Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of spending a morning at Food and Friends, an organization that provides high- nutrient meals and nutrition therapy for people living with life- threatening illnesses, like HIV/AIDS, cancer and diabetes. It's located right here in Washington, DC. Five of my esteemed colleagues joined me on this visit, Representatives Jo Ann Emerson, Lois Capps, Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Lee, and Eleanor Holmes Norton. Our visit was enlightening and inspiring. Food and Friends began in 1988 when Reverend Carla Gorrell began making lunch for her friend who was so sick with AIDS that she was unable to leave the house. Reverend Gorrell recognized what is so basic, and yet so often overlooked. When we treat people with diseases, she recognized that nutritious food is an essential component of any medical regimen. Today, almost 20 years later, Food and Friends remains steadfast in its mission to provide high-nutrient meals, with care and compassion, to the critically ill in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia. Since 1988, Food and Friends has delivered more than 10 million meals to nearly 16,000 individuals. The organization that began in a church basement now operates in a multifaceted facility with over 50 staff members and, most impressively, 1,500 dedicated volunteers. While my colleagues and I were at Food and Friends, we learned a tremendous amount about the significance of nutritious food for those suffering from critical illnesses. Laura Otolski, one of the three full-time dieticians on staff, educated us about the importance of individually treating each client's nutritional needs. To this end, the dieticians assess clients and then collaborate with chefs to prepare 14 different meal plans, including pureed meals for individuals who cannot chew solid food and meals for the homeless who may not have access to refrigerators and ovens. Food and Friends staff members also recognize that to treat an individual, you must also provide food for his or her children and caretakers. For example, if a mother is too sick to cook and a volunteer only delivers a meal for her, she will give it to her children and go without food. Therefore, Food and Friends delivers meals for the whole family, including a specially designed children's meal plan. For those who live beyond Food and Friends' delivery area, they are eligible for the Groceries to Go service that provides two bags of nonperishable groceries as well as perishable frozen meals prepared by Food and Friends kitchen staff. In addition to providing food, Food and Friends offers cooking classes, nutritional counseling and even a photography workshop for clients to express themselves through art. Through its diverse programs, Food and Friends nourishes the body as well as the mind and soul. Without a doubt, the highlight of our visit was hearing from two Food and Friends clients, Ajani Johnson and Crystal Wood. They described the hopelessness they felt when first learning about their illnesses. How quickly he felt sick. How far her cancer had spread. But then they told us about the gift of food that changed the course of their lives. The food--and the friendship of staff and volunteers that accompanied it-- renewed their physical strength and belief in their ability to fight the disease. They became passionate when talking about the power of food to improve their quality of life while battling deadly illnesses. They also wanted us to know that they're not just clients of Food and Friends, they are also volunteers of the organization. They want others to experience the nourishment and compassion that was freely offered to them. Mr. Speaker, Food and Friends is not alone in serving meals to the sick in this country. It is part of a national and international network of 120 agencies collectively serving 10 million meals to individuals each year. The Association of Nutrition Services Agencies is currently working with the Congressional Hunger Center on a Food as Medicine initiative. The purpose of the Food as Medicine campaign is to educate local and national leaders, academics and citizens about the value of nutrition services for those fighting disease. We have the information we need to make great strides in recognizing the therapeutic effects of nutrition for those living with life- threatening illnesses, and I urge my colleagues to work together to ensure that all critically ill Americans have access to food and nutrition therapy as part of their treatment plans. These services improve the efficacy of medications and the quality of life of those suffering and their families. It is a simple but crucial step in improving the quality of health care in this country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the subcommittee, who has done an incredible job putting this bill together, a bill which will help feed millions of people in this country and around the world.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 30 minutes. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 581.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 581 is a traditional open rule for appropriations bills. This open rule allows any amendment to be offered as long as the amendment complies with House rules. Madam Speaker, the Agriculture appropriations bill may not get as much attention as some of the others, but it is incredibly important to the Nation. For the past 6 years, the bill has been underfunded by President Bush and the Republican Congress. This year, the subcommittee chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro, and her colleagues have put together a bill that begins to restore cuts in funding to the Department of Agriculture; cuts that have left too many people hungry here at home and around the world; cuts that have threatened America's food security and food safety; and cuts that have denied rural America improvements and access to better technology, better housing and a better environment. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to say that with this bill, we have turned the corner. The fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill makes new and important investments in our people. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a big step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support it. I am proud, Madam Speaker, to serve as the Cochair of the bipartisan House Hunger Caucus along with my good friend from Missouri, Jo Ann Emerson. I have a strong interest in making sure that our domestic and international hunger programs get the funding that they need. With this bill, more pregnant women and infants will get the nutritious food they need through the WIC program. With this bill, more children who eat a school breakfast or lunch will receive meals during the summer months, when school is out of session, just like they do during the school year. With this bill, the food that they are served in school will be healthier, including more fresh fruits and vegetables. With this bill, the Commodity Food Supplemental Program can expand participation in existing States and can also begin participating in five new States. The bill continues funding to combat hunger around the world through programs like Food for Peace and the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. There is increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service, allowing USDA to better oversee our Nation's food safety, and more importantly, root out any food contamination and threats to America's food supply. Providing these agencies with the proper tools, including proper staffing, is an important part of USDA's mission that usually goes unnoticed unless a problem arises. Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill increases funding for programs that directly affect rural America. For far too long, rural America has been underfunded and, in many cases, underappreciated. This bill increases funding for programs important to rural America, including crop insurance integrity, livestock competition, enforcement efforts at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Rural Community Advancement Program, clean water and business loans and grants. Finally, there are increases in funds for technology access that will provide grants for distance learning, telemedicine and broadband development in rural areas. Madam Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to address one more subject in a little bit of detail. For years we have not done nearly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike, to end hunger. I will say it again: Hunger is a political condition. We have the resources to end it. We have the infrastructure. What we need is the political will and determination to make it happen. With passage of the fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill and the recently approved farm bill, this new Democratic Congress is taking a major step forward in the fight to end hunger in America and around the world. We are moving in a new direction toward a place where everybody in this world has enough to eat. We have much more work to do, but today we can make an important down payment. Now, during consideration of this bill, we may see attempts to cut these vital, proven programs. Members will say that they, too, are troubled by hunger, but they don't want to spend the money to address it. It is the same old argument. Additionally, during consideration of this bill, there may be an amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) that would allow State governments to privatize the Food Stamp program. Madam Speaker, this open rule allows the gentleman from Texas to offer this amendment. I support his right to do so. However, this is bad policy that was rejected in the farm bill. As a supporter of the Food Stamp program, a program proven to provide food to hungry Americans, I strongly oppose this amendment. The State of Texas has experimented with privatizing food stamps. That experiment failed. According to a letter signed by 21 organizations opposed to the privatization of the Food Stamp program, ``before the State canceled its contract with the private contractors, hundreds of thousands of low-income children and adults were unable to access nutrition and health care assistance that they desperately needed and to which they were entitled by law.'' Privatization of the Food Stamp program failed in Texas. We should not put more families at risk by extending that failed experiment to other States. The amendment deserves to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote no if, in fact, the amendment is offered. Madam Speaker, I will insert letters opposing privatization of the Food Stamp program into the Record at this point. July 10, 2007. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: When the full House Agriculture Committee marks up the nutrition title of the Farm Bill, we urge you to oppose any effort to strike or weaken a provision clarifying the existing requirement that state civil service employees conduct the Food Stamp eligibility determination process. This ``merit-system'' requirement has been part of the Food Stamp program since its inception. It is intended to protect the integrity of the program and ensure fair and equal access and treatment for all applicants. We are extremely concerned about replication of the Texas experience of privatizing most of the work leading up to the final eligibility determination in its Food Stamp, Medicaid and TANF programs. Indiana is already proceeding down the same path despite the Texas failure. In Texas, before the state canceled its contract with the private contractors, hundreds of thousands of low income children and adults were unable to access nutrition and health care assistance that they desperately needed and to which they were entitled by law. When states privatize such important and inherently governmental functions, the contracts often create incentives for private companies to reduce access to the program in order to maximize their profits. ``Streamlining the work'' often comes at the expense of the most difficult to serve, including the elderly who have hearing problems on the phone and have no internet access, the disabled, the homeless, and people with limited English. In addition, it actually may create new inefficiencies that delay the processing of needed benefits. Privatization is not necessary for states to modernize their application process. This spring, the Government Accounting Office documented that most states have implemented call centers and internet using their public employees. We strongly urge you to support the provisions in the subcommittee bill that clarify the merit system requirement. Sincerely, AFL-CIO; Coalition for Independent Living Options; Coalition on Human Needs; Congressional Hunger Center; Food Research and Action Center; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Migrant Legal Action Program; National Council on Aging; National Council of Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Farmers Union; National Low Income Housing Coalition; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; OMB Watch; RESULTS; The Arc of the United States; The Salvation Army; United Automobile Workers; United Cerebral Palsy; USAction; Voices for America's Children; Wider Opportunities for Women.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just want to make a couple of observations. I find it somewhat ironic that my Republican friends, on the one hand, complain about the size of the bill, the overall amount of money that has been put into this bill; and then they complain about the programs that haven't been funded enough on the other hand. You can't have it both ways. I guess there is no pleasing them. The other thing, too, is the vote on the previous question has nothing to do with the underlying bill. But I will remind my colleagues that in addition to the many good things that this bill does for rural America and for farmers and for feeding hungry people, there is a national security component to this bill as well. This bill contains money to help protect the American people from contaminated food that may cross our borders into our country. This is about food security. So this is a vital part of protecting the American people, and I don't think that should be lost. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, just in brief response to the gentleman, this is an open rule. He can amend this any way he wants to. We hear complaints from the other side that they want more openness. This is as open as you can get. So I don't know why he would have a problem with the rule. Obviously we have different priorities in the underlying bill, but he can amend this any way he wants. That's what an open rule allows him to do. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut to counter some of the arguments that were just made.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman briefly by saying if the Republican Congress over the years has done such a good job in combating hunger and food insecurity in this country, why are there 35 million Americans that are categorized as hungry and food insecure? In response to the idea that we want more Americans to be ``independent,'' we all want that. The bottom line is that Republican policies which took away indexing of food stamps back in 1996 has made it possible for many people not to be able to transition for food stamps. The fact of the matter is the majority of people who are on food stamps today are working families. They are trying to be independent. They're working hard, and yet because we have failed to index food stamps to keep up with the cost of living, we've all given ourselves pay raises here. So obviously we feel the cost of living does have an impact, but yet we haven't done it to the most vulnerable. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from the other side about how nobody supports what happened to Lilly Ledbetter, yet it was this Republican President's Solicitor General who argued against Lilly Ledbetter in the Supreme Court. For all of the years I can remember that the Republicans were in the majority in Congress, I don't remember any groundbreaking equal pay for equal work legislation being brought to the floor to deal with these kinds of issues. So we can talk all we want about the need to eliminate discrimination in the workforce against women, but unless we back those statements up with our votes on legislation that will change that, then those words ring hollow. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) 3 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I guess my confusion was you are bringing up that case in the context of the debate we are having here today with regard to equal pay for equal work. I should also point out to the gentleman that the CBO expects that this bill would not significantly affect the number of filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That appears in the report on the bill. Again, I say to my colleagues that this issue is very simple. This is about combating discrimination. This is about fairness, and this is the way to do it, and this is the opportunity to do it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think it's inconceivable that any Member in this Chamber can stand up and say that they are against discrimination and that they are dedicated to equal pay for equal work and vote against the underlying bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about how committed they are to this issue of equal rights; yet when they controlled this Congress, I don't recall a single equal pay for equal work bill being brought to this floor. My friends say that this is an issue they feel strongly about, yet I don't recall hearing a single voice on the other side of the aisle complain when George Bush's Solicitor General argued against Lilly Ledbetter. My friends say this is an important issue to them, yet I don't recall anybody on their side of the aisle standing up and decrying the Supreme Court when they came down with this awful decision against Lilly Ledbetter. Today's debate has been about justice and fairness. It is hard to believe this is even an issue that needs to be debated. No one argues that Lilly Ledbetter was denied equal pay for equal work. No one argues against the fact that women in this country still only earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. No one will refute the fact that, unfortunately, discrimination in the workplace towards too many Americans is still rampant. But today we can send a message that this unfairness in the workplace is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. Those who discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter were wrong, and they deserve to be fired. Because of the insult she suffered, Ms. Ledbetter deserved compensation. What's amazing is that the Supreme Court doesn't deny this. They recognize the problem, yet a bare majority, for some reason, decided that justice was not to be granted. Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, stated that the opinion did not, and I quote, ``comprehend, or was indifferent, to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.'' Justice Ginsburg also made clear that now it was up to Congress to act. Today we shall. It does not matter if you suffer pay discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability or age. It is wrong. If it happens, there must be a system in place to ensure that justice is accomplished. As Lilly Ledbetter said, and I quote, ``I wish my story had a happy ending . . . I hope . . . that what happened to me does not happen to other people who suffered discrimination like I did.'' Let's fulfill Lilly Ledbetter's hope today and ensure that what happened to her never, ever happens to another worker in this great country. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. McGOVERN. I have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and then myself.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his clarification, but the underlying point of this bill is to make sure that there are no more cases like Lilly Ledbetter's case. With almost every piece of legislation that deals with civil rights, the other side always trots out this litigation argument. There will be more lawsuits and more lawsuits and more lawsuits. We hear the lawsuit in D.C. brought up about this man who is suing a dry cleaners for losing his pants. To the best of my knowledge, that has nothing to do with discrimination. I agree with the gentleman that that is a frivolous lawsuit, but to bring that case up in the context of what we are debating here, which is the civil rights and the equal rights and the equal pay protections for women in this country, I don't think is appropriate, quite frankly.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in response to the gentleman from California's remarks, that obviously we disagree on the importance of this legislation. Many of us on this side, I hope all of us on this side, and a good number of Members on that side, believe this is serious, a serious bill and a very important bill, and that the issue of discrimination is something we cannot tolerate under any circumstances. The gentleman mentions the promises that the Democrats made when they campaigned in the last election. One of those promises was that we would combat discrimination wherever it existed. That is what we are doing here today. We think it is wrong that women get paid less than men for doing the same job. The gentleman says this bill is an assault on entrepreneurship. Equal pay for equal work is an assault on entrepreneurship?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 579 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation can be summed up in one word, ``fairness.'' And what better summarizes the idea of fairness than equal pay for equal work. We've all heard it; we've all said it in speeches, but right now we have a real opportunity to make it happen. I wish we did not have to be here today, but the shortsighted and unfortunate recent Supreme Court ruling has forced us to revisit this painful issue from our Nation's past. Lilly Ledbetter spent 19 years of her life working at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama plant. What she did not know for most of that time was that she had been subjected to systematic pay discrimination over the course of 15 years simply because she is a woman. By the time of her retirement, she was earning $45,000 a year. The lowest paid male supervisor at the plant was making $6,500 a year more. As the case of Lilly Ledbetter clearly shows, there is still discrimination in the workplace, and it is our responsibility and it is our duty to ensure that every worker in this Nation receives fair compensation for their work. We had a bipartisan solution to this problem, known as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While this legislation was groundbreaking and certainly was a giant step forward for our workers, there was clearly a hole in the law, and that is what we are filling today. Lilly Ledbetter proved her case. A jury found that she had been discriminated against and awarded her the back pay she should have received, attempting to fulfill the purpose of title VII, to make her whole and to discourage other employers from discriminating in the future. But those goals were thwarted by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision earlier this year. The Court held that in order to recover the back wages she was owed, Lilly Ledbetter needed to file a complaint at the time the discrimination began, even though she did not become aware of it until more than a decade later. What we are doing is reclaiming the original purpose, the legislative intent of title VII, which unfortunately the Supreme Court, in one fell swoop, completely, outrageously undermined. Their decision was as if to say that because Lilly Ledbetter didn't know she was being treated unfairly, that therefore she was not being treated unfairly. This was, of course, irrespective of the fact that the Court and those of us here in this Chamber unequivocally know Lilly Ledbetter suffered the consequences of discrimination throughout the course of her life and her career. Mr. Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter joined the workforce and worked hard, assuming that she would receive fair compensation for her efforts. But her story and the stories of countless others is not one of fairness or justice. I will not retell her story because I think we have all heard it and we all understand that she was wronged. Instead, I will share with you some of her testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee in June. And although I was not there to hear her speak, you can feel the passion of someone who knows she was wronged. These are the words of Lilly Ledbetter, and I quote: ``What happened to me is not only an insult to my dignity, but had real consequences for my ability to care for my family. Every paycheck I received I got less than what I was entitled to under the law. The Supreme Court said that this didn't count as illegal discrimination, but it sure feels like illegal discrimination when you are on the receiving end of that smaller paycheck and trying to support your family with less money than the men are getting for doing the same job.'' Mr. Speaker, what happened to Lilly Ledbetter should not have happened, and today we have an opportunity to make sure it will never happen again. You know, Mr. Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter could be bitter and angry, and most certainly she has every right to be. But instead, her concern is about what will happen in the future. And let me quote her again: ``My case is over, and it is too bad that the Supreme Court decided the way it did. I hope, though, that Congress won't let this happen to anyone else. I would feel that this long fight was worthwhile if at least at the end of it I knew that I played a part in getting the law fixed so that it could provide real protection to real people in the real world.'' Lilly Ledbetter's concern is with those workers who come after her who, just like her, will work hard at their jobs and assume that they are receiving equal pay for equal work. This is not something that they should have to hope for; it is something they deserve and are owed under the law. And this Congress owes these workers and their families, because last November they voted for change because they were tired of the economic injustices that people like Lilly Ledbetter had suffered. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect their government to stand up for fairness and justice. And for this reason, let me say how disappointed I am in our President, who has said he will veto this legislation if it comes to his desk. This is a President who, time and time again, stands up before audiences and claims that he is against discrimination in all forms, yet now we get this threat. If this Congress is truly committed to ending discrimination in this Nation, we cannot let this President have the final word. If he vetoes this bill for fairness and justice, I hope that this Congress will stand up and overturn his pen stroke that strikes at the heart of what makes this Nation great. Mr. Speaker, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is not only about changing the way we treat our working men and women; it's about paying rent, putting food on the table, and paying for our children to go to college. For this to happen, we must return to the roots of a Nation and what has made us great and moved us forward in times of strife. Fairness has been at the heart of all that makes America strong, and this Congress cannot turn away from that. For Lilly Ledbetter and all the workers who simply want to earn a fair wage for the hard work that they do do for their families and for justice, let's pass this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)