Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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. 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. 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.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?

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.

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.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I guess my question to the gentlelady is: Does she believe we do not have a hunger or a food and security problem in this country and that everything is being taken care of? My other question is: Why are Brazilian cotton farmers more important than poor pregnant women and their children?--because that's another choice we're making here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Do you believe we have a hunger problem?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to again rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill and express my deep outrage over the deep cuts in food and nutrition programs that benefit some of the most needy and vulnerable people in our country. I am particularly outraged at the cuts in WIC. As we heard from our colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), WIC is one of the most effective programs that exist. There has been a strong bipartisan tradition of fully funding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children--WIC--to ensure that every eligible family that applies receives benefits. WIC is not an entitlement, but we have made a bipartisan, concerted effort in the past to make sure that everybody who qualifies and who needs it can actually get it. This is the first time since that commitment was established that the appropriations bill is providing less funding than what is needed to serve all eligible young children and pregnant or postpartum women. Now, Republicans argue that somehow they're not cutting anything, that everything will be okay. That's not at all the case. That's, in fact, a complete distortion. We are told by organizations that monitor this that as many as 350,000 women and children would be thrown off the program as a result of these cuts. That's a conservative estimate. And since we've passed the rule, which does not protect the amendment that Ms. DeLauro got into the appropriations bill, which basically said that we're going to increase WIC funding by cutting subsidies to Brazilian cotton farmers--that is not protected, so somebody on the other side of the aisle, I'm sure, will raise a point of order against that language, and just like that, $147 million will immediately be cut from the WIC program, throwing, again, 100,000 to 200,000 additional women and children off the program. This doesn't make any sense, Madam Chair. We're told by my friends on the other side of the aisle, well, don't worry, all the faith-based groups will take care of everything; that's what they're all there for. Well, talk to any leader in any faith-based community in this country, and they will tell you that they are working overtime right now to try to provide for the struggling families in their communities. In every part of this country, from urban to suburban to rural, faith-based communities are stepping up, but they cannot do it alone. They need us to be a partner. I don't know a single faith-based leader who would say to anybody in this Congress don't adequately fund WIC or don't adequately fund the TEFAP program or these other programs that provide food and nutrition to needy people. The fact of the matter is that is not an answer. To put the burden on the faith-based community is basically an excuse for us to do nothing, and that is just unacceptable. We've heard on the other side of the aisle, well, there are just so many programs out there, we're just eliminating all the duplication and triplication. Again, this is just another justification to try to rationalize the cuts that are being made here, but there's no basis of fact. That distortion ignores the fact that programs don't overlap; they complement each other. There is a difference between programs like SNAP and WIC and school lunch programs and summer feeding programs. They're not all the same. They're designed to complement each other. And in reality they do not provide enough benefits to eliminate hunger and food insecurity in this country. The problem is not that we're giving too much to low-income families. The problem is not that we're giving them too much food. That is not the problem. We have a hunger problem in the United States of America. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. And we're the richest, most powerful country on the planet. We should be ashamed of that fact. We should be working overtime in this body to try to remedy that fact, to make sure that the neediest among us get what they need. By ignoring the plight of the poor, by ignoring the plight of those who are hungry in this country, they don't just all of a sudden go away. What we do is we end up creating other problems which turn out to be more costly. Hungry children can't learn in school. Hungry workers are less productive in the workplace. People who don't have enough to eat tend to have their immune systems compromised so that a common cold results in their staying in a hospital for a prolonged period of time. It costs this country a great deal that there is food insecurity in America. Hunger is not cheap. It costs a great deal, and we are paying billions and billions of dollars for that. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just say that I don't think poor people are ignorant.

Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield, I would also say, the gentleman raised the issue of obesity. There is a relationship between food insecurity and obesity and poverty and obesity. And so what we're talking about here is the importance of good nutrition, and the fact of the matter is that a lot of the people that we are trying to target some of these programs to don't have access to good nutrition. They live in food deserts where they can't buy good food, where they can't afford fresh fruits and vegetables.

Mr. McGOVERN. I think we're all for efficiency and good coordination, but I just want to read one line from a letter that Secretary Vilsack sent up here, where he says that he is confident the proposed funding level in your bill would lead to a substantial reduction in the program, meaning the WIC program, likely by hundreds of thousands of participants per month. That is substantial. That is something we can't afford.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, just so we're all clear here, under the War Powers Act, if a concurrent resolution is passed demanding that the troops are removed from a particular country, then they will be removed, if you believe that the War Powers Act carries any weight, and I believe that the War Powers Act is relevant here. That's what the resolution by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does. What the resolution my friends in the Republican leadership have drafted does is nothing. Your resolution doesn't even have to go to the Senate. It won't go to the Senate. It directs the President to do a whole bunch of things that, quite frankly, he can ignore, because this bill doesn't mean anything. What this is--and let's be clear about what this is--is this is a way for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to kind of cover their back sides, to be able to say to their constituents, We did something tough on Libya. Let me read to you how tough the language is in the bill that the Speaker of the House has drawn up. A lot of tough language. It sounds good. Except when you look a little bit more closely, you realize that this is an H. Res, which doesn't mean a thing. So if you're into symbolism, if you're into therapy, you know, vote for the Boehner resolution. If you are interested in action, if you are interested in actually living up to our responsibilities as lawmakers in the United States Congress, then I would suggest that you look at the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has drafted. You can talk all you want about how the Republican alternative here is somehow meaningful, but it really isn't. Again, I shouldn't be surprised. No one should be surprised here, because most of what they have done since they assumed control of the Congress has been meaningless, has been symbolic. Whether it's dealing with health care or jobs, which they don't want to talk about, you name it, a lot of it has been mostly symbolic. I think on the issue of war, we should take it more seriously and be more honest with the American people as to what we're doing. At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I'm sorry that the gentleman has such a low opinion of the War Powers Resolution, but I think it carries more weight than he does. But I would again say to my colleagues that what Mr. Boehner has proposed here has all this tough language in it requiring the President to do this, directing the President to do that, when, in fact, if we pass this, the President is under the obligation to do nothing. At this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, and I want to commend many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today who have spoken very thoughtfully about this issue. But on this issue, quite frankly, we should have come together in a bipartisan way and crafted a bipartisan resolution and come to this floor as one and spoken as one. That did not happen because politics got in the way. Anytime over the last several weeks, the Armed Services Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee could have reported out a resolution on Libya. They didn't. Mr. Kucinich came to the House with his resolution. It went through a process that would have compelled a vote. And all of a sudden, the Republican leadership got nervous, and they came up with the Boehner resolution in an attempt to undercut the Kucinich resolution. If you question whether or not politics had anything to do with it, I would advise you to read the Politico piece that ran: ``Boehner told the House Republican Conference during a closed-door meeting on Thursday that he doesn't `want to turn the floor over to Dennis Kucinich,' the liberal Ohio Democrat who has been a driving force against the administration's military action in Libya.'' Okay, I get it. But you know what? We could have come together, and the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee could have come together, and we could have crafted a bipartisan resolution and done something truly meaningful here. Because, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what political party a President may be. It needs to be made clear that Congress plays a role in war-making. And, unfortunately, in this case I think there's a bipartisan consensus that Congress was just ignored. And that cannot stand. My problem, again, with the Boehner resolution is that it doesn't do anything. If anybody thinks that passing this resolution is going to compel the White House to do anything differently or provide us with anything that they haven't already provided us with, they're gravely mistaken. It doesn't force the President's administration to do anything. It's a strong statement. I think it's written in a very partisan way, unfortunately; but my friends on the other side of the aisle can do what they want. But it reminds, I think, all of us who care deeply about these issues that there has to be a better way to do this. And on issues like this, we should come together in a bipartisan way and try to craft resolutions or joint resolutions that mean something and that both sides can feel comfortable supporting. I also, again, want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for reminding us again of the importance of the War Powers Resolution. It is not just some mere resolution. It is law. It is law. And the reason why we are here today is because we believe that the War Powers Resolution needs to be upheld and that Congress needs to assert its proper role on this issue. So having said all of that, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule because I think this process is not appropriate. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehner resolution. And I will vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience on that. But if you really want to send a message, let's not send a press release. Let's do something that resonates, that, once again, asserts Congress's proper role in this debate. We're involved in too many wars. We're going broke. We're losing too many brave men and women in these conflicts. And in the case of Libya, I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wonder what the point is and what our mission is. It's not clear. That's one of the reasons why Congress should be involved. That's one of the reasons why there should be debate. We need to take this out of the realm of partisanship and kind of return it back to where it belongs. This should be a bipartisan issue here, and I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to do that. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the Boehner resolution. I will vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience on that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague, Mr. Scott, talked about the fact that I have supported House resolutions in the past and that, therefore, we should have more respect for the document that Mr. Boehner has put together. I have no problem with House resolutions. They state the views and the beliefs of Members of the House of Representatives. But what I have a problem with is anybody coming to the floor and holding up the Boehner resolution and saying that it does something that it does not. What the Boehner resolution simply does is it just expresses the view of Congress. Even though it has pretty strong words in it, it doesn't require the President to do anything. He doesn't have to do anything if this thing passes. The other thing I want to say, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee came on the floor here and just kind of pooh-poohed the War Powers Resolution as if it were just some other mere resolution. Quite frankly, I am stunned by his characterization. It is astonishing to me that he would come on the floor and say such a thing. The fact of the matter is the War Powers Resolution is a joint resolution of Congress, passed by the House and the Senate. It was vetoed, and then it was overridden. It has the power of law. It is not just a mere resolution. So let's not put this on the same level as what the Speaker of the House has brought to this floor. It is two different things. What Mr. Kucinich does is he responds to the obligations that Congress has under the War Powers Resolution. This is serious stuff. This is important stuff. If we are going to get our terminology straight, we ought to get it straight. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I hear a lot of talk on the other side about the Boehner resolution requires the President to do this, it directs him to do that, he must do this, he shall do this. But the way you have presented this in this H. Res. form, the President doesn't have to do anything. So let's not fool ourselves, and let's not fool the American people that somehow this is meaningful. I 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.)