Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering two pieces of tax legislation under closed rules. These mark our 10th and 11th closed rules in the first 6 weeks of the 114th Congress. Sadly, this has become the standard operating procedure in the Republican House. In 2011, when Republicans took the majority, Speaker Boehner promised ``the right to a robust debate in open process.'' He promised many open rules. Instead, we have just ended the most closed Congress in history. And if these past 6 weeks are any indication of where we are headed, this leadership seems intent on breaking its own record for denying open debate on the House floor. I also want to point out that the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money February 28, 16 days from now. Press reports indicate that the Republican leadership is scrambling to gather the votes necessary to pass a bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have some advice for my friends in the majority. Instead of yelling, instead of pouting and swearing, bring to the floor a clean Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the bipartisan negotiated compromise that has been ready to go since last November. This is a bill that could and should be sent to the President as quickly as possible, especially considering the international and national homeland security situation facing the U.S. and the world at this very, very moment. So I have to say that I am a little perplexed as to why the majority has chosen this week to bring to the floor a package of tax breaks that are not paid for, that are going nowhere, 5 legislative days before the Department of Homeland Security is going to be forced to shut down because of Republican dithering. And I say going nowhere because Senate Republicans have said quite clearly that these bills will not likely be considered in committee or by the full Senate. Let me repeat that. These bills are going nowhere because of the Republicans in the Senate. They have made it pretty clear. So the clock is ticking on funding our Homeland Security programs, Mr. Speaker. Are the Republican leaders planning to let the clock run out, planning to create another crisis? We should be debating a clean Department of Homeland Security bill right now. We ought to vote in a bipartisan way to pass it, have the Senate do the same thing, send it right to the President, and actually accomplish something. I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the partisan approach taken by the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee in advancing these particular tax measures. We went through this same exercise last year with a similar set of bills, only to pass in the final weeks of the 113th Congress a 1-year comprehensive ``tax extenders'' package. The Republican leadership in the House is setting the stage for a similar confrontation this year, instead of working in a productive and bipartisan manner on comprehensive tax reform. That is something that the American people, Democrats and Republicans, all want. They want us to be working on it, and they want us to pass a bipartisan comprehensive tax reform bill. The seven tax provisions before us today, packaged into two bills, will add more than $93 billion to the deficit. There was a time when my Republican friends actually cared about the deficit. I guess those days are gone. While I support the goals of many of the provisions contained in these bills, I cannot vote for legislation that targets only a handful of tax provisions, chooses to elevate them and make them permanent at the expense of other tax priorities, and then refuses to pay for them-- absolutely refuses to pay for them. This Republican package does nothing, absolutely nothing to address key priorities, like the work opportunity tax credit and the new markets tax credit. It fails to address the long-term status of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit that work to reduce poverty. If these tax provisions are allowed to expire in 2017, as currently scheduled, many working poor families would lose their child tax credit, and many low-income married couples and larger families would see a cut in their EITC. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if the EITC and the CTC provisions were to expire, ``more than 16 million people in low-income working families, including 8 million children, would fall into--or deeper into--poverty.'' The piecemeal, deficit-spending approach taken by this majority puts these working family tax provisions at risk. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see members of the Republican leadership at D.C. Central Kitchen the other day talking about hunger. D.C. Central Kitchen does incredible work to feed the hungry and help people get back on their feet. But count me as a little skeptical because time after time after time after time, Republicans have targeted poor people and the programs that help them. If my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about ending hunger, they need to do much more than encourage donations to food banks. First and foremost, they should stop targeting SNAP, the Nation's premier antihunger program. They should stop treating SNAP as an ATM machine for other programs. Instead, they should work with us to increase the minimum wage or at least give us a vote on increasing the minimum wage. They should work with us to expand job training programs and make child care more affordable. They should work with us to fix the major flaw in our social safety net; namely, that when someone gets a job that doesn't pay very much, they tend to lose all their benefits and end up struggling, once again, to put food on the table, find day care for their kids, keep their house warm, and pay the rent. We need desperately to have a serious and thoughtful discussion about the long-term sustainability of our safety net programs. The Fighting Hunger Incentive Act makes permanent the enhanced deduction for contributions of food inventory. I strongly support our food banks and charitable organizations that work each and every day to feed the hungry in this country. I support efforts that provide incentives to donate food to these organizations. But one tax break does not constitute a plan to address hunger. And it certainly does not make up for the cuts to SNAP and other safety net programs that have been proposed and enacted by this Republican majority. So in closing, again, I would urge my colleagues to pay attention to today's National Journal Daily, the headline: ``So Far, a Congress About Nothing.'' That is what this Congress is becoming known as, ``a Congress about nothing.'' Well, work with us in a bipartisan way to change this headline, and you could do that by allowing a clean Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to come before us. We can pass it in a bipartisan way, and we can meet the national security needs of our country and actually do something before we go home on another break. With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the deteriorating humanitarian and human rights situation inside Sudan. Regrettably, as the attention of the world has been pulled in many different directions, the people of Sudan have been forgotten. For over a year and a half, the situation inside Sudan has been getting worse and worse. It happens quietly, out of the limelight, but the suffering of the Sudanese people is not silent. Their cries are deafening to those trying to help. On July 22, 2004, the House of Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution 467 by a vote of 422-0. That resolution declared that the crimes of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in Darfur constituted genocide. Over a decade later, the Sudanese government has renewed and increased its genocidal attacks in Darfur. As humanitarian agencies withdraw from the region, unable to carry out their missions in the face of unrelenting attacks, the civilian and displaced populations of Darfur are left without protection and without witnesses. In the past weeks, the government-supported Janjaweed--now reincarnated as Bashir's Rapid Support Forces, or RSF--have intensified their scorched earth campaign of attacks, bombings, rape, displacement, and destruction. According to the Satellite Sentinel Project and the Enough project, these forces are ``better equipped, centrally commanded, and fully integrated into the state's security apparatus, with legal immunity from prosecution.'' According to reports by United to End Genocide, since January 1, at least 20,000 innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur. President al-Bashir is bombing civilians, blocking the investigation of the reported mass rape of over 200 Darfuri women and, in the midst of the sharpest increase in violence in years, demanding the removal of U.N. peacekeepers. On January 6, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 115 villages have either been abandoned or burned to the ground in North Darfur. Attackers have forced women, children, and the elderly to leave their villages with nothing to survive on, often looting everything belonging to civilians. It is clear that the RSF and their masters in Khartoum are engaged in a campaign to strip the people of Darfur of everything they own, anything that might keep them alive, and condemn them to increasing poverty displacement, starvation, and death. And the world--including Congress and the U.N. Security Council--remains silent. In the border states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, defenseless civilians in the Nuba Mountains face a relentless bombing campaign by the Sudanese Air Force and ground attacks by the Sudanese Armed Forces. On January 20, a hospital in South Kordofan run by Doctors Without Borders was deliberately targeted by an aerial bombing campaign, depriving the local population of lifesaving care. In the past few months, under the auspices of the African Union, countries from the region, as well as the United States and Europe, have sought to bring the Bashir regime and various rebel forces to the table in order to negotiate a cessation of hostilities and promote an inclusive national dialogue. This is a worthy effort with worthy goals, but while such talks meander, Khartoum continues its genocidal campaign to impose military solutions to the political crisis facing Sudan. President Bashir has no political solution to Sudan's problems. As the people of Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile know only too well, displacement, starvation, and death are the only strategies being pursued by the government in real time and in real life. It is unconscionable--it is shameful--that these horrors are taking place inside Sudan in complete silence. The lack of response by the United States, by the Europeans, by the nations of the region only serves to provide Bashir with a green light to continue the killing. Over 10 years ago, Congress called these very same actions acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. At the end of this month, I intend to reintroduce an updated version of my bipartisan bill, the Sudan Peace, Security, and Accountability Act, and demonstrate to the suffering people of Sudan--especially those in Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile--that we hear their cries and that this House intends to take action. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight two important new reports released today by the Food Research and Action Center, or FRAC, on the School Breakfast Program. FRAC's reports--the School Breakfast Scorecard, and School Breakfast: Making it Work in Large School Districts--show that we have made progress in expanding access to school breakfast but that work remains to be done. During the 2013-2014 school year, 11.2 million students received a healthy school breakfast on the average schoolday. That is an average of 320,000 more students per day who received school breakfasts than the year before. The reports show that more students than ever are participating in the School Breakfast Program and are receiving healthy breakfasts on schooldays. We have made real progress in making sure that students who are eligible receive breakfast. The School Breakfast Program, along with the National School Lunch Program, are critically important antihunger programs that ensure that our most vulnerable children don't go hungry. Mr. Speaker, there is truth to the old adage that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Research shows that students who eat healthy breakfasts have improved test scores, miss fewer days of school, and make fewer trips to the nurse's office; but for many students, they begin their schooldays on an empty stomach, with the last meal eaten having been yesterday's school lunch. Monday mornings are especially difficult for students from families who are struggling to put food on their tables at home. They may have gone the entire weekend without eating a full or a balanced meal. Recent data from the Census Bureau show that one in five children received SNAP, or food stamp benefits, last year. Too many of our children don't know where their next meals will come from, making the meals they count on in school all the more important. Our economy is still recovering from the Great Recession, and economic gains are uneven, especially among low-income families. Too many families are still operating with tight family budgets and are struggling to pay the bills and to put enough nutritious food on the table. I am sure that all of us can relate to the hectic morning rush to get kids and parents out the door on time in the mornings, especially when both parents are working to try to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, one of the best attributes of the School Breakfast Program is the flexibility the schools have to design programs that work for their own students and their own schools. The FRAC reports highlight a number of ways that school districts have successfully made the School Breakfast Program work for them: Some schools have breakfast in the classroom, where the students can eat healthy breakfasts at their desks while getting ready for the day. School districts with a high proportion of low-income students can qualify for a community eligibility provision, by which all students in the school can receive free breakfasts and lunches. Still other schools serve a traditional breakfast in the cafeteria at the start of the day. Regardless of the model used, the School Breakfast Program ensures that students, especially low-income students, are ready to learn and aren't distracted by hunger. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 provided many important updates to the School Breakfast Program, including improving nutrition standards. Last year was the first year that the new nutrition standards were in place. Despite some of the buzz about students not liking the new meals, more students are participating in the School Breakfast Program than ever before. Not only are more students eating breakfast, but they are eating a healthier breakfast. Mr. Speaker, investing in our children by making sure they don't go hungry and by providing them with a world-class education is the best downpayment we can make for our future economic success. As this Congress begins the process of reauthorizing the school nutrition programs, we must continue to build upon the gains and participation and improvements in nutrition standards that we have made in the School Breakfast Program. It would be foolish to roll back nutrition standards just because special interests or some students don't like them. Today's FRAC reports show that we are doing a better job in making sure that kids start their day with a healthy breakfast but that there is more work to be done. For every 100 kids who receive free school lunches, only 53 receive school breakfasts. We must do more to expand the School Breakfast Program and increase participation so that all students who qualify for free and reduced priced lunches have the opportunity to receive healthy school breakfasts. Mr. Speaker, we can and should do more to end hunger now, and expanding and strengthening the School Breakfast Program is an important step in that direction.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if only we were debating another subsidy for Big Oil or another tax break for some special corporate interest, my colleagues would be down here with great joy advocating for it. But when it comes to a bill to ensure that millions and millions of our citizens get health insurance, they want to repeal it. When it comes to protecting our senior citizens who are seeing their prescription drugs being lowered because of this bill, they want to repeal it. When it comes to eliminating preexisting conditions, they want to repeal it. I mean, that tells you all you need to know about where their priorities are. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the wonderful commercial for Texas. We all should visit Texas. He said something that I thought was particularly interesting. He said: We're bringing this bill to the floor because every freshman deserves a vote on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. I guess I would ask the chairman: Does he believe that every freshman also deserves a vote on increasing the minimum wage or on comprehensive immigration reform or on adequate child care for our children in this country or on a whole number of other issues which we have routinely been denied the right to even have a vote on these issues on the House floor, which is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world? What he neglects to tell everybody, including these freshmen--some of whom are Republicans--is that under this rule, you can't amend anything. You have been totally locked out. The committees of jurisdiction didn't hold a hearing. The committees of jurisdiction didn't hold a markup. Nothing was reported out of any of these committees, notwithstanding the fact that they have been constituted and organized--nothing. It just shows up in the Rules Committee, and they bring it to the floor under a completely closed process. This is a lousy way to run a Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in very strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. Let me just say to my colleagues, to make it crystal clear, that this is an absolutely closed rule. This bill had no hearings in any of the committees of jurisdiction; it was not reported out by any of the committees of jurisdiction; and the Committee on Rules decided last night that no Member, no Republican or Democrat, has the right to offer any amendments. This is a closed process. Whatever happened to regular order? So, Mr. Speaker, here we are again, back on the House floor with yet another pointless attempt by the Republican majority to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Today's exercise in time-wasting gamesmanship marks the 56th time that we have been down this well-traveled road. Fifty-six. Let's see. That is two score and 16. It is 4\1/2\ dozen. But no matter how you add it up, it has to be some sort of world record in political futility. So it is tempting to say that nothing has changed, but that is not exactly true because, in fact, a great deal has changed since my Republican colleagues first tried to repeal the ACA. Here are some of the things that changed: The number of uninsured Americans has dropped by 10 million people; 3 million young adults have been able to gain coverage through a parent's plan; insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of a so-called preexisting condition, like, say, being a woman; lifetime limits and caps on coverage have been eliminated; seniors have saved more than $11 billion in prescription drugs, an average of $1400 per Medicare beneficiary; copays and deductibles for preventive services for Medicare patients have been eliminated, and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years; and the growth in health care spending in this country is the slowest on record, while health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years. All that has happened thanks to the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans get their way, much of it will disappear in an instant. If Republicans get their way, millions of Americans would lose their health care coverage, millions more would lose the subsidies they receive to purchase plans, millions of children would lose CHIP coverage, millions of seniors would lose benefits, and the deficit would increase. So let's be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker: this is no longer a theoretical political exercise; this is very, very, very real. If this Republican bill were ever to become law, then real people would see real benefits taken away. That is why President Obama has said very plainly that he would veto this bill if it ever reached his desk. There is something else new about this 56th version of Republicans banging their heads against a brick wall. For the first time, according to Politico: House Republicans want to postpone the full repeal of ObamaCare for 6 months to allow time to come up with a replacement plan. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I read that, I actually laughed out loud. The health care crisis in this country has been happening for years and years--decades. How many studies have been done? How many reports issued? How many hearings and debates and news stories? But after all of that, my Republican friends still need another 6 months to come up with a replacement plan. Here is an idea. Let's vote down this rule with the understanding that in 6 months--actually, I will give you 7, until after Labor Day-- that in 7 months you will be back here with your magic replacement plan, which I assume will be flown in on a unicorn sliding down a rainbow. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because Republicans have absolutely no intention of actually doing the hard work of health care reform. This is just a gimmick. It is a chance for their new freshmen to cast their symbolic vote against ObamaCare so they can put out a press release and act like they have accomplished something. As the Washington Examiner reported: Republicans know that the repeal legislation isn't ever going to become law. ``We are just getting it out of the way,'' one GOP aide told the Examiner when asked about the repeal vote. Just getting it out of the way, Mr. Speaker? What a cynical abuse of this House. It is a sham. It is a waste of everyone's time. It deserves to be defeated in this House, and if it ever makes it out of the Senate, it deserves the quickest veto President Obama can muster. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would remind the gentleman from Iowa that there was a Republican Presidential candidate named Mitt Romney who ran on the platform of total repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and he lost. And, by the way, Obama won Iowa by 51-46. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. I was just curious because it seems like there is no enthusiasm on your side for debating this for the 56th time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. There is no replacement here. All the Republicans want to do is repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away all these important benefits that people have received as a result of it. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any more speakers?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by what I just heard from the gentleman about all these alternatives to fix and improve our health care system. Four years ago, the Republicans passed an identical bill like the one we are considering today in which they said they ordered their committees to report out alternative replacement language or their vision of what a health care reform should be. That was 4 years ago. They have done nothing but demagogue this issue for 4 years, and here we are again today, playing political gamesmanship with a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health insurance for millions of Americans, increase prescription drug prices for our senior citizens, raise taxes on middle class families, and they have nothing to replace it with. This is a waste of our time. This is an insult to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by talking about the process. Let me say two words about this process: it stinks. We have a bill before us today on the House floor that bypassed all of the committees of jurisdiction. And I say to my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, if you are on the Energy and Commerce Committee, on the Education and the Workforce Committee, or on the Ways and Means Committee, you should be outraged that legislation that is under your jurisdiction never went to your committees. It just showed up in the Rules Committee last night. And on top of all of that, no amendments are allowed; nobody can offer any ideas. I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk about they have ideas for making the Affordable Care Act better or for replacing it. They don't have the opportunity even to bring those ideas to this House floor. Four years ago, we voted on a similar measure which said that the Republicans would have the committees of jurisdiction report out alternatives. It is 4 years later, and we are doing the same thing over and over and over again. It is a waste of taxpayer time. It is an insult to the American people. And as far as the substance of what my Republican friends are trying to do, I just wonder if any of my friends on the other side of the aisle would have the courage to say to people face to face, ``I am going to take your health care away,'' because that is what this bill would do. That is what this bill would do, and it is shameful. When I first ran for office, I said to my constituents that one of the things I was committed to was to making sure that everybody in this country had health insurance. Health care ought to be a right. Nobody should have to worry whether or not they can afford to get the health care that, quite frankly, every American is entitled to and deserves. We have made a great stride forward with the Affordable Care Act. Is it perfect? No. Could it be better? Yes. But to come up with bill after bill after bill, 56 times of repeal, repeal, it is getting old. It is getting boring. People are sick of this. Let me just remind my colleagues about what this bill has accomplished, just because this is no longer a theoretical, abstract debate. These are some real things that have changed. The number of insured Americans has dropped by about 10 million people. I mean, that is a good thing. I am sorry my colleagues have a problem with that. But I think most Americans, Democrats and Republicans, think that is a good thing. Three million young adults have been able to gain coverage through a parent's plan. I think that is good. Insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of a so- called preexisting condition, like, say, being a woman. I think that is a great thing. I am sorry my colleagues have a problem with that. Lifetime limits and caps on coverage have been eliminated. That is wonderful. Seniors have saved more than $11 billion in prescription drugs, an average of $1,400 per Medicare beneficiary. That is positive. We knew that there was a flaw, the doughnut hole, in the Medicare prescription drug bill. This fixed it. Copays and deductibles for preventive services for Medicare patients have been eliminated, and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years. That is a good thing. Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle want to privatize Medicare or have no use for Medicare, but for those of us who want to see this program move well into the next century in complete solvency, this is a good thing. The growth in health care spending in this country is the slowest on record while health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years. This didn't happen by accident. This happened because we passed the Affordable Care Act, and if Republicans get their way, all of these things will disappear. This is a debate, I think, about values more than anything else. This is about whether or not we believe that everybody in this country ought to have health insurance, whether or not we ought to make the reforms that I have just mentioned part of the permanent culture of this country. I think this is good. I voted for the Affordable Care Act. I am proud I voted for the Affordable Care Act. My friends, this issue about health care and access to health care has been around for decades and decades and decades, and my friends have done nothing. Their prescription for health care reform has been: take two tax breaks, and call me in the morning. That is the total reform that they have advocated in the time I have been here and in the time I have been paying attention to what has been going on in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to appreciate that this Congress did something positive in passing the Affordable Care Act, and we ought not to let extremists on the other side take the protections away from the American people. We are going to fight you every step of the way because we believe that people in this country are entitled to health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I intend to offer in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. This would be the amendment that Ms. Brownley of California talked about, providing manufacturing training for our high school students.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of legislation that would encourage schools to provide career education about local manufacturing jobs. To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, too many people in our country--the richest country in the history of the world--are hungry, and it is a sad reality. Hunger has many faces: children, seniors, veterans, the disabled. One group that experiences hunger and is often overlooked is working families. Millions of people who work for a living don't earn enough to ensure that their families have enough to eat. They don't earn enough to ensure that their kids have access to quality child care. For millions of working families, every single day is a struggle. We in this Chamber ought to do more to help. In his State of the Union Address, I was pleased to see the President identify specific ways to support working families: tripling the child care tax credit; increasing the number of slots available and investing in high-quality, affordable child care programs. These are investments that are important to all families but especially working and poor families. We know that the early years of a child's life are critical to shaping healthy cognitive, social, and emotional development. Ensuring that all of our young children have an opportunity to thrive in a safe, nurturing environment is one of the best economic investments that we can make. It is the right thing to do, and it pays huge dividends later on. Families at all income levels know how expensive child care is today. In 2013, the cost of full-time care for an infant in a child care center was about $10,000 per year, more than the cost of instate college tuition in many States, and many of the best child care programs cost more than that. For poor families, the cost of quality child care can be an untenable burden. For these families, it may mean being forced to choose between paying rent, getting medicine, or buying food. No parent should find themselves in the difficult situation of having to drop their child off at a program that is unsafe or of poor quality just so they can get to their job. Parents shouldn't have to choose between safe child care and keeping their job to pay the bills. For poor families in particular, it is a daily struggle to balance everything and still make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Census Bureau released figures that showed that one in five children in this country received food stamps last year. Let me repeat that. One in five children relied on SNAP. That is 16 million children who relied on SNAP to keep them from going hungry last year, more than at the start of the Great Recession. We know that our economy is improving slowly, but the gains aren't shared evenly among all Americans. Too many poor and working families are still struggling to make ends meet. We know that despite some of the false rhetoric, the majority of SNAP participants who are expected to work and are able to work, in fact, work. Families with children have even higher rates of employment than other households on SNAP. More than 60 percent of families with children receiving SNAP have someone in the household working. Mr. Speaker, these families have a working adult but still make so little that they qualify for SNAP. Without SNAP, these families would not be able to put enough nutritious food on the table for their children and for themselves. Being poor is hard, and it is expensive. We should do everything we can to support working families. Expanding and investing in child care is an important step toward achieving that goal. I urge the Republican leadership to support the President's initiatives to expand and improve access to high-quality, affordable child care programs. At the same time, I urge the Republican leadership--I plead with them--to refrain from cutting food and nutrition programs that are essential to a child's healthy development. It is the right thing to do to support these families, to support food and nutrition programs, to support quality child care programs. It is the right thing to do for all American families. It is especially the right thing to do for our low-income families who have not shared in recent economic improvements and who face tough choices every day. Families should not be forced to choose between good, safe child care and putting food on the table. That is a false choice; and, quite frankly, in this country, it is shameful that they have to make that choice. I urge my colleagues to make a renewed commitment to end hunger now. We have the resources, we have the food, we have everything, but we lack the political will. Hunger is a political condition. We can solve this problem in a bipartisan way if we choose to, if we make it a priority. There are millions and millions of our citizens who are depending on us to do more than we are doing now. I hope that we live up to that challenge. We can and we should do much better.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of Anand Shantam. Anand joined me as my guest at the State of the Union. Anand's story is all too familiar. She was unemployed and struggled in poverty. Four years ago all that changed. She was introduced to DC Central Kitchen, an innovative program to combat hunger and train unemployed adults for culinary careers. She enrolled in the Culinary Job Training Program and received her food handler's license. But she also received so much more. She received the support she needed to discover her own confidence. She reignited her passion for cooking. Upon graduation, Anand re-entered the workforce as the Lead at Kelly Miller Middle School, preparing nutritious, homemade meals for kids. Today, she is a culinary instructor for the very same program that helped her turn her life around. She has health insurance. She is self-sufficient. Anand's experience at DC Central Kitchen is an incredible success story of how job training programs help people get back on their feet. Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to call Anand my friend. And I can't wait to try her kale salad.

Mr. McGOVERN

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