Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join my colleagues in celebrating National School Breakfast Week 2012.

I don't have to tell anyone that 2011 was another year of difficult economic struggles for American households. Too many families are struggling to put food on the table. And when they do, kids suffer the most.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2010, 48.8 million Americans lived in households that had difficulty putting food on the table. That figure includes as many as 16 million children living in a home where food is not always available. Even worse, in over 380,000 households, one or more children did not get enough to eat--they had to cut the size of their meals, skip meals, or even go whole days without food at some time during the year.

When asked by the Gallup organization in a recent food hardship survey, ``Have there been times in the last twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?'' more people answered ``Yes'' in the last six months of 2011 than in any period since the fourth quarter of 2008.

In broad swaths of the country, more than one in six households answered the Gallup question ``Yes.'' In fact, at least one in six said ``Yes'' in more than half of all Congressional districts (269 of 436 congressional districts.) In my district, according to the survey, the food hardship rate is 23 percent, almost one in four households. That is heartbreaking and even more so when you think that nearly 80 of my colleagues represent districts with even higher rates.

Thirty-seven million people--one in eight Americans--receive emergency food assistance each year through the Nation's food banks, a 46 percent increase in clients served from 2006.

As a result, public efforts to help meet this basic need are even more important. As the recession's grip takes firm hold, for millions of vulnerable children around our Nation, federally-supported school breakfast programs continue to be a lifeline.

The School Breakfast program began in 1966 as a two-year pilot program. It has become a valuable program that makes a difference every day in the lives of millions of children. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that providing availability, accessibility, and participation in the school breakfast program are some of the best ways to support the health and educational potential of children, particularly low-income children.

Eating breakfast has been shown to improve math, reading, and standardized test scores. Breakfast helps children pay attention, perform problem-solving tasks, and improves memory. Children who eat school breakfast are likely to have fewer absences and incidents of tardiness than those who do not. By eating breakfast, students get more important nutrients, vitamins and minerals such as calcium, dietary fiber, and protein. These are just a few of the known benefits.

The School Breakfast Program can readily be tailored to meet the needs of all different age groups, school schedules and physical environments. Schools use many creative service options in addition to traditional breakfast service in the cafeteria, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, Grab `n' Go Carts and Mid-morning Nutrition Breaks.

This year, the School Breakfast Week theme is ``School Breakfast--Go for the Gold,'' highlighting how eating a balanced breakfast at school can help students shine. In FY 2011 over 12 million children were able to get a nutritious school meal because of this program. In my State of Wisconsin, school breakfast participation rates have increased from 135,000 in FY 2009 to 166,000 in FY 2011, the vast majority receiving free or reduced price nutritious breakfast to jump start their school day. However, participation in the breakfast comparison lags compared to the approximately 32 million who participate in the National School Lunch Program.

Most school breakfast program students lived in impoverished families and received free or reduced price meals. For the 2009 2010 school year, to receive a free breakfast, the student needed to reside in a household earning $23,803 or less for a family of three (130 percent of the federal poverty level). For reduced price, the threshold was $33,874 (185 percent of the federal poverty level.)

Efforts to make this program work better continue and they should. Last month, the Administration released new child nutrition rules--as required by Congress in the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010--that seek to make the same kind of changes many parents are already trying to teach their children at home. The new rule updates school meal standards to increase fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and low-fat dairy while reducing fats, sodium and sugars. This is a long overdue step that will get healthier foods on school plates each day. USDA built the new rule around recommendations from an Institute of Medicine expert panel, updated with key changes from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Getting the science right is critical to better nutrition and health for our children.

Additionally, the President's FY 2013 budget request includes $35 million for school meal equipment grants to help school districts purchase the equipment needed to serve healthier meals, and improved food safety. These equipment grants would support the establishment or expansion of the School Breakfast Program. Lack of adequate kitchen equipment has been cited as a reason why schools are not able to initiate or expand their breakfast programs. Congress needs to support such initiatives.

In the spirit of National Breakfast Week, I would encourage my colleagues--and in fact, all Americans--to participate in activities like the Share Your Breakfast campaign to combat child hunger. The Share Your Breakfast campaign--which brings together Action for Healthy Kids, the Kellogg Company, and other partners--is focused on ensuring more kids have access to breakfast by increasing participation in school breakfast programs. This campaign is only in its second year, but has already offered assistance to nearly 100 schools in 26 states.

This year's goal is to provide one million breakfasts to American school children who might otherwise go without. Programs like Share Your Breakfast are to be commended and help highlight the vital role that a nutritious breakfast plays in promoting educational success.

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of Americans are going hungry and federal safety-net nutrition programs, like the School Breakfast Program, are playing a crucial role in helping hardworking families, including their children, stay nourished.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that though our country is in the midst of a tough economic time, I hope there remains bipartisan support for this simple statement: no child in our community or across the country should ever go through the school day hungry. The School Breakfast Program is critical to making that a reality.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in highlighting the value and success of this program and those who work every day to make sure that our future leaders, our future engineers, and scientists, and politicians or whatever else boys and girls across our Nation want to be, won't be stopped because of a growling stomach and nagging hunger.

Mr. Speaker, lately, I along with many other women have felt like we're a mere supporting cast in an episode of ``The Twilight Zone.'' I can just hear the narration of the show saying:

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not

only of sight and sound, but of mind. That is the signpost up

ahead: Your next stop, the Twilight Zone.

The rhetoric espoused over the last few weeks by many conservatives has me feeling as if I'm in an alternative political universe where men say the most oddly absurd things about what women should be doing with their bodies. In this universe, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform holds hearings on women's health and contraception with a panel made up completely of men.

This may seem odd to you folks out there in the real world; but in this alternate reality, it makes perfectly good sense that a bunch of middle-aged men, devoid of ovaries and uteruses, would be experts on women's reproductive health. In this alternate universe, you wouldn't dare ask a woman to testify on women's health and what it means to be a woman. You wouldn't invite them to talk about what it means to be susceptible to pregnancy for approximately 30 years of their lives and how important birth control is to women who wish to prevent unintended pregnancies and to preserve their health. You surely wouldn't ask a woman to testify about how birth control has helped them prevent various

diseases or manage diseases like endometriosis.

While it would be nice to believe we're in the twilight zone, the recent ploys of Republicans against women's health are all frighteningly too real. In reality, this hearing did take place with the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee blocking the testimony of women, women like Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, who later testified during a special hearing convened by Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of a fellow female student at Georgetown University who had been denied contraception coverage because of the university's Catholic affiliation. Her friend experienced complications stemming from ovarian cysts that could have been treated with birth control. Sadly, due to nontreatment, doctors eventually were forced to remove her ovary.

There are so many stories just like this that need to be told; but, sadly, you won't hear them on Capitol Hill if my Republican colleagues in the majority have anything to do with it. They are too busy silencing women's voices on these very critical issues.

What if there was a hearing held on access to Viagra or vasectomies with a panel of experts being a group of six women? Could you imagine the outrage if women were allowed to legislate what happens to men's bodies? The horror.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, this twilight zone is real. This attack on women's health is real, but the battle is not over. We cannot and will not allow a few to silence the voices of millions of women across this country. We must continue to stand up for women and their reproductive health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of Mrs. Frances Brock Starms, a compassionate leader, educator, writer and advocate for children who passed away on February 9, 2012, at the age of 97.

She was considered a treasure by our community and an active member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. (Epsilon Kappa Omega Chapter), Links Inc. (Milwaukee Chapter), Town & Country Garden Club, Jack and Jill of America Inc., Delta Kappa Gamma Honor Society, Milwaukee Urban League, and a lifetime member of the N.A.A.C.P.

Frances Starms was born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama, and she graduated with honors from Spelman College. She continued her education at Atlanta University, receiving a Master of Arts Degree in Early Childhood Education.

Her postgraduate work included scholarly research at the University of Southern California and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. In 2004, she was recognized by UWM with an honorary doctorate in Public Service.

In 1948, Frances Starms moved to Wisconsin and continued her career as an educator with Milwaukee Public Schools, MPS. During her teaching career, she became the first African American to be appointed as director of the Head Start Program.

Mrs. Starms was one of few living Milwaukeeans after whom a Milwaukee Public School had been named; in fact, three schools now claim her as namesake: Starms Early Childhood Center, Starms Monumental Baptist Early Childhood Center, and Starms Discovery Learning Center.

Mrs. Starms was a prolific writer and received numerous awards and citations for her work. She was published in numerous local and national publications and was best known for her poems which focused on the richness and enduring strength of the African American Heritage. Her book entitled ``Love is Best'' expressed the beauty and texture of this heritage.

Her poetry was described as coming straight from the ``heart'' and reflected the elegance and authenticity of her own experience, reaching out to children and adults alike. For her commitment to our children and for her many efforts and gifts, Mrs. Starms was awarded with the 1979 Award for Meritorious Service from the UW-Milwaukee School of Education; 1983 Special Citation from Governor Tony Earl for her inclusion in the Smithsonian Institute/Wisconsin Humanities Committee exhibit ``Black Women Achievement Against the Odds''; the 1984 Sarah Scott Administrative Leadership Award from the Metropolitan Milwaukee Alliance of Black School Educators for her leadership and commitment to improving educational opportunities for children; 1989 G.A.E.P. Award from Delta Sigma Gamma Society International Sigma State for the publication of her poetry; and was the recipient of St. Marks's Anvil Award for service to the church and the community. Mrs. Starms

was an active member of St. Mark A.M.E. Church in Milwaukee for more than 62 years.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Frances Brock Starms' passion for education, writing and her church have served the people of the Wisconsin Fourth Congressional District well, and we need only to look at the buildings that bear her name or read her poems to be reminded of her legacy. For these reasons I am honored to pay tribute to Mrs. Frances Brock Starms, who dedicated her life toward educating and improving the lives of children.

Today, I thank her and her family for their immeasurable contributions, mourn her loss and I salute her legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to be a voice for the millions of women and men who are celebrating the recent decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding requiring all businesses and corporations to provide birth control insurance coverage, a lifesaving benefit for women, millions of women. Under this new rule, virtually all women would have access to birth control coverage without a copay through their employer health plan.

If you listen to the political pundits in this town, you will come to the conclusion that people do not support the Obama administration's decision and that people of faith are en route to the White House prepared to storm it because of this decision. But if you talk to the average American, you will realize that there is absolutely overwhelming support for the decision on the birth control benefit. This support crosses party lines as well as religious affiliation. In fact, a poll released just yesterday found that roughly 6 out of 10 Catholics support requiring employers to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraceptives.

Let's be clear. This decision represents a respectful balance between religious persons and institutions and individual freedom. It is very important to clarify that the law contains an exemption for religious institutions. What that means is that approximately 335,000 churches or houses of worship can choose not to provide birth control coverage for their employees. So if you're the secretary at the church or if you are employed by the archdiocese, they do not have to provide birth control coverage for their employees. It was very important for Health and Human Services to carve out this exception with respect to separating church and State concerns.

We are not requiring that Catholic churches go out and buy contraceptive coverage for all--in spite of what you have heard over TV. But this rule does require that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals--which are operating as large businesses and employ and serve a diverse array of people--would have to follow the same rules as other businesses. This is the part that keeps getting lost in the debate: the sole purpose of these institutions is not to offer people a place of refuge and worship. It is not a place for people of faith to go to gather in fellowship and worship. The purpose of these institutions is to provide health care, is to provide an education, football teams for their clients or for their students.

No one is trying to take away religious freedom but, rather, this ruling preserves personal freedom. The concept of separation of church and state protects these 335,000 places of worship. But the concept of separation of church and state does not mean that a church can use their bully pulpit to separate millions of women from critical health care benefits. Just imagine that women, on average, spend 30 years attempting to prevent pregnancy. Just think about what it means for the health of a woman, the health of her family to give birth or die trying for 30 years.

I understand that some people are worried and protective of their religious freedom in part because they're being misled by what this HHS ruling actually does; but I also worry that some people in the faith community are being exploited and used to create a diversion.

Another fact that people keep ignoring is that many religiously affiliated hospitals and universities already provide birth control to their employees through their insurance packages. I mean, it's standard at many of these workplaces. This is a nonissue for many Catholic and religiously affiliated colleges and universities already. And we're not talking about just a few workers. We're talking about millions of secretaries, janitorial staff, nurses aides, and lab techs of many different beliefs--some of no beliefs. So I would hope that we would not try to use religious bullying to deprive millions of women of critical, vital health care.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today to join my fellow Democratic members of the House Budget Committee to express my confusion and disbelief over our colleagues' decision to make a spectacle out of the so-called budget process reform bills rather than using our time to wisely address serious economic policy and make long-term, overdue process improvements.

I admire my Republican colleagues for raising the issue of the need to have a better budgeting process. But these are just spectacles. This so-called Budget and Accounting Transparency Act is an example of that.

H.R. 3581 would change the way we budget for government loans by requiring that estimates for these loans--examples are student loans, energy loans, housing, small business loans--be done on the so-called fair value basis.

These estimates account for so-called ``market-based'' risk.

Now, experts argue that so-called fair-value estimates overstate the true cost of government credit programs because the estimates include a risk premium that never materializes in the government's cash flow.

It's also critical to note that in every single discussion of H.R. 3581 and fair-value estimates, that if we applied this policy not just to credit products, but government-wide--like to Medicare or to ag programs, or some of the other favored programs of the majority--it would increase estimated subsidy costs to the government for all loan programs by more than $50 billion. But you know what, that may in fact be consistent with what the authors and proponents of this bill want to see.

We heard, Madam Chair, our good friend, Mr. Garrett, start his opening speech with how the country is broke. We heard Mr. Hensarling talk about the food stamp President.

I've got to talk about the food stamp President a little bit--and talking about how we ought to stop spending. Well, this in fact accomplishes that purpose. By overstating the budget risk, the accounting risk that's already accounted for in the Credit Reform Act of 1990, by overstating the cost of these programs, it in effect reduces the base for our budgets. And if that is their mission, it will be accomplished with passage of these bills.

It doesn't make any sense, Madam Chair, to try to put Freddie and Fannie on budget when right now in the Financial Services Committee, on which some of these Members sit, we are trying to make a major overhaul of Freddie and Fannie, and their fate has not been determined yet.

The OMB, the CBO, both of the institutions that we rely upon for budgeting, are not prepared to bring this online. This is not ready for prime time, and I would urge the body to reject these proposals that have not been vetted.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 1, I inadvertently missed the vote on rollcall 20 (H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act). If I had been present I would have voted ``no.''

Thank you so much, and I just want to say at the outset what a pleasure it is to work with the chairman, the ranking member, and the members of the Budget Committee who, I believe, are sincerely committed to try to help deal with the deficit situation.

But what I find rather baffling, I'll have to admit, is that my colleagues in the majority continue to turn a blind eye to the power of investing so that we can create a major dynamic economy in human capital and in our infrastructure. Their only interest, almost to the point of a fetish, is to favor tax cuts as the only ways and means of growing our economy. And this Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, H.R. 3582, is just yet another example of that, Mr. Chairman.

This legislation would allow Republicans to really understate the effect of tax cuts on the deficit--hiding their impact, masking their real cost, and paving the way for extensions and new tax policies that favor tax cuts only. I mean, Republicans are trying to carve--I have to admire their persistence--they want to carve in supply-side economics and ``trickle down,'' no matter how long it's failed, into our body politic forever. As my dad used to say, money doesn't grow on trees. And this is the ``money grows on trees strategy.''

I'm sorry, but my colleagues have such a strong bias against any investments that are not tax cuts; and it shows a lack of interest in the investments, I believe, that really have the power to dig us out of this hole we're in, investments like early childhood education. Why don't we do dynamic scoring on that? Health care, what about scoring the impact of what providing health care would do in terms of decreasing the costs to our companies?

I hear from all walks of life that a transportation budget, reauthorizing the transportation budget, would be such a boon to our economy, training people for the 21st-century skills. But yet here's another backdoor approach to include the Bush-era tax cuts into the baseline, and we already know that that's $4 trillion worth of debt.

By only allowing for the dynamic effects of tax cuts--not the effect of investments in a better way of life for us all--the Republicans are showing their true colors again.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strident opposition to the underlying bill. I think that it's fairly cynical in these tough economic times when half of all Americans are either in poverty or at the precipice of poverty the Republicans want to impose even more barriers on families trying to access much-needed benefits.

I really don't think that this bill adds to self-sufficiency of families but rather is just more mean-spirited berating of low-income people who are eligible for these benefits, much like the mythical welfare queen or even the food stamp President.

This bill that includes the provision that blocks EBT cards from being used at liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos, the proponents of this argue that there is no reason to use EBT cards in places like this. But I say it is an issue of universal access. I mean, if you want to stop to buy gas for your automobile and you live in Nevada and you work at one of the clubs or hotels, or you're living in a food desert in Chicago where the closest ATM is a liquor store, what stops people from going to Whole Foods and using the ATM card there and then going to a casino? It is just another effort to berate those people who are in the lower class.

My colleague has already mentioned the additional burden that this imposes on States and financial institutions who will have to reconfigure thousands of ATMs.

My friends on the right side love to use the term ``class warfare.'' And they love to say that we're just trying to pick on the 1 percent of this country.

But I say who's really working for the least of these?

Instead of hindering the American people, we need to be helping them, to provide greater access. Instead of passing these unproductive, symbolic, mean-spirited pieces of legislation, we need to create jobs and opportunities. I hope that the American people, Madam Speaker, can see the difference.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Here we are again, ladies and gentlemen. The lights are up, the music is playing and my Republican colleagues are doing the same old song and dance for the American people. The Republicans have spread out their sand, and they're doing their best soft-shoe routine, trying to convince the American people that the repeal of this bill is in their best interest. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yet we find ourselves here debating the repeal of a law that would have sought to address the long-term crisis burgeoning in this country.

Mr. Chairman, to most people, finding a solution to the long-term care insurance crisis in this country seems like a good law. It must be if 56 national groups, including AARP and SEIU, are against repealing the CLASS Act.

Once again, my Republican colleagues are trying their best to distract the American people from their not seeking a solution with this repeal-the-bill sideshow.

As we debate this repeal, I have heard so many of our colleagues refer to the President needing to come and apologize for introducing this provision in the Affordable Care Act. It occurs to me that the effort to embarrass the President, to harass him, to defy him, that that is more important than finding a solution to the growing challenge of the aging population. Indeed, it is an emerging burgeoning problem.

Ten million Americans need long-term care. Over the next decade, another 5 million Americans will require this care, bringing the total to 15 million people. The problem is only becoming more challenging with estimates that nearly 70 percent of people--the baby boomers--will need some level of long-term care after turning 65. An additional issue is that this is a heavy burden on family budgets.

This law was seeking to provide a national, voluntary, and self- sustaining insurance program for assistance services to aid elderly and disabled people. It would allow individuals to live independently at home and in the community for as long as possible without impoverishing themselves.

It seems that my Republican colleagues are content to defer the dreams of millions of Americans to live with some sort of dignity as they age. As we enjoy this Black History Month, it reminds me of one of my favorite poets, an African American poet who would be 110 years old today, Langston Hughes:

What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a

raisin in the Sun? Or fester like a sore--and then run? Does

it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over--like a

syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does

it explode?

Republicans want to put one man out of a job and would defer the dreams of millions of Americans. Yet, while they continue their song and dance, Mr. Chair, denying seniors the long-term care that they deserve and putting more and more Americans out of work, I hope the American people recognize who is really on their side before we see the American Dream of living and retiring in dignity explode.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Iran activities are troubling and our Nation must continue to work to build an international coalition to pressure and isolate Iran until it verifiably ends such activities. The policies we use to effect our goals are as important as the rhetoric about being tough on Iran.

I vote for this legislation while noting it has flaws that must be addressed in the other body, in cooperation with the Administration. I will speak to some of those needed changes in a minute. However, I think other provisions such as language targeting government officials who commit human rights abuses and the provisions aimed at stopping Iran's Revolutionary Guard from trying to evade current U.S. and multilateral sanctions make sense. When the U.S. and our international allies work together, our efforts on Iran, including sanctions and diplomacy, are more effective and stronger. The same can be said when the Congress and the Administration are working together.

We should not confuse support for this bill with the fact that there exists a vast divergence of views in this Congress on the best policy to deal with the threat posed by Iran. However, the Republican majority determines the schedule and has made a choice to bring this bill up under a procedure that prevents any Member with other ideas (either to make the bill stronger or weaker depending on your view) from making further changes to it.

Even with my yes vote, I believe this legislation is in need of improvement. Sending a strong message is one thing but enacting an effective policy that supports that message is another. And this bill must be improved so our policy can match the strong message.

Where can this bill be improved? I have long been concerned and I have expressed those concerns on this floor before about unilateral sanctions. Treasury Secretary Geithner said last year, ``to be truly effective in ending Iran's proliferation activities and Iran's support for terrorism, we need to have in place a concerted, international approach. This is not something the United States can do alone. We need other countries to move with us.'' I concur wholeheartedly.

Yet, I know that the Administration has warned some provisions, like mandatory Iranian Central Bank Sanctions, may end up splintering the international coalition that it worked relentlessly to build as exemplified by passage of last year's UN Security Council Sanction Resolution. In a recent letter, Secretary Geithner made clear his concerns that sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran could negatively affect ``many of our closest allies and largest trading partners.'' Again, the most likely to be adversely affected by this bill are our closest allies, the ones we depend on to pressure Iran.

Why would this be so? According to Secretary Geithner, ``rather than motivating these countries to join us in increasing pressure on Iran, they are more likely to resent our actions and resist following our lead--a consequence that would serve the Iranians more than it harms them.'' The Administration has suggested ways to achieve the goals of this bill while ensuring we don't cripple the international coalition and consensus that it has worked so hard to build against Iran. Congress should listen. A piece of legislation that results in fewer countries working with us to isolate Iran and bring a verifiable end to its troubling nuclear activities is not a victory in my book.

Another provision in the bill--added in Committee--would prohibit U.S. diplomatic or other contact, whether intentionally or incidentally, with certain Iranian government officials. Whether intended by its authors or not, concerns have been raised about negative impact on our diplomatic efforts. I urge the Senate to remove this provision. It adds nothing to the bill's effectiveness but brings unnecessary confusion and controversy.

H.R. 1905 would also require the President to report, after its enactment, on negative impacts the bill would cause on our relations with friendly nations and on the U.S. economy. I think this gets it backwards. We need to get a better bill that addresses those concerns up front, rather than wait until after we have shattered the international coalition.

Again, I support a strong and unified international effort against Iran with U.S. leadership but my continued support for this legislation requires those in Senate (who will have the opportunity to amend it unlike the House did) to work with the Administration to address possible negative impacts on our diplomatic efforts, economy, and the Iranian people. This occured last year to get CISADA passed and I hope we repeat it again this time.

Lastly, no one should take passage of this legislation as a sign that diplomacy is off the table and that the only option going forward is a military strike. We need to invest in diplomacy--maybe now more than ever--and to continue to work with our international allies and others interested in peace and stability in the region.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3659.

This bill was taken out of the 360-page tax extenders bill, and essentially the authors of this bill have brought it up so that they could just have another kick at poor people. The bill sort of suggests that people who are poor are of very low moral character and that they can't be trusted to use their EBT cards in liquor stores or casinos, so therefore we need to make some restrictions on how they can use EBT cards.

But before we start kicking poor people yet another time, I just want to remind everyone of data that were just released today which indicate that one half of all Americans are poor and that these people may find themselves eligible for benefits under this Electronic Benefit Transfer card.

Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I tried to strike this language from the bill--with no success.

The provision that blocks EBT cards from being used in liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs doesn't consider a couple of things. It doesn't consider the tremendous cost that this will have on financial institutions, which will have to reconfigure their cards. It also

doesn't consider the distance for many Americans. There are 23 million Americans who live in so-called ``food deserts'' where there is not access to a grocery store or to an EBT machine within walking distance.

Before I close, I would just like to mention one personal experience that I had just this last week.

After having suffered an aneurysm, one of my sisters was on her way back to the hospital this morning. Because I didn't have access to a vehicle, I went and purchased the last meal that I gave her before I journeyed back to Washington, D.C. I bought her 100 percent orange juice from a liquor store that was within walking distance of my home.

So it may be an unintended consequence, but this is just a mean- spirited effort to, one more time, kick the poor people who are now half of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. Like a broken record the Republican leadership continues to play the same sad song. One that claims to help the poor and middle class but in the end will only exacerbate our already weak economy.

As always, the devil is in the details. This so called Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act will only help to make an already broken program worse while also restricting access for our most vulnerable families.

But be careful.

New Census data released today reveals that 1 in 2 Americans have fallen into poverty. One half of all Americans are now either poor or low-income!!!

The rate at which women and children are being thrown under the bus is a strong indication that TANF has systematically failed to close the expanding poverty gap, build pathways to sustainable employment, and has done little to alleviate the problem of growing chronic poverty.

Now, as we go into TANF's third extension, Republicans want to impose additional barriers on families to further hinder their ability to access much needed benefits in these tough economic times.

This bill includes a harmful provision that blocks EBT cards from being used at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of access. In many neighborhoods, the closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store.

We don't want to encourage people to go to liquor stores or casinos but what are low-income families supposed to do when they can't even access benefits to feed their families in their own neighborhoods?

There has been no consideration of the cost associated with implementing this policy, or to the kinds of burdens that it will undoubtedly place on states and financial institutions who will have to reconfigure thousands of ATMs.

Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I attempted to strike this language from the tax extenders bill, but Republicans refused to consider any amendments both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.

Here we are. Up against many deadlines and someone took the time to pull this language out of a 370 page bill so that they could kick people who are down with further restrictions.

I hope that the American people can see that Republicans are simply playing political theater, trying to further humiliate and marginalize poor people while stonewalling any and all efforts for Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that will truly provide opportunities for all people.

[From the Economic Research Service, June 2009]

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food

Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences

Report to Congress

Increases in obesity and diet-related diseases are major

public health problems. These problems may be worse in some

U.S. communities because access to affordable and nutritious

foods is difficult. Previous studies suggest that some areas

and households have easier access to fast food restaurants

and convenience stores but limited access to supermarkets.

Limited access to nutritious food and relatively easier

access to less nutritious food may be linked to poor diets

and, ultimately, to obesity and diet-related diseases.

Congress, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,

directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct

a 1-year study to assess the extent of the problem of limited

access, identify characteristics and causes, consider the

effects of limited access on local populations, and outline

recommendations to address the problem.

This report presents the findings of the study, which

include results from two conferences of national and

international authorities on food deserts and a set of

commissioned research studies done in cooperation with the

National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. It

also includes reviews of existing literature, a national-

level assessment of access to supermarkets and large grocery

stores, analysis of the economic and public health effects of

limited access, and a discussion of existing policy

interventions. A variety of analytical methods and data are

used to assess the extent of limited access to affordable and

nutritious food and characteristics of areas with limited

access.

Findings

Access to a supermarket or large grocery store is a problem

for a small percentage of households. Results indicate that

some consumers are constrained in their ability to access

affordable nutritious food because they live far from a

supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy

access to transportation. Three pieces of evidence

corroborate this conclusion:

Of all U.S. households, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live

more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to

a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2

percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile

and do not have access to a vehicle.

Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people

live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of

the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal

poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a

supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these

23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are

restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income

areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total

U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile

from a supermarket.

Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in

low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more

time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the

national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those

who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to

the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household

member drove.

These distance and time-based measures are national

estimates that do not consider differences between rural and

urban areas in terms of distance, travel patterns, and retail

market coverage.

Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized

by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income

inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food

access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most

defining characteristic.

These area- or distance-based results are in line with a

nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted

in 2001. Responses to direct questions about food access show

that nearly 6 percent of all U.S. households did not always

have the food they wanted or needed because of access-related

problems. More than half of these households also lacked

enough money for food. It is unclear whether food access or

income constraints were relatively greater barriers for these

households.

Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices

than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in

areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery

or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed

for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other

food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of

similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the

prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels.

These analyses use proprietary household-level data that

contain information on food items purchased by approximately

40,000 demographically representative households across the

United States. Results from these analyses show that when

consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar

goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets.

Low-income households shop where food prices are lower,

when they can. Findings also show that food purchases at

convenience stores make up a small portion of total food

expenditures (2 to 3 percent) for low-income consumers. Low-

and middle-income households are more likely to purchase food

at supercenters, where prices are lower. Administrative data

on SNAP benefit redemptions from 2008 show that 86 percent of

SNAP benefits were redeemed at supermarkets or large grocery

stores. Research that considers the prices paid for the same

food across household income levels indicates that while some

of the very poorest households--those earning less than

$8,000 per year--may pay between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent

more for their groceries than households earning slightly

more, households earning between $8,000 and $30,000 tend to

pay the lowest prices for groceries, whereas higher income

households pay significantly higher prices.

The study also examined food shopping behavior and the

types of food purchased for SNAP participants and other low-

income households. Data from the 1996/1997 NFSPS show that

SNAP participants were, on average, 1.8 miles from the

nearest supermarket. However, the average number of miles

both SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants traveled

to the store most often used was 4.9 miles. These same data

show that SNAP participants who did not shop at supermarkets

purchased less noncanned fruit, noncanned vegetables, and

milk than SNAP participants who shopped frequently at a

supermarket.

Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to

specific healthy foods, may be a

more important factor in explaining increases in obesity.

Many studies find a correlation between limited food access

and lower intake of nutritious foods. Data and methods used

in these studies, however, are not sufficiently robust to

establish a causal link between access and nutritional

outcomes. That is, other explanations cannot be eliminated as

the cause of lower intake. A few studies have examined food

intake before and after healthy food options become available

(either within existing stores or because new stores opened).

The findings are mixed--some show a small but positive

increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables, while

others show no effect.

The causal pathways linking limited access to nutritious

food to measures of overweight like Body Mass Index (BMI) and

obesity are not well understood. Several studies find that

proximity of fast food restaurants and supermarkets are

correlated with BMI and obesity. But increased consumption of

such healthy foods as fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, or

whole grains does not necessarily lead to lower BMI.

Consumers may not substitute away from less healthy foods

when they increase their consumption of healthy foods. Easy

access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific

healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining

increases in BMI and obesity.

Understanding the market conditions that contribute to

differences in access to food is critical to the design of

policy interventions that may be effective in reducing access

limitations. Access to affordable and nutritious food depends

on supply (availability) and consumer demand. Consumer

behavior, preferences, and other factors related to the

demand for some foods may account for differences in the

types of foods offered across different areas. Food retailer

behavior and supply-side issues such as higher costs to

developing stores in underserved areas may also explain

variation across areas in which foods are offered and what

stores offer them.

If high development costs serve as a barrier to entry for

supermarkets in some areas with low access, then subsidy

programs or restructured zoning policies may be effective

solutions. If consumer demand factors, such as inadequate

knowledge of the nutritional benefits of specific foods,

contribute to differences in access by reducing demand, then

a public health campaign may be a preferred strategy. Several

local and State-level efforts are underway that could provide

the basis for a better understanding of the types of

interventions that may work best.

Food has been used as a tool for community development.

Projects such as farmers' markets, community gardens,

promotion of culturally specific foods for ethnic minorities

and Native Americans, local food production and promotion,

youth agricultural and culinary training programs, and many

other types of programs have all been implemented in a

variety of settings, both urban and rural. USDA's Community

Food Projects Competitive Grant program has much experience

in funding and nurturing such programs.

The current state of research is insufficient to

conclusively determine whether some areas with limited access

have inadequate access. Future research should consider

improved methods to measure access levels, availability, and

prices of foods faced by individuals and areas. More research

is needed to understand how access, availability and price

affect the shopping and consumption behaviors of consumers.

Data linking information on the types of foods consumers

purchase and eat with measures of consumers' levels of access

and the prices they face could help explain the economic

consequences of food access. Studies that use improved

methods and data to determine how food access affects diet,

obesity, and other health outcomes are also needed to help

explain the health consequences of food access.

Methods

To conduct the analysis of the extent of food deserts, a

comprehensive database was developed that identified the

location of supermarkets and large grocery stores within the

continental United States. Food access was estimated as the

distance to the nearest supermarket or large grocery store.

The analysis was refined by examining households without

vehicles and specific socio-demographic subpopulations drawn

from the 2000 Census. Multivariate statistical analysis was

applied to identify the key determinants of areas with low

access to supermarkets and large grocery stores.

Research also examined national-level data on questions of

household food adequacy and access from the 2001 Current

Population Survey. This information was complemented with

national-level data on time spent traveling to grocery stores

from the 2003-07 American Time Use Survey. To consider the

economic consequences of limited access, ERS also analyzed

demand for certain nutritious foods for a sample of

participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), using data from the

National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS) of 1996/1997.

Variation in prices for similar foods purchased at different

store types, as indicated by hedonic models and data from the

2006 Nielsen Homescan panel, was also estimated.

ERS collaborated with other agencies and institutions to

complete this study. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

compiled information on an extensive body of work examining

food access for SNAP and other low-income households. USDA's

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

(CSREES) provided information on the Community Foods Projects

and lessons learned in the administration of the projects.

The national-level food desert analysis was complemented by

a review of existing literature and the commissioning of

additional studies by experts in the field. A workshop held

in October 2008 convened leading experts in the study of

retail food and grocery store access, key stakeholders from

community development organizations, grocery retailer

organizations, other government agencies, congressional

members and staff, and related public interest groups. The

workshop included presentations and panel discussions of such

topics as defining and describing dimensions of food deserts,

implications of low access for food and nutrition assistance

programs, consequences of food deserts, and programs and

policies to mitigate the adverse effects of food deserts.

USDA, in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at

the University of Michigan, commissioned several studies by

experts in food access to better understand concepts of low

access to affordable and nutritious foods and the degree to

which access varies across different types of areas. The

intent of these papers was to describe characteristics of the

food environment and the demographic, economic, and health

conditions that typify areas with low food access and to

complement the national-level findings with more detailed and

local-level information. Results from studies were presented

in a conference.

USDA, in cooperation with the Institute of Medicine of the

National Academies, conducted a 2-day workshop in January

2009 on the public health implications of food deserts.

Workshop presentations covered methods for assessing and

research findings on the impacts of food deserts on such

outcomes as diet (including examination of specific foods,

such as fruit and vegetable consumption and intake of high-

energy, low-nutrient foods), prevalence of obesity and

overweight; and diseases associated with poor diets. In

addition, presentations covered promising strategies for

mitigating the impacts of food deserts that have been

suggested, implemented, or are in the planning stages. The

workshop provided the basis for the review of the public

health literature.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore an educator, author, minister, foster parent, mother, wife and visionary. In 1996, she founded Ceria M. Travis Academy, where she is CEO and President. The institution named in honor of her mother was started utilizing her personal savings to fund her passion to serve both the community and children. The school serves approximately 900 students enrolled at three campuses. Travis Academy began by educating central city boys in grades 6 through 8 with one student and one teacher. The school incorporated a girls program 10 years ago and has now expanded to grades K4 through 12.

Dr. Travis Moore is a veteran educator with over 35 years of experience and known nationally for her work with at risk students, both as a teacher and administrator. She was formerly a National Educational Consultant with the National School Safety Center. She fostered more than 11 children and has welcomed into her home international students from England, Mexico and Africa. She is the author of six books with the most recent project entitled ``From Violence to Victory--The Passion to Educate.''

Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore is a licensed minister and member of New Testament Church of Milwaukee. During the past 29 years, she has served in various capacities including Youth Fellowship Director and Sunday School Teacher. Currently she serves on the Associate Minister's Team. Dr. Travis Moore loves to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and served as Director of Christian Education for the Wisconsin Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship. She is an international speaker at women's conferences, workshops, seminars and churches in the United States, the Caribbean and Europe.

Dr. Travis Moore received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, earned her Master of Arts Degree from Ball State University, Muncie Indiana and received Master's and Doctorate degrees in Christian Counseling from Grace Theological Seminary.

Dr. Travis Moore's honors include: ``Top Principal of Leadership,'' ``Who's Who Among Executives and Professionals in the United States,'' ``The University of Wisconsin Distinguished Alumni Award,'' the prestigious ``Rubies Award'' from the Women of Excellence at Greater St. Stephens Full Gospel Baptist Church in New Orleans, LA, ``The Women Who Shape Our World Award in Education'' and the ``2007 Pamela Bates Porch Outstanding Educator Award'' from Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I pay tribute to Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore, a trailblazer who celebrates 15 years as CEO/Founder of Ceria M. Travis Academy and over 35 years of educating our youth. She has stated that her greatest joy is in serving the Lord and has truly followed one of her favorite Bible verses ``I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.'' I am proud to call Dr. Dorothy Travis Moore a lifelong friend to me and my family and proud that she works and educates children in the 4th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 491 because the resolution violates Section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Sadly, we're here once again with my Republican colleagues who are trying to ram through this fat-cat tax extenders legislation, providing mere crumbs from the master's table for working people that will neither help the American people weather this economic malaise nor create a single job.

To add insult to injury, the Rules Committee has rejected all attempts to allow any amendments to this horrible piece of legislation. I proposed four amendments, which were not considered, and in fact, the Republican majority rejected a Democratic substitute.

There is a song by the group Cameo--and I know Mr. Dreier will appreciate this--called ``Talkin' Out the Side of Your Neck.'' The lyrics are:

So you can see we're back into this same old mess.

Seems like every time we get out of one situation we're

back into it all over again.

All you people that watch you talk, you better get it

together or we won't get it done.

We sit down while you cuss and fuss. But guess who's

suffering. Nobody but us.

That's exactly what the Republicans are doing--talking out of both sides of their necks. They talk and talk and talk, making false claims to the middle class, false promises, when they're really trying to protect the interests of the 1 percent; and like the song suggests, those in the middle class are the ones who are suffering.

Once again, through this sham piece of legislation, the Republicans claim to be creating jobs when the cruel thing is that, when 160 million workers are given a small payroll tax holiday, the cost is they are held hostage with the tax breaks for the fat cats. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reports that this legislation adds over $25 billion to our Nation's deficit.

But those grinches don't stop there, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to steal the holiday spirit from hardworking Americans. How? With this legislation.

Our overall unemployment rate did drop recently from 9.1 percent to 8.6 percent, and I am happy to be joined this afternoon by some of my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus who will talk to you a little bit more about how this pertains to black unemployment.

Briefly, though, while unemployment dropped for white men from 7.9 to 7.3 percent, black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent unemployment to a disturbing 16.5 percent. Of course, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment declined for every demographic group within the white community but increased for every demographic group within the African American community. Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts the Federal unemployment program by more than half in 2012, eliminating 40 weeks of benefits, cutting benefits so drastically for those workers and communities that have been most hurt by this recession.

One of the most egregious aspects of this bill is that it promotes State drug testing for workers in order for them to qualify for unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, did the authors of this provision know about the Constitution of the United States? This bill also imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting the benefits that employees have paid for.

This is just outrageous. It is time to stop the doublespeak and to give them real talk, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to one of my good friends from the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Marcia Fudge.

(Ms. FUDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the remaining time on this side.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

That is very kind of you, Mr. Dreier.

I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Oakland, California, Representative Barbara Lee.

I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I would yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

That is quite generous of the gentleman. And so I will yield a minute and a half to my very eloquent colleague, the gentlelady from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing our side to have some voice in this matter. He yielded me time in the name of the season; so I will frame my remaining remarks in that frame.

The season is the reason;

'Tis almost treason to extend full benefits to corporations, who are people,

And leave those who are unemployed feeble.

The season is the reason to extend full benefits to the unemployed. It is almost a ploy to provide tax breaks to corporations and to leave the people with no resources.

I ask my colleagues to support my point of order. It would be egregious if we were to move forward on this bill, on this resolution, without considering the plight that we would put the unemployed in.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment is very straightforward. It would exempt our Nation's veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that H.R. 10 imposes and adds to the administrative rulemaking process and would specifically remove veterans from the bill's so-called ``reining'' provisions that require a joint resolution of Congress before an agency puts forth a major rule to help our men and women in uniform when they become veterans and after they return home from service.

Many of my colleagues and I disagree with this bill for a variety of reasons, including the author's premise that reducing the administration's ability to regulate and promulgate rules will result in job creation. But whether or not we agree on the direction and approach to best help and promote America's future, we all agree on some things. We all agree that the last thing we want to do is to pass legislation that will delay assistance to those veterans who have selflessly chosen to fight for our country and deserve every ounce of assistance we can provide them when they come back home.

Veterans deserve educational opportunity, rehabilitation for sometimes very severe disabilities, Mr. Chairman, mental health treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, employment opportunities, and housing opportunities. Delaying rulemaking authority will have dire consequences for our veterans.

For example, Mr. Chair, one very disturbing issue for me has been the high rate of suicides among our servicemembers. We can't delay this kind of assistance. In fact, last year there were more deaths among our troops from suspected suicide than deaths from hostile combat.

We're facing an epidemic here at home, too. A recent report from the Center for New American Security noted that 1 percent of the population has served in the military, and yet those servicemembers represent 20 percent of all of the suicides in the United States.

Resources for the military are sparse. According to a recent Veterans Health Administration survey of mental health providers, 40 percent responded that they could not schedule a new appointment at their clinic within 14 days; 70 percent of surveyed facilities cited an inadequate number of staff to treat veterans; and 70 percent said that they just simply lacked space.

We also know that there's a serious unemployment barrier among our veterans as they return to civilian life. The unemployment rate among vets who served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 is 12.1 percent, substantially higher than the national average that we're so concerned about now. Unemployment among vets will spike as we end the war in Iraq. The last 20,000 troops are expected to arrive by the end of the year from Iraq. We can expect about an additional 10,000 veterans from Afghanistan to come home before the end of the year, and 23,000 by the end of 2012.

We just can't delay assistance to our veterans. This has been an area, Mr. Chairman, where Democrats and Republicans have typically come together and agreed. Yet H.R. 10, the REINS Act, will have unintended consequences and dangerous consequences for veterans who, of course, have received our undying gratitude and support.

I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and support my amendment because this is not an area where we want to delay services to them. We don't want to subject our vets to the politics of Washington and a gridlocked, hyperpartisan Congress that struggles even to extend unemployment insurance in a recession or the payroll tax to middle class people, let alone a credit default by something ``so historically difficult'' as raising the debt ceiling.

I just think that Americans will agree with me that our Nation's veterans deserve to be excluded from the gridlock that this will invariably cause. Let's come together once more to adopt this amendment, Mr. Chair, not just for the troops that need help, but for the troops that will be here in the near future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for responding, even though he doesn't agree with me. I'm just looking at about at least 14 rules that have been implemented very expeditiously on behalf of our veterans since September 11. It is chilling to think about the delays that may be caused by an extra process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Absolutely, Representative Levin.

Let me start out by thanking you for this Special Order. And that letter is just one in 58,000 people, off the top of my head, that will be immediately affected by our inability to expand unemployment insurance. That's one story.

As you indicated, it's a person who is from Madison, Wisconsin, well educated, and cannot find a job in this recession.

I just think it is really curious, and I guess I would like to engage in a dialogue with you about this, you being the ranking member on Ways and Means, maybe you can help me understand a little bit better. Our colleagues in the majority, the optic and the narrative in the country for them is they want to preserve benefits for millionaires and billionaires. They want to preserve corporate tax expenditure benefits for corporations.

They want to maintain foreign profits for expatriated funds. They want to maintain a very high tax exemption for estates over $5 million. They want to maintain capital gains benefits, benefits on dividends.

So I'm just curious, Representative Levin, why they don't want to provide this governmental benefit for unemployed people. This is very distressing to me when I consider who the unemployed are. When I think about the people the majority party wants to preserve benefits for and then when I get an optic of the people who would most likely benefit from this unemployment insurance, there is a stark contrast. Perhaps that starts to explain why there is a reluctance, an unwillingness and an unreadiness to provide this benefit.

Now, as you know, the overall national unemployment rate dropped from 9.1 percent recently to 8.6, which is something that I think we can claim some victory for; but when you peel back the curtain and disaggregate these numbers, you're going to see that there's a sharp and problematic racial undertone as it pertains to black unemployment.

When you look at the unemployment for white men, Representative Levin, their unemployment dropped from 7.9 percent to 7.3 percent, which is very high; but black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent in unemployment to a disturbing 16.5 percent in unemployment. So those lowered unemployment rates certainly do not reflect what's happening in the African American community.

Of course, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment declined for every demographic within the white community--for teenagers, men, women--but it actually increased for every measured group within the African American community--for men, women, teenagers.

Even worse is after the fact, when the recession is over, when black unemployment won't be any better than white unemployment is right now. I guess that's sort of racial inequality 101. When we peel back the layers of this improved economy, what we find, Representative Levin, is that single mothers--women--are suffering, that they're some of the hardest hit.

As you will recall, Representative Levin, this institution on a bipartisan basis--and I understand I was not here when Mr. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House--decided that the most important legislative initiative that they could undertake was to end aid to families with dependent children and to put women and children under the vagaries and vicissitudes of a cyclical economy. So now that we have an economy that is as bad as it was during the Great Depression, we can look at the unemployment numbers among women, especially among single women, and we can find some very, very distressing data.

Poverty among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent in 2009, the highest in 17 years. According to a recent report by Legal Momentum, recent Census data on poverty paints a bleak picture for single-mother families. This report finds that the poverty rate for single moms, for people who by definition have to feed their kids every night, reached 42.2 percent last year, up from 38.5 percent in 2009, and way up from 33 percent in 2000. It is chilling to contemplate the predicament of women and children when there is no aid to families with dependent children and no entitlement. When you consider that you've got folks like the gentleman you described in your letter who has a master's degree and who cannot find a job, a mom with kids is competing in that same job market.

There is a great deal of need in these populations. Even as the economy begins to show growth, they're forced to make cuts in the family budgets. They're living with food insecurity--not enough food-- and the quality of the food is not good. They're eliminating health insurance. I know families in my district who are taking medicines every other day, doing without transportation, clothing, and where utility cutoffs are very prevalent.

I tell you, that is a very moving letter. You say she had to move with a teenage daughter back into her mom's house. I mean, teenage kids need things other than food. Something like toilet paper becomes an issue when you're sharing a household and when you don't have enough money to make those contributions.

The other thing that makes me very curious, Representative Levin, is the rhetoric around the desire to help small businesses. Do you realize if we don't extend this unemployment benefit, economists have calculated that, in 2012, this will take $90 billion out of the economy? You won't buy that teenager shoes because you're unemployed.