[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9117-9125]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 9118]]

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 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

[[Page 9119]]

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 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

[[Page 9120]]

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, 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.

[[Page 9121]]

  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. 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 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

[[Page 9122]]

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.
  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).

                              {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

[[Page 9123]]

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 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

[[Page 9124]]

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 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.

[[Page 9125]]

       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.

                          ____________________