Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Schrader.

Mr. McGOVERN. I insert in the Record CBO's statement that shows the number of people on SNAP going from 47 million to 34 million over the next 10 years.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) who has been a champion on this issue, and I'm proud that she's here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, because of prior cuts in the program already, even if we do nothing in terms of this farm bill, in terms of reducing SNAP, a family of three, on average, would lose about $30 a month in SNAP benefits. That's if we do nothing. They're already going to receive a reduction come November. Then, on top of that is what we have in this farm bill. The CBO says that 2 million people will be thrown off the benefit. They say that over 200,000 kids will lose their free breakfast and lunch at school. I have great respect for Chairman Lucas. I wanted very much to support a bill that he put together; but, to me, this cut is too big and is too harsh and is going to hurt too many people. All of us came here to help people. We all came here to help our constituents, rich and poor alike. But this here will hurt people, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This cut is too big. It is too harsh. We don't need to do this. The price for a farm bill should not be to result in more hunger in America. We can do so much better. Our country is better than this. So I urge all my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to come together and support this amendment. Let's not make hunger worse in America. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I've always been a strong supporter of America's global food aid programs, and I've made it a point to visit these programs in the field in Africa and Latin America. After seeing firsthand these emergency response and development programs, one thing is clear to me: we need to do whatever works best for each situation. One size does not fit all. We should provide U.S. commodities and pre-position them in the field, cash for local purchase, vouchers and fortified foods for children, and we need grants for projects that address chronic hunger. That's exactly what the Royce-Engel amendment does. It provides flexibility. It expands U.S. options in responding to crises. It reaches more people for the same amount of dollars, and it continues the engagement of U.S. producers and shippers in alleviating global hunger. Our food aid programs are designed to end hunger. We can do better. It's not all one way or the other. We should do what works. This amendment provides the flexibility. I urge my colleagues to support the Royce-Engel amendment on food aid reform.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady, and I rise along with her to oppose this amendment. I just want to say, Really? This is what we're debating here right now? I mean, I'm curious why the amendment doesn't include drug testing for people who get benefits of crop insurance or who receive direct payments, agricultural benefits from the Federal Government. Why aren't we requiring that they be drug tested, too? Why don't we drug test all the Members of Congress here, force everybody to go urinate in a cup to see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are turning out the way they are. Bottom line is this is about demeaning poor people, and we've been doing this time and time again on this House floor. Enough is enough. We don't need this amendment. This is a bad idea. Please vote it down.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford). (Mr. HORSFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Texas. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). (Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 271. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same Act. House Resolution 271 states: All points of order against amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this rule may not be considered.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the $20.5 billion worth of cuts in SNAP are not about taking rapists, pedophiles, and murderers off the rolls. This is about going after poor people. And it is curious that we have an amendment to go after rapists, pedophiles, and murderers who are not SNAP, but those who receive crop insurance, not those who receive agricultural subsidies. I mean, it's incredible what's going on here. I'd also say to my colleague that it was the Republicans' idea to have sequestration; it was Republicans in this House that passed sequestration. But I'm going to give you credit that at least SNAP was exempted; it was exempted from sequestration and from Simpson-Bowles because it was thought that to balance the budget on the backs of poor people who have nothing was a rotten and cruel thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds. I would just say to the gentleman in response, the Congressional Budget Office--not me, but the Congressional Budget Office--says that these cuts would throw 2 million people off of SNAP and over 200,000 kids off the free breakfast and lunch program. I assure you that people will lose food over these cuts. This is not something we should do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Sessions and thanking the staff on the Rules Committee, both the majority and the minority, for their hard work in trying to put this rule together. I want to commend Chairman Sessions, in particular, I think, for making an honest attempt of trying to include as many amendments as possible. There are over 100 amendments that have been made in order, and I appreciate the fact that so many amendments were made in order, and many Democratic amendments were made in order. Unfortunately, some important amendments were not made in order, which means that those of us on this side of the aisle, I think, will have to oppose this rule. And I certainly also want to make it clear that I oppose the underlying bill as it is now written. But before I explain why I oppose the FARRM Bill, let me begin also by commending Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson and their staffs for all their hard work in crafting this legislation. It is no easy task, and they have done their best to thread a very small needle. I'm honored to be a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I want to support a farm bill. I believe this Nation needs a farm bill. And, indeed, this bill contains a number of good things. I'm pleased that the bill includes an amendment that I offered in committee to close a loophole in Federal animal-fighting laws that allow spectators at animal fights to avoid prosecution. I support the dairy program in this bill and believe that it would be good for dairy farmers in the Northeast, who are such an important part of our economy. But I cannot and I will not support this FARRM Bill as it is currently written. I cannot support a bill that cuts the SNAP program by $20.5 billion. I cannot support a bill that will force 2 million Americans to lose their benefits. I cannot support a bill that throws over 200,000 American children off the free school breakfast and lunch program. In short, I cannot support a bill that will make hunger in America even worse than it already is. Right now, as we speak, as we gather here, there are 50 million hungry Americans; 17 million of them are children. Many of them work but do not earn enough to make ends meet. All of us, every single one of us in this Chamber, should be ashamed by those numbers. Food is not a luxury; it is a basic necessity. But there isn't a single congressional district in America that is hunger-free. Ending hunger in America used to be a bipartisan issue. To my Republican friends, I say, remember the work of people like Bob Dole and Bill Emerson, who dedicated themselves to this issue. Be proud of that legacy; don't dismantle it. And to my fellow Democrats, I say, if we do not stand for helping the poor and the hungry, then what are we doing here? There are all sorts of nice little deals in this bill for all sorts of people. Peanut growers get a nice deal; cotton growers get a nice deal. Even sushi rice producers get a really nice deal for some reason. But poor people in America, hungry people, get a raw deal. It is a rotten thing to do to cut SNAP by $20.5 billion. It's a lousy thing to do to throw 2 million people off this program. I will have an amendment later in this process to restore these cuts to SNAP in a way that not only reduces subsidies to big agribusiness, but actually reduces the deficit by an additional $12 million beyond the base bill. So I would urge any of my colleagues who are concerned about deficit reduction to support my amendment. You know, we hear a lot of rhetoric about waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP program even though SNAP has an incredibly low error rate. I promise you that if our defense programs had the same error rate as SNAP, we would save billions and billions and billions of dollars. I'm going to have more to say about my amendment during its consideration, but I would urge my colleagues to take a look at it and support it. I'd also like to take a moment to ask my colleagues to support the amendment offered by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel to provide modest, but important, reforms to our international food aid programs. This amendment will enable more people to benefit from our scarce U.S. dollars, while ensuring that U.S. commodity producers and shippers remain actively engaged in alleviating hunger around the world. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the rule makes in order several, quite frankly, mean-spirited amendments that do nothing but demonize the poor and make their lives even more difficult. I urge my colleagues to oppose those amendments, oppose this rule, and oppose the underlying bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Let me thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak in support of an amendment that I and dozens and dozens of other Members have authored to repeal the SNAP cuts, to repeal the $20.5 billion worth of cuts in SNAP that will result in 2 million people losing the benefit, and hundreds of thousands of children losing a free breakfast or lunch at school. That cut is too much. It is too harsh. It is a deal breaker for many of us when it comes to the farm bill. What we should be about in this House of Representatives is to improve the quality of life for people, lift people up, not put people down, and these cuts put people down. We can do much better. Again, I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and look forward to more debate on this.

Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have remaining?