Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I recommend to the Committee H.R. 2112, the House Agriculture, FDA, and CFTC funding bill for fiscal year 2012, and I want to make a few remarks about it.

Number one and foremost, because a lot of people are very concerned about the allocation for this bill and the funding level, I want to remind everybody of a couple of things: Number one, our national debt is now 95 percent of the GDP. It's $14 trillion. For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed.

Now, both parties have fingerprints all over this. We have all overspent. For example, for 8 years under President Bush the national debt increased $3\1/2\ trillion. Way too much. And yet, in contrast, in just 3 years President Obama has added to the national debt $5 trillion, an increase of 56 percent. And so much of this is due and owed to foreign countries, and much of it to China. Can you imagine what kind of deal Communist China, a major competitor of ours, would impose upon us if they forced us to restructure our debt? We have to do it ourselves.

Now, the House has passed the Ryan budget, which many people oppose, and I understand that. But I want to point out the President of the United States' budget failed in the Senate 97-0. Harry Reid voted against the President's budget. And in the House, the Congressional Black Caucus offered a budget that failed. The Congressional Progressive Caucus offered a budget and it failed. The Republican Study Committee offered a budget and it failed. The Democrat Caucus offered a budget and it failed. In the Senate, budget plans were offered by Mr. Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mr. Paul of Kentucky; both failed. The only budget that has passed either body is the Ryan budget, and that's what we are looking at today, those numbers.

Now, I understand there's a lot of reluctance to make some of these tough decisions. Today in America 61 million people receive monthly government checks. That's anything from welfare to Medicare to farm payments to veteran retirement to Social Security--lots of people receiving lots of money. These programs are enormously popular, and they're deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. Therefore, reforming these programs is very, very difficult. And to further complicate things, 47 percent of American households do not pay income taxes. For them the status quo is working just fine.

So addressing these things is very difficult. And if you look at the spending pattern in the last several years, it's frightening: March, 2008, $29 billion to bail out Bear Stearns; May of 2008, a $168 billion stimulus package from the Bush administration; in July of 2008, $200 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; then in November of 2008, $700 billion for TARP, or the Wall Street bailout; and then in January of 2009, $878 billion for the Obama stimulus program, which, by the way, Madam Chair, was to keep us from getting to 8 percent unemployment.

Now, we're hovering between 9 and 10 percent, and I don't need to remind you but this is the 1-year anniversary of the ``summer of recovery.'' There has not been any recovery. We're still looking for those jobs. Spending our way into prosperity does not work. If it did work, we would be having prosperous times right now.

So the Ryan budget for this bill is $17.25 billion, our reduction of $2.7 billion, approximately a 13\1/2\ percent decrease in spending, and yet, despite this, because of the mandatory spending portion of this bill, the bill actually has a net increase, mostly driven by food stamps and the school lunch program, which have gone up about $7 billion between the two of them. We still have a net increase in this bill.

Now, there's going to be a lot of discussion on lots of different accounts, and one of them is the WIC account, the Women, Infants, and Children account, something that I'm very concerned about, something that all of our committee has always supported on a bipartisan basis. But last year, there was some money taken out of it, $562

million, to settle a lawsuit which had nothing to do with school nutrition. A lot of the critics are going to be saying WIC has never been cut. Last year, the Obama administration cut WIC $562 million.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

USDA numbers show that WIC participation has dropped 300,000 from February 2010 to February 2011, yet we are still funding it at 8.7 million people. We do not intend for anybody to fall through the cracks. If there is a shortage, there are three discretionary accounts that we can draw upon: a contingency fund of $125 million; a carryover fund, which is in excess of $350 million; and the Secretary's interchange authority, which is $210 million.

There are a lot of things in WIC we can do to improve to make sure that children don't fall through the cracks. Right now, for example, 49 percent of the kids in America participate in WIC. Do we really believe 49 percent are impoverished? Perhaps it's oversubscribed. Maybe we can work with the WIC folks on that.

We had a very healthy debate about WIC overhead, and the USDA has given us conflicting numbers on that. We're planning to meet with the USDA and find out what the real story is. I understand there may be amendments to say let's all agree what an overhead limit should be for WIC and then not spend money on overhead for that.

We are concerned about these things, but I want to close with this. Today, in America, a child under 5 years old is eligible for 12 Federal programs. After that age, he or she is eligible for 9 Federal feeding programs. At 65, you're eligible for 5 different Federal feeding programs. We want to make sure no one falls through the cracks and no one goes hungry, yet at the same time, is it possible that some folks are eligible for not just three meals a day but maybe four and five?

And can we enter into that discussion without a lot of finger- pointing and a lot of emotion? Can we also talk about the fraud and the misuse and the administrative costs without a lot of screaming and hollering? I think we can. I look forward to that debate, and I recommend passage of this bill.

I. 14 percent down.

Reflects the House Rep/Ryan budget which reflects our attempt to deal with the national debt.

A. I don't need to lecture anyone on the national debt but I need to remind all of us on a few facts:

1. At $14T the national debt is 95 percent GDP.

2. For every dollar we spend $.40 is borrowed.

3. While both parties have been responsible for this the spending by this administration has been tremendous. For example, the national debt under President Bush increased $3.5 trillion in 8 years. Way too much! In contrast, however President Obama has increased it by $5T in 3 years. That's 56 percent.

4. Much of this almost half is due to foreign countries, China being a high leader.

If we don't address our debtor crisis eventually our creditors will. With a communist country as a major competitor can you imagine what China could impose on us? It's nothing I want my children and future generations to deal with. We have to do it ourselves.

B. Let me continue with the Ryan budget we hear non stop changes from its critics that it's too harsh but where is their alternative?

1. The Potus has been all but absent. In fact his own budget was rejected by the Harry Reid Democrat led Senate 97-0.

2. Other proposals have been furled as well:

a. In the House:

Congressional Black Caucus.

H. Amdt. 256 to H. Con. Res. 34.

Failed by recorded vote: 103-303.

Congressional Progressive Caucus.

H. Amdt. 257 to H. Con. Res. 34.

Failed by recorded vote: 77-347.

Republican Study Committee.

H. Amdt. 258 to H. Con. Res. 34.

Failed by recorded vote: 119-136.

Democratic Caucus:

H. Amdt. 259 to H. Con. Res. 34.

Failed by recorded vote: 166-259.

b. In the Senate:

Toomey's plan to balance the budget in 9 years:

Failed 42-55.

Rand Paul's plan:

Failed 7-90.

3. Having failed to pass a budget in either the House or Senate, it seems the POTUS and Harry Reid have given up. That's correct there no ongoing negotiations, conferences or hearings. They have totally abandoned their duty and obligations.

C. One can understand cowardice when we look at political realties.

1. Today in America 61 million people receive monthly government checks. That's anything from welfare to Medicare, to farm payments, veteran retirement and social security. Lots of people receive lots of money.

2. These programs are enormously popular and deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. Reforming these programs is at best politically difficult even if both parties dealt in good faith and earnestness.

3. To further complicate the situation 47 percent of American households did not pay income taxes. For them the status quo is just fine.

i. According to the tax policy center.

D. Continuing our spending path has not created prosperity. Think about the big ticket items in the last few years. March '08 $29 billion to bailour Bear Sterns, May '08 $168 billion for the Bush Stimulus Package, July '08 $200 billion for the Fannie May/Freddie Mac bailout, Nov '08 $700 Billion TARP/Wall Street Bailout. Jan. '09 $878 billion for the Obama Stimulus bill which by the way was to keep unemployment below 8 percent but it has bounced between 9-10 percent ever since.

Real growth comes from less government, less job killing regulations, a tax structure that is simpler, clean and fair.

E. One last word on the Ryan budget. Despite the spending reduction in discretionary accounts be of entitlements, food stamps and school lunch there is a net increase in spending! That's right at $17.25 billion, a reduction of $2.7 billion below FY2011 or 14 percent discretionary, the mandatory spending has still increased from $105 billion to $108.3 billion, resulting in an overall increase of 283 million! Food stamps have increased $5.6 and school lunch $1.5. Thus one more time underscoring the need for long term entitlement reform.

II. Our bill attempts to move us in this direction. Mr. Farr and I have had 11 hearings. These were long with several rounds of questions. We don't agree on all issues but we found much common ground and where we disagree no one was shut out of the process.

III. I will now go through some specific accounts.

A. Research is funded at $2.2 billion. Almost half goes to Agriculture Research Service at $993 million. This allows ARS to focus on high priority items such as food defense and food safety.

1. It also includes vital pest and disease research such problems with the:

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.

Commerants.

Cotton Pests.

Sudden Oak Death.

Equine Disease.

2. Finally, I would like to point out that the bill assumes ARS will close 10 facilities, as proposed in the budget, and provides USDA with the authority to transfer those facilities to a land-grant or other agricultural college or university that agrees to continue agricultural related research at the facility for a minimum of 25 years.

One billion dollars on this account goes to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and gives level funding for land-grant university research.

B. Farm Programs are funded at $1.7 billion discretionary and $18.3 in mandatory or traditional as Ag programs specified in the five year authorized farm bill.

1. These programs are the target of much of the criticism and at least one awkward int'l into agreement w/ the Brazilian government over cotton. Mr. Fluke offered an amendment to affect this and committee act was passed; however if it is out of order and will be struck. Nonetheless our AS committees are planning to address it.

2. Also in this section of the Bill is Farm Service Agency funding at a level of $1.46. Modernization of FSA technology systems remains a committee priority.

The MIDAS, Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems, request was $96 million on top of $49.5 million from last year but USDA had reprogrammed $23 million for salaries. The heart of the MIDAS initiative is to improve the delivery of FSA farm program benefits and services through the re-engineering of farm programs business processes and the adoption of enhanced and modernized information technology.

3. Many members requested funding for the FSA Grassroots Source Water Protection program and the bill includes $3.6 million for this program.

Agricultural Credit loan levels are at $4.7 billion which is $95.8 million below the fiscal year 2011 level and the same as the fiscal year 2012 request.

C. The majority of the $910 million in funds for the Marketing and Regulatory Programs is slated in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Salaries and Expense account at $790 million, which is $73.3 million below the

fiscal year 2011 level. These funds will allow the agency to continue to control and eradicate plant and animal pests and diseases. The bill includes language that allows APHIS to access emergency funding to address pest and disease outbreaks.

In addition to other related programs at USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serves, this Bill provides $147 million for Specialty Crop Pests to control or eradicate invasive pests and diseases, especially for those pests and disease in California, and the west. Although this funding level is below the President's Request, this Program is funded at $4.4 million above the level spent in the fiscal year 2010. Within the program, we have also supported language from members regarding Sudden Oak Death.

D. Conservation Programs are funded at $787 million of which $770 million is for NRCS's Conservation Operations, which is $99 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. This allows NRCS to maintain its core conservation mission and will drive efficiencies to create more farmer- friendly programs.

The Watershed Rehabilitation Program is funded at $15 million, which is $3 million below the fiscal year 2011 level.

In addition to discretionary appropriations, USDA will provide $5.8 billion to farmers and ranchers through its mandatory conservation programs in fiscal year 2012.

(In the farm bill, the Agriculture Committee will review these especially the Conservation Reserve Program which pays farmers not to plant.)

E. More than $2 billion is provided in the bill for Rural Development Programs including section 502 low income housing loan level of $24.845 billion. The President's budget proposed a loan level for direct loans for $211 million and the bill provides for $845 million for this program that serves very low-income rural Americans.

Rural Water and Waste--$730 million is provided for loans, which is $242 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. $430 million is provided for grants, which is $28 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. We received many requests from Members for funding for the Circuit Rider program, and the bill provides $14 million for this purpose.

Electric and Telecommunications Program level is at $7.3 billion in the bill, which is on par with historical levels. The bill denies the budget request to limit the use of electric loans to renewable energy and retrofitting, and requests a report on baseload generation needs.

F. Food Safety and Inspection--$973 million--a funding level that will allow FSIS to maintain meat, poultry, and egg products inspection, as well as to expand poultry inspection system that results in a safe and more efficient poultry inspection regime that will result in a safer food supply.

III. Our committee had 2 good debates on the funding of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition programs.

Our mark attempts to address the aggressive marketing growth of WIC w/a funding level of $5.9 billion. Or 1.2 below FY 2011, which was 7,128,424,000.

A. We will hear from many that this hurts the nations most vulnerable but lets look at some fact.

1. Many critics act like WIC has never been cut but last year in order to pay for a completely unreduced program--a legal settlement on a farm loan dispute call Pigford the Democrats cut WIC by $562 m.

2. The latest data from the USDA shows a drop of 300,000 participants between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. However; our level still funds at the higher number of 8.7 m people which is the projection for

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chair of the Republican Conference, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I wanted to respond to the discussion of the CFTC. It's very interesting to me that there are those Members of Congress who believe that bureaucrats control the price of oil. While bureaucrats certainly do have influence on the price of oil, if you're really concerned about the price of oil, you need to drill for it. It's pretty simple--increase the supply.

Folks forget that Alaska is twice the size of Texas. The Arctic Wildlife Reserve area is the size of South Carolina. The proposed exploration area is 2,000 acres. It's about the size of National Airport here. We're talking about a business card on a basketball court. Yet you hear over and over again from people--who, incidentally, do drive fossil fueled cars--that we in America are inept and unable to drill for oil responsibly. If you want to decrease the price, you've got to increase the supply, and there is no better way than to drill your own oil.

Think about the absurdity of President Obama going down to Brazil and telling them, We want you to drill offshore. Apparently, the Brazilians are technologically more advanced than we are, and the President has much more of a comfort level with the people of Brazil than he apparently has with the people from Louisiana or from Texas or from Florida. He goes down to Brazil and says, Go ahead and drill offshore. We're going to lend you money, and by the way, we want to be your best customer.

Now, he never mentioned anything about the CFTC.

Let me tell you what Democrat Commissioner Michael Dunn said. This was, by the way, on January 1, 2011: ``To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or that position limits will prevent excessive speculation.''

What I suggest to you, Madam Chair, is that the discussion of the CFTC and oil speculators is a red herring. The real issue that the Democrats have failed to address is that of drilling for oil in order to increase supply.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to go back over this food situation. I and the gentleman from California, the ranking member, have had 11 hearings on this. We've had 11 hearings on the Agriculture bill, not on feeding programs specifically.

I want to again remind the Chair that this bill represents a net increase in funding, which is largely driven by the increase of $5.6 billion in food stamps and in the School Lunch Program of $1.5 billion. I also want to remind Members of the many Federal feeding programs that we have. For a 3-year-old child, there are 12 different feeding programs. For a 10-year-old child, there are nine different programs. For a 35-year-old, there are seven programs, and for a 65-year-old, there are five programs that people can apply for.

It is not the intention of this committee to let anyone fall through the cracks. The numbers that we have funded, for example, in WIC, contemplate what we believe is going to be the participation. Should that participation fluctuate, there are three contingency accounts that the USDA can access. It would certainly be our intention to have those accounts accessed before anyone fell through the cracks.

Now, I share in the frustration of the stimulus program that was supposed to create last year's summer of recovery. I'm sorry it did not work, because I would like to be out celebrating with the President. Yet the stimulus program, which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent, actually increased unemployment to the level of 10 percent. Now it's hovering a little bit above 9 percent.

The best thing in the world would be to have prosperity, and I believe that we can get there. One way we should get there is by drilling our own oil because, if you want to keep food prices down, you've got to keep the cost of distribution down, which would be something, I'd hope, that we could work together on.

I also think we need fundamental tax reform because I know one of the things that some on the committee have talked about are some of the tax loopholes taken advantage of by certain companies. I agree with them. That's why I support the Fair Tax, which is a consumption tax. It would actually give a tax credit to the poor so that it does not disproportionately hurt them, but it would close all the loopholes. That would be something else that we could do that would create jobs in America.

Finally, the excessive bureaucratic regulations that our farmers and small businesses have to put up with is killing job creation. If we want to do something to help people get off dependency and get to independency, we need to decrease the size of government. This bill moves us in that direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a great member of the committee.

Will my friend yield a minute?

I just wanted to say that we actually have had one more speaker show up. It sounds like you are closing. You might want to reserve some time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I have no further requests for time, I move passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

First of all, I think it would be real interesting, my friend from Massachusetts, and I mentioned this to you yesterday. I think we would both enjoy to see what the results would be if we googled our hearing and put in the word ``hunger'' and put in the word ``obesity,'' which one showed up the most; and I believe you are going to find we talked far more about obesity than we did about hunger.

The question that I have is, on the hunger, there are so many food programs out there and this bill does have a $5.6 billion increase in food stamps and $1.5 billion increase in school lunch, that maybe you and I together could focus on where this hunger is because it could be that there's maybe an ignorance issue more than a hunger issue, ignorance in that people do not know how to get these programs that are out there.

Let me yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Then let me reclaim the time, because I'm trying to have an adult conversation, and I clarified what ``ignorant'' means, and if you don't know about a program, then you're ignorant about its existence.

Let me reclaim the time, because I wanted to continue the discussion. One of the things that perhaps we could do a better job at is not only explaining to people where these programs are but also coordinating the actual program.

Now, the previous speaker said that some children--and I can't quote her exactly--might be getting four or five meals a day. I think it would be good in a time of fiscal restraint that we talk about, well, can we coordinate better.

Let me yield to my friend.

And that is substantial. But let me say this, the numbers that we're operating on, 2010, there were 9.2 million participants. This year, it's 8.9. Next year, the projection is less than that because 450,000 people less are on it. The base number on the bill would be about 8.3 million; but with the contingency funds, it could go over 9 million people. And as I have said to my friend from Massachusetts

before, we want to make sure no one falls through the cracks.

But I'm looking at these numbers, too, and I know that the group that has been cited many times, the numbers that they're using are a different base than what we're using. So I think some of this is actually about, well, what is that level, and I'm thinking it is the 8 to 9 million.

I yield to my friend.

I agree that there is an unknown factor on the rising cost of food that we're not sure about.

Will the gentleman also agree with me, though--and we've had a very spirited debate, which I know my friend----

We don't know the percentage food prices are rising, but we do know that this budget would allow with contingencies 9 million to participate, which is above the current level.

Now, I'm hoping that the economy does turn around, but I think it's very important, though, for us to be talking about some of these things that are in the mix like solid numbers, coordination of benefits, and also sources that people can go to, because the gentleman said, Folks don't know about this program, and we want to help them out.

Let me yield to my friend from Connecticut with the hopes that when my time runs out, my friend will yield to me as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do want to continue the discussion which we've had with our friends on the other side by pointing out something I think is very important. I have the vote from the CLAIMS Act, November 30, 2010, on which I voted ``no.'' This vote cut WIC $562 million. So far every speaker who's been on the floor voted ``yes'' to this bill. So in terms of following the rhetoric, it's very difficult.

I also want to point out we had a vote earlier this year, no, late last year, on extending the Bush tax cuts. I voted ``no.'' Did others on that side vote ``no''?

I'm glad my friend from Connecticut did.

I also want to point out we had a vote last week on the Kucinich amendment to get us out of Libya. I voted ``no'' on that. I'm not sure how you guys voted. I know my friend, Mr. McGovern, has been an absolute, very consistent critic of the money that we are spending and engagement we are having in the Middle East. And I respect his philosophy on that.

But the reason I want to point this out is because it appears that when one side tries to cut the budget, they're pushing children out the door. But when another side cuts the budget, it's okay.

The gentleman from Florida controls the time, and I recommend that he does yield to you.

I want to comment on that. But that's exactly what we're doing.

My friend from Connecticut, you know that's what we're doing.

The participation in WIC in 2010 was $9.2 million. Today it's about $8.8 million. This bill, because the level has dropped and is dropping, is at a level of $8.3 million, but can go over $9 million with the contingency. So I believe that when you cut WIC last year, you did it in good faith. I would only ask that you give us that good faith too.

Let me say my friend from Connecticut will agree, though, that if you, on your side, had not cut WIC $562 million, that money would still be there right now.

The point that I'm making, Mr. Chair, is that WIC is $562 million, not because of any Republican action, but because of the Democrat action. And you know what? I don't question anyone's motives on this side, and I admire their passion. And my friend from Connecticut is one of the most passionate persons in this body when it comes to WIC. And I respect that.

But we also have to look at some of these numbers because if they're just air-dropped into this bill, then I can certainly understand their outrage. But if we look at the long term, where WIC was 2 or 3 years ago, where it's going, and the fact that there are three contingency funds to pick up the slack on this, not to mention a number of other good programs.

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.

Will the gentlelady yield?

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. 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. 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.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee on this subcommittee, Mr. Farr.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 300 provides for an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2112, a bill which makes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have offered yet another open rule on this legislation, something we did not see when Democrats were in the majority for 4 years. House Republicans are keeping their promise to the American people by submitting a bill that contains no earmarks. House Republicans are keeping their promise to reduce spending and rein in the Federal deficit which threatens our very existence as a free country. This bill addresses many of the glaring inefficiencies of Washington by reducing wasteful and redundant programs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that, under the control of the liberal Democrats, kept growing and growing. In fiscal year 2008, this same bill had a price tag of $90.8 billion. One year later, fiscal year 2009, the liberal Democrats increased spending by 14 percent to $103.3 billion. And for fiscal year 2010, yet another liberal hike in the cost of appropriations to the taxpayer to the tune of $125 billion, representing a whopping 21 percent increase in spending.

The liberals claim that any cuts in spending for any program covered by this bill drives more people into hunger. Strange that they did not say that last year when these very same liberal Democrats cut $562 million from WIC so that they could spend it in unrelated matters. That is only one example of the lack of leadership, courtesy of our friends across the aisle.

Lest we forget, it was their failed policies that ruined the economy when they were in charge of the power of the purse. Their habitual and unending spending increases have not helped the economy as they had promised but, rather, have saddled our children and grandchildren with outrageous debt to pay off.

With better fiscal stewardship, our economy would be stronger and our country's job creators would be able to provide the jobs that our Nation's workforce is hungry for. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January 2007--the month that the Democrats took over Congress--unemployment was at 4.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January 2007, the month the Democrats took over Congress, with a Republican President, unemployment was at 4.6 percent. That number has nearly doubled under the eyes of the liberal Democrats and the Obama administration. Last year, the Democrats failed to pass a budget or any appropriations bill. There has been a complete lack of leadership on their side of the aisle and at the White House.

While it got very little publicity from the lame stream media, the Senate this year overwhelmingly rejected President Obama's budget proposal on a unanimous vote of 97-0; unanimous opposition to the President's budget and nothing said about it in the press. The Republican House budget that we sent to the Senate faired much better than the President's budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, we've seen nothing but a lack of leadership from the administration and the liberal Democrats in Congress.

The bottom line is that if we do not make sound and responsible fiscal decisions that focus on reducing spending and making the government leaner and more efficient, we risk forfeiting control of our own purse to debtor nations. The simple truth is that we are currently borrowing 43 cents for every dollar spent at the Federal level. To have foreign nations provide funds for so much of what our country spends is simply negligent and irresponsible. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has stated that the national debt is the single biggest threat to our national security.

Taxpayers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the national debt by 2012. To put that figure in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2011 defense budget is $685 billion. In order to grow the economy and provide an environment in which Americans can prosper, we need to end expensive and ineffective government programs and remove the barriers of uncertainty that prevent employers from hiring.

Many liberal elites are calling for higher taxes--higher taxes, Mr. Speaker--on hardworking Americans in order to pay for their irresponsible spending and fiscal decisions. The Democrat plan is to continue to borrow, spend, and tax, taking money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans.

A clear difference between liberal Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans do not claim ownership of the salaries of hardworking Americans and businesses that create jobs. Elite Democrats believe that they are entitled to take money from Americans and small businesses in order to carry out their liberal agenda, and job creators are left with whatever the liberal elites deem is necessary for them. You cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with higher taxes and more government red tape.

Mr. Speaker, American businesses need a clear perspective of what the future holds in order to create American jobs and strengthen our economy. The uncertainty and mixed messages that the Obama administration provide are completely counterproductive to achieving any kind of economic prosperity.

President Obama's economic policies have consisted of bullying businesses to help union allies, such as the case in South Carolina where the NLRB is telling a private company where to do business for the benefit of Big Labor bosses at the expense of 1,000 jobs in South Carolina.

When Americans needed a jobs agenda, President Obama and the elite Democrat-controlled Congress gave them a spending agenda. From the President's first day in office in January 2009 through April 30, 2011, the economy has lost 2.5 million jobs, an average of 3,044 jobs lost every day. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 150,000 new jobs are needed to be created each month just to keep up with population growth. The economy is not growing fast enough or strong enough to employ the 13.7 million Americans looking for work.

But the liberal elites seem content on sitting back and watching agencies expand the bureaucracy by coming out with an unending stream of job-killing regulations. This in no way helps create confidence in American business, jobs, or economic prosperity. The Democrat elites, indeed, have made history. The result of their liberal agenda has been trillion-dollar deficits, historic debt, and historic unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, we must empower America's job creators, small businesses, families, and entrepreneurs to

lead us to real job growth. More wasteful Washington spending isn't the solution. That's why Republicans propose saving Americans over $800 billion worth of tax increases by repealing ObamaCare and by adopting the appropriations bills that we are proposing now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am always having to help balance out the comments that my good colleague from Massachusetts is making. He criticizes Republicans for keeping tax cuts. Well, I have to explain to him his President, a Democrat, supported that. Most Democrats here supported that last year. We didn't keep tax cuts. We stopped tax increases. Even the President and his

people have a little sense about economics in that, if you raise taxes in the middle of a terrible economic situation, you create problems.

I would also like to point out to my friend from Massachusetts that they were in charge for 4 years. It was during those 4 years that we got into the mess that we got into. They controlled both Houses of Congress, and they controlled the Presidency for 2 years of that. Yet they didn't stop any of these things that they had talked about.

I will when I have completed my comments. I appreciate that.

He refers to this legislation as the ``pro-hunger bill.'' This tired claim by our liberal friends that Republicans are intent on starving children really goes beyond cliches now.

Putting that aside, my friend from Massachusetts needs to understand, if he really cares about the funding for Federal food programs, he should vote for the underlying bill. Why? Because it provides $6 billion for the WIC Program. Let me point out again that, last year, my colleague from across the aisle voted to cut the WIC Program, for a totally unrelated program, of over $500 million, $68.2 billion for food stamps, $180 million for the McGovern-Dole food program, and $18.8 billion for the Child Nutrition Program.

Perhaps these aren't the funding levels he would like to see, but I think my colleague knows that legislating is the art of compromise, and there are plenty of Members who would like to see deeper cuts to further enhance efficiencies in this program.

The bottom line is that by voting against this bill, using his logic, Mr. McGovern is actually voting to starve the children and to create more hunger by denying over $93 billion in overall Federal food assistance to the hungry people that he claims to support. In contrast, by voting for the underlying bill, he is voting to provide the funding he argues these programs so desperately need.

Let me do a recap of what is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Seventy-seven percent of the bill is SNAP, that is food stamps, child nutrition and WIC. Child nutrition programs will receive $18.8 billion in mandatory funding this year. That is funding that is on autopilot. This covers 68 percent of all school lunches and 85.5 percent of all school breakfasts, either free or at a reduced rate.

The SNAP, or food stamp program, $68.2 billion, provides support to 45 million people. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that we have 45 million people in this country getting food stamps. That is a result of the policies of our Democratic friends across the aisle. Again, WIC, $6 billion; CAP, $136 million; the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education, Child Nutrition grants, $180 million. There is a lot that the liberals can be grateful for in this program.

I would yield to a question from Mr. McGovern, if he has a question to ask me.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have plenty of time under his time to make the comments that he wants to make. I was more than willing to answer a question, but he will have time to make those comments when it is his turn.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, I am always very reluctant to talk about personal experiences on the floor, but I want to tell my colleague across the aisle that I grew up probably poorer than anybody in this body.

And I know something about what it means to struggle to get food. I know what that's all about. And let me tell you, there's nobody here who feels more strongly that more Federal Government involvement in this is not the right way to go. What we need is to be able to develop policies that allow people to get a job so they can provide for themselves instead of being dependent on the Federal Government to provide for them.

Let me talk about my colleague says budgets are moral documents. Again, my colleague and I don't agree on a lot of issues when it comes to policies, but we certainly agree on that: budgets are moral documents. And what the Republicans have done with the budget that we passed here in this body this year is to say to the American people, We understand that budgets are moral documents. We passed a budget. The Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year. So they didn't want to face up to it.

I don't know what that says about their morality, but I know what it says about Republicans' morality. We have a strong sense of morality. We passed a budget. We're being honest with the American people. We're telling them, You cannot continue to spend above your means. The average person understands that. And we are going to continue to be honest with the American people. We're going to cut inefficient government programs wherever we can.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that right now, if you are a 3-year-old child in this country, there are 12 Federal feeding programs to serve you. If you're a 10-year-old, there are nine Federal feeding programs. If you're 65 years old, there are five Federal feeding programs. We do not lack for programs to help take care of the hungry people in this country, Mr. Speaker.

What we lack is efficiency in our programs. And Republicans are going to do all that we can to make sure that we bring efficiency and effectiveness to whatever programs are funded here.

I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts talking about right-wing radicals because I associate myself with George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, who were right- wing radicals, along with the other Founders.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and eloquent chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Then I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again what my colleague from Georgia said. It was President Obama's agreement with the WTO that is forcing the funding for the Brazilian farmers. This is not something that Republicans did.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to ignore the facts. With skyrocketing debt and unacceptable unemployment rates, the Federal Government must learn to live within its means and be accountable for how it spends taxpayer money.

House Republicans are continuing to fulfill our pledge to America and keep the promises we made to the American people before the election last November. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentleman.

I want to comment on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who continue to make reference to wanting to reduce the deficit and that they are the only ones interested in reducing the deficit and that is what this debate is all about. The fact of the matter is that Democrats and Republicans are very interested in reducing the deficit. The biggest difference occurs in where one starts to effectuate a change in debt reduction, and I will tell you that that is what the basic divide is here.

Now, there are a number of ways in which we can reduce the deficit. One is

that we can look at the $41 billion in the oil subsidies that we grant every year. The oil industry is flush with money, when one CEO can make $21.5 million a year, make profits that are overwhelming, and gasoline in the State of Connecticut is $4.39 a gallon for regular gas. So let's start with the $41 billion and we can reduce the deficit.

How about the $8 billion that we provide to multinational corporations to take their jobs overseas? Now, that is another place where we could shut down the loopholes, gain some money and reduce the deficit.

There is also a third area. What about agriculture subsidies; not to small farmers, not to dairy farmers, but to big agribusiness. It might be of interest, in a political article that appeared this week, to indicate that there are some Members on the other side of the aisle whose States and whose families are rich in the subsidies they are getting from the Federal Government. We could start there.

Why are we starting with women, infants, and children and nutrition programs? That is an absolute dividing line of where one's values are. Democrats want to reduce the deficit. The place is: Where do you start? That is where your values are. We don't start with women, infants, and children and nutrition programs. Let's start with tax subsidies for the richest people in this country and with the special interests of this Nation.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and to the drastic and ill-conceived cuts to the nutrition programs that are proposed in this appropriation.

Under the majority's bill, our government cannot meet even its most basic responsibilities to the American people. For example, the Women, Infants, and Children program provides nutrition assistance grants to States for low-income pregnant, breast-feeding, and postpartum women, and infants and children up to the age of 5. It serves 9 million mothers and young children nationwide, and that includes 58,000 in Connecticut, my State. In fact, nearly half of the babies born in the United States every year participate in this program. It is a short- term intervention that can help provide a lifetime of good nutrition and health behavior. Over the first 60 days of a child's life alone, every $1 invested in WIC saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health care costs.

But the budget before us today would leave WIC with a $650 million shortfall. According to the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities, that means as many as 350,000 eligible women and children will be cut from the rolls. In fact, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has warned our subcommittee that this number could be as high as 750,000. And if you read his letter carefully, there is no carryover, there is no contingency fund, and there will be substantial reductions in the number of people who will participate in the WIC program. It is unacceptable at a time of such great economic difficulty. With the unemployment rate over 9 percent, more and more families are having to rely on these dollars.

In the past, support for WIC has never been a partisan issue. For 15 years, Republicans and Democrats have always worked together in Congress to see that every woman and child eligible for WIC can participate in this lifesaving program. In fact, Republicans and Democrats on our committee voted together to pass an amendment that I offered to provide $147 million more in funding for WIC before the Rules Committee today arbitrarily overturned that vote.

We cannot be taking food out of hungry people's mouths here at home in order to subsidize cotton production and to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers. It makes no sense. As my colleague, Mr. Flake, on the other side of the aisle noted at the committee markup, it is quite ironic that we would subsidize Brazilian agriculture so that we can continue to excessively subsidize agriculture here. This bill flies in the face of our longstanding bipartisan commitment. It will leave women and children hungry.

WIC is not alone on the chopping block. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides nutritious food to low-income seniors and those making less than $14,000 a year. According to a study by Feeding America, 30 percent of these households in need have had to choose between food and medical care, and 35 percent between food and paying for heat or utilities. But even in the middle of a very tough economy, this proposal slashes funding for the CSFP. That means an estimated 150,000 seniors all across the country will lose access to this aid. They, once again, will have to go hungry.

Take the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which works with States to supplement food banks, emergency shelters, pantries, soup kitchens. Right now, the hard work these organizations do in helping ensure access to food is more important than ever. In fact, the demand for emergency food assistance has shot up 46 percent over the past 5 years. This budget cuts funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program by $38 million--nearly a quarter below last year's funding.

Yet, while placing this tremendous burden on our most vulnerable citizens, the majority budget finds money to give subsidies to oil companies and tax

breaks to the wealthy. In fact, the cost of the Bush tax breaks for millionaires for 1 week is more than the cost of the proposed cut to the WIC program for the entire year. One day's tax breaks for the millionaires would pay for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.

This is what the majority has done. It's tax cuts for millionaires versus nutrition assistance. These are not the right choices for America. The American people know it. Gutting nutrition programs to pay for tax breaks for the rich is more than just a terrible investment in the future; it's a failure of our responsibility to the American people.

Oppose these reckless cuts.

I want to offer some solid numbers.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Georgia. Let me first comment on the $562 million. There have been several references to this in the course of the afternoon. This is the truth of this effort: $562 million in unspent WIC funds were cut last year. But the cut did not affect any participants. The reason it didn't affect participants is that WIC foods cost less. There were fewer participants in fiscal year 2010, so the funds were not needed. That shows you that because there was extra money in WIC last year, the funds----

But the----

Can I finish?

If the gentleman from Florida would continue to yield, the cut in this bill is different because it does result in the loss of benefits to

participants. That's not my word, but the Secretary of Agriculture has said hundreds of thousands.

And from our last conversation, which we didn't finish, you asked about rising food prices. And this is from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. I'm not making up the numbers. If the cost of WIC foods increases by 2 percent between fiscal years 2000 and 2012, the smallest increase likely, the proposed funding cut would force WIC to serve roughly 200,000 fewer people in 2012 and 2011. If it goes to 5 percent, the food cost, you'd have to cut roughly 350,000 people. These are actual numbers.

The fact of the matter is what we are not asking about is not utilizing funds if we don't need them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The point was is that we are looking at the potential and the fact of increased food prices. And again, the numbers are not mine, they belong to an organization that has very good credentials on both sides of the aisle in this town, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They are very clear that if that 2 percent increase in food price--and that's viewed as the smallest increase likely--happens, we will see roughly 200,000 fewer people. If it's a 5 percent increase in food prices, that there would be a cut of 350,000.

The Secretary of Agriculture said that the proposed amount of money would lead to hundreds of thousands of people being eliminated from the program. He also is very clear, as others have been, that there is no carryover money, there is no contingency fund. And the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reiterates the same effort.

With regard to the $562 million, my only point on that was, I am willing, others are willing to say if the funds are not needed at that juncture and they are extra, yes, they can be used for something else. No one is saying that the numbers have to be static all of the time. But the fact of the matter is we are in a different period in 2011 going into 2012, where there is much more serious economic difficulty-- rising food prices, rising rates of people who need these programs--and we're just saying let's have the money that we need in order to move forward.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today as the ranking member on the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee to draw concern to this bill. I know that we're in tough budget times, but even in tough budget times, people have to eat. It's my opinion that this bill makes it very hard for people to eat, particularly people who don't have any money.

The allocation for the FY 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill, as approved in the full committee, is $17.250 billion. This is $5 billion, or 23 percent, below what President Obama asked for. It's 14 percent below what Congress enacted last year. It's 26 percent below what the Congress enacted the year before. It's even below what we enacted in 2008. So it has taken the wind out of the hopes and food lockers of people who are most poor.

With the allocation that Chairman Kingston was given, I don't envy his position. He was forced to make these drastic cuts that will affect every heart of farm country, and I do appreciate the effort that he has made to invest our very limited resources wisely and cost effectively. In tough budget times, everyone has to tighten their belts; we all know that. I want to point out, though, that it doesn't matter if you're a specialty crop producer in California or a cotton or peanut producer in Georgia; if the resources are not available to deliver the program, then the effects felt by both producers and consumers in urban and rural areas are the same.

I know my friend Mr. Kingston did the best he could but agriculture is about feeding people. This isn't just about looking at the cost of everything. It's also examining the value. It's about making sure that America has the production capabilities and enough food to go around domestically and internationally. The bill almost makes that difficult, if not impossible, especially where nursing mothers and infant babies are concerned, because the WIC program gets whacked.

The bill also calls into question the United States' commitment to our international neighbors who have hungry and malnourished people that depend on our assistance to stave off mass starvation because the Food for Peace program is chopped.

I think there comes a point in budget exercise when you starve the program so much that it just can't function. I fear that this is where this bill is going, with several of the funding levels in this bill, such as implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act and the Dodd- Frank and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The United States is the greatest agriculture producer in the world. We produce more and we produce it more efficiently than any other country, but this bill will undermine the very resources that support our agricultural supremacy. I feel it is important to use this bill to strengthen our rural economy by investing our precious Federal resources, investing in expanding markets for agricultural products and supporting international economic development; by investing in developing alternative markets for agriculture products; by providing financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities, and infrastructure in rural America, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for; and most specifically, enhancing food safety and improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion. These are the things that America does best.

Madam Chairman, as we move through this bill, through the process again, I want to make sure that you understand that there are dire consequences to adopting this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and an outstanding player in the Rose Bowl from the University of Washington.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

How much time do we have remaining?

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, the former ranking member of this committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the Member from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Garamendi), former Lieutenant Governor of the State of California.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts, Mr. Steve Lynch.

Madam Chair, how much time do both sides have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the former ranking member of this committee.

Madam Chair, how much time does each side have remaining?

I yield such myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to, first of all, compliment Mr. Kingston, who is chair of this committee. He has come on as the chair, and I have come on as ranking member. We have both been on the committee for a long time and served under very distinguished chairs, two of whom are ranking members you heard here today.

It is really tough, because he has been given the allocation to fit all the programs within the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration within the allocation given him, and one can argue that that is it. I mean, we have to hide behind the allocation that was given. You have to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Let me say in this moment, in this allocation of time, that it is about values, and I think the big debate here is not just about how you cut, squeeze, and trim spending.

We have Members of Congress who have spoken today whose families receive millions of dollars in taxpayer money in commodity payments, in crop payments. We ought to be discussing that. What is the value of funding very wealthy people at the expense of taking food away from poor and starving children?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we've heard a lot today. We've heard a lot about spending, because that's what this bill is. It is an appropriations bill. But the talk about spending is wrong because it's not putting into the priorities what is really important in our service to the people of this country. We don't need to be here to protect the rich and to protect multinational corporations. We need to be here to protect the rights of people who don't have the wherewithal to have enough food on their table to take care of their kids.

What you've seen in the debate today is tax spending for the rich is okay; tax spending for the poor is not. Tax breaks for oil companies are okay; food for the poor is not. Cutting our Commodity Futures Trading Commission is okay, but paying for police to police for speculation and misuse of public moneys is not a worthwhile expenditure. Our priorities are not straight, and that's why there's so much criticism for this bill.

I applaud the chairman for working hard to try to get the committee to bring together a bill that could meet the allocation. But I think the allocation was all wrong and our priorities are wrong, and I ask my colleagues to oppose the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.