Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Am I understanding the gentleman's objection correctly that what he is doing is not even giving Members on our side the courtesy of stating their statement in the Record?

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm trying to understand what the objection means of the gentleman from Texas. Does that mean that the statement that the gentleman from Massachusetts just made will not appear in the Record?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I think it is extremely unfortunate that Members on the other side of the aisle would deny Members on this side of the aisle the ability to insert written materials in the Record. In all my years here, I have never seen such a discourteous gesture. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to insert in the Record the letter from Taxpayers for Common Sense against this bill. I'd like to also insert in the Record a letter from over 500 farm groups and conservation groups that oppose this bill. I also want to point out to my colleagues, the CBO estimates that this bill, as written, will add $1.3 billion to the deficit in 2014. House Leadership Proposes Outspending Senate in Farm Bill Fresh on the heels of losing a Farm Bill vote on the Floor because the rushed bill did not cut spending enough, House leadership is floating another plan to keep the checks flowing to agriculture special interests: strip out nutrition programs and pass an Ag-only Farm Bill that spends more than one passed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. In fact it would spend drastically more than either the comparable portions of the President's FY14 budget request or Rep Paul Ryan's FY14 budget (which called for $38 billion and $31 billion in savings, respectively). That's right, the Republican House majority leadership is pushing a bill that would save less than they promised, President Obama proposed, or the Senate adopted. The Ag-only Farm Bill shows just how resistant House lawmakers are to reining in our nation's deficits. House Ag-only Farm Bill Savings: $12.8 billion. Senate Ag-only Farm Bill Savings: $13.9 billion. Splitting nutrition and agriculture programs into separate bills is a good idea, but only because it would break the Ag- Urban unholy alliance that logrolled over attempts to reform both programs. To deny amendments and reforms would make bifurcation virtually meaningless. Each bill must be open to robust debate to ensure taxpayers are footing the bill for only the most cost-effective, accountable, transparent, and responsive safety net for farmers and the hungry poor. An Ag-only Farm Bill the likes of H.R. 1947 is the opposite of reform. It would: Cannibalize savings to create new generous shallow loss entitlement programs. Resurrect goverment-set target prices that are higher than in the Senate bill. Exclude all common sense steps toward right-sizing the federally subsidized crop insurance program--which was estimated to cost taxpayers a record $14 billion in FY12. No means testing to exclude millionaire businessmen, no limit on subsidies, zero cuts to insurance company delivery subsidies, and no transparency on who is benefiting from taxpayer spending. Increase spending on subsidized crop insurance by $9 billion. But that's not all, the House bill would: Increase FY14 spending by $1.34 billion above the current baseline. Only save $3.9 billion over the life of the actual bill (FY14-18) with the rest ($9 billion) occurring after this farm bill expires in FY18. If Congress simply eliminated direct payments and the failed Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program (which nearly everyone agrees needs to happen), taxpayers would save nearly $50 billion. Adding in a few common sense reforms to the highly subsidized crop insurance program (instead of shoveling $9 billion in new special interest subsidies) would easily save taxpayers $100 billion or more. Splitting the bill should be used to get better reforms out of both nutrition programs and the rest of the farm bill instead of just using it as a tactic to get to a conference committee to protect agriculture and nutrition's sacred cows. Simply divorcing the two with no opportunity for additional reforms isn't acceptable when our nation faces a $16.8 trillion debt. Instead of eventually sticking taxpayers with a trillion dollar farm bill that barely puts a dent in the deficit, lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a fiscally responsible solution that enacts a more cost-effective, accountable, transparent, and responsive farm safety net.

Mr. McGOVERN. At this point I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, nearly every week that this House has been in session this year, I've come to the floor to talk about the need to end hunger now. Fourteen speeches later, I still hear from some of my colleagues who doubt that hunger is a problem in the 21st century here in this country, the richest, most prosperous Nation in the world. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that anyone who doubts that we have a hunger problem in America has a chance to read the article by Eli Saslow in Sunday's Washington Post, titled, ``Driving Away Hunger,'' subtitled, ``In Rural Tennessee, a New Way to Help Hungry Children, A Bus Turned Bread Truck.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a heartwrenching story of hunger, where children of all ages have trouble getting enough food in the summer months in rural Tennessee. It breaks your heart. The article may focus on a small area in rural Tennessee, but it really tells the story about the 50 million hungry Americans in this country, and more specifically, the 17 million kids who are hungry in this country. And the blame shouldn't be cast on these poor Americans who are doing their best to make ends meet. Consider the Laghren family portrayed in this article. Jennifer, a mother of five, works full-time as a cook at a nursing home. Yet her kids don't have enough to eat because Jennifer only makes $8 an hour. SNAP helps during the school year when kids get to eat two meals a day at school. Combined, these five kids, ranging from 14 years old to 9 months old, ate a total of 40 free meals and snacks at school every week, but there's very little help during the summer months when school is out of session. While the $593 food stamp allotment lasted throughout the month during the school year, Jennifer only had $73 in food stamps left, with 17 days to go in the month that she was interviewed for this article in The Washington Post. And if that weren't enough to convince people about this ugly side of hunger, consider this heartbreaking paragraph from the article. Desperation had become their permanent state, defining each of their lives in different ways. For Courtney, it meant that she had stayed rail thin, with hand-me-down jeans that fell low on her hips. For Taylor, 14, it meant stockpiling calories whenever food was available, ingesting enough processed sugar and salt to bring on a doctor's lecture about obesity and the early onset of diabetes, the most common risks of a food stamp diet. For Anthony, 9, it meant moving out of the trailer and usually living at his grandparents' farm. For Hannah, 7, it meant her report card had been sent home with a handwritten note of the teacher's concerns, one of which read, ``Easily distracted by other people eating.'' For Sarah, the 9-month-old baby, it meant sometimes being fed Mountain Dew out of the can after she finished her formula, a dose of caffeine that kept her up at night. Mr. Speaker, this is all taking place in rural Tennessee. That's right, Mr. Speaker. Hunger doesn't just exist in urban areas. According to USDA statistics, rural areas are poorer than urban areas. And according to the latest USDA data, households in rural areas were more likely to be food insecure. While 14.9 percent of all households were food insecure in 2011, 15.4 percent of households in rural areas were food insecure. And let's look at the SNAP statistics. While 16 percent of all Americans live in nonmetropolitan areas, 21 percent of SNAP beneficiaries live there. Ten percent of the rural population relies on SNAP, compared to 7 percent of the urban population. Children under 18 make up 25 percent of the rural population, but they are 40 percent of the rural population using SNAP. These statistics show empirically that hunger is a problem in rural America. Sunday's article paints a terrible and disturbing picture about hunger in rural America. And together, they show why we must commit ourselves to end hunger now. That's why it is so disturbing to me that so many of my Republican friends seem hell-bent on cutting huge amounts from the SNAP program, literally throwing millions of Americans off the program. It shows a stunning ignorance of current reality, and it shows a callousness that, quite frankly, is beneath this institution. During the recent debate on the farm bill, I had heard a number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle demean the poor in this country and diminish their struggle. I heard rhetoric from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle characterizing these Americans who are struggling in poverty in inappropriate and demeaning ways. It was offensive, some of the rhetoric that was spouted here on this floor. I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to reject any assault on the SNAP program. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to end hunger now, but we must take it. We need some leadership. We need leadership in this House, but we also need leadership from the White House in order to get this done. We need the White House to host a conference on food and nutrition. We need the President to bring the best and brightest minds from any and every corner of this Nation together, lock them in a room, and direct them to come up with a plan. It is not hard. We need the political will to end hunger now. This issue needs to be more of a priority.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to address the House on the need to end hunger now. This is the 14th time that I've done so this year. Next week, the Members of this House will return home to their districts for the 4th of July district work period. There will be parades and fireworks and picnics for all of us, but for too many of our neighbors there will be no such festivities. They will be too busy working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They will be worrying about their children, who, during these summer months, are too often forced to go without enough nutritious food to eat because school is out of session, because in our country, Mr. Speaker, in the richest, most powerful Nation in the history of the world, the reality is that 50 million of our fellow Americans struggle with hunger. I am also sure that, during the 4th of July activities, many Members will be getting quite an earful from the farmers in their districts. Those farmers are now facing confusion and uncertainty as they prepare for yet another season without a long-term reauthorization of the farm bill. They will wonder why this House of Representatives can't seem to get its act together. I hope that my colleagues will tell them the truth, which is that the reason the farm bill failed in the House last week is that it would have thrown 2 million people off the SNAP program. It would have caused over 200,000 children to lose access to the free school breakfast and lunch program. It would have made hunger worse in America. It would have forced struggling Americans to jump through all sorts of hoops, like drug testing, while not requiring the same of wealthy farmers who receive Federal subsidies. It would have not only allowed but actually encouraged States to find ways to kick people off the SNAP program. In short, it would have continued the Republican majority's assault on hardworking, struggling poor people; and for many of us on our side of the aisle, that price was simply too high. As columnist E.J. Dionne wrote after the defeat of the bill: This is, above all, a story about morality. There is something profoundly wrong when a legislative majority is so eager to risk leaving so many Americans hungry. That's what the bill would have done and why defeating it was a moral imperative. Mr. Speaker, I want a farm bill. Our farmers deserve a farm bill. I am honored to represent hundreds of small farmers, and I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I know that Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson worked incredibly hard to thread a very small needle. If the Republican leadership really wants a farm bill, it should do away with these draconian SNAP cuts and bring a bill to the floor that acknowledges the struggles faced by millions of our neighbors. My fear, however, is they will do just the opposite, that they will go even further, make even deeper cuts to food and nutrition programs, make even more Americans hungry in a vain attempt to convince some of their more right-wing members to support this bill. Indeed, we see that dynamic at work with the agriculture appropriations bill before us this week, a bill that makes drastic cuts to the Women, Infants and Children program. I would like to once again urge the White House to take an active leadership role on this. Last week, the administration issued a veto threat against the farm bill because of the devastating SNAP cuts that it contained, and I welcomed that threat. It was a positive sign. It was a positive sign that the White House understands that throwing 2 million people off of SNAP would be devastating not just to those individuals, but to our economy, as well. But the administration, quite frankly, needs to do more. They need to convene a White House conference on food and nutrition so that we can get everyone in a room, including our farmers, to address the issue of hunger in America. Let's solve this problem. This is a solvable problem, but it needs attention and we need to have a plan. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reflect over the next week about where we should go from here. Do we want to live up to the bipartisan tradition of giants like Bob Dole and George McGovern, who came together and helped create this anti-hunger safety net that we have in this country? Their leadership almost ended hunger in this country in the 1970s. Unfortunately, we have strayed so far away from what they've done that we now find ourselves with 50 million hungry people. Do we want to unite to provide a circle of protection around our most vulnerable neighbors? I hope so, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this House of Representatives understands that one of our obligations is to make sure that the needy and the poor and the most vulnerable are not forgotten, that we don't sit back and allow them to fall through the cracks. We can do this. We can end hunger now. All we need is the political will.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week, the FARRM Bill failed. It failed in large part because of Republicans' nasty attacks on America's nutrition and anti-hunger programs. Notwithstanding the experience of last week, in this rule the House is considering debating the agriculture appropriations bill, a bill that not only underfunds the WIC program, but actually makes it more difficult for low-income women to receive breastfeeding counseling. Mr. Speaker, it's as if the Republican leadership hasn't learned from its mistakes. WIC is a critical program that provides food and nutrition counseling for low-income, pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as for newborns and infants. It is an important and successful program. It is a key program that helps pregnant and breastfeeding women stay healthy through proper nutrition and actually helps prevent many health issues associated with poor nutrition. Despite the program's 39-year successful track record, the Republicans decided to include WIC in their sequester plan. Unlike SNAP--which, thankfully, was excluded from the sequester and every single major deficit reduction plan--the WIC program was subjected to the sequester. And the FY 2014 agriculture appropriations bill includes a major cut to the WIC program. The cuts to WIC in this bill could result in over 200,000 pregnant mothers and infants losing access to nutritious food. And tapping into the reserve fund isn't going to cover everyone; 55,000 moms and kids will go without the nutrition that they need. And WIC is so severely underfunded that the breastfeeding counseling program--a cornerstone of this program--is zeroed out. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this House of Representatives would promote such anti-women, anti-mother, anti-child legislation. After all, this is the same House that allowed an all-male Republican majority in the Judiciary Committee to write and promote legislation that attacked a woman's right to choose. And by the way, President Obama is threatening a veto of the agriculture appropriations bill in large part because of these draconian cuts. I would say to my Republican friends: stop your assault against poor people in this country. Now, this agriculture appropriations bill would be bad enough on its own. It would be better if the Appropriations Committee would redraft the bill at pre-sequester funding levels so we're not forced to choose between programs like food safety and WIC, for example. But what is particularly egregious about this rule that we're considering is what is not included. What's not included is a fix to the upcoming doubling of the student loan interest rates. Congress is going to leave for the 4th of July recess on Friday; yet interest rates are scheduled to double if Congress doesn't act before July 1. We need an immediate fix to this problem; but instead of working to prevent penalizing millions of students who are looking for help paying for college, the Republican leadership is forcing the House to debate tired, retread bills like offshore drilling expansion that have no chance of becoming law. Instead of pushing legislation that helps banks and lenders make even more money, we ought to help the middle class, we ought to help our students.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I will insert in the Record a letter that was sent to Members of Congress by dozens and dozens of organizations ranging from the AFL- CIO; The Alliance to End Hunger; Bread for the World; Feeding America; Food Research and Action Center (FRAC); Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger; MomsRising; and Share Our Strength. I can go on and on. Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate we are having and will have on this farm bill. It is about our values. The question is, is it acceptable to try to balance the budget or pay for other programs to benefit wealthy special interests by cutting a program that benefits the poorest of the poor in this country, a program called SNAP. The people on SNAP, I want to remind my colleagues, are good, decent, honest people. They are our neighbors. They are people who have fallen on hard times. They are people who are working, working full time and still not earning enough to be able to not qualify for public assistance. Those are the people we're talking about. Those are the people who would be adversely impacted with a $20.5 billion cut. I would also say to my colleagues who say that we can't afford to support our social safety net, can't afford to support anti-hunger programs, I want them to know that hunger costs America a great deal. The Center For American Progress did a study that said it cost us $168.5 billion a year in avoidable health care costs, disability, lost wages, reduced learning capacity. Hungry children who go to school don't learn. That's why it's particularly cruel that over 200,000 kids will lose their access to free lunch and breakfast at school. Those kids will go to school hungry. You don't learn if you're hungry. We all talk about preparing the new generation and making sure our kids have all the opportunities. But food is as essential to learning as that textbook is. And here we are, we're going to embrace a bill that cuts 200,000 kids off the school breakfast and lunch program. Cutting SNAP will make hunger worse, and it will have long-term consequences. Let me just finally say that we're going to have an amendment coming up shortly after we vote on the rule that I have sponsored along with dozens and dozens of other Members here in the House of Representatives to restore the cuts in SNAP. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think long and hard before you vote. We don't have to do this. The price of a farm bill should not be making more people hungry in America, but yet that's the price that's being exacted through this bill. We are a better country than this. Let's not go down this road. This used to be a bipartisan effort. Bob Dole and Bill Emerson championed some of the anti-hunger programs that have kept people fed, that have invested in people who are now very successful. Don't turn your backs on that tradition. And to my Democratic colleagues, I remind you that if we do not stand with people who are hungry, with people who are poor and vulnerable, then what the hell do we stand for? You know, this is about our values. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because a lot of amendments that should have been made in order were not. I appreciate the courtesies that my colleague, Mr. Sessions, afforded to us in the Rules Committee. I know he tried very hard to include as many amendments as possible. I appreciate that very much. I appreciate my amendment being made in order, but I think we could have done a little bit better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. And please vote ``yes'' on the McGovern amendment. If that should fail, do not send a farm bill forward that will throw 2 million people off the rolls of SNAP and 200,000 kids off of free breakfast and lunch programs. We can do much better than that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. June 19, 2013. We, the undersigned, support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion/10 years cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently in H.R. 1947. As it stands, we oppose H.R. 1947 because it would increase hunger among millions of Americans--people with disabilities, children, seniors and struggling parents--those who work, as well as those who are unemployed or underemployed. At a time when more than one in six Americans struggle to put food on the table, the cuts to SNAP proposed in the House farm bill are unconscionable and harmful. Specifically, the House bill would result in at least 1.8 million people losing SNAP benefits entirely, and another 1.7 million people seeing their benefits reduced by about $90 per month. Our nation can ill afford to see SNAP weakened in the farm bill. Benefits are modest, averaging less than $1.50 per person per meal and are already scheduled to drop on November 1, 2013, with termination of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefit boost. This reduction, which will impact every SNAP beneficiary, will average about $25 per month for a family of three. We support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion cut to SNAP and urge Members of Congress to vote YES when it comes up for a vote. Advocates for Better Children's Diets (ABCD), AFL-CIO, Alliance for a Just Society, Alliance to End Hunger, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Commodity Distribution Association (ACDA), American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, American Public Health Association, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies, B. Sackin & Associates, Bread for the World, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Center for Women Policy Studies, Children's Defense Fund, Children's HealthWatch, Coalition on Human Needs (CHN), Community Action Partnership (CAP), Congressional Hunger Center (CHC), E S Foods, Environmental Working Group (EWG), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Families USA, Family Economic Initiative, Feeding America, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center (F-RAC), Friends Committee on National Legislation, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Legal Momentum, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, MomsRising, National Association of County Human Services Administrators, National Black Child Development Institute, National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), National Council on Aging, National CSFP Association, National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project (NELP), National Health Care for the Homeless Council, National Immigration Law Center (NILC). National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National WIC Association, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, PolicyLink, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition (REHCD), RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, School Food FOCUS National Office, School Nutrition Association (SNA), Share Our Strength, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Institute Justice Team, Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior (SNEB), SparkAction, The Food Trust, Union for Reform Judaism, United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), Voices for America's Children, Voices for Progress, WhyHunger, Wider Opportunities for Women.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a list of cosponsors to McGovern amendment No. 1. Cosponsors DeLauro, Negrete McLeod, Jackson Lee, Moore, Connolly, Grijalva, Schakowsky, Delaney, Wilson, Grayson, Meeks, Chu, Lee, Conyers, Wasserman Schultz, Deutch, Esty, Capuano, Tsongas, Fudge, Cardenas. Langevin, Doggett, Ellison, Welch, DelBene, Cicilline, Doyle, Bonamici, Gallego, Blumenauer, Holt, Kennedy, Horsford, DeGette, Courtney, Pallone, Serrano, Tonko, Kilmer, Pingree, Hastings. Edwards, DeFazio, Cohen, Sires, McDermott, Brown (FL), Clarke, Tierney, Veasey, Gene Green, Johnson (GA), Norton, Frankel, Titus, Pocan, Sarbanes, Danny Davis (IL), Roybal- Allard, Brady (PA), Lowenthal, Ben Ray Lujan. Crowley, Matsui, Beatty, Meng, Waters, Honda, Al Green, Himes, Bera, Huffman, Engel, Kuster, O'Rourke, Jeffries, Rush, Loebsack, Castor, Smith (WA), Markey, Payne Jr.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan). (Mr. NOLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison). (Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. This is a debate about values and priorities. This amendment would restore the $20.5 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' It would restore those cuts by eliminating or reducing some of the wasteful, excessive subsidies to the highly profitable big agribusiness. Not only that, the amendment would actually reduce the deficit by $12 billion beyond the base bill. At a time when millions of Americans are struggling with unemployment, with poverty and with hunger, the FARRM Bill before us today would cause 2 million of our neighbors to lose their SNAP benefits. It would kick 210,000 kids off of the free school breakfast and lunch program. That's a rotten thing to do. Mr. Lucas and others will argue that these SNAP cuts will only force poor people to fill out a few more forms, to jump through a few more hoops to get the assistance that they need to qualify for. Let's think about that for a minute. Aren't we a country that reaches out to those in need? When Americans see their neighbors having a hard time, don't we show up to help without being asked? Our churches and our food banks are doing extraordinary work, but they are already stretched to the limits. Values and priorities. Critics of the SNAP program talk about waste, fraud and abuse, but SNAP is one of the most efficiently run government programs we have, and some of the errors in SNAP are as a result of people getting less help than they qualify for. The base bill would cut $2 billion per year from a program that helps struggling families put food on the table--$2 billion. I would remind my colleagues that we spend more than $2 billion every single week propping up a corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan. Some people who have no problem with nation-building in Afghanistan, turn their backs on nation building here at home. Values and priorities. Fifty million Americans struggle with hunger; 17 million of those are our children. Hunger costs our Nation dearly. There is over $100 billion a year in avoidable health care costs, lost productivity, and hungry kids who can't learn in school. SNAP is one tool to address hunger in America. Like every other human endeavor, it is not perfect. It can be improved. But it would be shortsighted and cruel to make hunger worse in America, which is exactly what this bill would do. If we want to reduce spending on SNAP, the best way to do that is to strengthen our economy, to invest in putting people back to work. Values and priorities. Mr. Chair, let us stay true to our values of compassion and decency and justice. Let us give priority to those among us who are struggling in these hard times, to the least of these. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me again remind my colleagues that the reason why we've seen an uptick in the number of people registered for SNAP is because we are coming out of this recession, the worst economy we've had since the Great Depression. The gentleman from Iowa says it's a carefully negotiated, carefully studied compromise. We didn't have a single hearing on it, not in his subcommittee and not in the full committee. And the people we're talking about here are people who are good, honorable, decent Americans who are going to lose their benefit. The Congressional Budget Office says 2 million people will lose their benefits. These aren't targeted at people who somehow abuse the system. These are just 2 million people who lose their benefits, 200,000 kids off the free breakfast and lunch. That's wrong. I reserve the balance of my time.