[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H346-H347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HUNGER IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the problem of 
hunger in America. We are the richest, most prosperous Nation in the 
world. Yet the sad fact is that in 2013 more than 50 million people in 
this country are considered food insecure by the United States 
Department of Agriculture. Food insecurity, Mr. Speaker, is a technical 
term for the hungry. That's right, there are more than 50 million 
hungry people in this country. We cannot and we should not stand for 
this. It is time that we end hunger now.
  Certainly, our fragile economy has a lot to do with the high levels 
of hunger. Millions of people either lost their jobs or saw their wages 
fall. Food and energy prices went up. For many middle- and low-income 
families, everyday costs like rent, utilities, and food became more 
difficult. And in many cases, families were forced to choose between 
things like food and electricity.

                              {time}  1010

  But even before the recession started, tens of millions of Americans 
went hungry at some point during the year. That, too, is 
unconscionable. And when we turn this economy around, and our economy 
will rebound, we need to make sure that people do not fall through the 
cracks again.
  We need to end hunger now. We may not be able to wipe out all 
disease. We probably can't eliminate all war. But we can end hunger now 
if we make the commitment to do so. We have the resources. We know what 
it takes. We just have to muster the will to end hunger once and for 
all. Hunger is a political condition.
  It's important to point out that even though over 50 million people 
were food insecure, the vast majority had a safety net that prevented 
them from actually starving. That safety net is called the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Formerly known as food stamps, 
SNAP is a program that provides low-income families with food that they 
otherwise could not afford to buy.
  Last year, over 47 million families relied on SNAP to feed their 
families. SNAP is literally a lifeline for these 47 million people who 
struggle to make ends meet. Now, I don't deny that this is a big 
number, but it's a big number because it's a big problem.
  Mr. Speaker, America's hunger problem would be dramatically worse 
without SNAP. Just imagine what this country would look like if we 
didn't have the safety net that SNAP provides for low-income families 
in this country.
  Our churches, our synagogues and mosques do their best to help feed 
families who need help, but they cannot do it on their own. There are 
nonprofits and food banks that do as much as they can, but they cannot 
do it on their own. The private sector simply cannot meet the need.
  And with the economy not expected to fully recover for some time, we 
know that there will continue to be those who struggle to afford food. 
These are the people we need to worry about, the people we must help, 
the people who need their neighbors to lend a helping hand.
  SNAP, Mr. Speaker, is a helping hand. Relying on SNAP is no walk in 
the park. It is not champagne and caviar. No, Mr. Speaker, the truth is 
that the average SNAP benefit is less than $1.50 per meal. That doesn't 
buy a whole lot of healthy, nutritious food.
  And there's a common misconception--some would say it's a purposeful 
mischaracterization--that SNAP promotes a culture of dependency. Some 
detractors even talk about SNAP like it's a golden ticket, that getting 
on SNAP is like winning the lottery; everything's taken care of 
forever.
  Give me a break. People don't want a handout. They don't want to rely 
on government assistance. No, Mr. Speaker, people want to provide for 
themselves and their families. That's why half of all new SNAP 
participants receive benefits for 10 months or less, and 74 percent 
actually left the program entirely within 2 years.
  Now, I don't know why there is such a vitriolic opposition to this 
important program by some here in Congress, nor do I understand why 
some of my colleagues believe we should balance the budget by cutting 
programs that help the most vulnerable.
  The truth is that without SNAP people would go hungry because they 
are poor. Eighty-three percent of families on SNAP make less than 
$24,000 a year for a family of four. Less than $24,000 a year. I 
challenge anyone in this body to live off that income for a year.
  Our budgetary challenges are clear. We need to tackle the debt and 
the deficit, but we need to do so smartly and with reason. There is a 
reason not a single bipartisan deficit proposal, from Simpson-Bowles to 
sequester, cuts SNAP. That's because SNAP is the most effective and 
efficient anti-hunger program we have. That's because cutting SNAP will 
literally take the food away from families in this country. That's 
because the authors of these plans, from liberal Democrats to 
conservative Republicans, all recognize the importance of this program.
  Yet there are those who would want to undermine this and other 
programs that provide a circle of protection for those in need. It is 
time for a nationwide effort to end the scourge of hunger.
  I call on the President of the United States to coordinate a White 
House conference on food and nutrition so we

[[Page H347]]

can devise a plan. I call on the leaders of Congress to support such an 
initiative. We need to do more. End hunger now. End hunger now. End 
hunger now.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do this. We must do this.

                          ____________________