Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. It is an inquiry. I don't want to take it on my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia suggests that we all take a mission trip around the world to see hunger and see how lucky we are here in the United States. Let me tell the gentleman, you don't have to go halfway around the world to see hunger. I can take you halfway down the block, and you can see hunger right here in our Nation's capital and in every congressional district in this country. There are over 41 million Americans who are hungry or food-insecure in this country. We are the richest country in the history of the world. We all should be ashamed. We ought to do something about it, and this farm bill makes hunger worse. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to think of a response to the gentleman from Georgia, who is trying to defend the process in the Agriculture Committee as that somehow, with this bipartisan process, Democrats didn't want to participate. But you know what? It is just not worth it. We have been explaining it over and over and over again. This process is indefensible. It really makes a mockery of the Agriculture Committee, and it makes a mockery of this institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. McGOVERN. As long as it doesn't come out of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I am just taking note of all of the excitement on your side of the aisle on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maine.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, is leaving, I would just urge him to read the bill, because if he did, he would realize that if this bill were to become law, there are 60,000 people in his home State of Washington who would lose SNAP benefits just due to categorical eligibility changes alone; more would lose their benefits, but just for this one tweak in this bill. The majority of the people who would lose their benefits under categorical eligibility changes are working families, working families with kids. Children, Mr. Speaker, will lose their SNAP benefits and many of them will lose access to free school meals. So, again, for all the talk on the other side about how this bill is somehow a good bill for families, read the bill. It is a pretty cruel bill for working families and for children. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that we defeat the previous question, and if so, I will offer an amendment ensuring that before the legislation can take effect, the President must certify to Congress that none of the administration's recent trade and tariff actions and negotiations will harm U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia: Do you have any speakers over there or anybody who wants to talk about this bill? Because we have a ton, and we just want to----

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for reminding us that there were 51 amendments made in order, but he forgot to mention that 54 were blocked. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lawson), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I am not going to reconsider my opposition. I think this is a bad amendment, plain and simple. And I think the issues like determining eligibility for who can receive SNAP should not be contracted out to some private company. I do worry about creating more jobs overseas and losing very good jobs here at home. So if you are concerned about keeping good jobs--and these are good jobs, civil service jobs--here in the United States, then you have got to oppose this amendment. Shifting core SNAP functions to private workers could disrupt timely and accurate benefits. In H.R. 2, we are going after vulnerable populations in a very, very harsh way, and I think this would complicate things even worse. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This proposal opens the door to sweeping changes in how States can operate SNAP. The amendment, which was never debated or discussed by the committee, could result in tens of thousands of American jobs being shipped overseas. I know Donald Trump wants to create more jobs in China, but I don't think we do. This risks good-paying civil service jobs and puts benefits and services to vulnerable households at risk. SNAP's merit system ensures workers' aim is to effectively implement program rules unhindered by private interests or profit motives. Some SNAP operational functions can be appropriately turned over to private contractors, such as computer systems, custodial services, or debit card issuance in order to leverage businesses' competitive advantage. Some, however, like eligibility determination, must remain a government function. Some SNAP clients, including many elderly, have very complex cases that require trained professional civil service workers to dedicate significant time to appropriately screen and verify their information, and ensure they receive the correct benefit levels, which is important. Good local jobs likely could be exported out of the area or overseas. In many areas, including rural regions, civil service jobs offer some of the best paying, most stable employment for local workers. Privatizing core SNAP functions would mean many of these jobs would be moved to other locations, including overseas. Why do we want to do that? Privatization could also compromise the security of a participant's data. SNAP collects detailed information about applicants and participants, including Social Security numbers, household composition and income, and employment information. Handing private data of millions of individuals over to private companies raises serious concerns about their ability to keep it secure, and their interest in using it for other purposes. I respect the gentleman's intentions, I guess, but I think if we had spent some time in the committee actually discussing this, some of these concerns that I raise would be apparent. So this is a bad idea, a bad amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the CBO, the nonpartisan experts that we all rely on, says that over 400,000 households will lose their benefits because of the changes in H.R. 2 with regard to categorical eligibility. We estimate that to be a million people. That is undeniable. So you can sit here all you want and say this is going to hold everybody harmless and that kids won't suffer. It is just not true. I mean, read the CBO score. Better yet, read the bill. Look, we have no objection to you passing a restatement of current law, because current law says that, even if parents don't comply, their kids can't be punished. But make no mistake about it, the overall food allowance in that household will decrease. That is a fact. That will impact those kids. So, if you truly want to help kids, if you truly care about kids, you will vote ``no'' on this bill. You will vote ``no'' on H.R. 2. You will make sure that this bill goes back to committee, that we have a bipartisan process, and we have a bill that comes to the floor that helps our farmers and that helps those in need in this country. This is not it. This does not help kids. This amendment does nothing. This is a covering-your-rear-end amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss. We have no opposition to this amendment, but let's be honest with each other and let's be honest with our constituents. H.R. 2 will hurt families, will hurt working families, will hurt kids. You know one thing that is also explicit, Mr. Chairman? According to CBO, 265,000 kids will be thrown off of the free breakfast and lunch program. That is according to CBO. The other thing that is clear is that there are working families-- there are working families, Mr. Chairman, people who work, who now get SNAP benefits, who, because we are eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, a number of them will lose their benefits. And they still work. Their family households, therefore, will have less of a food allowance. That will impact these kids. That is undeniable. So don't sit here and say this shows that we are going to protect kids. The law is the law. If you want to restate the law, restate it. Restate it 100 times, ``don't hurt kids.'' That doesn't change the fact that this bill will hurt kids. That is why so many of us on this side of the aisle and, hopefully, a number of you on your side of the aisle are going to stand strong and oppose this. This is not right. There was a right way to do this farm bill, and there was a wrong way to do this farm bill. This was the wrong way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I do want to say a few words, and that is, I am trying to understand this amendment, because I really don't understand the point of it. Under current law, children can still get SNAP even if their parents fail to comply with work requirements. That is the current law. H.R. 2, the farm bill, does nothing to change this, so I am unsure why this amendment has been offered. I think I would classify this amendment as a covering-your-rear-end amendment, because the bottom line is that there is a lot in H.R. 2 that I think does harm to children, because when their parents are thrown off of SNAP, while they may not be thrown off of SNAP, the overall household allowance for food gets decreased, and so there is less food for the entire family. I would say that if the majority really cared about the impact H.R. 2 would have on children, then they would address the changes that have been made in broad-based categorical eligibility, which will throw working parents off of SNAP. According to CBO, the nonpartisan experts that we rely on to give us data, over 265,000 students will lose access to free school meals. So there is nothing to be opposed to, I guess, because this is already current law. But I would say to the gentleman that broad-based categorical eligibility, the changes in this bill, are going to adversely impact a number of individuals in New Jersey. With that alone, 35,000 individuals are going to lose their SNAP benefits. That is just on this one part of the bill. Many of them have kids, and the changes are going to affect these kids. So, if you really care about these kids, I would urge you to reject this bill. Send it back to the Agriculture Committee. Let's work in a bipartisan way and construct a nutrition title which everybody understands, which is clear, which has been vetted, and which we can come to the floor and say with certainty that it will not adversely impact kids. Because this underlying bill, no matter how you want to slice and dice it, will have a negative impact on kids. And this amendment, you go home and maybe do a press release on it, but it doesn't change the impact of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, let me close by saying this manager's amendment highlights how deeply flawed this bill is. I regret very much that a flawed bill is being brought to the House floor because of a flawed process. I am the ranking Democrat in the Nutrition Subcommittee. I didn't see the nutrition title until it was made public to the press. We had 23 hearings in the Agriculture Committee. This nutrition title does not reflect those hearings. We should have had a hearing on this nutrition title to understand the impacts that it will have on some of the most vulnerable people in this country. We live in the richest country in the history of the world. We have millions of people who are food insecure or hungry. We have an obligation here in this House of Representatives to make sure that we don't let them fall through the cracks. And yet, we have this bill that will make hunger worse in America. This manager's amendment does nothing to fix it. In fact, in some cases it makes it worse. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it but, more importantly, reject this bill. Send it back to committee. Let's do it right. Let's have a bipartisan bill, one that we can all be proud of. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.