Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the town of Millbury, Massachusetts, on their 200th anniversary. Millbury has grown tremendously since its inception in 1813 as a small New England mill town. To celebrate their bicentennial, the people of Millbury have come together to facilitate a series of community events to honor this historic day. Millbury's rich history can be traced back to the 18th century when John Singletary built the oldest continuously running mill in the United States. The historic Blackstone River powered the mill and helped propel the town into the Industrial Revolution as a leading textile producer. Millbury's significance is further demonstrated as the historic childhood summer home of President William Howard Taft. President Taft even celebrated alongside of residents as they rang in their first 100 years. Continuing with tradition, Millbury celebrated this occasion with a period ball and is looking forward to the parade this weekend. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the town of Millbury on their 200th anniversary. May this great American town continue to celebrate its rich history for years and years and years to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that the House of Representatives join me in congratulating the town of Millbury, Massachusetts on their 200th anniversary. Millbury has grown tremendously since its inception in 1813 as a small New England Mill town, from which their name and seal are derived. To celebrate their 200th anniversary, the people of Millbury have come together over the past year by facilitating community events to honor this historic day. Millbury's rich history can be traced back to the 18th century when John Singletary built the oldest continuously running mill in the United States. The power of the Blackstone River provided the energy to run the mill and helped propel Millbury into the Industrial Revolution as a leading textile producer. Millbury's significance is further punctuated as the historic summer home of President William Howard Tafts' childhood, continuing this summer tradition into and after his Presidency. On one of his many trips to Millbury, he celebrated alongside their residents as they rung in their first 100 years. The bicentennial celebration kicked off last June with a performance by the Massachusetts Symphony Orchestra. Continuing with tradition, Millbury recently celebrated the Period Ball. Millbury is also looking forward to the town parade this weekend. Similar town parades were held at the celebrations of Millbury's 100th, 150th, and 175th anniversaries. The celebration will culminate with Millbury's largest parade which features bands, antique cars, floats, and a fireworks display. I would also like to recognize and thank the Millbury Bicentennial Committee, and the many volunteers for the hard work and dedication that they have devoted into the planning of this momentous event. Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate the town of Millbury on their 200th anniversary. May this great American town continue to celebrate its rich history for years to come. I ask the House of Representatives join me in celebrating the history of Millbury on this very special occasion.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is my 13th End Hunger Now speech this year. Thirteen times I've stood on this floor and talked about hunger in America; 13 times I've come here and defended the anti-hunger safety net, the Federal programs that provide food to 50 million Americans; 13 times I've stood here and talked about hunger as a health issue; 13 times I've said we need to set a goal to end hunger now. People ask me all the time: Is it even possible to end hunger in America? Mr. Speaker, the answer is a definitive ``yes.'' The truth is we've done this before. That's right, Mr. Speaker, we nearly eradicated hunger in the 1970s. It wasn't easy, but the concept was simple. The political leadership in Washington made a commitment to end hunger in this country. In the 1970s, Congress and the President expanded the food stamp program, created the WIC program, and expanded the school meals programs. They found the political courage to do what's right because they believed that it was unacceptable that anyone in America went hungry. Yet that effort was lost when these programs were slashed in the 1980s. Hunger came back with a vengeance. The number of hungry people skyrocketed. In fact, it's been rising steadily since the Reagan Presidency. These programs weren't just cut; they were demonized. Food assistance became a pejorative to some, and we see the results of those years of demonizing those programs today. The truth is SNAP works. Food assistance works. People on food assistance are able to feed themselves and their families. They're able to use money they might have had to use for food for other purposes like rent, utilities, medical costs, school supplies for their kids, and transportation costs--just to name a few--in order to be able to buy nutritious food. They didn't have to make the choice between food or rent. But that's not all. The money spent on food from these programs is spent on food which is produced by our farmers. It is spent in grocery stores. In fact, a recent report showed that approximately $70 billion was spent in grocery stores just from SNAP alone during our economic downturn. That's a lot of money going to our economy when our economy was damaged and needed the help. These programs work, Mr. Speaker. But what's the response from the Republican-controlled House? Are they strengthening a program that is already among the least fraudulent and most efficient and effective in terms of our Federal Government? No. In 2 weeks, this House will consider a farm bill that will cut $20.5 billion from SNAP. It will take food away from 2 million Americans. It is a bill that will take 210,000 poor kids off free school meal programs. It is a bill that would reduce the monthly SNAP benefit by $90 for another 850,000 people. And that's on top of the automatic across-the-board cuts to SNAP that will take place in November even if we cut nothing else. That's not only wrong. It is quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, beneath this great country of ours. I will fight these cuts, and I urge all my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to stand with me in pushing back on these cuts. We should be praising this program for keeping people from starving. We should be strengthening it and making it work better, not neutering it and taking food away from millions of poor families. SNAP works, but don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of Trish Thomas Henley, someone who had to rely on SNAP to make ends meet. She says: In 1993, I was a single parent with a 3-year-old and an 18- month-old. Even though I was working full time making $8.50 an hour as an administrative assistant, I could not afford to pay for food, housing, and day care. I went on food stamps. I remember the shame I felt every time I stood at the register while other shoppers waited for me to count out my food stamps. The only way out of the cycle of poverty and off aid was to go to college. I applied and, at the age of 25, began my undergraduate career. I had to give up my full-time job to go to school. Instead, I worked three part-time jobs. I would never, ever have been able to get through school without food stamps, Pell Grants, and student loans. It took a village and government aid. I was not a victim. I did not feel entitled. I, then as now, felt immensely grateful that I lived at a moment when my government chose to invest in me. It has been a smart investment. I am grateful that because of this investment I am now able to contribute and live up to my full potential. Today, Trish is a professor at the University of Cincinnati. You see, Mr. Speaker, a little investment goes a long way. SNAP works. It worked in the 1970s as the food stamp program, it worked for Trish in the 1990s, and it's working now. This is not the time to cut SNAP. We should be strengthening the ladders of opportunity that help people succeed. We should, with the help of the White House, develop a plan to end hunger now. We should not be supporting a farm bill that will make hunger worse. Now is the time to renew our efforts and pledge to end hunger now. [From Cincinnati.com, May 31, 2013] Food Stamps Do Work My name is Trish Thomas Henley, and I'm an assistant professor of early modern literature and culture at the University of Cincinnati. I received my B.A. and M.A. from the University of Idaho and hold a PhD. from Florida State University. My first book was published in 2012. I'm also a volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Cincinnati and a mother of four boys. My current life--as a teacher, volunteer, published author, homeowner and middle-class taxpayer--would not have been possible without government aid. In 1993, I was a single parent with a 3-year-old and an 18-month-old. Even though I was working full-time, making $8.50 an hour as an administrative assistant, I could not afford to pay for food, housing and day care. I went on food stamps. I remember the shame I felt every time I stood at the register while other shoppers waited for me to count out my food stamps. The only way out of the cycle of poverty and off of aid was to go to college. I applied and, at the age of 25, began my undergraduate career. I had to give up my full-time job to go to school. Instead, I worked three part-time jobs. I would never, ever have been able to get through school without food stamps, Pell Grants and student loans. It took a village and government aid. I was not a victim. I did not feel entitled. I, then as now, felt immensely grateful that I lived at a moment when my government chose to invest in me. It has been a smart investment. I am grateful that because of this investment I am now able to contribute and live up to my full potential. Lately we're hearing a lot about food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as Congress debates the farm bill We could see anywhere from $4 billion to $20 billion in cuts to SNAP, based on the Senate and House bills, respectively. I am not able to stand by and watch silently while Congress votes to allow people to go hungry while simultaneously subsidizing agribusiness. SNAP helps lift 50 million Americans out of poverty and puts food on families' tables--on our neighbors' tables. I am telling my personal story because someone needs to talk back to food stamp stereotypes and myths. Somehow, the myths persist and are used to defend the drastic cuts that have been proposed in the farm bill. If we want to save SNAP and other anti-hunger programs, it's time for a reality check. Myth: SNAP recipients are inner-city minorities. Fact: Food insecurity is neither an urban issue nor an ethnic issue. Nearly one in six people faces food insecurity, and they live in every county in the nation. In addition, 76 percent of SNAP households include a child, an elderly person or a disabled person. Myth: People on SNAP are lazy and sign up for the program so they don't have to work. Fact: Eighty-five percent of households with a food- insecure child have at least one working adult. The SNAP benefit formula provides a strong work incentive--for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 cents to 36 cents, not a full dollar. Participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours or seek better-paying employment. Myth: SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse. Fact: Despite steady growth of the program over the past decade, fraud and abuse have been reduced significantly. A 2010 report from the USDA found the national rate of food stamp trafficking (the practice of trading food stamps for cash) declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1 cent per dollar. Myth: SNAP recipients use their benefits to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery tickets. Fact: It is illegal to buy any of these things with SNAP benefits. Myth: SNAP is an inefficient government giveaway. Fact: SNAP benefits drive economic growth in every community. Every $1 in new SNAP benefits generates up to $1.80 of economic activity. These benefits are investments to help struggling families realize brighter futures. My fellow SNAP alumni brothers and sisters are evidence that these investments can pay off over the long run. I am living proof SNAP can provide the boost a struggling child or family needs to realize the American dream. This program works, and we should all speak up together to protect it. Please write and call your representatives in Congress and urge them to vote against any cuts to SNAP. These are not just numbers. These are people--people who will go hungry. If we allow Congress to do this, we are responsible for that. You and me.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 12th time this year to talk about the need to end hunger now. I am honored to serve on the House Agriculture Committee, and last week the committee held a markup on H.R. 1947, the farm bill. I believe we need a farm bill that contains a smart, forward-thinking policy, a farm bill that ensures that farmers are able to make a living, a farm bill that benefits the American economy, a farm bill that ensures that the food grown in America makes it to the plates of every American, and a farm bill that isn't rife with fraud, waste, and abuse. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that a component of that smart, forward-thinking policy already exists. It's called SNAP. This program ensures that 47 million people out of the 50 million hungry in this country are able to put at least some food on their tables when they otherwise couldn't do so. This program ensures that the food grown on our farms makes it to every American's table, not just the wealthy few. SNAP provides an economic catalyst because the SNAP benefit is spent in our local grocery stores and farmers' markets, generating jobs and revenue. Indeed, every SNAP dollar results in $1.72 in economic activity--an amazing return on our investment. And SNAP has one of the lowest error rates of any Federal program. But H.R. 1947 would undermine all of this. It cuts $20.5 billion from the program. That cut means that 2 million people would be kicked off of SNAP entirely. It means that 210,000 kids would be kicked off the free school meal program. It means that 850,000 people will see their SNAP benefits cut by $90 a month, and this is on top of a $25 a month cut for a family of four that will already take effect in November no matter what happens to the farm bill. You know, there was a time not so long ago when solving the problem of hunger in America was a bipartisan priority. Former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole worked tirelessly in the 1970s to make America hunger-free. Their partnership brought us to the point where we nearly eradicated hunger altogether. And I will insert at the end of my remarks an op-ed from yesterday's New York Times highlighting this bipartisan work. Mr. Speaker, the problem today is that it has become far too fashionable in this House of Representatives to beat up on the poor. In fact, there is now a bipartisan effort to cut hunger programs. I'm sad to say that even some Democrats are willing to support this farm bill, even with these terrible SNAP cuts. Instead of moving forward together, we are moving backward. Mr. Speaker, the farm bill, with these SNAP cuts, is a bad piece of legislation. It's bad policy. It deserves to be defeated. Whatever good may be in this bill--from increased access to organic foods, to more humane treatment for animals, to increased job creation in agriculture--it is not an understatement to say that this bill will make hunger worse in America. For the life of me, I do not understand why we should be forced to choose between cutting access to food and providing jobs for our ailing economy. We can and we should achieve the joint mission of ending hunger now and creating jobs together. They are very much connected and should not be pitted against each other. But that's exactly what the farm bill would do--to the tune of $20.5 billion. We should end hunger now, not make hunger worse. We need a comprehensive effort to end hunger now. We need Presidential leadership. We need a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition. And we need a Congress determined to address hunger in America and bring it to an end, not make it worse. Hunger in America is a political condition. Nothing demonstrates that more than this farm bill. We have enough food to end hunger now; we just don't have the political will to do so. This effort to cut SNAP--to make hunger worse--must not stand. I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring these senseless cuts. Should that effort fail, I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating the farm bill when it is considered on the House floor. We can and we must do better. [From The New York Times, May 20, 2013] There Was a Time When Ending Hunger Was a National Goal for Republicans and Democrats (By Dorothy Samuels) ``That hunger and malnutrition should persist in a land such as ours is embarrassing and intolerable.'' So declared Richard Nixon in May 1969 in his now widely forgotten ``Special Message to the Congress Recommending a Program to End Hunger in America.'' In that document, he summoned the country to a new level of generosity and concern and laid out a series of strong legislative steps and executive actions, including a significant expansion of the food-stamps program. While campaigning for the White House in 1968, Mr. Nixon did not focus on the existence of a serious hunger problem. His conversion came as public calls to do something about hunger rose--driven, in part, by Senator Robert Kennedy's highly publicized trip to Mississippi in 1967 where he encountered nearly starving children and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s focus on hunger as part of the Poor People's Campaign. During the '70s, another Republican leader, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, forged a partnership with George McGovern, the South Dakota Democrat defeated by Mr. Nixon in 1972. They helped pass legislation to improve the accessibility and antifraud provisions of the food-stamps program. For example, it eliminated a requirement that recipients buy food-stamp coupons, a prohibitive burden for the lowest-income Americans. That kind of dedicated bipartisan commitment to ending hunger was light-years ago in American politics--before President Ronald Reagan and, later, Speaker Newt Gingrich made attacking food stamps a prime Republican obsession, and certainly before moderate Republicans, a disappearing breed, lived in fear of making any move that might provoke a primary challenge from a Tea Party-supported candidate. The modern food-stamps program, built with Republican and Democratic support, succeeded in eliminating the most extreme pockets of hunger in parts of the country. Today, the program remains an immensely important source of support for low-income families and children living below or near the poverty line. Still, some 50 million Americans live in households that cannot consistently afford enough food, even with the food-stamps program, now formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Come November, temporary increases for food-stamp aid approved in the 2009 economic recovery act are scheduled to expire, which would result in a loss of about $25 in monthly food stamps for a family of four. If anything, Washington should be allocating more money to address tremendous unmet needs. Yet, every Republican on the House Agriculture Committee voted to approve an omnibus farm bill containing a $20 billion cut in food stamps over the next decade in the program's $800 billion or so 10-year budget. While less devastating than turning the program into a capped block grant to the states, which the House Republicans have previously endorsed, the cut is nearly five times the reduction approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate Agriculture Committee, which already is too much. The House bill's cuts would end food-stamp assistance for nearly two million people, with the pain falling mainly on low-income working families with kids and older Americans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And as many as 210,000 children would lose access to free school lunches and breakfasts because eligibility for those meals is tied to their family's receipt of food-stamp benefits. ``It is just not right,'' said Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat (no relation to George McGovern) before his amendment to strike the cut was defeated. Not a single Republican voted to approve it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. McGOVERN. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I think what we have just witnessed kind of says it all. My Republican friends really do not have any intention of going to conference. They do not want to compromise. I think they were hoping maybe the Senate wouldn't come up with a budget and that they could have a talking point or a press release, but the Senate did come up with a budget. We have a budget here in the House that I strongly disagree with because I think it ruins our economy, but nonetheless, that's what the majority in this House voted for. We ought to go to conference, and we ought to be able to figure this out. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule, which would defeat the previous question, in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this House goes to conference.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing: another day and another meaningless piece of legislation that is going nowhere. It is a piece of legislation, quite frankly, that is geared toward helping big banks and big financial institutions at the expense of investors and small businesses. This is a bill that, again, I think, may make a nice press release for people who want to do big fundraisers, but at the end of the day, we are not doing anything to help the American people. We still have sequestration in place, there are people being furloughed, there are businesses that are losing contracts, there are people in the public and private sectors who are being laid off as a result of this. By the way, sequestration is what my Republican friends embraced and voted for. So, when anyone comes to the floor here and says, Oh, we don't really like it, I would remind them that, as much as I hate to admit this, the Republicans are in charge of the House. They can bring a remedy to the floor any time they want to. Mr. Van Hollen has offered on many, many occasions an alternative to get us out of sequestration, but each time he offers it the Republican majority says ``no.'' You don't even have the right to bring it to the floor. You can't even debate it on the floor. That's the answer that we're getting, and it is totally unacceptable. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can get Mr. Van Hollen's resolution made in order so that we can go to conference and do something meaningful, and I would also urge a rejection of this bill. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the American people are getting sick and tired of the majority in this House essentially rooting for this economy's demise so they can gain some political advantage. I think people are getting tired of it. They are hoping that we can come together in the spirit of compromise and get some things done--help put people back to work, help the average working family, help the middle class, help lift those in poverty out of poverty. They're hoping that we're going to do something serious and meaningful so that it will make a difference in their lives. We're not doing that, and it's a grave disappointment, I think, to people all over this country--to Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike. So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my friend Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, here we go again, another day in the House where we're not focused on jobs, where we're not focused on healing our ailing economy, where we're not focused on the needs of the American people. Yesterday, for the 37th time in 2\1/2\ years, this House passed a bill overturning the Affordable Care Act. For the 37th time, my Republican friends decided to take up time on this House floor supporting a meaningless, partisan bill to overturn a law that will dramatically improve the health care of millions of Americans and is already helping to lower our deficit. Perhaps one day they will wake up from their Tea Party fever-dream and move on to more important priorities. Not only have they wasted time debating a bill that won't be considered in the Senate, let alone signed into law, they are willfully ignoring the budget process that they were so stridently defending just a few months ago. It's been 55 days since the Senate passed its budget resolution, yet the Republicans refuse to go to conference to finish their work. This is the same Republican Party that passed a bill that says Members of Congress cannot be paid if we don't produce a budget. Let me repeat: no budget, no pay. Yet the Republicans refuse to finish the budget. All this flip-flopping is giving me whiplash, Mr. Speaker. And today, we are presented with a bill, along with a whopping three amendments made in order. So much for an open process. Whatever happened to open rules? So let's take a look at today's bill. It is a bill that would require the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to conduct even more extensive cost-benefit analyses than it already does when proposing any rule or when issuing interpretive guidance. Who could be against cost- benefit analysis? That seems like a commonsense idea, one that has merit and should be considered by agencies. Well, Mr. Speaker, here is where the devil is really in the details. The SEC already does cost-benefit analyses on these rulings and regulations. It is already happening. So what's the real purpose of this bill? Is there a problem with the way the SEC is handling these cost-benefit analyses? Mr. Speaker, this bill is really about putting more burdens on the SEC as they are attempting to fulfill their mandates under Dodd-Frank and do their job to protect investors. This bill places additional burdens on the SEC to meet these new requirements--and I'd like to point out--without providing any additional budget resources. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost the SEC $23 million over 5 years and will require the hiring of 20 additional staff. This is while sequestration is causing the Federal Government to shrink and agencies to furlough staff. In fact, right now sequestration is actually preventing the SEC from hiring any more additional staff, the same additional staff that would be needed to implement this bill if it were ever to become law. I can only presume that the authors of this bill are attempting to bog the SEC down with additional, unnecessary, and redundant mandates in order to prevent the SEC from doing its job of protecting investors. This bill actually steers the SEC's work toward minimizing costs to big businesses and investment banks. That's what this does. How is that protecting the individual investor? For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Republican leadership wants to undermine the efforts of this agency to protect the individual investor. We're coming out of a historic recession, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. A big reason for the recession was the recklessness of investment banks and financial institutions. Millions of Americans lost money they had put into the stock market and entrusted to banks and financial institutions because of these institutions' reckless actions. We're talking about college savings, retirement accounts, and other nest eggs. Yet the Republican leadership would rather take the side of these reckless financial institutions that brought financial and economic ruin to our Nation, our communities, and our families than stand up and fight for the individual investor--the little guy. They'd rather fight for Wall Street than stand up for Main Street. Mr. Speaker, that's not the right thing to do. We should pass a budget instead; we should pass the Van Hollen sequestration replacement bill; we should pass a jobs bill; but we should not be wasting our time on a bill that will punish individual investors in order to protect big banks. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I urge my Republican friends to, some time soon, take up some legislation that's going to help put America back to work and get our economy back on the right track. With that, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. The gentleman from Texas says he wants a smaller government, yet the bill that he's proposing here that we discuss on the floor actually will cost the American taxpayers more. CBO says we need an additional $23 million for this additional bureaucracy that the gentleman has embraced. We're going to need to hire 20 new employees, according to CBO, in order to meet these new requirements. So if you want a smaller government, here we are expanding government. But they're expanding government in a way that will hurt the little guy and protect Wall Street, which is to be expected. Just one thing I want to say to make clear to my colleagues, in case anybody's a little bit confused here as well on the issue of the process. The way the process is supposed to work, when it comes to the budget, we pass a budget in the House, the Senate passes a budget in the Senate, then you go to conference and you work out the differences. And guess what? In a conference, you don't get everything you want, and we don't get everything we want, especially when there's a divided government, the way it is right now. Compromise is something that has to take place. And so I would just take issue with the gentleman when he says that Republicans are leaders. Republicans aren't leaders. Republicans are obstructionists. You're holding everything up. We're doing meaningless, sound-bite, press-release legislation day in and day out, not helping put one more American back to work, not alleviating any of the difficulties that the middle class is dealing with right now. My friends are obstructing everything. They're holding things up. They're delaying the economic recovery. It is unconscionable that we are on the floor doing things that are going nowhere and that are helping no one. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, talk about bizarre, the notion that a bill comes to the floor, that CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, says is going to cost $20 million, there will be a need for additional employees, and there's nothing in this bill that will cover those costs, and on top of that my friends who, by the way, embraced sequestration, that's your plan, I would say to my colleague from Texas. That's not the President's plan. It was the Members of this House led by the majority here that voted for it. To everybody who doesn't like it over there, guess what? You're in charge. Fix it. Bring something to the floor and fix it. Mr. Van Hollen has an alternative. You won't even let us bring it to the floor. So don't complain about something that you supported and you voted for and now you don't want to fix. Just one other thing. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that this isn't about protecting small businesses. This is about protecting Wall Street, big banks, and big financial institutions. I get it, you know. That's nothing new coming from the other side of the aisle. But that's what this is about. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Under the rules of the House, would it be possible if the gentleman would yield for that request that we could go to conference?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think what's going on here is basically that my Republican friends are trying to expand the bureaucracy and potentially charge the American taxpayers $23 million. But they're not going to provide the money, and so they're just going to bog down an agency that is designed to protect investors and consumers. I think that's the game here. This is about protecting big banks and Wall Street and big financial institutions. It's the same-old, same-old. This is nothing new for those who have been following the agenda of the House Republicans. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 174, Representative Chris Van Hollen's resolution, telling the Speaker to appoint conferees to negotiate a compromise budget agreement with the Senate. It has been 55 days since the Senate passed a budget. My Republican friends made a big deal about the fact that we shouldn't be paid unless we pass a budget. The House has passed a budget, the Senate has passed a budget, but my Republican friends don't want to go to conference because they don't believe in compromise. So to discuss the importance of starting the budget negotiations with the Senate, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I think that says it all. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is farm bill week. Today, the Senate Agriculture Committee is marking up their version of the farm bill, and tomorrow the House Agriculture Committee will do the same. Although one bill is written by a Republican and the other is written by a Democrat, these two bills have one thing in common: they make hunger worse in America. There are 50 million hungry Americans; 17 million are kids. Yet the Senate is going to mark up a bill that cuts over $4 billion from SNAP, our Nation's main antihunger program. But that cut pales in comparison to the cuts included in H.R. 1947, the House farm bill. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we are going to mark up a farm bill that includes a $20 billion cut in SNAP--$20 billion. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have 50 million hungry Americans, at a time when we have 17 million hungry kids, a Republican-led Congress is going to mark up a farm bill with $20 billion cuts in SNAP. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to solve problems and help people, not make things worse. We were elected to help make lives better. We were elected to do the right thing. Cutting SNAP, making it harder for hungry Americans to put food on their tables, is the wrong thing. Taking $20 billion out of this program will do real harm to Americans who simply are trying to make ends meet. Now, there are some in this House, some on the Agriculture Committee, who say this is about reducing error rates in the program, that this is good getting at fraud. Well, let me remind them that SNAP has one of the lowest error rates, if not the lowest error rates, in the Federal Government. That is something that we should be proud of, and it is something that we should celebrate. Mr. Speaker, these cuts do not get at fraud. These cuts do not make the program more efficient. These cuts don't help reduce or end hunger in America. These cuts in this bill will make things worse. That's because the cuts in this bill will kick 2 million people off of SNAP. That's 2 million hungry Americans who currently rely on SNAP to help feed themselves and their families, and that's 2 million low-income Americans who are having trouble making ends meet. These cuts will cause 850,000 households to see their SNAP benefit reduced by $90 a month--$90 a month. That's a big cut for poor families struggling to get by. The cuts in this bill will cause 210,000 children to lose access to their free school meals. These 210,000 poor children currently receive free school meals because their parents can't afford to pay for their meals. But the cuts in this bill will result in 210,000 losing access to free school meals. This bill even cuts the nutrition education program, a program that is designed to help educate SNAP beneficiaries about how to buy and prepare more nutritious foods. Imagine cutting this critical education program while obesity and access to unhealthy food is on the rise. To put this in proper context, these cuts would come on top of an across-the-board cut in SNAP that every recipient will experience starting on November 1, 2013. Because SNAP has been used as an ATM to offset other worthy programs, a family of four will already be seeing their SNAP benefit cut by an average of $25. So, to recap, not only will we see automatic cuts in SNAP this November, the House farm bill will make things worse by cutting $20 billion additionally from the program. This simply cannot stand. Tomorrow, during the farm bill markup, I will offer an amendment that will restore these cuts. I hope that all my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee will vote for my amendment, and, if it fails, I hope they'll vote against the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, we cannot just indiscriminately make hunger worse in the name of fiscal austerity. No, Mr. Speaker, we should look at these programs and ask ourselves: Are these programs working? Are they doing the job that they were designed to do? Are they succeeding or failing? And how can we make them work better? But that's not what we're doing. Do you know how many hearings we've had on SNAP in this Congress? Do you know how many the Agriculture Committee has held? None. That's right, the Agriculture Committee is about to cut $20 billion from SNAP, and we haven't had one single hearing. Yet there are 20 new members of the Agriculture Committee in this Congress, 20 new members who deserve the right to learn about these issues, including the details of SNAP and the impact of these cuts. Mr. Speaker, this is not how we should be approaching this program. We should be holding hearings; we should ask questions; we should be thoughtful; and we should look at the program in an honest way, and our goal should be to end hunger now. Unfortunately, this bill, as written, is more about protecting big agribusiness and corporate welfare than it is about protecting hungry Americans who need help today. Mr. Speaker, we need to do something about hunger in America. I've urged the administration to host a White House conference on food and nutrition to come up with a plan to end hunger now. Hopefully, they will act on that soon. But for today and tomorrow, we must protect SNAP from needless, unnecessary, and harmful cuts. We must stand for the most vulnerable in our country, and we must end hunger now and not make it worse.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, next Wednesday the House Agriculture Committee is expected to mark up the farm bill. The farm bill is an important bill for many reasons, but chief among them is the reauthorization of our Nation's antihunger safety net programs. The largest and arguably most important is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. As I continue to remind my colleagues through my series of End Hunger Now speeches, it is important to acknowledge that hunger is a real problem in America. Even as we slowly come out of this recession and as Americans struggle to get back on their feet, there are still nearly 50 million hungry people living in this country. Nearly 17 million are kids. The hungry, labeled by some as food insecure because they don't know where their next meal is coming from, aren't like those who starve in Third World countries. They don't have sunken eyes and swollen bellies, and that's primarily because of SNAP and other antihunger safety net programs. SNAP has prevented millions of people from going without food when they desperately need it. The population served by SNAP is not the rich. They aren't living in mansions or driving expensive cars or eating in five-star restaurants. No, Mr. Speaker, they are primarily low-income families who are trying to make ends meet. They are trying to provide healthy food for their families while they try to keep a roof over their head and pay the bills to keep utilities running. And that's why the farm bill is so important. Every 5 years, we have an opportunity to look at SNAP and other programs that make up the farm bill. We have an opportunity to look at what is and what isn't working. We have an opportunity to make the program run better, at least that's what we should be doing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as we move to the markup of this farm bill, we haven't had a single hearing, not a single hearing this year, on the SNAP program. But next week, the House Agriculture Committee will mark up a farm bill that we're told, if reports are to be trusted, that will cut $20 billion from SNAP. That's $20 billion that could go to feed hungry Americans. That's a $20 billion cut that will literally take food out of the mouths of hungry Americans. In short, it's a bill that will make hunger in America worse, not better. SNAP is among the most effective and efficient, if not the most effective and efficient, federally run program. Error rates are at an all-time low. In fact, when it comes to error rates, more SNAP benefits are underpaid rather than overpaid. That means that a SNAP error will likely result in a beneficiary receiving a smaller benefit than they are eligible for rather than a higher benefit. Waste and abuse is almost negligible, and USDA continues to crack down on fraud. People who defraud SNAP, those who break the law, are being arrested and they're going to jail. The program is working, Mr. Speaker, and I defy anyone to show me any other Federal program that is as effective and as efficient as SNAP. Yet some Republicans are hell-bent on cutting the program. I should say, obliterating the program, and I simply do not understand why. What do they have against poor people? Why do they think that it's okay to hold back a helping hand. SNAP isn't a get-rich scheme. People use SNAP to put food on their table during difficult times. The way to reduce the number of people on SNAP is by creating jobs, by helping to get this economy going again. The more people go back to work, the less people need to rely on SNAP. But what some in this House are proposing is that we arbitrarily and indiscriminately cut the help that people need. A $20 billion cut will do real damage. It will be harder for some to get SNAP. For others, they will see their SNAP benefit cut, meaning they'll have to buy the same amount of food with less money. And we'll see, at a minimum, several hundred thousand poor kids lose their free school meals. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill will take food away from poor kids. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone--I don't care what your political party is--would want to do this. Cutting SNAP is a bad policy. Cutting SNAP in the name of fiscal responsibility is not just a misnomer, it is a falsehood that must be debunked. There are many other programs in the farm bill that have higher rates of fraud, waste, and abuse--programs like direct payments and crop insurance, just to name two. These programs must be reined in rather than going after programs that help poor people struggle to feed their families during difficult times. Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that we can end hunger now if we muster the political will to do so. But cutting SNAP, passing a farm bill that cuts $20 billion from this program will not end hunger now. It will make hunger worse. It is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time in our history. I'd like to believe that my Republican colleagues on the Agriculture Committee would realize this before they embrace a bill that would have such a Draconian cut, that would have a $20 billion cut in SNAP. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm urging my Democratic colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to join me in rejecting these cuts. And if these cuts prevail, then we should vote against this farm bill. I think it is simply wrong to send a bill to the House floor, or if it passes the House floor, over to the United States Senate that decimates this important program. It is just wrong. And for some reason, it has become fashionable in this House to not worry about the poor and to not worry about the vulnerable. Every time we need to find a cut, you go after programs that benefit the most vulnerable. It is wrong. It is outrageous. It goes against everything we're supposed to be doing in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, rejecting these cuts is the right thing to do, especially if we want to end hunger now. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that hunger is a political condition. Hunger is a political condition. We have the resources, we have the means, we have the infrastructure to end it; but we don't have the political will. We have the political will when it comes to going to war. We have the political will when it comes to giving tax breaks to wealthy people. We have the political will when it comes to protecting special interest subsidies to Big Oil. But when it comes to ending hunger, the political will is not here. It is not here. And what a shame, Mr. Speaker. I would also remind my colleagues that there was a cost to hunger. When people say to me, oh, we can't afford to help these people; we can't afford to expand these programs because this is a tough budgetary time that we find ourselves in, I remind my colleagues that there is a cost here. There's a cost in avoidable health care cost, for example. People who do not eat on a regular basis, children who do not eat on a regular basis, who are denied food, who are hungry, you know, their immune systems are compromised. They get common colds, and it ends up turning into something worse, and they end up going into emergency rooms and staying for several days. There's a cost to this. Senior citizens who can't afford their food and their medicine, they take their medicine on an empty stomach, they end up getting sick. They go into the hospital, they stay for several days, sometimes weeks. There is a cost to that. There's a cost to hunger in terms of lost productivity in the workplace. Workers aren't as productive. And, oh, let me just remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, when people think that SNAP is only a program for those who are unemployed, millions and millions and millions of people on this program work for a living. They work, but they don't earn enough to not qualify for this benefit. If you want to do something to help more people get off SNAP, increase the minimum wage, invest in this economy, get more people back to work. But there are millions of working people who rely on this program to feed their families. So there's a cost, Mr. Speaker. There's also a cost in terms of kids going to school hungry who can't learn. I mean, if you're hungry, you can't focus. If I had my way, Mr. Speaker, I would require universal school breakfast for everyone who goes to school in this country at the bell, because the bottom line is that meal, that nutrition is every bit as important to a young child, in terms of learning, as that textbook is because that textbook doesn't do a kid any good if he or she is hungry, if all they're worried about is where they're going to get their next meal. And there are too many kids, as I said, 17 million children in this country that are hungry. Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be a political body here that is dedicated to solving problems. That's what our job is supposed to be. We're supposed to try to help people and solve problems, not ignore them or make them worse. There are millions of vulnerable people in this country who need our attention and who need our help. They don't want a handout; they want a hand up. They want to enter the job market; they want to enter into a secure economy. They're looking for some help to get them to the point they could survive long enough to be able to see this economy get back on its feet. Hunger in America is a real problem. This is an issue. No one talks about it here, but it is an issue. You don't see the leadership of this House, the Republican leadership of this House, paying any attention to this. They never even mention the word hunger. They never mention the word poverty when they speak. But this is a real problem. This is a real problem, and I would urge my colleagues who are about to embrace a $20 billion cut in SNAP to get out of Washington or, better yet, just leave the Capitol Grounds and go out and meet some people who are struggling on this benefit. Meet some people who don't have enough to eat, who end up going to food banks even when they get the SNAP benefits because it's not enough. This is not a get-rich scheme. And here's the other thing that my colleagues need to understand. Even if we did nothing in the farm bill, even if we protected everything, as it is, I mean, and didn't make any cuts in the farm bill next week, guess what? The average benefit, the average food stamp benefit, the average SNAP benefit, is going to go down anyway because we have dipped into SNAP to pay for other programs. It has been our ATM machine to pay for a lot of other programs, and so the benefit already is going to go down for people. People are already going to feel it even if we were to do nothing. But to pile on $20 billion worth of cuts--and my friends will say, oh, well, you know, it's this categorical eligibility, or it's this, you know, we don't like the way this State does it or that State does it---- Here's a point I want to make. If people were truly interested in making this program run better, then we would be doing hearing after hearing after hearing, not only here in Washington, but out in the field, listening to people who are beneficiaries, listening to the food banks, listening to the anti-hunger advocacy groups, listening to the mayors, listening to the Governors, listening to people; and we would figure out how to do this in a way that made sense. And by the way, I think any savings we find in SNAP we ought to put back into programs to combat hunger and to promote nutrition, you know, not take this money and help pay for a subsidy to some big agri- business or continue to fund some cockamamie crop insurance scheme. We ought to put this, we ought to put any savings we find and any reforms back into these programs. Let's do this right. But my friends who want to cut this program don't want to do it right. They're not interested in helping this work better. All they're interested in is taking this money so they don't have to take it away from the special interests that fund political campaigns around here. And I find that outrageous. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, don't turn your backs on the poor. Don't turn your backs on the hungry in this country. As Members of the United States Congress, we should be ashamed, we should be ashamed that there are 50 million people in the United States of America that are hungry, that 17 million of them are children. It is outrageous. We're the richest, most powerful country in the world. There shouldn't be any hunger here. There shouldn't be anybody who has to worry about whether or not they're going to be able to put good, nutritious food on the table. So I urge my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, please do not fall for this notion that cutting $20 billion won't make any difference to anybody, that we're just kind of tightening the program up. Don't fall for that line, because it's just not true. It's just not true. $20 billion in cuts from this program will mean that people today, who today are getting food tomorrow will not. And, again, if people qualify for this program, their kids automatically qualify for the free breakfast or lunch program at school. You cut these families off this program, those kids will no longer be eligible for that. How that serves our natural interest, how that helps anything in this country, how that even deals with our deficit, our debt problem is beyond me because we're creating a whole slew of new problems. We are so much better than that. We are so much better than that. Let me just close with this, Mr. Speaker. Some people have said to me, well, hunger has been around for a long time. There's nothing we can do about it. Those people are wrong, Mr. Speaker. They're wrong. In 1968, there was a documentary on television on ABC that documented for the entire Nation to see the hunger problem in America. And in the aftermath of that documentary, in a bipartisan way, people like Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, Senator Jake Javits of New York and Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, in a bipartisan way came together and helped put together an effort to end hunger. In the 1970s, in the mid- to late 1970s, we almost succeeded in ending hunger in this country. We almost succeeded. And then came along a Congress that undid everything, and today we have seen the results of the negligence of Congress and of various White Houses over the years, and that is 50 million Americans--50 million Americans--who are hungry. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can do better than that, and I believe that we are a much better country than that. I plead with my colleagues here, please don't do this. Please don't do this. The people we're talking about who benefit from this program don't have any big political PACs, and they don't have a lot of high-priced lobbyists here in Washington. I'm not even sure how many of them are going to vote in the next election. But they're our neighbors. They're our friends. They're part of our community. We're supposed to represent them. We're supposed to help people, not hurt people. If this farm bill goes forward with a $20 billion cut in SNAP, we will be hurting people in this country. We will be hurting millions and millions of people in this country. I hope we don't go down that path. I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan way, to join with me. End hunger now. Reject these attempts at cutting SNAP by $20 billion, support a farm bill that supports not only our farmers, but supports good nutrition and supports an effort that will end hunger now. I thank my colleagues for listening to me, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the Worcester Technical High School Robotics and Automation Technology Team, known as the Tech-Know Commandos, for winning the 2013 VEX Robotics World Championships trophy. Team members Jason McKinney, Natalie Correa, Jake Richard, Greg Carlson, and Kahlan Cardin, worked tirelessly to develop the award- winning robot that competed against 420 teams from 23 countries. Prior to the world championship competition, the five students participated in--and won--a number of local and regional competitions. With the guidance of their coach and teacher Michael Meagher, the team continuously reevaluated the effectiveness of their robot and worked to perfect it. As we continue emphasizing the need for high-quality and robust science, technology, engineering, and math education, the Worcester Tech robotics team should be recognized for their achievement in the STEM curriculum. Their experiences and successes will most certainly encourage other students to pursue opportunities in these fields. Mr. Speaker, I'm so proud to represent Worcester, Massachusetts, a community that continues to explore robotics innovation. Please join me, the Worcester Technical High School, and the greater Worcester community in congratulating the Tech-Know Commandos for their excellence in STEM education and for their recent victory at the VEX Robotics World Championships.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague, Niki Tsongas, for organizing today's Special Order, and I thank her for the time. It is with immense gratitude that I rise to honor Massachusetts' first responders today. While I'm always proud to call myself a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, being from Massachusetts has carried a very special significance these past 12 days. The tragic bombings that occurred on April 15 took three precious, innocent lives and caused hundreds of others to suffer devastating wounds. A former intern of mine, Patrick Downes, and his wife, Jess, were wounded. I want them to know that we are continuing to pray for them and for all the others who are wounded. We also remember Officer Sean Collier, an MIT police officer who was shot and killed. Our prayers are with his family. So many lives were upended by this tragic, senseless act of violence. Citizens of the Commonwealth and Americans across the country are still coping with the horror of the bombings that took place on what is normally a celebratory day in Massachusetts--Patriot's Day. Amidst these acts of violence and terror, our belief in the fundamental goodness of people is strengthened when we reflect on the courageous acts of so many in the wake of such a tragedy. I want to recognize the incredible sacrifices of Massachusetts' first responders and the sacrifices that they made from the moment the bombs went off until the time the final suspect was apprehended. Even as we speak, victims are still being treated by medical professionals at some of the world's finest hospitals, like Massachusetts General, Beth Israel Deaconess, Boston Medical Center, Brigham and Women's, and Boston's Children's Hospital, among others. Police, firefighters, medical professionals, members of the National Guard, even ordinary citizens rushed to the scene of the bombing last week in order to help the wounded, potentially putting themselves in harm's way. Sleep was the last thing on the minds of many of these selfless men and women who worked back-to-back shifts in support of the communities they call home. The extraordinary response of the Boston medical community is very much a part of the story of the 2013 Boston Marathon. The explosions took place at 2:50 p.m. Emergency medical teams mobilized immediately, and 35 minutes later--after the injured were swiftly and efficiently stabilized, transported and triaged at hospitals throughout the city-- the first patient was wheeled into an operating room. Nurses, doctors, all medical personnel simply showed up to help. I want to recognize the incredible leadership of President Obama, of Governor Deval Patrick, and of Boston Mayor Tom Menino. They offered words of comfort, they reassured us, and they helped us get through this terrible ordeal. I was particularly moved to see Mayor Menino, who was recovering from a broken leg, stand tall and lead his great city. I also want to recognize Richard DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the Boston FBI and an Assumption College graduate, for his outstanding work which led to the apprehension of the final suspect. They have all made our State very proud. At the interfaith service last week, we showed the world that Boston and Massachusetts will not be deterred. We are a resilient community, and we will emerge from this stronger than ever. In a week where we saw the very best and worst of human behavior on display, I am proud to say that Massachusetts' best, our first responders, triumphed. While we continue to reflect on the tragedies of last week, we move forward with a renewed sense of pride, knowing that their exceptional commitment to public service is what makes us all Boston Strong.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about the national shame of child hunger in America. I wish it didn't exist, but we can't ignore the fact that there are more than 16 million kids in America who are food insecure. Quite simply, that means more than 16 million children went hungry in 2011. That's unconscionable and that is unacceptable. Hunger has no place in the richest, most prosperous nation on Earth. Letting anyone in this country go without food is bad enough, but letting children go hungry is more than heartbreaking; it's just plain wrong. Yet we let it happen every day in America--16 million children, Mr. Speaker. That means one in five kids in America go to bed hungry and wake up hungry at some point in their lives during the year. That means one in five kids don't know when their next meal is coming. We are allowing more than 16 million kids to wake up hungry, go to school hungry, and go to sleep hungry. We are allowing more than 16 million kids to be deprived of proper nutrition, the nutrition contained in good, healthy food that helps children's minds and bodies properly develop. We are allowing more than 16 million kids to struggle at school and have problems with learning simply because they suffer from hunger. Child hunger has many impacts. Kids who don't eat enough good, healthy food will not develop properly. They have more health problems and require more costly health care than children who don't have to worry about hunger. Sometimes the lack of food results in developmental problems and learning disabilities. Other times, hunger simply doesn't allow kids to concentrate. These problems can lead to under-education, which can have long-term effects, including a lifetime of low-paying jobs and even unemployment. America has several antihunger safety net programs to deal with hunger. Some of these programs are specifically designed for children. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is the biggest antihunger program in the Federal Government. It does a good job, but there are still many ways that it can be improved. Over many years, we have also created the National School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program; and in order to meet increased demand, we now have after school snack and meal programs. But these programs are inadequate in many ways. The breakfast and lunch programs provide either a free or a reduced price meal. The free meal is available to those kids whose families are quite poor; but the reduced price meals are available to kids of families who are poor, but not poor enough to qualify for the free plan. This means there are days, and even weeks, when a child's family simply may not have enough money to pay for the reduced price meal. That's a serious problem. Another problem is that breakfasts are typically served before school starts, meaning that poor kids have to get themselves to school early just to get a good meal. This can create a stigma where these kids get teased and bullied because they're poor, but it can also result in a pattern where these children don't have regular access to a school breakfast if their parents can't get them to school on time or if the school buses don't deliver them early enough to be able to benefit from this breakfast. Organizations like the EOS Foundation in Massachusetts and States like West Virginia are working to fix this by promoting Breakfast at the Bell programs, a solution I strongly support. And then there are weekends, where schools aren't open. Food banks, churches, synagogues, mosques, and other antihunger organizations are filling that gap with food backpacks that are given out on Friday afternoons. Mr. Speaker, as a candidate, then-Senator Obama pledged to end childhood hunger by 2015. It was a good idea then, and it's a good idea now. We worked hard, and many of us pushed for a comprehensive childhood hunger plan. We even wore those buttons to show our support. Mr. Speaker, 2015 is only 2 years away. There is no way we are going to meet that goal, but it doesn't mean we should give up. Now is the time to redouble our efforts. Now is the time to make the pledge to end hunger now. And that's not just a clever tag line. No, Mr. Speaker, we can end hunger now if we start with the commitment to develop a comprehensive plan to do so. That's why I continue to call for Presidential leadership on this serious matter. We need a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition to develop a comprehensive plan that will address all aspects of hunger in America, especially child hunger. We need this conference to bring all the stakeholders, like the Eos Foundation, the Governor, and other political leaders from West Virginia and other States and other organizations that are not typically in the antihunger movement. We need faith-based leaders, CEOs, leaders of food banks, pediatricians, schools, and nutritionists together in one room to develop a comprehensive plan, take assignments and make it work. If we do this, we can end hunger now. Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. We have everything we need to end it. We lack the political will. I urge my colleagues to make this issue a priority. End hunger now.