Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the conference report?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for all their hard work on this very difficult bill. I admire their tenacity, and I admire their passion on issues dealing with agriculture. There are some good things in this bill, to be sure, but there are some things that I simply cannot accept. I think as we discuss this farm bill, that we should remind ourselves of a few simple facts, facts like this: Hunger exists in the United States of America. Not a single congressional district in this country is hunger-free. Our food banks, our food pantries, the people who are on the front lines in the fight against hunger simply cannot do any more. They are stretched to the limit. One final fact. This bill will make hunger worse in America, not better. If this bill passes, thousands and thousands of low-income Americans will see their already meager food benefit shrink. And for what? Why? To meet some arbitrary deficit reduction goal? To pay the costs of the giveaways and the crop insurance program? To pay for the sweetheart deals for the sushi rice growers and the peanut farmers and God knows who else? I know many of my colleagues would just like this whole farm bill issue to go away. They want to pass a bill and forget about it and move on to something else. But, Mr. Speaker, the people who will be hurt by this bill aren't going away. They can't forget about it and move on to something else because they will suffer. They will have to make do with less food tomorrow than they have today. I have heard all the arguments trying to justify this $8.6 billion cut in SNAP. Well, it is just a loophole, or it could have been a lot worse, or the States should pick up the slack, or local governments or churches or food banks or the tooth fairy. Those arguments are easy to make from the comfort of our warm homes and our full bellies, but they ring hollow to an elderly person who will have to take their medicine on an empty stomach, or a child who will have to skip a breakfast before going to school. I think it is wrong, and I cannot support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 long years since the Supreme Court's awful Citizens United decision; and, sadly, this Republican leadership has failed to take action to address the increasing influence of big corporations and big money in our elections and our political discourse. The House has repeatedly voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act which, quite frankly, helps millions and millions of our fellow citizens get health care. We have voted to weaken financial regulations and environmental protections; and while I am pleased that most of this legislation has not become law, I find it troubling that we have not addressed an issue so fundamental to our democracy--the empowerment of everyday Americans over special interests. I am proud to be the sponsor of two constitutional amendments, H.J. Res. 20, which empowers Congress and the States to regulate political spending, while my people's rights amendment puts a stop to the growing trend of corporations claiming First Amendment rights. Sixteen States, including my home State of Massachusetts, and hundreds of cities and towns across the country have taken action to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and the fabricated doctrine of corporate constitutional rights. Our democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people. We endanger that most sacred value when big money, special interests, and corporations have unlimited power to buy and influence elections. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to act.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say that it is outrageous, absolutely outrageous, that the Republican leadership has combined a major piece of antiabortion legislation with the farm bill conference report into one single rule, restricting our ability to debate both of these important issues. There is an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP in this conference report, a cut that will only affect poor families, primarily the elderly and the disabled. Besides being cruel and heartless, this cut is also an unfunded mandate. If States, cities, or towns want to prevent hunger from getting worse, they will have to spend more money out of their own budgets. Now, I know my Republican friends are in a big hurry to go off to their issues retreat at some luxurious resort, but maybe we could have found another hour somewhere. Madam Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I was honored to serve on the conference committee for the farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson and all of my colleagues for their hard work. I want a farm bill. I want to support the farm bill conference. But from the beginning of this process, I made my position very clear that I will not vote for a farm bill that makes hunger worse in America. And this farm bill fails that basic test. If this bill passes, hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans will have less to eat, period. Now, some people will say, well, an $8 billion cut in SNAP is better than what the House Republicans wanted to do. That is a strange argument, Madam Speaker. It is like saying thank goodness the burglar only took the silver, because he could have taken the jewelry, too. The fact of the matter is that any cut to SNAP will be piled on top of the cut that already went into effect last fall. And any cut to SNAP will result in more Americans going hungry. And any cut in SNAP will increase the financial burdens on State and local governments. There are those, Madam Speaker, who claim that the Heat and Eat program is some sort of a loophole. It isn't. It is a policy decision. It is a way for States to help some of our neighbors who are struggling through very difficult times. But even if this is a loophole, I ask my friends, of all the loopholes in Federal law, of all of the special interest giveaways, this is the one you are going to target? This is the one that is in your crosshairs, a program that helps poor people get enough food to eat? My goodness. There are those who say that States and local governments or food banks or food pantries should pick up the slack. Have any of those people actually ever been to a food bank? Have they ever talked to a director of a food pantry? Because they are already at capacity, Madam Speaker. They can't meet the needs of the clients that they already have. My Republican friends have made their priorities very clear. They want to dismantle the social safety net. They want to get the Federal Government out of the business of helping people get enough to eat. But I also want to say that I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, in the people in my own party, here in the Congress and in the White House, who are going along with this. Tonight, the President of the United States will stand in this Chamber and deliver the State of the Union; and when he talks about income inequality and helping people get into the middle class, all of us Democrats--and I hope some Republicans--will stand up and cheer. But before that happens, we have an opportunity to put our votes where our cheers are; we have a chance to match our actions with our rhetoric. And the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on this conference report. So I say to my fellow Democrats, if cutting SNAP or other programs that help poor people is the price of admission to get anything done, any piece of major legislation passed, then we have strayed very, very far from our principles. Madam Speaker, again, I want to remind my colleagues that this is an unfunded mandate because there will be an increased burden on States, cities and towns to deal with this issue of hunger. By the way, Madam Speaker, when people are hungry, when kids are hungry, they don't learn in school. When people are hungry, they end up going to the emergency room more often. When children are hungry, when they get a common cold, they end up staying in the hospital for a period of time. That all costs us a great deal in terms of not only Federal money but State and local money. So, in my opinion, this is an unfunded mandate, and this is a burden on the States. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 465 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution--in waiving all points of order against consideration of both H.R. 7, the antiabortion bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill--waives section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, thereby causing a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 465 under clause 9(c) of rule XXI because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against H.R. 7, the abortion bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the conference report on the farm bill was made public at around 7:30 last night. With nearly 1,000 pages dumped on us at the last minute, we know that no one has had a chance to read the entire thing. I'm a conferee, and even I had an extra few hours to try to digest this monstrosity of a bill, but who knows what is in this bill? That is why I'm raising this earmarks point of order. As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is most troubling to me and a number of my colleagues, again, is this attack on poor people and is this attack on SNAP, a program that does nothing more than provide food to people. Madam Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a letter that was addressed to Congress from the mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, the District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Tucson urging us in both the House and the Senate to reject these SNAP cuts. These mayors have made it very clear that it would have an adverse impact on the people that they represent. They have stressed in this letter the importance of SNAP to help people to be able to put food on the table for their children. I also would like to reference a statement from the Food Research and Action Center, otherwise known as FRAC. They are urging us to vote against this conference committee report if these SNAP cuts remain in the bill. They have said that SNAP is essential to the nutrition, the health and the well-being of 47 million Americans each month, but every participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last November 1. As the gentlelady from Connecticut made mention of, on November 1, an $11 billion cut in SNAP went into effect. All 47 million beneficiaries received a cut. Food prices didn't go down, but their benefit went down, and now we are going to pile on. There are some who say, well, it doesn't affect all 47 million. It is only going to be about 1 million or so people that will be adversely impacted, but those people that will be adversely impacted stand a great deal to lose. The November 1 cut for the average family of three resulted in a $31 a month benefit cut. You add this on top of it, and it is another $80 to $90. So that family of three will receive about $120 to $130 less per month. What are they going to do? Even before these cuts went into effect, they were going to food banks, they were going to charities looking for help because their benefit was so meager to begin with. What are they supposed to do? I think in this House of Representatives, I don't care what your political party or ideology is, it should never, ever, ever be acceptable that anybody in this country--the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world--should go hungry. The fact that we are moving forward with the farm bill--a deal that contains this $8.6 billion in cuts--I think is outrageous. I'm all for a deal. I want a farm bill. I'm willing to swallow a lot of things in this bill that I don't like, but the price of doing that should not be to increase hunger and poverty in this country, and that is what this bill does. We talk about deals. Behind these deals are real people. They are our neighbors. They are in every community. There is not a congressional district in our country that is hunger free. These people are everywhere. We have an obligation to not turn our backs on them. SNAP is one of the most efficiently run Federal programs with one of the lowest error rates. This is important. SNAP in and of itself is not going to solve the problem of hunger or poverty. The bottom line is by cutting it the way we are doing, we are making things worse for people. I stood on the floor today, and I read the descriptions of individuals in Massachusetts who, if this farm bill passes, will see a significant cut in their benefit, and their question to me is, what do I do? Where do I go? Tell me how to put food on the table for my kids. Tell me how I'm going to survive. We should not be making the lives of people who are suffering more miserable. That is not our job. I will also insert for the Record the entire Food Research and Action Center statement. Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts alone there will be 125,000 SNAP households that could suffer up to a $70 to $80 a month cut in SNAP benefit if this farm bill goes through as it is. There is no reason in the world that we should be cutting this program. This is not an ATM machine to pay for big farm subsidies. This is not an ATM machine to make up for the fraud, the waste and the abuse in the crop insurance program. Again, I will repeat to my colleagues, tonight we are going to hear the President talk about income inequality, and my criticism here, it is a bipartisan criticism. I'm critical of the Republicans for the cruel cuts that were proposed in the original farm bill--up to $40 billion--and I'm frustrated that there are people in my own party, including in this White House, who don't believe this is worth a fight. Well, this is worth a fight. If this is not worth a fight, I don't know what the hell we are here for. If making sure people in this country don't go hungry is not a priority, then I don't know what we are doing here. We can explain this away, we can rationalize it and justify it. I have heard all the talking points. My favorite is that nobody will actually lose their benefit. What that neglects to tell you is that your benefit will be cut down to almost nothing. Yes, they will still get a little benefit, but it might be $15 a month instead of $115 a month. I mean, is that the best we can do, on both sides of the aisle? This never used to be a partisan issue. This never used to be a polarizing issue, and now all of a sudden it has become one. Again, I plea with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together and get a farm bill done, but not at this price. And I urge the White House to stand up and fight alongside of us on this. They should be taking a greater leadership role on this. It is not enough to just talk about income inequality; you have to fight for it, too. Mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Tucson, January 27, 2014. Hon. Debbie Stabenow, Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank D. Lucas, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Thad Cochran, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be voting on a 950-page- plus bill that no one has read. This is a bill, the farm bill, which was first made available to us late last evening. To make matters even worse, Mr. Speaker, we are told that we will only have 1 hour of debate on this bill, and we are not even to have a rule on the bill. We are going to have a rule that incorporates the farm bill with an abortion bill. What they have to do with one another, I have no idea. But it is clear what is going on here, and that is that the leadership of this House does not want anyone to know what is in that bill. One of the things that is in that bill, which I find reprehensible, is an $8.6 billion cut in the SNAP program. The SNAP program exists to make sure that people in this country do not go hungry. On November 1, last November 1, a cut of $11 billion went into effect. The recovery moneys ran out. Congress did not renew them, so everybody on SNAP, all 47 million people, received a cut. Food prices didn't go down. The economy hasn't gotten much better, but their food benefit went down. And their benefit is, on average, about $1.40 a meal per day. So those who think that this is some sort of generous benefit have no idea what they are talking about. So we cut their benefit; and they are now ending up spending more time at food banks and food pantries, looking for ways to put food on their table so that their kids don't go hungry; and we bring a farm bill to the floor that cuts that program by another $8.6 billion. Now, supporters of the farm bill say, well, really it could have been a lot worse. You should just be happy it is $8.6 billion. You should declare victory. Well, those people who are going to be adversely impacted by that $8.6 billion cut don't feel a lot of victory. Yes, it is targeted. It is targeted at those individuals who are on this so-called ``Heat and Eat'' program. These are poor people who get a little bump up in their benefit to put food on their table, mostly elderly people, mostly disabled people. So we are going to go tell them that they are going to get significantly less a month in a food benefit, but the good news for them is there will be some that won't be adversely impacted. They should take some satisfaction in that. We talk about numbers all the time. We talk about statistics. Let me read to you a couple of real life examples. William, an elderly man from Salem, Massachusetts, currently receives $181 a month in SNAP. He lives in senior housing, where heat and utilities are included, but the rent exceeds 35 percent of his $802 a month supplemental Social Security income. His SNAP benefit of $181 a month is based on the Heat and Eat option. He incurs other health-related expenses not covered by Medicaid, but he has had significant difficulty producing the detailed verification required by the State. His current SNAP would be significantly reduced by more than $80 a month if he lost this Heat and Eat option. Pamela, a severely disabled woman from Northborough, Massachusetts, currently receives $115 a month as SNAP benefits. She gets $1,007 in monthly Social Security disability benefits. In addition to other medical conditions, she is a diabetic and requires a special diet to meet her daily nutritional needs. While she lives in public housing, she must pay for her own appliances and maintenance fees, including her air conditioning unit, essential to her health. She does not have a car, but uses her limited income for private transportation to medical appointments, grocery shopping and pharmacy trips, as she is not near any public transportation. With the loss of the Heat and Eat SNAP option, her SNAP benefit will be reduced by $100 a month, so from $115 to the minimum of $15 a month, significantly impacting her ability to maintain her special diet. Let me say to my colleagues here, the cut that went into effect last November will cost the average family of three about $30 a month in benefits. Those who will be impacted by the cuts of this Heat and Eat program will lose an additional $80 to $90 a month. So their reduction in their monthly benefit for food should be between $120 and $130 a month. Where are they going to find the food? Who is going to make up the difference? My colleagues on the Republican side say, well, they can go beg to the States; the States ought to do more; or if the States say no, go to the churches or the synagogues or the mosques. Maybe they will do more. The bottom line is, if any of my colleagues took the time to go back to their districts and visit their food banks, they would realize they are at capacity. Food banks can't give out any more. So I would urge my colleagues, vote against this farm bill. Do not make hunger worse in America.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article that appeared recently in The Boston Globe about innovative work being done to help alleviate hunger in developing countries using safe storage technologies. [From the Boston Globe, Dec. 17, 2013] For Phil Villers, Helping Feed the World is in the Bag (By Bella English) Concord.--Phil Villers has founded several high-tech companies, but the one he oversees now offers something much more basic: a way to alleviate hunger in developing countries. GrainPro, Inc., which Villers runs out of Concord, makes airtight, impermeable bags of polyvinylchloride, similar to the material used by the Israeli Army to protect its tanks in the desert heat. The bags are critical because about one-fourth of grain products grown in developing countries or shipped to them-- rice, peanuts, maize, seeds, beans--are lost to insects or rodents, or rot in cloth or jute storage bags. GrainPro's ``cocoons'' are made of the same material as the company's bags, and serve as huge ``ultra-hermetic'' encasings for grain bags. They can reduce grain losses from 25 percent to less than 1 percent, Villers says, and the company concentrates on hot and humid countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. ``The insects suffocate, and the rats can't get a tooth- hold,'' says Villers, who joined GrainPro as a board member in 1996 and took over shortly after, when the company's president was injured in a car accident. ``We eliminate the need for pesticides, and we can protect food supplies against all kinds of calamities such as typhoons and earthquakes,'' Villers says. `We eliminate the need for pesticides, and we can protect food supplies against all kinds of calamities such as typhoons and earthquakes.' During Typhoon Haiyan, which recently devastated the Philippines, the rice, cocoa, and seeds stored inside the cocoons were protected. In fact, GrainPro's products are all made at a factory on the former US Naval Base at Subic Bay, 75 miles from Manila. ``The cocoons are massively solid when filled with bags,'' Villers says. ``They're like a brick outhouse. They just don't move.'' The bags and cocoons are used in 97 countries, from small villages to national food authorities. Villers deals with the US Agency for International Development, the World Bank, and other agencies and private companies. ``We know that there are over 100 million people who don't have enough to eat in Africa alone,'' he says. GrainPro is, as he calls it, a ``not-only-for-profit'' company. ``We take our social mission very seriously,'' he says. ``But to be successful we have to be profitable, and we are. We're growing at 50 percent a year.'' The smaller bags sell for $2 to $3 each, while the cocoons start at $1,000. The company is developing a thinner, cheaper line of cocoons. One of their biggest customers is the Ghana Cocoa Board, and in Rwanda, hundreds of cocoons are protecting corn, seeds, and rice. GrainPro also has a minor market of coffee growers and roasters in the United States. ``We tell them we can't change bad coffee to good coffee, but we can make sure your good coffee stays good,'' says Villers. The walls of Villers's small office bear some health care posters and awards. The staff consists of him, an administrative assistant, and a financial manager. In Washington, there's a vice president for food security. The rest of the 125 employees are in the Philippines, in research and development, and production. Martin Gummert is a senior scientist with the International Rice Research Institute, a nonprofit headquartered in the Philippines and dedicated to improving the yield and quality of rice in poor countries. The agency has collaborated with GrainPro to develop the grain bags. ``GrainPro is a company with a big social conscience,'' says Gummert. ``They started small, promoting hermetic storage against many odds in the initial years.'' That his company is doing well while doing good makes Villers a happy man. ``I love what I do and I'm trying very hard to make sure my life counts, not just to me and my family,'' he says. Philippe Villers was 5 years old when he fled Paris with his family two hours ahead of the German Army. His father, a member of the French Army, left for London disguised as a Polish officer. Once there, he joined the resistance. Philippe, his sister, and mother headed to the safety of Montreal. After the war, the family was reunited and moved to New York. At age 10, Philippe became a US citizen, and his life since then has unfolded like an immigrant version of the American Dream. He graduated with honors from Harvard and earned a master's degree in mechanical engineering from MIT. He founded companies and made good money. Long a social activist, he put his money where his mouth was. In 1982, Villers and his wife, Kate, started the nonprofit Families USA Foundation, dedicated to achieving quality health care for all Americans, and they've been cited by President Obama for their work. Kate Villers is also the president and founder of the foundation's sister organization, Community Catalyst, a nonprofit working in more than 40 states to build support for improved health care and insurance rights. The couple, who live in Concord, apparently have passed along their helping hands philosophy to their daughters. Their oldest runs a foundation in Costa Rica to improve preschool education for poor children. Their youngest is executive director of the Mass. Senior Action Council, a nonprofit grassroots group of senior citizens fighting for social justice. Their son, who is in the film business, lives in Budapest. Though he can talk on and on about his pet subjects-- alleviating hunger, providing affordable health care--Villers is less talkative about himself. He's not interested in discussing the motives behind his do-good work. ``My lifelong goal has been to make a difference in this country,'' he simply says. Is it because of the opportunities the United States provided an immigrant boy? ``I'll leave that to psychologists.'' he adds, with a bemused half-grin. He won't even give his age, but will say that he graduated from Harvard in 1955, along with David Halberstam, ``a great guy.'' Villers is a member of the ACLU's President's Council and the executive director's leadership council of Amnesty International. He describes himself as ``a change agent and a human rights activist.'' Just don't ask him why.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. I will be the last speaker on our side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, just to kind of summarize here, my colleagues are being asked to vote on this, over 1,500 pages that nobody has read. And again, coming from the party that talked about reading the bill, I am a little surprised that they wanted to present it this way. But I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule simply because, under the process that we have before us, nobody has an opportunity to amend anything in this bill or change anything. I am willing to bet that in a week or so we are going to read an article about something that was in here that nobody even knew about, and if they did, they would have wanted it out of the bill. So I think the process that my Republican friends have utilized in this House of Representatives really is very disappointing--the number of closed rules, the way they have shut down debate, and even the way we have gotten to this point. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. At the end of the day, people are going to have to vote for this bill anyway because the alternative is shutting the government down or going back to the sequestration levels which my Republican friends embraced, which were unacceptable--so unacceptable they couldn't pass a Transportation appropriations bill on this House floor. They couldn't bring an HHS bill to this floor because the numbers were so unacceptably low that even their own Members couldn't deal with voting for a bill like that. As far as the underlying bill goes, I think the best that can be said about it is it begins to chip away at sequestration. The numbers are still awful, but the alternative is even worse. I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a bill to extend unemployment insurance for those who are unemployed. I am fascinated by the debate on the other side of the aisle saying we are reluctant to do it because we have done it a number of times. That seems more important to my Republican colleagues than whether or not people are in need, whether or not it is necessary to extend these benefits to keep families afloat. Because Congress failed to act, more than 1.3 million struggling unemployed Americans were cut off from extended emergency unemployment benefits in the middle of the holidays. We all went home for Christmas, and the gift we gave to these struggling Americans was we cut off their unemployment compensation. Another 1.9 million Americans will lose this support in the first half of this year if we don't do anything. Too many families are still struggling to rebuild and regain what they had before the economic crisis. It is both unfair and devastating to cut off these benefits at the time of a 7.0 percent unemployment rate. We should not leave Washington tomorrow, on a Thursday, and go home for a week and a half and not address this issue. To blame the Senate, maybe it is an easy way to just kind of brush this off, but the bottom line is in the Senate, if you want to be of any help, talk to the minority leader who is leading a filibuster so that this can't be brought up over in the Senate. But that is no excuse for us in the House not to act. That is no excuse for us to turn our back on millions of Americans who desperately need our help. They are going through difficult times. Our job here is to help people, not just those who are well off, not just those who have super-PACs or who write out checks to campaigns. Our job is to help everybody, and that includes those who are the most vulnerable in this, those who are struggling during this difficult economy. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial that appeared in The New York Times, entitled, ``No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay.'' I will also include for the Record an article, entitled, ``New Economic Analysis: $400 Million Drained from State Economies in Unemployment Benefits This Week Alone.'' By not extending unemployment benefits, we are not only hurting these families who are unemployed, we are hurting our local economies. We are hurting the economy of this country. We need to get our priorities straight here. Our job is to stand up for those who are in need. On too many occasions, this Republican-led House has turned its back on those who are most vulnerable. So I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This is our only opportunity before you go home on a recess to be able to deal with the issue of extending unemployment insurance. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up the extension of unemployment compensation so we can help millions of families in this country who are desperately in need of help. I yield back the balance of my time. [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 2014] No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay (By The Editorial Board) There is nothing good to say about the December employment report, which showed that only 74,000 jobs were added last month. But dismal as it was, the report came at an opportune political moment. The new numbers rebut the Republican arguments that jobless benefits need not be renewed, and that the current minimum wage is adequate. At the same time, they underscore the need, only recently raised to the top of the political agenda, to combat poverty and inequality. The report showed that average monthly job growth in 2013 was 182,000, basically unchanged from 2012. Even the decline in the jobless rate last month, from 7 percent in November to 6.7 percent, was a sign of weakness: It mainly reflects a shrinking labor force not new hiring as the share of workers employed or looking for work fell to the lowest level since 1978. That's a tragic waste of human capital. It would be comforting to ascribe the dwindling labor force mainly to retirements or other longterm changes, but most of the decline is due to weak job opportunities and weak labor demand since the Great Recession. One result is that the share of jobless workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer has remained stubbornly high. In December, it was nearly 38 percent, still higher by far than at any time before the Great Recession, in records going back to 1948. And yet, nearly 1.3 million of those long-term unemployed had their federal jobless benefits abruptly cut off at the end of last year, after Republicans refused to renew the federal unemployment program in the latest budget deal. Each week the program is not reinstated, another 72,000 jobless people who otherwise would have qualified for benefits will find there is no longer a federal program to turn to. Worse, in the Senate this week, after a show of willingness to discuss renewing the benefits, Republicans objected to a bill to do just that. They had demanded that a renewal be paid for, but they didn't like how Democrats proposed to do that-- with spending cuts at the end of the budget window in 2024 in exchange for relief today. There was no need to pay for the benefits, which have such a crucial and positive effect--on families, the economy and poverty--that it would be sound to renew them even if the government borrowed to do so. But Republicans would rather criticize President Obama's handling of the economy than help those left behind. A similar dynamic is developing around the drive for a higher minimum wage. In the December jobs report, the average hourly wage for most workers was $20.35. That means that the minimum wage, at $7.25 an hour, is only one-third of the average, rather than one-half, as was the case historically. Raising the wage to $10.10 an hour, as Democrats have proposed, would help to restore the historical relationship. But even that would fall far short of the roughly $17 an hour that workers at the bottom of the wage scale would be earning if increased labor productivity were reflected in their pay, rather than in corporate profits, executive compensation and shareholder returns. Republicans, however, are opposed to any increase, as if the numbers don't speak for themselves. Their stance also dismisses research, and common sense, which says that raising the wages of low- and moderate-income workers is essential for lessening both poverty and inequality. Instead, in the past week, they have introduced ostensibly ``antipoverty'' ideas, most prominently Senator Marco Rubio's plan to transform federal safety net programs into state block grants, another of the shopworn Republican ideas that also include privatizing federal services and slashing domestic spending. Block grants have allowed states to disregard the needs of the least fortunate. The proposal would set back the debate on wages, poverty and inequality. The December jobs report is telling Congress what it needs to do. Unfortunately, that will not lead to action anytime soon. New Economic Analysis: 400 Million Drained from State Economies in Unemployment Benefits This Week Alone--January 3, 2014 Washington.--The expiration of federal unemployment insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than 400 million out of the pockets a SHARE of American job seekers nationwide and state economies, according to a new analysis by Ways and Means Committee Democrats. Unemployment insurance is viewed as a very effective fiscal stimulus because jobless Americans tend to spend their unemployment insurance right away. The analysis spells out how much federal funding each state is going without in the first week since the emergency Federal Unemployment Compensation program expired. In Illinois, nearly 82,000 people lost an average 313 weekly benefit for a total statewide economic impact of 25 million. In Ohio, more than 39,000 people lost an average weekly benefit of 312 for a total statewide economic impact of 12 million. At 11 a.m. this morning, Ways and Means Ranking Member Sander Levin (0-MI) and Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) will join former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Harvard economist Lawrence Katz in holding a press call to highlight the harmful economic impact that will result if Republicans in Congress don't agree to extend the program. ``In state after state, Americans who have lost their federal unemployment insurance in one fell swoop last week are struggling to get by,'' said Ways and Means Ranking Member Levin. ``Every week that Republicans fail to act tens of thousands of additional long-term unemployed Americans lose this vital lifeline as they look to get back on their feet after the worst recession in generations, and the economy in each state is taking a hit.'' Overall, failing to renew the EUC program will cost the economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Note that the below estimate is conservative because it only takes into account the total dollar amount provided per week by the now expired EUC program. Economists generally multiply these estimates by 1.5 to 2 to show the true economic impact. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of people who Avg. weekly Total State lost benefit benefit lost benefits lost this week Dec. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AK-............................. 4,300- $247.61 $1,064,723 AL-............................. 12,036 206.21 2,481,944 AR-............................. 9,300- 286.11 2,660,823 AZ-............................. 17,100 219.06 3,745,926 CA-............................. 213,793 303.37 64,858,382 CO-............................. 20,237 359.12 7,267,511 CT-............................. 23,997 335.95 8,061,792 DC-............................. 4,600- 300.87 1,384,002 DE-............................. 3,600- 243.57 876,852 FL-............................. 73,000 231.20 16,877,600 GA-............................. 54,400 266.23 14,482,912 HI-............................. 1,900- 415.82 790,058 IA-............................. 4,300- 325.95 1,401,585 ID-............................. 2,600- 258.36 671,736 IL-............................. 81,867 312.77 25,605,542 IN-............................. 19,200 238.24 4,574,208 KS-............................. 4,400- 333.42 1,467,048 KY-............................. 18,000 288.60 5,194,800 LA-............................. 7,832- 205.80 1,611,826 MA-............................. 58,700 444.00 26,062,800 MD-............................. 22,900 326.30 7,472,270 ME-............................. 3,300- 284.84 939,972 MI-............................. 43,311 293.92 12,729,969 MN-............................. 9,231- 375.15 3,463,010 MO-............................. 21,329 235.04 5,013,168 MS-............................. 13,400 192.15 2,574,810 MT-............................. 1,876- 283.80 532,409 NC*-............................ NA- NA- NA ND-............................. 300- 386.11 115,833 NE-............................. 1,200- 272.31 326,772 NH-............................. 1,004- 287.49 288,640 NJ-............................. 90,300 381.79 34,475,637 NM-............................. 6,000- 288.66 1,731,960 NV-............................. 17,600 306.90 5,401,440 NY-............................. 127,100 305.75 38,860,825 OH-............................. 39,100 311.82 12,192,162 OK-............................. 4,907- 294.62 1,445,700 OR-............................. 20,067 321.14 6,444,316 PA-............................. 73,330 343.31 25,174,922 PR-............................. 30,700 117.76 3,615,232 RI-............................. 4,900- 337.13 1,651,937 SC-............................. 15,400 248.29 3,823,666 SD-............................. 200 261.34 52,268 TN-............................. 19,500 236.07 4,603,365 TX-............................. 64,294 338.59 21,769,305 UT-............................. 2,500- 344.58 861,450 VA-............................. 9,700- 296.95 2,880,415 V1-............................. 1,300- 310.91 404,183 VT-............................. 600 298.13 178,878 WA-............................. 24,414 395.14 9,646,948 WI-............................. 23,700 266.09 6,306,333 WV-............................. 6,933- 271.37 1,881,408 WY-............................. 600- 371.36 222,816

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will again, before this debate is over, remind my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Let me just close, again, by saying we need to move this process forward. I expect that that is what this omnibus will do. But we are about to leave for a break, starting tomorrow, one of the many breaks that the Republican leadership constantly gives us. So we are going to leave town, and meanwhile all these millions of Americans who are depending on us to help them get through this difficult time are just going to be left alone. We are going to turn our backs on them. That is, to me, unconscionable. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with us and defeat the previous question so we can deal with this issue of unemployment insurance. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, what we have before us can be described--very charitably--as a mixed bag. This is a 1,500-page bill that nobody has actually read. This is, by the way, two-sided. It came before the Rules Committee less than 24 hours after it was filed. Because of this rule and the process used to create the bill, no Member, Republican or Democrat, will have the opportunity to amend it or change it in any way. To top it all off, the legislative vehicle that the Republican leadership is using to rocket this bill over to the Senate is H.R. 3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Act. No wonder the American people think Congress is living on another planet. When people talk about regular order, this ain't it. But we are where we are. And I do want to thank Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and the House and Senate appropriators for their hard work in putting the underlying omnibus appropriations bill together. I will support this bill, very reluctantly, because the alternative is far worse--yet another Republican shutdown of the government, yet another unnecessary economically devastating and politically motivated mess, yet another attempt by congressional Republicans to damage an economy still struggling to recover from the worst recession in our lifetimes. So, yes, I will vote for the bill, but we need to curb our enthusiasm. The numbers in this bill are awful. They may be slightly less awful than the Republican sequester numbers, but they are still awful. Fewer kids will be cut from Head Start, but we are nowhere near meeting our educational needs. More funds will be provided for critical medical research, but not enough. There will be more funding for LIHEAP for our cities and towns and for antihunger programs. While it begins to undo the sequester, it does so for only 2 years. We need to get rid of it forever--permanently. With this bill, we are waist-deep instead of neck-deep in manure. Hooray, I guess. Even so, I am sure that many Tea Party members of this House will vote against this bill today because they still think it spends too much. All of the right-wing outside groups who really call the shots around here are whipping hard against it. But more importantly, Madam Speaker, what is missing from this bill or from the Republican leadership's agenda is any acknowledgment of the immediate problem of millions of people who are losing their long-term unemployment benefits. On December 28, 1.3 million unemployed Americans saw their long-term unemployment insurance expire, including more than 58,000 in Massachusetts. Since then, unemployment insurance has expired for an additional 72,000 more Americans each week. Yet the Republicans continue to do nothing. Let me remind my colleagues how we got here. After a difficult economic period in the early nineties and prolonged budget fights, President Clinton left us with a budget surplus, a surplus that was then squandered through unpaid-for wars and reckless tax cuts championed by President Bush and the Republican Congress. The Clinton surplus turned into a then-record deficit that was exacerbated by the global recession that started at the end of the Bush administration. Six years after President Bush left office, we still have an unacceptable level of unemployment and an economy that is getting better for some while, at the same time, leaving many behind. And that is where unemployment insurance comes in. This program is a lifeline for millions of people who lost their jobs--for most, because of the recession and not because of any issues regarding job performance. Unemployment insurance helps millions of families pay their bills and put food on their tables, things they could do if they had jobs, but they can't because they are unemployed. Yet Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster a bill to extend unemployment insurance, and the House Republican leadership refuses even to consider any bill. We can't even get a bill on this floor so that Members of both sides of the aisle can have a chance to express their views. It is shameful, it is unconscionable, and it hurts our economic growth. Madam Speaker, this isn't about some abstract piece of Federal policy. This is about the lives of our own citizens. It is about our neighbors who are simply trying to get by. It is about people who are willing to work but need help until they find a new job. They deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from this Congress. Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on a clean, 3-month unemployment insurance extension. This has been introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney. If Congress doesn't act, over 18 million Americans will be denied the vital relief that they so greatly depend upon. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we live in the richest country in the history of the world, and yet hunger is a problem in the United States of America--a very costly problem. A recent report published in the journal ``Health Affairs'' shows that poor people are getting sick because they are running out of food at the end of the month. Hunger increases the likelihood that people will get other ailments. Specifically, this analysis shows that poverty and exhausted food budgets may be a reason for increased health risk due to dangerously low blood sugar. We know that poor families prioritize which bills they pay and that food--grocery bills--often fall behind other responsibilities like rent and utilities. I will include for the Record an article from The New York Times entitled ``Study Ties Diabetic Crises to Dip in Food Budgets.'' Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. One of the programs that is key in this war on poverty--in our attempts to reduce and eliminate income inequality--is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Act, or SNAP--formerly known as food stamps. SNAP is a lifeline for 47 million Americans; 47 million of our fellow citizens rely on this program to help put food on the table for their families. But SNAP has become a major target in this Congress by those who believe it is simply a government handout. SNAP is many things, but it is not a poorly run government handout. To the contrary, it is a program that is among the most efficient and effective, if not the most efficient and effective, of Federal programs. Despite this fact and despite the fact that millions of Americans turn to SNAP precisely because they saw their incomes drop or disappear because of the recession, SNAP was cut by $11 billion on November 1, 2013. And on top of that, we are told that the farm bill that is still in negotiation would cut another $8.5 billion to $9 billion above that November 1 cut. These cuts have real impacts. Some families who already saw a cut of $30 a month on November 1 will see their SNAP benefit cut by another $90 a month if the farm bill passes with these cuts. That is a cut of $120 a month for a family of three in a State like California or Massachusetts or New York, for example. According to a study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trust, a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger an increase in $15 billion in medical costs for diabetes over the next decade. The insistence of many in this Congress-- Republicans, and I'm sad to say some Democrats--that SNAP be cut, will have serious, long-term impacts on the health of poor people who are just trying to get by, and any cuts will cost us more. They will save us nothing. Being poor is hard. It is expensive. We shouldn't be making the lives of those who struggle with poverty even harder by cutting safety net programs like SNAP. We should not be making poor people sicker because we want to cut Federal spending on SNAP while increasing spending for the Defense Department or giving corporate welfare in the form of crop insurance or other farm subsidies. Many of these excesses are contained in the farm bill that we may see in the next couple of weeks. I oppose the SNAP cuts included in the farm bill. They are misguided, they are hurtful, and they are wrong. They will do real damage to real people who just want to earn a paycheck and provide for their families. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and oppose this farm bill if, in fact, it contains these $8 billion to $9 billion in cuts in SNAP. I would remind my colleagues that behind all these numbers and behind all the statistics and behind all the rhetoric, there are real people. These cuts that have already been made actually hurt people. Let's not pile on. Antihunger advocates have warned that further cuts to SNAP will increase hunger in America. Go to any food bank in America; they are at capacity right now. Leading economists have told us that further cuts to SNAP will undermine the economy. SNAP is actually a stimulus. People who get SNAP have to spend it on food, and it helps our economy grow. Doctors and medical researchers have documented time and time again with a gazillion studies that further cuts to SNAP will cause avoidable health care costs to millions of our fellow citizens. Sometimes I wonder when we have these debates is if anybody is paying attention. My question to this Congress is: Is anybody listening? Why would anybody cut this program more and more and more and more? Why are so many in this Chamber so indifferent to this problem that affects close to 50 million of our fellow citizens? I plead with my colleagues to say ``no'' to any further SNAP cuts, and I appeal to this administration to work with Congress to develop a plan so that nobody in this country goes hungry. The silence on this issue in this Congress and in this administration is sad, and it is a missed opportunity to do something meaningful and positive for millions of our fellow citizens. We can do more. We can do better. We can end hunger now, but not by coldly, callously, and arbitrarily cutting SNAP. [From the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2014] Study Ties Diabetic Crises to Dip in Food Budgets (By Sabrina Tavernise) Poor people with diabetes are significantly more likely to go to the hospital for dangerously low blood sugar at the end of the month when food budgets are tight than at the beginning of the month, a new study has found. Researchers found no increase in such hospitalizations among higher-income people for the condition known as hypoglycemia, suggesting that poverty and exhausted food budgets may be a reason for the increased health risk. Hypoglycemia occurs when people with diabetes have not had enough to eat, but continue taking medications for the disease. To control diabetes, patients need to keep their blood sugar within a narrow band. Levels that are too low or too high (known as hyperglycemia) can be dangerous. Researchers found a clear pattern among low-income people: Hospital admissions for hypoglycemia were 27 percent higher at the end of the month than at the beginning. Researchers said they could not prove that the patients' economic circumstances were the reason for the admission, but the two things were highly correlated. The study, published online Monday in the journal Health Affairs, comes as Congress continues to debate legislation that includes the food stamp program for poor Americans. House Republicans are advocating $40 billion in cuts to the program, a step that Democrats oppose. About 25 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, have diabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The poor are disproportionately affected. The United States spends more than $100 billion a year treating people with the disease, the agency estimates. Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, matched hospital discharge records from 2000 to 2008 on more than two million people in California with those patients' ZIP codes. People living in the poorest ZIP codes, where average annual household income was below $31,000, were counted as low income. The researchers then examined cases of patients admitted for hypoglycemia. The symptoms include dizziness, sweating or nausea. In rare cases, hypoglycemia can cause death. For each 100,000 admissions of poor people, about 270 of them were given a primary diagnosis of hypoglycemia, more than the 200 per 100,000 among people of higher incomes. Dr. Hilary Seligman, assistant professor of medicine at U.C.S.F., and the study's lead author, said the difference was statistically significant. Dr. Seligman said that she and her colleagues, aware of the debate about food stamps, sought to document whether running out of food stamps or money to buy food at the end of the month damaged people's health. Previous research had already established that people often give a higher priority to paying monthly bills for rent or utilities, for example, than to buying food, which is managed from day to day. ``People who work minimum wage jobs or live on benefits often have this typical pay cycle pattern,'' Dr. Seligman said. ``We wanted to examine whether there were adverse health consequences to running out of money at the end of the month.'' Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University who was not involved in the study, said the findings were persuasive. ``The patterns here are significant,'' she said. ``The researchers obviously can't say if food deprivation was the definitive triggering event, but the findings show a strong association between lack of food and adverse health consequences.''