Hunger in America gets a voice in D.C.
Just as the word skipper is now part of the vocabulary on Capitol Hill when the issue of unaffordable prescription drugs is being debated, the words food insecurity will gain in recognition as hunger in America is talked about in the open by members of Congress.
A "skipper" is someone who skips doses of prescription medicine to make supplies last longer, and even chooses between buying food and paying for medicine. Skipping a meal or some other necessity in order to afford life-saving medicine is commonplace in America today.
"Food insecurity" refers to the condition experienced by an individual who is uncertain he or she will have enough to eat, the Washington Post reported last week. The newspaper referred to a "little-noticed report" by the Agriculture Department that found that 11.2 percent of all American households -- about 12.6 million -- were "food insecure" at some point last year.
The report stated that two-thirds of the households said they avoided going hungry by eating a less varied diet or getting public assistance.
But the Post also noted that one-third reported that one or more of their households went hungry in 2003.
Skeptics
To be sure, the report will be met with skepticism from those federal legislators and others who believe that if people in this land of plenty are going hungry, it's their own fault. They are just too picky about their dietary preferences, these detractors contend, which results in their not taking advantage of the many federal, state and nonprofit food programs available.
But the issue of hunger, like the issue of the rising cost of prescription drugs, isn't as black and white as portrayed by skeptics who suggest that the extent of the problem is being exaggerated.
Just as President Bush's Medicare reform initiative vindicated the advocates of cheaper drugs, the problem of hunger will also be found to be as serious as the Agriculture Department's report suggests.
The Senate Hunger Caucus, a bipartisan endeavor in this highly partisan political environment, is making sure the issue gets the attention it deserves.
"We have to talk about priorities," Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., told the Post. "We'll alert members and bring to their attention the seriousness of the issue."
Such a commitment is noteworthy, given the preoccupation of Congress with the war in Iraq, ballooning deficit and a federal budget that slashes funding for many social programs.
As Doug O'Brien of America's Second Harvest said of the Senate Hunger Caucus and the fact that one-third of the 100 members have joined, "It's really very important. We're talking less and less about program increases and now about simply program protection. If we didn't have this group of, for lack of a better term, superstars working this debate, I'm not sure we'd fare so well."
Among the superstars are Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
House caucus
Even the House is beginning to take another look at the problem of hunger in America. A new caucus of representatives is being organized to replace the one that was cut in 1995.
In Ohio, the Children's Hunger Alliance has found that an estimated 129,000 children and 180,000 adults go hungry, and an additional 480,000 adults and 366,000 children are at risk of going hungry.
The state is taking these statistics seriously and has launched initiatives to ease reporting requirements and increase participation in the food stamp program.
But with looming budget deficits in the next biennium, hunger may cease to be a priority.
That's why Congress must give more than just lip service to this national crisis.