Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, my friend, 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. Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider the rule for H.R. 933, the continuing resolution for the rest of fiscal year 2013. This is a disappointing bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is a disappointing process. This continuing resolution, quite frankly, is inadequate. It does not meet the needs of our people. And because it does not address sequestration, it actually will hurt many millions of our people. The Department of Defense and the VA are given some flexibility to deal with the devastating sequestration cuts, but no other agency is given that tool. This is clearly, in my opinion, a tacit statement by the majority that they are going to keep this harmful sequester, one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Congress. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the disappointing part of this entire process. The majority has had plenty of opportunity to address the sequester. Time after time after time after time, Democrats, through the efforts of the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, have offered a sequester alternative. And time after time after time after time, the Republican majority has blocked this amendment from being debated and voted on the House floor. Yet the Republicans in Congress have yet to put forth a sequester alternative. Of course they will say that they have passed two different proposals, but that was last Congress. As many of my friends on the other side of the aisle know so well, legislation dies at the end of each Congress. Every 2 years, Congress repopulates and every bill must start over. There is no carryover from one Congress to the next. We all learned that in the most basic political science class, Politics 101. So this claim that we did something last Congress is irrelevant to addressing the sequester that the Republicans let take effect last week. And let's remember the context of those two bills the House Republicans are so proud of. They were the result of, once again, the Republican leadership walking away from difficult bipartisan negotiations just at the moment when a deal seemed to be within reach. They both are completely partisan bills, and they both were dead on arrival in the Senate. So they were not genuine efforts to solve problems. They were all for show. They were simply political theater. On the other hand, at the end of the last Congress, the House Republican leadership had a bipartisan, bicameral negotiated omnibus appropriations bill that would have taken us through fiscal year 2013, the result of hundreds of hours of careful bipartisan negotiation. But the House Republicans would not let that bill come to the floor for approval, a bill that would have passed the Senate and gone straight to the President's desk for signature. Instead, they chose to waste the House's time on its two highly touted, highly partisan budget bills that went nowhere. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, that was the last Congress, and we must now start all over to address the sequester and provide funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. Frankly, I don't know what the Republicans in the House are scared of. Speaker Boehner seems to have moved past the Hastert rule, which is a silly notion that the bill must only pass if it has the majority of the majority, and he has replaced it with selective bipartisanship. That's right, Speaker Boehner clearly believes that the House should operate under a process of selective bipartisanship. This means he turns to Democrats when he needs the votes to pass important bills, like he did for VAWA, the fiscal cliff, and Hurricane Sandy relief, when only 49 Republicans, only 49 Republicans out of 232 voted to help our fellow citizens on the east coast who were devastated by that storm. The Speaker should do the same thing with the sequester and allow the House to debate and to vote on the Van Hollen amendment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is part of a broader Republican economic plan that is, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing. First, Republicans brought us to the brink of economic mayhem with the fiscal cliff. At the last minute, the Senate swooped in to save the day with leadership and help from the administration. Then House Republicans allowed the sequester to take effect, once again playing Russian roulette with our economy. Now we are going to consider this hybrid CR that just doesn't pass muster, despite the best efforts of the appropriators. No one--no one--wants a government shutdown, and we all know that some kind of bill funding the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year will pass before March 27. The real fights are going to come in the next few weeks and months when the Republicans outline their budget priorities with the new Ryan budget and when the debt limit, once again, needs to be raised. What is clear is that the Republicans are hell-bent on cutting spending just for its own sake, no matter how mindless or senseless. We know that the economy is slowly rebounding, and we also know that these cuts in government spending--Federal, State, and local--are taking their toll on the economy. Fourth-quarter growth last year was reduced only because of reduced government spending--the cuts to cops, the cuts to firefighters, the cuts to teachers, and other workers--when that showed up in that economic report. Now we are going to see a Republican budget that supposedly eliminates the deficit in 10 years. Call it the Ryan budget on steroids. It is going to cut Medicare, food stamps, and nearly every nondefense discretionary program funded by the Federal Government; and during the debt ceiling debate, we will see another attempt to arbitrarily cut these programs. Mr. Speaker, this is not a responsible way to govern. The continuing resolution before us today is just one more example of how the House Republicans are leading with their heads in the sand. Instead of working to jump-start our economy, instead of engaging in true bipartisan negotiations, House Republicans continue to push on with misguided and ill-conceived budget cuts that do harm, but no good. Like I said, this is a disappointing bill and a disappointing effort. We should be considering an omnibus appropriations bill. We should work to replace the sequester. We should be thinking long-term about economic recovery. We should be putting country ahead of political party. Instead, once again, we are playing games with our economy. This is no way to run a government. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional requests for speakers?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. We are prepared to close as well, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, that the time to act has long since passed. We are now in sequester. Budgets across the board and in a mindless and senseless way are being slashed. Air traffic control towers are being shut down. That will result in an adverse impact on local economies. We will lose jobs. You've heard over and over that we're told that we should expect a job loss of 750,000 people. What do they do? They lose their job, and they go on unemployment. Where is the future? Where is the savings that my friends are talking about when you throw people out of work? My friends talk about tough choices. Well, we ought to assume tough choices. You're going to have health clinics that are going to be reduced in their funding. You're going to have transportation projects reduced in their funding. You're going to have cuts in WIC; you're going to have cuts in Head Start; you're going to have cuts in programs that benefit the most vulnerable people in our communities. None of us in this Chamber has to absorb a tough choice. It's the people we represent. It's the people in this country who are getting shafted as a result of this sequestration. The time to act has long since passed. Mr. Van Hollen has time and time and time again--not once, not twice, not three times, but four times tried to bring an alternative to the House floor. All he's asked for is that we have an up-or-down vote on his proposal, and four times he has been rejected. By contrast, this year, my friends have brought up not a single alternative to avoid sequestration. All we're asking for is a little democracy here on the floor of the House of Representatives, a chance for us to debate and have an up-or- down vote not on a procedural motion, but on the actual legislation, up or down. We've been denied that. My friends, if they have an alternative they want to bring, fine. Bring that up there too. We'll have two votes, and we can debate our priorities so the American people know where we stand. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van Hollen's bill to replace the sequester and on Mr. Connolly's bill to freeze pay for Members of Congress for the next 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I just want to again say to my friends that it is important for them to appreciate the devastation of these cuts. Head Start: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $400 million, resulting in a potential loss of 70,000 Head Start slots for comprehensive early learning and development services. Job training programs: the CR will allow sequester to cut $282 million, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, veterans, young adults and students losing access to employment services. Title I grants, education of the disadvantaged: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $730 million, which is the equivalent of cutting the extra instructional services for more than 2,500 schools serving more than 1 million disadvantaged children who are struggling academically. Special education grants: the CR will allow sequestration to cut more than $580 million, which is the rough equivalent of shifting the cost of educating nearly 300,000 students with special needs to State and local education agencies. This also may result in more than 700,000 layoffs of teachers, aides and other staff serving students with disabilities. Child care: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $115 million, which would cause, roughly, 30,000 children to lose access to child care, further exacerbating the fact that only one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives it. Cancer screenings: the CR will allow sequestration to cut funding for cancer screenings, resulting in 25,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income women. I can go on and on and on, but here is the choice: the choice is either this process, which my Republican colleagues have embraced, or the one that Mr. Van Hollen has outlined--one that would say we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, on the backs of the needy, on the backs of the middle class but that--do you know what?--we're going to get rid of some of these corporate loopholes that my friends on the other side used to be in favor of closing. We're not going to continue to have taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies. We're going to have some balance in our approach to dealing with our deficit. The problem with the approach my friends have outlined--the problem with the sequestration--is that it is not balanced. It is wrong-headed; it is mindless; it is senseless; and it is cruel. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, the FAA announced that 173 air traffic control towers will be closed by April 7. So I would say to my colleague, tell the communities whose economies will be devastated by the fact that they will no longer have air service that this is not a cut. I mean, they will be losing an essential service that is vital for businesses to thrive all across this country. That is a cut. At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just so there is no confusion, I think it's important that I point out to my colleagues that we have had three rounds of cuts to one round of revenue increases. The cuts have overwhelmed the revenue increases. So the notion that somehow we've engaged in a balanced process I don't think is the case. And the notion that somehow closing these tax loopholes and corporate tax loopholes that even Mitt Romney and George Bush at one time supported in order that we don't cut medical research, research aimed at trying to find cures to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes--if we found cures for those diseases, not only would we prevent a lot of human suffering, we'd save a lot of money. But we're cutting medical research and we're pushing farther off the date that we're going to find breakthroughs in order to protect taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are making zillions of dollars? They really need a handout from the United States taxpayer? And you're cutting medical research, you're cutting Head Start, you're cutting programs that help people get an education, that protect our communities, our law enforcement officials, environmental protection. We're cutting all those things mindlessly in order to protect these corporate tax loopholes. This is crazy. I really believe that outside of this little bubble here in Washington there is a bipartisan consensus that what we're doing here is crazy. This doesn't make any sense. This does not make any sense. Mindless, senseless, across-the-board cuts. No urgency. We're going to go home today. There's a little snow on the ground. National Airport is closed. We can't really go anywhere until it reopens. We ought to stay here and figure out an alternative to sequestration. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, and I appreciate the efforts that he has made toward bipartisanship on a number of bills; but, quite frankly, the leadership of this House has not adhered to regular order. We haven't seen regular in order a long time. And when he talks about trying to find an alternative to sequestration, I would remind my colleague that Mr. Van Hollen, who is about to speak, has tried on four occasions--on four occasions--to be able to come to the floor and offer his alternative to sequestration that the Democrats support--I think some Republicans would support it as well--to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote to avoid these mindless, senseless, across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that have now gone into place. He's been denied all four times. Now, by contrast, the Republicans have had zero alternatives. That's right, zero. They have brought nothing to the floor in this Congress to avoid sequestration. We're in March--January, February, March. We're in March, so we've had time to come up with alternatives. We've had an alternative that we have not allowed to be brought to the floor. And let me just say, the United States Senate did actually pass an alternative with 51 votes. That's a majority. Unfortunately, I think, partly due to the influence of some of the House leadership here, the Republicans said, no, you need 60 votes to get that thing through. So we have been trying. The White House has been trying. So the fact that we are here and that my Republican friends have allowed sequestration to go into effect, I think, is, quite frankly, unconscionable. We should not be in this mess. And sequestration took effect last week. We should have stayed in session all week and tried to figure this out. And my friends adjourned the House, recessed the House on Thursday--no urgency, no nothing. And research to education funding to funding for roads and bridges. It will impact, in a negative way, jobs. People will lose their jobs. This is not a good deal. This is not a good deal. And, quite frankly, we should be here today trying to find an alternative. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to end hunger now, it is important to look at all aspects of hunger. Today, I want to talk about hunger and obesity and to highlight the unfortunate paradox between these two conditions. How can an obese person also be food insecure? To put it bluntly, how can an overweight person be hungry? The question may be simple, but the answer is not. Unfortunately, this link is all too prevalent among millions of low- and middle-income people. The simple truth is that hunger exists because people do not have enough money to buy enough healthy food, but obesity is more complex. Just because someone has enough money to buy food doesn't mean they have the resources to buy nutritious food. Ultimately, this is a problem of poverty in America. The families who struggle with hunger not only struggle to put food on their tables, they struggle to make the food they can afford on a few dollars a day as nutritious as possible. For a variety of reasons, even well-to-do families are finding it more difficult today to prepare nutritious meals. A big part has to do with the amount of widely available, inexpensive, nonnutritious food--high-calorie, high-fat, low-nutrient food--and part of that has to do with the time constraints on families today. But it is even more difficult for low-income, food-insecure families because they generally don't have access to full-service grocery stores. The local stores they do have access to, for the most part, do not sell fresh produce, and the fresh produce they do sell is expensive. So in order to stretch their food dollar, these families buy high-calorie, low-nutrient food that is more affordable. Obesity, like hunger, is often a function of poverty, and low-income families are especially vulnerable to obesity because of the additional risk factors associated with poverty. When taken together, these risk factors make it easy to see how obesity and hunger are related. There are at least four general risk factors for obesity that are associated with poverty: First, low-income neighborhoods are underserved by full-service supermarkets. In inner cities, food is most readily available at small neighborhood convenience stores where fresh produce and lower-fat food items are most limited. In rural areas, full-service grocery stores are many miles away. This is commonly referred to as a food desert, something that can exist in both urban and rural areas; Second, when healthy food is available, it is oftentimes more expensive than less healthy options. Low-income families must stretch their budgets in ways that make it difficult to purchase higher priced, more nutritious food items. This means that these families are forced to buy cheaper, high-calorie, high-fat, high-sodium food that lasts longer just so they can make their food budgets stretch through the month; Third, there are fewer opportunities for physical activity in neighborhoods and schools. Safe open space can be difficult to find in many of our neighborhoods where lower income families live, sometimes because of lack of parks and other times because of higher crime rates; Fourth, high levels of stress and limited access to health care can contribute to weight gain. Hunger is truly a health issue, and it is important to note that stress and lack of access to quality health care can trigger physiological responses that contribute to obesity. Mr. Speaker, I remind people that food is medicine. My grandmother used to say ``an apple a day keeps the doctor away.'' It used to annoy me, but she was right. We missed an opportunity during the Affordable Care Act to address the issues of hunger and nutrition. We must do so now. Adequate access to good, nutritious foods can help lower the instances of diabetes and heart disease. That will improve the quality of life for people, but it will also save us money from avoidable health care issues. Hunger costs us dearly, and the cost to fix and solve the problem is cheaper than the status quo. So to all my colleagues who believe that the only problem we face is the budget deficit, I urge you to join us in this effort to end hunger now. It is fiscally the right thing to do, and it is our moral obligation. Hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin. Yes, we have excellent antihunger safety net programs like SNAP and the school meal programs that help reduce incidences of hunger in America; yes, the First Lady's Let's Move campaign is working to address obesity in America, primarily among children; but we must do more to address these two issues together. Because of all of these factors, it is clear that we simply cannot address hunger or obesity. We must address both of these issues at the same time if we are going to end hunger now. It is why I believe we need a White House conference on food and nutrition, a Presidential summit that brings all the stakeholders together, a forum where we can develop and agree on one strategy to reduce hunger and obesity together. In addition, I would plead with my colleagues to not cut our antihunger safety net programs like SNAP and WIC, programs which provide a minimum food benefit. To do so would only worsen the problem of hunger and obesity in America. We must end hunger now, but we cannot do so just by increasing access to high-calorie, low-nutrient food. It is a real challenge, but it's one that we are capable of meeting. We just need to muster the political will to make it happen. End hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to join my esteemed colleagues, Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA) and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. This bill will restrict the use and deployment of dangerous cluster munitions. Cluster bombs are canisters designed to open in the air before making contact, dispersing between 200 and 400 small munitions that can saturate a radius of 250 yards. The bombs are intended for military use when attacking enemy troop formations, but are often used in or near populated areas. This is a problem because up to 40 percent of these bomblets fail to explode and become de facto landmines, posing a significant risk to civilians--particularly children--lasting years after a conflict ends. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act prevents any U.S. military funds from being used on cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent, unless the rules of engagement specify that cluster munitions (1) will only be used against clearly defined military targets, and (2) will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. The bill requires the president to report to Congress on the plan to clean up unexploded cluster munitions, and it includes a national security waiver allowing the president to waive the prohibition if he determines such a waiver is vital to national security. Mr. Speaker, current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also requires any sale, export or transfer agreement to include a requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against military targets. Regrettably, the Pentagon insists that the U.S. should continue to have the ability to use millions of stockpiled cluster munitions that have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent until 2018. This is simply not acceptable; we can do better. I believe strongly that the United States should be an international leader in ending the terrible toll on civilian populations caused by the high failure rate of these weapons. Passage of this bill would establish in law the Pentagon's standard of a 99 percent functioning rate for all U.S. cluster munitions, and ensure that our deployment and use of these munitions adhere uniformly to this standard. We must do everything possible to spare innocent civilians intended for military targets. The current risk posed by cluster munitions is simply unacceptable. In 2011, Handicap International studied the effects of cluster bombs in 24 countries and regions, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Laos and Lebanon. Its report found civilians make up 98 percent of those killed or injured by cluster bombs, and 27 percent of the casualties were children. The Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 77--prohibits the production, use and export of cluster munitions and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years. While nearly all of our major military allies have joined this treaty, to date, the United States has not. There will always be those who will argue against such a change in military policy and practice, who will say this can't be done. History argues otherwise. I am hopeful that we can make significant progress on this issue and pass this legislation during the 113th Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to talk about the issue of hunger in America. There are over 50 million Americans who go hungry each year. That is about one in every six Americans who don't know where their next meal is coming from on any given day. Mr. Speaker, in the richest, most prosperous country in the world, that is unconscionable. Unfortunately, too many people simply don't know that there's a hunger problem in the United States. But that is going to change with a new documentary called ``A Place at the Table.'' Mr. Speaker, this powerful film shows how hunger actually affects everyday Americans. Specifically, ``A Place at the Table,'' documents people from all walks of life--from inner-city Philadelphia to rural Colorado--and it shows how they struggle not just to put healthy food on their kitchen tables, but in some cases to put any food on their tables at all. The film doesn't just show how people struggle with food. It shows how the lack of food impacts the health of children and the capacity for kids to pay attention and learn in class. In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I play a small part in this film, and I'm pleased the filmmakers allowed me to give my thoughts on the problem of hunger in America in ways that we can address it. But this film is not about my opinions; it's about the challenge facing the people in this movie. It's about how our country got to the place where over 50 million people--or one in six Americans--are food insecure or hungry. It's about how our legislative policies are not meeting the needs of the hungry, especially as low- and middle-income families continue to struggle during this economic recovery. It's about how parents and grandparents are trying to take care of their families, but are falling short of doing it on their own. It's about how private organizations like churches and synagogues and food banks are trying to fill the gaps, but are struggling to do so because the need is so great. Ultimately, it's about how we as a Nation have the chance to rise up and end hunger now. It's about how we can and must develop a plan to end hunger now. Mr. Speaker, we have the means to end hunger now. We have the food to end hunger now. We have the knowledge to end hunger now. We just haven't mustered the political will to end hunger now, and we--Members of Congress--should all be ashamed that one person, let alone over 50 million, goes hungry in America. In 1968, CBS News broadcast an hour-long program called ``Hunger in America.'' It reshaped the view of hunger in this country. The day after that show aired, then-Senator George McGovern formed the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and worked with Senator Bob Dole and President Richard Nixon to reduce hunger in America. They almost eradicated it completely, but we've clearly regressed in the decades since. I hope ``A Place at the Table,'' this critically important film, is the catalyst that jump-starts a new effort to end hunger now. I believe we need White House leadership on this issue, and I urge President Obama to watch this film and to follow up with a White House conference on food and nutrition in order to tackle all of the issues associated with hunger and nutrition and specifically to come up with a coordinated, unified plan to end hunger now. President Obama's leadership is critical if we're going to end hunger now. Directors Kristi Jacobson and Lori Silverbush, along with executive producer Tom Colicchio, have made a film that tells a powerful story. It's a story of a struggle in America, but a struggle that we can overcome. It's a struggle to address a problem that we have the answer to. It's my hope that this film will spark a new movement to address both hunger and obesity and nutritional issues so that we no longer see people struggling to put food on their table. ``A Place at the Table'' is hard to watch because we all share the blame for the struggles faced by those in the film. I challenge anyone who watches it to walk away feeling unaffected. I've seen it many times already. I've been inspired by the individuals who are featured in the movie, people who struggle in poverty with great difficulty and who struggle with great dignity. I'm also frustrated and angered by this film. It shows our failures-- our moral failures--to end the scourge of hunger. The title of the film is appropriate. We all have our place at the table, and we need to take that place in order to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to vote against this closed rule. This is a closed rule by which the entire process has been shut down. The committees of jurisdiction held no hearings. There was no markup. It came to the Rules Committee. What did the Rules Committee do? They shut it down. They shut out all possibilities for Democrats or Republicans to offer amendments. My friend from Georgia is proud to defend this closed, iron fist policy, but I think it's wrong, especially on a bill like this, number one. Number two, this is a rotten thing to do to Federal employees. It really is. I mean, these are hardworking men and women. These are people who work at NIH, who try to find cures for diseases that, by the way, will not only improve the quality of life for our people but will save money. This is about denying a pay increase to DEA agents on the borders and to the CIA agents who tracked down Osama bin Laden. This is a rotten, rotten thing to do. And for what? To score some cheap political points. I'm a little confused. My friend from Georgia says it's really not a cut, that we're not reducing the deficit at all. The gentleman from Texas said we need to save the American taxpayers money. The bottom line is that this is a cheap political stunt. The victims here are working people, and none of us should be surprised, because this is the Republican kind of signature issue: go after working people. Do you want to find ways to balance the budget? Punish working people. Do you want to find this or that? Go after working people. Enough. Enough of this war against working families in this country. Mr. Speaker, what is also really frustrating is that here we are debating a bill that's really going nowhere, that's about a press release. The Republicans are going to go on vacation tomorrow. We're not going to be back for a week, and then we'll have 4 legislative days left to deal with this thing called ``sequestration.'' On March 1, all of these across-the-board cuts go into play. And guess what? We're going to lose at least 750,000 jobs. That's not my estimate. That's what the head of OMB says. There will be 750,000 Americans unemployed because of their inaction. Guess what? What are these people going to do? They're going to have to look for employment. They're going to be without work. It's going to slow down our economic growth. Give me a break. There should be some urgency here. My Republican friends, instead of bringing this to the floor, you ought to be finding ways to avoid this fiscal sequestration cliff that we're about to go over. When my friends talk about the deficit and the debt, they don't talk about unpaid-for war costs, and they don't talk about all the money that they don't pay for that's sent over to Baghdad and Kabul. Instead, we have fights on the floor of whether or not to provide emergency hurricane relief aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy in our own country. Only about 48 of my Republican friends voted for that. I mean, that's where their priorities are. We should be trying to put the American people first.

Mr. McGOVERN. What I take offense at is the gentleman's party is about to lay off 750,000 workers in this country. For the life of me, I don't know how that helps our economy. That's what I take offense at. We should be talking about avoiding sequestration. Instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about how to lay off more American workers. That's what I take offense at.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's State of the Union speech was memorable and important for a number of reasons. I'm pleased the President talked about gun violence, climate change, voting rights, and, of course, jobs and the economy. I'm especially pleased that, for the first time in more than a decade, the State of the Union had a real focus on poverty and the need to help those who economically are the most vulnerable in our Nation. Poverty is the root cause of many of our Nation's problems. Those in poverty face challenges that middle- and higher-income families simply do not have to face. And to be frank, there are too many voices in the United States Congress that are silent on this issue. So I commend the President for talking about poverty, which we must confront and address if we are truly to fulfill our mandate to form a more perfect Union. One of the most devastating effects of poverty is hunger, and we cannot end hunger now if we're not talking about it. This is a big problem, and it is a costly problem. This is a problem that is not going away unless we act. Mr. Speaker, over 50 million people are hungry in America. There are more than 50 million people who struggle to put food on their tables. Many of these are hardworking people whose jobs just do not pay enough to feed their families. Many are jobless, and many are homeless. We need to use every opportunity we have to talk about it and to shine a light on the plight of the hungry, to take hunger out of the shadows and rededicate ourselves to the need to End Hunger Now. As I said last week, just because over 50 million people in this country struggle to put food on their tables doesn't mean that we have mass starvation in America. Thankfully, we have developed a safety net that helps protect the vast majority of the hungry. SNAP, or food stamps, is one of the most important parts of that safety net. There are a myriad of different initiatives being used to combat hunger in America. There are public, private, and nonprofit initiatives that are all very successful in their own ways. The problem is that these efforts--from Federal to State to local governments and from nonprofits, like churches and food banks, to for-profit businesses--are often working independently of each other. They are not always connected. Mr. Speaker, we need to work smarter and more efficiently if we are going to End Hunger Now. We need to bring everyone together and connect the dots. We need a plan. That's why I've called for a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition. Over the years, there have been citywide, countywide, and statewide hunger summits. Food banks, hospitals, colleges, and universities have all held these events, but there has not been one nationwide hunger summit convened by the White House since President Nixon hosted such a summit in 1969--over 44 years ago. We need this conference today more than ever because hunger is getting worse in America, not better. Our deficit and our debt are forcing us to do more with less, and that means we need to be more efficient and streamlined with our resources. Our Federal agencies should be talking to each other and addressing hunger in a more comprehensive and holistic way. Why shouldn't the Departments of Labor, of Health and Human Services, of Housing and Urban Development, and, yes, the Department of Defense sit down and talk about the impact hunger and nutrition have on their efforts and how best they can address this problem? As these agencies coordinate, we will need to involve antihunger safety net nonprofits, like our food banks, religious institutions, schools, and hospitals; and we need to bring in the business community, including the food and beverage community, financial institutions and manufacturers. We need to bring our doctors and nurses, our teachers and pastors, our business leaders and politicians, and, yes, the hungry together in one room to develop one plan to End Hunger Now. Then we need to agree to implement and execute the plan. Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. We have the means and the knowledge to End Hunger Now. We just don't have the political will. While hunger is a political condition, it should not be a partisan issue. A White House Conference on Food and Nutrition is the forum that we need to galvanize political will to finally end hunger in America. Ending hunger takes bold leadership. It takes Presidential leadership because the President is the only one who can call everyone together, who can get everyone in the same room and on the same page in order to come up with one meaningful and achievable plan. We need the President to rise to the occasion and to say that we are going to End Hunger Now. Mr. Speaker, I call on the White House to host a Conference on Food and Nutrition. I call on the White House to commit to ending hunger in America just as they are working to reduce obesity and to improve nutrition. I call on the White House to End Hunger Now, and I ask my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to join in all efforts to End Hunger Now. Mr. Speaker, ending hunger now is more than a nice phrase. It is something we must do. It is our moral obligation. It is what a great country like America should do--End Hunger Now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago today the people of Bahrain took to the streets in peaceful protest. They called for democratic freedoms and an end to human rights abuses. The Government of Bahrain responded with violence. It attacked protestors, killing more than 30, and imprisoned and tortured thousands of others. Even doctors who treated protesters were arrested, tortured, and prosecuted. Two years later, the situation has not improved. In fact, it may be getting worse. More protestors have died, hundreds of political prisoners remain in jail, and authorities responsible for the use of torture remain free. Despite an active public relations campaign, the Government of Bahrain is not--and I repeat, is not--making a good-faith effort to meet the legitimate demands of its people. The Obama administration needs to change course with Bahrain and begin implementing a policy that holds Bahrain accountable and promotes democratic freedoms so that we are not here again saying these same things on the third anniversary of the protests.