Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the House voted on the farm bill conference report, legislation that reauthorizes our Nation's agriculture policies as well as the preeminent antihunger program known as SNAP. I voted against the conference report both as a conferee and when it came before this House because it contained an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP. Even worse, it was the second major cut to SNAP in less than 6 months. I strongly believe in our Nation's antihunger programs. Unfortunately, there are about 49 million hungry people living in our great Nation. Technically known as food insecurity, the truth is that these are low-income people who don't know where their next meal will come from. America's antihunger programs, led by SNAP, provide food to people who otherwise would have difficulty finding it, if they were able to find access to food at all. For years, I have talked about how SNAP works, and over the past year, I have led these End Hunger Now speeches about how SNAP and other antihunger programs are working to reduce hunger in our country. That is why these two SNAP cuts, the cut in November 2013 and the cut in the farm bill, were not just disappointing, but they were actually damaging. We saw real cuts to real people. For example, look at Luis Marin, who was profiled in the New York Daily News: Food stamp cuts have dealt a double blow to Luis Marin and his family. Marin's hours have been cut from 30 to 20 hours a week at Red Apple Deli Supermarket in uptown's Hamilton Heights, where his boss, Ramon Murphy, is losing business because of the food stamp cutbacks. And Marin, 56, his wife, and their two little girls--who subsist on his $8-an-hour income--also saw their food stamps benefits drop to $397 a month in November and have had to change their eating habits. It is not just low-income families in our urban areas; military families are using SNAP more than ever. In fact, military families used food stamps more in fiscal year 2013 than in any other year. Members of the military redeemed almost $104 million worth of food stamps over that time, about $5 million more than the previous year. The thing many of my colleagues don't seem to understand is that cuts to SNAP don't just change the amount of money the Federal Government spends. As you can see from the case that I highlighted with Mr. Marin, these cuts hurt real American people. We are taking food away from children and away from poor families. That is why I am pleased that seven of our Nation's Governors are taking the courageous stand that this Congress wouldn't take. The cut included in the farm bill was harmful, but it only affected 17 States. That is because it only dealt with a program called Heat and Eat, a program that linked LIHEAP and SNAP together. The farm bill changed the way States could continue participating in that program. Essentially, States could continue if they increased the State contribution from $1 to $20 in LIHEAP benefits. These seven States--Connecticut, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island--are playing by the new rules Congress established in the farm bill, and thankfully, they are saying that they are not going to let low-income food insecure people in their State feel the pain of these cuts, even if Congress is going to cruelly and cowardly cut SNAP in the name of deficit reduction. I sit on the Agriculture Committee, and I remember when the committee didn't have the votes to abolish the Heat and Eat Program entirely. The $20 level was supported by the chairman of the committee and is now the law of the land. Yet the distinguished Speaker of this House continues to say that States are somehow cheating when all they are doing is following the law that he shepherded through this House. Perhaps he didn't read the bill, or perhaps he doesn't understand the fact that there are millions and millions of people in this country who are hungry. I want to commend the Governors of these States, including the Republican Governor of Pennsylvania and the Governor of my home State of Massachusetts, for doing the right thing and taking action to prevent these cuts from taking effect and preventing their citizens from going hungry. I am grateful to these Governors and the Governors of 10 other States who are still working to enact this change in law, and for taking the actions that many in this Congress simply did not take. I say ``thank you'' to the Governors for preventing hunger from getting worse in those States. Hopefully, they can be an example for all of us in Congress. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to help people. These cutbacks in SNAP and other nutrition programs have hurt our fellow citizens. These cuts are unconscionable. They are a rotten thing to do. We in this Congress and the leadership of this Congress have to stop beating up on poor people, have to stop diminishing their struggle. Surely we can come together in a bipartisan way and agree that hunger is not acceptable in the richest country in the history of the world. We need to end hunger now, not make it worse. So let's come together and end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the third anniversary of the crisis in Syria which will be commemorated on March 15. The United Nations estimates that over 100,000 people have been killed since the violence and unrest began in 2011; 9.3 million people, half of the Syrian people, need humanitarian assistance. 240,000 of them are living under siege, surviving under the constant threat of shelling and aerial bombardment. Moreover, they have faced life-threatening shortages of food, water, and medical supplies for more than a year. Children are literally starving to death, while military forces show no respect for humanitarian workers. A diplomatic end to the crisis must be pursued. At the same time, the humanitarian crisis must be ameliorated. Humanitarian relief must be allowed to reach the civilians, and the wounded and the sick must receive the medical attention that they need. Indiscriminate aerial bombardments must cease, and civilians must be granted safe passage out of the besieged areas. The Syrian people need unrestricted humanitarian aid now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this week, as part of my End Hunger Now series, I want to focus on one of the most important and successful Federal antihunger and nutrition programs, the WIC program. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, commonly known as WIC is a fantastic program that is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. It truly is an amazing program, one that has been a tremendous success for 40 years. WIC is a short-term intervention program designed to influence nutrition and health behaviors in a targeted high-risk population. What does that mean? Well, Mr. Speaker, it means that it provides nutritious food and nutrition education, among other services, to pregnant women, infants, and young children. Specifically, WIC provides quality nutrition education and services, breast-feeding promotion and education, a monthly food prescription, and access to maternal, prenatal, and pediatric health care services. Not only has WIC been around for 40 years, it has served millions of women and children over that time. For example, more than 10,000 clinics served 8.7 million women and children each month in 2013. That figure includes 853,000 pregnant women, 595,000 breast-feeding women, 598,000 postpartum, 2 million infants, and 4.6 million children. Those are monthly figures, Mr. Speaker. Let's be clear: this is an important antipoverty program. It helps poor pregnant women, postpartum mothers, and their children receive both nutritious food and nutrition education. That's right, this program serves poor people--and does so successfully. To qualify for WIC, participants' income level must be at or below 185 percent of the poverty level or they must be on Medicaid. That is about $36,000 a year for a family of three. We are not talking about wealthy people here, Mr. Speaker. In fact, nearly three-fourths of all WIC participants live in families with incomes below the Federal poverty level. That means most families of three are making less than $36,000. In fact, according to the latest data available, the average income of a participant was $16,842 a year. The services WIC provides are critically important, and they are based on sound science. For example, we know how important it is for women to breast-feed their children. Breast milk contains important nutrients infants need to grow and to develop. We know that breast-fed infants tend to be healthier because they receive antibodies from the breast milk, antibodies that protect these young kids against infection. Did you know that breast-feeding has also been proven to save money? That's right. If 90 percent of U.S. mothers exclusively breast-fed their infants for 6 months, the U.S. would save $13 billion annually in medical expenses and prevent 900 deaths a year. Another important part of WIC that is based on science is the food package that is made available to each client. They are designed specifically for each person, whether you are a pregnant mother, nursing mother, or a child. The foods available are approved by the scientists and the researchers at the Institute of Medicine. That's right, not Members of Congress or non-science-based administrators in a Federal agency that approve or deny certain foods from the WIC package. We know that proper nutrition can make people healthier, reduce instances of illness and disease, and prevent or reduce hospital visits and stays. I guess my mother was right when she said, An apple a day keeps the doctor away. That is why it is so maddening and so disappointing when special interests try to change the WIC food package just so they can see a little bit more money for their product. Proper nutrition can save money--something I think should be popular in this Congress--and ignoring science because special interests want to make a quick buck is just wrong. That is why I am so proud of this program. A few years ago, there was an attempt in the House of Representatives to underfund WIC--to deny these important services to poor women and their children. The backlash was fierce. That funding was quickly restored, and we haven't seen an attempt to cut WIC since. I only wish that were true for other Federal antihunger programs. You see, Mr. Speaker, this program is what is best about America. Ironically, it was a program that was born in the Nixon administration. In fact, it came from the first and only White House conference on hunger, something I wish this President, President Obama, would convene before his term is over. For 40 years WIC has ensured that poor women and their children have access to nutritious food and nutrition education. It is just that simple. These women and children have a lifeline to making their lives healthier and better. It is safe to say that the millions of people served by WIC would be worse if it weren't for this program. I am proud of this program. I am proud of the people who work at WIC clinics, and the administrators, and those who administer the program in every State. I am proud of the people who advocate and fight for this program. I look forward to the day when we don't need WIC because we have eradicated poverty once and for all. Until that day comes, I am proud that we have WIC to help make the lives of the women and children they serve just a little bit better.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. This amendment simply caps the OCO. We give the administration 1 more year of the Overseas Contingency Operations spending without any contingencies, but beginning in 2016, OCO is subject to budget caps just like everything else. Funding the war in Afghanistan is not emergency spending. We have been there for over a decade. We all know what the costs entail. The OCO is a so-called emergency account to keep the war in Afghanistan funded. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but the fact that we have troops in Afghanistan is no longer a surprise and is no longer an unexpected development. In addition, the OCO has become a slush fund for Congress and the Pentagon to stick in goodies for procurement and operations and maintenance that it couldn't find room for in the Pentagon's half- trillion dollar base budget. Now that Afghanistan President Karzai has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want the United States or its military in Afghanistan, we should, at a minimum, cap the OCO and bring our troops home now. So if we can find billions and billions of dollars to fund a war that nobody wants in a country where the government insults our troops every single day, then we can use those moneys to fund real needs right at home, like permanently fixing the SGR once and for all. We talk about trying to find common ground. I think there is a lot of common ground on this issue amongst Democrats and Republicans. I think there are a lot of Republicans who are just as sick of this endless war and this over-the-top, unaccounted for spending in these wars as Democrats are. So I think this is a sensible offset, and I would urge my colleagues to support our initiative. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bills for all the reasons I said before. We should be using the taxpayer dollars to do things to help people on this House floor, not to advance political agendas. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. It is funny. Again, I love that this all of a sudden has become an issue for my colleagues. There is a Washington Post article from July 24, 2006. Let me read the first couple of paragraphs: A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of ``signing statements'' by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress. In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous Presidents combined. The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements. I can go on and on and on. The point is ``silence'' on the other side during all of that time. Then they said: Well, now we have got religion on this issue, and we want to hold everybody accountable. Yet, when Mr. Gibson had his amendment yesterday to actually bring up a legitimate focus where, I think, the Executive over the years has kind of abused its powers--and that is on the War Powers Act--he brought a germane amendment to the floor, and that was ruled out of order--we will deal with it another time--the translation of which means in this imperial Congress that it will never see the light of day. This House is being run in the most imperial way, where anybody who has a different view is routinely shut out from debate, with more closed rules than any Congress in history. I think it is probably more avoiding regular order--never mind the closed rules--than any Congress in history. That is one of the reasons some of the stuff we bring to the floor here is so contentious. It is because it is written in such a flawed way. I think it is a legitimate topic of discussion to talk about the appropriate powers of the Executive and the appropriate powers of the legislature, but to do that, I think, in a serious way means doing it in a bipartisan way, and there are ways for both Republicans and Democrats to come together. Again, this has never been about a serious attempt to deal with that issue. I mean this was one of their political talking points at their convention, at their retreat, that my friends had. This is not a serious attempt at anything. This is a political press release. We taxpayers spend $24 million a week to keep this place in session here, and this is how my friends use the taxpayers' money-- to deal with these kinds of things? The gentlelady from Alabama talked about her constituents all talking about this issue. Boy, I have got to tell you that, where I am from, what people talk about is: When are you going to pass a highway bill? They want to know when we are going to deal with the issue of jobs. My constituents and the people I meet all over the country want to know what we are going to do about raising the minimum wage. How are we going to deal with a pay equity bill so that women don't get discriminated against and get paid less than men do for doing the same job? They talk about global warming, which is like the worst thing you could talk about here because my friends don't even admit that it exists. They want to know what we are going to do to protect our planet and what we are going to do to help the long-term unemployed. Those are real issues. Those are about helping people. This is politics, and I think people have had enough of it. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say ``no'' to this stuff. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would urge my colleagues to remember the words ``physician heal thyself.'' While my friends are complaining about the President of the United States, they should kind of look inward and look at the imperial Republican majority that has kind of taken over here in this House of Representatives. We had the chairman of the Oversight Committee literally stop a member of the Democratic Party from engaging in legitimate and appropriate debate. In fact, he shut off the microphone and ended the hearing. I mean, is that what our Founding Fathers had envisioned for this Congress? Is that what upholding the Constitution is all about? As someone who serves on the Rules Committee and who welcomed the statement by Speaker Boehner that we would return to regular order, I am still looking for it. We just saw the most closed session in the history of this Congress last year. We had the most closed rules in a single year, the most closed rules in a single week, the most closed rules in a single day. I mean, the Rules Committee I love to serve on because of the great history. My former boss Joe Moakley was the chairman of the Rules Committee. I have great admiration for my colleagues on the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee is becoming the place where democracy goes to die. Serious issues are routinely cut out. We had a Republican Member yesterday, Mr. Gibson of New York, who had a great idea about trying to hold the Executive accountable when it comes to the War Powers Act. It is an important issue. That is actually a legitimate issue for us to discuss. It was perfectly germane. On a party line vote, the Rules Committee voted that down. They said we won't have that debate here on the House floor. The way this place is supposed to operate is that all of us--all 435 of us--whether we are Republicans or Democrats, ought to be considered important, and we all represent the same number of constituents. I understand that the party in control gets to kind of control the agenda, but that doesn't mean the party not in control gets shut out on a regular basis on very important issues. Yet that has become the pattern here. Not only that, but we have seen more and more instances where committees of jurisdiction are not even relevant anymore--where bills are introduced the day before there is a markup, where there are no hearings. Sometimes we have bills that just mysteriously appear in the Rules Committee. My colleagues know that I have great difficulty with their approach to dealing with the SNAP program, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' They proposed a $40 billion cut on the poorest of the poor to pay for subsidies for rich agribusinesses. I thought it was a bad thing to do. I am also on the Agriculture Committee. That bill never even went to the Agriculture Committee. We never had a hearing on it. We never had a markup on it. It mysteriously appeared in the Rules Committee, and then it came to the floor. This is the way this place is being run. So, when you talk about ``imperial'' anything, look in the mirror. We need to change the way we do business here. This place would operate a lot better if you would let the people's House work its will. If you brought the Senate-passed immigration reform bill to this floor, it would pass, but it is being blocked because a small group within the Republican caucus doesn't want to deal with the issue of immigration reform. Important issues are routinely being denied consideration on this floor. This is a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and where important ones not at all, and people are getting fed up with it. This politically motivated piece of legislation is politically motivated because of Minority Leader Cantor's memo to, I guess, Republicans after their retreat. They talked about having an Imperial Presidency week to kind of embarrass the President. I guess that is what they call serious legislating, but this really is a joke. I urge my colleagues to vote all of this stuff down. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, somehow, against all odds, the Republican leadership of this House keeps coming up with new and creative ways to waste everybody's time. This is getting to be embarrassing, quite frankly. Last night in the Rules Committee, I joked that I picked the short straw, so I am handling the rule today. The reason why I said that is because what we are doing today really is a joke. This is not serious legislating. Even if there was some substance to the concerns the gentleman raised, the bills that have been written are written in such a way that they are purely political. This is not about serious legislating, this is about political statements, this is about political press releases, and I think the American people, quite frankly, have had enough. The Congressional Research Service says that it costs $24 million a week to run this place. I am going to tell you that what we are doing right now is wasting taxpayers' dollars. With all that needs to be done--with all that needs to be done, this is another politically motivated week of let's go after the President. That is the way it has been since this President has been elected, and I think people are getting tired of it. Week after week, month after month, and year after year now, this Republican majority continues to bring bills to the floor that have no chance of passing the Senate and have no chance of being signed into law that are just, again, political press releases. What is worse, the bills that are being brought forward do nothing-- absolutely nothing--to help rebuild our economy or put people back to work. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, talks about our responsibility as Members of Congress. Well, our responsibility as Members of Congress is to help people, is to legislate, is to deliberate, is to debate serious issues passionately. That is what we are here to do, not this. This belongs in the Republican National Committee. This is a press conference that my friend should have outside of this great building, quite frankly. Mr. Speaker, this economy is slowly recovering, but Republicans insist on doing nothing to actually strengthen that recovery. They refuse to consider any meaningful jobs legislation. We should have a highway bill to put millions of people back to work. Putting millions of people back to work with the increased revenue and taxes, you could actually pay down the deficit and the debt, but they don't bring anything like that to the floor. They block every attempt to increase wages for workers. We need to raise the minimum wage in this country. It is unacceptably low. People who work full-time ought not to live in poverty; yet we can't even get a minimum wage bill scheduled on the floor of the people's House. They won't even talk about it. We can't get them to even allow us to have an amendment on the minimum wage. They continue to ignore the plight of the long-term unemployed in this country. Over 1.7 million Americans are unemployed. These are people who are looking for jobs and still can't find them. The answer to them from this Republican Congress is you are on your own. I wonder sometimes whether any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have ever met somebody who is unemployed or have talked to anybody who have lost their long-term unemployment benefits. Their answer is go ask daddy for a loan or go sell some stocks, that will take care of it. They have no idea what people in this country are going through; they have no idea how hard it is to struggle in poverty. Somehow, they find the time to take 51 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 51 votes. Now, I get it, you don't like it, so you vote to repeal it once; you can vote to repeal it twice, maybe five times, okay. But 51 times that we have wasted the taxpayers' money debating a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it is ludicrous. It is unreal. People don't understand this behavior outside of the beltway. Mr. Speaker, they also, quite frankly, find time to waste millions of tax dollars defending an antigay marriage law that is plainly discriminatory. That is okay for them to use taxpayer dollars to do that to stop any kind of reversal of this discriminatory law. Today's entry in the sweepstakes of useless legislation is the so- called Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama. Never mind the fact that President Obama is using the same kinds of executive authority that President Bush and others before him used. Let me repeat that. President Obama is using the same kind of executive authority that President Bush and other presidents before him have used. Never mind the fact that the people supporting this legislation were more than happy to let George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ignore and contravene Congress at every single opportunity. In fact, they defended what I think is some really questionable behavior of the Bush/Cheney team, and never mind the fact that the last people on Earth who should be complaining about imperialism continue to vote for closed rules, continue to ignore regular order, and continue to shut Democrats out from the legislative process. By the way, one of the bills that we are debating today was introduced the day before it was marked had no hearings--so much for the promise that Speaker Boehner made that we are going to go back to regular order--no hearings, introduced the day before, then going right to America. Let's be honest, even if President Obama did everything in the world that the Republicans say they are asking him to do, they would still find a reason to complain. My friends on the other side of the aisle, you guys just don't like the President; I get it. But do you know what? Get over it because, at this point in time, our job is to work with the Senate and with the President to move this country forward; instead, my Republican friends have spent every single second since this President was elected trying to obstruct every single initiative that he has put forward. Even when he puts forward initiatives that they originally proposed, they complain. The bills that the Republicans bring before us today are likely unconstitutional, violate the separation of powers, would result in scores and scores of frivolous lawsuits, and would be costly and impractical to apply. They don't deserve to be on this floor, and they certainly do not deserve to pass. When you read the way they were drafted, as I said before, they are written in a very political partisan way. Mr. Speaker, I consider myself an institutionalist. I love the House of Representatives. I am proud to serve here. It is a privilege to serve here. Our Founders created the Congress as a coequal branch of government, and this institution should never be overlooked or sidestepped. There is a strong argument to be made that, over the past 30 years, Congress has allowed itself to become so bogged down in gridlock that it has allowed executive power to grow far too large. That is a worthy debate for us to have. Now, that being said, the executive branch has the authority to make certain regulations and take certain executive actions, and this President--any President--has a responsibility to lead when Congress can't get its act together and do its job. We are elected to legislate, but time after time, instead of tackling issues like immigration reform, climate change, jobs, the minimum wage, bringing our troops home safely from Afghanistan, feeding our hungry-- we have 50 million people in the richest country in the history of the world that are hungry; we all should be ashamed of that--but instead of dealing with that or issues like ending poverty or rebuilding our infrastructure or helping the long-term unemployed, this Republican majority chooses instead to bring up partisan messaging bills that will justifiably die. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve so much better than this. We are wasting time; we are wasting taxpayer dollars doing this kind of stuff. They deserve a Congress that tries to improve the lives of every American, instead of placating an extreme right wing. They deserve a Congress that actually does its job. I will say to my friends: this is not doing our job. The bills before us today go exactly in the opposite direction of what we should be doing. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), my good friend, 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to make sure the record is correct, what I am understanding from staff is that while there were some hearings on the subject, one of the bills had no hearings. So, again, under regular order I think it would be important that the actual bill have a hearing. The other thing, my colleague from Florida said that he would like a more open process. Let me make a suggestion: then vote for one. Because consistently in the Rules Committee, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle routinely vote for closed rules. They routinely vote against allowing amendments, including germane amendments, to be made in order, including what I think would be an amendment that has bipartisan support, the one by Mr. Gibson on the War Powers Act that could have brought us together. That is a legitimate subject. The reason why this legislation before us is such a waste of time is because it does not reflect deliberative process. It does not reflect any kind of bipartisan cooperation. It is a political press release. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I, too, took a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution, and part of that pledge is to make sure that I represent all of the people, not just some of the people, not just those who give big contributions to political parties, but all of the people. The fact that we have nearly 2 million people in this country who are cut off from unemployment benefits, what does anybody say to them when you meet people who come up and say that they are looking for a job and they can't find one? Maybe my friends don't talk to those people. I will tell you it is heartbreaking that this Congress, the people's Congress that is supposed to represent them too, has turned their backs on them. What do you say to people who get cut off of their food benefits, who see their food benefit getting slashed, who end up at food banks trying to make ends meet to put food on the table for their families. We sit here and debate this, a partisan bill, and we don't do anything about that? Or, increasing the minimum wage--if you want to help people get off of food stamps, increase the minimum wage. Millions of people would automatically get off of public assistance. We can't even get a vote on that. We are not even allowed to bring that to floor. People are asking me, When are you going to pass comprehensive immigration reform? The Senate passed it in a bipartisan way. Why can't you bring it on the floor of the House? The answer is because the imperial Republican majority in this House has declared that no, we are not going to even talk about it, and the Rules Committee, again, has been used as a place to shut off democracy and to not have these kinds of important issues brought to the floor. So here we are debating a partisan bill that is purely partisan. You couldn't write it more partisan if my friends tried. Here we are debating this kind of bill while so many other things need to be addressed. This is a waste of time. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. It diminishes this institution. We are better than this. We should be talking about putting people back to work. We should be talking about helping to improve this economy at a more rapid pace. We should be talking about making sure that no one falls through the cracks; that we extend unemployment insurance benefits to people who need it. We should be talking about those issues. We should be talking about global warming. Instead, we are doing this. Again, written in a very partisan way, which I regret very much. Again, I urge my colleagues to reject this and reject the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman says that this has nothing to do with President Obama. The committee report only cites President Obama, in terms of this issue, and their political document, the memorandum that came from Eric Cantor to the House Republicans, talks about the Imperial Presidency, and says President Obama has provided new clarity of what constitutes an Imperial Presidency. President Obama, President Obama, and on and on. It just defies logic for anybody to think for one second that this isn't about trying to attack this President of the United States, because what we have seen time and time again from the time this President was elected has been nothing but obstructionism and attack, obstructionism and attack, obstructionism and attack. I get it. There are differences in philosophies between the two parties. What is troubling to me is that in this imperial Republican Congress President Obama's ideas don't even get a chance to have their day on the floor, where we are routinely shut out. In this imperial Republican Congress we cannot bring to the floor a bill to increase the minimum wage. We cannot bring to the floor a bill to extend unemployment benefits for those over 2 million long-term employed. We cannot bring to the floor a jobs bill. We cannot bring to the floor the bipartisan Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill, which would do the right thing on behalf of a number of immigrants in this country, but would also, by the way, we are told, reduce our deficit. We can't even bring those things to the floor for debate. Under this imperial Republican leadership, our hands are tried. So we try procedural motions. We are trying discharge petitions. We are trying whatever we can to try to be heard. I think it is important for the American people to know where people stand. So if my friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe the American people deserve a raise, if they don't believe we should increase the minimum wage, vote against it. Go on record. Let the American people see where you stand. On immigration reform, if you don't want to reform the immigration system, fine. Vote against it when it comes to the floor. When my friends on the other side of the aisle routinely and regularly deny us the opportunity to even consider these things, that hurts our democracy. It diminishes this institution. If you want to talk about imperialism, what is that? With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4209, Mr. John Tierney's bill that contains the historic bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate of Medicare, which will ensure fairness to doctors and strengthen Medicare. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have heard from the medical community on this issue. My Republican friends, unfortunately, have proposed a ``poison pill'' amendment that would kill this bipartisan agreement with an offset attacking the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Tierney's bill instead includes a commonsense pay-for that finances the bipartisan doc fix by putting limits on our spending on wars overseas. We already have these sorts of caps on spending for almost everything else in the budget, and it is time we capped our war spending as well. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans, led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, criticize our Nation's antipoverty programs. Some want to drastically change them, and others want to eliminate them altogether. Over the past 6 months, we have seen $19 billion in cuts to SNAP alone, our Nation's premier antihunger program. Participation in SNAP reached an all-time high a few years ago because of the Great Recession, the worst economic period since the Great Depression. That is because people were either unemployed or underpaid. If you want to reduce SNAP participation, it is simple: put more people back to work and better paying jobs. Yesterday, the Center for American Progress released a report showing how easy one step is. They found that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would move about 3.5 million people off of SNAP, simply because they wouldn't need it. We shouldn't arbitrarily cut antipoverty programs like SNAP. We must make commonsense changes like increasing the minimum wage if we are truly going to end hunger in this country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Auburn High School for their selection as the state champions at the 2014 Massachusetts We the People Competition. We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is an innovative program designed to educate elementary, middle, and high school students about the U.S. Constitution and the founding of our country. At the high school level, the lessons prepare students for district, state, and national academic competitions, where high school teams participate in simulated Congressional hearings. On January 25, 2014, 8 schools from across our Commonwealth competed in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution Massachusetts High School State Finals. After a rigorous competition, Auburn High School was named the state champions, and the team was awarded the opportunity to compete at the national finals in Washington, D.C. this April. Last month, I was pleased to meet with the bright and enthusiastic students competing on the Auburn High School team: Matthew Amiot, Connor Aubuchont, Matthew Blais, Erin Breen, John Bylund, Andrew Carpenter, Ture Carlson, Elise Cavanaugh, Erin Collins, Christopher Cubbedge, Tyler Ducharme, Matthew Frappier, Sarah Gardner, Nicole Grabowski, Liam Gribbons, Claire Hutner, Nicholas John, Katherine Johnson, Raymond Leo, Jaimee Martin, Jacqueline Matthews, Lillian McPherson, Matthew Nelson, Richard Phan, Nicole Plona, Kyle Quitadamo, Matthew Rodwill, Alekxis Rojee, Scott Ruane, Bakhtyar Shairani, Camille Thomas, Michael Travers, and Jaime Vera. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these students for their incredible work in mastering a number of topics including the foundation of our political system and selected contemporary issues. I would also like to recognize teachers Vincent Benacchio and Spencer Kennard for their work in mentoring the Auburn High School team. Mr. Speaker, I'm so proud of Auburn High School's We the People team, and wish them the best of luck as they prepare for the national finals. Please join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the Auburn High School team.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, there are close to 50 million people who are hungry in the United States of America. We are the richest country in the history of the world, and we have close to 50 million people who are food insecure or are hungry; 17 million of these people are kids. We in Congress are not doing nearly enough to address this issue. In fact, this Congress has made things worse for many struggling families all across this country. Last November there was an $11 billion cut that went into effect with regard to the SNAP program. That is the name of the program that was formerly known as food stamps, an $11 billion cut that impacted every single beneficiary on this program. Everybody got a cut. Food prices didn't go down, but they got a cut. Then we just recently passed a farm bill in this Congress that made sure that those well-off special interests were protected and the rich got richer. But we paid for those subsidies by cutting SNAP by another $8.6 billion. It is shameful. Madam Speaker, these cuts are real, and the people they impact are real. Sometimes I wonder whether those who voted for these cuts have any appreciation of what it is like to be poor in America, whether they have ever been to a food bank or a soup kitchen or ever talked to anybody who is on SNAP. It is hard. It is difficult to be poor in America. Despite what I believe is this indifference and, in some cases, contempt for poor people that we have seen in this Chamber, I do want to acknowledge that outside of this Congress and outside of government there are many, many people who understand that we all should care about our brothers and sisters who are struggling and who are doing amazing things. Last week, during our break, I visited with some people who I think are doing things that I found to be inspirational. Visiting these soup kitchens and shelters gave me some new inspiration and new hope that maybe what they are doing will be contagious and that those of us in this Congress will step up to the plate and take on the issue of hunger and poverty in this country. I visited a soup kitchen in Amherst, Massachusetts, called Not Bread Alone. I met with the supervisor, Hannah Elliott, and an incredible group of volunteers, which included a chef and people from all walks of life, who prepared nutritious meals for those who are struggling. I talked to the people who came in to have one of these nutritious meals. These people are our neighbors. These people have worked to make this country great. Some of them are veterans. They have fallen on hard times and can't afford to eat. And thank God for a place like Not Bread Alone, where they can come in and be able to be in a warm place and get a decent meal and feel like people care about them. At UMass Amherst, I met a student named Jacob Liverman. I met him and a group of young students who launched this effort called the Food Recovery Network. What they do is work with the kitchen at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst so that the leftovers of the food that is prepared on a given day don't get thrown away. They take those leftovers and follow all those procedures that you have to follow to make sure that everything is within the health codes. They take this food and deliver it to an emergency shelter called Craig's Doors, which is also in Amherst. I met Kevin Noonan, the executive director there, who is a wonderful man, along with all the volunteers there. I had the privilege of being able to serve meals to the people that came through the shelter on a cold, wintry night. It is eye-opening when you talk to these people and learn about their backgrounds and learn about how they have fallen on hard times. I am grateful that there are places like Craig's Doors. I am grateful that there are young students like the ones I met at the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus who have taken the initiative to step up to the plate and to help try to feed people who are hungry. I am grateful for places like Not Bread Alone that do such an incredible job in terms of providing food for people. I went to Greenfield Community College and sat down with the president, Bob Pura, and his faculty and members of their kitchen. Because there is a need, they actually have a food bank on their campus. There are people going to school who do not have enough to eat. This school provides them the support and the help that they need. They also have a permaculture garden. They are growing food not only for that soup kitchen and for their food bank, but for their students as well, because they are putting an emphasis on nutrition. I will close, Madam Speaker, by saying these are inspirational activities that are going on. We need to learn by them, and we need to do much better. Nobody in America should go hungry.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to and highlight Bread for the World's annual hunger report. This year's report is entitled, ``Ending Hunger in America.'' Frankly, it couldn't be more appropriate or timely. Mr. Speaker, over 49 million Americans go hungry every year, and we in the Federal Government--we in this Congress--are not doing nearly enough to fight to end hunger in this country. In fact, over the past 6 months, Congress stood by and let an $11 billion cut to the premier antihunger safety net program, SNAP, take effect. To make matters worse, Congress followed up by enacting another $8 billion cut to SNAP as part of the farm bill. We should all be ashamed. The fact is Congress continues to make it harder and harder for the hungry in America to make ends meet and put food on their table. Although the Obama administration came into the office under the most difficult economic conditions in nearly a century, they also came in with a lot of promise. In fact, President Obama came in with, among other things, a pledge to end childhood hunger in America by 2015. That goal was achievable. Unfortunately, we have gone backwards over the past 5 years. While I still believe there is time for the Obama administration to turn this around and make some real headway in the fight to end hunger, the sad reality is we are not going to end child hunger in America by 2015, and may not even make a significant dent in hunger by the end of this administration. Just because President Obama will not meet his stated goal doesn't mean we should give up. That is why I am encouraged by this report from Bread for the World. First and foremost, it is refreshing that this report is honest and blunt. It rightfully states that hunger is a subset of poverty and that we can't truly end hunger without addressing poverty. Just look at a few of the statistics listed in the report: The average incomes of the top 1 percent of households rose by 19.6 percent in 2012, while the incomes of the other 99 percent grew just by 1 percent. Nearly two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, elderly, or disabled. Among SNAP households with children and at least one working- age, nondisabled adult, 62 percent work while receiving SNAP and 87 percent work in the prior or subsequent year, which hopefully should put to rest this distortion that somehow people on SNAP don't want to work. Another statistic here is that while children make up roughly 24 percent of our total population, they comprise one-third of the Nation's poor. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that poverty must be addressed because that is the root cause of hunger. But Bread for the World lays out achievable and timely goals, goals that are not pie in the sky but actually doable. They call an end for hunger in America by 2030, and they do so in a four-point plan: one, a jobs agenda; two, a stronger safety net; three, human capital development; and four, public-private partnerships to support community-led initiatives against hunger. They call for achievable goals of a 25 percent reduction in hunger by 2017, a 50 percent reduction by 2023, and completely ending hunger by 2030. We can do this if we make the political decision to focus on and commit to ending hunger. I fully support this plan. I only want to move quicker to achieve the goal of ending hunger. This report rightly states: Ending hunger in the United States will require leadership not only at the Federal level, but also the State and local levels. We already have Governors and mayors who are working to combat hunger. Governors Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Don Beebe of Arkansas are committed to this effort. Former Boston Mayor Tom Menino was a leader; and I know the new mayors of New York and Boston, Bill de Blasio and Marty Walsh, are just as committed. And they aren't the only ones, but we need more help and commitment. The White House should convene a conference on food and nutrition to build on the recommendations in the Bread for the World report and come up with a comprehensive, holistic plan to end hunger in America. Hunger at its core is a political condition. We know how to end it. We have the food and the resources to end hunger once and for all; we just don't have the political will to do so. Bread for the World, through this annual report and through their everyday actions, is trying to build the political will to end hunger in America. I know we can do it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the third anniversary of the peaceful uprising in Bahrain. Three years after mass protests filled the streets, the Bahraini Government's promises of reform remain unfulfilled. Systematic human rights abuses, restrictions on freedom of expression, and arbitrary detention continue unabated. Nabeel Rajab, a prisoner of conscience whom I have adopted as part of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission's Defending Freedoms project, is one of thousands who have been detained or tortured for peacefully calling for reforms. Prisoners like Nabeel are denied access to medical treatment, and many are prevented from speaking about their abuse, even to their families and lawyers. Because Bahrain is our ally and home to the 5th Fleet, the U.S. has the responsibility to ensure that the Bahraini Government adheres to its human rights commitments and enacts meaningful reforms. These should include releasing political prisoners and ensuring accountability for torture. Absent such steps, the U.S. must consider contingency planning for the relocation of the fleet.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate passed the farm bill conference report, something the House did almost 2 weeks ago. I want to thank my House and Senate colleagues who stood firm and voted against the conference report because of the egregious cuts to SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. I am especially proud and thankful that none of my Massachusetts colleagues voted for the bill. Unfortunately, I think many of those who voted for this bill will ultimately come to regret their vote. Now that the fight over SNAP funding and the farm bill is over, it is time to look forward and once again refocus on how we can end hunger now. Despite the attacks on the poor that come from the Republican leadership in this Congress, there are good things that are happening among the antihunger community, and there are opportunities out there that we can take advantage of as we work to end hunger now. Every day, millions of hungry kids are able to eat a nutritious meal because of the school lunch program. In fact, 29 million children in more than 98,000 schools and residential child care institutions participate in the school lunch program on a typical day. Nearly 20 million kids receive their lunch at either a reduced price or free. The school lunch program is a lifeline for these kids who come from poor families. It is not their fault that their parents don't earn enough for them to put food on the table. For most of these kids, this is the only nutritious meal, and in some cases, the only meal they will eat on a weekday. That is why this program is so important. Imagine what happens to a child who goes to school hungry. It is harder for that child to pay attention in class, leading to difficulty learning and also leading to challenges in terms of their development, mentally and physically. Kids who go without food are literally at a disadvantage to those who are eating healthy meals. They are starting from a much worse position, and it is because America decides not to help. That is changing. Participation in the school lunch program is strong, and the good news is that participation in the school breakfast program is rising. I want to highlight a recent report from the Food Research and Action Center, or FRAC, as they are commonly known. FRAC reports that 311,000 more kids received school breakfast than the previous year. We all know how important breakfast is. Our parents all told us to eat a healthy breakfast so we can learn and grow. I tell my kids the same thing every day, even though they don't always pay attention. The school breakfast program is a critical part of ensuring that kids from poor families are able to start the day off right; that they don't start the school day off hungry, so they can learn properly and they can develop. Unlike the school lunch program, where the meal is served during the school day when kids are already in school, many of these school breakfast programs take place before school starts. Because of that starting time, millions of kids don't participate in the school breakfast program. That is why this report from FRAC is so encouraging. Schools are starting to offer breakfast free of charge to all children, not just kids who qualify based on income. Schools are moving breakfast out of the cafeteria and into the classroom after school starts, something that is known as Breakfast After the Bell. I am pleased that a new Federal program called Community Eligibility, a program in seven States that allows high-poverty schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students without the need for an application, is increasing daily breakfast participation. FRAC found that daily breakfast participation rose by 5 percent in these seven States compared to 2\1/2\ percent in nonparticipating States. We can do better, but this is encouraging. Kids who eat healthy, nutritious meals do better in school and have fewer problems as they grow up. School meals are a critical part of ensuring that kids eat properly. School breakfasts are a big part of the equation. FRAC found that if all States increased participation so they reached 70 poor kids with breakfast for every 100 that ate lunch, 3.8 million children would have been added to the breakfast program, and States would have received more than $964 million in added Federal nutrition funding in 2012 and 2013. We should be proud of the work that USDA and States and localities are doing to increase breakfast participation. As we move towards a reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, we must remember these important programs and build on them. We must do everything we can to end hunger now, and improving on the school breakfast program is just one way to do it. All of us, Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans, need to step it up in our battle to end hunger. We should all be ashamed that so many in our country, including millions of our children, go hungry. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, many of the actions that have been taken by this Congress have made hunger worse in this country. We are the richest country in the history of the world. Surely we can do better. Surely we can end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), a cosponsor of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), my colleague.

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