Ms. MOORE. 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.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 541, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 542, line 8.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady.
I think that this is really the height of temerity here to make reference to people who are on a food stamp program and make a presumption that because they're on a food stamp program that they are using drugs and that they should be tested.
My gosh, I would just say that what about those people who are getting $4.7 million in direct payments from the Federal Government--as the gentleman from California does--and an additional $1.2 million from direct payments from the Federal Government? Maybe we ought to start drug testing all of the people who get some sort of a benefit from the Federal Government, and particularly those folks in this program, like the folks who are on crop insurance.
We can't find out the names of the 26 individuals on crop insurance that get at least $1 million--$1 million they get in a premium subsidy. And do you know what, my friends? There is no cap on the amount of money, there is no threshold on what they can receive, they have no eligibility criteria. They just get the money, and they don't have to even farm the land. Why don't we drug test those folks today and not demean people who have fallen on hard times?