Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendments to this title that cut funds, reduce our military footprint, and move to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. And I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. I want to commend the ranking member of the committee, Congressman Norm Dicks from Washington, for his leadership in calling for a fresh look at how we carry out military operations in Afghanistan and the need for a strategy that brings our troops home sooner rather than later. Mr. Chairman, I just returned from a trip to Afghanistan. I cannot describe how impressed I am with the commitment, the dedication, and the work carried out every single day by our men and women in uniform, and those in the civilian services. I met and spoke with them in Kabul, Marja, at large bases like Bagram Air Force Base, and in small villages. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, they are incredible. But over and over and over again I heard the same message: This is not sustainable. The strategy that we are pursuing in Afghanistan is not sustainable. And it is costing us too much in human lives and financial resources to continue. It can't continue for another 18 months, as called for by the President, let alone even longer. I stand here tonight more convinced than ever that it is time to forge a new path, a new strategy, built upon past and present accomplishments, but more aggressively focused on more rapidly reducing the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan than the plan described last month by the President, accelerating the transition of combat operations to Afghanistan authorities, and an intense international and regional effort to secure a political solution to the Afghan conflict and define a genuine regional coordinated effort that safeguards the region and the world from terrorist threats. While I was in Afghanistan, General Petraeus invited me and two Members I was traveling with, Congressman Allen West and Duncan Hunter, Jr., to attend a ramp ceremony. We may not always agree on policy, but we were united in how respectful, emotional, and moving we found the ceremony honoring the fallen soldiers who were being transported by the C-130 on their final journey home. Mr. Chairman, 1,650 American service men and women have sacrificed their lives in the Afghanistan war. While I was in Afghanistan, six more were killed. It was a reminder of the enormous sacrifice that our soldiers are paying. 2010 was the deadliest year of conflict to date in the Afghanistan war for U.S. and coalition forces, and for Afghan civilians. This year, 2011, is on pace to be the deadliest year of the war. We need to end the war, not sustain it, Mr. Chairman. We are borrowing $8 billion to $10 billion each month for military operations alone. Borrowing, Mr. Chairman, borrowing. We know we can't sustain that. And we know that the Afghan Government and security forces don't have the resources or the political will to sustain that level of resources once we leave. We need to find a new strategy and purpose to help bring this conflict to an end. The President and congressional leaders are in negotiations, grappling with how to deal with the national debt. It can't be done if we don't find the means and the political will to end this war sooner rather than later. According to CBO, we could save $1.3 trillion by ending these wars. That's trillion with a ``t,'' Mr. Chairman. We have spent approximately $3.7 trillion since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot afford another decade like the last one. It is simply not sustainable. We need to also understand that jobs and economic security and economic strength are central parts of our national security. While we serve as an ATM machine for a corrupt government in Kabul, we tell our own people that we have no money for roads, and bridges, and schools, and teachers, and police, and firefighters, and jobs here at home. Enough. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support amendments that reduce our spending and military footprint in Afghanistan, help bring our troops home sooner rather than later, and call for a new strategy and a new direction in Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, I will be submitting for the Record two articles, one from the Washington Post entitled ``CBO: Ending the Wars Could Save $1.4 Trillion,'' and an article that appeared in Scientific American entitled ``Legacy of Mental Health Problems From Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Will Be Long-lived.'' Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to come together and find a different strategy in Afghanistan, one that will bring our troops home sooner rather than later. It is time to end this war. [From The Washington Post, June 23, 2011] CBO: Ending the Wars Could Save $1.4 Trillion (By Ezra Klein) It's increasingly clear that a deal on the budget deficit will have to include a lot of spending cuts that Democrats can deny are spending cuts and at least some tax increases that Republicans can deny are tax increases. I'll get to the tax increases in a future post. But if you're looking for the spending cuts, look no further than the wars. Last night, President Obama announced that ``the tide of war is receding,'' and that he will soon bring the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ``to a responsible end.'' Left unsaid is the effect that could have on our projected deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we're talking big money: $1.4 trillion, to be exact. That has less to do with the likely cost of the wars than the way CBO officials estimate future spending. In the case of discretionary spending--which is the pot of money that goes to the wars--they simply take current spending and assume it grows at the rate of inflation. So though it's clear our wars are winding down, they won't count the savings from them in their projections until there's explicit government policy that winds them down. But if they can be convinced, they've made clear that they're willing to count big savings. ``In 2010, the number of U.S. troops (active-duty, reserves, and National Guard personnel) deployed for war-related activities averaged about 215,000,'' CBO said its January budget outlook (pdf). ``In the alternative scenario presented here, the number of military personnel deployed for war-related purposes would decline over a five-year period to an average of 180,000 in 2011, 130,000 in 2012, 100,000 in 2013, 65,000 in 2014, and 45,000 in 2015 and thereafter. Under this scenario, total discretionary outlays over the 2012-2021 period would be $1.1 trillion less than the amount in the baseline. Debt-service costs would bring the cumulative savings relative to the baseline to about $1.4 trillion over the coming decade.'' I'm told that a big chunk of these savings were included in the debt-ceiling deal that, until today, Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl were negotiating with the Democrats. But eventually, we're going to have some kind of deal on the debt ceiling, and I'd bet quite a bit f this money will be in there. The best type of deficit reduction, after all, is the kind you were going to do anyway.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night the President outlined his strategy for Afghanistan, which included a drawdown of 10,000 troops by the end of this year and an additional 23,000 by the end of next year. I believe this is insufficient and I fear that it means more of the same for the next 18 months. The same strategy means the same costs, and I am sad to say even more casualties, more American soldiers losing their lives in support of an Afghan government that is terribly corrupt and incompetent. We have been doing this for 10 years. It is the longest war in our history, Mr. Speaker. Enough. Our focus should be on encouraging a negotiated settlement, a political solution, and bringing our troops home where they belong. Our troops are incredible men and women. I am in awe of their dedication and their commitment. They don't belong in the middle of mountains and deserts fighting a cruel war. According to the Pentagon's own figures, U.S. and coalition casualties in Afghanistan are steadily rising. Last month was a record high for the number of coalition forces killed. March and April were also the worst respective months of the war in terms of casualties for U.S. forces, coalition forces, and Afghan civilians. A poll last month by the International Council on Security and Development found that Afghans are overwhelmingly opposed to the current U.S. strategy, with nearly eight in 10 believing that U.S. and coalition operations are ``bad for their country.'' These are serious matters, serious consequences of the strategy the U.S. will pursue at least through next year. We need a change in direction now, Mr. Speaker, not 18 months from now. We are borrowing nearly $10 billion a month to pay for military operations in Afghanistan. Borrowing. We are not paying for it. We are putting it on our national credit card. Our kids and our grandkids will pay the price. Each day we remain in Afghanistan increases that burden. We currently are having debates about how to reduce our deficit and debts. There are some who have advocated deep cuts in programs that help the poor, in Pell Grants, and in infrastructure. For those who support the status quo in Afghanistan, let me ask, where is the sense in borrowing money to build a bridge or a school in Afghanistan that later gets blown up, while telling our cities and towns that we have no money to help them with their needs? It is nuts. Some of our biggest problems, Mr. Speaker, are not halfway around the world. They are halfway down the block. Americans are willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure our national security, but let me remind my colleagues that national security includes economic security. It means jobs. It means rather than nation-building in a far-off land, we need to do some more nation- building right here at home. Contrary to the tired and ugly rhetoric employed by Senator McCain yesterday towards thoughtful critics of our current strategy in Afghanistan and its consequences, I am not an isolationist. As my colleagues know, I firmly support human rights and the U.S. being engaged around the world. Those who advocate a political solution in Afghanistan are not isolationists. I don't believe we should walk away from the Afghan people, but tens of thousands of U.S. boots on the ground in Afghanistan does little in my view to advance the cause of peace, protect the rights of women and ethnic minorities or strengthen civil society. If you want to protect Afghan women, we must end the violence. You end the violence by ending the war. You end the war through a political solution. I have great respect for President Obama. I believe he has the potential to be a great President. I also realize, as Lyndon Johnson once said, ``It's easy to get into war--hard as hell to get out of one.'' It is not easy to end this war. It won't be neat or pretty, but I believe with all my heart it is in our national security interest to focus on al Qaeda and not waste our precious blood and treasure in a conflict that can only be ended through a political solution. Rather than crafting a compromise and trying to chart a middle course, I believe we need to change course. I urge the President of the United States to rethink our Afghan policy, rethink it in a way that brings our troops home sooner rather than later. [From the Washington Post, June 9, 2011] A Plan for Afghanistan: Declare Victory--and Leave (By Eugene Robinson) Slender threads of hope are nice but do not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of Afghanistan. Ryan Crocker, the veteran diplomat nominated by President Obama to be the next U.S. ambassador in Kabul, gave a realistic assessment of the war in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Here I'm using ``realistic'' as a synonym for ``bleak.'' Making progress is hard, Crocker said, but ``not impossible.'' Not impossible. What on earth are we doing? We have more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan risking life and limb, at a cost of $10 billion a month, to pursue ill-defined goals whose achievement can be imagined, but just barely? The hawks tell us that now, more than ever, we must stay the course--that finally, after Obama nearly tripled U.S. troop levels, we are winning. I want to be fair to this argument, so let me quote Crocker's explanation at length: ``What we've seen with the additional forces and the effort to carry the fight into enemy strongholds is, I think, tangible progress in security on the ground in the south and the west. This has to transition--and again, we're seeing a transition of seven provinces and districts to Afghan control--to sustainable Afghan control. So I think you can already see what we're trying to do--in province by province, district by district, establish the conditions where the Afghan government can take over and hold ground.'' Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy, pointed out the obvious flaw in this province-by-province strategy. ``International terrorism--and guerrilla warfare in general--is intrinsically mobile,'' he said. ``So securing one particular area . . . doesn't necessarily guarantee that you have reduced the capability of those kinds of forces. They are mobile; they move.'' It would require far more than 100,000 U.S. troops to securely occupy the entire country. As Webb pointed out, this means we can end up ``playing whack-a-mole'' as the enemy pops back up in areas that have already been pacified. If our intention, as Crocker said, is to leave behind ``governance that is good enough to ensure that the country doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaeda,'' then there are two possibilities: Either we'll never cross the goal line, or we already have. According to NATO's timetable, Afghan forces are supposed to be in charge of the whole country by the end of 2014. Will the deeply corrupt, frustratingly erratic Afghan government be ``good enough'' three years from now? Will Afghan society have banished the poverty, illiteracy and distrust of central authority that inevitably sap legitimacy from any regime in Kabul? Will the Afghan military, whatever its capabilities, blindly pursue U.S. objectives? Or will the country's civilian and military leaders determine their self-interest and act accordingly? Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a report this week warning that the nearly $19 billion in foreign aid given to Afghanistan during the past decade may, in the end, have little impact. ``The unintended consequences of pumping large amounts of money into a war zone cannot be underestimated,'' the report states. The fact is that in 2014 there will be no guarantees. Perhaps we will believe it incrementally less likely that the Taliban could regain power and invite al-Qaeda back. But that small increment of security does not justify the blood and treasure that we will expend between now and then. I take a different view. We should declare victory and leave. We wanted to depose the Taliban regime, and we did. We wanted to install a new government that answers to its constituents at the polls, and we did. We wanted to smash al- Qaeda's infrastructure of training camps and havens, and we did. We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable? Perhaps it is useful to have a U.S. military presence in the region. This could be accomplished, however, with a lot fewer than 100,000 troops--and they wouldn't be scattered across the Afghan countryside, engaged in a dubious attempt at nation-building. The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is simply a bad amendment. It eliminates funding for one of the U.S. signature programs to reduce child hunger in the world. I helped establish the George McGovern- Robert Dole International Food For Education Program, first as a pilot project in 2000, and then as a permanent program in the 2002 farm bill. It has always had strong bipartisan support, including from my colleague and my friend Jo Ann Emerson and then-Congressmen, now- Senators John Thune and Jerry Moran. McGovern-Dole has one basic goal: provide at least one nutritious meal to some of the world's most vulnerable children in a school setting. It has reduced the incidence of hunger among school-age children. It has increased school enrollment and attendance. It has increased the support of families and communities for education, especially for girls. McGovern-Dole is a proven success. Instead of cutting its funding, let alone eliminating it, we should be scaling it up. The cuts to McGovern-Dole already in the bill would end school meals for more than 400,000 children. Eliminating the funding would literally take the food out of the mouths of over 5 million of the world's most vulnerable children. Mr. Chairman, it's bad enough to ignore hungry children. It's even worse to give a hungry child a meal, to give their parents hope for a better future, and then take it away. These are not just numbers in a bill. These are real living, breathing human beings, real children who are in school, many for the very first time because the U.S. is working with local communities to advance education and nutrition. Now, I've visited some of these programs around the world. I respectfully suggest to those who want to eliminate them to first go and see with their own eyes what they are doing on the ground, look these children, their parents, their teachers, their community leaders in the eye, and make sure you want to tell them you don't care if they go hungry or get a chance to go to school. In Colombia, I visited a program in Soacha, on the outskirts of Bogota. On barren hillsides, surrounded by shanties housing thousands of internally displaced families, children were receiving a school breakfast and lunch. Mothers and grandmothers were training as cooks, preparing the meals. Clearly visible in the cafeteria were USAID bags of grains, beans, and lentils. One mother came up to me and said, Please thank the American people when you go back home. I couldn't feed my children. I couldn't send them to school. I was afraid my son--who was 11 years old--was going to join the paramilitaries or the guerrillas just to get food. Now my son is getting fed, and he's staying in school. Please tell the American people thank you. In Nairobi, Kenya, in the largest slum in the world, I went to a McGovern-Dole breakfast and lunch program. I was amazed by the students' energy and achievements. The school principal showed me how they store and prepare the U.S. commodities that feed her students and how all the students know that this is a program from the people of the United States of America. I ate a cereal mush made from yellow peas, grown by American farmers, in a room full of children. The kids dug into this food like it was manna from heaven. One little boy would take a bite and then scoop a small amount out of his bowl and put it into his pockets. He was taking food home to his younger siblings who don't get anything to eat at all. Outside of Nairobi is Masai country and a school for girls where McGovern-Dole provides a hot lunch. I helped cook and serve the meal of U.S. bulgur wheat and locally grown vegetables. One student told me how grateful she was to go to school and eat every day. She grew up in a village over a hundred miles away. When she was 12, her father told her that she had to marry a much older man. She refused. Her father ordered her to go to her uncle's house, get his machete, and bring it back to him. She knew that her father was going to kill her. She ran away, walking alone for days, because she had heard of this school. She was then 15, healthy, well-fed, and at the top of her class. I knew I was talking to someone who could be president someday. In the very best way, this young woman will never forget us. And in the very worst way, when we take food away from children, families, and schools, those communities will never forget us either. They won't forget that we took away their children's future. I wouldn't forget it if it were my child. Would you? Mr. Chairman, there are many ways to advance U.S. national security and economic interests abroad. Education and child nutrition are very much at the top of that list. It is important that we support the McGovern-Dole program. This has enjoyed incredible bipartisan support, and I'm going to tell you this does more to enhance our national security than sending weapons to countries all over the world. The people who benefit from this program know it comes from the people of the United States of America. This is a good program. Support the McGovern-Dole program. Reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me clarify what insisting on this point of order means. It means that the amendment that Ms. DeLauro offered in committee, which was approved in the Appropriations Committee, is nullified, which means that Brazilian cotton farmers get subsidies and poor pregnant women and children do not get the money for WIC. I have nothing against Brazilian cotton farmers, but Brazil's economy is doing pretty good right now. The Rules Committee could have protected the money for WIC. The Rules Committee waived points of order against a whole bunch of stuff in this bill except for three provisions. So it wouldn't have been unusual or extraordinary for the Rules Committee to protect this provision. Many of us pleaded with the committee to do just that, to respect the work of the Appropriations Committee when it came to protecting WIC, when it came to protecting poor pregnant women and children. Madam Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle say all the time that they're with us in trying to cut excessive subsidies and putting the focus back on the people here in the United States who need help. This would have been an opportunity. If not now, when are we going to do this? So, Madam Chair, I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would reconsider and not insist on their point of order. I think poor pregnant women and children in this country who benefit from WIC are more important right now than subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chair, I wish to be heard.

Mr. McGOVERN. I also want to say that this program is named after George McGovern and Robert Dole. So by the very naming of this program, it shows the bipartisanship that has been involved in forming this program from the very beginning. I think we all should be proud of that in this Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to a previous amendment, to the Gosar amendment, which would eliminate the Food for Peace program and transfer it to rural development. I also was going to rise in opposition to the gentleman from Georgia's amendment, which also goes after Food for Peace. I am glad he is withdrawing it, but I find it astonishing that there are so many on the other side who are attacking programs that I think are so vital to our national security. Mr. Gosar's amendment would tell farmers that we will take away from them $1 billion in U.S. purchases of their crops so that we can borrow money in the form of loans for other purposes. That's essentially what he is proposing. Does that make sense to anyone? So we tell U.S. farmers who have been selling wheat, rice, soybeans, vegetable oil, beans, peas, lentils, and other commodities to the U.S. Government that this market is closed to them. So long. Goodbye. Go borrow money. Go into debt. Take out a loan to develop the rural economy. Now, Mr. Chairman, I support the Rural Development program, and I obviously support the Food for Peace program. Both of them directly benefit American farmers. Mr. Gosar himself said Food for Peace title II (P.L. 480) merits support. Well, let's talk about why. It supports U.S. farmers, millers, freight rail, truck, and shipping. Food aid provided by USAID is a lifesaving measure for 11 million to 16 million vulnerable people overseas. Our largest emergency food aid programs include 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 that the American people care. The Gosar amendment sends the opposite message--that the American people don't care at all; go ahead and starve. We need to support Food for Peace, and we need to oppose that amendment. But we also need to oppose amendments that gut essential food and nutrition programs for poor people not only here in the United States but around the world. This notion that somehow when we support programs like Food for Peace, that it's just helping a bunch of foreigners overseas, is just wrongheaded. It is American farmers that produce much of the food that goes to support the hungry around the world. It is American farmers that are so important in our battle against terrorism because, quite frankly, I think these programs, as Secretary Gates has said, do more to enhance our national security than anything else. I urge my colleagues who are coming to the floor with amendments to gut these programs, to stop it. Enough. These are essential programs. They help people who are helpless overseas but also help support our economy here in the United States and help our U.S. farmers. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very, very strong opposition to this amendment gutting the Food for Peace program. Food for peace. I find it somewhat ironic that we have people who oppose food for peace but support weapons for war without giving it a second thought. The fact of the matter is that this amendment would do great harm to some of the most helpless people in the world. I believe very, very strongly on a bipartisan basis that this amendment should be defeated. The Food for Peace program has saved the lives of millions and millions of people. It is a good program. It is something we should be proud of in this country, and on a bipartisan basis, I believe, we are proud of the Food for Peace program. I think we need a big bipartisan vote to defeat this amendment. I appreciated the chairman's remarks earlier, and I thank him for his comments on this issue.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. I would just say that, yes, we need to get serious about the deficit and we need to find ways to bring this deficit down. But taking food out of the mouths of children is not the way to do this. I can go through a litany of things that deserve to be cut, from some of the subsidies that we provide some of the big agricultural businesses to the subsidization of the oil companies to some of the tax breaks for the Donald Trumps of the world. I would rather start there. But to take, to denigrate this program, I think, is wrong. This is something we should be proud of, and, in a bipartisan way, we should be proud of this. Presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this program, and this is vital to the survival of so many people around the world. Again, I would reiterate what Secretary Gates said. These programs, these developmental programs, are important to our national security. I'm going to tell you, they do more to help improve our image and protect our security around the world than a lot of these other programs that we have that export military hardware all around the world. This is important. This is real. This saves lives. I would urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to soundly reject this amendment and let us support food for peace. Let us support food programs for the poor. That's who we are. That reflects well on this country. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments and to thank her for her leadership not only on this issue but on some of the other issues to help hungry children around the world. I just want to also commend her for making the point that in the McGovern-Dole program, there are provisions that require that countries graduate out of the program. So this is not a permanent U.S. handout, if you will. This is some support to help get established school feeding programs that will, one, get more kids in school; and two, give kids a nutritious meal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN

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. 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? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I would inform my colleague from North Carolina that I have no further requests for time, and I am ready to close.

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. 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.

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.

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.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I would also just point out to the gentleman that there's another phenomenon going on here, and that is the rising cost of food. So the numbers that group that you're referring to has mentioned are pretty conservative. Food costs have been going up and up and up, and I think every American family can feel that. As a result, we're going to need to step up and not undermine these programs that, quite frankly, provide people basic nutrition of food.

Mr. McGOVERN. But it's not an unknown factor. Food prices are rising.