Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of this amendment, strong support of this amendment, because it aims to reform a broken crop insurance program. This is a program where taxpayers foot an average of 60 percent of the premiums for beneficiaries, plus there's the reimbursement of the administrative and operating costs, 100 percent of those efforts. These are for private companies that sell the plans, including multinational corporations, some of whom trace back to companies who are in tax havens. And essentially, what it does, it works to improve crop insurance, it limits taxpayer subsidized profits of companies that sell crop insurance. It does not harm the ability of the companies to sell these policies in any way. It would ensure that taxpayers do not continue to subsidize these administrative and operating expenses. It's a bipartisan amendment. It enjoys broad support from a number of groups across the political spectrum, as has been laid out. It caps the amount of crop insurance premium support individual producers receive.

Ms. DeLAURO. GAO said that the cap would affect just under 4 percent. Crop insurance is the only farm support program subsidized by taxpayers and not subject to a payment limitation. This would bring this in line with other farm programs, and it would shine a little long overdue sunlight on the crop insurance program.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it's very interesting that the Food Safety Modernization Act was passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction, as well as the FDA; and, quite frankly, it does not have any jurisdiction under this piece of legislation, and I'm disappointed that it made it through the Rules Committee. However, in January 2011, the President signed a transformative food safety law that Congress had passed in a bipartisan manner to improve the health of our constituents. The legislation was supported by a broad coalition of consumer, public health, and industry groups, groups including the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the National Restaurant Association. When we crafted the final food safety bill, we struck a compromise, a compromise on the scope of the bill so that the vast majority of truly small farms and processors are excluded, including those that sell most of their food directly to the public through farmers markets and farm stands; in addition to which regional considerations were also taken into consideration. The integrity of that compromise has been maintained in the proposals released by the FDA to date. I can speak to this compromise and the agreement we reached at the time because, in fact, I helped to craft and negotiate the final language. The law also requires that the FDA take regional differences into account when crafting its proposed rules. Let us be clear: that legislation was needed. Foodborne illness remains a threat to the public health. According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year 48 million Americans become sick from the very food they eat; 128,000 are hospitalized; and 3,000 die. These figures are far too high and simply unacceptable, so we acted. We passed the first major improvement to the FDA's food safety laws in more than 70 years. Under the guise of seeking a report, this amendment seeks to further slow down the implementation of the law, a law with the potential to improve the very health of our constituents by reducing their risk of becoming sick from food. Yet nowhere in the text of this amendment or in the intent of these reports do I see a mention of the public health or consumer safety. All of the FDA's proposals to implement this critical law already go through the official rulemaking process, meaning that the agency must consider the costs and the benefit of the rules, and that every one of us and our constituents can weigh in and submit comments on the rules already. The amendment before us now simply intends to slow down the process of implementing the law. Rather than working to obstruct and delay implementation, we should be working to encourage strong implementation. Let's look at what has happened since the bill was signed into law. In that short period of time, there have been almost 20 multi-State outbreaks positively linked to food products regulated by the FDA. One of those was an outbreak of listeria associated with cantaloupe, a product that had not previously been identified as associated with that dangerous pathogen. The same outbreak killed 33 Americans, the largest number of Americans lost to a single outbreak in a quarter of a century. Right now there is a multi-State outbreak of hepatitis A that may have been caused by a contaminated product regulated by the FDA. More than 115 people in eight States have become ill, and more than 50 of them have required hospitalization. It continues to be supported by the majority of Americans. A recent poll showed that more than 75 percent of Americans surveyed supported the food safety law, which is why so many respected organizations that work to improve the public health, including the Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Consumer Unions, oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to heed their advice and oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the blatantly unconstitutional underlying legislation, which threatens the health and basic rights of women all over America. Right now, we should be working to create jobs and grow the economy. Instead, here we are again with the majority's trying to insert their extreme and divisive ideological preferences into law. Yet again, they are trying to impose their traditional view of a woman's role on everyone else--force women back into these traditional roles with limited opportunities. This legislation, which attempts to ban virtually all abortions after 20 weeks, is a clear violation of the law of the land, and it has already been struck down in its sponsor's home State of Arizona, but they don't give much regard for the law of the land. Witness the number of times that they have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act--37 times. This bill is anti-choice, anti-Constitution, anti-science, and it is, yes, anti-woman. There is no exception in this bill for women whose health is threatened by carrying the fetus to term. Yes, why should we worry about women's health or whether they live or whether they die? Instead, this bill puts the Federal Government squarely between a woman and her doctor. It threatens doctors with 5 years in jail if they perform a legal, constitutional and sometimes medically necessary procedure. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does the bill disqualify more than half of all rape victims since 54 percent of these victims do not report a rape due to intimidation or embarrassment? Or under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and incest victims, would they have to report even if their lives are in danger from the perpetrators? And yes, is it the case that this bill redefines what qualifies as ``incest'' by only applying it to a minor? Therefore, an adult who has been victimized by a relative since childhood and who gets pregnant is not allowed to have an abortion from pregnancy with that relative? Simply put, this proposed ban is antithetical to our laws and is an affront to women's health, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The most disingenuous thing is there are a number of people in this body who talk about this issue and themselves are getting subsidies and they have commodities or whatever it is. That's been information that's been in the paper. They will deny food stamps to families who have no wherewithal, but they're taking in sometimes, in some cases, several million dollars in subsidies that are coming from the Federal Government. Then it's okay.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say this to the gentleman. The program has worked very hard, as you know, over the years to decrease that error rate in this program. I don't see the same concentration and the same effort in other programs. And I mentioned here the crop insurance program. There's an article in the paper today that talks about the program is rife with fraud. Why aren't people interested in looking at that effort and the billions of dollars that we are losing every year? For the life of me, I don't understand it. People who view themselves as fiscal hawks, that we have to watch every dime and every dollar, they are only focused on nutrition programs and antihunger programs. I think you may have alluded to this earlier, Congressman McGovern. I think so many times that those who would cut these programs and do it in such a savage way just don't have much respect for the people who find themselves in a position to have to participate in the food stamp program. They think they're dogging it. They think they don't want to work, and they think they're looking for charity. It is such a misconception and a lack of understanding of the difficult economic times that people find themselves in today. Sometimes we ought to walk in people's shoes and understand the lives that they're leading and what they're trying to do, like those of us here who believe we work hard and care and et cetera. People work hard. They care about their families. They want to make sure their kids are eating. Quite frankly, when it comes to feeding your kids, you'll do whatever you have to do in order to make that happen.

Ms. DeLAURO. You were talking about the effect. It's about growth and development. There is wonderful material which we sent out to our colleagues from Dr. Deborah Frank, who talks about what happens to children. It isn't just concentrating, but it is their ability to grow, to develop, to be physically well. And the cost of dealing with what happens to the health issues only adds to our health care costs. I'm of the view that if you can't deal with humanity, let's deal with the economics of this. The studies are so clear about what happens with the absence of food, particularly with children.

Ms. DeLAURO. In Branford, Connecticut, a woman with three boys, 18, 14, and 12, said that they eat one meal a day. In Hamden, Connecticut, there's a woman who says that she has just enough food to feed her children, but she has to say ``no'' if they want to invite someone over. She said sometimes she feeds the boys a little bit more because they're hungrier than the girls. We've heard about this internationally where the girls get short shrift when it comes to both education and food. My God, it's happening here. It is happening here. We have the obligation--and I know you take it seriously. Our colleagues need to have that sense of moral responsibility to turn this around and do something that's better, do the right thing. Say ``no'' to $20 billion in cuts to the food stamp program.

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague, Congressman McGovern. And I want to say a thank you to you. You have been steadfast and courageous on this issue. I know the strong and personal relationship that you had with Senator McGovern, who, with every fiber of his being, was devoted to making sure that both in the United States domestically and overseas that people, and particularly children, had enough to eat. And I think it was so special that he partnered with Bob Dole of Kansas. When you take a look at the federally commissioned report that you spoke about, when you take a look at the people who were involved, the strength of that commission on hunger in America was its bipartisanship. Since this effort has begun, Members of both sides of the aisle have focused on this as a substantial problem. Therefore, as a Nation, we have to come together to try to address it. Unfortunately today, in the environment, in the atmosphere, in this body, in this institution, in the Congress, there seems to be not much view that this is a problem and one that we have the opportunity, the capacity, and the ability to do something about. What we lack, as you've said so often in the past, is the will, the political will to do something. We are highlighting tonight the severe, the immoral cuts made to antihunger and nutrition programs, particularly the food stamp program in the House FARRM Bill. Again, as you pointed out, millions of families are struggling in this economy. We've had the worst recession since the Great Depression, and people are trying to survive. We're looking at an unemployment rate that is 7.5 percent. We are looking at incomes which are not increasing, but wages that are decreasing. Why we would pick this moment really to throw more people into poverty? You can take a look at all kinds of statistics, and I'll quote some in a few minutes, that talk about the food stamp program and how it has kept people from falling into poverty and how it has kept kids from going hungry. And we would choose this moment to increase that poverty number and to say to children and disabled and seniors, I'm sorry, you're on your own. That's what this is about. It is immoral. You know, you talked about the 50 million Americans--almost 17 million children--suffer with hunger right now. It's a problem across the country. You talk about my district, the Third District of Connecticut. Connecticut, statistically, is the richest State in the Nation. We have a very affluent portion of the State, which is known as Fairfield County, sometimes referred to as the ``Gold Coast.'' Lots of people on Wall Street come to live in Fairfield County in Connecticut. Yet, in my congressional district, the Third District, one out of seven go to bed hungry at night. They don't know where their next meal is coming from. One out of seven individuals nationwide take part in the food stamp program. People today who never thought they would have to rely on food stamps are having to do so because they lost their job, they lost their income, and they're looking for a way to feed their families. I was at the Christian Cornerstone Church in Milford, Connecticut, just a few days ago. A young woman, Penny Davis, she was working, taking care of herself, taking care of her family. She lost her job. She didn't think much about it. She would get another job. She hasn't been able to get another job in this economy. In the meantime, in the interim, she's become separated from her husband. She is now responsible for herself and her family. She didn't know what she was going to do. She called on the Christian Cornerstone Church. She called on the food bank to help her, to see what she could do. She spoke eloquently about wanting to work and not being able to find a job. So today she has accessed a program that she never thought she would have to use--the food stamp program. Why can't we be there to help people bridge that gap? Because the genius of this program is that, in difficult times, the numbers of participants go up, but when the economy gets better, those numbers come down. And the numbers are coming down. So why, at this moment, would we jeopardize these folks' livelihoods, their well-being, and their ability to eat and to feed their families? We've got a wonderful, wonderful phrase these days that we use about people being ``food insecure.'' Plain and simple--and you know this, Congressman McGovern--this is people being hungry. They're hungry. It makes you feel good to talk about food insecurity, but it's hunger. I talked about my district, but let's take a look. Mississippi, 24.5 percent suffer food hardship. They're hungry. Nearly one in four people. West Virginia and Kentucky, that dropped to just over 22 percent, one in five. In Ohio, nearly 20 percent. California, just over 19 percent. The estimates of Americans at risk of going hungry here in the land of plenty are appalling, and we have a moral responsibility to do something about this. Our key Federal food security programs become all the more important at this time, which, as you know and I know and so many others know, it is true of the food stamp program. It is the country's most important effort to deal with hunger here at home, and it ensures that American families can put food on the table--47 million Americans, half are kids. This is about helping low-income children's health and development, reducing hunger in America, and continuing to have an influence so that those youngsters can have positive influences and opportunity into adulthood. You stated it. Food stamps has one of the lowest error rates of any government program at 3.8 percent. I was upstairs at that Rules Committee meeting as well. You know, I loved the discussion about program integrity. Many, many times in the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, where I did serve as chairman for a while--I'm still a member of the committee, probably 16, 18 years on that committee-- program integrity. Let's cut back on the waste, the fraud, and the abuse. The only programs that get debated in those efforts are WIC, food stamps, other nutrition programs. No one bothers to take a look at the defense bill. No one bothers to take a look within the FARRM Bill of other instances of waste, fraud, and abuse. We believe in program integrity for every program in the Federal Government, not just one or two or pick out the programs that you don't like and focus in on them. I sat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for the last 16 or 17 years. I chaired that Appropriations Subcommittee. I was part of a conference committee on the farm bill in 2008. In fact, as you've heard me say in the past, appropriators don't usually get onto a conference committee. But the then-speaker, Nancy Pelosi, appointed me there, particularly for the nutrition issues. Some of the conferees were a little nervous. As I've said, they thought I was some sort of invasive species in this context. We worked hard on that farm bill. You know it because you worked hard on it. We said it was a safety net, and it is a safety net. The farm bill is a safety net, but it is a safety net for American farmers and for American families. We need to have that safety net. With then- Speaker Pelosi's strong support and leadership we passed a farm bill. We supported nutrition and antihunger programs. We made investments in the programs that targeted specialty crops and organic production. We were there and we voted for that bill. I am for a farm bill, but that's not the case this time around. It's a different set of circumstances and a different environment, which is why, like you, I cannot support this farm bill. The changes that you talk about, in addition to the $20 billion in cuts to beneficiaries, you talk about the eligibility program and the tool that States use to streamline the administration of the program; went back years in working this system out. They would unravel all of that. Then they would like to talk about the food stamp program and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. They are two separate issues--categorical eligibility and the tie with food stamps and the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. They'll say that if you get LIHEAP, then you're automatically on the food stamp program. That's not true. You have to qualify. I want to get to a couple of points that talk about qualifying and what people are forced to qualify and those who are not forced to qualify for the benefits that they receive in this farm bill. It's important I think to note that we were able to get funding for the food stamp program in the Economic Recovery Program. You worked hard at that, I worked hard at that, the chair of the Appropriations Committee at that time, Mr. Obey, fought for those dollars. That has come to an end, the Economic Recovery Program. Come the beginning of the next fiscal year every single recipient of food stamps will see it is $37--we got confirmation--$37 a month in a cut. What's happening in this farm bill will only add on. It is important to note that our colleagues will say: Well, we have a deficit and we are going to use this money and we are going to pay down the deficit. Very interesting to know. In the past 30 years, every major deficit reduction package signed into law on a bipartisan basis was negotiated on the principle of not increasing poverty or inequality in deficit reduction. Simpson-Bowles, the latest iteration of a deficit reduction package which so many people said went too far in changing the aspects of the social safety net, did not cut the food stamp program to achieve its deficit reduction. We need to follow this bipartisan effort in the same way that we did in these instances on deficit reduction and follow that bipartisan road, the same way we did in the recognition of the problem and the willingness to do something about it. I've got two other points. You may hear from some that the direct payments--they'll say, well, we're cutting direct payments in the farm bill, and that the bill also makes very real reforms to the crop support programs. The bill finally ended direct payments, saving about $47 billion over 10 years. The commodity title of the bill only says that they're saving $18.6 billion. Why? Why the differential? Because the rest of those savings are being plowed back into the commodity support programs. It creates a brand new program, which is called a ``price loss program,'' to protect these commodities if prices change. In essence, that safety net is working for farmers. I don't begrudge that. If you want to provide a safety net for farmers, fine. But where's the safety net, where's the safety net for the benefits of the food stamp program? They're not there. The food stamp beneficiaries have nowhere else to go, as you pointed out, nowhere else to go in the farm bill to be made whole. Those who were receiving direct payments, they're going to be held harmless, if you will, through crop insurance and a new program, a shallow loss protection program that protects them if the commodity prices begin to fluctuate. Where is the protection for the food stamp beneficiaries? It's not there. The only people who are going to lose benefits are the most vulnerable in our society today. It's wrong and, again, it's immoral. The bill, as I said, expands the crop insurance program. I think it is important for people to understand that crop insurance--again, safety net, useful, good concept, very good, I wish it applied to our part of the country as it does to other parts of the country--but I don't know that the American taxpayers know this about the crop insurance program: taxpayers, U.S. taxpayers, foot the bill for over 60 percent of the premiums for beneficiaries, plus U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab on administrative and operating costs for the private companies that sell the plan, including multinational corporations, some of whom trace back to companies in tax havens. Switzerland, Australia, Ireland, Bermuda, that's where these companies have their headquarters, so they're making out like bandits. We pick up the tab, they don't pay their fair share of taxes in the United States. It really is quite incredible. You and I talked about, Congressman McGovern, that $4.50--there's an income threshold, there's a cap on the amount of money they can receive on the assets that they hold. This program on crop insurance where 26 individuals received at least $1 million in a subsidy, at least $1 million, they're protected statutorily and we can't find out who they are. We don't know who they are. They have no income test, no cap, no income threshold, no asset test that they go through. They just get the money--they get the money. Do you know what? They're eating and they're eating more, more than three squares a day I bet, but not our kids, not our kids. Our kids are going to bed hungry, and this program, by the way, does not even require the minimum conservation practices that other farm programs have on the books. It is pretty extraordinary when you think about a family of four when you have to qualify for this program for eligibility. It is at less than 130 percent of poverty, which means that a family of four has to live on $2,200 a month. As for our colleagues in this institution who are taking the food stamp challenge and doing it for a week--some may do it less, and some may do it more-- do you know what? They're not doing it every single day with their kids. There are serious problems with this FARRM bill. There really are very, very serious problems, and they need to be addressed. It should never have come out of the committee with $20 billion in cuts--never. It shouldn't have happened. I might also add that the President, as my colleague knows, has issued a veto threat primarily because of the food stamp cuts. There are just a couple of quotes that I think are important. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said last year: We must form a circle of protection around programs that serve the poor and the vulnerable in our Nation and throughout the world. Catholic leaders last month wrote: Congress should support access to adequate and nutritious food for those in need and oppose attempts to weaken or restructure these programs that would result in reduced benefits to hungry people. We received a letter today asking us and asking Representatives--my God, there must be 80 or 90 organizations, probably over 100 organizations, that are saying don't do this, including the bulk of the medical profession. We've got Bread for the World, Children's HealthWatch, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, First Focus, Network, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Share Our Strength, and the list goes on. Harry Truman said: Nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first in attaining this welfare. I will close with the piece that was put out today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: New research shows that the food stamp program is the most effective program pushing against the steep rise in extreme poverty. One reason the SNAP program is so effective in fighting extreme poverty is that it focuses its benefits on many of the poorest households. Roughly 91 percent of monthly SNAP benefits go to households below the poverty line, and 55 percent go to households below half the poverty line. That's about $9,800 for a family of three. One in five SNAP households lives on a cash income of less than $2 per person a day. Earlier in the article, it reads that the World Bank defines poverty in developing nations as households with children who live on $2 or less per person per day. This is the United States of America. This is not a debate about process. It is not a debate about deficit reduction. It's not about politics. This is a debate about our values and our priorities in this great Nation. Let's go back to the days of George McGovern and Bob Dole and of those who came forward to say, There are those in this country who are starving. There are those who are without food. We sit in the most deliberative body in the world. We can do something about it. Let's do something about it.

Ms. DeLAURO. There is no justice in that.

Ms. DeLAURO. With farmers and with families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise today to join the many family, friends, colleagues, and community members who have gathered to congratulate Dr. John J. Brady on the occasion of his retirement as Superintendent of the Amity Regional school system after a thirty-four year career in public education. Over the course of his career, and particularly in his nine-year tenure as Superintendent, John has shown both remarkable leadership and a unique dedication to our young people, ensuring that they had access to the best possible educational opportunities. When John came to Amity nine years ago, the District was facing serious financial challenges which, in turn, were causing declining confidence among faculty, students, and the three communities the school district serves. With his unique vision, principled leadership, and prudent financial direction, John worked with the Board of Education to turn Amity around. Restoring integrity and rigor to the financial operations of the District as well as the confidence of the communities, students, and faculty, his commitment to educational excellence has made all the difference. Under John's tenure, a renewed emphasis was placed on the arts as an integral part of the educational experience, dedicating similar resources and focus as are given to their successful athletics program. Indeed, one of John's enduring legacies is the beautiful performing arts building that he not only advocated for, but brought in both on time and on budget. The building was recently dedicated in his honor and the John J. Brady Center for the Performing Arts will long stand as a reminder of his remarkable efforts on behalf of Amity, its faculty, and most importantly, its students. Administrators and teachers play an important role in our communities. Our children spend a great deal of their childhood in school and it is the faculty and staff that they look to for guidance and support. I have often spoke of our nation's need for talented, creative educators ready to help our children learn and grow. Dedicating his career to education, as an educator and administrator, John has touched the lives of hundreds of our young people--creating a safe and nurturing environment in which they could realize their potential. Tonight, as he celebrates his retirement, I am proud to stand today to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to John J. Brady for his more than three decades in public education and for all the many invaluable contributions he has made to the Amity Regional school district. I wish him and his family--son, Christopher, daughters, Caitlin and Marissa, and two year old granddaughter, Nora--all the best for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has now been six months since the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut--Six full months since Adam Lanza murdered six adults and twenty children in cold blood, devastated a small-town community, and broke millions of hearts all across America. And yet, the families of Newtown who lost loved ones and who are here today--and families all across America--are still waiting for us to act. Still, this House has taken no action. Even though an overwhelming majority of Americans support background checks, the bipartisan King-Thompson bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, which has 180 co-sponsors, has not received a vote in this House. This is shameful. Meanwhile, we have the highest rate of gun deaths per year in the industrialized world. 30,000 deaths and almost 75,000 injuries are caused by guns every year. An average of eight children and teens are killed by guns in America, every single day. What are we waiting for? We have to find ways to move forward in a commonsense and responsible fashion to prevent gun violence in America. This is something the American people overwhelmingly support, and something the American people expect from us as their elected representatives. In fact, the American people have already waited too long. Six months have gone by since Sandy Hook, and all the while more men, women, and children have been victims of gun violence on our streets and in cities all across the country. Just this week, a gun man killed six people in a shooting spree in Santa Monica. It is time--now--to pass a stronger, more comprehensive system of criminal background checks for gun purchasers. It is time--now--to make gun trafficking a federal crime. It is time--now--to allow scientific research into how to mitigate gun violence. It is time--now--to ensure better access to quality mental health care for those in need. There is no good reason for inaction. Not one. We know for a fact that commonsense, responsible policies like these make a difference. In fact, one recent study found that the ten states with the weakest gun laws collectively suffer from a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high than the ten states with the strongest gun laws. In my state of Connecticut, the Assembly and Governor Malloy have stepped up to the plate, passing a comprehensive gun violence prevention bill that strengthens gun laws throughout our state. We should follow their example. At the very least, these common-sense proposals should get a vote in the House. The longer we keep waiting, the more innocent victims will die, the more senseless tragedies we will have to endure. It is time to pass the common-sense, constructive measures that help prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook and the thousands of gun deaths we see every year across this country. Six months after Newtown, it is time for this House to show some leadership.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has worked on this issue with me.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strengthen a prohibition unanimously supported last year to stop the Defense Department from purchasing equipment from the Russian arms dealer Rosoboronexport. As we have debated this bill, estimates of the death toll in Syria hit 93,000 and the administration confirmed use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. Yet, remarkably, U.S. taxpayers continue to provide subsidies to Russia's arms dealer through no-bid Pentagon purchases of Mi-17 helicopters, even as the firm continues to serve as the top supplier of the weapons the Syrian regime is using to fuel the tragic war. In fact, the Russian arms dealer recently took an order from the Syrian Army for a wide range of weaponry, and the possibility remains that Russia may provide Syria with S-300 air defense systems. It is unacceptable that at the same time the Pentagon is purchasing Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan National Security Forces from Rosoboronexport through no-bid contracts that do not allow U.S. companies to compete. Last year, the Army purchased 31 Mi-17s from the Russian arms dealer. The President then signed into law last year's defense bill banning the Pentagon from using 2013 funds to enter into a contract with the Russian arms dealer. Yet, in a clear violation of the spirit of the law, DOD announced in April it would use 2012 Afghanistan Security Forces funds to purchase 30 more Mi-17s, a contract signing that is imminent. Meanwhile, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, attempted an audit of Rosoboronexport's pricing of Mi-17 helicopters, which the firm refused to cooperate with. This is outrageous. My bipartisan amendment prohibits the Pentagon from purchasing equipment from the Russian arms maker unless the Secretary certifies the firm is cooperating with DCAA, not delivering S-300 missile defense batteries to Syria, and has not signed new contracts with Syria since the beginning of the year. The amendment also requires that any new contract for helicopters for the Afghans be competitively bid. The Defense Department should not engage in contracts with companies arming the Syrian regime. This can and must stop. Furthermore, if we are going to spend U.S. taxpayers' dollars to provide helicopters to the Afghan National Security Forces, we should spend those dollars for the purchase of U.S.-made helicopters. I urge support for my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, It gives me great pleasure to rise today to join the many who have gathered this evening in celebration of the 125th Anniversary of the Rodrigo Council, No. 44--one of the original Councils of the Knights of Columbus. Described as the ``strong right arm of the Church,'' Councils have long been an extension not only of the fraternal order, but of the Catholic Church as well. Today, Rodrigo Council focuses its effort in service of the needs of St. Bernadette's Church, St. Bernadette School, the parishioners, the local community and charitable organizations across the country. As you may know, the Knights of Columbus was formed when a group of men, called together by Father Michael J. McGivney in the basement of St. Mary's Church in New Haven, Connecticut, vowed to defend their country, their families, and their faith. With strength in solidarity, security in their unity of purpose, and devotion to their cause, the Knights of Columbus has grown into the world's largest Catholic family fraternal service organization. Just a few short years following the establishment of the Knights, membership had grown at such a rate that additional Council's were established. On June 6, 1888 the Rodrigo Council No. 44 was established. Welcoming any man, aged eighteen or older, of Catholic faith, this Live Council continues to thrive today. In addition to their support of St. Bernadette's and the parish school, members dedicate much of their time to raising funds to support social and civic services throughout the community. Just this year alone their annual banquet will benefit Mount St. John's, a residential treatment facility for at-risk young men; Emergency Shelter Services, a shelter for homeless men; The Camp, a summer camp for inner-city youth in New Haven; Life Haven, a temporary shelter for homeless pregnant women and women with children; Farnam Neighborhood House, a thriving multi- service neighborhood center which provides a continuum of services for people of all ages; and a local family in need of financial assistance because of an illness. The strength of any community lies within the willingness of its members to make a difference. Over the course of its 125-year history, the members of Rodrigo Council No. 44 have exemplified community service. Through their faith and their commitment, they have enriched the lives of others and made our community a better place for our families to live, learn, and grow. Today, as they celebrate their 125th Anniversary--a remarkable milestone by any measure--I am honored to stand today and extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to their members, past and present, for their invaluable contributions. They have set a standard of service to which we should all strive.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. If I can make one more point, because in the committee-- and the people shall be nameless--there was a lot of quoting of scripture when people voted for and passed a $20 billion cut. I think it was one individual who said that in the scripture it says: If you don't work, then you don't eat. I went back to find out what kinds of subsidies from farm programs that the individual had access to. Quite frankly, it's in the millions of dollars. I'm delighted that this individual can take care of family, but he's doing it with the largesse and the kindness, if you will, of the Federal Government. That doesn't seem to bother the individual at all. But providing food for a child or a senior or a disabled individual is a bridge too far. We need to stop that and we need to call attention to it, and the people of this Nation need to know what is happening in this institution.

Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you so much. It's an honor to join with you. I know where your heart, your head and your courage lie with regard to this issue. And we applaud you for your efforts with regard to the one caucus around this place that says that our goal and our mission is to make sure that people who are poor today, let us help them move out of that being poor. Let us help them move into the middle class, because in fact they do want to work, they do want to take care of their families. They're not just statistics. They are people to be upheld and respected and not to be vilified in so many ways as they are there. So I congratulate you and your efforts. I'm proud to be here with you tonight and with my colleague, Congressman Ellison, and the Progressive Caucus for his comments and remarks. I see that we are also joined by our colleague, Mr. Johnson. I want to thank you for your efforts as well. As you're talking about, what tonight is all about is highlighting severe immoral cuts that are made to anti-hunger and nutrition programs, particularly the food stamp program; And that is coming from the House of Representatives in the farm bill that passed out of committee. Everybody knows millions of families are struggling in this economy. Across this country, nearly 15 percent of American households were food insecure in 2010. Nearly 50 million Americans--over 60 million children--are struggling with hunger right now. It is about children; it is about the disabled; it is about seniors. And this is a problem all across this land. My State of Connecticut, in my district--Connecticut statistically is the richest State in the Nation because we have Fairfield County, and some parts of the State are known as the Gold Coast, with very affluent people. But we have such pockets of hunger that, in my district, one out of seven is food insecure. I'm tired of the commentary on food insecurity. What that means--and my colleague knows this, we've talked about this--it is about being hungry. These folks, one out of seven doesn't know where their next meal is coming from. In Mississippi, 24.5 percent suffer food hardship, nearly one in four people. West Virginia and Kentucky, that drops to just over 22 percent, one in five. In Ohio, nearly 20 percent. California, just over 19 percent. The estimates of Americans at risk of going hungry here in this land of plenty are appalling. And at times such as this, our key Federal food security programs become all the more important. This is especially true of food stamps, our country's most important effort to deal with hunger here at home and to ensure that American families can put food on the table for their kids. Right now, food stamps are helping over 47 million Americans--nearly half of them children--to meet their basic food needs. They make a tremendous difference for the health and the well-being of families, as our colleague, Mr. Ellison, pointed out with his examples. Food stamps have been proven to improve low-income children's health, their development, reduced food insecurity, and have a continuing positive influence into adulthood. You know, I listen to people that talk about waste, fraud, abuse. Food stamps always has one of the lowest error rates of any government program. Go to the IRS, go to Defense, go to a crop insurance program, and you will find waste, fraud, and abuse. Food stamps are good for the economy. Economists agree that food stamps have a powerful, positive impact on economic growth. Last month, Bloomberg ran an article called, ``Best Stimulus Package May Be Food Stamps,'' because they get resources into the hands of families who are going to spend those dollars right away. Most importantly, food stamps are the right thing to do. Ninety-nine percent of food stamp recipients have incomes below the poverty line. It is the job of good government to help vulnerable families get back on their feet. In the words of Harry Truman: Nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first in attaining this welfare. This is something that everyone in Washington used to agree on. In the past, there's been a strong tradition of bipartisanship on hunger and nutrition. From the left, leaders like George McGovern, and from the right, leaders like Bob Dole, came together. They made a difference for families who were in need. Over the past 30 years, policies aimed at debt and deficit reduction to keep programs that help the most vulnerable among us to get by have always been protected on a bipartisan basis from deep cuts. But the farm bill coming out of the House right now seeks to destroy that tradition. In the name of deficit reduction, the bill slashes food stamps by more than $20 billion, hurting millions of Americans in our economy. By eliminating categorical eligibility, their bill would force up to 2 million low-income Americans to go hungry. Their bill kicks 210,000 low-income children from the free school lunch program. It changes the relationship between SNAP and LIHEAP to take benefits from more low- income Americans--mostly seniors and working families with kids. Let's be clear: this has nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with the ideological priorities of a House majority. Ever since the Speaker took the gavel, this majority has tried to slash through the most crucial threads of our American social safety net. Their Ryan budget cut over $130 billion from food stamps, mostly by converting it to an inadequate block grant. Last year, when the House Ag Committee had to identify $33 billion in 10-year savings from the programs of their jurisdiction, they singled out food stamps for all of the cuts--not direct payments, not crop insurance--just food stamps for the entire cut. This is terrible policy. It will cause hunger and more health problems. These cuts are lopsided and are a dereliction of our responsibility to the American people, and of our moral responsibility. Let me quote the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They said last year: We must form a ``circle of protection'' around programs that serve the poor and the vulnerable in our Nation and throughout the world. And as Catholic leaders wrote last month: Congress should support access to adequate and nutritious food for those in need and oppose attempts to weaken or restructure these programs that would result in reduced benefits to hungry people. The House farm bill does the opposite. It jeopardizes the growth and development of our children, it jeopardizes seniors, and it puts at risk those disabled Americans. In my district yesterday, I went to the Cornerstone Christian Church in Milford, Connecticut, and the representatives there were the woman who volunteers in their food bank program, Reverend Stackhouse of the Church of the Redeemer, Lucy Nolan of End Hunger Connecticut, Nancy Carrington, who heads up the Connecticut Food Bank, and a young woman whose name was Penny. She had worked all of her adult life. She lost her job. She thought it was going to be easy to get another job and to be able to make her mortgage payments and all of the other financial obligations that she had. In the midst of this financial crisis, she and her husband separated, putting the burden of the family on her shoulders. She didn't know where to turn. She didn't know how she was going to put food on the table. She went to the Connecticut food bank. They helped her to be able to access the food stamp program. That's where she is now--still looking for a job, still wanting to work. Her pride enables her to continue to look for that job. The courage of speaking before this group yesterday and the press, and to tell that story, took great courage--like so many others are telling that story, my colleagues tonight. We do have an obligation. These are not statistics that we are talking about. These are flesh and blood Americans who are looking for a bridge. They don't want to be there forever. They want to be able to take care of themselves and their families. It's a genius of the food stamp program to say in times of need: we're there and, yes, we rise in the participation. When it gets better economically, those numbers drop. We have an obligation to those people--not to the statistics, but to those individuals who look to the Federal Government that says in a time of challenge: give me a little help, that's all I'm asking. I don't want everything. I know you don't have all those resources. Help me in this hour of need. That's what where our moral responsibility is. Again, I say thank you to my colleagues for participating and for your steadfastness in dealing with this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. I know my colleague Mr. Johnson is here to speak--and I think you understand this--but I think people need to know this. I want to take that crop insurance program for a moment--and I'm for crop insurance. I wish it covered people in my community, in my State. My comment is, in the crop insurance program, 60 percent of those costs are picked up by the U.S. taxpayer. That doesn't include administrative costs. There is no income test, no wage threshold, no asset test, all of which apply to food stamp recipients. There are 26 individuals in this Nation who have received at a minimum $1 million in a premium subsidy, and they don't have to follow conservation programs. They don't have to do anything but accept that premium subsidy, and we can't find out who they are because they are statutorily protected. Do you want to look at a program from which we could get money to deal with the deficit? Go there, and don't hurt poor kids, seniors and the disabled. Those folks in that program who are getting at least $1 million are eating high on the hog. They are doing well. So that's what we have to do, and that's what this country needs to know about. We are a good country. People have good values, and they will turn their backs on this effort as well.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I stand in strong opposition to this bill, which weakens Dodd-Frank regulations over derivatives markets and allows foreign banks and swaps traders to engage in the same risky behavior that caused an economic meltdown a few short years ago. We are here to represent the American people, not the big banks. And after the 2008 financial crisis that triggered the worse recession since the Great Depression, the American people want to see more accountability from Wall Street, not less. That's why we passed Dodd- Frank in the first place, to end dangerous speculation by financial institutions and prevent more bailouts. The bill before us tries to exempt from oversight any swap transaction in which one of the parties is not based in the United States. In other words, it effectively guts the derivatives regulation in the Dodd-Frank Act. When AIG nearly destroyed the economy, their affiliate was based out of London as a branch of a French-registered bank. Lehman Brothers had 3,300 legal entities here and abroad when it failed. Citigroup set up numerous structured investment vehicles overseas to move positions off its balance sheet. But when those investments were about to fail, Citigroup in the U.S. assumed the huge debt, and was ultimately bailed out by U.S. taxpayers. The notion that we should let big banks evade Dodd-Frank oversight if they set up a subsidiary in another major economy first is absurd. A vote for this bill is a vote for more risky derivatives transactions, more bad behavior, and more bailouts. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American people, the American taxpayers, and vote this down.