Marcia Fudge

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so very much, and thank you for yielding. I want to especially say this evening that as we talk about women, we are anchored tonight by two women, Congresswoman Beatty, of course, from the great State of Ohio, and Congresswoman Kelly from Illinois. I have had a wonderful opportunity to meet these outstanding women, and I am so pleased that they are here this evening. I thank them again for leading this Special Order hour for the Congressional Black Caucus. Today, members of the CBC raise our collective voices to advocate for a stronger economy by supporting and investing in working women across America. My colleagues and I know improving the economic condition of families and communities across the country begins with strengthening the economic position of women, because when women succeed, America succeeds. Last week, we marked the fifth anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Obama. As a result of this important legislation, women can more effectively take legal action against employers for gender-based pay discrepancies. While the Lilly Ledbetter Act helped provide a pathway for women to litigate pay discrimination, it does not address how we will invest in the economic future of working women in the United States. Today, women comprise almost half of the American workforce. The country has come a long way in promoting equal rights and equal pay for women, but it is unacceptable that in 2014, women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. In my home State of Ohio, women make approximately $10,000 less than men each year, and in my district, the median wage for women is 86 percent of the median wage for men. According to the 2010 Census, in 40 percent of American households with children, women are the sole or primary providers, and over 30 percent of households headed by women are living in poverty. African American and Latino women tend to feel wage discrepancy more acutely, receiving approximately 64 cents and 55 cents on the dollar, respectively, when compared to White, non-Hispanic males. This inequality must not continue. The economic security of our Nation's children depends on women's access to fair pay. This Nation cannot afford to continue treating women unfairly or leave women behind if they expect to strengthen and grow our economy. We can start to address this inequity by increasing the minimum wage. Almost two-thirds of workers earning the minimum wage are women. The minimum wage has not been sufficiently adjusted to reflect inflation. Increasing the minimum wage will help lift millions of women and children across the country out of poverty. It is also necessary to establish policies that enable working mothers to earn a living wage and to take care of their families. This requires workplace protections for pregnant workers, paid family sick leave for emergencies, and affordable child care. We cannot sit idle as half the population of our Nation lags behind. I look forward to voting in support of measures that break down economic barriers preventing women from reaching their full potential, because when women succeed, we all succeed. Thank you.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Democratic Leader Pelosi for her confidence in me in appointing me as her representative to the farm bill committee. I thank Representatives Peterson and Lucas and Senators Stabenow and Cochran for their leadership in negotiating this conference report. Throughout this process, it was my goal to ensure a fair and balanced farm bill. While I do not agree with some of the provisions of this conference bill, I firmly believe it is a good compromise. Given how far apart we were when this conference began, I am pleased Members on both sides of the aisle and across the Chamber were able to reach a consensus and show the American people Congress can work together. The agreement rejects categorical eligibility, something that we have talked about for some time. The $8.6 billion savings in SNAP over 10 years--over 10 years--comes from a change in LIHEAP policy that would shrink benefits for approximately 850,000 households in 16 States. It does not eliminate a qualified household from access to SNAP, which was an important consideration on the difficult road to reach a compromise that prevents devastating cuts and changes to this critically needed program. This agreement also expands economic investment in low-income, urban, and rural communities. It provides certainty and sound agricultural policies for America's farmers and ranchers. Passing the farm bill has always been a bipartisan endeavor, and this conference committee report proves it is still possible for Congress to work through its differences and produce a balanced bill that meets the needs of the American people. We have negotiated the farm bill for the last 2 years. It is now time to move forward. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan, bicameral conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2014 Farm Bill is truly a compromise. It's not the bill I would write on my own. It fails to adequately tackle the hunger and poverty that stalks our country from inner cities to rural towns and suburbs across America. However, it is a genuine compromise and represents important improvements to our federal nutrition programs. We have kept SNAP intact and rejected every one of the harsh House provisions that would have ended food assistance to nearly 4 million people. I am still deeply disappointed we were not able to make new investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in my district and around this country put food on the table. Millions remain unemployed and unable to provide for their families, and others who work in low- wage jobs or live on retirement income rely on SNAP to afford barely enough food. Despite this, I believe this legislation will strengthen and improve SNAP and the many other nutrition programs authorized under the Farm Bill. SNAP has been vital in assisting millions of families and countless communities cope with the Great Recession. Not only has the program responded quickly to increased needs, but it has also delivered benefits with ever-increased accuracy despite higher caseloads and strained State administrative budgets. While we look forward to a strengthening economy, which provides more jobs, we expect a strong SNAP will remain critically needed. This bill reauthorizes the program and makes some modest improvements. Despite expanding to respond to the increased need arising from the Great Recession, SNAP maintained historically low payment error and trafficking rates. The farm bill tightens eligibility in response to concerns about the way some States calculate benefits and media reports of unusual circumstances involving SNAP recipients, invests in fraud detection and prevention activities, improves retailer operations, and makes a number of small but important program changes. I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the key provisions of the nutrition title. First, I want to address the one significant cut in SNAP benefits that is included in the title. We have curtailed a practice that about a third of the States use to raise SNAP benefits for some families and simplify administration of the program. CBO says that about 850,000 families in those States will lose about $90 a month because of the cut. Though a painful loss for these families, the change fixes an oversight in the SNAP benefit calculation that has allowed some States to let households deduct more income than warranted by their actual expenses. They do this by giving SNAP households with no heating or cooling expenses a token LIHEAP payment of $1 or less in order to leverage a heating and cooling deduction, which raises their SNAP benefits. For decades, the receipt of LIHEAP has automatically qualified households for a standard utility allowance within the shelter deduction calculation. This is the right thing to do when the LIHEAP program already has determined that the household pays heating or cooling bills. But these States with very small LIHEAP payments have allowed some of these families to receive larger benefits than their circumstances warrant under the SNAP formula. Congress, however, did not intend to give households without heating or cooling expenses a deduction for such expenses. While I would strongly prefer to reinvest all of the savings from ending this practice back into meeting the needs of struggling households, it is reasonable to address this issue. This bill does so by requiring that a LIHEAP payment must be at least $20 for the State to use the LIHEAP connection to confer the SUA. This change will lower SNAP benefits to 850,000 low-income households by $8.55 billion over ten years. This will not be an easy adjustment for these households, but it will establish a stronger and more credible link between the traditional LIHEAP program and SNAP benefits. As a conferee, it was very important for us that the people who really deserve to deduct heating or cooling costs have a chance to do so, and the change we are making to fix a narrow problem not disrupt the original purpose of the LIHEAP linkage in promoting efficiency and ensuring households get all the benefits for which they qualify. This is why we gave the Secretary some flexibility here. I expect that the Department will work closely with State agencies to ensure households that now receive the SUA on the basis of a negligible LIHEAP payment will have the opportunity to clarify they actually do pay for heating or cooling, and this process will not be burdensome. Some States have targeted these small LIHEAP payments to households in public housing that are highly unlikely to incur a separate charge for home heating or cooling. But other States have given a one dollar payment to most, if not all SNAP households. We know that a large proportion of these households actually do pay a separate charge for utilities and need the SUA to get an adequate level of benefits. I also want to make clear this change is designed to affect only households in the 16 States that have provided a nominal LIHEAP benefit for purposes of qualifying households for a larger deduction. We got assurances from USDA that in the States that do not use the current rule in this way, SNAP participants would neither experience a cut in benefits, nor would there be a change in the way their income, shelter deduction, and benefits are calculated. This is an important implementation issue. States that, like my own State of Ohio and the majority of all States, do not provide a nominal LIHEAP benefit should be able to continue the way they determine eligibility for the SUA. Nor should low-income Ohioans be asked to do or verify anything differently from what they do now. None of the savings in the bill comes from reducing benefits for households that have LIHEAP payments that exceed the new $20 threshold, so USDA must ensure State implementation of the changes does not result in a benefit loss to a household legitimately receiving LIHEAP. Finally, I am concerned we may not have given States enough time to make the change and protect households. States will have flexibility in phasing in the provision for most participating households, but for new applicants and households who need to reapply for SNAP in the coming months, the provision is effective just 30 days after enactment, which is a very quick time-frame for States to implement. Under SNAP regulations, States will be protected from being cited for errors during the first few months after enactment. I urge States and USDA to not hold households accountable for receiving slightly higher benefits because the short implementation timeframe has not given their State ample opportunity to adjust their benefits properly. I'm proud of what we have been able to accomplish as conferees to improve the program without unduly burdening the struggling families that turn to SNAP in times of need. We focused our reforms on the administration of SNAP, and I'd like to highlight some of the areas where we tightened eligibility to respond to some uncommon cases. Over the last several years, there have been two reported instances of SNAP participants winning the lottery and remaining on the program. While a rare occurrence, and one that in many States already results in disqualification, we included a provision to make sure it does not happen again. We're focused on people winning a million dollars or some other life-changing amount, not someone who nets a few hundred dollars in scratch-off tickets that could very quickly be spent by paying overdue bills or paying for overdue auto or home maintenance. In implementing this provision, the Department should consider ``substantial'' to be truly extraordinary windfalls that will change lifestyles rather than provide more modest gains. Another key implementation issue is how the State discovers such winnings. Rather than clog application and report forms with questions that will apply to a negligible number of people, the bill requires State SNAP agencies to establish relationships with any in-State gaming commissions, so that the commissions will report any winnings that meet the threshold USDA will establish. The State agency will apply the regular income and asset tests to these households and the households will remain ineligible until they meet these tests. We do not see any need for any additional reporting by applicants or households, as the State-level reporting should be accurate and sufficient. The farm bill also clarifies rules around eligibility for felons. People with criminal records fleeing from law enforcement and violating their parole are not eligible for SNAP. The farm bill reiterates people convicted of certain felonies such as murder and armed robbery who violate their parole or probation are ineligible for benefits. And it imposes a hard penalty on the families of those who do not comply--the household of the ex-offender will see a significant drop in benefits because the income and resources of the non-eligible member would still be counted. While harsh to innocent family members who may have helped their family member rehabilitate successfully by providing a place to live, it represents no change in the law and is the way other offenders, such as drug felons and those intentionally violating SNAP rules are treated now. Ex-offenders who have served their time and continue to comply with the conditions placed on their release, and who are otherwise eligible for food assistance through SNAP, will be able to apply for and receive assistance. Program participants should not experience any change from our desire to reiterate current policy with respect to fleeing felons. The SNAP eligibility and enrollment process already solicits information from applicants about their fleeing felon status and we anticipate those efforts will be not be disrupted or changed as a result of this re-articulation of current rules. Another area where the conferees worked hard to make improvements is in the area of program integrity and fraud prevention. The bill contains an important program integrity enhancement for multiple requests for EBT card replacements. Participants can lose cards. The cards may also be stolen or malfunction. Without a working card, households can't buy food. We've become aware of a very small number of households with more frequent requests for card replacement and this raises program integrity issues. The bill requires USDA to set a standard for excessive requests for card replacement and requires States to seek explanations from households that exceed this threshold as to why another card is needed prior to re-issuing a card. Similarly, States may not require households to provide their explanation in person or withhold the card based on the household's explanation. That requires following the procedures for an intentional program violation. Because of the critical importance of maintaining access to food assistance, the bill requires that States promptly give individuals a chance to explain. We expect USDA to monitor this closely; any delay in working with the household is a day they do not have benefits to purchase food. There are many reasons why replacement cards are legitimately and urgently needed--people may not understand the card was reusable, they may confuse a PIN problem with a card problem, they may be victims of theft, or they may simply lose their card. These things can happen to anyone, but some people are particularly vulnerable. Accordingly, this bill requires protections for vulnerable populations such as persons with disabilities, homeless persons, and crime victims. This provision does not empower States to use this process to terminate participation or impose undue new burdens on households. SNAP rules set out procedural standards for acting on evidence of intentional program violations--standards that balance the pursuit of program integrity with fundamental legal rights of accused persons. If a State believes its evidence indicates an intentional program violation in this area, it must replace the card and use its disqualification process to take any further action. We've provided additional resources to USDA to improve integrity efforts. We applaud USDA's strong commitment to rooting out fraud in the program, but with a significant increase in the number of stores accepting SNAP, USDA must continue to improve its retailer monitoring efforts. This bill gives the Department additional resources to improve its technology to take advantage of innovations like data mining, which can reveal retailer redemption patterns and help identify stores that may be abusing the program. We expect USDA to focus on data analysis and other smart tools to maintain the high standards of compliance in the program. Again, this is an example of the conferees focusing on the improving the administrative side of the program, rather than placing onerous burdens, like photo identification requirements, on retailers or participants. We've also provided funds to encourage State and federal partnerships to address retailer fraud through pilot projects. States selected for the pilot need to show they have committed resources to recipient trafficking and have a proven record of accurate determinations of fraud. In other words, States that have been successful in identifying and reducing documented fraud should be given a priority in partnering with USDA on retailer fraud. There has been a lot of attention given to the relationship between SNAP and work. We know many households on SNAP have a working member and some States operate promising employment and training programs. Earlier versions of the farm bill in each house had widely differing approaches to the issue of work and, as a conferee, I'm proud we worked diligently to find areas of agreement and come up with some important reforms in the program without cutting people off for failure to find a job or imposing some other hardship on households. While the majority of SNAP participants who can work are working, we want to do what we can to help those who are able to work but cannot find a job. SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) has allowed States to provide services to adults facing the three month time limit as well as individuals seeking to improve their employability, but it is time to evaluate what really works and encourage States to build upon successes. So we have improved and increased funding for SNAP E&T. The bill provides $200 million to pilot and evaluate innovative and promising State employment and training programs. These pilots can be drawn from SNAP E&T components, but can also include efforts to help those who already are working by providing the kinds of supportive services, like child care or transportation assistance, that often are insurmountable expenses to those with low-paying jobs. The conferees expect that States will expand their SNAP E&T activities or test new ideas, not use the funds to fund what they already are doing, or remove State dollars from their SNAP E&T programs. Over time, SNAP E&T has served 3 different goals: a test of the willingness of the able-bodied to perform work activities as a condition of assistance, a means for some childless adults to exceed the 3-month time limit via workfare, and a way to enhance the employment prospects of SNAP recipients by improving their skills and abilities. Pilots will test approaches to meeting each of these goals and provide us with crucial information about the most effective approaches. As conferees we thought a rigorous evaluation is a critical component of the pilot projects. With so many SNAP recipients who find jobs on their own, a key question is how do we know if the program and services the State offered made a difference. States that cannot guarantee they will participate fully in the evaluation and provide the necessary data for the evaluation should not be selected to participate. To ensure we learn something, we also have made the new money we provide available to the evaluation and for the State and federal costs of running the pilot. I am especially interested in learning about the most effective ways for States to assess the needs of SNAP participants upfront and to match those needs to the right education and training programs and other supportive services that will make a difference for that individual. This is information we do not have now and could help States to target limited resources to really make a difference in peoples' lives. Finally, I applaud the conference committee leadership for designing a pilot project that gives States resources without creating punitive incentives to force people who cannot find work off the program. I know, however, some States may choose more punitive approaches under a theory that exposing a family to the possibility of losing their benefits will spur additional work effort. I do not support this view, but States are allowed under the pilots to sanction individuals who fail to comply with any work requirements under the same rules and terms as under the current SNAP E&T program. In addition, because we have added unsubsidized work as an allowable activity under the pilot, we have asked the Secretary to issue guidance about the very limited circumstances under which a person who is working could be sanctioned for losing his or her job. The last thing we intend is for people who are already doing what we want--that is, working--to face losing some or all of their SNAP benefits because they lose that job. Beyond the pilot projects, we are very interested in learning what works in all States in getting SNAP participants the skills and training they need to get and keep a well-paying job. That's why we will require States to report on the results of their E&T efforts. USDA is charged to use this new information to look at how this program can achieve more lasting gains in self-sufficiency. The conferees also recognize SNAP participants are among the poorest and least skilled members of society. We do not expect it will be easy for all of them to quickly find employment, especially in the aftermath of the recession. We expect a study would consider some interventions--such as career and technical education or GED programs--may yield more gains over the long haul, but participants would not immediately find those jobs because they are gaining the credentials needed to get them. To that end, USDA's study needs to recognize getting better jobs may require getting more training, so delayed, but enduring improvements, are important. I've been focused on changes to the program that affect participants. But SNAP is a program that helps both hungry households and the food industry. This farm bill continues to modernize the program, with a number of improvements for retailers. One thing we were able to do is take important steps to ensure SNAP remains compatible with the evolving food retail landscape. To this end, we authorize the Secretary to test the use of mobile technologies in SNAP--things like smart phone apps that have become increasingly common in the larger retail world. This may be especially important to farmers markets and vegetable stands that are unable to install traditional EBT-processing machines. But allowing additional ways to accept benefits must not come at the expense of program integrity. We all share a deep commitment to ensuring only authorized retailers participate in the program and sufficient protections are in place to prevent trafficking. This provision reflects that priority. For example, we start with a pilot project to test the idea of using mobile technology, include protections for recipients, and prohibit any food price markups. We expect USDA to take ironclad measures to prevent fraud and require a report on the feasibility of the technology before allowing it to be used more widely than the pilot. USDA is to be commended for the good work it has done in reducing fraud in the program, and we expect the same attention to program integrity to be employed in testing new technologies before embracing them in SNAP. This bill also allows pilot projects to test the feasibility of allowing the online purchase of food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a growing food industry trend toward online transactions with delivery. While allowing the ordering and purchase of food online is one way to make the program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting to a store that can redeem benefits, again we worked hard to ensure the high program integrity standards apply to any new way of redeeming benefits. We expect USDA to aggressively address fraud for the same reasons set out above and require, in the bill, the agency halt any expansion of online transactions if integrity issues cannot be resolved. While the provision makes clear that delivery fees associated with online purchases may not be paid with SNAP benefits, I also expect USDA to set standards for the fees to ensure no adverse effect on food security. After all, low-income households rely on SNAP because they are unable to purchase enough food--to divert other scarce financial resources to pay delivery fees undermines the accessibility offered by the online option. I would like to point out these new mobile and online technologies, common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo identification or other biometric information to authorize payments and maintain integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP retail transaction should look like any other debit card transaction. Thus, I urge USDA to stop approving misguided efforts at the State level to require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of purchase. Technology has made these conditions on the use of benefits obsolete in the retail environment, and so they should be eliminated from the SNAP retail environment as well. Benefits have been issued successfully on electronic cards for years, but there have been rare occasions when the cards, or the processing systems that deduct benefits from the cards, fail to operate. In these cases, program participants may be in even greater need of assistance and must be able to use their benefits to purchase food. This requires the capacity to quickly and efficiently issue manual vouchers to affected individuals. We expect USDA to issue rules that make it quick and easy to switch to manual vouchers for automated systems failures or natural disasters. Critical to successfully providing an alternative is establishing clear criteria that allow State officials to apply immediately in a variety of particular situations. The threat to program integrity posed by physical vouchers stems from vouchers issued when individual cards fail to work, not when there is an intelligible, systemic reason for the problem. I commend my fellow conferees for working in a bipartisan way to identify areas of the program that could be strengthened in a way that minimizes administrative burden and does not impose a hardship on participating households. We've made some changes that will improve eligibility determinations and the quality of our research. For example, we've taken steps to ensure federal funds used to inform Americans about SNAP cannot be used in inappropriate ways. Let's be clear, USDA has done a fine and necessary job getting information about SNAP to low-income households struggling to put food on the table. The program cannot be effective if those who may need it are unaware of its existence or believe they are not eligible. With the program's name change from the Food Stamp Program to SNAP, there was a great need for accurate information to be disseminated. Almost all of USDA's efforts have been appreciated and appropriate, but there have been reports of some ill-advised efforts, such as collaborating with the Mexican consulate and reimbursing community members who sign up eligible people on a per person or ``bounty'' basis. These were neither best practices, nor were they widespread, so we prohibited them in the farm bill. But in reality, many low-income households that are eligible are not signing up, and we know that is because, in part, individuals are unaware of the program or have misconceptions about it. For example, seniors often fear if they apply for assistance, they are taking away assistance from someone else. But that is just not true, and we need to be able to give these seniors truthful information so they can make the choice that is right for them. In this bill, Congress continues to support this kind of information sharing, while clarifying aggressive recruitment, including recruitment outside of the United States, is not permissible. Recruitment is trying to persuade or convince someone who has made an informed decision not to apply to change his or her mind. That hasn't been a permissible activity and the bill simply codifies that practice. Providing people with positive information about the program and the benefits of applying or assisting them to navigate the complicated application process is not recruitment and is still allowed. We expect the agency will continue to provide necessary information while ensuring education funds are used appropriately. Another change we made to strengthen SNAP was to give States access to more tools to double check the information SNAP applicants provide. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement oversees such a tool: the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), which primarily is for State child support agencies to learn important information about the employment of noncustodial parents who live or work in other States. Currently States are allowed to use this database for some other purposes, including verifying employment and earnings of SNAP recipients. We have, in this bill, required States make use of the data available through the NDNH at the time a household is certified for SNAP, to help the State determine eligibility and the correct level of benefits for households applying for SNAP. We expect the Secretary to issue guidance to help States determine the most cost- effective and efficient ways to make use of this data source. For example, it makes no sense for States to pay to match every individual in every applicant household. There is no reasonable chance an 80 year- old disabled person or a four year old child has unreported earnings. The Secretary should work with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to explore ways to limit the cost of the match to State agencies and maximize payment accuracy. The bill also codifies the existing State practice of verifying immigrant participation in the program by using the federal Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE). It's a commonsense way for States to determine eligibility that does not require a household to track down paperwork or fill out unnecessary forms. We expect this to have no impact on client eligibility or responsibility since the data match is an administrative procedure. No other changes to immigrant eligibility have been made. We fully expect State and local agencies, institutions and organizations that receive funding through USDA to study, evaluate or otherwise engage with SNAP will cooperate with USDA's own researchers. Some of these entities may have justifiable concerns in this day and age about sharing some data, especially private information about participant households. This bill includes a provision that explicitly requires cooperation, but ensures that it does not violate any important existing requirements, such as the personal privacy of SNAP participants. I'd like to turn for a moment to other nutrition provisions in the bill. Since 2001, Puerto Rico has been allowed to issue to 25 percent of households' SNAP benefit as cash, rather than in a form that can only be spent on food. While program rules require the cash also be spent for food, some cash is spent on other household necessities, though there is little evidence that any cash is spent on non-essential items. This is because the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) plays a unique role in Puerto Rico's safety net because other programs available in States (such as TANF and SSI) do not play a significant role on the island. Puerto Rico is already shortchanged on nutrition assistance--if NAP operated as SNAP does in the States, participation would be 15 percent higher and federal costs would be over 22 percent higher. Some have argued this cash allotment should be eliminated, a change that would be disruptive, and over which there has been little engagement with local stakeholders or affected parties. So the farm bill requires a study on the impact of eliminating the cash portion of the nutrition grant, and assuming such a change is feasible, gradually phases it out. But, we included an important protection for poor Puerto Ricans. The Secretary can exempt categories of participants if he or she has determined the elimination of the cash portion would cause undue hardship. The entire NAP caseload could be exempted if the study shows the policy change would have significant adverse effects. Another provision in the bill requires USDA to pilot different ways to deliver food assistance to needy people in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Here we expect USDA to look at different ways to structure food aid based on the structure of SNAP, but recognizing many of the SNAP administrative requirements may not be appropriate for such a small government and isolated population. There is a wide range of options between the current block grant and full SNAP implementation. For example, we expect any program would be run with integrity, but this does not necessarily mean the SNAP quality control review process--one of the most rigorous to which any public program is subject--is the only way to review payment accuracy in the CNMI. In the area of benefit issuance, SNAP has highly detailed standards for Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems. This approach works well in the United States, but may not be appropriate for the CNMI. SNAP has very explicit rules about how benefits are determined and recognizes assorted expenses as deductions from income. CNMI may be better able to run a program with greater standardization of benefits. None of this is to argue for any specific approach. Rather, we expect USDA to look for ways to improve nutrition assistance to the residents of the CNMI in a manner that its government can deliver. As I said at the start, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. I'm not pleased we had to reduce food assistance to any low-income households. But overall, we have continued the long tradition in the Agriculture Committee of bipartisan support for the program. It has taken us two years and countless hours to come to a compromise over a wide range of complex agriculture and nutrition issues while still contributing to reducing the federal deficit. This farm bill is an important step in dealing with the most important food and agricultural issues facing the Nation today. I again, voice my support for this language and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues Congressmen Jeffries and Horsford for once again leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order Hour. Today's topic of income/economic inequality is one of the most critical challenges currently facing our country. For too many Americans, the barriers to economic opportunity and mobility have become insurmountable. Just last week, a Pew Research Center survey found that at least 60 percent of all Republicans, Democrats and Independents say the gap between the rich and everyone else has grown in the past 10 years. However, we do not need a survey to tell us what we already know to be true. According to the Census Bureau, 95 percent of all economic gains since the recovery began have gone to the top 1 percent. We also know that, since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few. In the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today's CEO makes 273 times more. Meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical American family, the largest income gap ever for our country. This is simply egregious. We cannot continue to believe that a growing economy guarantees higher wages and income for all. Because it does not. We cannot ignore that in 2014, women continue to lag behind men in wages, with women making 77 cents for every dollar a man takes home. According to The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink, women make up nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers. Given this statistic, it's no wonder that a third of all American women are living on the brink of poverty. Americans are working harder than ever, for the smallest of gains. This is simply not acceptable. Congress must renew its focus on investing in the American people through quality programs that promote access to the middle class, equality and accountability. In order to help the working poor and middle class, we must raise the minimum wage; invest in education; improve our infrastructure; reign in Wall Street and return our focus to Main Street. Only then will we be on the path toward prosperity and equal economic opportunity for all.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Eleventh Congressional District of Ohio, I rise today to recognize a great Ohioan, Arnold Pinkney, who passed away Monday, January 13, 2014, at 83 years of age. Arnold Pinkney was an extraordinary political strategist and mentor to generations of elected leaders, including me. He had an innate understanding of people's needs and knew how elected officials could best articulate and pursue policies that achieved the common good. Mr. Pinkney managed the Cleveland mayoral campaign of Carl Stokes, who in 1967 became the first African-American mayor to lead a major American city. Mr. Pinkney went on to manage successful campaigns for the Honorable Louis Stokes. He also co-managed Ohio gubernatorial campaigns of Dick Celeste. Arnold managed the 1984 presidential campaign of Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. Notably, the strategy used in Rev. Jackson's campaign resulted in the significant presence of delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The presence of Rev. Jackson and his delegates allowed for their meaningful input into the party's focus and priorities for the election cycle and beyond, and opened a door that eventually culminated in the election and re-election of President Barack Obama over 20 years later. Mr. Pinkney was elected to and served many years on the Cleveland Metropolitan School District Board of Education, including time as its president. He also helped the school district pass levies critically needed to educate the city's children and provided successful strategic advice to other local public office candidates. What I remember most about Arnold is his passion to use the talents with which he was blessed to improve our community. His love of politics was inspired and nurtured early on by the great Hubert Humphrey, having served as deputy manager for the Vice President's 1968 presidential campaign. Vice President Humphrey once said, ``The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.'' Mr. Pinkney kept those words close to heart as he strategized with and advised so many of us. Mr. Pinkney was also an astute businessman. He was the first African American agent for the Prudential Insurance Company, and later co- founded the Pinkney-Perry Insurance Agency, which remains a thriving business in northeast Ohio today. Financial success did not blind Arnold Pinkney to the needs of the people and the need of government to serve all people. He lived his life to the fullest, and left the world a better place than he found it.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Eleventh Congressional District of Ohio, I rise today to recognize and reflect on the achievements of Eleanor Montgomery, who was inducted into the U.S. Track and Field Hall of Fame in 2013 on her 67th birthday. Ms. Montgomery passed away three weeks later on December 28, 2013. A native Clevelander, Ms. Montgomery literally set the bar high early in life. At the tender age of 14, she won her first national title in the long jump, and while in high school, she set a record and won a gold medal at the 1963 Pan American Games as a high jumper. Ms. Montgomery went on to compete in the 1964 and 1968 Olympics as a member of the U.S. Track and Field Team. She was the U.S. high jumping champion, placing 8th at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. She won six Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) national high jump titles from 1963 to 1967 and in 1969, and won the Pan American games in 1967. A member of the famous Tennessee State TigerBelles, which dominated women's track and field before there was a Title IX, Ms. Montgomery was ranked top 10 in the world through most of the 1960's. Later in life, Ms. Montgomery raised the bar for us all as she worked tirelessly for decades encouraging youth and promoting academic and athletic opportunities for them. As an employee of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, she served as a high school track and cross country official. She was also the executive director of the NFL Players Association Youth Camp and coordinated Special Olympics events. Eleanor Montgomery achieved what many merely dream of doing. She will be missed and long remembered.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty. In 1964, President Johnson stood in this Chamber and addressed a Congress that represented a nation where more than 25 percent of Americans lived in poverty. In his address, President Johnson launched an agenda that led to the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, Job Corps, Head Start, and nutrition assistance for those who struggle to put food on their table. His war, and its resulting programs, helped move millions out of poverty. From 1967 to 2012, the poverty rate fell from 26 percent to 16 percent, largely because of the strong safety net programs initiated by President Johnson's agenda. Yet here we are today, 50 years later, and too many Americans are still living on the outskirts of hope because the war on poverty has now become a war on the poor. In the last year alone, Congress has agreed to indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration in an effort to balance the budget, and the House passed a farm bill that cut SNAP by $40 billion. Sequestration hurts the very people who need help the most by greatly reducing critical funding to programs like WIC and Head Start. Congress drastically cut one of the most powerful antipoverty programs, SNAP, better known as food stamps. That is absurd when, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP kept 4.9 million Americans out of poverty in 2012 alone, including 2.2 million children. Congress has also chosen not to extend unemployment insurance. Even though our country continues to lift itself out of the recession, many Americans still need our support. Turning our back on the 1.4 million Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own is unconscionable. In an interview yesterday, I was asked to respond to a quote regarding unemployment insurance by a Republican, and this is what he said. He said: We have to introduce the blessing of work to people who have never seen it. And let me just say, to be clear, he could not possibly have been talking about unemployment insurance, because you have to have worked to even receive it. So he obviously doesn't know what unemployment insurance is. And to my colleague, I say that the American people know that they should be blessed with work, but they need meaningful work with a living wage. I will continue to be a voice for the poor and will always fight on behalf of the 46 million Americans trying to survive in households with inadequate incomes. Americans need us to open the gates of opportunity so they can eat properly, get a quality education, and find good-paying jobs. So on this 50th anniversary, I am making it clear that the war on poverty might be over, but the fight for the poor is not. We must reinforce the plans of President Johnson that would ensure all Americans can support themselves and their families and have better chances to contribute to our economy and our society. This is the way we build upon the progress we have made over the past five decades, not by taking action to reverse it. To paraphrase Dr. King, he says, we have an obligation to those who have been left out of the sunlight of opportunity.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me as we pause to honor and remember the life of former South African President Nelson Mandela, who dedicated his life to making his vision of a free South Africa a reality. Mr. Mandela stood for peace, for justice, and for a society that recognized the equality of every human being. After serving 27 years in prison for challenging the apartheid-sanctioned South African Government, Nelson Mandela emerged with a powerful message of forgiveness and reconciliation, a message that would transform his nation and unite the world. In 1986, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the majority of the U.S. Congress stood with Mandela for peace and justice, and helped force an end to apartheid in South Africa. Today, I leave you with Nelson Mandela's words: What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead. South Africa and the world will forever be changed because Nelson Mandela lived. I now ask that you pause for a moment of silence in honor of a great man, a man we respectfully and affectionately refer to as ``Madiba.''

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Fattah, for leading this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the life and legacy of former South African President Nelson Mandela, a relentless pioneer for justice, equality, and democracy. I am proud to say that members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood with President Mandela before it was popular or politically advantageous. Working with grassroots advocates, members of the Congressional Black Caucus and many others from across the world, Mandela activated a movement that not only spoke of democracy and equality, but realized those principles through action, meaningful action that ultimately broke the chains of apartheid and will be forever remembered as the legacy of Madiba. Today, the CBC salutes the life of a world leader who sacrificed a lifetime for the ideals of democracy. Today, we celebrate the life of a man from humble beginnings who overcome the obstacles of racial intolerance and rose to lead a country and a people to prosperity and freedom. Today, we cherish the life of a President who led with dignity and strength. Today, we treasure the life and legacy of Nelson Mandela. Madiba, you will forever be remembered.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 23 percent of Ohioans with incomes below 133 percent of the Federal poverty level were uninsured. But thanks to the expansion of Medicaid in my home State of Ohio, all of the almost 600,000 residents who are uninsured with incomes below 138 percent of the Federal poverty level will now have access to Medicaid coverage. In my district alone, an additional 72,000 people became eligible for Medicaid. And next Monday, December 9, all of these individuals will be able to begin signing up for health care coverage that begins January 1. No longer will I receive calls from constituents like Brandon Proctor, who was told that he was ``too rich for Medicaid but too poor for subsidies.'' This is the way the Affordable Care Act was supposed to work. Finally, all Ohioans will have access to quality and affordable health care.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Congressman Jeffries, for yielding. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, Congressmen Jeffries and Horsford, for leading this CBC Special Order hour and for leading 16 CBC Special Order hours this year. It has been a pleasure to listen to you both. The information that you have shared with the American public is to be commended, and I thank you both because, week after week, you have led the CBC in discussions that promote increased opportunity, justice, and a better America for all Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting you both for bringing our message to the American people. Mr. Speaker, 2013 has been a challenging year. Partisan gridlock has made this year one of the least productive in the history of the U.S. Congress. To date, Congress has passed only 52 bills into law, and if you remove the ceremonial legislation, that number shrinks to 42, almost matching the 41 laws passed in 2011, which was, to date, the least productive year in the history of the Congress. It is far too easy to simply point fingers, but this much is clear: Congress is failing the American people. Partisan grandstanding has paralyzed our legislative branch, leaving our country unable to move forward to prepare for a rapidly changing and uncertain world. Facing widespread economic and political instability, America looks to Congress for leadership. The CBC has risen to this challenge, working with both sides of the aisle and both Chambers of Congress. This year, the CBC addressed the government shutdown, our Federal budget process, gun violence, voting rights, justice reform, education reform, and so much more. The members of the CBC also led efforts to directly engage underserved communities on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act; to improve the judicial nomination and confirmation process; in discussing the pressing issues related to immigration reform, especially for those of the African diaspora; and we convened a summit on the culture of violence in our communities. I am proud of the CBC for our bipartisan solution-oriented approach to the most pressing issues facing our country, and despite the tough legislative environment, the CBC consistently looks to build coalitions and to enact solutions that will benefit all Americans. Unfortunately, a deeply divided Congress has prevented America from reaping the benefits of our efforts. As we move into next year, Congress must end our crisis-oriented budget cycle. Our inability to end the sequester, to move past the failed policy of austerity and to generate new sources of revenue will slow economic growth and leave all but the very wealthy behind. We are a great Nation, but we cannot sustain our standing unless we end the partisan political gamesmanship and live up to the promise of America. Working together, we can create a more prosperous America in which the only ceilings to our potential are the limits of our own imaginations. Mr. Speaker, in 2 weeks, the first session of the 113th Congress will come to a close. It will be the end of a Congress marked with missed opportunities and hyperpartisan games. The Congressional Black Caucus is prepared to make 2014 the year Congress moves beyond the partisan politics of years past, ends our legislative paralysis, restores faith in our government, and brings prosperity back to the American people.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressmen Horsford and Jeffries, for continuing to lead the Special Order and for tonight leading on a Special Order hour that addresses another important topic, and that is hunger in America. In 10 days, Americans will come together with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, but for many families around the country, their Thanksgiving tables will be sparse and some even bear. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is shameful that this Nation has not and will not address the issue of hunger. As ranking member on the House Agriculture Subcommittee that oversees our country's nutrition programs, I am working hard to end hunger in America. One in every six Americans struggle with hunger or food insecurity. This is an issue that plagues nearly every community, from our inner cities to our rural countrysides. While Americans are still struggling to rebound from the recent recession, many families have already seen a setback as they experience a reduction in SNAP, which my colleague talked to you about just a moment ago. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that this reduction is equal to the loss of 16 meals for a family of three. When children are hungry, they are not able to focus in school. When seniors have limited resources and limited incomes, they are forced to make the difficult choice between purchasing medicine and sufficient groceries. Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourns this Thursday, many of us will go home to spend the Thanksgiving holidays with our families. Some will serve the less fortunate in our communities. But let's all take the time to talk to workers at food banks and other charities, ask about the impact of Federal benefits cuts, the increased demand on charitable antihunger programs and what has been done to fill the gap. Just a short discussion with those who have fallen on hard times can be a sobering reminder of the impact a little help can provide. And to the American people who are struggling this Thanksgiving, please know that the CBC has not forgotten you. As the conscience of the Congress, we continue to fight for you every single day. The fight is far from over, but as long as one American is suffering, we will fight on. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Kelvin Smith Library at Case Western Reserve University, which celebrates this year 100 years of service as a congressionally-designated Federal Depository Library. As one of the Nation's more than 1,200 Federal Depository Libraries, Case Western Reserve serves students, faculty, and the constituents of Ohio's 11th Congressional District with free access to the publications of all three branches of government. In its 100 years as a Federal Depository Library, Case Western Reserve has made government information available in a variety of formats, from ink on paper to the latest digital technologies. In the mid-1990s, Case Western Reserve was one of a handful of libraries nationally which pioneered making online government information freely available through a partnership between the Government Printing Office, which administers the Federal Depository Library Program, and the Cleveland Free Net. The University Libraries have maintained an outstanding retrospective collection of government publications, and have provided countless hours of expert assistance to researchers. Throughout its 100 year history as a Federal Depository Library, Case Western Reserve has been recognized by the Government Printing Office for providing outstanding expert service to its primary clientele and to the residents of my Congressional district. I would like to recognize the library staff and Associate Provost and University Librarian Arnold Hirshon as they mark the 100th anniversary of depository designation. I wish them much success as they enter their second century of Keeping America Informed.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressmen Jeffries and Horsford, for once again leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order Hour. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House and Senate conferees will begin deliberations to produce a budget for the first time in 4 years. Mr. Speaker, these deliberations, which are long overdue, are critical because they may provide a long-term plan that will continue to move our country forward out of our economic recession and towards a stronger America. There is a long overdue discussion needed. For so many around this country, the barriers to economic opportunity and mobility have become insurmountable. The American people are looking to Congress to provide leadership and to turn our economy around. Unfortunately, some in Congress have put austerity before economic recovery, draining resources that might otherwise have improved our economic outlook. While many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused on shrinking the government at any cost, the CBC is focused on making our government smarter and its programs more efficient. It is time to prioritize projects that will not only turn our country's economy around, but that will also open the doors of opportunity for future generations. No longer can we ignore high levels of unemployment among those living in poverty and the disproportionately high unemployment rates among people of color. We cannot pretend that our current investments in education are sufficient, while report after report details our country's academic shortcomings and our declining international standing. We must acknowledge the fact that one in five children are hungry, and nearly 50 million Americans live in households suffering from food insecurity. We must face the reality of a crumbling transportation infrastructure and the fact that improvement costs rise every year we delay investments. Congress can spend the next month-and-a-half hiding from these truths and hoping for an improved economy that will magically fix these problems, or we can directly address our issues through bipartisan cooperation and with a common goal to make our country better. Congress can place a renewed focus on investing in the American people through quality programs that promote access, equality, and accountability. All this can be done while we cut wasteful spending, preserve the Affordable Care Act, and set the stage for meaningful tax reform. Admittedly, that may seem like a lot of priorities to tackle for one Congress, much less this one, but we can. We can do this if we move past the usual partisan bickering and do what is most important for the Nation. Of course, as they say, the devil is in the details. A very smart, ambitious, and detailed plan is necessary to make it work. Luckily, the Congressional Black Caucus has just the plan to make this work: the CBC budget. The CBC budget cuts wasteful spending, invests in education, preserves the ACA, provides the resources to rebuild our transportation infrastructure, addresses crippling poverty, creates jobs now, and ensures America is a leader in the high-growth industries of the future. I want to thank Congressman Bobby Scott for all of his work on the CBC budget. By considering ideas and proposals from the CBC budget, Congress can stimulate the economy while expanding the middle class. From the dark days of the government shutdown, this opportunity is now a bright spot for Congress and this country. We can rebuild America using the principles on which our Nation was founded: that everyone, no matter their background, should have the opportunity to achieve their dreams. To my colleagues in the House and Senate, we have the opportunity and a blueprint. Let's build a better America together.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressmen Jeffries and Horsford, for once again leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour. Mr. Speaker, here we stand, nearly 72 hours before the United States Treasury reaches the debt limit. We are 72 hours away from compromising our ability to make Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits payments. We are 72 hours away from risking default on our international debt obligations; 72 hours away from the potential of stocks plummeting and interest rates soaring, reversing recent gains in the housing, automobile, and banking markets. Our Nation is 72 hours away from the possibility of a severe economic disaster both at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the House majority's inability to move beyond partisan politics has created one economic crisis after another. Our country is still feeling the effects of the economic downturn and subsequent recession that began in 2007. Communities around the country continue to struggle with high unemployment, less access to loans for small businesses, and a fragile housing market. It is irresponsible to do further damage to our economy by even threatening to allow America to default on its bills. We must first do no harm, Mr. Speaker. Yet that is exactly the position we are in because of House Republicans. Now, don't be misled by Republican talking points that would lead you to believe that raising the debt limit leads to more spending. This only allows us to pay debts that have already been accrued, debts that have already been authorized by this Congress. While both parties have politicized the debt limits in the past, we have never--and I repeat, never--seen this degree of brinkmanship. Prior to this dysfunctional Congress, the debt limit debates never contemplated an actual default. Members of Congress never faced the impact of crossing that threshold and artificially forcing the Nation into the depths of economic disaster. And ultimately, when legislative language was attached to the debt limit, it was a part of a package that passed with strong bipartisan support. We simply cannot afford the catastrophic consequences of a government default. It is time for Congress to put the American people first, work together to find a solution, and put partisan bickering behind us. Our Nation has worked too hard to put us on the path to recovery. Mr. Speaker, it is time to move forward. The American people expect Congress to do its job. The CBC stands ready--ready to work with our colleagues to raise the debt ceiling, reject the politics of brinkmanship, and get our economic house in order.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just had the opportunity with 10 of my colleagues to go to a community shelter today to serve lunch to some of the poorest people in our community. The community shelter is So Others Might Eat, and I listen to my colleagues talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. I am disappointed and embarrassed to serve in a House in which we would not want to take care of the poorest people in this Nation. Some of the poorest people in our Nation, many of them children, seniors, and veterans, depend on SNAP. SNAP puts food on the tables of struggling parents who need to send their children to school properly nourished. It also gives low-income working families--by the way, who represent nearly half of all SNAP recipients--and seniors the necessary support they need. Last month, this House passed a bill that cut nearly $40 billion in food stamps. It is both inappropriate and inexcusable to cut food assistance when more than 7 percent of the Nation remains unemployed and when we will not pass a jobs bill. Our economy is struggling to produce enough jobs so that families can eat without needing this assistance; and we all know that, beginning on November 1, SNAP recipients will see a reduction in their benefits when the 2009 Recovery Act's temporary benefits end. According to the CBO, benefits will be reduced by as much as $300 per year. This cut will result in less food for more than 47 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, at some point we have to be honest with ourselves. We either have to believe that we are doing our jobs by taking care of the people of this country or that we are only taking care of a few. So I say to those of you who believe that all of this is about fraud, waste, and abuse: go to the same shelter that I went to today. Go into your neighborhoods and your communities, because we all have them. There are poor people and hungry children everywhere. I want you to go and tell them that it is okay for you to cut $40 billion in food stamps.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the FARRM Act, which is H.R. 2642, reauthorizes Federal farm, rural development, and agricultural trade programs through fiscal year 2018, or 5 years. However, H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act, which passed last month, reauthorized nutrition programs for only 3 years. This separation is problematic, and it needs to be addressed. Farming and feeding go hand in hand, and a comprehensive farm bill recognizes this connection. We can restore this connection by ensuring a 5-year reauthorization for all programs that come under the farm bill. I urge my colleagues to recognize the link between nutrition and farm communities. Support a farm bill that meets the nutritional needs of all Americans.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank you, as always, for continuing to lead this Special Order hour. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stand on this House floor today and say that Republicans are playing with fire when they refuse to fund the government, but I can't do that because what they are doing is much worse. They are playing with people's very lives. They have made it abundantly clear that they care more about scoring political points and embarrassing this administration than addressing the needs of the American people. A government shutdown has had an immediate impact on many people across this Nation: furloughing more than 800,000 Federal workers; stopping nutritional and clinical support for women, infants and children; and delaying lifesaving research at NIH. My office continues to receive calls from distressed constituents about the status of Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP. While we can reassure them that such programs will continue to operate, their concern and anxiety demonstrates the price every day Americans must pay when Congress fails. Over the past few years, no issue has consumed more of the public's attention than health care reform; but, unfortunately for the American people, much of what has been said bears no relation to reality. Republicans have tried to make the case that health care reform will raise health care costs catastrophically and drive up the cost of Medicare or increase the deficit. These claims are simply not true. The truth is the Affordable Care Act will slow overall health care spending, decrease Medicare spending, and decrease our deficit. All this will be accomplished while expanding health care coverage, cutting costs for seniors, and eliminating health disparities for communities of color. Unfortunately, Republicans are so focused on preventing the expansion of health care that they are willing to hurt individuals in communities that are still struggling to rebound from our economic downturn. Already, as many as 19,000 children in 11 States have been left out of Head Start programs because grant money ran out on September 30. Several large defense contractors have started placing workers on notice that they may be furloughed. The 9 million mothers and children who rely on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, are facing the possibility that they may lose their benefits. And our local Federal courts may be crippled by furloughs as soon as next week. The growing economic impact of this shutdown is extremely difficult to measure. The human and social impacts like the loss of money for food, housing, or educational opportunities are impossible to quantify. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, passed by both Chambers of Congress, signed by the President, and confirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court. Until Republicans accept this fact, the government will be shut down and the American people will have been let down by the majority party of this body.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the beginning of a new era in American health care. In less than a week, Americans across the country will be able to enroll in health insurance marketplaces, more commonly known as health exchanges. Americans will no longer be subjected to annual limits on their coverage or refused insurance because of a preexisting condition. We as a Nation will be that much closer to ensuring that every American has access to high quality and affordable health care. The United States is undoubtedly home to the world's best doctors, hospitals, and health care providers; and, starting January 1, more than 6 million children, seniors, women, and men will be able to access world-class care at less than $100 a month. I certainly believe that's something worth celebrating.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service on celebrating its 20th anniversary on September 21, 2013. In communities across America, committed AmeriCorps members are making an impact and a powerful difference on some of the most critical issues facing our nation: poverty, hunger, education and much more. Since its inception, more than 820,000 men and women have taken the AmeriCorps pledge, serving more than one billion hours and improving the lives of their neighbors and our communities. In the 11th Congressional District of Ohio, AnneriCorps members are serving with long standing community organizations including the Akron- Canton Regional Foodbank, City Year, the Cleveland Foodbank, The Literacy Cooperative and others. Sequestration has severely impacted the program's budget in 2013 and curtailed hiring of AmeriCorps associates. This is a loss for both the community and the AmeriCorps members who leave the program with valuable skills, tested leadership abilities, experience to help jumpstart their careers and a deeper understanding of community problems and how they might work to address them. I support efforts to ensure continuation of this much needed program and urge everyone to join me in celebrating the 20th anniversary of AmeriCorps.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Adam, a disabled man from Ohio, a face of hunger in America.

Ms. FUDGE

Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I ask my colleagues in this House, Why are we here today? The original farm bill, H.R. 1947, passed out of the Agriculture Committee with bipartisan support. While this bill eventually died when it came to the floor, I have to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and desire to work together for the common good of all of the American people. Today's exercise is nothing more than a waste of our time and an insult to every American in need. The Cantor bill includes the same toxic amendments that derailed the farm bill's passage the first time around. The fact that we are considering this legislation makes me question whether the Republican leadership even wants a farm bill to pass. The Cantor bill guts nutrition for those most in need and says to the poor, to hungry children, to the disabled, seniors and our veterans, You don't matter. You are not worthy of our help. They deserve better. I've heard the stories from my constituents who struggle every month on whether to pay for medicine or food because they cannot afford both. SNAP recipients will already see a reduction in their benefits beginning November 1 when the 2009 Recovery Act temporary benefit boost ends. It will be reduced by as much as $300 per year for some people. That is a staggering amount. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at SNAP purely from a dollars-and-cents standpoint. Earlier this year, I participated in a panel on poverty. One of the young ladies from Witnesses to Hunger said: People do a lot of talking about us. They refer to SNAP beneficiaries as statistics. But I'm not a statistic, I'm a real person struggling to get by. This bill would abandon 5.7 million people during a time when they need us the most. No one can justify a bill of $40 billion in cuts when 47 percent of all SNAP recipients are children under the age of 18. I cannot justify such cuts when 16.5 percent of all SNAP households include seniors. This bill is more than a sucker punch to those in need. It may be their fatal blow. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FUDGE. Let me just say that I find it's not theatrics that 5,000 Active Duty families would be kicked off of food stamps if this bill passes as it is given to us today. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), our assistant Democratic leader.

Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, let me just say that the First District of Arkansas, which my colleague represents, has a SNAP recipient percentage of 18.2 percent. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), one of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee.

Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the ranking member on the subcommittee that oversees SNAP--who has not called one meeting all year--that he has 10 percent SNAP recipients in his district. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), another of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,

Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. Job training is great, but there is nothing in this bill that ensures any money will go towards job training. I also want to say that in Mr. Davis' district, 12.8 percent of his residents are on SNAP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), one of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.