[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4096-H4104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2112, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 300 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 300
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
[[Page H4097]]
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived except for sections 740, 741, 743, and
744. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1230
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 300 provides for an open rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2112, a bill which makes
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have offered yet another open rule on this
legislation, something we did not see when Democrats were in the
majority for 4 years. House Republicans are keeping their promise to
the American people by submitting a bill that contains no earmarks.
House Republicans are keeping their promise to reduce spending and rein
in the Federal deficit which threatens our very existence as a free
country. This bill addresses many of the glaring inefficiencies of
Washington by reducing wasteful and redundant programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that, under the control of the liberal
Democrats, kept growing and growing. In fiscal year 2008, this same
bill had a price tag of $90.8 billion. One year later, fiscal year
2009, the liberal Democrats increased spending by 14 percent to $103.3
billion. And for fiscal year 2010, yet another liberal hike in the cost
of appropriations to the taxpayer to the tune of $125 billion,
representing a whopping 21 percent increase in spending.
The liberals claim that any cuts in spending for any program covered
by this bill drives more people into hunger. Strange that they did not
say that last year when these very same liberal Democrats cut $562
million from WIC so that they could spend it in unrelated matters. That
is only one example of the lack of leadership, courtesy of our friends
across the aisle.
Lest we forget, it was their failed policies that ruined the economy
when they were in charge of the power of the purse. Their habitual and
unending spending increases have not helped the economy as they had
promised but, rather, have saddled our children and grandchildren with
outrageous debt to pay off.
With better fiscal stewardship, our economy would be stronger and our
country's job creators would be able to provide the jobs that our
Nation's workforce is hungry for. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in January 2007--the month that the Democrats took over
Congress--unemployment was at 4.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat
that. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January 2007, the
month the Democrats took over Congress, with a Republican President,
unemployment was at 4.6 percent. That number has nearly doubled under
the eyes of the liberal Democrats and the Obama administration. Last
year, the Democrats failed to pass a budget or any appropriations bill.
There has been a complete lack of leadership on their side of the aisle
and at the White House.
While it got very little publicity from the lame stream media, the
Senate this year overwhelmingly rejected President Obama's budget
proposal on a unanimous vote of 97-0; unanimous opposition to the
President's budget and nothing said about it in the press. The
Republican House budget that we sent to the Senate faired much better
than the President's budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, we've seen nothing but
a lack of leadership from the administration and the liberal Democrats
in Congress.
The bottom line is that if we do not make sound and responsible
fiscal decisions that focus on reducing spending and making the
government leaner and more efficient, we risk forfeiting control of our
own purse to debtor nations. The simple truth is that we are currently
borrowing 43 cents for every dollar spent at the Federal level. To have
foreign nations provide funds for so much of what our country spends is
simply negligent and irresponsible. Even the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has stated that the national debt
is the single biggest threat to our national security.
Taxpayers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the
national debt by 2012. To put that figure in perspective, Mr. Speaker,
the fiscal year 2011 defense budget is $685 billion. In order to grow
the economy and provide an environment in which Americans can prosper,
we need to end expensive and ineffective government programs and remove
the barriers of uncertainty that prevent employers from hiring.
Many liberal elites are calling for higher taxes--higher taxes, Mr.
Speaker--on hardworking Americans in order to pay for their
irresponsible spending and fiscal decisions. The Democrat plan is to
continue to borrow, spend, and tax, taking money out of the pockets of
hardworking Americans.
A clear difference between liberal Democrats and Republicans is that
Republicans do not claim ownership of the salaries of hardworking
Americans and businesses that create jobs. Elite Democrats believe that
they are entitled to take money from Americans and small businesses in
order to carry out their liberal agenda, and job creators are left with
whatever the liberal elites deem is necessary for them. You cannot help
the job seeker by punishing the job creator with higher taxes and more
government red tape.
Mr. Speaker, American businesses need a clear perspective of what the
future holds in order to create American jobs and strengthen our
economy. The uncertainty and mixed messages that the Obama
administration provide are completely counterproductive to achieving
any kind of economic prosperity.
President Obama's economic policies have consisted of bullying
businesses to help union allies, such as the case in South Carolina
where the NLRB is telling a private company where to do business for
the benefit of Big Labor bosses at the expense of 1,000 jobs in South
Carolina.
When Americans needed a jobs agenda, President Obama and the elite
Democrat-controlled Congress gave them a spending agenda. From the
President's first day in office in January 2009 through April 30, 2011,
the economy has lost 2.5 million jobs, an average of 3,044 jobs lost
every day. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 150,000 new
jobs are needed to be created each month just to keep up with
population growth. The economy is not growing fast enough or strong
enough to employ the 13.7 million Americans looking for work.
But the liberal elites seem content on sitting back and watching
agencies expand the bureaucracy by coming out with an unending stream
of job-killing regulations. This in no way helps create confidence in
American business, jobs, or economic prosperity. The Democrat elites,
indeed, have made history. The result of their liberal agenda has been
trillion-dollar deficits, historic debt, and historic unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, we must empower America's job creators, small
businesses, families, and entrepreneurs to
[[Page H4098]]
lead us to real job growth. More wasteful Washington spending isn't the
solution. That's why Republicans propose saving Americans over $800
billion worth of tax increases by repealing ObamaCare and by adopting
the appropriations bills that we are proposing now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for
yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my statement, I just, for the record,
would like to point out to the gentlelady that, in response to her very
political and partisan remarks, I want to remind her that George Bush
came into office in 2000. Republicans were in charge of both the House
and the Senate until 2006. And so if you want to point fingers at why
this economy is in a ditch, I would suggest that my Republican friends
look in the mirror.
Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. Budgets lay out our
priorities and document what we think is important for our country to
succeed and our citizens to thrive. A few months ago, this Republican-
controlled House made a statement by passing the Ryan budget. With that
vote, most Republicans showed that they want to end Medicare as we know
it. But their budget did more than just undermine Medicare; it set the
stage for the appropriations process.
{time} 1240
So here we are today to begin the consideration of the FY 2012
Agriculture appropriations bill. This bill, while not as high-profile
as some others, is one, I believe, to be of critical importance to our
Nation and to the world. It funds many of the programs that keep our
Nation and many parts of the world from going hungry. It deals with the
most helpless people, the most vulnerable people, in our country and in
the world. It protects the food supply so that our children and
families don't have to worry about contaminated food, and it provides
important funds for rural America, including critical funds for
broadband Internet access and other rural development programs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is important in many, many ways; but like the
Ryan budget, the FY 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill, as written by
the Republicans, is just plain wrong. This allocation is unworkable.
So, quite frankly, I don't care if you have an open rule or a super-
duper open rule or a quadruple bypass rule. It doesn't make any
difference because this bill, as written, is unfixable. The only way to
help programs that they cut that feed hungry people is to cut from
other programs that feed hungry people, so there is no way to make this
bill better. The bill, as written, in my opinion, is morally
indefensible. Instead of making investments in our Nation's agriculture
and anti-hunger programs, this bill slashes funds for WIC, CSFP, TEFAP,
P.L. 480, and the Food Safety Programs.
And those aren't just meaningless acronyms.
WIC is the Women, Infants and Children Program. Funds for WIC provide
food and nutrition education to pregnant women, newborn children and
kids up to 5 years of age. CSFP is the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, and it helps put food on the tables of America's senior
citizens. TEFAP is The Emergency Food Assistance Program, and it
provides assistance to food banks that are struggling with decreased
donations and increased demand during these difficult times. P.L. 480
is a program that helps provide American-grown food to hungry and
impoverished people in developing nations around the world. It's known
as Food for Peace. The Food Safety Programs protect our citizens from
foodborne bacteria like E.coli and salmonella.
Taken together, cuts in domestic anti-hunger programs total more than
$500 million. Add in the cuts to P.L. 480 and the McGovern-Dole School
Feeding Program, and the cuts add up to well over $1 billion to
programs, again, that provide food to hungry people here at home and
around the world.
As written, this is a pro-hunger bill. There is no other way to say
it. No matter what anyone says, this bill will increase hunger here at
home and around the world. A vote for this bill is a vote to willfully
allow people in America and around the world to go without food. A vote
for this bill is to take food from children and seniors, to allow food
banks to open with half full and empty shelves. These aren't just
freezes in current spending. A freeze in current spending would be bad
enough with the continued rising demand and rising food prices that
people are facing here at home and around the world. That would be bad
enough. No. These are real cuts that do real damage to real people. The
only thing crueler than ignoring a hungry person is giving a hungry
person food and then taking it away.
No one would condone that, Mr. Speaker. Yet that's what this bill
does. We're not just talking about that tired, old stereotype of the
welfare queen gaming the system. No, Mr. Speaker.
The bill we're talking about are people who play by the rules but who
are struggling to make ends meet because of the difficult economy. We
are seeing middle-income families who are now turning to food banks and
food pantries. In times of need, we are supposed to help our brothers
and sisters in need. That's what a community is about. That's what our
country is supposed to be about. Yet this bill does not do that.
Instead, it cruelly targets those who are hurting at no fault of their
own.
Yes, we are facing tough, difficult economic times. Yes, we need to
address the budget deficit. But what kind of Nation are we if we choose
to balance our deficit on the backs of the poor and the hungry? What
kind of Congress are we if we choose to cut the programs that protect
our seniors and our children in favor of protecting gas, oil and farm
subsidies? I want my colleagues to understand that those subsidies,
those examples of corporate welfare, are all protected and have been
protected by this new majority since they took office. What kind of
people are we if we stand idly by and allow our children to go hungry?
Nations go to war over food riots. We all watched with great interest
what unfolded in Egypt with the protests and the demand of democracy
and freedom, but they were also demanding food. They were also rioting
over the lack of food that people had in Egypt.
This is especially tragic because it kind of demonstrates where the
new majority's priorities are. One of the first things they insisted on
was that we protect the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this
country. Donald Trump got his tax cut protected, and we didn't have to
offset that even though it's costing a great deal to our deficit and
our debt. They didn't offset it. They just wanted to protect it and
have all the corporate welfare protected. So now they bring a bill to
the floor, and they say, Well, we have to make tough choices. We have
to make tough decisions.
The tough decisions and tough choices they make are to cut the WIC
Program. 300,000 people will be thrown off of WIC. That's not tough on
anybody here in the United States House of Representatives--we're all
fine--but it's tough on a lot of low-income pregnant mothers and their
children all around this country. We can do better than that. Congress
needs to do better than that, and this Nation should do better than
that.
This bill follows in the grand tradition of the Ryan budget. Like the
Ryan budget, it does great damage to the American people. Like the Ryan
budget, it breaks our Nation's great promise to protect our Nation's
citizens. Like the Ryan budget, in my opinion, this is morally
indefensible.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. I urge my
Republican colleagues: Don't do this. Don't do this. Don't try to
balance the budget on the backs of the most helpless people in our
country and around the world.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am always having to help balance out the comments that
my good colleague from Massachusetts is making. He criticizes
Republicans for keeping tax cuts. Well, I have to explain to him his
President, a Democrat, supported that. Most Democrats here supported
that last year. We didn't keep tax cuts. We stopped tax increases. Even
the President and his
[[Page H4099]]
people have a little sense about economics in that, if you raise taxes
in the middle of a terrible economic situation, you create problems.
I would also like to point out to my friend from Massachusetts that
they were in charge for 4 years. It was during those 4 years that we
got into the mess that we got into. They controlled both Houses of
Congress, and they controlled the Presidency for 2 years of that. Yet
they didn't stop any of these things that they had talked about.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. FOXX. I will when I have completed my comments. I appreciate
that.
He refers to this legislation as the ``pro-hunger bill.'' This tired
claim by our liberal friends that Republicans are intent on starving
children really goes beyond cliches now.
Putting that aside, my friend from Massachusetts needs to understand,
if he really cares about the funding for Federal food programs, he
should vote for the underlying bill. Why? Because it provides $6
billion for the WIC Program. Let me point out again that, last year, my
colleague from across the aisle voted to cut the WIC Program, for a
totally unrelated program, of over $500 million, $68.2 billion for food
stamps, $180 million for the McGovern-Dole food program, and $18.8
billion for the Child Nutrition Program.
{time} 1250
Perhaps these aren't the funding levels he would like to see, but I
think my colleague knows that legislating is the art of compromise, and
there are plenty of Members who would like to see deeper cuts to
further enhance efficiencies in this program.
The bottom line is that by voting against this bill, using his logic,
Mr. McGovern is actually voting to starve the children and to create
more hunger by denying over $93 billion in overall Federal food
assistance to the hungry people that he claims to support. In contrast,
by voting for the underlying bill, he is voting to provide the funding
he argues these programs so desperately need.
Let me do a recap of what is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Seventy-seven
percent of the bill is SNAP, that is food stamps, child nutrition and
WIC. Child nutrition programs will receive $18.8 billion in mandatory
funding this year. That is funding that is on autopilot. This covers 68
percent of all school lunches and 85.5 percent of all school
breakfasts, either free or at a reduced rate.
The SNAP, or food stamp program, $68.2 billion, provides support to
45 million people. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that we have 45
million people in this country getting food stamps. That is a result of
the policies of our Democratic friends across the aisle. Again, WIC, $6
billion; CAP, $136 million; the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education, Child Nutrition grants, $180 million. There is a lot that
the liberals can be grateful for in this program.
I would yield to a question from Mr. McGovern, if he has a question
to ask me.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would just simply say to the gentlelady that, again,
I would reiterate my view that this bill is morally indefensible the
way it is written.
The gentlelady talks about WIC. Under the cuts in this bill, and I
say conservatively, between 200,000 and 350,000 low income women and
children will be thrown off of WIC. You mention the McGovern-Dole
school feeding program. The monies you cut in that program would mean
that we would serve 5 million less children.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have
plenty of time under his time to make the comments that he wants to
make. I was more than willing to answer a question, but he will have
time to make those comments when it is his turn.
I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr.
Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I find it very interesting in listening to the discussion here today
about whose responsibility it is to feed those who are hungry. I don't
think anybody on this floor would say that we don't want to help
someone who is in need of food or basic essential services. I think
what this is is a discussion about the difference in philosophy in
Washington about the role of government in Washington.
There is plenty of blame to go around for all of the spending that
has come out of Washington over the last decade--the last 30 years,
actually. What we are doing is we are sinking our Nation and our
children, the children that we are talking about and whom we want to
help and feed. We are actually giving them over $40,000 of debt. Each
child that is born in this country is saddled with $40,000 of debt
because of government spending that continues to grow more and more
every year.
I can tell you as an American farmer in Indiana that myself and many
other American farmers and individuals are much better suited to help
those who are in most need, in helping in the community, donating food,
being a part of a food pantry. We are a generous Nation, and what has
become of our ability to help is that we have a Federal Government that
continues to saddle us with more and more debt, more and more taxes and
regulation, making it much more difficult to make the profits with
which we can then turn around and help our communities with food, with
the basic services that our churches, our charities and many other
organizations in our local communities provide.
Instead of us always looking to the government for that assistance,
let's back off of the American people and let them help themselves,
when they are capable and when they are willing to do it, rather than
continuing to put them further and further into debt.
The Democrat Party talks about, Where are the jobs? Well, government
doesn't provide jobs. Indeed, the private sector, people in our
communities, entrepreneurs, people that want to expand their businesses
to provide a job for that family that needs to provide for their
children, they need the job, and there is not going to be enough
government jobs to give them that opportunity. Instead, every time we
take dollars away from the private sector, that individual who is out
working hard, working 50 to 60 hours a week just trying to make ends
meet, we are putting them in a very difficult position where they are
not able to pay the bills because we continue to make it much more
difficult for businesses to be successful here.
Small businesses are the backbone of this country, and until
Washington, DC, backs off, the American economy is going to continue to
struggle and families are going to continue to struggle.
I believe that this is a responsible bill that will instead help the
American economy to grow and help Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me assure the gentleman from Indiana that churches and faith-
based organizations all across this country are doing their share. They
are doing more than their share. Many of them, representing every faith
denomination in this country, are up on the Hill today saying, We need
you, those of you in Congress, to do your part, because this is not
just a problem for charities to deal with. We all have to be involved
in dealing with this issue of poverty and dealing with the issue of
hunger in America and around the world.
Let me say to my colleague from North Carolina, I will match my
antihunger credentials against hers 7 days a week. But in this bill
that has been brought before us, the cuts in WIC would end food
assistance for 200,000 to 350,000 low-income women and children. That
is a conservative estimate.
She mentioned Food for Peace, how grateful we should be that they are
throwing some scraps at the problem of international hunger. In this
bill, there is a 39 percent decrease in Food for Peace title II
funding, and it will put millions of lives at risk and undermine the
ability of USAID to prevent famine. Food aid provided by USAID is a
lifesaving measure for millions of vulnerable people overseas.
According to USAID, these brutal cuts will mean up to 16 million
people, mainly women and children, will not receive the lifesaving food
aid.
The gentlelady mentions the McGovern-Dole program, which is near and
dear to my heart. The McGovern-Dole program serves about 5 million
people,
[[Page H4100]]
5 million children, children, in 28 countries. The $20 million cut to
McGovern-Dole will end school meals for over 400,000 children in the
world's poorest countries. We are literally, literally, taking food out
of the mouths of these children. Imagine how that would make you feel
if it were your child.
So I say to the gentlelady and to the gentleman who just spoke, this
is not a jobs bill that we are bringing to the floor here today.
Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want
to bring a jobs bill to the floor. They are too busy trying to
undermine or underfund funding for National Public Radio instead of
dealing with more important issues.
But this bill deals with the reality, and I don't care who you want
to blame for it, that there are tens of millions of our own citizens
who are hungry in the United States of America, the richest country on
the face of this Earth, and we have a choice to either try to help them
out during this difficult time or to turn our backs. And the way this
bill is funded, we turn our backs on millions of our fellow citizens.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am always very reluctant to talk about
personal experiences on the floor, but I want to tell my colleague
across the aisle that I grew up probably poorer than anybody in this
body.
{time} 1300
And I know something about what it means to struggle to get food. I
know what that's all about. And let me tell you, there's nobody here
who feels more strongly that more Federal Government involvement in
this is not the right way to go. What we need is to be able to develop
policies that allow people to get a job so they can provide for
themselves instead of being dependent on the Federal Government to
provide for them.
Let me talk about my colleague says budgets are moral documents.
Again, my colleague and I don't agree on a lot of issues when it comes
to policies, but we certainly agree on that: budgets are moral
documents. And what the Republicans have done with the budget that we
passed here in this body this year is to say to the American people, We
understand that budgets are moral documents. We passed a budget. The
Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year. So they didn't want to
face up to it.
I don't know what that says about their morality, but I know what it
says about Republicans' morality. We have a strong sense of morality.
We passed a budget. We're being honest with the American people. We're
telling them, You cannot continue to spend above your means. The
average person understands that. And we are going to continue to be
honest with the American people. We're going to cut inefficient
government programs wherever we can.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that right now, if you are a 3-year-old
child in this country, there are 12 Federal feeding programs to serve
you. If you're a 10-year-old, there are nine Federal feeding programs.
If you're 65 years old, there are five Federal feeding programs. We do
not lack for programs to help take care of the hungry people in this
country, Mr. Speaker.
What we lack is efficiency in our programs. And Republicans are going
to do all that we can to make sure that we bring efficiency and
effectiveness to whatever programs are funded here.
I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the
opportunity to address this because there is one issue facing this
Nation right now that is far greater than what we're even discussing at
this point and that is jobs and the lack of jobs in this Nation as a
result of 2 failed years of an experiment that just didn't work.
Now, we can talk about spending all we want. We're going to talk
about that, I know, for the next day or two and over the next couple of
weeks. The American people just expect us to deal with cutting spending
here in the Federal Government. They just sent us here and they said,
Just take care of your job. Get it done. Spend within your means. Don't
spend more than you get. And take care of your job. At the same time,
understand what's happening back home on Main Street.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as I go home each and every week and I
see the devastation that's occurring all across all the communities in
my district, it is amazing to see the ``For Sale'' signs and ``For
Rent'' signs that just pop up each and every week that are anew because
of a failed experiment that has occurred here.
So we heard the gentleman a minute ago say the Republicans have no
plan. Let's talk about their plan and how effective it has been with,
what, we've had 2 years now of at or above 9 percent unemployment, 15
million Americans looking for a job, deficit spending now going on $1
trillion for 3 consecutive years. And yet we are on the eve of the week
here in which we're going to celebrate President Barack Obama's claim
of the ``summer of recovery,'' the 1-year anniversary of that claim.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there has been no recovery as a
result of the policies passed by this administration. We must take a
different direction. It starts here by cutting spending. It starts by
reducing the size of government. And the reason is very simple. Because
the less the government has in its pocket, the less it's spending,
there is more left for the American people. And when the American
people have more money in their pockets, they have the ability to
expand their businesses, they have the ability to dream an idea, have a
great idea, go out and invest in that idea. They have the ability to
hire new employees. They have the ability to invest in new capital.
But, instead, this Congress over the last couple of years has hoarded
that wealth, kept it here in Washington, divvied it out to the winners
that they choose just through their own pickings here. Who's going to
get the money of the American people? They dole it out left and right.
Yet today, when we're looking at giving it back to the American people,
the other side stands against it once again.
Mr. Speaker, it's time to get Americans back to work. We don't do
that through the expansion of the public sector. We do it through the
expansion of the private sector. Let's empower the American people and
take some power away from the Federal Government.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I just want to correct the record. The gentlelady suggests that
people should go get a job, and that's the answer to the hunger crisis.
A lot of the people, by the way, who qualify for these programs are
working families. They're the working poor. So we all need to get
serious about the economy. I would encourage you to work with us on a
jobs bill rather than on your right-wing radical social agenda that
keeps on coming to the floor.
At this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for your
leadership on this very important issue. To my colleague, the
distinguished Congresswoman who is managing for my friends on the other
side of the aisle, there are probably many of us who have lived the
American story and began life on the rocky side of the mountain.
I rise because I happen to come from a district where my predecessor
died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain. It's a far, far place away
from Houston. My predecessor was Congressman Mickey Leland. He was so
driven by the vastness of hunger, he was so much a soldier of Robert
Kennedy's message that he didn't allow danger to thwart him from trying
to help people who were literally dying. And so he was carrying grain.
And he had colleagues who were not on that flight, Tony Hall and
Congressman Emerson. And I would say to you that it really gets me in
my heart, what we're doing today, because my predecessor, a Member of
Congress, and we're described by many terms, but he felt that hunger
was so severe that he helped found the Select Committee on Hunger. We
have the Mickey Leland Hunger Center because hunger was prevailing in
America and around the world.
So you can understand why I stand here today and tell you that it's
not good enough to feed 85 percent of the hungry children so that 15
percent of them don't get breakfasts and don't get lunches. That's not
something to give you a halo for or to give you an accolade. Because so
many of us understand
[[Page H4101]]
how stretching that peanut butter or stretching that soup or stretching
minimal food, so many of us have either heard those stories or
experienced it.
And in this bill, $2 billion is cut from food stamps. Do you realize
that our soldiers and their families, young recruits, are on food
stamps? Does anyone know the population that is on food stamps? Now,
we've tried to make it better for them, but many of them are on food
stamps. To cut the WIC program, you're impacting children who are
innocent. And then, of course, Food for Peace is not a throwaway. It is
to simply stop the folks who are simply dying in deserts around the
world.
And $35 million has been cut from trying to increase the number of
grocery stores in urban centers and rural areas, to a certain extent,
where there are no grocery stores where people can actually get fresh
food. Try coming to my district and shopping for groceries in the
local, down-the-street 2 by 4 store, where food dates, which I have
actually seen for myself, are years old and sitting on the counter
where people who only have foot transportation have to go and buy beans
that are dated a year before or tuna that is dated a year before.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I tried to buy tuna as a test case, and I
had to put it back on the shelf of a little 2 by 4 in neighborhoods
where people walk.
Be reminded that Calvin Coolidge, a Republican President, followed in
the 1920s the same pattern, which is: give to the rich and let the poor
die on the vine. He didn't run again because he knew there was a
collapse coming. His fellow Republican elected said, Give to the rich.
And we had the 1928 collapse. We're talking about where consumers and
businesses are not buying or having business, we the government must
invest. And I believe, in the name of Mickey Leland, we've got to do a
better job of feeding the hungry.
{time} 1310
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts
talking about right-wing radicals because I associate myself with
George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, who were right-
wing radicals, along with the other Founders.
I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on what this bill
does and what it does not do.
First of all, it increases spending because mandatory programs are
growing. The mandatory programs, like SNAP and Child Nutrition, are
growing so rapidly that they exceed the cuts in the discretionary
programs in this bill. So while my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are talking about the dreadful calamity associated with the cuts
in this bill, the fact of the matter is food programs get more money
under this bill, and that's because they are mandatory programs. The
committee has no control over them. The only thing we have control over
are the discretionary programs.
SNAP is projected to grow almost $6 billion, and Child Nutrition is
projected to cost an additional $1.45 billion. Now, those and other
mandatory spending add up to an additional $282 million over the costs
of fiscal year 2012. So to call this a cut is not acknowledging the
additional spending that is mandatory and that is in the SNAP program
and the Child Nutrition Program.
Now, we, as Members of Congress, who are facing 1.2, 1.3 trillion
more dollars in spending every year than we take in and are racking up
14, soon to be more, trillion dollars in debt, this year we have now
exceeded, in our national debt, the entire GDP of this country for 1
year.
We cannot go on like this. We're destroying the country with
spending. That's the moral imperative that we're discussing today.
Consequently, let's keep our eye on the ball. We're not destroying
spending for people in need. We're actually increasing it, $6 billion
for SNAP and almost $1.5 billion for Child Nutrition. We've saved it in
other areas. The Agriculture Committee's budget includes a variety of
priorities, including traditional agriculture spending like research,
animal and plant health and conservation, nutrition, food aid and
safety, rural development, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Spreading funding across this spectrum is a balancing act, and I
would like to thank Chairman Kingston for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Listening to the gentlelady from Wyoming, one would get the
impression that there are no other choices but to cut programs that
help the poorest of the poor.
There are lots of places we could find savings. We could begin by
paying for the Bush tax cuts for the Donald Trumps of the world. We
could maybe pay for these wars, or, better yet, how about ending these
wars? We borrow billions and billions of dollars every week for the
wars, and no one around here seems to want to pay for it. We could
maybe take back some of the taxpayer subsidies to the Big Oil
companies. I don't know why we're subsidizing oil companies. Or, better
yet, maybe some of the generous agricultural subsidies that go to a lot
of places in Wyoming, I haven't heard the gentlelady suggest that maybe
we cut those subsidies.
Instead, all the focus is on the most helpless people in our country.
And it is just wrong. It is wrong. Don't do this. We can do this
better.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a great leader on this
issue.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this misguided rule.
It unravels the bipartisan work of our Appropriations Committee. It
calls for even more drastic cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children
food program than has already been suggested by the majority. In so
doing, the rule puts the interests of Brazilian cotton farmers above
the very real needs of American women and children.
Everyone knows the WIC program provides nutrition assistance grants
to States for low-income pregnant, breast-feeding, and postpartum
women, infants, and children up to the age of 5. It serves 9 million
mothers and young children nationwide, including 58,000 in my State of
Connecticut. Nearly half of the babies born in the United States every
year participate in the program. It is a short-term intervention that
can help provide a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors.
Even notwithstanding this rule, this appropriation bill already
threatens to slash WIC funding by $650 million. WIC is being slashed by
$650 million. That means as many as up to 300,000 women and children
will be turned away and forced to go hungry. In fact, Secretary
Vilsack, the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, has warned our
subcommittee that this number could be as high as 750,000 people, and I
have his letter and his quote to confirm that.
Now, understand that during the committee consideration of this, I
had an amendment to restore $147 million to the WIC program. I paid for
it by taking $147 million which we currently provide to Brazilian
cotton farmers. That amendment passed with a bipartisan vote.
This majority has no problem spending money for Brazilian cotton
farmers, but they are loathe to do something for women and children in
the United States. What this rule by this Republican majority has done
is they took away this $147 million, they gave it back to the cotton
farmers in Brazil, and then they have said find $147 million, cut it
from the WIC program or cut it from somewhere else in this bill.
What are we doing here? Whom are they trying to fool? We're going to
give the money back to Brazilian cotton farmers. The majority decided
that that was more important. That's a fact.
There are many egregious cuts in this appropriation bill, not just to
WIC, to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which goes to low-
income seniors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which goes to food banks, food
pantries.
[[Page H4102]]
One out of five people in the United States today is going hungry,
and we can't find it within our purview here to provide the funding to
do that.
Again, Democrats and Republicans on the committee voted to take $147
million, provide it to the WIC funding, take it away from the Brazilian
farmers. This Rules Committee, Republican directed, took the money and
gave it back to the Brazilian cotton farmers.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, take charge of what
we did on our committee. Stand up for American women and children.
Reject this rule. This is not what we voted for. This is not what the
American people want.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and
eloquent chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1320
Mr. DREIER. It's a tall order that my friend from Grandfather
Community has just imposed on me, Mr. Speaker, but I will say it's
great to be standing here as we proceed with consideration of the
appropriations process. Last year, we for all intents and purposes had
no appropriations process. When it was done, we all know it was shut
down. We are here today considering the third appropriations bill under
an open amendment process.
Now, my friend from Connecticut has just characterized this as a
misguided rule. Since 1837, Mr. Speaker, 1837--it's been a few years--
we have had within the rules of the House a structure whereby the
authorizers have a responsibility and the appropriators have a
responsibility. She said that we somehow are unraveling this very, very
great and delicate compromise that was put together in the
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. There was a vote in the Appropriations Committee. It was
an amendment and the fact of the matter is it was unprotected.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, my next line, Mr. Speaker,
was going to be to my friend from Connecticut, there happen to be 435
Members of the United States House of Representatives, and we have a
process known as appropriations. We also have an authorization process
as well.
Since 1837, the rule that my friends say is misguided, it has been
the rule of the House. Mr. Speaker, to call it misguided to comply with
the rules of the House, something that our friends in the last two
Congresses chose to ignore repeatedly, is outrageous.
Now, as we listen to these reports of hunger that exist in the United
States of America, I was just talking to the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, Mr. Kingston, who made it very clear that there may
be a stupidity factor, but the fact of the matter is there are so many
programs that exist today, as Mr. Kingston reported up in the Rules
Committee, that people do have an opportunity to benefit from those
programs.
We also are dealing with tremendous constraints that have been
imposed upon us because of the fact that we saw an 82 percent increase
in nondiscretionary spending over the past 4 years, and what it means
is, with a $14 trillion national debt, we have to make some tough
choices. We want to make sure--Mr. Kingston is working on this, as are
the authorizers--we want to make sure that those programs that exist
actually do provide an opportunity for three, not four or five, but
three meals a day for people who are truly in need.
And my friend from Grandfather Community, Mr. Speaker, pointed to the
fact that we need to put into place a program that will encourage job
creation and economic growth. For literally years, we've had
languishing agreements that would open up new markets around the world
in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. We have not taken action on that.
I hope very much that before August we do. That will help create jobs
and get people who may have to look to government programs today in a
position where they can, in fact, feed themselves.
That's our goal. We want to make sure that everyone has an
opportunity, and we want to continue this process allowing Democrats
and Republicans alike to be heard.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule is a vote to cut WIC
even further and give it to Brazilian cotton farmers.
At this point, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Our Republican colleagues have chattered endlessly about
making hard choices, but most of the hard choices they make today are
hard only on the hungry, hard on hungry children, hard on hungry
seniors. They've got tremendous cuts to the Women, Infant, and Children
nutritional assistance. It means as many as 350,000 women and infants
will be denied assistance, including tens of thousands in my home State
of Texas.
They made a hard choice. Instead of putting food on the table for
those women and infants, they chose to send $147 million to Brazilian
cotton farmers. I think that's not just a hard choice; it's a very bad
choice. Those young children will never achieve their full God-given
potential if they arrive at kindergarten malnourished.
Our food banks, are doing a tremendous job. In Texas, they get the
support of grocers, of retailers, of private contributors, but they
need this emergency food assistance. I've been to those food banks.
I've seen some of those rural food banks in times of economic distress
that are bare. The cupboard is bare, and the lines are long to get that
assistance. Republicans made a hard choice, hard on the hungry.
The Republicans have finally found that the only bank they don't want
to bail out is the food bank. And the food bank needs that assistance.
I say that we should reject this bill that takes the most from those
who have the least.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 3 minutes
remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
I want to say to my friends from Texas and Connecticut that, number
one, the DeLauro amendment which you alluded to that increases WIC $147
million is intact, and that increase has gone on. We do have to offset
it from another portion of the bill, and the reason is because that
Brazilian cotton agreement was a WTO agreement that President Obama
agreed to. The money is restored. So if that helps clarify things, and
if not, let me know.
I want to just remind everyone, if you want to help hungry people
you've got to have the money to do it. Now, both parties have
overspent. For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Both
parties. Under President Bush, in an 8-year period of time, the debt
went up $3.5 trillion. Now, under President Obama, in a 3-year period
of time it's gone up $5 trillion, a 56 percent increase. And President
Obama now owns the wars in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan in terms of
this is his watch. He has had opportunity to change the direction. He
has not done so. So let's quit hiding behind, We're at war, and
therefore, it's the Republicans' fault.
I also want to remind my friends that the only budget that has passed
either House is the Ryan budget, which is what we're operating under.
The President of the United States' budget failed on the Senate floor
97-0. He did not even get Harry Reid's vote. So we're operating under
the budget constraints that we have.
Let me say this--very important about the WIC program. From February
2010 to February 2011, the number of participants has dropped 300,000.
The level now is 8.7 million. We will make sure no one falls through
the cracks. There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if
that happens. And I want to point out for all the screaming and
hollering and the self-righteousness, last year the Democrats cut WIC
by $562 million and put the money into an unrelated account that had
nothing to do with hunger. It was a political settlement. Where was the
screaming and hollering then?
And I want to say this in terms of the World Food Program, if we want
to
[[Page H4103]]
help these countries--and I am committed to it--we have to have our own
financial house in order. Otherwise, all we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is
borrowing from our children to feed children overseas. That does not
make sense.
I appreciate it, and I urge everyone to support the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee on this
subcommittee, Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for yielding and I rise with
concerns with this rule.
The rule in one part is good because it's an open rule, allows
unlimited amendments, but the rule on the second part, which protects
the work of the committee, fails to do so. This committee is about
food. It's about food production, about food packaging, about food
delivery, and about feeding people. It is the largest poverty program
in the United States. We have a lot of poor people in this country of
all ages, and instead of taking care of those people, this rule
eliminates that protection. It protects those that have but not those
that have not.
I stand in opposition to the rule.
{time} 1330
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a leader on
these issues.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the
Agriculture appropriations bill. Instead of helping Americans hit
hardest by the recent recession today, we are debating a Republican
spending bill that guts critical nutrition programs which literally put
food on the table so that millions of low-income women, children, and
seniors don't go hungry. This bill hurts low-income seniors through
cuts to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. It cuts The Emergency
Food Assistance Program, which could cause our local food banks to
close their doors. And it slashes the budget of the Women, Infants, and
Children, WIC, program, the effects of which will leave hundreds of
thousands of women and children without adequate nutrition.
WIC not only keeps our low-income families from hunger, but by
emphasizing adequate nutrition, the program reduces the incidence of
low birth-weight babies, combats the childhood obesity epidemic, and
promotes school readiness by giving children the nutritional building
blocks their brains need to develop at a critical stage. Moreover, as
it links these families to the local health infrastructure, it also
increases child immunization rates. These benefits are not just to the
child and the family. In fact, the program reduces overall health care
costs. For every $1 invested in WIC, we save about $2 to $3 in health
care costs just in the first 2 months of life. This is an incredible
feat. It's one that should be expanded. Instead, the bill before us
slashes these programs, plain and simple, with only one result: more
Americans going hungry.
When I asked my local food safety net providers what the Republican
cuts would do to our community, the answer was clear: Without this
assistance, which choice will it be: rent or food? My constituents have
been loud and clear on this issue, Stop trying to cut the budget on the
backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children.
I urge my colleagues to start listening to their communities. Vote
``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern).
Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for my good friend from Georgia,
Congressman Kingston. He got dealt a tough hand by a really unpleasant,
mean-spirited, unnecessary Republican Budget bill. There are real
consequences for moving forward with the Ryan budget. But in a sense,
this is the first debate of the 2012 farm bill.
We have a farm policy that spends too much on the wrong people to do
the wrong things. There are opportunities for us to rebalance the
equities. Now you are hearing some debate about whether or not we
should honor a WTO commitment to Brazilian farmers for $147 million a
year. The only reason we're doing this is because Congress, in its
wisdom, would not cut back on the cotton subsidies that go to American
farmers, that are inappropriate and unnecessary. But instead of
changing the system, we're paying Brazilian farmers for our cheating.
That's goofy. And I think, at a minimum, we ought to remedy that. Put
it into nutrition for poor women and children.
Now I will tell you that all you have to do is ask the hunger
advocates in your community. Every Member of Congress has people who
are dealing with the problem of hunger and food insecurity in their
districts. I commend my friend Mr. McGovern for his leadership in
dealing with the issue of hunger at home and abroad. We ought to be
dealing with it here and now. This bill that's coming forward ought to
rebalance the equities with the cotton subsidies for Brazilian farmers.
There are other remedies. But we ought to look at every single
amendment that comes to the floor to change the farm bill allocation
under appropriations as a first important step towards rebalancing and
having a healthy agricultural policy----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. To having an agricultural policy that serves our
interests, those of our children, our families; that gives more to
farmers and ranchers and less to international farmers and huge
agribusiness interests; that doesn't slash environmental support for
American farmers but helps us here at home.
There is a better way. There is actually bipartisan support, if we
can ever see our way clear to getting it to the floor. This debate this
week is an important first step, and I urge my colleagues to vote
accordingly. This is a battle we can win on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would inform my colleague from North Carolina that I
have no further requests for time, and I am ready to close.
Ms. FOXX. Then I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote ``no'' on this rule, first and foremost. And there are
two reasons to vote ``no'' on this rule. One is, the allocation that
has been given to the Agriculture appropriations bill is so low that
it's not fixable. I mean, the concerns that you have heard raised on
the floor today about underfunding WIC and underfunding these other
programs that feed the hungry and provide nutrition to feed our people,
the only way to kind of restore those cuts is by cutting another
program that does good things. So this is not even fixable.
The second reason to vote against this rule--and I say this to my
Republican colleagues in particular--is because if you vote for this
rule, you will allow the Republicans to eliminate an additional $147
million from the WIC program because they have not protected the
provision that was passed in the Appropriations Committee that took the
money from Brazilian cotton farmers and gave it to WIC. Because it will
not be protected, they will insist on a point of order, which means
that that money will go from WIC back to the Brazilian cotton farmers
at a time when Brazil's economy is booming. That does not make any
sense. As it stands right now, the WIC cuts alone would force 200,000
to 350,000 low-income women and children off their rolls. If you vote
for this rule, an additional 200,000 will be thrown off on top of the
200,000 to 350,000. That is just not right.
As I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts not only
WIC but it cuts CSFP, TEFAP moneys, PL-480, and the food safety
programs that are so important to the well-being of all of our
citizens. Food safety is not just an issue with regard to low-income
people. Those people who are earning lots of money are concerned about
the safety of their food, and this bill cuts that program quite
substantially.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about helping the most vulnerable in our
country and around the world. It doesn't usually receive a lot of
attention. There are not a lot of lobbyists down here for
[[Page H4104]]
poor people. There are not a lot of PACs out there that support issues
that benefit poor people. But in many respects, this is one of the most
important appropriations bills that we consider. And I do think it
reflects on our values and what kind of country that we want to be. I
believe that, given the fact that we're the richest country on this
planet, we ought to make sure that nobody in the United States of
America goes hungry. I don't know why that's such a radical idea.
And yes, we need to rely, in large part, on the faith-based
communities out there that are doing incredible work. They're working
overtime, trying to deal with the people who have fallen into poverty
as a result of this economic crisis that we're in. They're doing all
that they can, so to brush it off onto their backs more is just wrong,
and it doesn't represent the reality out there. We need to step up to
the plate during these difficult times and help people get through this
economic crisis. And if you don't respond, and if you want to ignore
those who are struggling, they just don't go away. It results in other
problems and other costs to our government and to our people. Hunger is
not cheap. There is a price to pay for hunger.
Globally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that no war in history has
killed so many humans and spread so much disease and suffering in any
year as world hunger does annually. We have an opportunity to do
something about it. We ought to do it. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Please, I say to my Republican colleagues, don't do this. Don't go down
this road. We could do so much better.
Basic Facts on Cuts to International Food Aid Programs In the FY 2012
Agriculture Appropriations Act
Emergency food aid, programs to address chronic hunger, and
school feeding programs all receive their funding in this
bill--not the foreign aid bill. They are central pillars of
U.S. strategy to address global hunger and food security--and
making sure they are fully funded is in our national security
interest. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last year,
``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.''
Food for Peace Title II Funding Cut
A 39 percent decrease in Food for Peace Title II funding--
and will put millions of lives at risk and undermine the
ability of USAID to prevent famine.
Food aid provided by USAID is a life-saving measure for
millions of vulnerable people overseas. According to USAID,
these brutal cuts will mean up to 16 million people, mainly
women and children, will not receive life-saving food aid.
The cuts to Food for Peace will mean drastic cuts to our
largest emergency food aid programs, including Darfur and
southern Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti and Ethiopia.
U.S. food aid not only helps people survive, it supports
U.S. national security interests. It promotes stability and
goodwill, especially in Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Our emergency and humanitarian food aid sends the clear
message to desperate people in need: The American people
care. This bill sends the opposite message--the American
people don't care at all. Go ahead and starve.
U.S. food aid also supports domestic priorities, helping
American farmers and the jobs of American millers, truck and
rail transportation freight systems, and shipping the
commodities abroad on U.S.-flagged ships.
My friends on the other side of the aisle might not have
noticed, but the costs of commodities--the cost of purchasing
food--have sharply escalated over the past year. This has
already reduced USAID's purchasing power and the amount of
food aid USAID can ship overseas. And now you're adding
draconian cuts on top of the global food crisis.
McGovern-Dole Funding Cut
McGovern-Dole was funded at $200 million in FY 2010,
serving about 5 million children in 28 countries.
The $20 million cut to McGovern-Dole will end school meals
for over 400,000 children in the world's poorest countries.
We are literally taking food out of the mouths of these
children. Imagine how that would make you feel if it were
your child?
{time} 1340
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again what my colleague
from Georgia said. It was President Obama's agreement with the WTO that
is forcing the funding for the Brazilian farmers. This is not something
that Republicans did.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to ignore the facts. With
skyrocketing debt and unacceptable unemployment rates, the Federal
Government must learn to live within its means and be accountable for
how it spends taxpayer money.
House Republicans are continuing to fulfill our pledge to America and
keep the promises we made to the American people before the election
last November. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 301 of H.
Con. Res. 34, the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2012,
I hereby submit revisions to the budget allocations set forth pursuant
to the budget for fiscal year 2012. The revision is for new budget
authority and outlays reported by the Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Defense, which are designated for the Global War on
Terrorism. A corresponding table is attached.
This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and
311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Budget Act).
For the purposes of the Budget Act, these revised allocations are to be
considered as allocations included in the budget resolution, pursuant
to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34.
ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Action............................... BA 1,019,660
OT 1,224,325
Adjustment for Global War on Terrorism Reported by BA 118,684
Subcommittee on Defense........................... OT 59,733
Total Discretionary Action......................... BA 1,138,344
OT 1,284,058
Current Law Mandatory.............................. BA 745,700
OT 734,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________