Farm Bill

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to talk for a few minutes about our farm bill. As you know, our farm bill is the primary agricultural and food policy tool of the United States. We pass it every 5 years. We just passed it this year. The bill is going to conference. As you know, the Senate passed its own farm bill and the House passed its farm bill, so we will go to conference and try to work it out. The bill was a 5-year bill, but it spends $860 billion in taxpayer money. Let me say that figure again--$860 billion in taxpayer money.

We throw a billion around these days in Washington as if it were a nickel. A billion is a lot. If I started counting to a billion right now and counted one numeral a second, I would finish in 2050. I probably wouldn't finish; I would probably die first. That is how much a billion is. This bill is about $860 billion. Seventy-five percent of it deals with our food stamp program.

In the House version of the farm bill, there is a work requirement for food stamps, and this is what it says: The American taxpayer will happily give you his or her hard-earned money to help you get back on your feet. We don't want you to be hungry. But if you are between the ages of 18 and 59, the House bill says, and you are not disabled and you don't have a child under 6, then in return for those food stamps, we are going to require you to get a job. You don't have to work a full week; you just have to work 20 hours a week. And if you don't want to work, you can go to job training for 20 hours a week.

That is what the House bill says. The Senate bill is silent on that-- crickets. It doesn't even address it.

I am speaking today to try to encourage our friends in the House to stand firm and insist that their work requirement for food stamps remain in the bill. I would like to spend a few minutes to explain why.

I get a little tired of politicians and others saying: Oh, the American people--they are stingy. They don't help their neighbor.

That is not true. The American people are the most generous people in the world. They are the most generous people in the history of the world. Think about it. First, we spend about $1 trillion a year--$1 trillion a year--in State and local programs that are funded by people's money. The money to fund those programs didn't fall from Heaven. We thank Heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets, and we spend $1 trillion a year--State and local tax money--helping our neighbors who are less fortunate than we are.

In our country--and I am very proud of this--if you are homeless, we will house you; if you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor; and if you are hungry, we will feed you. That separates this country from just about every other country in the world, and it is one of the reasons that so many people across the world want to come to America--because our people are so generous. I mean, when is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into Russia? When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into North Korea? When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into China? I mean, we should be complimented, and it is because of our giving spirit. But it doesn't do any good, in my judgment, to be generous with people who need our help without also helping them get out of the circumstances for which we need to be generous.

Let me put it another way. By suggesting we need a work requirement for food stamps, I am not trying to take away food stamps from people in need. I do not want to take away food stamps from people in need, but I do want fewer people to need food stamps. The best way we can do that for those who are able to work is to help them get a job.

The Brookings Institution, as the Presiding Officer knows, is hardly a bastion of liberalism. They recently did a study. The Brookings Institute said: If you do these four things, you have only a 2-percent chance of living in poverty in America. This is Brookings, now.

The Brookings Institution says that if you do these four things you have only a 2-percent chance of living in poverty: No. 1, get a job-- any job--even if it is minimum wage; No. 2, don't get married until you are 21; No. 3, don't have a child before you get married.

I said four, but I will say that, even if you do these three things-- get any job, don't get married before you are 21, and don't have a child before you get married--you only have a 2-percent chance in this country of living in poverty. Obviously, a job is a critical part of that.

This is what the House bill does. I hope we in the Senate will join with our colleagues in the House and keep this provision in the bill. If you are between the ages of 18 and 59, you are not disabled, and you don't have a child under 6, then we will gladly give you food stamps, but in return we are going to ask you to work 20 hours a week, and we will help you get a job.

If you look at the numbers, right now we have about 21 million people on food stamps who are able-bodied. Let me tell you how I define that universe. There are 21 million people, 18 to 64 years old. So the numbers are slightly different from the House. They are not disabled. Those 21 million able-bodied Americans receive about $34 billion a year in food stamps.

Of those 21 million able-bodied Americans who do not work and who are not disabled, 40 percent of them don't have children, 63 percent of them are White, and 50 percent of them are under 35.

The House bill is even more generous, if you will. It is just 18 to 59, no child under 6, and you can't be disabled. In return for the food stamps, we would ask you to get a job.

I want to repeat what I started with. The purpose of this bill is not just my idea. The House provision is not meant to punish anybody. I don't want to take food stamps away from people who are in need, but I want fewer people who need food stamps. If people don't need food stamps, that will free it up for other people who need food stamps, and it might free up a nickel or two for other things like kids, roads, and cops.

The Senate, in its wisdom, decided not to put in a work requirement. Some of my colleagues say: We already have a work requirement for food stamps. No, we don't. No, we don't. It is optional for the Governors.

Guess what my Governor did. He implemented a food stamp work requirement without work. I mean, it looks beautiful on paper. Except, when you actually read the thing, it is a work requirement without work.

The House bill is different. It is getting serious about this problem.

I hope our conferees will open their minds and open their hearts and open their ears and listen to our House colleagues, and I hope our House colleagues will stand firm.

Thank you, Mr. President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source