Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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, I'll close, but I would be interested to know whether anybody on the other side can tell me when we might go to conference on the budget? The House has passed a budget. The Senate has passed a budget. I thought the whole point of getting the Senate to pass a budget was to go to conference and try to work out the differences. I don't know whether anybody on the other side of the aisle has any information on when we might go to conference. It's the House's responsibility to ask for a conference. I'm just trying to get a sense. If not today, will it be tomorrow? Surely it won't be next week because we're on break next week. Anybody? Okay, thank you for that informative answer. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying I have no problem with this helium bill. There is value to passing this bill. It doesn't have to be passed today. It could be passed anywhere up until the end of this fiscal year, but I'm fine with passing it today. It's not controversial. This could pass really quickly, but we are stretching it over 2 days for reasons that none of us can quite fathom. But the problem is not with the helium bill. The problem is with what we're not doing. And as we speak, there are people who are losing their jobs. There are people who are being furloughed. There are cancer patients who are not getting access to their treatments. There are poor women who benefit from the WIC program who are not getting that benefit. There are food banks that are being closed all around this country. There is medical research that is being curtailed. There is scientific research that is being curtailed, all while we speak. And all this is vitally important to our economy. All this is vitally important to our economy. And yet we're doing nothing. We're doing nothing. We're just going to kind of wait it out. And what we're saying on this side of the aisle is we ought to do something. We ought to be debating what is urgent right now before the American people, and that is the cuts that are impacting them as a result of sequestration. That's what we should be talking about right now. That's what we should be debating. I don't know why that's such a controversial idea. But we're not. We're going to do this bill, which is not urgent, and we're going to go home for a week, the sixth week of recess since January, the sixth week of recess. And, again, I appreciate the fact that we all have busy schedules when we go home--I do as well--but the idea of leaving here while people are being furloughed, while families are being hurt, I just find unconscionable. And so our complaint is with the fact that we're not addressing the central issue before the American people today, and that is these devastating cuts. And I would like to think that we could get some clue from somebody that, at some point in the near future, we would be able to deal with it. Just one final point. My friends on the other side of the aisle embrace this idea of sequestration, so my friends own it. I think it's your responsibility to at least provide us the forum to find a way out of it. I will close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that, again, we have no problem with the helium bill. We could do this in an hour, with all the amendments. That's how noncontroversial it is. But the idea that we're stretching it over 2 days, and we're not dealing with these devastating cuts and sequestration, I think, is just wrong. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida for her comments. I appreciate the fact that she has a beautiful district in southern Florida, and I appreciate the fact that she's going to spend her recess going to a student awards ceremony to honor kids who have a good attendance record. But with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague's time, and in effect all of our time, would be better spent trying to solve the sequestration problem, trying to avoid deep cuts in medical research that will cost jobs, that will delay advancements in medical science, that perhaps could find cures for diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or diabetes. By the way, if we found a cure for one of those diseases, it would help make Medicare and Medicaid solvent forever and ever and ever. So investment actually does pay off. I appreciate the fact that she brought a guest on the floor here today, a young student. But I would simply say that the sequestration cuts education. Sequestration actually cuts education. It will be more difficult to fund our schools. It will be more difficult to be able to provide students with the financial aid that they need to go to college because of the sequestration. So with all due respect about all of the wonderful things that my colleagues will be doing during their recess, it is still a recess. It is a week that we are not dealing with the budget. It is a week we are not dealing with sequestration. And by the way, I understand that it has become fashionable to blame the Senate for everything, but when it comes to the budget, the House has passed a budget. The Senate has passed a budget. We're waiting for the House to go to conference. So we're going to vote in a little while, and then that's it for the day. We're done. We're done for the day. Why aren't we going to conference with the Senate on a budget? Why are we not doing something meaningful? So with that, Mr. Speaker, I again respect the itinerary of my colleague from Florida, but I'll tell you, there are lot of workers who are being furloughed who are expecting us to come to some sort of solution so they don't lose a week or a month's pay, which will make it more difficult for them to pay their mortgage and their utility bills, and for their kids. This is urgent, and we're not dealing with it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to my friend from Utah by simply saying that I think going on a week-long recess while people are being furloughed, while cuts in medical research go forward, while we see cuts in programs like WIC and cuts in programs like food banks and scientific research, I think going on recess with all of this happening, quite frankly, is unconscionable. That's running away from our responsibility here in this Congress and running away from our responsibility to our constituents. The Democrats have had an alternative to sequestration. Mr. Van Hollen has tried on countless occasions to have the Rules Committee allow him the opportunity to bring his alternative to the floor. He's been turned down every single time. Again, I really appreciated my Republican friends who came down here and were upset about the flight delays. They're upset about the flight delays because, quite frankly, that impacts them directly. What was missing from their outrage were the cuts in WIC, the cuts in food banks, the cuts in medical research and the furloughs. Why aren't they complaining about that as well? Maybe because it doesn't affect them directly. But I think the idea of leaving here for a week with this sequestration in play is an absolute disgrace, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to remind my colleagues that, again, as we are debating this bill--which I'm not saying we shouldn't pass--even with all of the amendments, we could probably spend, maybe, a total of an hour on this bill and get all of those things taken care of. I have no problem with passing the bill. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this Republican majority continues to ignore the economy. This Republican majority continues to ignore the very, very harsh consequences of the sequestration that they thrust upon this country, that they voted for, that they will not allow us to bring up an alternative to fix. I want to read for my colleagues and insert into the Record an article that appeared in The Washington Post on April 3. It's entitled, ``Cancer Clinics are Turning Away Thousands of Medicare Patients. Blame the Sequester.'' It reads: Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts. Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare care on April 1, makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat financially. Patients at these clinics would need to seek treatment elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might not have the capacity to accommodate them. When the gentleman says that he's sorry that this helium bill isn't good enough for some, he's right. It isn't good enough for me. It isn't good enough for the majority of people on my side of the aisle who believe that we ought to be fixing this problem that many cancer patients are facing right now, that we ought to be fixing the problem of the delays in our airlines, that we ought to be fixing the problems of these budget cuts to programs like WIC--that's the Women, Infants, and Children program--and food banks. I could go right down the list. So there are urgent things for us to do, not to spend 2 days on helium--that is totally unnecessary--and then take another week off, to adjourn for another week, while all of these cuts continue to go into effect, these cuts which have a really nasty and negative effect on our economy. We ought to be doing our job here, not kicking the can down the road. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 3, 2013] Cancer Clinics are Turning Away Thousands of Medicare Patients. Blame the Sequester. (By Sarah Kliff) Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts. Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare on April 1, makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat financially. Patients at these clinics would need to seek treatment elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might not have the capacity to accommodate them. ``If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive drugs, we'd be out of business in six months to a year,'' said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology Associates in New York. ``The drugs we're going to lose money on we're not going to administer right now.'' After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca's clinics decided that they would no longer see one-third of their 16,000 Medicare patients. ``A lot of us are in disbelief that this is happening,'' he said. ``It's a choice between seeing these patients and staying in business.'' Some who have been pushing the federal government to spend less on health care say this is not the right approach. ``I don't think there was an intention to disrupt care or move it into a more expensive setting,'' said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, which recently released a plan for cutting $2 trillion in health spending. ``If that's the case, we're being penny-wise and a pound-foolish with these cuts.'' Legislators meant to partially shield Medicare from the automatic budget cuts triggered by the sequester, limiting the program to a 2 percent reduction--a fraction of the cuts seen by other federal programs. But oncologists say the cut is unexpectedly damaging for cancer patients because of the way those treatments are covered. Medications for seniors are usually covered under the optional Medicare Part D, which includes private insurance. But because cancer drugs must be administered by a physician, they are among a handful of pharmaceuticals paid for by Part B, which covers doctor visits and is subject to the sequester cut. The federal government typically pays community oncologists for the average sales price of a chemotherapy drug, plus 6 percent to cover the cost of storing and administering the medication. Since oncologists cannot change the drug prices, they argue that the entire 2 percent cut will have to come out of that 6 percent overhead. That would make it more akin to a double- digit pay cut. ``If you get cut on the service side, you can either absorb it or make do with fewer nurses,'' said Ted Okon, director of the Community Oncology Alliance, which advocates for hundreds of cancer clinics nationwide. ``This is a drug that we're purchasing. The costs don't change and you can't do without it. There isn't really wiggle room.'' Okon's group has sent letters to legislators urging them to exempt cancer drugs from the sequester or, as a back-up, only shave 2 percent off the money they receive to administer the medications. Doctors at the Charleston Cancer Center in South Carolina began informing patients weeks ago that, due to the sequester cuts, they would soon need to seek treatment elsewhere. ``We don't sugar-coat things, we're cancer doctors,'' Charles Holladay, a doctor at the clinic, said. ``We tell them that if we don't go this course, it's just a matter of time before we go out of business.'' Cancer patients turned away from local oncology clinics may seek care at hospitals, which also deliver chemotherapy treatments. The care will likely be more expensive: One study from actuarial firm Milliman found that chemotherapy delivered in a hospital setting costs the federal government an average of $6,500 more annually than care delivered in a community clinic. Those costs can trickle down to patients, who are responsible for picking up a certain amount of the medical bills. Milliman found that Medicare patients ended up with an average of $650 more in out-of-pocket costs when they were seen only in a hospital setting. It is still unclear whether hospitals have the capacity to absorb these patients. The same Milliman report found that the majority of Medicare patients--66 percent--receive treatment in a community oncology clinic, instead of a hospital. Non-profit hospitals will likely have an easier time bearing the brunt of the sequester cuts. A federal program known as 340B requires pharmaceutical companies to give double-digit discounts to hospitals that treat low-income and uninsured patients. Eastern Connecticut Health Network began preparing for additional volume after a local oncology practice sent out notice that it would stop seeing certain cancer patients. ``What we're trying to do in the hospital is prepare for this,'' ECHN spokesman Eric Berthel said. ``We're making sure we have access to the pharmaceutical companies and that we have appropriate staff on hand. We're hoping the oncology practice will be successful in renegotiating this. It's so fresh, so we're pretty unsure.'' Some cancer clinics are counting on the federal government to provide relief, and continuing to see patients they expect to lose money on. ``We're hoping that something will change, as legislators see the impact of this,'' Ralph Boccia, director of the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Bethesda, Md., said. ``I don't think we could keep going, without a change, for more than a couple of months.'' An analysis prepared by his clinic estimates that, if the full 2 percent cut takes effect, between 50 and 70 percent of the drugs it administers would become money losers. Boccia estimates that 55 percent of his patients are covered by Medicare, making any changes to reimbursement rates difficult to weather. ``When I look at the numbers, they don't add up,'' he said. ``Business 101 says we can't stay open if we don't cover our costs.'' At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the majority for bringing up a bipartisan bill. It's not often that this majority works in a bipartisan way on legislation. In fact, it's a rarity. But, in this case, Chairman Hastings worked with Ranking Member Markey to produce a bill that should pass the House with very, very little opposition. In fact, we have a streamlined process here in the House for noncontroversial bills like this. It's called the suspension calendar. This is a perfect bill for the suspension calendar. We could be done with this bill in 40 minutes. We could debate, vote, and send it to the Senate so they could send it to the President. But, instead, the majority is stretching this bill out over 2 days--2 days, Mr. Speaker, to consider a bill that isn't controversial and will pass overwhelmingly, 2 days to consider this bill when there are so many other urgent challenges that this majority continues to ignore, 2 days on the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act. That's a lot of hot air even for this House. So while we're spending a ridiculous amount of time on this bill, the Republican majority continues to ignore the economy. The gentleman from Utah is right when he says that this could potentially be a problem if we don't address this issue of helium, but that's not until the end of the fiscal year. We have some major problems right now this very second that the majority of this House continues to ignore, challenges that impact our constituencies all over this country. This sequester that my friends on the other side embraced is still going into effect. We've already seen cuts to programs like Meals on Wheels and on food pantries and WIC recipients and Head Start facilities, just to name a few. I would like to enter into the Record, Mr. Speaker, a news item that appeared on a Fox affiliate out in Utah entitled, ``Sequestration forces food pantry closure.'' We started hearing reports about airport delays because of the sequester's impact on the FAA. And I really got a kick out of my Republican colleagues coming down here kind of expressing their astonishment that there were airport delays as a result of sequestration. They actually had the temerity to complain about those delays. I asked my friends on the other side of the aisle: What did you think would happen when you voted for unnecessary, arbitrary, senseless across-the-board cuts? My Republican friends remind me of Claude Rains in ``Casablanca.'' They are shocked--shocked--that voting to slash funding for air traffic controllers would result in their flights being delayed. Well, I want my friends to understand one thing. There are consequences to their actions. There are consequences to the sequestration. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that deficit reduction is an important goal, but deficit reduction alone is not an economic policy. We know that mindless austerity budget cuts like this stupid sequester are not going to help our economy grow and help people get jobs and help get our economy back on the kind of footing we all want it to be on. When Bill Clinton was President, when he rescued the economy in the 1990s, he did so through job creation, investing in our economy. We expanded the tax base by increasing the workforce, bringing more revenue into the Federal Government and thereby reducing the deficit. And here's the funny thing. Despite the apocalyptic gloom and doom of some on the other side of the aisle, believe it or not, the deficit is actually shrinking faster than expected. And the best thing we can do is to help speed up that process by investing in our people and creating jobs. We should be promoting growth through infrastructure projects and job-training programs. We should be creating long-term demand through research and development, not cutting the National Institutes of Health's research budget, not cutting the National Science Foundation. We should be supporting these areas that create innovation and opportunity. We should be investing in our young people, preparing our students for the 21st century economy, but we're not doing any of that today--any of that today. And, yes, the bill before us that we're dealing with right now is fine, no problems. Yes, Republicans and Democrats worked together on this in a way that is sadly uncommon for this current Congress, but we aren't doing enough to solve our biggest problems. Tomorrow, when we adjourn after this overlong debate on this helium bill, we're going to take another week off--the sixth week of recess that this House of Representatives has taken since January--the sixth weeklong recess with all that's going on. With all of the difficulty that people all across this country are dealing with because of the sequestration, we're taking another week off. Mr. Speaker, I think we should do more, we can do more, we must do more, and we certainly can do better. So while I have no problem with this bill, and while, if we don't deal with this helium issue come the end of the fiscal year there may be a problem, we'll deal with it fast enough. Right now there are urgent issues that we need to face, not just airline delays. There are people in this country who have fallen through the cracks. There are people in this country struggling who are seeing their benefits slashed because of the sequestration. There are research facilities all across this country that are terminating important medical research programs because of the sequestration. We ought to deal with that. And one other thing, Mr. Speaker. My friends on the other side of the aisle a few weeks ago made a big hoo-ha and sent all kinds of press releases about how they were going to force the House and the Senate to pass budgets, otherwise we would lose our salaries. Well, the House passed a budget, a lousy budget, but the House passed a budget. The Senate passed a budget, as well. So you have two budgets. Why doesn't the House move to go to conference? Why aren't we trying to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate to try to get our budgetary situation under control? We're not doing that. We're not doing anything, quite frankly, that we need to do at this moment. So I would urge my colleagues, this is a fine bill, vote for it, bipartisan support. Mr. Hastings, Mr. Markey, it's all good, but we're spending 2 days on this? Give me a break. I reserve the balance of my time. [From fox13now.com, Mar. 29, 2013] Sequestration Forces Food Pantry Closure (By Zach Whitney) Murray, UT.--For months, the threat of sequestration has had organizations tightening their budgets. But as those federal cuts take effect, it appears those in need are taking the biggest hit. Salt Lake Community Action Program closed its Murray food pantry last week. The food pantry was one of five locations that serve over 1,000 people every month. Now those people will have to go somewhere else, with even less to go around. ``The potential is for a perfect storm where there's less help available and it's harder for people to get by,'' says Crossroads Urban Center Executive Director Glenn Bailey. Crossroads Urban Center relies on private donations for funding, but says they're prepared for a potential increase in traffic as sequestration cuts begin to impact other parts of the valley. ``There's a lot of uncertainty as far as groups that have something to do with providing a social safety net,'' says Bailey. ``That certainly includes food pantries. Particularly if they have significant government funding.'' The closure of the SLCAP food pantry in Murray is a big hole in that safety net. Neighborhood Pantry Manager Mary Anderson says the federal cuts left them little choice. ``The pantries have had to take a 10 percent budget cut,'' Anderson says. ``We operate on Community Development Federal Block Grants, which are government programs.'' Customers from the Murray pantry are being diverted to SLCAP's pantry on Redwood Road. But Anderson says it's a big inconvenience for a group of people who are already struggling. ``The need has been increasing a lot,'' says Anderson. ``Over 200% [in the past five years]. But also our other programs.'' Anderson says the organization's Head Start program has also taken a significant cut due to sequestration. Affordable housing programs are another on the chopping block. Bailey says that perpetuates the problem, since those are typically the people who also rely on the food pantry.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, crimes by the Government of Sudan against its own people in Darfur were just beginning. The world witnessed the burning of villages, poisoning of water, murder, rape, brutal assault, and the deliberate forced displacement of entire villages by violence. In 2004, these acts were characterized by the U.S. Government and Congress as genocide. For the past 6 years, the International Criminal Court has indicted and issued arrest warrants for Sudan's high officials, military commanders, and militia proxies for multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 2009 and 2010, President Omar al-Bashir himself was indicted by the ICC for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. International movements in support of the people of Darfur arose around the world, including a broad coalition here in the United States of religious, labor, peace, human rights, and student organizations calling for an end to the genocide in Darfur. Between 2004 and 2007, Congress passed a series of bills limiting U.S. aid to Sudan and applying sanctions against Sudan for its atrocities in Darfur. In 2007, I visited refugee camps in eastern Chad filled with hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who had fled the violence in Darfur. Each has a personal story of horror and violence. While I was there, the janjaweed crossed the border and attacked two villages inside Chad, displacing thousands of people in the desolate landscape and brutal heat of Sahel in the dry season. I witnessed with admiration the emergency response mobilized within hours by U.N. and international humanitarian agencies and NGOs to provide these newly homeless and traumatized people with water, food, shelter, immunizations, and medical care. I will never forget those people, those children. And I will never forget the caring of highly professional humanitarian aid workers who provided lifesaving support to these refugees under difficult and dangerous conditions. Khartoum continues its brutal campaign in Darfur, and there is no end in sight. Eric Reeves, who 10 years ago bravely brought to the world some of the very first photo and video images of the scorched-earth campaign taking place in Darfur, continues to document ongoing atrocities in the region. The primary targets continue to be civilians from African tribal groups surviving tenuously in the chaotic region. Eric is now on the faculty of Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, and I am very proud to be his Representative in Congress. Today, the violence and abuses of Darfur have expanded across Sudan. This February, the U.N. reported that over 1.5 million people have been displaced or severely affected because of the violence in Darfur, Abyei, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile, including some 90,000 to 100,000 people newly displaced in Darfur. For over 3 years, the Sudanese Government has carried out aerial bombing and a scorched-earth campaign against civilians in the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile under the pretext of battling armed insurgencies that operate in the area. The government continues to deny the World Food Programme and other humanitarian and religious organizations access to South Kordofan and Blue Nile to help the thousands in desperate need of food and basic care. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that abuses by the Government of Sudan in these States may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when we have to say enough is enough. That is why Congressmen Frank Wolf, Mike Capuano, and I are reintroducing today the Sudan Peace, Security, and Accountability Act. Khartoum's abuse of its own people is nationwide, and this bill focuses on Sudan as a whole. It requires a U.S. comprehensive strategy to end serious human rights violations in all of Sudan. It would provide genuine accountability for persons who have committed or assisted in serious human rights abuses. The bill supports the aspirations of the Sudanese people for peace and democratic reform. It encourages other governments and individuals to end support and aid to the Government of Sudan. And it reinvigorates genuinely comprehensive and sustainable peace efforts to end Sudan's multiple crises. We must send a clear message to Khartoum that the time for change is now, that these abuses must stop, and that peace and genuine participation in the future of Sudan are rights that belong to all of the people of Sudan, no matter their race, ethnic or tribal background, religion, or political affiliation. I urge all of my colleagues to join us on this legislation. It is past time to put an end to the pain, suffering, and genocide taking place in Sudan. It is time to support peace, security, and accountability. Sudan Peace, Security, and Accountability Act of 2013 Summary of Legislation Purpose: The ``Sudan Peace, Security and Accountability Act of 2013'' would create a comprehensive U.S. strategy to end serious human rights violations in Sudan, provide genuine accountability for persons who have committed or assisted in serious human rights violations, support Sudanese aspiration for democratic reforms, encourage other governments and persons to end support of and assistance to the government of Sudan, and to reinvigorate genuinely comprehensive and sustainable peace efforts that can end Sudan's multiple crises. Background: 2013 marks ten years from the start of crimes in Darfur that the U.S. government found to constitute genocide. Previous legislation was passed to address the genocide in Darfur, but abuses have continued and expanded to other areas of Sudan. Aerial bombardment of civilian areas of South Kordofan and Blue Nile states and continued blocking of humanitarian relief by the Government of Sudan has led to over 900,000 Sudanese in need of humanitarian aid. Violence and aid restrictions also remain in Darfur where some 130,000 people have been newly displaced in the first months of 2013 alone. Reports by the UN and independent monitors have documented ongoing abuses by the Government of Sudan and those it supports that ``may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity''. Highlights of legislation: Requires the Administration and all relevant agencies to work together and create a comprehensive strategic plan to end serious human rights violations, provide genuine accountability for crimes committed in Darfur and other parts of Sudan, support the path for democratic transformation, and create peace throughout all of Sudan; Demands free and unfettered access for international humanitarian aid and, absent such agreement, requires the Administration to seek other mechanisms to mitigate the effects of lack of such humanitarian aid; Promotes free and transparent democratic reform in Sudan, including exploring technical support and funding for civil society and others seeking sustainable democratic change; Increases engagement with other stakeholders with influence in Sudan; Creates a broad-reaching sanctions regime to target any government or individuals whose support assists the Sudanese government in committing serious human rights violations or who fail to execute international arrest warrants against Sudanese officials; Seeks more effective enforcement of existing sanctions including adequate resources and personnel and extends to all of Sudan existing sanctions regimes included in prior enacted legislation that were specific only for ``Darfur''; and Provides genuine accountability for crimes committed in Darfur and encourages other countries to expand international accountability efforts to include crimes committed in other regions in Sudan.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, due to the recent tragic events in Massachusetts, I was absent for a series of five votes on April 18, 2013. Should I have been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 113; yes on vote 114; yes on vote 115; and yes on vote 116. I share many of the concerns about privacy raised by a number of my colleagues during that debate, and I would have opposed rollcall vote 117, final passage of H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the international sports spotlight will focus on the Bahrain Grand Prix. But will that spotlight shine into Bahrain's prisons as well? Nabeel Rajab, a Bahraini human rights activist sentenced to 2 years in jail simply for engaging in nonviolent political protest, is one prisoner who deserves public attention. Nabeel is a focus of the Defending Freedoms Project, a collaborative initiative spearheaded by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that invites Members of Congress to stand up for individual prisoners of conscience around the world. Today, I invite my colleagues to take part in this important, nonpartisan opportunity. Nabeel is not alone. The Bahraini Government has also imprisoned 13 prominent activists, and Amnesty International reports that it may soon jail anyone found guilty of insulting the King. It is time for the leadership of Formula One Racing to end their silence on Bahrain's crackdown. It is time for them to take a stand in favor of human rights, and it is time for each of us to speak out for the nonviolent human rights defenders like Nabeel Rajab.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture throughout western Massachusetts for the past twenty years. The organization has grown from a small group of farmers to a community of restaurants, farmers, neighbors, and local businesses. CISA has increased the visibility of locally produced food through its highly successful ``buy local'' campaign--the longest running in the country--and supported the growth of farmers' markets in Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties to include over 50 local produce markets including seven winter markets. The Pioneer Valley, and the nation as a whole, Mr. Speaker, has benefitted greatly from the contributions of CISA. Over five years, CISA helped to increase the total acreage of farmland in Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden counties by four percent and doubled the annual total dollar amount of agricultural products sold by local farmers to the community to nearly eight and a half million dollars. Mr. Speaker, western Massachusetts is blessed by some of the most picturesque landscapes in this country. Because of CISA's commitment to supporting farmers and preserving these farmlands, we can pass this incredible resource on to the next generation. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives join me in congratulating Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture on twenty years of vital service to the community of western Massachusetts.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 200th birthday of Alfred T. Lilly, founder of the Lilly Library in Florence, Massachusetts. Mr. Lilly was a cornerstone of the Florence community: He began as a superintendant of the Nonotuck Silk Company, eventually becoming part owner of the company after Nonotuck became one of the largest and best- known manufacturers of silk in the United States. Mr. Lilly helped found a number of businesses in Florence, including the present-day Florence Savings Bank. He believed that local businesses were an integral part of any vibrant community. Mr. Speaker, in 1888, Mr. Lilly recognized the need for a library in his community. By deeding the land where the building was to be constructed, donating a considerable portion of his personal library, and providing financial support, Mr. Lilly led the efforts to construct the library that now bears his name. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lilly was a philanthropist in the purest sense of the word and cared deeply about his community. His dedication, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why, two centuries after his birth, Alfred Lilly's spirit thrives in the institution that he helped to form. It is in recognition of his dedication and passion, Mr. Speaker, that I ask my fellow Members of the United States House of Representatives to join me in honoring the great contributions Mr. Lilly made to the community of Florence.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the past 2 months, I have been speaking each week about hunger in America. Today, I want to focus on hunger among our senior citizens, which is a silent scourge in our Nation. Over 49 million Americans are hungry; and of those, 8.3 million are seniors. That's one in seven seniors and nearly 15 percent of everyone over 60 years old. In fact, from 2001 to 2009, hunger among Americans over the age of 50 increased by nearly 80 percent--80 percent. That is unconscionable. One reason for this significant rise in senior hunger is the economy. The recession has made hunger in America worse for everyone, and it's been particularly bad among people between the ages of 50 and 59, a population too young for Social Security and Medicare, but too old for programs that target families with children. And it's not just the very poor. In fact, between 2007 and 2009, the most dramatic increase in hunger was among those whose annual incomes were twice the poverty line. Food--good, healthy food--is important at all ages, but it is critical for young children and for senior citizens. For kids, nutritious food is critical for physical and mental development. For seniors, good, healthy food is critical for entirely different, but no less important, reasons. Hunger can exacerbate existing medical conditions, and many medications need to be taken with food. Taking some medicine on an empty stomach can result in illness or hospitalization, problems that not only result in increased medical costs, but can also be deadly to people with reduced immune systems. A common problem is that many seniors are homebound, unable to travel to grocery schools or food banks to get food. A homebound senior can be a forgotten senior. It's easy to see why senior hunger is a hidden problem. In many cases, the hungry senior is literally hidden away behind a closed door. That's why it is so important to have senior advocacy groups like AARP, the National Council on Aging, and AmpleHarvest.org--to name a few--who focus on senior hunger. AARP has its Drive to End Hunger campaign with NASCAR and Jeff Gordon. The National Council on Aging is working with Feeding America and other food banks to prioritize and target hunger among seniors. AmpleHarvest.org is working with seniors to grow their own food. And of course, there is Meals on Wheels, which delivers food directly to homebound seniors. A recent Brown University report found that for every additional $25 a State spends on Meals on Wheels each year for a person over 65, the low-care nursing home population decreases by 1 percent. That helps save Medicaid dollars and lowers health care costs overall. In fact, the cost of feeding a senior for 1 year through Meals on Wheels is roughly equal to the cost of just 1 day in the hospital. And the average patient stays in the hospital for almost 5 days. Funding for Meals on Wheels is an important investment to decreasing health care spending. I also want to highlight the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which helps more than 860,000 seniors who make less than $15,000 per year to have access to local fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers markets. A qualified senior is awarded between $20 and $50 to spend at their local farmers markets. Over 19,000 farmers participate and benefit from the money seniors spend through this program. Wholesome Wave is an organization that doubles the purchasing power of the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. Its Double Value Coupon program operates at more than 300 farmers markets in 26 States and the District of Columbia. Boston Mayor Tom Menino has a similar program called the Boston Bounty Bucks. These programs allow low-income seniors on fixed incomes to buy more fresh fruits and vegetables with their limited funds. Mr. Speaker, these are terrific programs, but they simply can't do it all. In the case of senior hunger, we need to make sure that groups like Meals on Wheels and programs like Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program are well funded. But we also need to work with doctors and nurses, with Medicare and Medicaid, and with other health care professionals to treat hunger as a health issue. We need to prevent costly hospital readmissions that are preventable with proper nutrition. We need to ensure that seniors aren't falling through the cracks and that they aren't going hungry. Mr. Speaker, we need Presidential leadership to End Hunger Now, and we need a White House conference on food and nutrition to talk about senior hunger; to brainstorm, plan, and execute a national antihunger plan that will truly end hunger now. We are the most prosperous Nation in the world. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should go hungry in the United States of America. It is especially shameful that so many older people, people who have made this country great, find themselves in a position where they are hungry. We can do something about it. I hope we come together, and I hope we end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my grandmother used to say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. I hated it when she said that, but you know, Mr. Speaker, she was right. Good, nutritious food will keep you healthy. That's because food is medicine. Fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods like beans, legumes, grains and proteins are critical for proper development. Simply put, healthy people eat healthy food. The opposite is also true. The more junk food we eat, the less healthy we are. But there are different reasons why people eat less nutritious food. Many people choose to eat non-nutritious food, but there are many others who cannot afford to buy healthier options. These low-income households have to stretch their food dollars in order to make ends meet. This requires them to buy less nutritious, high-calorie foods that are more affordable on a fixed income. This is why we can have an obese hungry person. They're filling their stomachs with food that isn't good for them, simply because it's all they can afford or all they have access to. This kind of diet has long-term negative effects on individuals and on the communities where they live. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about ways to End Hunger Now, we must look at the way the quality of food, or the lack of quality, is impacting hunger in America. In a 2011 report entitled, ``Hunger in America: Suffering We Are All Paying For,'' the Center for American Progress estimated that the health costs for hunger were at least $130 billion each year. $130 billion a year, just for health costs related to hunger. The authors of the report examined medical research and found that there are serious medical consequences directly related to hunger. Specifically, this research found that there is likely to be higher rates of iron deficiency, headaches, stomach aches, frequency of colds, activity-limiting health impairments, specific nutrient deficiencies, more hospitalizations, longer inpatient stays, and poorer overall health status. Along with these physical health issues, there are also mental health conditions attributable to hunger, including anxiety and irritability, depression, withdrawn behavior, psychosocial dysfunction, suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and a need for mental health services. The response is clear, Mr. Speaker. We must treat hunger as a health issue. It frustrates me that we in Congress still act like it's a better option to spend over $130 billion in hunger-related health costs than to actually prevent hunger in the first place. Last month, in March, ProMedica and the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease released a white paper called, ``Addressing Hunger Essential to Improving Health.'' This paper details how critically important it is to treat hunger as a health issue. The white paper points out that hungry people of all ages, from pregnant women to children to adults to seniors, suffer from a lack of nutrients found in healthy foods. The lack of nutrients results in serious health issues, the very same health issues that cost our Nation over $130 billion in health care costs alone. That's nuts. Doctors and nurses should be looking for signs of hunger in their patients. Medical students should have more courses on nutrition. They should be treating hunger just like any other condition. If someone has high blood pressure or a rash, they get a prescription to treat that problem. Doctors should be writing food prescriptions, if that's what it takes, to get nutritious food to the food insecure. Health care organizations like ProMedica in Ohio and Michigan, UMass Memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Children's Health Watch in four locations, including Boston Medical Center and Drexel University, are trying to right this wrong. They promote health and wellness in general, but they are also treating hunger as a health issue. They are working to reduce the number of hospital readmissions by including food security in their patients' discharge plans. They want to make sure that people don't need to be readmitted to a hospital because they suffer from a setback simply because they don't have food to eat once they leave the hospital. They are also working to raise awareness about nutrition and exercise and to increase access to healthier food in underserved areas. Mr. Speaker, we need to learn from these organizations and others. That's why I believe it is so important that the White House convene a conference on food and nutrition. We are not going to end hunger now if we don't bring the best and the brightest minds together in one place, including doctors, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, and other health professionals. We need a national plan of action, and the best way to begin is with a White House conference. Mr. Speaker, we know that healthy food builds healthy bodies. We know that by ignoring hunger, our Nation pays hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs. We know that nutritious food is good medicine for body and mind. Mr. Speaker, in the United States of America, the richest, most prosperous nation on Earth, hunger should not be an issue. We need to come together, Mr. Speaker. We need to come together now. We need the President to lead on this. We need to come together and end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, budget resolutions are moral documents. They lay out a vision of how each party sees the future and where our priorities should lie. Since this is budget week, the week when we will vote on a number of different competing visions for America, it is the right time to talk about the misguided priorities laid out in the Republican budget as presented by Chairman Paul Ryan. Once again, Chairman Ryan has proposed a budget that guts low-income programs. The Ryan budget not only does not end hunger now, it actually makes hunger in America worse than it is today. Simply put, we are currently not doing enough to end hunger now. There are over 50 million hungry Americans in this country; 17 million are kids. Over 47 million rely on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, to put food on their tables. Without this program, real hunger--the actual absence of food--would be much worse. The Great Recession is the primary reason hunger is so bad today. Now, don't get me wrong; hunger has been getting worse since the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. We almost eradicated hunger in America in the late 1970s, but hunger has been getting steadily worse in the decades since. But the Great Recession, the worst economic period we've faced since the Great Depression, resulted in millions more hungry people, millions of people who had to turn to SNAP as the safety net that prevented them from going without food altogether. Recognizing that hunger is a real problem and that we need to end hunger now, I would hope that any budget proposed in this Congress would, at the very least, do no harm to those who are struggling the most in our current economy. Yet the Ryan budget slashes SNAP once again. This should come as no surprise. This is basically the same budget he has introduced over the past few years--and the same budget that voters have rejected over and over again. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the same budget that turns Medicare into a voucher, the same budget that repeals the Affordable Care Act, and the same budget that gives even more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. And, Mr. Speaker, it's the same budget that turns SNAP into a block grant. Some of my Republican friends will provide false arguments about what the Ryan budget really does. They'll say that this just gives Governors flexibility, or they're just combating fraud, waste, and abuse. Mr. Speaker, the real goal of the Ryan budget, and of some of my Republican friends who support it, is to end SNAP as we know it. SNAP is not just a simple antihunger program; it is among the more effective and efficient, if not the most effective and efficient, Federal program. SNAP has a historically low error rate. Trafficking is going down, and prosecutions of SNAP trafficking are clearly visible as USDA works to reduce that problem. SNAP is a countercyclical program. That means that enrollment increases as the economy worsens. It is a true safety net program, and it has a side benefit of being a stimulus program. Every SNAP dollar spent results in another $1.72 in economic activity. Yes, SNAP can use some improving, but the wholesale and shortsighted changes included in the Ryan budget are not the answer. The Ryan budget actually cuts $135 billion from SNAP over the next 10 years--$135 billion. That's not a haircut; that's a meat-ax. It's an 18 percent cut, a cut that will cause real harm to low-income families who otherwise could not afford food. The cuts in the Ryan budget will have a real impact on poor Americans and struggling working families because millions of people on SNAP work for a living. They earn so little that they still qualify for Federal assistance. If they apply these cuts solely to eligibility, these cuts would mean that 8 to 9 million people would be cut from SNAP. If these cuts are applied solely to benefits, then all 47 million people on SNAP would see an average cut of $24 per person per month. That adds up to a cut of almost $1,100 per year for a family of four. That may not seem like much to a Congress that has a ton of millionaires, but a $1,100 cut will do real, serious harm to people whose budgets are already stretched to the limit. Cuts like these are not just misguided, they're cruel. Combined with cuts to other low-income programs that are included in the Ryan budget, these SNAP cuts will absolutely make hunger in America worse. As we consider a budget, at the very least, we should do no harm, but we really should be striving to make every American's life better. That's our job. Cutting SNAP not only doesn't make anybody's life better, it actually does real harm, harm that will manifest in a less educated population, a sicker Nation, and a Nation that ultimately has to spend more on the hungry simply because we decided to bring austerity to a program that doesn't deserve to be cut. We are a great country, Mr. Speaker. We are great because we have a tradition of caring about the most vulnerable among us. Let us not turn our backs on one of our greatest traditions. This assault on poor people must come to an end. This assault on the hungry, many of whom are kids and senior citizens, must come to an end. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can end hunger now if we find the political will to do so. The Ryan budget does the opposite. It cuts a vital antihunger program for crass political reasons, an act that makes hunger worse. Let us instead pass a budget that lifts people up, not one that keeps people down.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing problem with this Republican majority is their insistence on partisan political ploys at the expense of sound policy. It's their way or the highway, and this is a good example. This bill should be a bipartisan bill. This bill should have brought both sides together for the common goal of putting people back to work. The bill we are considering today, the so-called SKILLS Act, doesn't in any way, shape, or form reflect bipartisanship. Instead of bringing a bill to the floor that will help our economy prosper and grow jobs, instead of bringing a bill to the floor where there's bipartisanship, this majority has given us a bill that, quite frankly, will gut job training programs. This is not a good bill. In fact, it does real harm to job training programs that will help put Americans back to work. And I'm particularly alarmed by the bill's egregious cuts to the SNAP Education and Training program. The SKILLS Act would destroy the SNAP Education and Training program as we know it. It would kill a program that provides low-income individuals with the training they need to get jobs, jobs that pay enough to get them off of public assistance. And here is the deal: the SNAP Education and Training program works; it actually works. The author of this bill, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Dr. Foxx, does not take a meat-ax to this program but, instead, cleverly reworks it in a way so that, while it will exist in name, it will not be able to carry out its mission. Rather than going directly at the program and reducing or zeroing out the program funding, the bill instead eliminates the role of the SNAP agency in determining what kinds of services are provided to SNAP participants. Under its SKILLS Act, the WIA board is authorized to serve ``eligible SNAP participants.'' The way this would appear to work is that the State SNAP agency would still assign some group of participants to SNAP Education and Training programs, but only to those programs as provided through WIA. And here's the concern: the concern is that a good number of States, including my home State of Massachusetts, have found the WIA services to be inappropriate for SNAP recipients. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, childless, unemployed adults generally cannot participate in SNAP for more than 3 months out of every 3 years unless they are enrolled in certain types of training programs for 20 hours per week. In this legislation, workforce investment boards are not required to provide work slots that meet these conditions, and State SNAP agencies are no longer able to provide additional services. As a result, if jobs are not available, some poor individuals who are willing to work could lose their SNAP benefits. They could lose their food benefits. According to the Government Accountability Office: Many SNAP participants are not ready for many program services such as training classes offered by programs at the WIA one-stops because they lack basic skills, such as reading and computer literacy, that would allow them to use their services successfully. At best, Mr. Speaker, low-income individuals on SNAP who are lacking job skills that will help them get off public assistance will be denied access to job-training programs. But here's the kicker: at worst, low- income individuals who rely on SNAP to put food on their table will either see part or all of their benefit cut. Yes, Mr. Speaker, just when you think things couldn't get worse for poor people in this country, this new legislation could actually make hunger worse. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that does nothing to help the American economy or the unemployed or the untrained in this country. We should be focusing on jobs, not partisan legislation. This is an area where we should be able to come together, as my colleague, Mr. Polis, said. This is yet another attack on poor people. We should be working to end hunger now and not passing bills that make hunger worse. I'll conclude as I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this is one of those opportunities that I think the American people believe that we could come together. Unfortunately, this has become a partisan ploy, another partisan press release. This bill is going nowhere, and I regret that very much because unemployed people need help.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, my good friend, Mr. Pierluisi.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule. Again, I regret very much that something that really should be truly bipartisan and totally bipartisan and totally noncontroversial has now become politicized so that there's division. Again, I wish that we had followed the same path we did with the Violence Against Women Act, when a more controversial and divisive attempt on that bill was put aside for something that was more of a consensus and had broad bipartisan support. We could do the same thing here, and I wish we would. There is no need for this bill to become politicized; and my guess is that when it comes back to the House, the controversial provisions that we are complaining about right now will probably be gone. Mr. Speaker, we just had a long discussion about work requirements; but, ironically, the bill that we're going to deal with tomorrow cuts this program called the SNAP Employment and Training Funding. This is a program that helps low-income individuals get training for proper employment, training for jobs that could help those individuals lift themselves out of poverty and off public assistance. It is my understanding that my friends are going to bring a bill that guts that particular program. I find that puzzling because the whole point of that program is to give people the training they need so they are qualified for some of the jobs that are open out there, and yet we're going to eliminate that. My friends have routinely gone after the SNAP, or food stamp program, again, helping low-income families get by during difficult times while they find employment. Sadly, there are a lot of people who are working who earn so little that they still qualify for SNAP. We ought to have a greater discussion on poverty and how to deal with some of these big issues like hunger and food insecurity, and I hope at some point we can have that discussion. But, today, what I wish we were doing, in addition to passing a noncontroversial TANF bill, I wish we were on the floor debating an alternative to the sequester--750,000 jobs are about to be lost, 750,000 jobs. If we are truly interested in work, we ought to protect those jobs. Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland had an alternative that four times he's brought to the Rules Committee. Four times the leadership here has said, no, you can't bring it to the floor, you can't debate it, you can't deliberate on it. And my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Congress have offered zero. They're totally content to let the sequester go into play--750,000 jobs at stake. I think that's what we should be doing here, Mr. Speaker. As I yield back the balance of my time, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suspend politics for just a little while so we can get a few major things done. We can do the politics next year when it's campaign time, but now's the time to achieve results. We can come together on a lot of these issues. I hope that that happens; but if this is any indication of how we're going to proceed, it makes me less hopeful. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues that this is not a good rule. It is a closed rule, and there's no need for it. This prevents Members of the House of both parties from coming to the floor with ideas or ways to amend this legislation. Because of the rule, they're prevented from doing so. I think that is an unfortunate fact. We should have deliberation on this House floor. Given the fact that we're not doing much of anything, we certainly have the time to deliberate, and I would hope that in the future that we would see more flexibility on the rules and less closed rules. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule because of that. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican majority in the House is proving that they never let facts get in the way of a good press release. Today's bill takes a sensible, bipartisan piece of legislation and tacks on a partisan political ploy that was used in the last Congress to try to embarrass President Obama. Instead of bringing a simple, clean extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Republican majority is continuing a political attack from the last election. And like many of the other political attacks lobbed against President Obama in that campaign, this attack is simply untrue and destined for failure. Over the last 2 years, members of the majority have charged that actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TANF program are an attempt to ``let people sit at home and collect welfare checks.'' Such charges have been declared false by numerous fact check organizations, including Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Fact Checker at The Washington Post. Furthermore, Ron Haskins, the former Republican staff director of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee and one of the chief architects of the 1996 welfare reform law, said the reforms similar to the ones being made by HHS are justified. And he added: I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform. Each State has to say what they will do and how that reform will either increase employment or lead to better employment. That's Ron Haskins, the former Republican staff director of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, the merits of the changes implemented by HHS strengthen Federal efforts to move Americans from welfare to work. In allowing States the flexibility from rigid TANF requirements, the administration requires that any changes provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment. In explaining the policy changes, HHS Secretary Sebelius stated: Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the State's past performance. Under such requirements, it is impossible to assert that these changes will weaken the Federal efforts to move citizens from welfare to work. In fact, in looking at the actual rules even briefly, it is clear that these changes strengthen our Federal efforts by allowing for more effective and more efficient programs by giving them room to operate at the State level. Mr. Speaker, it may be surprising to some watching today's proceedings that the majority disapproves of the administration's programmatic changes. The underlying principle of the changes is the belief that States should have flexibility to implement proven and effective methods for moving Americans from welfare to work. Yet today, a Republican majority that often boasts of its commitment to States' rights now stands in fierce opposition to that very principle. They find themselves demanding that even when more effective methods for putting Americans to work are available, Federal standards dictated from Washington must rule the day. And the real irony in their argument against the administration's action is that the request for flexibility came from a Governor, a Republican Governor. And it was not just a Republican Governor from a blue State like New Jersey or a purple State like Virginia. No, Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Utah--one of the reddest States in the Nation--is the one that has requested this waiver. I've seen some interesting legislative jujitsu on this House floor. One day they're adhering to the Hastert rule, and the next day the Boehner rule applies. This Republican majority legislates by lurching from one issue to another issue trying to find something that works. So I can't say that I'm surprised that they're declaring themselves against increasing work requirements for TANF recipients as requested by a Republican Governor. The only thing I can chalk it up to is politics. You'd think that at some point the Republican majority would rather legislate instead of fighting a political battle that was decided 4 months ago, a political battle that they lost badly. Sadly, that day is not today. If this majority were truly serious about work and employment, about actually reducing the number of people on TANF, then we would be voting on a bill to repeal the sequester and we would be voting on a bill to save the 750,000 jobs that will be lost this year because of these arbitrary, mindless, senseless, and thoughtless cuts. The reauthorization of TANF in and of itself is not controversial. We can move that bill on suspension. What appears to be controversial to this Republican leadership is putting people back to work. What appears to be controversial to this Republican leadership is saving our economy from the devastating sequester cuts. What appears to be controversial to this Republican leadership is responsible governing. In contrast, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a plan that House Republicans block time after time after time to avoid sequester. Congressman Van Hollen has a balanced sequester replacement, one that will get rid of the arbitrary cuts and replace them with a balanced mix of cuts and revenues, revenues that come from closing tax loopholes that even Republicans like Mitt Romney thought we should eliminate. Congressman Van Hollen has come to the Rules Committee four times this year alone in the hope that this Republican leadership, the ones who promised an open House and an open legislative process, would make his amendment in order. And four times now, the Republican leadership in this House has refused to make that amendment in order. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Why not allow the Van Hollen sequester replacement bill to come to the floor for a vote? Didn't Speaker Boehner promise a more open House? Didn't he say that the House should work its will? Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to run a democracy. This is not an open and fair process. That's because this Republican leadership is not about openness. They're not about legislating responsibly. They're about desperate attempts to score cheap political points. That's what they're doing with the sequester. And that's what they're doing with this TANF reauthorization--something that should be totally noncontroversial, something that should be approved with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this closed rule, an unnecessarily closed rule, and defeat this bill. It is time we put partisan politics aside, at least until the next election season begins, and start working for the American people. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for his improved pronunciation. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship that he has displayed on a number of issues, most recently on the Violence Against Women Act. I kind of wish that that same spirit was brought to this bill here today, this TANF bill, because it would pass overwhelmingly. Just so that there's no confusion about what HHS is trying to do, I would like to insert into the Record a letter that Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, sent to the Honorable Dave Camp, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which explains how the administration views this flexibility that they might at some point utilize. But basically it is not to weaken the work requirement; it is to support States that have better ideas to improve the results to get more people to work. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would say is that, again, it's ironic that my friends on the other side have kind of chosen to put a little bit of politics into this debate given the fact that a Republican Governor from a red State, Utah, suggests to the administration that he might have a better idea on how his State might get better results in putting more people to work, getting people off of public assistance and into the workforce. I think that's a good thing. I think what all of us believe is whatever it takes to get more people into the workforce is a good thing. I would also say to my friend--he mentioned that the Republicans have had proposals to deal with the sequester. Not in this session they haven't. Not a single time in this current Congress have my Republican friends brought an alternative to the floor to avoid sequester--these arbitrary, mindless, senseless cuts that go across the board. If you had a line item in the budget that said ``fraud, waste, and abuse,'' under the sequester that would be treated the same way as a line item for medical research or for education or for transportation and infrastructure. This is not a way to deal with our budgetary challenges. The reason why I bring up sequester today is because I wish there were a greater sense of urgency in this House of Representatives to deal with it. We're all talking about welfare-to-work right now. But by allowing the sequester to continue to go into place, CBO tells us that we're going to risk 750,000 jobs; 750,000 of our fellow citizens will be out of work because of the inaction of this Congress. I find that unacceptable. We ought to be preserving jobs, we ought to be expanding jobs, we ought to be doing everything we can to get people back to work because that's the surest way to reduce our deficit. The more people working, the more revenues, the more we can pay down our deficit. We should be talking about trying to get our budgetary House in order without diminishing the quality of life and the standard of living for people in this country. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, July 18, 2012. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Camp: Thank you for your interest in the guidance we have released to states concerning the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The 1996 welfare reform legislation established work requirements which have been critical to moving people off welfare and into jobs. The proposal we have outlined strengthens the law's purpose to move people off of welfare and into jobs by utilizing state-based innovation. Our goal is to accelerate job placement by moving more Americans from welfare to work, and no policy which undercuts that goal or waters down work requirements will be considered or approved by the Department. For years, Republican and Democratic Governors have requested more flexibility in implementing welfare reform so they can meet their states' specific needs. In 2005, 29 Republican Governors requested ``[i]ncreased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit'' so they might more ``effectively serve low- income'' Americans. Certain elements of the proposal endorsed by the 2005 Republican Governors were very far-reaching and would not be approved under the Department's proposed waivers. More recently, Utah and Nevada requested waiver opportunities. While it appears some of the policies enumerated in the letters would not be eligible for waivers under our policy, we look forward to receiving and being able to consider a formal application from these and other states. The Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job. Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance. States must also demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after their programs take effect. If they fail, their waiver will be rescinded. And if a Governor proposes a plan that undercuts the work requirements established in welfare reform, that plan will be rejected. We will follow our initial guidance to states with further information detailing metrics and accountability measures. The policy we have outlined is designed to accelerate job placement rates for those on welfare, not address other aspects of their lives. No plan that undercuts the goal of moving people from welfare to work will be considered or approved. For example, the Department will not approve a waiver that changes the definition of work requirements to include any of the activities outlined in a 2005 GAO report on TANF such as personal care activities, massage, and journaling. We will continue to hold states accountable for moving people from welfare to work. Strengthening Welfare Reform Through State-based Innovation For states, welfare can too often be a maze of red tape and nonsensical rules. For example, states can get more credit for assigning people to do job search than for placing them into paying, private-sector jobs. The rules not only place an administrative burden on states, but make searching for a job and securing employment more difficult for families. The proposal we have outlined gives states flexibility to cut red tape and get people back to work. As noted earlier, when Congress considered legislation reauthorizing the TANF program in 2005, Governors from across the country also expressed their support for more flexibility for states in the TANF program. In a letter to Congress, the following Governors specifically endorsed Senate legislation, which would have allowed many states to receive waivers far broader than we are allowing now--including, for example, waivers of the time limits in the 1996 welfare reform law. Governors signing this letter included: Bob Riley, Alabama; Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska; Mike Huckabee, Arkansas; Arnold Schwarzenegger, California; Bill Owens, Colorado; M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut; Jeb Bush, Florida; Sonny Perdue, Georgia; Linda Lingle, Hawaii; Dirk Kempthorne, Idaho; Mitch Daniels, Indiana; Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky; Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Maryland; Mitt Romney, Massachusetts. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota; Haley Barbour, Mississippi; Matt Blunt, Missouri; Dave Heineman, Nebraska; George E. Pataki, New York; Kenny C. Guinn, Nevada; John Hoeven, North Dakota; Bob Taft, Ohio; Donald L. Carcieri, Rhode Island; Mark Sanford, South Carolina; M. Michael Rounds, South Dakota; Rick Perry, Texas; Jon Huntsman, Jr., Utah; James Douglas, Vermont. As also noted previously, we do not go as far as these Governors in supporting state flexibility. Within limits, however, we agree with their letter that states should have ``the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and effectively serve low-income populations.'' If a Governor commits to a plan to strengthen work requirements that moves more people from welfare to work, we welcome the opportunity to review that proposal. On the other hand, if a Governor is satisfied with the status quo, the state will not be required to submit a waiver request and can continue to operate under the current welfare system. We do not have to choose between providing temporary assistance to families who fall on hard times and putting people back to work. We can do both by strengthening work requirements so more people move from welfare to work and giving states flexibility to tailor their welfare reforms to their specific needs. But while we continue to explore new ways to strengthen work requirements, we will not accept any changes that undercut employment-focused welfare reforms that were signed into law fifteen years ago. As we have relayed to your staff, we would welcome the opportunity to brief them on the legal and programmatic issues related to this policy and to discuss the feedback we have received from states about the challenges that the current requirements present to creating jobs. Attached is a more detailed description of HHS' waiver authority under current law. I will also provide this response to Senator Hatch. Sincerely, Kathleen Sebelius. Enclosure. ATTACHMENT--Legal Basis for Utilizing Waiver Authority in TANF The exercise of waiver authority contemplated in the July 12 Information Memorandum is clearly authorized by section 1115(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Section 1115(a)(1) allows the Secretary to ``waive compliance with any of the requirements of section . . . 402 [of the Act] . . . to the extent and for the period [s]he finds necessary to enable [a] State . . . to carry out'' an approved experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that will assist in promoting the objectives of the TANF program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1315(a)(1). As the Information Memorandum explains, section 402 sets forth state plan requirements for the TANF program, including the requirement that a plan ``[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.'' Id. Sec. 602(a)(1)(A)(iii). By authorizing the Secretary to ``waive compliance with any of the requirements of section . . . 402,'' therefore, section 1115 permits the Secretary to waive the requirements of section 407 when she determines that a waiver would promote the objectives of the TANF program and satisfy the other prerequisites for a waiver. Your letter maintains that the Secretary's section 1115 waiver authority does not extend to the requirements described in the Information Memorandum because those requirements are set forth in section 407 rather than section 402. But, as explained above, the plain text of section 402 incorporates the requirements of section 407 by reference. Moreover, the Department has long interpreted its authority to waive state plan requirements under section 1115 to extend to requirements set forth in other statutory provisions that are referenced in the provisions governing state plans. This interpretation has been consistently applied throughout the history of section 1115, including in the context of the Medicaid, child support, and former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. For example, in Wisconsin's well-known ``Work Not Welfare'' demonstration implemented in 1995, the state received a waiver of rules related to the distribution of child support. While section 1115 references the child support state plan provisions in section 454, the child support rules waived in the Wisconsin waiver are in section 457, but included by reference in the state plan in section 454(11). (Additional examples can be provided upon request.) If Congress had intended to restrict the Secretary's waiver authority when it replaced the AFDC program with the TANF program in 1996, it could have deleted section 1115's reference to section 402 or otherwise indicated its intent to depart from past practice. Congress did not do so and the Department is adhering to its longstanding interpretation that section 1115 waiver authority extends to requirements incorporated by reference into the state plan sections of programs, including Medicaid, child support, and TANF. Your letter also claims that section 415(a)(2)(B) of the Act precludes the Secretary from waiving section 407's requirements. But section 415(a)(2)(B) has no application here because it is a transitional provision applicable only to waivers under the former AFDC program, which was replaced by the TANF program in 1996. Indeed, the plain language of section 415(a)(2)(B) makes clear that it is limited to waivers that related to ``a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996)''--that is, under the former AFDC program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 615(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). That provision thus does nothing to restrict the Secretary's waiver authority with respect to the current TANF program.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma whether he has any additional speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to address a couple of points of my colleague from Oklahoma, whom I have a great deal of respect for. First of all, if we had an open rule, Mr. Pierluisi could have had a chance to offer his amendment, and we could get a judgment from the Parliamentarian then. Secondly, also the Rules Committee could have waived the germaneness rule to allow Mr. Pierluisi to have his amendment made in order. So the Rules Committee could have done that, and chose instead to report a closed rule here so that nobody can offer anything. It is completely closed, a closed process. Secondly, with regard to sequestration again, I point out that the President of the United States did offer a grand bargain. My Republican friends said no to that. He put a lot of different things on the table trying to come up with a grand bargain to deal with our deficit but also not undercut our economy. It was a balance of cuts and revenue, but my Republican friends said no to that. And I would repeat again, in this Congress, the House Republicans have done nothing, have proposed zero to be able to avoid the sequester. There have been no alternatives brought before the Rules Committee, nothing brought to the floor. Mr. Van Hollen has, on four different occasions, tried to avoid sequester with a very balanced approach, and it would save 750,000 jobs. If there's anything that's urgent in this Chamber, it should be to preserve and protect the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of these sequester cuts. I would finally say that the United States Senate, far from a perfect branch of government in my opinion, but nonetheless, the Senate Majority Leader had an alternative to sequester that got 51 votes. That's a majority. But, unfortunately, under the Senate rules and with Republican insistence that they needed 60 votes, it didn't make it. But 51 Senators voted for an alternative. So there are alternatives out there; and the notion that we should kind of sit back, lay back, and maybe something will emerge miraculously to deal with this issue I don't think is the proper role of the House of Representatives. We ought to be deliberating and debating and finding ways to protect those 750,000 jobs. We talk about welfare to work here. And again, the irony is we're trying to prevent the administration from being able to have the flexibility to be able to work with States who want to get better results, to get more people off of welfare to work. But when you talk about getting people to work, we ought to also be talking about preserving the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of our inaction on sequester. Mr. Speaker, at this point I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to talk about hunger in America and, specifically, the effort to end hunger now. Mr. Speaker, hunger is still far too prevalent in America. There are more than 50 million people in this country who don't know where their next meal will come from. Seventeen million of those hungry people are children--17 million, Mr. Speaker. That breaks my heart, especially when we have a way to end hunger in this country. It doesn't have to be this way. The truth is that hunger is solvable. We have the means, the infrastructure, and the food to end hunger. We just don't have the political will to do so. This point is delivered in a clear, concise, and emotional way in a documentary that is in theaters now called ``A Place at the Table.'' This film at its core may be a simple story of hunger in America, but it's really an emotional tale about how people are struggling with hunger in this country, about piecing just enough together to make ends meet day by day, week by week, and month by month. These stories are not new and, unfortunately, they aren't unique. We don't have to look far to see a working mother who struggles to provide nutritious food for her children. We don't have to look far to see a young girl who struggles in school simply because hunger prevents her from concentrating in the classroom. We don't have to look far to see food pantries stretched beyond their means as they try to keep up with the demands of feeding the hungry in their communities. And we don't have to look far to see how often the hungry and undernourished are utilizing our health care systems for hunger and nutrition-related conditions. What is new and unique today is the platform through which we hear these stories and experience what these individuals featured in the film are going through. The stories told by the directors, Kristi Jacobson and Lori Silverbush, weave together the heartbreaking history of how we went from almost ending hunger in America in the late 1970s, thanks in large part to the bipartisan cooperation led by Senator George McGovern and Senator Robert Dole, to now more than 50 million hungry in this country--40 years later, 50 million hungry in this country. But this isn't just a story of woe, Mr. Speaker. For me, this is also a story of hope and optimism, a story of a difficult struggle, but a struggle fought with dignity. And it is a story that is part of a bigger purpose and goal, and that goal is to end hunger now. At its heart, the point of this documentary is that we can end hunger now. And I'm pleased and impressed that a strong, coordinated social action plan accompanies this film. This comprehensive plan can be found online at www.takepart.com/ table, and I encourage everyone to take a look at this Web site. Once there, people will be able to find important resources, including ways to access food assistance if they need help; an online gallery of artists, politicians, teachers, writers, and business and community leaders who once needed help through SNAP, the primary Federal antihunger safety program that we have in this country; and also, you see a list of partners who are helping combat hunger through this film. Most importantly, it outlines ways that people can help make hunger a national priority, and it includes specific actions that people can take in their communities. Mr. Speaker, we've had a number of strong antihunger partners over the years, but this is the first time in recent memory that there is a dedicated effort to end hunger tied directly to a mainstream film that is nationally garnering critical acclaim. The social action plan is based on a simple concept: that people will be moved by individual stories and the facts about hunger documented in this film. When they hear the information, they will want to take action. They will be moved to act in a meaningful way. Through this Web site, people can take part in simple actions, like contacting their elected officials or volunteering to work with local organizations that are making a difference in their communities, organizations like FRAC, Feeding America, Share Our Strength, Bread for the World, DC Central Kitchen, AmpleHarvest.org, WhyHunger, and Wholesome Wave, just to name a few of the 30 organizations allied with this film. There is also a book, Mr. Speaker, that accompanies the film that is also of the same name, ``A Place at the Table,'' that explains the issue of hunger and goes over the many ways that each of us can end hunger now. As I've said over and over again, Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition, one that requires action by concerned Americans. Over the past few weeks, we have seen how so many Americans care about this problem and want to be part of the solution to end hunger now. And I would, once again, Mr. Speaker, urge the President of the United States to take a leadership role, to organize a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition to devise a plan to end hunger now. Mr. Speaker, with partners like those behind ``A Place at the Table,'' along with their social action plan, we can make a real difference. We can end hunger now. And it is also my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress will step up to the plate and join in the effort to end hunger now. It is our moral obligation. It is the right thing to do. Now is the time.