Food Insecurity

Floor Speech

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, every year the Department of Agriculture collects, analyzes, and releases a report detailing the amount of domestic food insecurity. Yesterday, USDA released this report. This may sound like a wonkish, policy-driven report, but it is one of the most important reports written and released by any Federal agency. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this is a report about hunger in America.

Our country is going through very difficult economic times; the most difficult since the Great Depression. One of the results of this recession has been an increase in hunger. Families who have lost their jobs or have seen their incomes reduced because of the economy have had a difficult time putting food on their tables. It's common to see families who once volunteered at or donated to local food pantries now stand in line for food from these very same nonprofit organizations. Unfortunately, these organizations have had difficulty meeting the demands they've faced over the past few years.

The good news, I suppose, is that the new USDA report shows that fewer people were food insecure in 2010 than in 2009. The bad news is that there are still 48.8 million Americans who struggled to put food on their tables last year.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, these numbers are unacceptable. It's unconscionable that even one person in this country goes without food, let alone 48.8 million people. It breaks my heart that 16.2 million of these hungry people are children. That's almost a quarter of the total food insecure population.

President Obama pledged to end childhood hunger by 2015. It's clear, barring some dramatic shifts in policy, he's not going to achieve that goal. I regret that very much; so should every elected Member of this Congress.

While 48.8 million hungry Americans is a daunting figure, it's important to realize that these figures would be much worse if it weren't for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Formerly known as Food Stamps, SNAP is a true safety net program that helps low-income individuals and families buy groceries. The added benefit of SNAP is that it is also an economic stimulus that benefits local economies. It's a simple concept--for every SNAP dollar spent, $1.84 goes into the economy.

But despite what SNAP critics may claim, SNAP prevented millions of Americans from going without food. Without a doubt, yesterday's food insecurity numbers would have been much worse if it weren't for SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political condition. We have the means to solve hunger if we muster the political will to do so. SNAP is a proven program, one that prevents hunger while stimulating the economy. It's for both the moral reason and the economic reason that any deficit reduction proposal considered by the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--the so-called supercommittee--must not cut SNAP or do anything that increases hunger and poverty.

Cutting SNAP or similar antihunger programs will increase hunger, an action which I believe is morally indefensible. That's why I will be circulating a letter urging the 12 members of the select committee not to approve any deficit reduction policies that will increase hunger or poverty in this country. I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join with me in this important letter.

A responsibility of government is to protect the most vulnerable people in our country while doing everything we can to ensure that we pass on the strongest country possible to our children and our grandchildren. Cutting SNAP, the program that literally prevents millions of Americans from going hungry, would be wrong. And collectively, we must do everything we can to prevent any actions that increase hunger in America.

These food insecurity numbers are sad and disheartening, but they are also a call to action. We can do better. We must do better.

Source