Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Lowey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just again make clear so that everybody understands this that this House Republican Zika bill provides less than one-third of the funds requested by the President to respond to the Zika threat. The House bill also cuts the request for research and development of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics by $132 million, or 28.4 percent. The House bill does not replace the more than $40 million taken from States and cities for public health and emergency preparedness that HHS was forced to move into the Zika response due to the inaction by Congress. The House bill also does not replace the more than $500 million taken from Ebola funds that HHS was forced to move into Zika response due to Congress' inaction. Finally, to make matters worse, the House bill rescinds $622 million to pay for the Zika package, including taking an additional $352 million from Ebola. So the total being taken from Ebola efforts under the House Republican approach reaches nearly $900 million. Now, I appreciate the fact that we don't want to keep on adding to our national credit card, but we have no problem adding tens of billions of dollars to the national credit card for war. Well, this is also a war, a war for the health and welfare of the American people and for the health and welfare of many women and children in this country. This is a big deal. This is an emergency. Shame on us for not stepping up to the plate and doing what is right. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today represents a failure, a miserable failure. This represents a failure of this Congress to do everything humanly possible to protect the people of this country. It is shameful. It is unbelievable. A rigid, right-wing ideology is trumping common sense, is trumping doing what is right, what I think most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand. We need to aggressively fight this crisis. And here is the deal: if we don't get this right, all the talk about fiscal responsibility and controlling the debt goes out the window because the cost of this crisis getting out of control is astronomical. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle can explain away or rationalize or justify this inadequate response all they want, but it is reckless and irresponsible. And for the life of me, I can't understand why on this issue, as we are confronted with this health crisis, we all can't come together and do what is right. When it comes to wars halfway around the world, nobody cares about paying for it; but when it comes to a war to confront a healthcare epidemic, crisis, to confront an epidemic, my friends can't find the money. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can actually have an amendment to properly fund this. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee for yielding me the time, and I join with her in expressing my admiration and my respect for Miles Lackey. I have known Miles for many, many years. We both served as staff members up here when I first came to the Hill. I have known him in his capacity when he worked with Tony Beilinson and Ted Weiss and Chris Dodd and John Edwards in the Rules Committee and I guess a thousand other things he did up here. I always admired his intellect and his dedication. Mr. Speaker, Miles Lackey is a good man. He is a very, very good man. That is an important quality for people who serve up here, whether as Members of Congress or as staff members, that they are good people. Miles always put the interests of the people of this country first, and always the most vulnerable were at the top of his list. No matter what we talk about in the Rules Committee, he always talks about how it is going to impact people who are struggling in this country. I just want to say that I have admired Miles' dedication to this country. I have admired his intellect. I have admired his compassion. We are going to miss him greatly. He has taught me a lot. I know he has taught a lot of people on the Rules Committee and other staffers and Members a lot as well. But he is a unique individual in that everybody loves him. I joked last night in the Rules Committee that I appreciated the fact that Miles was the inspiration for a resolution in the Rules Committee that Democrats and Republicans could support because very rarely do we have resolutions that we support in a bipartisan way. So I am grateful to Miles, and I join with everybody here when I say we are going to miss him. I will just conclude with this. I have had the privilege of serving with some great Members of the House and great Members who have served as staffers up here. Miles is at the top of that list. He is a great human being and a great public servant. We are all here, in a bipartisan way, to express our admiration, our deep affection, and our respect for him. We wish him well. And, Miles, we will be calling you often, so be prepared. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the contributions of our seniors during Older Americans Month this month, I rise to draw attention to an issue that often goes overlooked in our communities, and that is the terrible problem of hunger among aging adults. Food insecurity among seniors has doubled since 2001, and is expected to increase significantly as the baby boomer generation ages. Today, food insecurity impacts 5 million seniors across the country, forcing them to make impossible decisions between food, medical care, home heating, and other necessities. We know that hunger is a health issue, and that is especially true among seniors over the age of 60. Research from Feeding America suggests that, compared to their food-secure neighbors, seniors suffering from hunger are 60 percent more likely to experience depression, 53 percent more likely to report a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, and 40 percent more likely to report an experience of congestive heart failure. Baby boomers spend twice as much on health care as young adults do. Ensuring seniors have access to nutritious food is vitally important. We know that seniors have unique nutritional needs, and I am pleased to see scientists collaborating to create nutritional guidance for seniors. Researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, with support from the AARP Foundation, recently unveiled an updated MyPlate for Older Adults graphic to help seniors visualize what foods cover the nutritional needs that make up a healthy plate for adults their age. The new icon also encourages them to follow healthy eating patterns. I was pleased to join scientists from Tufts as well as representatives of AARP last week at a briefing on Capitol Hill to unveil the new MyPlate icon and educate congressional staff on the importance of senior nutrition. But if we want to ensure seniors have access to nutritious foods, we must also ensure that they have the ability to afford fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options. One critical step we can take toward the goal of ending senior hunger is closing what is referred to as the ``senior SNAP gap.'' While millions of our parents, grandparents, teachers, and friends are facing hunger, only a fraction of low-income seniors eligible for food assistance through SNAP are accessing the benefits, presumably because of the stigma associated with assistance, or because seniors are unaware they qualify for benefits. Many seniors also suffer from limited mobility or may have issues completing benefit applications, which can be complex and very time- consuming. In fact, seniors are more likely than any other age group to be eligible for SNAP, but they are not enrolled to receive the benefits. That is why I am pleased to see so many advocacy organizations using Older Americans Month to call attention to the issue of senior hunger. Through their hashtag Solve Senior Hunger campaign, Feeding America and other antihunger and -aging organizations across the country are reaching out to seniors and their loved ones to raise awareness and ensure that those seniors who are eligible to receive SNAP benefits are connected to the appropriate resources. We should do all we can to help solve senior hunger by talking to our family members and friends about senior hunger and by partnering with leaders in our communities who work to improve access to nutritious food for senior populations. During my years in Congress, I have had the opportunity to visit food banks and other organizations in my district that are working to end hunger among seniors. Last year I had the privilege of spending a day with a Meals on Wheels program that is based in Northampton, Massachusetts, which is part of my congressional district. I helped to prepare and deliver meals and had the opportunity to speak with seniors who were served through this incredible program. Members of Congress have an important role in ensuring our Nation's seniors don't go hungry. I encourage all of my colleagues to spend time with similar programs in their districts. Congress must adequately fund programs like Meals on Wheels, which provides nutritious food to seniors, and reject harmful cuts to SNAP, which will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable among us: children, seniors, and the disabled. That hunger is still a big problem in America, the richest country in the history of the world, and it should make us all ashamed. But, in working together, we have the power to end hunger now, especially among our senior population. Let's act now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the dead of night in the Committee on Armed Services, House Republicans added what we believe is discriminatory language to the NDAA, which would effectively overturn President Obama's historic executive order that protects LGBT workers in Federal contracts, therefore, enabling discrimination with taxpayer funds. That is what we believe. We had a very vigorous debate in the Committee on Rules last night, and the gentleman defended his position quite ferociously; but we believe it is discrimination, plain and simple. An amendment was offered by a Republican Member to strike that discriminatory language from the bill. It was germane, and the Committee on Rules decided on its own not to make it in order. The Committee on Rules shouldn't be about making decisions on issues that, I think, the entire Congress has an interest in debating and in voting on, but, unilaterally, the Republicans in the Committee on Rules last night said: No, we are not going to make a Republican amendment in order that would have struck what we believe is discriminatory language. That is not an open and transparent process. That is shutting the process down in a way that, I think, demeans this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this rule. Almost 200 germane amendments, substantive amendments were not made in order. Again, I am used to, as a Democrat, having the Republicans shut me out every chance they get; but to my Republican colleagues who were shut out on their legitimate amendments, the germane amendments, stand with us and send a signal to your leadership that this closed process is unacceptable. My colleague, Mr. Byrne, talks about this being an open process. We must have different definitions of openness because when almost 200 amendments are shut out--and, by the way, on top of all of that, there were really kind of unusual shenanigans in the Rules Committee about self-executing amendments so that we don't have an opportunity to even vote up or down on them--that is not an open process. That is something we should try to move away from. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close as I began by saying to my colleagues to please vote against this rule because it does not make in order the opportunity for us to be able to debate the issues of war and peace when it comes to Iraq and Syria. We have been involved in Syria and again in Iraq now for almost 2 years. By the way, we left Iraq not because President Obama wanted us to, but because the Iraqi Parliament voted us to leave. That is a little bit of history that my colleague left out. The time to debate an AUMF, an Authorization for Use of Military Force, was before we commit our forces into harm's way. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans, pleaded with the leadership to let us have that opportunity, for us to work in a bipartisan way to see whether we could come together. And time and time and time again, we were denied that ability, that right. Now, we are being told: Well, you know, this is not the time. We don't have enough time to do it. Maybe the Committee on Foreign Affairs should do it, but this is not the place to do it. When is? You have waited for over 2 years. Nothing. I will say that these excuses, they are insulting to the American people, but more importantly and more significantly, they are insulting to the men and women who are in harm's way. They do their job. They do what we have asked them to do, but yet we don't have the guts to do what we are supposed to do. Shame on all of us for allowing this to go on this long without debating these wars. The President of the United States submitted an AUMF. I have problems with it. I think it is too broad. If you don't like it, fine. Then come up with a new idea, but doing nothing is not an option. Read the Constitution. We have an obligation. We are not living up to it. Do what is right by the American people, by the men and women who risk their lives every day because we have put them into harm's way. It is absolutely unconscionable that we can't even have the ability to debate the amendment that I offered to be able to say that we are not going to continue funding these wars unless Congress does its job. That is the least we can do, and yet the Committee on Rules said no. It is germane, it is in order, there is no problem, but because some majority in the Committee on Rules says, ``No, we are not going to do it,'' everybody is denied that right? It is a bipartisan amendment. This is not just a Democratic concern. There are a lot of Republicans who share my views on this as well. Let's do our job. Stop being so chicken when it comes to debating issues of war and peace. This is the time when we ought to come together and do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman reciting the Republican talking points of the Republican leadership, but that doesn't explain why the amendment to strike this provision was not made in order. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Many of us on this side, including many Republicans--because a Republican actually offered the amendment to strike this provision that the gentleman referred to because they thought it was discriminatory-- we think it is potential discrimination against members of the LGBT community. But here is the deal--I get you disagree with us--but what is wrong with allowing an amendment that is germane, to debate it and vote on it? I mean, where does the Rules Committee get off saying you can't have that debate, you can't have that vote? It is germane. Now, we could disagree. We think it is discrimination. We ought to have that vote, and the Rules Committee denied us. This is another reason for Democrats and Republicans to vote down this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Give me a break. To insinuate that this is somehow all on the level or an open process, I take exception to that characterization. The amendment that the distinguished minority whip was referring to was put into the rule. It was a self-executing amendment so that the majority here did not have an opportunity here to vote up or down on it on its own merits. Instead, they were forced to vote up or down on a rule that made in order a whole bunch of amendments on a variety of issues where they could vote up or down on, but not on this. So to defend this process, a process that is indefensible, is getting a little tired. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With respect to the gentleman, I don't think we agree with each other. The reason why we are doing this is because Congress has failed to act. The time for an AUMF is before you put troops in harm's way. Some of us tried before we entered into this latest Syrian war to actually have a debate on an AUMF, and we were denied that opportunity. We are reengaged in Iraq. We asked before we did that, ``Let's have an AUMF,'' and we were denied that opportunity. We have been denied and denied and denied and denied. All we are saying is that we ought to do our job. The President submitted an AUMF to Congress. He did his job. You don't like it--I don't like what he submitted either--but he did his job. He doesn't control what we do here. We decide what to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee 2 years ago could have taken this issue up. They didn't. They are not taking it up now. Here we are 2 years into these latest conflicts and nothing. It is shameful. Come on. We ought to come together, even if we disagree on what our strategy should be, and debate this. We have no trouble sending our young men and women into harm's way; yet when it comes to doing our job, all of a sudden we have 1,000 excuses why we can't do it. That is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honorable chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, for once again working in a bipartisan manner to bring before this House H.R. 4909, the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. I don't agree with everything that is in this bill. In fact, there is a lot I do disagree with. But I appreciate that the chairman and the ranking member always treat all Members submitting amendments to the NDAA with respect, and that is very much appreciated. But I must rise in very strong opposition to this structured rule because there are very serious issues that merit the time and attention of this House that were submitted to the Rules Committee by Members from both sides of the aisle, which have not been included in this structured rule. Almost 200 amendments were not made in order. As a Democrat, I am used to being shut out by the Republican majority, but dozens of Republican amendments were blocked as well. Let me say to my Republican friends who did not have their amendment made in order: If you don't want this to be a pattern, then vote ``no'' on this rule; if you don't want this to be a precedent, then vote ``no'' on this rule. Send a message to your leadership that, in fact, you want a more open and transparent process. Don't go along just to get along. Don't be a cheap date when it comes to an open process in this House. The issues that are involved with the Defense Authorization Act are too important to be just blocked with no debate, no deliberation, and no votes. My friend talks about an open process. Open process, my foot. It is not an open process. Almost 200 amendments were not made in order. That is just not right. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that disturbs me in particular about this structured rule, it is how it fails the American people once again in not allowing substantial debate about the issues of war and peace. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical than the issues of war and peace. And once again, the Republicans on the Rules Committee have ensured that no amendment that deals with authorizing the current U.S. military engagements in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan was made in order. The only amendment made in order is the one offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to repeal the 2001 AUMF for Afghanistan, an amendment that she has courageously offered for several years now. Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments not made in order was an amendment offered by me and several colleagues to prohibit the use of any U.S. funds after April 30, 2017, for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq or Syria in the fight against the Islamic State if an AUMF has not been enacted. This was a bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Jones, Garamendi, Yoho, Lee of California, Cicilline, and myself. And let me make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker: this amendment is not an AUMF. There is not one single syllable in this amendment that reflects the language of an AUMF. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee was very clear during the committee markup of the NDAA that AUMF amendments were not the jurisdiction of his committee but, rather, the Foreign Affairs Committee. But this amendment is not an AUMF. And it is germane, by the way. My amendment only prohibits the obligation and expenditure of funds after April 30, which is the chairman's chosen date for the cutoff of all OCO funding, and then only for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, unless an authorization for that purpose has been enacted. Quite simply, if you want the money to fight a war, then pass an AUMF. This amendment doesn't care who writes it. It doesn't care when it is debated or approved. It just requires that an AUMF be enacted by April 30. If not, no more funds for U.S. troops in the air, on the water, or on the ground until an AUMF is enacted. All this amendment asks is that Congress do its job. We ask our men and women in the military to do their jobs, and Heaven only knows, they carry out their duty with courage, honor, and professionalism. I only ask that Congress do the same. This should not be too much to ask. We have sent our uniformed men and women into harm's way in Syria and Iraq for nearly 2 years now and still Congress refuses to do its duty and authorize their deployment. We have been bombing, we have got boots on the ground and engaged in combat, and we have had troops killed in action, yet this Congress can't seem to debate and vote on an AUMF. I personally believe that endless wars, endless bombing, and an ever- expanding U.S. military footprint in the Middle East is not a substitute for efforts aimed at reconciliation and political solutions. The status quo will not make the world more secure. I know some of my colleagues differ with me, and that is fine, but let's have the debate. Let's have clarity in what we are doing, and let's make sure that what we are doing works. Dodging responsibility only means that these wars will remain on remote control, and that is sad. Last night in the Rules Committee, we heard lots and lots and lots of excuses. One of my favorite excuses that we heard last night was that 10 minutes would not be enough time to debate such a serious matter as what my amendment proposes. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee can assign as much time as it wants to debate an amendment. That is what we are there for. Two hours, 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks if it wishes. That is what the Rules Committee is supposed to do: provide serious time to debate serious issues. I heard that the Foreign Affairs Committee should be and would be drafting an AUMF. Fine. Terrific. If it comes out and is enacted before April 30, then it would fit right in with my amendment. But if this House continues to dawdle and whine and shirk its duties, then there should be no more money after April 30 for a war that hasn't been authorized by Congress. I was told that the Republican leadership doesn't like the AUMF that the President sent to Congress over a year ago. Well, neither do I. I think it is too broad. But, Mr. Speaker, if the majority or anyone here doesn't like the President's AUMF, then it is the duty of Congress to draft debate and vote upon its own version of an AUMF and send the bill back to the President for his signature or veto. That is how the system works, or at least that is how it would work if this House ever managed to do its job. I was told that the next President wouldn't have enough time to figure out an AUMF for Iraq and Syria by April 30. But, Mr. Speaker, I didn't choose April 30 as a date when all funds for the Overseas Contingency Operations account would be cut off. That date is built into the NDAA already. If April 30 is enough time for a new President and new Congress to ask for more money for these wars that are supplemental, then it should be plenty of time for Congress to take up and debate an AUMF. Now, of course, this Congress or the next one should and could take up an AUMF any day it so desires. I remember, in 2014, that Speaker Boehner told us that it would be better for the 114th Congress to debate and pass an AUMF for Iraq and Syria rather than the 113th Congress. Well, here we are 16\1/2\ months into the 114th Congress with no thought of taking up an AUMF on battling the Islamic State. I guess this Congress is just too damned chicken to do its job when it comes to war, and we are going to kick the can into the 115th Congress or maybe the 116th Congress. Enough with the excuses, enough. In fact, I remember, last year, Speaker Ryan said an AUMF for Iraq and Syria for the war against the Islamic State would be one of the first things this Congress would take up this year. Well, here we are in the middle of May and there is no AUMF in sight, just the same old tired excuses, the same cowardice, the same political posturing. There is no shortage of Members of Congress talking tough against ISIS. We hear it all the time on the House floor. But let's be honest: that takes absolutely no courage at all. None of us are on the frontlines in Syria or Iraq. We are all safe and sound in the U.S. Capitol. But think for a minute. What must be going through the minds of our troops when they see a Congress that doesn't even have the guts to debate these wars while they have been put in harm's way? Every single Member of this House should be ashamed. Our collective silence--our collective indifference--is dismissive of our constitutional responsibility. This Chamber is guilty of moral cowardice. Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 200 reasons to oppose this rule, and that is how many of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee were not made in order under either the first rule to the NDAA or today's rule. Basically, 50 percent of all amendments submitted are not being allowed a chance to be heard. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to show some backbone and demand that the majority leadership of this House carry out its constitutional duty to debate and vote on an AUMF for Iraq and Syria. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairman for his graciousness. Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of the McGovern-Pompeo amendment, which is part of this en bloc, to create a medal honoring the service of atomic veterans or their surviving family members. Between 1945 and 1962, over 200,000 servicemembers conducted hundreds of nuclear weapons tests and were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Sworn to secrecy, they couldn't even tell their doctors. Presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush recognized their service by providing specialized care and compensation, but this isn't enough. Joe Mondello, a constituent of mine from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, and other atomic veterans helped bring this issue to my attention. It is long past time to honor their service. Last year, with the help of the chairman, in the DOD authorization bill we included this amendment, but then the Department of Defense insisted the Senate remove it. Their explanation? We don't have a medal and don't want to create one. Congress should find another way to honor these veterans. That is no excuse. In fact, that is insensitive, it is dismissive, and it is ungrateful. We should be appalled. Tragically, many of these atomic veterans have already died without receiving recognition. They kept a code of silence that likely led to many of them passing away too soon. We must right this wrong. Support this amendment. I urge the Senate to do the same thing.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, thousands of people will gather in Washington, D.C., this weekend for Feeding the 5000, an event designed to bring awareness to the issue of food waste. Participants will be served a communal meal made entirely out of food that would otherwise have been discarded--in other words, wasted. Since 2009, Feedback, a global environmental organization working to end food waste, has hosted dozens of Feeding the 5000 events in cities across the globe. I am pleased to see so many local partners--including government agencies, charitable organizations, NGOs, industry, and chefs--joining together to call attention to food waste, because the truth of the matter is we will need all of these partners working together to solve the issue of food waste. Last year, the USDA announced their first ever food waste reduction goal, calling for a 50 percent reduction in food waste by 2030. USDA is working with charitable organizations, faith-based groups, and the private sector, and I believe this goal is 100 percent achievable. American consumers, businesses, and farms spend an estimated $218 billion per year growing, processing, transporting, and disposing of food that is never eaten. Up to 40 percent of all food grown is never eaten; 40 to 50 million tons of food is sent to landfills each year, plus another 10 million tons is left unharvested on farms. This food waste translates into approximately 387 billion calories of food that went unconsumed. With 50 million Americans--including 16 million children--struggling with hunger every year, these are startling figures. We know food waste occurs throughout the supply chain, from harvesting to manufacturing, to retail operations and consumer habits. But we must do more to reduce food waste at every stage, recover food that would otherwise have been wasted, and recycle unavoidable waste as animal feed, compost, or energy. Thankfully, there is already a lot of great work being doing to raise awareness about the problem of food waste. Just last week, I attended a screening of the documentary film called ``Just Eat It'' at Amherst Cinema, organized by The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. ``Just Eat It'' follows a couple, Jen and Grant, as they stop going to the grocery store and live solely off of foods that would have been thrown away. Jen and Grant were able to find an abundance of perfectly safe and healthy food available for consumption that would have been thrown away. It is exciting to see new partnerships forming to study food waste and find ways to use this perfectly good food to reduce hunger in our communities. One such private-public collaboration, ReFED, has brought together over 30 business, government, and NGO leaders committed to wide-scale solutions to U.S. food waste. In March 2016, ReFED released a Roadmap that charts the course for a 20 percent reduction of food waste within a decade. The Roadmap calls for farmers to reduce unharvested food and create secondary markets for imperfect produce. It calls on manufacturers to reduce inefficiencies, make packaging adjustments, and standardize date labeling. It calls on food service companies to further implement waste tracking and incorporate imperfect produce and smaller plates into restaurants. It urges the Federal Government to strengthen tax incentives for food donations and consider standardized date labeling legislation. The good news is that many in the industry are already taking steps to dramatically cut down on wasted food by implementing robust donation programs. For example, Starbucks recently announced it will soon scale up its successful food donation pilot program nationwide. In partnership with the Food Donation Connection and Feeding America, Starbucks will donate unsold food from more than 7,000 company-operated stores--salads, sandwiches, and other refrigerated items--to the Feeding America food bank network. By 2021, that amounts to almost 50 million meals. Our college campuses are also stepping up. Both the Campus Kitchens Project and the Food Recovery Network will work with college dining facilities and students to provide hunger relief in their local communities. In my congressional district, Becker College, Holy Cross College, Smith College, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute all have campus food recovery initiatives. Over the past 35 years, Feeding America has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to ensuring food that would otherwise have been wasted makes its way to food banks across the country and into the homes of families in need. There are dozens of other industry leaders also taking steps to reduce food waste by implementing manufacturing upgrades, maximizing harvests, and utilizing recycling initiatives. I appreciate the efforts of the Food Waste Reduction Alliance in bringing together industry partners to reduce food waste, shrink the environmental footprint, and alleviate hunger in our communities. Reducing food waste is one step we can take toward our goal of ending hunger in the United States and throughout the world. I am pleased to see so many partners at every level of the food supply chain taking action to reduce food waste, but there is still more that needs to be done. Let's solve the problem of food waste, and let's end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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