Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sarah Berndt, a Milwaukee Public School teacher at Ronald Reagan College Preparatory High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Ms. Berndt, recipient of the 2013 Milken Educator Award, teaches ninth grade Spanish and an introductory international baccalaureate class.

Ms. Berndt, one of only 40 teachers in the United States to receive this prestigious award in 2013, was honored before her peers, students and dignitaries at Ronald Reagan High School on October 2, 2013. The Milken Educator Award was founded in 1985 by the Milken Family Foundation. The award recognizes early and midcareer teachers who have made a significant impact and have promising futures in the field.

Ms. Berndt pursued teaching as a career because: ``I wanted to inspire and be inspired. I wanted it to be more of a collaborative adventure than a dictatorship. I wanted to be different.'' Ms. Berndt has taught at Ronald Reagan High School for three years and is respected by students and faculty alike.

In order to be considered for a Milken Award, the individual must exhibit the following attributes: exhibit exceptional instructional talent and student learning results; demonstrate accomplishments outside the classroom that provide a model of professional excellence; be an early to midcareer educator who offers long-range potential for leadership; and be an educator whose contributions may be unheralded but worthy of the spotlight.

Ms. Berndt has met all the criteria and has made a difference in the lives of her students and faculty at Ronald Reagan College Preparatory High School. She has inspired the entire Milwaukee Public System with her achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Sarah Berndt. The citizens of the Fourth Congressional District and the state of Wisconsin are privileged to have someone of her ability and dedicated service teaching and guiding our future leaders. I am honored, for these reasons, to pay tribute to Sarah Berndt.

Mr. Speaker, be not deceived. The people are not mocked. In 24 hours, if we don't send an exact bill back to the Senate, not a colon, not a semicolon, not a paragraph, not a word different, the government will shut down.

This debate is not about medical devices, about birth control, about ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act; it is about continuing to have our government operate for another few days. We have 24 hours for this Congress to agree on the exact bill. And I agree with my other colleagues, this whole debate is a subterfuge and a proxy for a strong desire to bring this Nation to its knees and to punish the people for electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for votes on the evening of September 25, 2013. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following vote:

Rollcall No. 485, providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 527, Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, with an amendment, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013 is rife with fraud, waste and abuse.

This bill is fraudulent in its claims that it's a benevolent bill that merely institutes work requirements and won't hurt children. In my very own State of Wisconsin, 4,000 children will lose free and reduced lunch, and as the entire family will be able to be penalized, it will also hurt the elderly and disabled who live in these households.

It's fraudulent. It's a bill that is a waste of our constituents' belief and stewardship in us that we would do the conscientious and right thing for the American people. We just don't throw people under the bus when they're in a recession and they can't find employment. It's a waste, and it is abusive of 15 percent of Americans and 22 percent of children who live in abject poverty.

I ask my colleagues to reject this bill rife with fraud, waste, and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). MSOE recently earned the top engineering evaluation score in this year's Marine Advanced Technology Education Center's International competition for Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV). This year marks the first time MSOE has participated in this competition, and I am proud to support this great achievement.

For the past 11 years, Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) Center, which is funded by the National Science Foundation, has used its underwater robotics competition to help students obtain hands on science, technology, engineering and math experience, thereby preparing them for careers in the STEM fields. Through the ROV competition, students gain specialized knowledge and apply their skills in a teamwork oriented setting. Students produce technical reports as well as presentations and displays to showcase their engineering work to competition judges currently in the field. In addition, each team is required to exemplify an entrepreneurial spirit in each stage of the competition. The benefits of participating are far reaching.

A total of 53 teams participated in the 2013 international competition, and 23 teams entered MSOE's competition category. As the theme was ocean observing systems, MSOE's competition mission was to create technology that would assist in installing and maintaining instrumentation to monitor ocean activity in real time to then determine the ocean's impact on the weather. In successfully doing so, they earned the top engineering evaluation score. They demonstrated exemplary efforts and should be proud of their accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Milwaukee School of Engineering Underwater Robotics team. Through their ability and diligence, they have distinguished their school

and the district. I am honored to pay tribute to MSOE.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 367, the REINS Act, and I yield myself 3 minutes of my time.

Today's REINS Act would require a joint resolution approval of Congress every time the executive branch promulgates a major rule. My amendment would simply exempt our Nation's veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that H.R. 367 will add to the administration's rulemaking process.

I oppose the underlying bill because it will severely restrict agency or department action when many vulnerable veterans need help. It is just simply unacceptable every single time our Nation's veterans are held hostage by the gridlock we experience in Congress. This is yet another moment. This amendment offers an opportunity to exempt them from that.

Mr. Chairman, just a few little facts:

Today's veterans need help more than ever, and they really deserve it. Unfortunately, over 3,000 Active Duty troops have taken their lives since 2011. We have an estimated 22 veteran suicides per day. We've had over 2 million Active Duty soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom are struggling to transition and trying to find employment. While the VA has made some progress in recent months, Mr. Chairman, the backlog of over 500,000 claims--those older than 125 days--is simply unacceptable.

Some veterans have had to wait up to 2 years for an administrative decision on a claim, and we're adding more administrative requirements for them. We're gravely concerned, all of us are here, on a bipartisan basis, about the growing backlog of appeals pending with the VA as resources are shifted. The amount of claims waiting to be heard by the Board of Veterans Affairs is currently over 45,000 and estimated to increase to approximately 102,000 by 2017. The average length of an appeal completed in fiscal year 2012 was 903 days, Mr. Chairman. Adding hurdles now will do nothing but curtail options available to the administration as it works toward solving these serious problems.

I appeal to the common sense and compassion for veterans of my colleagues. My amendment is simple. Veterans deserve to be left out of this political fight.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm sure my colleague agrees with me that we should not add hurdles. We've passed 11 bills since September on behalf of veterans, including the following kinds of initiatives: the 9/11 GI Bill, which we all agreed upon; copayments for medication; and resources for radiation poisoning. Had we had this bill in place, each and every one of these initiatives would have required a joint resolution from Congress each time the VA promulgated these rules.

If those sessions of Congress were anything like the majority's calendar for this year, we would not have had a lot of time to have completed work. This year we've only passed 15 bills into law. That's a record low compared to last year. As the Speaker just recently said--I suppose it would apply here--we should not be judged on how many laws we create; we should be judged on how many laws we repeal. Certainly, we would not have been able to do things like the GI Bill or reduce copayments for medications for veterans had we had this bill in place.

The other thing is you would think that my colleagues would have some pride in this institution. All this bill will do is put much more power within the hands of the executive. We can't appoint bureaucrats to conference committees on the budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Disabled American Veterans National Service & Legislative

Headquarters,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2013.

Hon. Gwen Moore,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Moore: On behalf of DAV (Disabled

American Veterans), an organization of 1.2 million wartime

wounded, injured, and ill veterans, I am writing with respect

to your proposed amendment to H.R. 367, the Regulations from

the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, or the

``REIN'' Act.

Your proposed amendment, if accepted, would exempt veterans

and veterans affairs from the requirements of the bill that

all proposed federal rules that convey a cost of $100 million

or more, or that are subject to other circumstances described

in the bill, be submitted to Congress before promulgation by

the Executive Branch. Under the bill, Congress would require

itself to mandatorily act to approve or disapprove any such

regulation through fixed rules of procedure and calendars.

Your effort to protect veterans to ensure their benefits

and services are provided in an expeditious manner, as

proposed by an Executive Branch agency, is deeply

appreciated. Under the DAV Constitution and By-Laws, any

federal legislation or policy that furthers the interests of

wounded and injured veterans carries DAV's strong support.

While endorsing your specific amendment, DAV takes no

position on the underlying bill itself, because our

membership has not approved a resolution specific to the

purpose of Congress generally limiting government regulation-

making across the vast federal landscape.

Thank you for proposing your amendment, and please advise

me how DAV can aid you in gaining its acceptance by the House

as it concludes consideration of the REIN Act.

Sincerely,

Barry A. Jesinoski,

Executive Director, Washington Headquarters.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for the first vote on July 25, 2013. I was unfortunately absent because I was detained in traffic, as I returned from an event. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following vote: Rollcall No. 415, on agreeing to the Waxman amendment, I would have voted ``aye.''

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment, along with my colleagues Frederica Wilson from Florida and Danny Davis of Illinois.

This amendment is straightforward. It is protective in nature, and it ensures that high poverty schools are not adversely affected by H.R. 5's proposed change in the funding allocation formula for teacher support and development under title II of the ESEA.

Now, if we don't adopt this amendment, we may inadvertently break a long bipartisan agreement that we've had regarding our fundamental need to ensure that our low-income students are not assigned less qualified teachers than their advantaged peers. The reality is that a school district serving students in poverty faces many challenges in recruiting and in retaining teachers as well as other qualified staff. I believe that the Rules Committee made this in order because it wanted the body to have an opportunity to meet this long bipartisan agreement.

H.R. 5, as current drafted, would totally eliminate the current formula, which focuses on funding students in poverty, and replaces it with a formula that equally weights poverty and population. As written, we have strong reason to fear that H.R. 5 would result in Federal dollars being siphoned from States and schools with the poorest students and awarded to the States and schools without similar levels of poverty.

Our amendment, again, simply requires that this change to the funding formula not be enacted if our fears are realized and if the Secretary of Education determines that such a change would reduce funding to districts serving students in poverty. This amendment would not add a penny to the cost of the bill. Our intention is only to safeguard the very teacher supports to help us close the achievement gaps for low- income students.

The bill we are considering today, H.R. 5, consistently backs away from our longstanding Federal commitment to direct funding to students with the greatest need, including those attending high poverty schools.

There are a lot of factors that affect a child's performance in school, and some of these we just can't control, but this is one thing that we can control--the level of quality of the people standing in front of our children.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman for his support.

I now yield to my colleague from Florida, Frederica Wilson.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a mother, teacher, mentor, and community leader, Bessie M. Gray. On July 21, 2013 her over 40 years of service will be celebrated and honored along with family, friends, former employees, and former students at a program entitled, ``Mother to Many, Teacher to More and Mentor to All.''

Mrs. Bessie Gray was born in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and moved to Milwaukee after graduating from high school, where she met and married her husband, Percy. She began her child care business in her home in 1973 after working as a Head Start volunteer. Gray's Child Development Center, Inc. became a nonprofit organization and was accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). It was the first African American-led program in the State to achieve this accreditation.

Mrs. Gray earned her bachelor's degree in early childhood education from the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee and her master's degree in educational administrative leadership from Marquette University. She was a State certified child care trainer for many years and started hundreds of teachers on their way to successful child care careers. She served on many boards and is a past member of Wisconsin Early Childhood Association (vice president), Midwest Early Childhood Association, Black Child Development Institute, and Easter Seals Southeastern Wisconsin. She continues to be available for board consultation.

In 1991, Mrs. Gray began purchasing a property on North Teutonia Avenue from the Sisters of Sorrowful Mother. After providing day care services for children at this site for three years, the Sisters gifted the property to Mrs. Gray. For the next 20 years, Gray's operated out of that facility until its closure in 2011.

Many honors and awards have been bestowed upon Mrs. Gray during her career, including Milwaukeean of the Month (Milwaukee Magazine) 1981, First African American Nationally Accredited Child Care Center in Wisconsin 1994, State of Wisconsin Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Heritage Award 2001, and Black Child Development Wisconsin Affiliate/ Child Care category 2009. She has touched the lives of thousands during her 48 years of service to children and their futures. When parents could not afford to pay the child care fees, she absorbed these costs to ensure that parents could maintain employment stability or finish their schooling.

Bessie Gray is a woman armed with a strong personal faith. She taught Sunday school and provided a nursing home ministry. She was married to Percy Gray, Sr. for over 55 years until his passing in December 2010, and is the mother of nine children, with 23 grandchildren and several great grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Bessie M. Gray, my friend. Mrs. Gray's contributions have greatly benefited the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts America's children.

Mr. Speaker, apparently, it was not enough for the House majority to decimate the nutrition title the last time we considered the farm bill a few weeks ago with the $20 billion cut. When they couldn't get the majority of Republicans to vote for it because it just wasn't cut enough, they just eliminated the entire nutrition title--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. These are fancy names and acronyms for the programs that allow seniors, young children, and the disabled to stock their food pantries. I can't wrap my mind around the shameful nature of this moment, a moment when we are moving forward with the farm bill and leaving behind 47 million of our Nation's hungry.

Now, it has been asserted, Mr. Speaker, that the House leadership is not attempting to starve vulnerable families but merely wants to expedite the passage of the all-important agricultural components of the bill by removing the extraneous nutrition title. Since 1965, we have reauthorized our antihunger programs alongside our agriculture- related policies in a marriage; but at this moment, the House has filed for divorce, and the primary breadwinner is abandoning two-thirds of the family, consisting of children--young, babies--the elderly, and the disabled. H.R. 2642 is a deadbeat majority's proposal to avoid child support, elderly subsidies, and food assistance to the disabled of 47 million people.

What kind of message are we sending with the passage of this bill? We are telling our Nation's hungry that Congress is willing to turn a blind eye and that food is an extraneous concern of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for the first vote on the evening of July 8, 2013. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following vote:

Rollcall No. 305, on Agreeing to On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1341. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for votes on the afternoon of July 9, 2013. I was unfortunately absent due to a medical appointment. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following votes:

Rollcall No. 308, on the motion on ordering the previous question on the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2609, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 309, on agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 288), I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to this amendment.

This is really a very poorly conceived amendment that would require all non-disabled individuals to participate in a job search every month or immediately lose benefits, even if the individual is already working or even if the individual is a child, a minor.

This amendment would increase the SNAP cuts by 50 percent to $31 billion, instead of the $21.5 billion. It would immediately subject 2 million jobless, childless adults to harsh benefit cuts. It would slash benefits for 2 million people about $90 a month. It would eliminate all the SNAP employment and training funds, eliminate nutrition education, impose new job search requirements on all people, even if they're working, and it would send people into a deep, deep depression.

I think that this is an amendment that we should oppose.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Despite what we have heard from the author of this program, there is no work in this bill. This amendment would more appropriately be called ``The State Bonuses for Terminating SNAP Benefits for People Who Want to Work but Can't Find a Job Because They're in a Recession,'' and it ends benefits for children, disabled people, yes, and even for disabled veterans.

I think the most egregious thing about this amendment is that there is no funding for worker training programs in this bill at all even though we are ordering people to do it, and there is a perverse incentive for States to end SNAP benefits for people because, suddenly, food stamps, or SNAP benefits, become fungible.

We just rejected an amendment in our last series of votes that would have allowed people to get toothpaste and toothbrushes with SNAP benefits; but what this amendment does is allow the States to pocket these sanctions and use them for whatever they want to--to balance the budget with it or to convert SNAP benefits into tax breaks for corporations or for wealthy people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Just because we keep saying that the 1996 welfare program was successful, doesn't make it so. Poverty has increased among women and children. A quarter of all children in this country are poor.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

We reduced welfare rolls because we literally threw people off. We did not help them find sustainable jobs, which is why poverty has increased.

I yield 30 seconds to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the last 30 seconds to our good friend and colleague, Mr. Welch.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me these couple of minutes.

I would hope that we would listen to the point of order that's been raised by Mr. McGovern. For one thing, this bill criminalizes poverty. People with felony records won't be allowed to get food stamps. There will be work requirements in order to get food stamps.

These kinds of amendments and additions that we're going to see in this bill really add to the fallacious arguments that we have heard about the gargantuan cuts that are made to the SNAP program: that SNAP is run inefficiently, that these cuts won't hurt anyone, that these cuts don't serve the most vulnerable.

Let me just reiterate the facts:

SNAP is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable populations, primarily serving children, seniors, and the disabled in the poorest communities, people who cannot work, people who don't have felony records;

In my own State of Wisconsin, 47.2 percent of SNAP households include children, 15.4 percent include the very elderly, 21.7 percent include a disabled person. 84.3 percent of those receiving SNAP in my State are children, elderly, and disabled;

Nationwide, 76 percent of SNAP households are composed of those who are children, seniors, or disabled persons;

There is a rate of 68.7 percent of SNAP households that have a gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty level.

Let me just say going forward that as soon as this bill is enacted, as soon as we take away the categorical eligibility, 200,000 children will lose free lunch.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1947. Why?

850,000 needy households would see their SNAP benefits cut by an average $90 per month. That's real food that these families will no longer afford to be able to put on the table. Last time I checked, the prices at the grocery store were not going down and wages were not going up!

2 million individuals would lose their eligibility entirely.

And just in time for the new school year in the fall, 200,000 low- income kids who are eligible and are currently enrolled in the school meals programs will be disenrolled because of the changes in this bill.

These are kids who we designed and create the school meals program to serve. And we are tossing them out for what reason . . . Mr. Speaker this just doesn't make sense.

The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education that helps SNAP households maximize the value of the meager SNAP benefit by teaching them how to shop and cook nutritious food on a budget.

The average SNAP benefit in Wisconsin is just $1.29 per person per meal, hardly enough to afford a nutritious diet.

This all comes on top of the reduction in SNAP benefits that all SNAP households will experience later this year when the ARRA increase expires.

On November 1, the average family of 3 on SNAP will lose $20-25 in monthly benefits.

That may not sound like much to you, but that's the equivalent of a gallon of low-fat milk $3.79, a box of corn flakes $2.99, and a half dozen bananas $1.80; a loaf of wheat bread $1.79 and some deli ham $2.49; and a box of spaghetti $1.00, sauce $2.89, and some ground beef $6.99 total $23.74.' In other words, that's several days' worth of food for a struggling family.

There is a myth going on that these changes will not really hurt people or that those being dislodged aren't low-income, do not have real and significant food needs that are not being met, and will be easily able to make up any gaps in access to food created by these changes as if they have secret Swiss bank accounts available.

Listen to the stories from my district . . .

How ridiculous. The people on SNAP are the poorest, most vulnerable, (kids, seniors, disabled).

My colleagues seem to be astonished about why in a middle of the Great recession SNAP rolls would have grown. Why, when food insecurity in our country is at record highs, we should see a surge in Americans seeking the safety net protections of this program.

Food insecurity is high. Nationally 50 million Americans live in households that struggle to put food on the table. In Wisconsin, there are 744,410 food insecure individuals, including 270,150 children.

An Institute of Medicine report released earlier this year found that the SNAP allotment is inadequate to improve food security and access to a nutritious diet and needs to be updated

Many Americans remain out of work. Those who are lucky enough to be back at work may be working for lower wages than before the recession.

SNAP is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable, primarily serving children, seniors, and the disabled in the poorest households. In Wisconsin, 47.2 percent of SNAP households include children, 15.4 percent include elderly, and 21.7 percent include a disabled person. Nationally, 76 percent of SNAP households included a child, senior, or disabled person.

I hear a lot about making sure SNAP goes to those who ``truly need it.'' Perhaps we need a reminder about just how poor SNAP participants really are. In Wisconsin, 68.7 percent of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty line $19,530 for family of 3 in 2013.

I will remind you that federal law sets a maximum for gross income of 130 percent of the federal poverty line. seven out of ten in the Wisconsin fall well below that threshold and I know the story is the same throughout our country.

The families on SNAP are in real need. No wonder that 90 percent of SNAP benefits are used by the 21st day of the month.

This myth that SNAP benefits are not going to those in need is dead wrong and dangerous.

Cuts to SNAP would only increase demand on already over-strapped charitable food providers. An increase in TEFAP commodities as provided in the bill is critical to our nation's food banks and hunger-relief charities but it won't come close to meeting the needs created by the SNAP cuts in the bill.

A need that even these generous and kind hearted groups know they cannot come close to meeting. No wonder they almost unanimously oppose the SNAP cuts in this bill.

Charity groups alone cannot feed everyone who's hungry.

Food benefits provided by charity groups in 2011 totaled approximately $4.1 billion according to Bread for the world.

These groups supplement the work that the federal government is doing to combat hunger. They cannot replace it but the bill would throw millions more of hungry families their way nonetheless.

The Harford Institute for Religion and Research estimates that there are 350,000 religious congregations in the U.S. and each would have to spend approximately $50,000 every year for the next ten years to feed those who would lose benefits or face reduced benefits under the Republican Budget Resolution approved in the House last year.

As the recession took hold in our country, SNAP was not the only safety net that stood in the gap to help combat growing hunger across America. Our nation's food banks also saw a 46 percent increase in clients served during the recession. Those needs have not abated and will only get worse if this Farm bill passes in its current form.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this unbalanced bill which seems to provides a safety net for everyone else but the most vulnerable and hungry in our country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I guess I would rebut several of the arguments the gentleman has made.

First of all, you know, common sense really ain't that common, and this amendment is an example of that. First of all, it uses very fallacious arguments that presume that most of the people who use food stamps also use drugs. I would just remind the body that 46 percent of the people who use food stamps are hungry children. And as the author of this amendment has suggested--quite incorrectly--this is not about hungry children, it is; because if that person in the household who is the applicant is denied food stamps, hungry children will be affected.

This is unconstitutional. This has been through court. It violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against illegal searches and seizures. It costs a lot of public money just to humiliate people. They found in Florida, for example, that people who don't use public assistance programs are three times more likely to be drug users; and nationwide, they have found that recipients don't use drugs at any greater rate than the general population. This is a slippery slope in violating one of the basic tenets of our Constitution.

Mandatory drug testing laws are not based on individualized suspicion, and the Supreme Court has held that it doesn't pass the constitutional measure. It will cost $75 for one of these drug tests, and for what purpose? Just to criminalize and humiliate poor people.

So with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I just would like to remind the body and the sponsors of this bill that SNAP already has an option to target and punish drug offenders. States right now, without this amendment, can require individuals who have been convicted of a drug felony to submit to a drug test before they can receive SNAP benefits--totally in line with our Constitution.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great member on the Ag Committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not commonsensical; this is unconstitutional. The majority wants to excuse itself from taking food away from 46 million people who are hungry, and it is a proxy for criminalizing the food stamp program in order to get away with it.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

I think that the majority has really raised the point that, historically, we have not allowed purchases beyond food for the food stamp program, but it's not that poor people don't really need to be able to do that.

This amendment is very narrow, and I can recall from personal experience some of the things that many families run out of in a family that are directly related to their nutritional needs, like a baby bottle. You've never seen a family frantically trying to find the last baby bottle or nipple that the baby has bitten off and not be able to deliver the formula to the child because they don't have a baby bottle and it'll cost over $2 to be able to make that purchase.

Certainly, toilet paper is sort of inversely related to eating. The need for feminine hygiene products or deodorant is something that adds to the dignity of being alive. It's quite true that many Americans during our Great Recession only had food stamps to depend on, not even TANF benefits. So if you're looking for a job, you really do want to have deodorant and toothpaste.

I think that this is budget neutral, and it is a small concession to make given the draconian cuts we're making in the program already.