Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more speakers he has?

Mr. McGOVERN. As many as you want.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close for our side.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut for her passion and for her leadership on this issue, and for reminding us all of a terrible truth, and that is, there is not a single community in the United States of America that is hunger-free; that there are millions of our fellow citizens, men, women and children of every age and every background you can imagine, who are hungry or who are food insecure. They don't have enough to eat, can't put a nutritious meal on the table for their families. They go without meals on a regular basis. This is happening in the United States of America, the richest country on this planet; and every one of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be ashamed of that fact. I tell people all the time that hunger is a political condition. We have the food. We have this incredible natural resource in this country that we're able to produce enough food to be able to feed our population. We have this incredible agriculture community, wonderful farmers from coast to coast who can grow our food. And yet millions of our citizens go without. We have the food, we have the infrastructure, we know what to do. We have everything but the political will to eradicate hunger in America. Now, look, we all agree that we have a problem with our debt, and we need to get our budget under control. But it's hard to believe that the first place the Republicans are looking to balance the budget are on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in this country, on the backs of people who are hungry, because tomorrow in the Agriculture Committee, following in line with the Ryan budget, the Republican leadership is going to ask that the Agriculture Committee cut $33 billion out of the SNAP program. That's how they're going to balance the budget. First thing out of the box, going after the SNAP program, a program that has worked to keep millions of people not only out of hunger, but out of poverty. I will insert an article into the Record that appeared in The New York Times talking about how the SNAP program has prevented millions of Americans from going into poverty. [From the New York Times, Apr. 9, 2012] Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds (By Sabrina Tavernise) Washington.--A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the country's largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers. The food stamp program is one of the largest antipoverty efforts in the country, serving more than 46 million people. But the extra income it provides is not counted in the government's formal poverty measure, an omission that makes it difficult for officials to see the effects of the policy and get an accurate figure for the number of people beneath the poverty threshold, which was about $22,000 for a family of four in 2009. ``SNAP plays a crucial, but often underappreciated, role in alleviating poverty,'' said Stacy Dean, an expert on the program with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group that focuses on social programs and budget policy. Enrollment in the food stamp program grew substantially during the recession and immediately after, rising by 45 percent from January of 2009 to January of this year, according to monthly figures on the U.S.D.A. Web site. The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession. But the steady rise tapered off in January, when enrollment was down slightly from December, a change in direction that Ms. Dean said could signal that the recovery was having an effect even among poor families. The program's effects have long been known among poverty researchers, and for Ms. Dean, the most interesting aspect of the report was the political context into which it was released. In a year of elections and rising budget pressures, social programs like food stamps are coming under increased scrutiny from Republican legislators, who argue that they create a kind of entitlement society. In an e-mail to supporters on Monday, Representative Allen B. West, a Florida Republican, called the increase in food stamp use a ``highly disturbing trend.'' He said that he had noticed a sign outside a gas station in his district over the weekend alerting customers that food stamps were accepted. ``This is not something we should be proud to promote,'' he said. Kevin W. Concannon, the under secretary of agriculture for food, nutrition and consumer services, argued that since the changes to the welfare system in the 1990s, the food stamp program was one of the few remaining antipoverty programs that provided benefits with few conditions beyond income level and legal residence. ``The numbers of people on SNAP reflect the economic challenges people are facing across the country,'' Mr. Concannon said. ``Folks who have lost their jobs or are getting fewer hours. These people haven't been invented.'' The study, which examined nine years of data, tried to measure the program's effects on people whose incomes remained below the poverty threshold. The program lifted the average poor person's income up about six percent closer to the line over the length of the study, making poverty less severe. When the benefits were included in the income of families with children, the result was that children below the threshold moved about 11 percent closer to the line. The program had a stronger effect on children because they are more likely to be poor and they make up about half of the program's participants. ``Even if SNAP doesn't have the effect of lifting someone out of poverty, it moves them further up,'' Mr. Concannon said. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take on a myth that some of my Republican friends have been propagating that somehow the SNAP program is a wasteful program. I've heard over and over and over again that the amount we've spent on SNAP has risen over the last decade. It has, in part, because we've gone through a terrible economic crisis. More and more of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty, have had to rely on SNAP. CBO tells us that they expect what we spend on SNAP to go down as the economy gets better. And this is a social safety net. This is a program that provides protection for people when they hit difficult economic times. So that is why spending has increased. It has nothing to do with fraud or waste or abuse. In fact, the GAO and the USDA have reported time and time again that SNAP is one of the most efficiently run programs in the Federal Government. Less than 3 percent error rate, and that includes people who get underpaid what they're entitled to. I dare anybody here to find me a program at the Pentagon that has such a low error rate in terms of the utilization of taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: what we're talking about here is not just a program, is not just numbers. We're talking about people. We're talking about our neighbors. And we're talking about not just people who are unemployed. We're talking about working people. Millions of working families benefit from SNAP. They're out there working trying to make ends meet, but they don't earn enough. So because of that, we have this program called SNAP to help them get by and to put nutritious food on the table for their children. Mr. Speaker, we can talk all we want about our budgetary problems. I want to close with this. You know, people say to me, well, we can't afford to spend any more on hunger programs because, you know, things are tough and the budget need to be tight. But I would counter, Mr. Speaker, by saying we can't afford not to. There is a cost to hunger in America and that cost we all pay for: avoidable health care costs, lost productivity in the workplace. Children who go to school without enough to eat can't learn in school. That all adds up. That is a huge cost of billions and billions of dollars that we all have to pay. And that doesn't even count what we invest in programs like SNAP and WIC and other programs designed to provide nutrition and food for our fellow citizens. So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the battle against hunger has historically been a bipartisan one. We've been able to come together, Republicans and Democrats, and be able to stand together to support programs that provide a circle of protection for our most vulnerable citizens. And all of a sudden, you know, my Republican colleagues and some of the Presidential candidates are using hunger as a wedge issue, calling President Obama the Food Stamp President. Well, I'm proud that in this country we care about our fellow citizens, especially when they fall on hard times. I urge my colleagues, especially on the Republican side, to stand up against your leadership and to stand with us and to stand with people who are in need. If government is not there for the neediest, then I'm not sure what good government is. Mitt Romney doesn't need government. He's a multi-millionaire. Donald Trump doesn't need government. But there are millions of our fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a difficult economic situation who rely on these programs. It is beyond comprehension to me that tomorrow the Republicans want to cut $33 billion out of SNAP. With all the places they could look for savings, they're going after programs to help the most vulnerable. That is unacceptable and unconscionable, and I hope that the majority in this House stand up strongly against that. I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to my friend. The difference is that we have an overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that has passed one of the Chambers here, the Senate. This is the choice we have: Do we do these short-term extensions so that cities and towns and States can't plan, or do we take this bipartisan compromise that the Senate has put together so that there's some certainty for our cities and towns and for our States? I mean, that's the difference. What's happening here is that there is an internal fight within the Republican Party. The right wing is battling with the extreme right wing, and they can't agree with each other because you have people in the Republican Party who don't believe in the public sector. So, as this economy is struggling to get back on its feet and we see some recovery, more and more every month, we could actually help that recovery. We could move things along. We could create more jobs if we were to act in a different way today. But, instead, the right wing and the extreme right wing are having a fight within the Republican Party, so the Republican House leadership is paralyzed. That's not leadership. That's just irresponsible. At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, where do I begin? This is one more opportunity lost, one more opportunity squandered by this Republican- controlled House. We are just days away from the expiration of the laws that authorize our surface transportation programs, and yet here we are debating a politically charged, unnecessary, and partisan bill that just kicks the can down the road a few months. Last month, this House began, but could not finish, consideration of the most partisan drafted--possibly the only partisan drafted--highway reauthorization bill in history. Let me repeat that. The House could not complete consideration of the Republican bill, a Republican bill that would have been considered a joke if it weren't such a serious breach of responsibility. This is like a bad soap opera. Just when the twists and turns can't get more fantastical and crazy, someone comes up with an even zanier idea just to keep the plot lines moving along. I'm waiting for the mysterious twin brother to show up. The plotline here is that the Republican leadership keeps manufacturing ways not to do the simple thing, the right thing, and that is to pass the Senate bill, the 2-year bill that passed the Senate 74 22, clearly and overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. It's refreshing and a bit strange when the Senate can put their ideological differences aside and actually pass a decent bill. It's not every day that Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator James Inhofe agree on a bill, but that's what happened with the Senate bill. Now, I'm not going to stand here and say that the Senate bill is the bill I would have drafted. To the contrary, I want a 5-year reauthorization that is fully funded, a bill that results in real jobs and a bill that invests in important areas like public transit. While the Senate bill lasts for only 2 years, it is a good start and it is much better than the Republican proposal we have here today. For my colleagues who have a short memory, let me recap where we were last month. The Republican leadership took a 1,000-page bill, undoubtedly the most partisan transportation bill in Congressional history, and made it worse. They took a bill that was written in secret and jammed through the Transportation Committee and inserted unrelated and controversial provisions like the Keystone pipeline, ANWR, offshore drilling, and cuts in Federal pensions. Even worse, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. Specifically, after everyone had submitted their amendments to the original single bill, Speaker Boehner decided to split it into three separate measures, which meant that many of the amendments could not be considered in the way that they were originally drafted. Now, of course the Republicans quickly realized that they didn't have the votes for that bill and yanked it from the floor. It must have been pretty embarrassing because it's been over a month since they gave up on that bill. And what has the Republican leadership been doing over the last month? Negotiating with House Democrats to reach a bipartisan compromise? Talking with the Senate on ways to properly reauthorize these programs and bring jobs back to the economy? Of course not. Over the past month, the Republican leadership has been sitting around pointing fingers and complaining that they can't move the transportation bill, even though Republicans are in control of this House. It's the end of March, and Republicans can't get their act together to get a real transportation bill passed. You call that leadership? Give me a break. Leadership is about governing. Leadership is about doing what's right. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, there's no leadership here. Shame on this leadership for bringing us here today. Shame on this leadership for putting the American jobs on the line just because they cannot manage their own internal politics. That's right. By refusing to pass the Senate bill today, Republicans are putting American jobs on the line. With the economy slowly recovering and with more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers still out of work, why do Republicans want to play Russian roulette with this important jobs bill? We should not be in this position today. This is a manufactured crisis, a crisis that is a product of a lack of leadership, a crisis that is a product of a lack of bipartisan cooperation. Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to consider the Senate bill today, but the Rules Committee, mislabeled by some as the most open Rules Committee in decades, blocked that bill from consideration. That's right. This new majority put this bill on the floor, sight unseen, and without any markup or hearing. They waived their own 3-day layover rule, and this is a closed rule. In fact, I can't even seem to find a CBO score for this bill. And this is the open process my colleagues on the Rules Committee are so proud of. This is a completely closed rule. I offered the Senate bill as an amendment to this rule last night so that Members could have an opportunity to vote on it today, not in place of the Republican bill, but as a stand-alone amendment. Speaker Boehner is fond of saying, let the House work its will, but apparently the Republicans on the Rules Committee do not believe in that philosophy because they blocked my amendment on a party-line vote. Why did they block my amendment? As the chairman of the Rules Committee is fond of usually saying, because they could. Now, I will try one more time to offer the Senate amendment. Congressman Tim Bishop introduced H.R. 14, the exact same language as the Senate-passed bill. If this House defeats the previous question, Congressman Bishop will be able to offer his amendment to the Republican bill, not in place of, just alongside the Republican bill. The House, like Speaker Boehner promised, would then be able to work its will. Now, it's clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership is more concerned with political victories than with legislating. It is clear that the Republican leadership would rather score cheap political points with their right-wing base than promote and create jobs in America. President Clinton was fond of saying, The perfect can't be the enemy of the good. There's a perfectly good bipartisan Senate bill that would pass this House overwhelmingly if the Republican leadership decided to bring it up. But no, the Republican leadership would rather play chicken with people's jobs on the line instead of actually legislating, let alone legislating in a bipartisan way. It is clear that when the far right wing of the far right wing opposes something, the Republican leadership crumbles like cheap asphalt. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), I just want to point out something for my colleagues here. One of the reasons many of us prefer the Senate bill to even the House bill that you brought to the floor and then split up and then yanked from the floor is that the Senate bill sustains approximately 1.9 million jobs on an annual basis. The House Republican bill destroys 550,000 jobs compared to the current funding level. So what you had brought to the floor and then you yanked was a job killer. At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives is not working for the American people. At a time when jobs should be the most important priority of this Congress, we have a leadership that talks about everything but jobs. And when it comes to jobs, nothing could be more important than passing a transportation bill. The Republicans brought a terrible bill to the floor--so terrible, they couldn't even force their own Members to vote for it. They had to pull it. And now we're in this period of delay, delay, delay; kick the can down the road, kick the can down the road. And what makes this situation unique, I would say to my friend from Florida, as compared to previous years, is that we actually have a bipartisan bill that has passed one of the Chambers--a bipartisan bill in the Senate that passed overwhelmingly, 74 22--authored by Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe, two polar opposites of the political spectrum. They could come together. They came together and put the American people first. They put jobs first. It wasn't about ideology. It wasn't about getting it perfect for either of them. And yet here we are, still fighting over the most ridiculous things and bringing the most inconsequential piece of legislation to the House floor when we should be focused on passing bills like this. I'm told we need to do this because we're going on another recess. God forbid we stay here and actually work on something that will be meaningful for the American people. This bill is so important to our economy that, quite frankly, it's worth us staying here a few extra days and getting this thing done. Instead, we're going to kick the can down the road for 90 days. Next week nothing will be done. We'll come back, and then what? Then what will happen? Essentially, what we're doing here is we're telling the American people that we're not putting them first. We're not putting jobs first. For the life of me, I can't understand why this Congress, this leadership, which claims to be open, won't even give us a vote. We can't even get a vote on the Senate bill. If you want to vote against the Senate 2-year extension and vote instead for your 90-day extension, fine. But let us have an opportunity to vote on something that will mean something to our communities, that will put people back to work. Why are you denying us this vote? I have yet to hear anybody say why we can't have a vote on this. We had no amendments debated on this House floor on the transportation bill. We ought to have this debated. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so a little democracy can happen here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's get the facts straight. Let's talk about this great bipartisan process. All we're asking for today is to have an alternative to be voted on-- one substitute. That's it. That's all we've been asking for; and we've been told, no, you can't. It's your way or the highway. That's not bipartisanship. As for all of these great bipartisan amendments, let's everybody be clear on one thing: that not one single amendment has been considered to the transportation bill on this House floor. Not one single amendment has been allowed. You yanked the bill when, I guess, some of the extreme right wing of the extreme right wing got upset on your side for whatever reason, also because there were a lot of moderates who realized that the bill that you brought to the floor would bankrupt the highway trust fund, that it was bad policy for this country, and that it was not going to help rebuild our infrastructure. So the only bipartisan proposal we have before us right now, which is not perfect but which is the only bipartisan product, is the Senate bill, which passed 74 22. At this time, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I have the ranking member of the committee and myself.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Transportation Committee.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. This is the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill that passed in the other body 74 22. 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 yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for making, I think, a very strong case why we should reject the 90-day extension and pass a 2-year extension for this reason: because 90 days means nothing. He diminishes the impact of 2 years. Most people I talk to would have preferred 2 years to 90 days. Here's the difference. We have a democratically controlled Senate that worked out a deal with Republicans. Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe came together. They are very opposite individuals when it comes to politics, but they came together. Here, the Republicans are fighting Republicans. Democrats have been locked out of this entire process. Let's get real here. Let's be honest with the American people. The budget that you all are going to vote for later this afternoon decimates highway and road and bridge funding, which basically destroys, I think, the basis for a strong infrastructure program in this country. You're not here trying to argue about a better bill. You're trying to figure out a way to give States less, to give cities and towns less. That would undercut a lot of the projects that are being contemplated all across this country that will not only put people back to work but make us more economically secure. That's what this is all about. It's about trying to come up with an even lousier transportation bill than the one that you brought to the House floor. At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, in about 6 weeks, the rainy season will begin in Sudan. Villagers will no longer be able to plant or harvest their crops. The roads will become impassible. It is the time of the year when people live off their harvests, their orchards, and the land. But there is no food in the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile inside Sudan--not because of drought, not because locusts have destroyed the crops. No, Madam Speaker. This is a deliberate, man-made catastrophe created by Sudanese President Bashir. For months, Khartoum has been launching rockets and dropping bombs on villages and fields throughout South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The people of the Nuba Mountains, primarily of black African descent, cannot work their fields for fear of being bombed. They hide in caves as bombers and helicopters fly overhead. Rockets bombard their villages. Sudanese soldiers march into their villages, killing, raping, setting fire to their homes, carrying out a ``scorched earth'' policy. The people of South Kordofan and Blue Nile are already suffering from malnutrition and a severe shortage of food. Thousands are fleeing south, crossing into the newly independent nation of South Sudan, setting up refugee camps along the northern borders. Mainly women and children, they arrive traumatized, exhausted, and malnourished. President Bashir has denied humanitarian access to South Kordofan and Blue Nile for the delivery of desperately needed food aid. He wants no witnesses to his deliberate use of mass starvation as a weapon against his own people. And the clock is ticking, Madam Speaker, because the rainy season is coming soon, and then no one will able to get food into these areas, but the bombs will continue to fall from the sky. Take a look at these photographs. The first one is a remarkable satellite image of villages being bombed in South Sudan. You see the Antonov bomber flying north, back towards the Sudanese military airbase. You see the smoke plumes rising up from civilian villages. You see fields and orchards being bombed. These are not military targets, Madam Speaker. There's not even a truck or a pickup that might be used for military purposes. All you see are villages, huts, orchards, and fields. Antonovs don't do precision bombing, Madam Speaker; they just open up the back bay of the airplane and roll out barrels of explosives. This is an image, Madam Speaker, of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. This is a war crime. It took place on March 8. And here, Madam Speaker, are the targets of the bombs and rockets: children, Madam Speaker, hiding and starving in caves. This photo was taken by John Prendergast, of the Enough Project, and George Clooney, who were in South Kordofan on March 8. They saw the planes and rockets striking villages. The satellite picture is from the Satellite Sentinel Project, set up by Mr. Clooney and DigitalGlobe, which has donated millions of dollars of imagery from its satellites in an effort to provide an early warning system for human security in this region of Sudan. Last Friday, I stood on the steps of the Sudanese Embassy with George Clooney and my House colleagues, Congressman John Olver, Jim Moran, and Al Green. We were all arrested protesting the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. We were joined by George's father and journalist, Nick Clooney; John Prendergast of the Enough Project; our former colleague Tom Andrews, now with United to End Genocide; Martin Luther King III; Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP; Nicole Lee, president of TransAfrica Forum; Faye Williams, chair of the National Congress of Black Women; Activist Dick Gregory; Rabbis David Saperstein and Steve Gutow; Fred Kramer, with the Jewish World Watch; and Ian Schwab, with American Jewish World Service. We had a simple message: Let food and humanitarian aid reach the suffering people of South Kordofan and Blue Nile. Stop raping, killing, bombing, and starving innocent women, children, and men. I commend the Obama administration for pressuring Khartoum to let food reach these desperate people, but more must be done. I urge the President to engage China at the very highest levels to also demand unfettered access for humanitarian aid. Madam Speaker, the world must increase the pressure on President Bashir or watch another crime against humanity take place in Sudan. We must not be silent.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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