Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 97th Anniversary of the terrible period of atrocities committed against the Armenian people by the leaders of the Ottoman Empire and immediate subsequent Turkish government that is known as the Armenian Genocide. Every year I have been in Congress, I have marked this solemn anniversary remembering the victims of this genocide and the expulsion of tens of thousands of Armenians from their homes and homeland, and honoring the survivors of one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th Century. These survivors and their descendants have helped awaken and teach the world to the horrors of genocide and the necessity of standing up to the forces of denial. This year, however, Mr. Speaker, I come before this House angry and frustrated by the refusal of my own government to recognize and identify the events from 1915 to 1923 as the Armenian Genocide. It doesn't seem to make a difference if the White House is occupied by a Republican or a Democrat, no one has the political courage to call the Armenian Genocide by name. I am always told that now is not the right time to take such an action. When will be the right time, Mr. Speaker? When the last survivor, the last eye-witness to the genocide has passed away? Every year, when I join the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide in Worcester, Massachusetts, there are fewer and fewer survivors. I understand the need for careful political consideration of these matters, but we have waited too long as it is. It is past time to recognize the Armenian Genocide, by name, Mr. Speaker. I call on the President to do so, now, this year, for the sake of the last survivors of this atrocity and in honor of all of those who perished.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Mrs. Irene Duplessis of Worcester, Massachusetts who turns 100 years old on May 1, 2012. Irene is an active woman who enjoys spending time with her family, playing bingo, and participating in Elder Summit Care. Today, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in wishing Mrs. Irene Duplessis a Happy 100th Birthday!

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I first learned of the case of Sergei Magnitsky two years ago at a hearing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. At that hearing, a witness described the brutal torture and vicious mistreatment by Russian authorities of Mr. Magnitsky, a courageous man of integrity who paid the ultimate price for speaking out publicly about massive corruption in Russia. Today, the Russian government has still held no one accountable for this outrageous crime. The facts of the Magnitsky case are simply shocking. Mr. Magnitsky, a bright young tax lawyer, uncovered evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving public officials who stole $230 million from the Russian treasury. In August 2008, Mr. Magnitsky testified about this tax fraud scheme before Russian authorities and implicated high-level officials in the conspiracy. This honesty and courage led Mr. Magnitsky to be arrested and, perversely, charged with the crimes he had helped to expose. He was kept in pretrial detention in inhuman conditions for almost a year, and was tortured by officials who pressured him to retract his damning testimony. He refused to do so, but his health badly broke down as a result of his abuse. As he developed serious medical problems, including pancreatitis and gallstones, Russian authorities refused to provide him with medical care. Eventually, he fell into critical condition, and when that happened, rather than treating him, prison guards chained him to a bed and beat him for one hour and eighteen minutes, resulting in his death. The response of Russian authorities to these crimes has been as outrageous as the crimes themselves. After Mr. Magnitsky died, the Russian government said he had never complained about his health in prison, even though he had made more than 20 official requests for medical attention. Russian authorities have still not held anyone accountable for his arrest, abuse, and death. As if to spit on his grave, they even absurdly opened a new, groundless criminal case against him this year, marking the first posthumous prosecution in Russian history. Since Russian authorities have not provided justice to Mr. Magnitsky and his family, the United States should do what it can to hold individuals accountable for these heinous crimes. The bill I am introducing today, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, would provide a measure of justice for this courageous man by imposing a visa ban and asset freeze on the people who participated in or covered up his detention, abuse, and death, as well as on those individuals who benefited financially from his mistreatment or participated in the criminal conspiracy that he uncovered. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about much more than the Magnitsky case. In recognition of the many other severe human rights abuses that take place each year, the bill also imposes a visa ban and asset freeze on other individuals who have committed internationally recognized gross violations of human rights against people seeking to expose illegal activity by Russian officials or to exercise fundamental rights and freedoms. In this way, the bill would hold accountable those individuals who have perpetrated grave abuses against other whistleblowers or government critics, such as Anna Politkovskaya, Natalia Estemirova, and others whose names are less well-known in the United States. I am deeply grateful to the bipartisan group of members of Congress that supports this legislation and has helped to shape it. These members include Representatives Frank Wolf, Sander Levin, Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, Alcee Hastings, Ed Royce, Jim McDermott, Dan Burton, Gerry Connolly, Chris Smith, Edolphus Towns, Peter Roskam, Michael Michaud, Joseph Pitts and Charles Rangel. I am also deeply grateful to my colleagues in the Senate for their leadership on this issue. Senator Ben Cardin has introduced similar legislation that has attracted over 30 bipartisan cosponsors, and he has spoken out eloquently about the legislation's vital importance. I would also like to underscore that this effort is far from just a U.S. initiative. Similar legislation is being considered in nearly a dozen other legislatures around the world. My hope is that the United States Congress will be the first, but not the last, legislature to enact a Magnitsky human rights law. Importantly, these legislative efforts have strong support from the Russian human rights community, including opposition leaders such as Garry Kasparov, Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny. As Mr. Navalny commented recently, ``Such legislation is not anti-Russian. In fact I believe it is pro-Russian. It helps defend us from the criminals who kill our citizens, steal our money, and hide it abroad.'' Enactment of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act will provide the Administration with the tools it needs to hold accountable human rights violators and provide an important boost to human rights activists and defenders. It will also demonstrate that the protection of human rights is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Our country has always been at its best when we stood firmly on the side of people seeking to exercise fundamental rights and against the actions of governments seeking to repress basic freedoms. This legislation is in keeping with that great tradition. Fact Sheet on Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 The story of Sergei Magnitsky After exposing the largest tax fraud in Russian history, tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky was wrongly arrested and tortured in a Russian prison. Six months later he became seriously ill and was denied medical attention despite 20 formal requests. On the night of November 16, 2009, he went into critical condition, but instead of being treated in a hospital he was put in an isolation cell, chained to a bed, and beaten by eight prison guards for one hour and eighteen minutes, resulting in his death. Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old and left behind a wife and two children. Those responsible for this crime have yet to be punished, and the Magnitsky story is emblematic of corruption, human rights abuses, and impunity in Russia. The Magnitsky bill The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 would hold accountable Magnitsky's killers and other human rights violators by placing targeted sanctions on them. In particular, the draft bill imposes a visa ban and asset freeze on: 1) individuals responsible for participating in or covering up Magnitsky's detention, abuse, and death, and 2) individuals responsible for other gross violations of human rights against people seeking to expose illegal activity by Russian officials or to exercise fundamental rights and freedoms. The bill requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to publish a list of the people who should be subject to sanctions under its provisions, and requires the Secretary of State to respond within 120 days to requests from the chairperson and ranking member of key congressional committees to add an individual to that list. The bill provides the executive branch with the authority to waive the sanctions on national security grounds, and requires the executive to submit an annual report to Congress on actions taken to implement it. The bill includes findings on the mistreatment of Magnitsky and other individuals, and on the extent of corruption and impunity in Russia. The bill updates H.R. 1575, a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. McGovern in 2011. The new bill improves on H.R. 1575 by placing sanctions on a broader range of human rights violators (rather than only on people involved in Magnitsky-related abuses), by requiring the executive to publish the list of sanctioned individuals, and by giving key members of Congress the ability to request that people be added to the list. A similar bill, introduced as S. 1039 by Sen. Cardin, has attracted over 30 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Rules Committee, Chairman Dreier said this: ``There's no way we're going to have a transportation bill unless it is bipartisan.'' Mr. Speaker, it was music to my ears. I thought the chairman had a revelation, because that's exactly the tune the Democrats have been singing for weeks, that we need a bipartisan transportation bill. We've been saying this month after month after month. Transportation bills have always been bipartisan. Our colleagues like to criticize the Senate for inaction, but even they passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill this year. Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. Instead of taking the bipartisan path, my Republican friends have tried one partisan approach after another, and they have failed every time. And the partisan march continues today. Last night, nine Members of the House submitted amendments to this bill, five Democrats and four Republicans. Then, not 2 minutes after the chairman said what he said, my Republican friends approved a rule on a straight party-line vote to block every single Democratic amendment. Let me review this for my colleagues because I think it is important. First, the underlying bill was written by Republicans in a back room without any Democratic input, none. Now Republicans are only allowing themselves to amend the bill they wrote. This chart produced by the majority says it all: four Republican amendments submitted, three made in order for debate on the House floor; five Democratic amendments in order, not a single one allowed. Maybe some of the people in the back room can't see this number because it's so small. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make it a little bit easier for those who need a little help here. Here we go. Zero Democratic amendments allowed. This is a bill written only by Republicans which only Republicans can amend. Apparently, this is what a bipartisan process means in the Republican House. This is the new and improved open House that they promised. Open House my foot, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are real consequences to this approach. I had a very important amendment blocked yesterday in the Rules Committee, an amendment to end the subsidies to the oil companies that are gouging Americans at the pump, an amendment that will cut the deficit by $40 billion. I don't care what my Republican friends say, that is a lot of money. The taxpayers' money that's going right into the pockets of the same oil companies that are driving up gas prices just as summer approaches, why in the world are American taxpayers being asked to subsidize Big Oil? These are the same oil companies that recorded tens of billions of dollars in profits in the first 3 months of 2012. These companies took in tens of billions of dollars in profits in 3 months while raising gas prices to more than $4 a gallon and we reward them with $40 billion worth of tax breaks and giveaways? Come on, what is wrong with the leadership of this House of Representatives? Look, there is nothing wrong with corporations making profits. That's what they're in business to do. What is wrong is for American taxpayers to be subsidizing wildly profitable companies at a time when too many Americans are still unemployed and struggling to pay their bills. With their tax dollars funding corporate welfare for Big Oil and then still paying astronomical prices at the pump, it's a double whammy for American families. With all the talk about cutting spending and reducing subsidies here in Washington, I would have thought that the Rules Committee would have made in order my amendment, an amendment, by the way, just so there's no confusion here, that I have offered repeatedly. I have offered it over six times, and all six times it has been blocked by the Rules Committee. But the Rules Committee decided not to make it in order. And to say that this is somehow a bipartisan process and then immediately deny any Democrat amendments, including my amendment to end tax breaks for Big Oil companies, tells you everything you need to know about the Republican leadership in this House. This is a lousy process, and the American people are paying the price. I would just close by saying the fact that we can't vote up or down on the Senate bill to extend the highway bill for at least 2 years means that our cities and our towns and our States can't plan ahead. What an awful thing for us to do during this difficult economic time. I urge my colleagues to reject this very partisan rule. Let's get back to working on a transportation bill in a bipartisan way that will actually help the American people. Enough of these games.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thought since you referred to me we would have a dialogue, but I guess not. Okay.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, give me a break. I mean, oil companies are making record profits. We are producing more oil in this country than ever before. They are producing so much they are exporting oil, and at the same time they are raising gas prices at the pump for average, ordinary citizens. The fact that taxpayers are subsidizing Big Oil when they're making record profits and sticking it to the American people, I think is unconscionable. That's what I tried to get rid of, and we should at least have a vote up or down on that on the floor.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we have a choice here. We can either balance our budget and deal with our deficit and our debt in a fair and balanced manner, or we can do it in the way that the Republican leadership has proposed, which is to basically put the burden on middle-income families and those struggling to get into the middle, and to put an added burden on our senior citizens. Make no mistake about it: if you vote for this rule, you are voting to end the Medicare guarantee. That is their plan, and that is what they have said. There is no question about it. I think it is outrageous. I think when Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary there is something wrong with our tax system. When corporations get all these special loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes but middle-income families have to, there is something wrong with this system. We need some balance. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, technically, this rule allows for consideration of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act, a patchwork quilt of four different bills that ease restrictions on guns and hunting. This bill, a sop to the gun lobby, deserves to be defeated by the House. But that's not the most important part or most egregious part of this rule. That's because of the language slipped into this rule at the last minute by the Rules Committee--language that sets the budget numbers for the next fiscal year, and language that, Mr. Speaker, once again ends the Medicare guarantee for America's seniors. That's right, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the Republicans on the Rules Committee pulled a switcheroo just before our vote on the rule. Now, these weren't just harmless, innocuous provisions. No, Mr. Speaker. These provisions would effectively enact the Ryan budget and require that Congress use it as a framework for the rest of the year. The irony is that by adopting this language now, the Republican leadership is admitting that their awful budget resolution isn't going anywhere and that this so-called ``deeming resolution'' is the only way forward. It's ironic because they are using parliamentary tricks and sleight-of-hand to pretend that their budget has the force of law. Where are the Tea Party folks who used to be so outraged at this kind of abuse of regular order? Why aren't they yelling and screaming? There hasn't been a single committee debate or markup on this language. These provisions undercut the bipartisan budget floor negotiated by President Obama and Speaker Boehner in the Budget Control Act. And worst of all, these provisions end the Medicare guarantee again. The American people get it. They said ``no'' to the Ryan budget last year. They don't want Medicare to turn into a voucher program. They don't want to see their health care rationed or cut. They don't want Washington politicians trying to pull the rug out from underneath them after years of contributing to this important program. We made a promise to America's seniors, Mr. Speaker. And once again, the Republican leadership is breaking their promise. Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough that the Republican leadership doesn't want to focus on getting Americans back to work. It's bad enough that they're pushing cuts that will make hunger in America worse. That's evidenced by the fact that tomorrow in the Agriculture Committee we're going to be asked to vote on a package to cut $33 billion out of the SNAP program, increasing hunger in America if that would succeed. But their insistence on continuing to push for an end to Medicare is indescribable. Now, I'm sure my Republican friends will deny that they want to end Medicare for America's seniors. They'll say their idea is bipartisan, even though it's not. They'll say that the detractors are exaggerating. But the truth hurts. This is not bipartisan. Yes, Senator Ron Wyden cosponsored health care legislation with Congressman Paul Ryan, but Senator Wyden has also said that he does not support the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Once again, he said he does not support the provisions in the Ryan budget with regard to Medicare. I'm sure someone will, once again, try to twist his words around, but they are very clear to me, Mr. Speaker. This plan is not bipartisan. This is wholly owned by the Republicans and the Republican leadership, and I know my friends will say that this doesn't change Medicare. That, too, is a misrepresentation of their plan. But don't take my word for it. Let me read directly from the AARP's letter opposing the Ryan budget: By creating a ``premium support'' system for future Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal is likely to simply increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare's promise of secure health coverage. AARP goes on to say: The premium support method described in the proposal-- unlike private plan options that currently exist in Medicare--would likely ``price out'' traditional Medicare as a viable option, thus rendering the choice of traditional Medicare as a false promise. The proposal also leaves open the possibility for private plans to tailor their plans to healthy beneficiaries--again, putting traditional Medicare at risk. Finally, AARP says: Converting Medicare to a series of private options would undermine the market power of Medicare and could lead to higher costs for seniors. That's a hard-hitting analysis from a nonpartisan group, and it shatters the myth that the Ryan Medicare plan wouldn't harm current or future seniors. Mr. Speaker, Democrats oppose the Ryan budget because it's the wrong plan for America, and the deeming language included in this rule would force the Ryan budget on this House without a direct vote. That's right: there's no up-or-down vote on this plan. No, the rule simply ``deems'' that the Ryan budget takes effect, despite the lack of a budget resolution conference report. Americans want us to focus on jobs and the economy, not on partisan games designed to throw red meat to the right wing of the right wing. Reject this rule and reject the Ryan Medicare plan. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I can see why my good friend from Utah is so desperate not to talk about the deem-and-pass language which is included in this rule. I would remind him, and I remind others on the other side, that back in March of 2010, Speaker John Boehner said that the deem-and-pass strategy was ``one of the most outrageous things I have seen since I have been in Congress.'' That's what the current Speaker of the House said back in March of 2010. And now, astonishingly, everybody on the other side of the aisle is quiet about that. Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. This place is becoming an institution where trivial matters get debated passionately and important ones not at all. My friend from Utah is saying this is all about the guns, the gun issue. Well, that's the least important part of what this rule does. This rule deems the Ryan budget. It basically says that we're going to operate under those very difficult numbers that Congressman Ryan and the Republicans' Budget Committee have passed. And what it means is that we're going to end Medicare as we know it. That's more important to talk about than guns. What it means is that we're going to force more people into food insecurity and hunger because it's going to result in drastic cuts in food and nutrition programs. That's more important to talk about than guns. The fact of the matter is this rule undercuts the social safety net in this country. This rule, if it is passed and these numbers become what the House operates under, I think will destroy the middle class and will force more people in the middle into poverty. It undercuts programs in education, and it undercuts programs in environmental protection and investments in our infrastructure and aid to cities and towns helping our police, helping our firefighters. As I said--I cannot say this enough--this ends Medicare as we know it. If people want to end Medicare, then vote for this rule, because that's exactly what this rule will require. And I think that's outrageous. There are some things worth fighting for; and the protection of Medicare is one of those things, at least on our side of the aisle, we think is worth fighting for. So please do not be fooled that this is some innocuous rule that would merely bring up a bill dealing with guns. This bill deems the Ryan budget as basically passed, as if it has gone through the House and the Senate, and the numbers that we're going to operate under in all of our committees. I think that as the American people pay closer attention to what is happening here, they get more and more outraged by the activities of the Republican leadership. This is not what the American people want. They rejected this attempt to undercut Medicare last year, and they're going to reject it again. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that if this were nothing, my friends on the other side of the aisle would not be hiding this deeming language in a rule dealing with guns. We'd have a straight up- or-down-vote on the floor on the deeming provision. The fact of the matter is that this rule magically puts the Ryan budget into effect, and what that means is an end to Medicare as we know it. And we're going to fight my friends on the other side of the aisle who want to destroy one of the most important social programs that we have in this country. At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat, this rule has very little to do with sportsmen, but it has an awful lot to do with ending the Medicare guarantee as we know it. At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, again, I want to make it clear to everybody who's watching this that this rule is about a lot more than a gun bill. This rule is about how we're going to proceed with the appropriations for the various committees. So, again, if this wasn't so controversial, my Republican friends would have brought up this deeming language on its own; but instead, they're hiding it in this gun bill, and they're trying not to talk about what this means. What this means is an end to the Medicare guarantee, among other things. It means an end to the social safety net in this country. I think this is a horrible, horrible way to proceed. I think the budget that was passed by the House is horrible. But to move forward in this manner I think is very, very disruptive. People need to understand that this is not just a rule that allows a gun bill to come to the floor and, oh, by the way, there's a few little minor procedural things that are contained in this rule. This is a big deal, this is a huge deal, and my colleagues need to know that. At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just remind my colleagues that, by deeming these numbers, what my colleagues will be doing if they vote for this rule will be to give the Republican leadership the green light to go ahead and dismantle Medicare, to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens. It will be a green light to go after anti-hunger and nutrition programs. It's the green light to go after education programs. As the ranking member on the Budget Committee said very clearly, we all want to balance the budget, we all understand we need to deal with our debt. But the way my friends on the other side of the aisle have outlined their plan, it is so one-sided. The burden is all on middle-income families, all on those who are poor. Their way of balancing the budget is to lower the quality of life for the middle class in this country. And there are other choices to be made. For example, making sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share or that we close some of these corporate tax loopholes or go after some of these subsidies for the big oil companies. Instead, all of the plans that have been put forward by my Republican friends are all aimed at those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle. That is why we are so outraged here today. We believe in Medicare. We don't want to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens. At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member from the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that Republicans can't use so-called reconciliation procedures to force through the elimination of Medicare as we know it or force through cuts to Medicare benefits for seniors or people with disabilities. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to respond to something that my distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said. You know, he implied that when my colleague from Massachusetts said that the Republican budget plans would literally take the food out of the mouths of children, that somehow we were engaged in hyperbole or some kind of empty rhetoric. I don't know whether my chairman knows that tomorrow in the House Agriculture Committee, under the direction of the Republican leadership, that they are going to cut $33 billion out of the SNAP program.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. McGOVERN. But $33 billion in cuts will reduce benefits to people. It will take, literally, food off the table for many families and a lot of working families, too. Under the Republican leadership's direction, the Agriculture Committee is not going after excessive subsidies and big agri- businesses. It's going after SNAP, food stamps. I am going to have an amendment in the Rules Committee today, when we bring up the transportation bill I think for, like, the 15th time I have offered it, to go after the billions of dollars that we give to oil companies in subsidies. Taxpayers subsidize these programs. We never get an opportunity to vote on the House floor. But the Republican leadership is not only not allowing me to do that, they are not saying we should go after and trim this corporate welfare. What they are saying is $33 billion in cuts to SNAP. That is outrageous.

Mr. McGOVERN. I will yield to the gentleman in 1 second. I know these are difficult budgetary times. I mean, you know, to not ask the Donald Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more and rather, instead, to cut $33 billion in SNAP, or to not insist that we pay for these wars that seem to go on forever, and let that add to our debt, but go after poor people who are on SNAP, that's where the outrage is. I can't believe that that's the first place we are turning. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday the Food Network premiered their first-ever documentary called ``Hunger Hits Home.'' This powerful program showed the struggle that millions of Americans go through just to put food on their tables. I urge my colleagues, indeed, all Americans, to watch it by going to foodnetwork.com and searching for ``Hunger Hits Home.'' It's fitting that the Food Network, a cable network that focuses on cooking, would choose to highlight the scourge of hunger with its first documentary. That's because food is at the heart of the problem. While 435 Members of Congress and 100 Senators will never have to worry about going hungry, there are nearly 49 million people who struggle each year to put food on their table; 17 million kids each year go hungry in America, and those numbers are getting worse, not better. The Food Network aired this documentary because of the hard work of good people at Share Our Strength. Led by my good friend, Billy Shore, Share Our Strength is a leader in the fight to end child hunger, and this effort wouldn't be where it is today without them. We have more than enough food in America to feed everyone. We also have the delivery systems to ensure that food gets to those people who need it. The problem is politics. We have the means, the food, and the programs to ensure that not one person goes without food in this country. What we lack, Mr. Speaker, is the political will to actually make it happen. We should remember that while there is a cost to ending hunger, the cost of doing nothing is so much more. According to a report from the Center for American Progress and Brandeis University, hunger costs America more than $261 billion each year. That's billion with a ``b.'' Specifically, hunger costs ``at least $167.5 billion due to the combination of lost economic productivity per year, more expensive public education because of the rising costs of poor education outcomes, avoidable health care costs, and the cost of charity to keep families fed. This $167.5 billion does not include the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the other key Federal nutrition programs, which run at about $94 billion a year. We call this $167.5 billion America's hunger bill. In 2010 it cost every citizen $542 due to the far-reaching consequences of hunger in our Nation. At the household level, the hunger bill came to at least $1,410 in 2010. And because our $167.5 billion estimate is based on a cautious methodology, the actual cost of hunger and food insecurity to our Nation is probably higher.'' That's a lot of money--$167.5 billion. It's a staggering amount. Yet, we continue to ignore those costs and allow hunger to grow in America. We know that hunger would be even worse in this country if it weren't for programs like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, the school meal programs and other Federal anti-hunger programs. These programs are literally a lifeline for millions of hungry children, parents, and seniors. I believe that we can end hunger in America if we muster the political will to do so. Fighting hunger has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this House is pushing an agenda that will actually make hunger worse in America. Tomorrow the Agriculture Committee will mark up legislation that cuts $33 billion from the most important anti-hunger program we have in this country. SNAP is a program that not only provides food to low-income parents, seniors, and children; it also provides a most effective form of economic stimulus, and it actually reduces poverty. Yet, the Republican leadership continues to demagogue the program as wasteful, as fraudulent, and as something that is growing out of control. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, SNAP is among the most effective and efficient Federal programs. The truth is that the SNAP error rate is around 3 percent. That error rate includes people who do not receive the benefit that they're actually entitled to. I challenge anyone to find me a Defense Department program with an error rate as low as 3 percent. I look forward to the time when the Republican leadership stops using hunger as a wedge issue and lets this become a bipartisan issue once again. I understand that we need to balance the budget, Mr. Speaker. But must it be on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our country? ``Hunger Hits Home,'' this wonderful film, shows us the problem facing this Nation. The challenge is presented to us. Are we going to end hunger once and for all or not? So far the answer from the Republican leadership is a resounding ``no,'' and I regret very much that decision. Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. If we muster the political will, we can end it once and for all.