And what the farm bill would do was jettison those military families. The country needs to know about this. The food stamp program works. It is for those who need it the most. It has been successful in alleviating hunger and supporting our economy. In 2014, the program lifted 4.7 million people out of poverty, including 2.1 million children, and it has lifted more than 1.3 million children out of deep poverty. And the benefits go well beyond childhood years, as my colleague knows. We know that there is an 18 percentage point increase in the likelihood of completing high school with disadvantaged households who have had access to the SNAP program, evidence of significant improvements in health and economic self- sufficiency among women. It is efficient. More than half of the benefits go to households in the deepest poverty. Over 70 percent of all the benefits go to households with children. But, you know, it would appear that our Republican colleagues appear to be more interested in reducing SNAP than in reducing hunger. We talked--a few minutes ago, you were talking about the tax bill--$2 trillion tax cut--83 percent of those tax cuts to the richest, wealthiest Americans and corporations. My gosh, I will bet those folks are eating well every day. I bet they have three squares or more, when we have families who are barely able to put food on the table. Let me just give you a couple of notes about who is benefiting from the farm bill and the several loopholes. The farm bill eliminates means testing. Now, we all know that the food stamp program, they are means tested, asset tested. They can't be over a certain amount of money in income. They can't have more than a certain amount of dollars in assets. This farm bill allows millionaires and billionaires to get subsidies. It eliminates the means test for some of these folks. You have, under current law, family members, like siblings and adult children, are eligible for subsidies, but--and that is regardless of whether or not they live or work on the farm. What the House bill does, they make cousins, nieces, and nephews eligible for the subsidies as well. It doesn't limit subsidies to one person per farm. Quite frankly, as the President proposed, it doesn't require work. It doesn't create work requirements for farm subsidy recipients. And, you know, a number of these folks, they don't till the soil, they don't work the land, they live in Manhattan, and they still get a subsidy. They don't have to work the land for that. And what we are talking about, food stamp recipients do work, for the most part. And what the farm bill has done is it has said, as well, that funding in the bill only works out to be $30 per person per month for job training. What kind of job training is that? So that the bill, which requires working, underfunds job training in order for people to be able to go to work. One other statistic. The bill increases price guarantees by up to 15 percent. It fails to reduce crop insurance premium subsidies from 62 percent to 48 percent, as, quite frankly, the President proposed. It extends insurance company subsidies. It provides $1.5 billion in annual subsidies to crop insurance agencies, to insurance companies, most of whom are foreign based. The country needs to know this. And at the same time, they want to deny food to the children in this country. It is unspeakable, the direction that they are going in. It does not reflect the values of this great Nation. So, you know, if we are serious about reforming in the farm bill, they would have included limits on agricultural subsidies. And, by the way, the crop insurance program, there are no eligibility caps, no payment limits. You know, it is all bets are off. I want to end with thanking my colleague for doing this. I am going to continue, as I know he is. I am going to continue, and I know he is going to continue to stand up against what are unconscionable attacks on America's poor working families. You know, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Stand up. Stand with us. Let's ensure that Congress does not endanger families and children by decimating our hunger programs. We need to strengthen the SNAP program. We need not be sabotaging it. I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order tonight. We need to be speaking here morning, noon, and night about what this administration, what this Republican majority Congress is doing to low- income families. The food stamp program is seniors, the disabled, and children.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I will.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there is no morality. That is it. It is immoral, and we have an obligation and a responsibility. And it is not just a social responsibility. This is a moral responsibility to make sure that in the land of abundance and an abundance of food, that we are going to look at jettisoning millions of low-income families and creating for them a situation where they cannot access food for themselves or their families, I ask the question: Who are we? It is immoral the direction that they are going in. And with the farm bill--if you wanted to just look at the farm bill-- you talked about the tax bill, and we know what direction that went in and who are the beneficiaries there. But again, this farm safety net is filled with loopholes. The top 3 percent of farms, or about 60,000 farms in the United States receive roughly 40 percent of all farm subsidies. Many farms receive more than $1 million in subsidies annually. They don't pass any income test. They pass no asset test. The largesse is overwhelming. And the share of subsidies, the largest farms claimed, has increased from 11 percent in 1991 to 34 percent in 2015. You know, they are consistent. Watch what they do in the tax bill. Watch what they do in the farm bill and who benefits. Who has benefited from the tax--the tax scam, which is rigged for the rich? And now we have a farm bill, which is rigged for the rich.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, he got that right.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Raskin makes such a good point. Let me just tell you. I looked very, very hard at this issue over the number of years that I have served here. I served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. I chaired that committee for awhile, so I have spent more than 25 years focused in. And the issue of hunger in the United States has become a passion for me, and I tell you why. I published a book not that long ago called, ``The Least Among Us: Waging the Battle for the Vulnerable.'' And when I did the research for this book, this is what I found: that the social safety net program and the food stamp program was crafted by Democrats and Republicans. George McGovern, Bob Dole, they took a commission across the country.