Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all these insane, crazy lawsuits that people are referring to are getting dismissed and the system seems to be working. We have a real problem and this bill does not address that problem in any way, shape, or form. If anything, this bill says to the restaurant industry and the food industry, you do not have any responsibility, you do not have any responsibility to our kids and the type of products that you try to peddle to them. I think that is the wrong message. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in today's Washington Post entitled ``Obesity Passing Smoking As Top Avoidable Cause of Death.'' [From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2004] Obesity Passing Smoking as Top Avoidable Cause of Death (By Rob Stein) America's weight problem is rapidly overtaking cigarette smoking as the leading cause of preventable deaths, federal health officials reported yesterday. Although tobacco is still the top cause of avoidable deaths, the widespread pattern of physical inactivity combined with unhealthful diets is poised to become No. 1 because of the resulting epidemic of obesity, officials said. ``Obesity is catching up to tobacco as the leading cause of death in America. If this trend continues it will soon overtake tobacco,'' said Julie L. Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted the study. If current trends continue, obesity will become the leading cause by next year, with the toll surpassing 500,000 deaths annually, rivaling the number of annual deaths from cancer, the researchers found. ``This is a tragedy,'' Gerberding said. ``We are looking at this as a wake-up call.'' Being overweight or obese makes people much more likely to develop a variety of deadly health problems, including diabetes, heart disease and cancer. In response, the Bush administration announced a new public education program yesterday, including a humorous advertising campaign that encourages Americans to take small steps to lose weight. In addition, the National Institutes of Health proposed an anti-obesity research agenda. Tomorrow, a special task force will present the Food and Drug Administration with recommendations on what that agency can do to help reverse the cresting public health crisis. ``Americans need to understand that overweight and obesity are literally killing us,'' said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. ``To know that poor eating habits and inactivity are on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death in America should motivate all Americans to take action to protect their health.'' Critics, however, immediately denounced the moves as inadequate, saying the administration should take more aggressive steps to encourage more healthful diets, and force the food industry to improve its products and stop advertising junk food to children. ``The government should have been much more aggressive about this much earlier,'' said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders. ``Even now, the administration defaults to explaining the problem away by individual responsibility and lack of physical activity rather than focusing on the toxic food environment.'' The new estimates of the rising toll of obesity come in the first update of a landmark paper that ranked the nation's preventable causes of death in 1990. Cigarette smoking, which increases the risk of a host of illnesses including lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease, topped that list. But antismoking campaigns have led to a steady decline in the number of Americans who use tobacco, slowing the rise in the resulting toll of illness and death. In the new analysis, published in today's Journal of the American Medical Association, Gerberding and her colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of the medical literature to calculate the most precise estimate possible of the risk of dying from all the leading causes of preventable death, including being obese or overweight. They then multiplied that risk by the number of Americans known to be overweight or obese, based on long-term, ongoing national surveys used to track the nation's health, which are the most accurate data available. The result, the researchers said, is the most reliable such estimate to date. Tobacco still ranked No. 1, accounting for about 435,000 deaths, or 18.1 percent of the total. But poor diet and physical inactivity were close behind and rapidly increasing, causing 400,000 deaths, or 16.6 percent. That represented a dramatic change from 10 years earlier, when tobacco killed 400,000 Americans (19 percent) and poor diet and physical inactivity killed 300,000 (14 percent). ``There's been a big narrowing of the gap,'' said Ali H. Mokdad, who heads the CDC's behavioral research branch. It is particularly striking because the toll of every other leading cause of preventable death--including alcohol, infections, accidents, guns and drugs--steadily decreased over the same period, Mokdad said. Despite intense public concern, the number of overweight or obese Americans has continued to climb to epidemic proportions. In 1990, about 60 percent of adult Americans were either overweight or obese, including about 20 percent who were obese. By 2000, that number had climbed to 64 percent being obese or overweight, including about 30 percent who were obese. ``Physical inactivity and poor diet is still on the rise. So the mortality will still go up. That's the alarming part-- the behavior is still going in the wrong direction,'' Mokdad said. Experts praised the government for highlighting the worrisome trend and taking countermeasures. But several said the severity of the problem warrants a much more intensive, innovative response. ``If we just count on the American population to change their eating habits and exercise habits, we're going to continue to have obesity,'' said Richard L. Atkinson, president of the American Obesity Association. ``What we're doing is not working.'' The government should consider more innovative strategies than simply encouraging people to eat better and exercise, such as subsidizing the cost of healthful foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables to make it more affordable to eat well. ``Let's start looking at things that make a difference,'' Atkinson said. The federal government could take much more dramatic action, said Yale's Brownell. The Department of Agriculture ``has the power to get rid of soft drinks and snack foods in the schools, and they're not. The [Federal Trade Commission] could deal with the tidal wave of unhealthy food advertising aimed at children. The government could change agriculture policy to subsidize the industry making healthy foods instead of unhealthy ones,'' he said. Officials rejected suggestions that the administration take more dramatic steps, such as requiring food labeling at fast-food restaurants or prohibiting certain sugary, fatty products in schools. ``I don't want to start banning things,'' Thompson said. ``Prohibition has never worked.'' Officials have ``been elated by the response'' of the private sector to promote more healthful lifestyles, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said. ``Everything we've seen from the industry has been positive.'' Thompson urged Congress to pass legislation granting tax credits to people who lose weight, and said he has been lobbying health insurers to cut rates for those who lose weight or exercise. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will extend the same courtesy to the gentleman that he extended to me. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been a champion on the issue of nutrition issues.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will not. Mr. Speaker, I control the time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I also point out again the gentleman (Mr. Dreier) talks about the openness of the Committee on Rules, but let me use his definitions, the definitions of the Republicans when they were in the minority. Under those definitions, this year of the nine rules we have had, one has been open, one has been closed, one was procedural, and there were six restrictive rules. This is hardly any kind of an example.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric coming from the other side, this is not an open rule. This rule requires that any Member who wants to improve this bill must have already preprinted their amendment in yesterday's Congressional Record. Now, it is interesting to note that when they were in the minority, the Republicans condemned preprinting requirements, but now that they are in power, they find this and other procedures to close the process completely acceptable. In fact, even the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) agrees that preprinting requirements are wrong, or at least he used to. On July 20, 1993, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules said this about a Democratic rule requiring that all amendments be preprinted: ``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the Congressional Record. Now, that might not sound like much, but it is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome preprinting process? Shouldn't the committees that report these bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better.'' Well, I agree completely with my friend from California. We can do better. Unfortunately, in this Congress, we are actually doing worse. This year, of the nine rules this body considered, only one has been a truly open rule. That is a batting average of 111, which will get you kicked off of my son's T-ball team. According to the Republicans' own definition, eight out of nine rules have been restrictive, and that one open rule brought a bill to the floor that was approved by a voice vote. Now, Mr. Speaker, as for the underlying bill, this is an unnecessary distraction from the real problems facing the American people. In August 2002, two children brought suit against McDonald's, claiming the corporation bore legal responsibility for their obesity and health problems. The case got a great deal of media attention which is, I am sure, part of why we are doing this thing today. The judge working on the case quickly recognized that this lawsuit was clearly frivolous and dismissed the case. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the system worked. But that is not good enough for the Republicans. Now they want to radically change the rules, not just so Americans cannot bring forth so-called frivolous lawsuits, but so that almost any case of negligence against these types of companies is banned. This bill is retroactive: any case currently pending before a judge would be subject to the new law. Mr. Speaker, you do not change the rules during the middle of the game, but that is just what this bill does. This bill has many, many, many problems, and my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary will talk more about the merits or lack of merits of the bill during general debate. But there are bigger issues here. Mr. Speaker, obesity is a problem, and this week we learned that obesity will soon pass smoking as the leading cause of preventable deaths. Americans, especially children, are gaining weight at alarming rates. In fact, according to the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, obesity is the Nation's fastest rising public health problem. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, unhealthy eating and inactivity cause about 1,200 deaths every day. That is five times more than the number of people killed by guns, HIV, and drug use combined. Now, adding to this is the fact that it just does not affect the obese person; it puts a burden on the entire system, from hospitals to the workplace to the home. And, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, healthier diets could prevent at least $71 billion per year in medical costs, lost productivity, and lost lives. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that if all physically inactive Americans became active, we would save $77 billion in annual medical costs. And this does not even begin to discuss the issue of hunger in America. Unfortunately, there are many people in this country who suffer from hunger and yet, paradoxically, are obese because the little food they do get is not nutritious. Low-income families face a real need to stretch their food dollars to maximize the number of calories they consume. We are finding that low-income families may eat foods that may cost less, but that have relatively higher levels of calories per dollar to stave off hunger when they lack the money or other resources like food stamps to purchase a healthier balance of more nutritious foods. Simply put, it becomes a trade-off between food quantity and food quality. Now, it is obvious to everyone, everyone but the House Republican leadership, apparently, that obesity and hunger are serious public health issues that need to be dealt with in serious ways. But instead of bringing legislation before this body that will help feed the hungry, provide families with information on how to prepare and eat nutritious meals, encourage the food and restaurant industry to be more responsible and help raise the standard of living, we are here today considering a fake bill that pretends to fix a fake problem. Now, I would like to tell the American public that we are actually having a real substantive debate about obesity in ways to address this national problem but we are not. And although today's bill would undoubtedly restrict lawsuits against restaurants, food manufacturers, and food distributors, what it really does is highlight the priorities, actually the lack of priorities, of this Republican-controlled Congress. For example, over 760,000 Americans sit at home, jobless and without any income because the Republicans in Congress will not extend them unemployment benefits. But the majority party all of a sudden can find the time to take up this legislation. While the European Union adds tariffs to American goods because of a trade dispute, the Republican majority continues to let a bipartisan compromise sit and gather dust; but the leadership can find the time to try to ram another partisan corporate tax cut through the House that will not address any real problem. And while over 40 million Americans woke up this morning without health insurance, last week the majority took precious time out of their limited legislative schedule to set the rules for commercial space flight, which does not even exist yet. With all the challenges facing this country, and with the limited schedule set by the Republicans this year, is this the best bill to consider? Is this the best use of the House's time? The answer is no. And, unfortunately, the Republican Party continues to ignore the real issues facing this country. And it just goes to show you how misguided and out of touch the majority party continues to be. Mr. Speaker, the United States House of Representatives is supposed to be a serious place. This is where the great issues are supposed to be debated. But under this Republican leadership, this House has become a place where trivial issues are debated passionately and serious ones not at all. We should have a debate about the problem of obesity. And that debate should include serious discussions about the ways we can effectively deal with that issue. But that is not what we are doing here today. What we are doing here today, quite frankly, is, once again, concocting a way to avoid doing the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 8 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman from California was going to yield to me.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first, I will enter into the Record a letter from the Center for Science in the Public Interest opposing H.R. 339. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, June 18, 2003. Re hearing on H.R. 339. Hon. Chris Cannon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Cannon: On behalf of our 700,000 members in the United States, I request that you make this letter part of the record of the June 19, 2003 hearing on H.R. 339, The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (``CSPI'') strongly opposes H.R. 339. Despite its stated purpose of banning frivolous lawsuits, H.R. 339 bans any lawsuit against a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a food or a non- alcoholic beverage ``unless the plaintiff proves that, at the time of sale, the product was not in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.'' H.R. 339 ignores the fact that both legislatures and administrative agencies frequently are too busy to enact specific standards dealing with a particular food safety or nutrition problem, and so the victims must turn to the courts for help. Meritorious lawsuits can, of course, spur the food industry to improve its practices. Both Congress and state legislatures, recognizing their inability to deal with the myriad of food safety and nutrition problems, have delegated regulatory responsibilities to specific agencies. Congress, for example, has delegated regulatory responsibility over food to the Food and Drug Administration (``FDA''), the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. However, these agencies, like their state counterparts, do not have enough resources to promptly address all the new concerns about food safety and nutrition. For example, in February 1994 CSPI petitioned the FDA to require the disclosure of trans fatty acids on packaged foods. More than five years later, in November 1999, the FDA published a proposed regulation in response to our petition. The FDA still has not issued a final rule, although FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan has said that a final rule, requiring the disclosure of the amount of trans in packaged foods, will be announced in the near future. In conclusion, H.R. 339 should be rejected because lawsuits can play a valuable role in protecting consumers by filling the interstices in legislative and regulatory requirements. Sincerely, Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., Executive Director. Let me conclude my remarks by again expressing my concern, first of all, over the rule because this is a restrictive rule, and what I have been trying to find out from the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and maybe the gentleman from Texas may be able to enlighten me on this, is the wave of the future, no more completely open rules? Are we now going to be forced to deal with restrictive rules on every bill that we now deal with?

Mr. McGOVERN. We have had one open rule out of, I think, nine, but I mean, it seems that now we are being required to preprint all our amendments in advance, which by my colleagues' own definition is a restrictive rule. Is that the wave of the future?

Mr. McGOVERN. Okay. So, again, it kind of makes my point of the restrictive nature of this process, and I raise this issue because I hope that this is not going to be a trend where Members are going to be restricted. Again, it is not just something the Democrats feel passionately about. Again, I have been reading quotes from Republicans over the years who feel very passionately about the importance of not having preprinting requirements because they believe that that constitutes a restrictive rule. So I think that there is a bipartisan consensus here that we should move away from restricting debate and restricting what can be offered and opening up this process on controversial bills and on noncontroversial bills. That is the only point I would make to the gentleman. With regard to the bill that we are talking about here today, I will again say that I regret that we are dealing with this particular bill today because it does not address any real problem. This is a bill that corrects a problem that does not exist. These lawsuits that people are complaining about with regard to obesity and the fast food industry are being routinely dismissed. This is not a problem. The problem is obesity. The problem we should be talking about here is how to make sure that our kids get more nutritious foods. The issue that we need to be dealing with here is how to make sure that the Federal programs that provide breakfasts and lunches to our children in schools meet proper nutrition guidelines. The issue we should be talking about is better labeling, informing the public in a better way about what, in fact, they are eating. We should be encouraging more corporate responsibility by the fast food industry, and that is not being debated here. In fact, what we are trying to do is we are sending the exact opposite signal to the fast food industry. We should be encouraging more physical fitness programs in our schools and so that our young people can take advantage of them, and we should also be having a discussion on this floor about the issue of hunger, which is relevant to this issue of obesity. As I pointed out in my opening statement, people who have precious little resources tend to buy things that are high in calories, that are not nutritious, and there is a relationship between hunger and obesity, and it is something we never even talk about on the floor of this House. But then we bring this bill to the floor. We bring this bill to the floor, and we are telling the people who are watching here today that we are addressing a huge problem out there, a problem that does not exist, and we are bringing this bill up today and we are only in for a couple of days, notwithstanding the fact that we are not dealing with the issue of extending unemployment benefits to those workers who are unemployed, which is a national disgrace. I do not know how people can come here and appear on the House floor with a straight face having not dealt with that issue. I know the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Sessions) district, like my district, includes a number of people who are out of work, who have run out of their unemployment benefits, who are desperately trying to figure out how to make ends meet, put food on their table and pay their bills, and they are looking to us to help them out, to provide them a bridge until they can get a job. We are not doing anything here, and we should be ashamed of that fact. The gentleman from Oregon mentioned the transportation bill that is kind of languishing in committee. That will put people to work, but we are not dealing with that. We are not dealing with the issue of those who do not have health insurance. We are not dealing with anything that matters to anybody, and here we are again dealing with an issue that really is trivial. This place is becoming a Congress where trivial issues are debated passionately and important ones not at all. So, for a whole bunch of reasons, I oppose the rule because it is restrictive, and I oppose this bill because it is silly. We should not be dealing with this today. We should be dealing with something important. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the answer. I guess the question that I asked to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I will ask the gentleman from Texas, if a Member of either party is watching this debate and would like to offer an amendment based on something that they have heard here today, do they have the right to come to the floor and offer an amendment at this particular point?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the question to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that I wanted to ask, which was he says this is an open rule, but if a Member is watching this debate right now, either a Democrat or Republican, and comes up with a great idea for an amendment, will that Member be allowed to offer his or her amendment on the floor right now? It is a simple yes or no answer.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close the debate on our side, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Congressional Record the following statement signed by the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation as well as our dear friend and colleague, U.S. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948 to 1952, during which time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star. Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally thank my colleagues for signing this letter to Lieutenant General Sung Eun Kim (Ret.). Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, March 5, 2004. Lieutenant General Sung Eun Kim (Ret.) served as the 4th Commandant of the Republic of Korea Marines Corps (ROKMC) and as ROK Minister of National Defense from 1963 to 1968. In General Kim, the United States has a true friend. General Kim is a patriot who cares dearly for freedom and has a strong personal affinity for America. He also is an ardent supporter of the Korean War Memorial of Central Massachusetts, having made a significant contribution toward its construction and then encouraged many other ROKMC Commandants and other military leaders to join him in support of the Memorial, which stands as a symbol of Freedom. The alliance between the ROK Marine Corps and the U.S. Marine Corps was forged in the fires of the Korean War, where Commandant General Kim and his ROK Marines fought shoulder- to-shoulder with U.S. Marines to repel brutal Communist aggression. According to historian Lieutenant Colonel James Durand, USMC, ``. . . in the history of the ROK Marine Corps, General Kim is certainly in a class by himself. General Kim led ROK Marines in more battles than any other commander, including the amphibious landing at Tong Yong, which resulted in the first unit-wide promotions of the Korean War.'' In a letter to Korean War Memorial Chairman Francis Carroll of Worcester, Massachusetts, General Kim wrote, ``I want to thank the American people for all the sacrifices they have made for Korea. Had the United States not come to our aid 53 years ago, I would surely not be alive today to write this letter . . . I know that South Korea would not be the prosperous, democratic nation it is today without the military, economic, and political assistance America has given us over the past half century.'' Thank you General Kim, the ROK Marine Corps, and the people of the Republic of Korea for your friendship. We salute you. Sincerely, Charles B. Rangel, Edward J. Markey, James P. McGovern, Barney Frank, Richard E. Neal, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Stephen F. Lynch, John W. Olver, John F. Tierney, Michael E. Capuano.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, right now there are more than 300 million chronically hungry children in the world. 130 million, mainly girls, do not attend schools. The other 170 million go to school on an empty stomach, stunting their ability to learn. I want to describe how one U.S. organization, Catholic Relief Services, is making a difference in the lives of such children in the African nation of Benin. We can all be proud of the work that Catholic Relief Services does in our name around the world. CRS is known for its integrated approach to development, weaving together programs that help poor nations address the challenges of hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and poverty. At the same time, CRS promotes community participation, empowerment, and economic opportunity. In 2001 and 2002, CRS received funding through the United States Department of Agriculture's McGovern-Dole food for education pilot program to begin school feeding programs in six districts in northwestern Benin. The problems facing Benin are daunting. It ranks extremely low on the United Nations human development index, at number 147 out of 162 countries. In the region where CRS is carrying out this program, families engage mainly in farming and fishing, with annual incomes of around $175. During the long dry season, the food security situation becomes very tight, even by Benin standards. Only about 30 percent of parents send their children to school. Facing these realities, the CRS-Benin school feeding program began by strengthening or creating parent-teacher associations in order to increase local commitment to education. These PTAs became involved in providing meals to schools, reaching out and encouraging local families to send their children to school, and determining how to meet basic needs regarding the number and quality of teachers. In 61 schools, the CRS-Benin program provided daily school breakfasts and lunches to nearly 9,000 children each day. It also targeted 3,500 female students for take-home rations as an incentive to increase school attendance by girls. Additional rice and soybean oil were awarded to girls who achieved at least an 85 percent attendance rate each quarter. Summer school and other programs were initiated to meet the needs of displaced or otherwise crisis-affected children. As part of its integrated approach to development, the CRS-Benin program monetized USDA-provided soybeans to fund a number of other critical interventions for these students, including micronutrient supplements to improve student health; hygiene, health and nutrition education for parents and teachers; school latrines and other sanitation infrastructure; training for teachers and school directors in improved teaching and school management methods; and community awareness campaigns on the importance of education for girls. The CRS-Benin program also works with the World Health Organization and other NGOs to administer deworming pills to the students in these schools. In just 2 years, the program has achieved increased student attendance and enrollment, especially for girls; decreased dropout rates; and increased community participation in the schools, including contributions of local foods by families to supplement the U.S.- provided commodities. Some schools have started school gardens or farms in support of the school kitchens. And parents have showed new and improved problem-solving skills tackling such matters as teacher recruitment, improving school classrooms and buildings, and lobbying local Education Ministry officials for more teachers. Last year the CRS-Benin program received 2 more years of funding through the McGovern-Dole program. CRS-Benin received approximately $4.1 million in rice, lentils, and sunflower oil from farmers in Colorado, Texas, Tennessee, and Kansas. The program now reaches 12,500 school children, and its achievement can only expand and solidify. Under the McGovern-Dole pilot program, CRS once carried out similar programs in Albania, Bosnia, Guatemala, and Honduras. Deep funding cuts in the McGovern-Dole program, however, resulted in the survival of only the Benin program. Sadly, more than 95,000 children in the other four countries are now cut off from these vital food, education and health services. I want to express my admiration and respect for the national and field staff of the Catholic Relief Services and their partners, who carry out these important programs in Benin and elsewhere. They deserve our support and they require more funding. Madam Speaker, there is no better investment we can make for a more stable world than in the education and well-being of our children, both here at home and around the globe. I urge the congressional leadership of this House to significantly increase the fiscal year 2005 funding for the USDA McGovern-Dole program and for other USDA and USAID food programs.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed out of order and do my 5 minutes now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon and the entire Science Committee's hard work in crafting this legislation. While I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not grant an open rule today, it is refreshing to actually consider a truly bipartisan bill in this body. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3752 will promote the development of the emerging commercial human space flight, extend the government indemnification until 2007, and allow the FAA to issue experimental launch permits. Mr. Speaker, the idea of space travel is extremely exciting and it holds a special place in the heart of Massachusetts' Third Congressional District. My hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, is the birthplace of Dr. Robert Goddard, the father of modern rocketry. At the age of 17, Dr. Goddard had a vision of space travel while in his family's backyard that would remain with him the rest of his life. In his autobiography, Goddard wrote: ``On the afternoon of October 19, 1899, I climbed a tall cherry tree. It was one of the quiet, colorful afternoons of sheer beauty which we have in October in New England, and as I looked towards the fields at the east, I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars. I was a different boy when I descended from the tree from when I ascended for existence at last seemed very purposive.'' Mr. Speaker, in 1926 Dr. Goddard, as Director of the physical laboratories at Clark University, went on to launch the first liquid propellant rocket at Auburn, Massachusetts, which was the catalyst for our modern space industry. Throughout his lifetime, Dr. Goddard was at the forefront of science and space research. As a Professor at Clark University and Princeton University, Dr. Goddard devoted his life to the growth of rockets and his research has had lasting effects on our space industry. During World War II, Dr. Goddard was Director of Research for the Navy Department's Bureau of Aeronautics. In that position he developed jet-assisted takeoff and variable-thrust liquid propellant rockets at Annapolis, Maryland and Roswell, New Mexico. Following his service as a researcher to our Nation in World War II, Dr. Goddard served a year as Director of the American Rocket Society before passing away on August 10, 1945 in Baltimore, Maryland. As is the case with innovation, many people did not see the potential that Dr. Goddard's research would have on future space travel. Indeed, a New York Times editorial in January 1920 stated that Dr. Goddard's assertions of future space travel lacked the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools. Dr. Goddard countered by saying that every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it. Once realized, it becomes commonplace. Of course, 49 years later on the eve of man's first walk on the Moon in 1969, the New York Times printed a correction to their editorial by stating that it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error. That was in their editorial. Since the start of the space program, we have seen Americans walk on the Moon, we have started to construct an international space station, and we currently have unmanned rovers exploring the surface of Mars. And now, with the passage of this legislation, commercial space travel is one step closer to reality. Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules would refer a restrictive rule for this bipartisan bill, I keep hoping that one of these days the rhetoric of my friends on the majority side will be actually matched by their actions, but I guess we are going to have to wait for that day. But having said that, I will not oppose the rule and I support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the recess I traveled to Colombia for a third time as part of a fact-finding delegation sponsored by the Washington Office on Latin America. The highlight of my trip was a visit to a school feeding program in a place called Ciudad Bolivar, which is a very poor area of Bogota. Mr. Speaker, this school feeding program is a partnership between USAID, the U.N. World Food Programme and the Bogota Department of Social Welfare. Joining me at the school were USAID Mission Director Mike Deal; Mr. Peter Goossens, WFP Program Coordinator for Colombia; Maria Lucia Osorio, WFP staff person who works directly with the school; Andrew Krefft, the USAID senior program specialist on Colombia's internally displaced; and representatives from Bogota's Department of Social Welfare. I want to express my personal appreciation for all their efforts in making school feeding programs in Colombia so successful. Mr. Speaker, the school I visited is called Colegio Luis Carlos Galan. Approximately 1,200 children receive meals and food rations at Colegio Galan. Eighty percent of these children are from displaced families. The children receive a fortified breakfast mixture and mid- morning fortified snacks. The meals are prepared by community cooks in school kitchens, where mothers are educated in food preparation, nutrition, child care, and health care. The school meal is supplemented with rice, vegetables, beans, eggs, and juice, purchased and prepared by the children's families from family contributions of about 10 cents per day. This one school feeding program costs only $2,000 for the entire 2004 school year. Think of it, Mr. Speaker, just $2,000 provides 1,200 impoverished children with nutritious meals and snacks for an entire school year. These are some of these children. It also strengthens families' commitments to their children's education, attracts and keeps these children in school, and demonstrates, as few other programs can, that the United States genuinely cares about the future of Colombia's children. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of displaced Colombians live in extreme poverty and have inadequate nutrition. Only 36 percent of displaced children will ever finish primary school, and a mere 8 percent will complete high school. Currently, USAID funds a 3-year $5.1 million program to alleviate hunger, improve the health and well-being of Colombia's displaced families, and increase school attendance through school feeding programs. The USAID program, which began in September 2003, assists over 113,000 displaced schoolchildren in 414 schools in 12 Colombian departments. The program is implemented by WFP; and prior to this, the school feeding program was financed through USDA's McGovern-Dole International Food for Education pilot program. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the Bush administration made Draconian cuts in this program that resulted in eliminating the Colombian funding. Fortunately for Colombia's children, USAID came to the rescue and picked up the costs, incorporating it into programs supporting Colombia's internally displaced. At the school I visited, 80 percent of the children are from displaced families. They come from all over Colombia, ranging in age from 6 years to 16, and reflect Colombia's racial and ethnic diversity. One mother, displaced from Caqueta, told me that her family's life was filled with violence: ``It is terrible to have to flee with nothing but the clothes on your back, running for hours and days, arriving at Bogota, not knowing anyone.'' She gave her sincerest thanks for the United States' support of the school. A teacher stated, ``Today, these children are fed, but tomorrow, who knows?'' This teacher felt that many of these children were in school for the first time in their lives, learning things that will help them throughout their lives, like how to read and write. Mr. Speaker, if you could only see these children. They are bright, they are beautiful, they are the future of Colombia; and I admire and honor the dedicated teachers and school administrators and parents and students at this school; and I respect the commitment of USAID and the World Food Program staff, who are giving these families hope for a better future. Last Friday, the newly elected mayor of Bogota, Mr. Lucho Garzon, launched a new initiative called Bogota Without Hunger. Through this campaign, Ciudad Bolivar is one of six priority zones designated to receive additional resources for nutrition, education, health services, and housing. I encourage my colleagues to visit U.S.-supported school feeding programs when they travel abroad. I most strongly urge the leadership of this Congress to significantly increase funding for both the USDA McGovern-Dole program and USAID food aid programs. No matter how tight current budget restrictions might be, these programs are truly among the very best investments we can make in the future stability of Colombia and the world.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the well of this floor many times to speak in support of the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. McGovern-Dole provides hungry children around the world at least one nutritious meal a day in a school setting. The Bush administration's own Department of Agriculture has evaluated this program and found it to be very effective at reducing child hunger, increasing academic attendance and performance, especially among girls, and strengthening community commitment to education. The McGovern-Dole program is carried out in the field by a wide range of partners, principally through U.S. private voluntary organizations and the United Nations World Food Programme, which has a special unit specializing in school feeding programs. Currently, the World Food Programme, or WFP, carries out McGovern- Dole-supported school feeding programs in Bhutan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Tanzania and Uganda. But this is just part of WFP's worldwide effort in the area of school feeding, which reaches literally every corner of the world. Mr. Speaker, over 840 million people do not have enough food to eat on a daily basis. Three hundred million of these are children, who go to sleep every night without enough food to eat. Today, and every day, 24,000 people will die because of hunger and its ugly effects. This is more than HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined, although hunger and disease are closely intertwined. In short, between 8 and 10 million people die needlessly every year because of hunger and malnutrition. Last year, the World Health Organization listed the top 10 health risks around the world. The number one risk is not cancer or HIV/AIDS or heart disease. It is not war or armed conflict or accidents. The number one health risk in the world is simply the lack of food. In an effort to reach out to students and communities throughout the United States, the World Food Programme has launched a campaign to raise money and awareness about the hunger and educational needs of children in Third World countries. This campaign will help shine a light on what life is like for the more than 300 million children who daily endure, suffer and die from hunger. Nearly half of these children, mainly girls, do not go to school. The campaign will give students in communities a simple yet concrete way to make a difference in these children's futures. The campaign is called the 19-Cents-a-Day Campaign depicted in this poster here. Why 19 cents? Because 19 cents is the average daily cost to feed a child in a school setting. Think about this for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Nineteen cents a day, a dime, a nickel and four pennies, that is half the cost of a first-class stamp. For about the cost of one Big Mac, a soda and an order of fries each month, we can feed a child for an entire school year. Mr. Speaker, we know that one of the best steps anyone can take to reduce or escape poverty is to get an education. Offering a meal at school is a proven method of convincing poor families to send their children to school, including their daughters. Last month, Judith Lewis, the Washington Director of WFP, traveled to her home State of Mississippi to officially launch the 19-Cents-a-Day Campaign. Mississippi is a place that knows something about hunger. Last year, over 392,000 Mississippi children received free or reduced school lunches. I am happy to report the response from the high school students in Brandon, Mississippi, was overwhelmingly positive, raising hundreds of dollars for WFP school feeding programs. The 19-Cents-a-Day Campaign is a great way to talk about child hunger, both around the world and in our own congressional districts. It is a great way to raise awareness and funds and engage our own students and communities in the fight against hunger abroad and here at home. In the weeks to come, the campaign will be launched in high schools in Illinois, North Carolina, and California. I hope to launch a similar campaign in Massachusetts, my home State. I encourage my colleagues to contact the World Food Program to find out more about the 19 Cents a Day Campaign and how more students and communities can become involved. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe we can end hunger among children, both here in the United States and around the world. It only takes the time, commitment, and political will to do so.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President released his fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. Over the next few days there will be many speeches and analyses of his funding proposals. I would like to describe how previous budget cuts have affected just one program that both reduces hunger among children around the world and gets these kids into school. The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education Program began in 2001 with a $300 million pilot program. Using American surplus commodities, organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children and Mercy Corps and the U.N. World Food Program carried out school feeding programs in over 40 countries. Seven million children received at least one nutritious meal every day in a school setting through this program. Last year, USDA evaluated these programs and found them to be very effective in reducing hunger and dropout rates among many of the world's most vulnerable children. Enrollment, attendance and academic performance increased, especially among girls. In short, providing food for education gave poor children, including girls, a new future. Unfortunately, since 2002, when Congress made this initiative permanent, McGovern-Dole has suffered significant funding cuts. In fiscal year 2003, President Bush only asked for and received $100 million. And now in fiscal year 2004, the program will receive only $50 million. What does it mean for a program like McGovern-Dole to go from $300 million to $100 million? It means literally that food was taken away from nearly 5 million hungry children and many of their families were forced to take them out of school. In Nicaragua, 339,000 preschool and primary school children benefiting from McGovern-Dole were cut off from this food source. In El Salvador, another 45,000 children stopped receiving food at school. In Honduras, anemia among children benefiting from McGovern-Dole was reduced by 50 percent. Sadly, 167,000 of those children have now been cut off from the program. In Peru, 70,000 children living in areas of high chronic malnutrition no longer receive meals or snacks in school. In Colombia, where we routinely send hundreds of millions of dollars each year in military and security aid, we ended McGovern-Dole funding, forcing USAID to pick up the costs and stopping a planned expansion of the program to 165,000 more children. In 2003, I visited one of the McGovern-Dole programs in Colombia. I was told by mothers, fathers, grandmothers and community leaders how the school and the meals were the one stable reality in these children's uncertain lives, and often the only food these children receive. And I was told time and again how these kids often leave home and join one of the guerilla or paramilitary groups simply because these groups can provide them a daily meal. So, thanks to our funding cuts, we are robbing money from USAID development programs to pick up the costs originally covered under McGovern-Dole. Does this make sense to anyone? School feeding programs in Chad and Kenya were also especially hard hit by the McGovern-Dole cutbacks, and 125,000 children in Congo and 35,000 in Eritrea also lost their funding. In Vietnam, the McGovern-Dole program administered by Land O'Lakes that provided meals to over 700,000 children was eliminated. A similar program in Bangladesh reaching 350,000 children has just run out of funds. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. Eliminating these programs also means that food produced by our hardworking farmers no longer finds its way to hungry school children around the world. Mr. Speaker, the McGovern-Dole program deserves to have its funding restored, not just because these programs work, not just because they help our farmers, not just because they reduce hunger among the world's most desperate children, not just because they get poor families to send and keep their children in school but because these programs, I believe, are central to our struggle to defeat terrorism. For fiscal year 2005, President Bush has proposed $75 million for McGovern-Dole, a modest increase from last year's devastating cutback to $50 million. I am glad to see the number going back up, but it is simply not enough. I would call upon my colleagues and the Bush administration to find a way to bring the funding levels for McGovern- Dole back to $300 million.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the procedural abuses that marked the first session of the 108th Congress would be left behind. I had hoped that we would start the new year on a positive note. We have an opportunity today to come together from both sides of the aisle and pass good legislation to help the good people who are struggling to keep their family farms alive. The Senate has sent us a simple one-page bill, a bipartisan, noncontroversial bill that would extend bankruptcy protections for America's struggling family farmers. We could pass S. 1920 as it is, and tonight it could be on the President's desk to be signed into law. That would restore the chapter 12 bankruptcy protections for family farmers that expired at the end of last year. Instead, we have before us an election-year dog and pony show. House Republicans have replaced this simple bill to extend a helping hand to family farms with a controversial 500-page bankruptcy overhaul bill, the same legislation that this body passed in March of 2003. They have transformed a bill to help family farmers into a symbolic protest against the other body for not taking up the bankruptcy bill. Mr. Speaker, the House has routinely approved extensions of chapter 12 so that our family farmers are protected from the hardships of the global economy and so they can access the necessary funds to run their farms. Now is the time of the year when farmers must borrow in order to prepare for spring planting. If this House fails to extend bankruptcy protections for our family farmers today, many will not be able to convince their local banks to provide them with the necessary cash and credit to buy new seed. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to help our family farmers today? Are we going to pass the extension of chapter 12 that unanimously passed in the other body? Are we going to send it to the President today for his signature? Or are we going to engage in political theatrics and once again subvert the legislative process? Several members of the other body have already announced that they will not, I repeat they will not, accept S. 1920 back if the House attaches the larger bankruptcy bill to it. So what are we doing here other than punishing and putting in peril the livelihoods of our family farmers? Mr. Speaker, I would humbly like to make a suggestion to the Republican leadership. Instead of using struggling family farmers to send a message to the other body, I suggest that they simply walk across the Capitol and consult with their fellow Republican leaders in the other body. They should leave family farmers who need this bankruptcy protection out of their disputes. Mr. Speaker, we have many critical problems facing our Nation today. Unemployment, an economy that is not creating jobs, and a health care crisis are just a few of the problems we are facing here today. Instead of this piece of political theater this afternoon, we could help struggling American families by passing a clean version of S. 1920, and then we could take up measures to extend unemployment insurance. Instead, we continue to ignore the almost 8.5 million unemployed Americans and the thousands more who have lost hope and who have given up looking for a job. People are losing their jobs, running out of unemployment compensation, and are being forced to pay their mortgages and buy food using their credit cards. Their personal debt becomes so great that they have no choice but to file for bankruptcy, which speaks to the need for genuine bankruptcy reform. Instead of addressing the fundamental issues facing Americans, we are wasting our time with this political sleight of hand, rehashing a controversial bill that passed last year, but has no future in the other body. Family farmers are being used as political pawns. The procedures and rules of the other body are being disregarded and the rules of this body are being manipulated and twisted in the process. Mr. Speaker, the language this rule substitutes for S. 1920, the language from H.R. 975, the larger bankruptcy reform bill passed last year, is still very flawed. The rhetoric around bankruptcy overhaul paints a vivid picture of scheming people running up huge debts, buying extravagant houses and expensive cars just before they run to their local bankruptcy court to avoid paying their bills. But the reality is that only 3 percent of people who file for bankruptcy are these kinds of cheaters. In order to stop these 3 percent who abuse the system, this bill takes the dramatic, sweeping step of harming the 97 percent of the people who are forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code because of illness, unemployment or divorce. In fact, nearly half of the people who file for bankruptcy protection do so because of medical bills and the financial consequences of illness or injury. Middle-class families are only one serious illness away from financial collapse, and the impact of medical costs is highest on women, families headed by women and among older people. Mr. Speaker, I am also very disappointed that the substituted language still does not include provisions to hold perpetrators of violence against women's health care clinics accountable for their actions. As part of a coordinated strategy, perpetrators of clinic violence have filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying judgments against them for violating Federal law. This bill would allow them to discharge these judgments and get away with breaking Federal law and trampling the constitutional rights of women. Mr. Speaker, the Congress should be seeking the enforcement of Federal law and protection for the meaningful exercise of constitutional rights, not attempting to undermine it. Mr. Speaker, this body still has an opportunity to do the right thing by our family farmers. A substitute will be offered by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), to permanently authorize Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which would, once and for all, guarantee these bankruptcy protections for our farmers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Baldwin substitute and to stop holding our family farmers hostage in a game to coerce through legislation that primarily benefits wealthy corporate contributors at the expense of struggling farmers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.