Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Could I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I'd like to insert into the Record letters from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United States Conference of Mayors, AARP, and a list of a number of other groups that are opposed to the bill. And I'd also like to insert into the Record a September 4 New York Times story, entitled, ``On the Edge of Poverty, at the Center of a Debate on Food Stamps.'' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, September 11, 2013. Dear Representative: As the House considers a proposal to address nutrition programs apart from the Farm Bill, I write to urge you to oppose harmful cuts and changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House proposal would cut SNAP by $40 billion and harm hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who are underemployed or unable to find employment. Adequate and nutritious food is a fundamental human right and a basic need that is integral to protecting the life and dignity of the human person. SNAP is one of the most effective and important federal programs to combat hunger in the nation by helping to feed millions of persons in need every year. SNAP helps relieve pressure on overwhelmed parishes, charities, food banks, pantries and other emergency food providers across the country that could not begin to meet the need for food assistance if SNAP eligibility or benefits were reduced. The faith community and the private sector are vital in the fight to combat hunger. But government has an indispensable role in safeguarding and promoting the common good of all. This includes ensuring poor and hungry people have access to adequate and nutritious food. Struggling people are not seeking a life of government dependency but rightfully deserve decent paying jobs to provide for them and their families. Even with evidence of a modest economic recovery, the economy still has not improved the standard of living for many people, especially for the poor and the working poor. More than four million people have been jobless for over six months, and that does not include the millions more who have simply lost hope. For every available job, there are often five unemployed and underemployed people actively vying for it. SNAP remains an essential tool to help struggling individuals and families avoid hunger and stay out of poverty. Proposals to eliminate access to SNAP for people who have at some point in their lifetime committed certain crimes are counterproductive and an affront to human dignity. Persons who have paid their debt to society and their families should not be penalized for the sins of the past. A on-size-fits-all approach to state waivers on SNAP work requirements is unreasonable. States should continue to be afforded the flexibility to assess and respond to local needs and economic conditions. Ending state waivers will only harm vulnerable people. How the House chooses to address our nation's hunger and nutrition programs will have profound human and moral consequences. This is a crucial time for our nation to place a circle of protection around programs that build a more just framework and put poor and hungry people first. I respectfully urge you to reject efforts to reduce or restructure SNAP, and to pursue instead the common good in agriculture and food policy that works from a genuine preferential option for the poor. Sincerely, Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire, Bishop of Stockton, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends don't like the President. We hear it every day. I get it. While you debate his policies, don't take it out on poor people. The CBO says 3.8 million people will be thrown off this benefit, and 170,000 veterans will lose their benefits. This bill is not a thoughtful bill--it is a thoughtless bill--because it hasn't even gone through committee. This is more a political statement than it is sound policy or even bad policy. It's just plain politics. It's red meat for, I guess, the extreme right-wing base. I'm hoping there are people on your side who will see through this and who will stand with us and do the right thing, because it has been a bipartisan tradition in this Congress to support efforts to prevent hunger. At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to remind the gentleman who just spoke that there are 36,000 households in his district in Georgia who rely on SNAP. I think they're counting on him to vote a different way. At this point, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Oregon that there are one in five Oregonians who are on food stamps as we gather here today. In his district, there are nearly 60,000. You talked about trees, but there are a lot of people that will be adversely affected.

Mr. McGOVERN. I have no remaining time to yield to the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to my Republican colleagues that maybe they ought to deal with sequester, maybe they ought to stop threatening to shut the government down, and maybe they ought to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor to put people back to work, and, in the meantime, they ought not to throw poor people off food assistance. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues that this is a sad day because the whole effort to end hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. I would say to my Republican colleagues, remember Bob Dole and Bill Emerson. Your party has a great tradition, a proud tradition of being part of the effort to end hunger, working with Democrats. Don't blow that up today. What you are doing here is wrong; and I'm urging my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please don't do this. Please don't do this. Please do not do this. This is wrong. This is about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. And I have to just say to all my colleagues here, we should be having a bigger discussion about how to end hunger; and, instead, what we're doing here today is moving in a direction where we are going to make hunger worse in this country. You're going to throw 170,000 veterans who are unemployed off this program; 3.8 million people will be thrown off this program. Surely that is not what you want, but that is what your bill does. That is what the bill that never went through the Agriculture Committee, that was forced upon this House by the majority leader, brought onto the floor under a closed rule does. Please rethink this. I know that you are better than this.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, week after week, I've stood on this floor and talked about hunger in America. Week after week, I've talked about the devastating impacts of hunger in our country--how it affects kids and seniors and how our country is worse off because of hunger. I've talked about ways we can end hunger, and have expressed my commitment to the effort to end hunger now. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican leadership not only willfully ignores the plight of the hungry in America, but they are actually moving legislation that will make hunger in America worse. Just a few weeks ago, USDA released the newest data on hunger in America. Hunger rates have essentially stayed flat over the past few years. That means that, statistically, hunger hasn't gotten worse since the end of the Great Recession, but it hasn't gotten any better either. The United States has a strong anti-hunger safety net. Even though we have 49 million people who don't know where their next meals will come from, we know that nearly 48 million of them are enrolled in SNAP, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' SNAP is a lifeline. It provides low- income families with access to food, access they wouldn't otherwise have if they were not enrolled in SNAP. Now let me address a common piece of misinformation, a fabrication, that opponents of SNAP continue to use again and again. SNAP is among the most effective and efficient, if not the most effective and efficient, Federal program in America. SNAP error rates-- overpayments, underpayments and fraud rates--are not only at all-time lows for the program, but they are among the lowest rates of any Federal program. This notion that fraud, waste and abuse are rampant in SNAP is a fallacy. It's a make-believe talking point designed to take away food from hungry people. Yet the Republicans are bringing a bill to the floor tomorrow that, if passed, will undoubtedly make hunger worse in this country. Their bill will make hunger worse for working mothers and fathers, for kids, for senior citizens, and even for our veterans. CBO reports that the bill would cut 3.8 million low-income people from SNAP in 2014--and just so there is no misunderstanding, ``low- income'' means ``poor.'' On top of that, an average of nearly 3 million people will be cut from SNAP each and every year over the coming decade. These are some of the Nation's most destitute adults as well as many low-income children, seniors and families that work for low wages. That's right. People who work but who don't make enough to feed their families will be cut from this program. The biggest cut affects at least 1.7 million unemployed, childless adults in 2014 who live in areas of high unemployment. These are poor people. Many don't have the skills or education they need to find a job. This is a group whose average income is about $2,500 a year for a single individual--$2,500 a year--and for most, SNAP is the only government assistance they receive. This bill also cuts an additional 2.1 million people from SNAP in 2014, mostly low-income working families and low-income seniors. These are people who have gross incomes or assets modestly above the Federal SNAP limits but whose disposable incomes--the income that a family actually has available to spend on food and other needs--are below the poverty line, in most cases often because of high rent or child care costs. If that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in those families would also lose their free school meals, and 170,000 unemployed veterans will lose their SNAP benefits. To top it all off, other poor, unemployed parents who want to work but who cannot find a job or an opening in a training program, along with their children other than infants, will be cut from the program. Mr. Speaker, I remember when combating hunger was a bipartisan issue--when Bob Dole worked with George McGovern and when Bill Emerson worked with Tony Hall. It didn't matter whether you were a liberal or a conservative--ending hunger was a priority. The current Republican leadership has blown all that up. We should not do this. There are no hearings on this bill, no markup, no semblance of regular order. And for what--to stick it to the working poor yet again? We should be doing everything we can to end hunger now. The Republican bill just makes hunger worse, and it should be soundly defeated. Mr. Speaker, I urge and I plead with both Democrats and Republicans to stand together, to come together in a bipartisan way, and to demand to end hunger now. Please, please, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, reject this Republican leadership bill that is coming to the floor tomorrow. It is cruel. It is immoral. We are much better than this. Reject the leadership bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, last week, the United States Department of Agriculture released its annual report on food security in the United States. The report documents the levels of food security and insecurity in this country. In this report, the USDA measured the amount of food available or unavailable to households and individuals. In other words, Madam Speaker, the USDA measured the amount of hunger in the United States. It measured the ability of Americans to put food on their tables. The good news is that hunger isn't getting worse. The bad news is that there are still 49 million people living in our great country who are food insecure; 49 million people who don't know where their next meal will come from; 49 million people who are forced to choose between basic needs like rent, utilities, and food; 49 million people who don't have the resources necessary to make ends meet; 49 million people who are hungry. That's one out of every six people living in this country who is food insecure--a figure that hasn't changed since 2008. While it's a good thing that food insecurity isn't getting worse, that's simply not good enough. We must do more to ensure that healthy and nutritious food is available to everyone in America. We must ensure that 49 million people are not left behind when it comes to buying food. The fact remains that millions of Americans are still struggling to make ends meet. Millions of Americans continue to feel the effects of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. As a result of the staggering loss of jobs and reduced wages that came from the recession, millions of Americans were forced to turn to the Federal Government's preeminent anti-hunger program, SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, in order to put food on their tables. SNAP participation rates skyrocketed precisely because of the recession. SNAP is a safety net. It's designed to increase in participation in times of need. That means the cost of the program goes up as more people need help buying food while they're either unemployed or struggling with lower wages. That's precisely what happened during the recession. And that's why there are so many people relying on SNAP today. These food insecurity numbers confirm that hunger is a problem in America; that there are millions of people--49 million--who don't know where their next meals are coming from and need helping buying food for themselves and their families. This is a sobering report, Madam Speaker, and one that would normally result in congressional hearings on the problem and possible ways to reduce hunger in America. But we're not living in normal times. That's because, Madam Speaker, even with the release of this report showing that rates of food insecurity are unchanged since the end of the Bush administration, this Republican-controlled House is preparing to consider a bill that would cut at least $40 billion from the SNAP program. That's right. The response to this report is to make hunger in America even worse than it is today. I want to remind my colleagues there is not one single town, city, county, or congressional district in America that is hunger free. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Republicans want to cut this program that provides food to millions of Americans. I cannot understand why the Republican leadership wants to balance the budget on the backs of the working poor. SNAP is not only successful; it's efficient and effective. The error rate for SNAP is among the lowest, if not the lowest, error rates of any Federal program. That's right. Fraud, waste, and abuse in SNAP is at an all-time low, which means that SNAP dollars are going exactly where they should be going--to food-hungry Americans. On top of that, SNAP kept 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011, including 2.1 million children. That means that cutting SNAP will also result in increased poverty in America. The irony is there are some Members of this House who are collecting millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies while at the same time they vote to take away food from hungry Americans. Madam Speaker, hunger in America is real. It must be addressed. That's why I've called for a White House conference on food nutrition, a conference where we can explore hunger and nutrition and develop a plan to end this scourge once and for all. We will not end hunger by cutting the most efficient and effective anti-hunger program in the country. We will not end hunger through arbitrary, harmful, and spiteful budget cuts. We can end hunger now if we decide to take that step. The USDA food security report provides evidence that we're not doing enough to end hunger now. The upcoming vote to cut the anti-hunger safety net shows how truly harmful the Republican leadership is when it comes to the working poor in America. We can do more. We can do better. We can--and we must--end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Arky Markham of Northampton, Massachusetts. Ms. Markham has dedicated her entire life and professional career to a simple pursuit: helping those in need, and giving a voice to the voiceless. As a social worker, she has spent a career protecting and promoting the human rights of vulnerable populations, including war veterans, and those without healthcare. As a political activist, she has stood up time and again for the causes that matter to her, demonstrating against nuclear weapons, and leading her community for peace, and against wars. Ms. Markham has routinely volunteered and founded groups on behalf of social justice causes, including the American Friends Service Committee, where she was a co-organizer and chief fundraiser for the first Martin Luther King celebration in Northampton; Social Workers for Peace and Justice; The Middle East Peace Coalition; the Franklin/ Hampshire Health Care Coalition which later helped to form Mass-Care, a state-wide organization that continues to advocate for single-payer health care; the Northampton Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Alliance for Peace and Justice. As Ms. Markham's community, friends, and colleagues gather this month to celebrate her 98th birthday and her life's work of `doing good,' I ask that the House of Representatives join me in honoring a true champion of human rights.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reportedly the Republican leadership has drafted a bill that doubles the level of cuts to food stamps over what was included in the farm bill that failed to pass this House in June. That's right: it doubles the cuts. More than 50 million people are hungry in America, 17 million are kids, and the Republicans think cutting $40 billion from the most important program that prevents mass hunger in America is somehow a good thing? Give me a break. They have already tried to cut $20 billion from food stamps. They failed. Any rational person would say they went too far, we need to compromise. Instead, the Republican leadership decided to double down on the crazy. If House Republicans insist on moving forward with this awful proposal, I will fight it with every ounce of energy I can muster. We should not, we must not, we cannot allow this mean-spirited, cold- hearted proposal to pass.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Taft Early Learning School in Uxbridge, Massachusetts, for being named as a Bronze Award Winner in the USDA Healthier School Challenge. This initiative recognizes those schools enrolled in Team Nutrition that have created healthier school environments through promotion of nutrition and physical activity, a program that is now part of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign. To achieve this challenge, Taft applied for and received a salad bar grant, which enabled them to offer lots of fresh fruit and vegetable choices every day as part of lunch. They incorporated more whole grains and beans into the menu. They hired an experienced cook to make this happen and added extra physical activity every day, which required the creativity and cooperation of the classroom teachers. I want to congratulate Principal Judi Lamarre, Food Service Director Janice Watt, the teachers, administrative staff, students, and parents for their hard work in improving the food, nutrition, and exercise programs at Taft Early Learning School. This is a big deal, and I'm proud of this important accomplishment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, what is particularly frustrating about what we are doing here today is that this is a colossal waste of time. We are taking up five bills that are going nowhere in the Senate. The President has already issued veto threats on all of them. These are just press releases that the Republican National Committee has decided would be good things for Republican Members to release in their districts. None of this stuff is meaningful. It's going nowhere. We are also repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 40th time. When the gentleman says that the Affordable Care Act is not popular, I will remind him that we had a referendum on the Affordable Care Act--it was called a Presidential election. The last time I checked, Mitt Romney was not in the White House. I think he's out on his yacht somewhere, but he's certainly not in the White House. So we are doing this meaningless stuff, and we have 9 legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year, before we approach a government shutdown, and we have people on the other side of the aisle--people running for President on the other side of the aisle-- publicly bragging about how they want to shut the government down. Now, I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think he is a reasonable, rational, good Member of this Congress. I wish there were more like him on his side of the aisle, but there aren't. In fact, the Republican Party is being ruled by the fringe right-wing elements of that party--those who are pushing for a shutdown, those who are saying compromise on nothing, those who helped defeat the farm bill, those who, quite frankly, are insisting on budget numbers that are so unbelievably low for things like our infrastructure that they had to pull the Transportation-HUD bill from the floor yesterday. We ought to be fixing sequester. Chris Van Hollen, on our side of the aisle, has an alternative to sequester. We ought to vote on it. My Republican friends haven't allowed a vote on an alternative to sequester all year--nothing. We ought to go to conference on the budget so that we can actually get a budget so that we can have reasonable numbers on our appropriations bills that we can pass and be proud that we're doing something to put people back to work. We are doing nothing in this House. We ought not go on recess until we do the people's business.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel and incredible respect for my Democratic leaders and the Republican leaders who have spoken in favor of this bill. But I must rise in opposition to H.R. 850. This Sunday on August 4, Iran will inaugurate a new President, Hassan Rouhani. It is a moment that allows President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel, and the international community an opportunity to reengage with Iran on key issues of concern, most importantly the development of Iran's capacity to develop and launch a nuclear weapon. This may be a very small window of opportunity for a fresh start on dialogue and action on the future of a nuclear Iran. It may be short- lived, depending on how Iran's new President views this moment. But it is a time when I, for one, want to support the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon's ability to move forward our relationship and dialogue with Iran on this most serious matter. It is not the moment for Congress to increase and expand the level of U.S. sanctions against Iran. We have plenty of sanctions right now against Iran. If for some reason we need to increase even further the pressure against Iran and its new President, then we have the time to do so. It does not need to be done before the new Iranian President even takes office. We have time to weigh his sincerity and, more importantly, his actions to improve Iran's relations with the international community in the weeks and months to come. If he does not, if Iran remains intransigent and determined to develop a nuclear weapon, then the current onerous regimen of sanctions can be increased. But now is not the time to undermine U.S. diplomacy before it even has a chance to take shape. Like all my House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I'm skeptical that President-elect Rouhani will change the course of Iran's nuclear development, but I am willing to give him a chance. I'm willing to give Secretary Kerry a chance. If nothing changes, then we can revisit this bill or others at a later date. But not now. I urge all of my colleagues to join me and vote against the untimely consideration of this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the 20th time this Congress, I stand here to talk about how we can end hunger now. Hunger is a political condition. We have the food; we have the means; and we have the systems to end hunger now. We know how to do it. We just don't have the political will to make it happen, but that wasn't always the case. In the late 1960s, America began seriously to confront its poverty problem. President Johnson fought the war on poverty, and his programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and title I education programs--just to name a few--started to combat the poverty and inequality that were rampant across many parts of this country. President Nixon followed in his footsteps by hosting the first and only White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, a conference that focused on hunger in America. The result of that conference was a precipitous drop in the number of hungry people in America. Contrary to Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's belief, the antipoverty programs from the Johnson administration and the antihunger programs created by the Nixon administration worked. In fact, hunger and poverty would be much worse today if it weren't for these programs. The truth is we almost eradicated hunger in America thanks to a strengthened food stamp program and the creation of the WIC program in the 1970s, but those gains were erased and hunger increased because of the policies of Ronald Reagan. Since then, we've seen food stamp usage increase during every single administration. We can and we must do better. One of the highlights of the effort that nearly ended hunger in America in the 1970s was the WIC program, formally titled the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. WIC is an innovative program that provides nutritious food and food counseling for pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and children under the age of 5. Why is this program so critical? Madam Speaker, prenatal enrollment in WIC is associated with lower infant mortality, in fewer premature births, and in a lower likelihood that infants will have very low or low birth weights; and because an infant's medical costs increase tenfold if he is of low birth weight, every dollar invested in WIC yields between $1.90 and up to $4.20 in Medicaid savings. This is literally about improving the physical well- being of developing children. This program affects these participants for the entirety of their lives. It's just that important, and it's critical that we get it right. But, unlike SNAP, WIC is a discretionary program. This means that it is subject to the appropriations process; and in this time of budgetary austerity, WIC was included in the across-the-board cuts to defense and non-defense discretionary programs under the sequester. SNAP was excluded because it's an entitlement like Social Security and Medicare, but WIC was included in the sequester because it is not an entitlement. As if the cuts in sequester were not bad enough, the House Agriculture appropriations bill now cuts the program even further by more than $500 million. The 7.3 percent cut to WIC in this bill could result in over 200,000 pregnant mothers and infants losing nutritious food. Even factoring in the reserve fund, 55,000 moms and kids will go without the nutrition that they need. It is sad that the Republican- controlled House of Representatives is cutting vital health and development programs for pregnant and nursing mothers and their very young children while at the same time they've found billions of dollars to send overseas in a wasteful war in Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, during my series of End Hunger Now speeches, there has been one unifying theme that, I believe, puts us on the path to end hunger now. That theme is Presidential leadership. We need Presidential leadership to end hunger now. The last White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health nearly ended hunger in America. I know that we can do even better if President Obama would convene such a conference. With a White House conference on food and nutrition, we could focus on ways to reduce hunger and obesity in smart, not arbitrary ways. We could figure out how to treat hunger and obesity as health issues while we work on ways to properly attack these scourges. Madam Speaker, we desperately need Presidential leadership. We need a comprehensive plan. We need the political will. We need a White House conference on food and nutrition. I urge the President to act now.