Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration should give the greatest weight in making critical policy decisions to readily available hard science data, including evidence from the natural sciences, physical sciences, and computing sciences.

Will the gentleman yield?

As the chairman of Agriculture knows and is fully aware, I wanted to underscore the point that you just made that the ordinary mandatory authorization for this program is $165 million. That has been zeroed out, and the only thing we're doing this year is this $15 million. And so even at the current $15 million level, it's still 150 less than it ordinarily has been.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I wanted to make a few notes on it. I appreciate my friend for offering it, and I think he's raised some very serious philosophical questions, particularly about Pub.L. 490, the foreign food program.

I wanted to point out we have reduced that by 31 percent in this account, but we've also reduced the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Account, as he's well aware, but his amendment would actually increase that 10 times. It's at $11 million, and he would bring that up to $111 million. The highest funding level for that was in FY 2010 at $43 million, and so we have been ratcheting it down using a voucher program but feel that it was overfunded.

The Rural Business Program Account right now is about $64 million, so this amendment almost doubles that. It doesn't quite double it. But there again, we have brought that account down from a high of $97 million; and with his amendment, it would go up to $164 million. These two accounts would go to higher levels than they historically had. And in contrast, the PL 480, the foreign food program, is at one of

the lower levels that it has been at. So I have to say to my friend that I'm sorry to reluctantly oppose you, but we are going to oppose the amendment at this point.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I think Dr. Broun has raised a lot of good points in terms of our financial future. In America today, for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. The national debt right now is 95 percent of the GDP. Clearly, we have to make some very difficult choices ahead. And that's why, in this committee mark, we actually have reduced WIC funding already $686 million.

Now, these numbers aren't random. WIC participation in 2010 was 9.2 million; in 2011, it's 8.9 million. Our committee mark for FY 2012 contemplates a participation level of 8.3 million. However, if the economy does not improve and the number goes back up, with contingency funds, we have enough money to fund a participation level of over 9 million.

But it's very difficult, Mr. Chairman, because, as we said many times during yesterday's debate, the only budget that has actually passed either House is the Ryan budget, and our 302(b) allocation funding level comes from that budget. The President's own budget failed in the Senate 97-0. The Democrat leadership in the Senate is unable to pass a budget. They're not trying to pass a budget.

So using the 302(b) allocation which we have, we have come up with these numbers, not done in random, not done with any recklessness at all. We're trying to be very careful to make sure no one falls through the crack.

But because this is a delicate card house, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for putting this discussion on the table, because I think that it is important for us to look at the WIC program and make sure we are doing everything as efficiently and effectively as possible and we are putting the money in the right direction.

We had a very thorough, about a 6-hour debate about WIC yesterday. It is a delicate card house that we are trying to balance with our committee mark. But I think the more sunshine we have, not just on WIC, but on other Federal feeding programs, I think the better product we are going to come up with. So she and I have had some discussions on this. We are going to continue to have discussions on it. But I wanted to say I think it is a good debate to be having, although I am not supportive of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Number one, we have actually reduced this account 31 percent. Again, as I have said many times, passing an appropriation bill that is building a card house, there's a delicate balance. I have got my friend, Mr. McGovern, who believes that we've cut too much. I've got my friend, Dr. Broun, who believes we haven't cut enough. And so we're trying to move this legislation.

I wanted to talk a little bit about PL-480 and say a couple of things. Number one, there is a national security interest in it. This is not about international charity alone. We do have an interest. America needs to be engaged around the world. When there is a natural disaster or manmade disaster, if we're not there, who will be there? And this is very important. My friend Mr. Dicks is here, former chairman of the HAC-D Committee, and knows that in terms of the national defense, we have soldiers right now as I speak in 60 different countries around the globe. Now, they are engaged for a reason. It's not a job-creation program. They're keeping an eye on national security interests.

If you travel in Africa or travel in South America right now, you'll see a new player that was not there 10 years ago, and that is the country of China. China is not necessarily an immediate threat to us, but it is a concern to us. China is rising as a military force and certainly as an economic source, and they are engaged all over the globe. Often our international programs, including food programs, keep us engaged and gives us an opportunity to have some doors open which we would not ordinarily have.

America provides 57 percent of the food aid in the world, followed by the EU at 27 percent and Japan at 6 percent. Right now, China is not a major player. The oil-rich Middle East countries certainly aren't major players. But it is about engagement. And it's interesting that we have a balance between developmental aid and emergency aid. Because if there is a Haitian disaster, we're the first on the ground trying to get food to the people. But we need to also be there with developmental aid to make sure that these countries are independent and that these countries do know how to grow their own food and have their own resources.

So I just want to emphasize again that this program has been trimmed already 31 percent, and it seems to me the balance that will get this bill over to the Senate so that we can negotiate further on it. We are in many, many different countries around the world.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out some of the things that this program is doing in Pakistan, Haiti, the Sudan, and Afghanistan. And I will submit that for the Record.

P.L. 480 Title II

History

For more than 50 years, the United States Government has

played a lead role in meeting emergency humanitarian food

needs through P.L. 480 Title II (Title II). Some of the first

U.S. food assistance resources assisted the war-devastated

economies of Europe. As these economies regained their

strength they began to pay for American farm commodities.

President Eisenhower signed P.L. 480 Title II into law in

1954 and it was later renamed the ``Food for Peace'' Act.

Current Need and Impact of Cuts

Currently, overall U.S. funding to WFP feeds on average 35

million people. A cut of Title II to $1,040,198, as marked-up

by the House Agricultural Appropriations sub-committee, would

mean that 15 million people--primarily women and children--

suffering from hunger as a result of conflict and natural

disasters would lose access to life saving food. These cuts

would significantly reduce the United States' ability to

address instability in volatile countries and decrease its

capacity to respond quickly to the needs of hungry people

affected by natural disaster or armed conflict.

Title II Assists People Affected by Natural Disasters

Pakistan

In July 2010, floods ravaged Pakistan, affecting millions.

WFP was able to reach people quickly and began to distribute

food just days after the record monsoon rains began. The

first food to reach the affected population was funded by

U.S. Food for Peace. The first helicopters that lifted food

to remote valleys in Swat and the northern regions were also

carrying U.S. food. Within the first month, WFP was able to

reach approximately 3 million people and then scaled up very

quickly to 7 million. Life-saving support was then followed

by early recovery activities which included school feeding

and nutrition support.

Story from the field: Razia Bibi and her family were badly

hit in the floods that devastated Pakistan last summer. Razia

lives in a little village called Chandia in central Pakistan.

She and her family lived on an embankment for a month last

summer as monsoon flooding flattened all the homes in her

community. As floodwaters subsided in September, they started

to pick up the pieces of their lives. Monthly food rations

from WFP have kept them going while they have rebuilt their

house and life has slowly returned to normality. Razia and

her husband sold their three goats, their last major assets,

to rebuild their house using high-quality bricks that would

be more resistant in case of another flood. In December 2010,

Razia picked up the family's last food ration. Now that her

husband is back at work and they have a house, she and her

family are able to support themselves. Their six children are

back at school and because of food assistance they were able

to get back on their feet.

Haiti

In Haiti, in the immediate aftermath of the January 12th

earthquake, WFP began providing assistance within 24 hours

and swiftly organized general food distributions. Only six

weeks after the quake, WFP assistance, through partners such

as World Vision, was reaching more than 4 million people, 35

percent of which was from the U.S. government. In the

following months, WFP also put in place safety net

interventions--including school feeding and nutrition.

Following the large general distribution, school feeding was

the quickest safety net intervention to scale up, reaching

over 500,000 school children. At the request of the

Government, WFP then scaled up to assist 1 million children.

In October, a take-home ration was also given to family

members to get children back in school, especially those who

had dropped out after the earthquake. WFP also launched a

blanket supplementary feeding program to all children five

years of age and under and pregnant/lactating women.

Story from the field: When the earthquake struck Haiti in

January of 2010 Cassandre Chery and her family were just

leaving their home. A piece of concrete fell and broke her

foot but otherwise they were uninjured. Her home, however,

was badly damaged. ``It's difficult to find work now,'' said

Cassandre who used to be a beautician. Her husband also has

trouble finding work. Their two girls, who live with them in

a tent in Port-au-Prince, were forced to go hungry some days.

But now Cassandre is back to work and she is rebuilding her

country with a food for work project with World Vision and

WFP. She receives food and cash to work clearing rubble from

roads and drainage channels. ``This works means a lot to

me,'' she said. ``It has helped me pay school fees and feed

my two daughters.''

Story from the field: At Sister Mary Bernadette's primary

school in Port-au-Prince, students began gathering after the

earthquake, though classes had not yet resumed. Most had lost

their homes, and a family member or friend. They came in

search of support and in search of something familiar. As

plans came together to begin makeshift lessons, WFP started

distributing daily meals to Sister Mary Bernadette's

students. ``They'd simply be too weak to study if they

weren't able to eat something at school,'' she says. ``It's

important for them to have a meal here. Most of them come

from very poor families.'' Sister Mary Bernadette says that

the food ``helps [them] to study and stay focused in class.

When they don't eat, they don't hear, they don't listen, they

don't see.'' A year after the earthquake, things in her

school are improving. During the summer break, crews tore

down the damaged building and workers are now putting the

final touches to temporary classrooms. The students seem to

be recovering too, said the school principal. ``Some of them

are still struggling though. When you lose a member of your

family, your mother or your father, you just can't forget.

But we do our best to help them.''

Title II Assists Those Affected by Conflict and Helps Restore and

Maintain Stability in Volatile Regions

Sudan

WFP assistance in Sudan, reaching 6.7 million people, has

been a critical stabilizing factor since the Comprehensive

Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in 2005. In 2010, nearly

half of assistance to WFP in Sudan was generously provided by

the U.S. government. This assistance has provided stability

throughout the South Sudan referendum process. Readiness,

contingency measures and pre-positioning, has allowed WFP to

respond quickly to any situation, including the current

population displacements in Abyei (an area between south

Sudan and Sudan). WFP's strategic engagement for post-

referendum South Sudan is vital for ensuring a smooth

transition. WFP's engagement will support the restoration of

sustainable assets for the communities, infrastructure

(feeder roads), safety nets (school feeding, seed protection,

nutrition), strategic food reserve, Government capacity in

food security analysis, and support to smallholder farmers

through purchase-for-progress.

Story from the field: Food assistance has played a critical

role in southern Sudan over the last few years and has been

key in supporting families returning home. Grace Lado, a 25

year old mother of 2, fled fighting in Juba in southern Sudan

when she was only 7 years old. When her family decided to

move back a WFP food ration made it possible. In spite of the

deteriorating security situation, WFP is currently feeding

some 530,000 people across southern Sudan. In addition to

food assistance WFP is also helping to repair roads and

assist farmers across the region so that those the country

can get on a path to sustainable growth. Until then, however,

these lifesaving food rations are helping people to build a

stable and secure foundation in a country that is hopeful for

a brighter future.

Afghanistan

In 2010, the U.S. government supplied 36 percent of the

assistance to WFP in Afghanistan, enabling WFP to assist 7

million people (or 25 percent of the population) and, through

its strategic engagement, helps deploy an effective system of

safety net interventions and build sustainable assets for the

communities through food-for-education, food-for-work, and

food-for-training.

Story from the field: When Taliban forces arrived in their

village Jamila's husband lost both his legs during the

fighting. Jamila's family was forced to sell their farmland

to pay for his treatment and they suddenly found themselves

unable to feed their four children. ``I will never forget the

day I realized we had nothing to eat,'' Jamila said. Her

husband's family refused to provide assistance and told her

to marry off her teenage daughters in order to get dowry

money. Jamila's husband, frustrated, depressed and hungry,

often took his anger out on her. All of that changed,

however, when Jamila began a training program with WFP that

provided her with a new set of skills while her family

received food rations. Now Jamila is able to support her

family by selling children's clothes to a local shop. ``Now

that I have a skill and am providing for my family, all the

members of my family respect me,'' she says. By providing

food aid while Jamila received training she was able to stave

off hunger while she built a new life for her family.

Story from the field: For years the people of Dega Payan

had to travel five hours on foot or by donkey to the nearest

medical clinic. Travel by car was impossible as there were no

roads leading to their remote village in one of Afghanistan's

poorest provinces (Badakhshan) which has high level of

undernutrition and food insecurity. Now, as a result of a WFP

program that employed local villagers to build a road while

providing their families with much needed food assistance, a

road has been completed connecting Dega Payan to the larger

town of Ziraki, where there is a clinic. This has made the

village accessible by road and allows local farmers to get

their crops to markets more easily and allows traders to

bring supplies into the village that were not available

before.

McGovern-Dole International School Meals Program

Background

Approximately 2.7 million children receive McGovern/Dole

school meals through WFP, which helps them fight short-term

hunger, increase their concentration/performance in school,

encourages parents to send them to school, and helps girls to

get an education. A better educated girl will make more

informed choices and will grow up to raise a more food secure

family. Promoting girls education is crucial in countries

where there are serious gender disparities. Every $50 cut in

the program would deny a child access to food for a whole

school year. Without a daily meal, many poor children would

not attend class with long-term ramifications for the child,

the community and the country.

Story from the field: In Afghanistan WFP hands out take-

home rations of vegetable oil to approximately 600,000 girls

(in addition to the on-site meals) as an incentive for the

parents to send their girls to school. In a school in Laghman

Province, one of the teachers told WFP ``There are more girls

coming to school now because of the food. Before I had six

classes, now I have twelve.'' In the same region, girls'

enrolment increased by 40 percent by end of 2008 from the

baseline data 2 years earlier, and attendance rate for girls

improved by 30 percent from baseline. Families realize that

girls are bringing income by going to school. A girl at the

same school queuing for her oil ration said ``We are so happy

to get this oil. We are poor and our family is happy with us

since we can bring something of value to our homes''.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of the Lummis amendment. I am disappointed that she is planning to withdraw it and that we will not be having a vote on it. We had a vote on it in full committee. It was actually Mr. Moran's amendment that pulled it out. I did not support the gentleman from Virginia's amendment because I believe there is a lot of emotion that goes on when we are dealing with a horse. It still is a private property issue, a personal property issue, and while I do not own horses, I have family members who own horses. I know that you do have to have someplace to move the horse on to when it ages out on you.

It is very emotional in America. We look down at other nations that eat horses, but I have eaten horse before. In Kazakhstan I ate horse, and it wasn't bad. But we as Americans, we have an obesity problem, so we can pick and choose what we want to eat and what we don't want to eat, and people feel like, well, we are too good to be eating horses. I understand that, but the rest of the world does eat horses and I think, frankly, that is a different discussion, as my friend from Virginia knows. But I wish we were having a vote on it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in strong support of the amendment and believe that while it may be an emotional issue--and as my friend from Virginia said and my friend from Indiana said, emotion is good. I think that there can be emotion on both sides. But there's also a lot of logic in the gentlewoman's position, and that's why I'm a strong supporter of it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Madam Chair, I would like to speak to the point of order.

The gentleman says, If not now, when? It is our intention to restore this at the proper place in the bill, the DeLauro amendment. I wanted to clarify that because we've discussed that, and we intend to follow through with that.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I think the amendment is well intended. I think the author is well intended. Rural America is hurting. Rural America is really under a depression. We have not done a very good job of having a rural strategy for America.

I applaud Secretary Vilsack for trying to pull together programs to invest in rural America and make sure that the different agencies in the Federal Government are working in collaboration. And I think this amendment addresses some of those issues, not in a collaborative way but just in putting more money into rural America. But unfortunately, that good intent is offset by the evil done in taking it out of the foreign ag account. And I can't support the amendment for that.

I appreciate my good friend from Oregon's (Mr. Blumenauer) sentiments. And as ranking member of the House Ag Appropriations Subcommittee, I am a strong supporter of these conservation programs used both in Oregon and in my State of California. And I am distressed by the proposed cuts to these programs.

I would like to point out that the Farm Bureau also opposes large cuts to the important working lands program and the Environment Quality Incentives Program. I find it especially disappointing that these funding levels are low enough that the USDA will have to break current contracts. That is an unfair result for our farmers and ranchers who have counted on the support and technical assistance for the year ahead.

The funding levels for the 2008 farm bill were carefully negotiated, and it is frustrating to me and to many others to see the mandatory funding for conservation programs decrease so drastically because this bill was given such a low allocation.

It's very interesting that your colleague from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) just a minute ago was trying to add money to this account because of the catastrophe in rural America. This Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program is primarily to repair very low-income rural housing. This account was increased from the request of the President by the committee. The effect of this amendment would be to knock it back, and the reason the committee increased it was because of the need out there.

We know what kind of a housing crisis we're having in America, particularly when people have no other place to go. This allows the lowest of income people in the poorest areas in the country, in rural America, to have some assistance to upgrade their houses so that the cost of high utility bills can be brought down with weatherization upgrades and things like that. I mean,

this is not a smart cut. This will be hurting the people who can least afford it and at a time when they most need it, and I would oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would be curious if, at your town hall meeting, you got up and asked people would you rather take $604 million out of the program that feeds women, infants, and children or would you like to take $604 million out of the Defense Department for a war that we're putting on a credit card, for an Afghan war that we're putting on a credit card, the Iraq war we're putting on a credit card, or the prescription drug program that wasn't paid for under the Republican program? How about asking the people's choices?

We just authorized a defense bill in committee where we talked about billions and billions of dollars, and those are all borrowed money. So why don't we get our priorities straight?

We spent 3 hours here last night discussing what the implications are of cutting the WIC program. I don't think this is a country that wants to balance its budget on the backs of the poorest people in the United States, on the people most vulnerable, on the people that need just basic services. And that's what this amendment does.

Mr. Broun, I know you're interested in cutting, squeezing, and trimming, but there are places to do that, and this is not one of them. Certainly, if you were here on the floor listening to the passions of last night, of 3 hours of debate on what the implications were for cutting the WIC program--and it seems that none of that was listened to by you because this is an amendment that goes right back to reducing that account by $604 million.

Take the money out of the people most vulnerable in the United States to write down the deficit and ignore the Defense Department, ignore the spending for weapons programs, ignore the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ignore everything that is with DOD, and expose everything that's with people in poverty.

This is a wrong amendment, and I hope it's soundly defeated.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, how many times do they have to keep attacking the WIC account, women, infant and children?

America has long decided that we ought to be taking care of the most vulnerable people in America. There are women who are pregnant, low- income, and what we've found is if you don't invest in teaching them how to have proper nutrition during their pregnancy, you have a risk of having a low-weight baby. A low-weight baby, as Dr. McDermott told us yesterday on the floor, can cost up to a quarter of a million dollars in incubation and hospital costs, and this is preventable with good nutrition.

We go on to teach women, once that baby is born, how to breast-feed that child. We know that is good health practices. And then we keep the children with nutrition in the first 5 years. That's why it's called women, infant and children; it's about pregnancy, birth and raising that child. And this amendment wants to take $82 million out of that program which instructs women how to do proper breast-feeding and works with the States to do educational programs.

We spent 3 hours last night debating the consequences of these cuts. And it's one of those penny-wise, super-pound foolish. It's also one of those where you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is a lot of value in keeping women well nourished during pregnancy and certainly keeping that newborn child well fed and nourished.

To strike money from this program is ill founded, and I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

This amendment reduces $100 million for Food for Peace. I don't know if the gentleman from Arizona was here last night, but there was a lot of discussion about the American image abroad. Certainly, at a time when the world economy is hurting, this Food for Peace program is exactly that.

We buy American goodwill. We buy this food from American farmers. They produce it. We buy it. We ship it in American ships, and we distribute it in a food program that buys a lot of goodwill for America at a time when the conflicts of this globe are generated in cultures of poverty, where people don't have access to proper nutrition, diet.

I know from being a Peace Corps volunteer that the first thing people try to do is figure out where they're going to get enough food to eat. You can't go to school with kids because you're

hustling to get firewood or you're hustling to get water or you're hustling to find anything that will produce food for the day. A woman can't do any of the other things, maybe raising livestock, if she is just trying to hustle for food all-day long.

I mean, it just seems to me that the most basic investment in preventing violence and war is the investment in nutrition and in trying to get fed particularly those people in the poorest sectors of the world. We've got Sub-Saharan Africa, and if people don't get fed there, you're going to have migrations of millions and millions of people, and there is going to be no place to put them. Nobody is going to want a big immigration of starving people from other parts of Africa. It's going to have an impact on us. Our intelligence agencies tell us it's a security threat.

An investment in food for people at the basic level is absolutely essential. This is food raised by American farmers, paid for by American dollars and sent where it is most needed in the world. It is a very good program, and it does, indeed, trade food for peace and stability, so I think it would be unwise to cut it by $100 million.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to point out that you used the term ``nanny state.'' Since we're government, I don't think anybody wants to be responsible for everybody, to be responsible to raise the whole society; but I do think that this help that you give people from the Federal Government and from local and State governments is absolutely essential.

When you don't have that infrastructure of social services and needs there, I'll tell you what happens--people still have those problems. Only they don't have a place to go get them. So do you know what they do? They knock on your door. In America, we don't have to open our door day after day, with somebody holding a baby, as I saw in the Peace Corps. There were people all the time with dead babies, infants. There were people who were begging for money to bury them properly or there were people asking you for extra food after you finished your meal. They know what time you eat, and ask, Can you give your leftovers to us?

We don't have that in America because we have an infrastructure that takes care of people. I think, if you totally wipe that out and say, well, leave it to charity, charity is just voluntary. It doesn't always work. When the markets crash, the charity isn't there. Poverty is still there. The need is still there. You saw it as a doctor, and you know you've serviced people who couldn't pay their bills; but you do have Medicare reimbursements and other kinds of Medicare reimbursements so that you can, even if they can't pay their bills, get some form of payment. If it were all left up to voluntary, the doctors would have to serve people who just have no money. I don't think all the poor people in America would be taken care of.

So we do have to concern ourselves with how much care and spending we do, but at the same time, don't wipe out the programs that are essentially the life support systems of a society that is as rich as America. We can afford to take care of the people most vulnerable, whether they are aging or infants, and I think a lot of the discussion here has been about trying to delete the programs that help people at their most vulnerable stages of life.

Again, I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that these cuts, squeezes, and trims hurt the most vulnerable people in America and abroad. My good friend talked about a fiscal disaster that we are having in America and then just goes amendment after amendment attacking the people that are most vulnerable. This one just wipes out the entire program.

I wish the Member had been here to watch what happened in the early part of this decade when a partnership with the rich was created in this Congress to help in every tax way possible, in every expenditure way possible, in building up the war machine to respond to Iraq and Afghanistan. The rich got richer. The corporations that built all the equipment for our men and women in uniform got a lot of profits. We did that by putting it all on the credit card of the American taxpayer. We just charged it up. Yes, we ran up an incredible deficit.

The gentleman fails to look at the other side of the coin. He talked about the fact he had been in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps was also put on that tax credit card. The uniform, the free medical service he got, the food that he ate while he was a Marine, all those things, thank God, we paid for. But then to say, okay, we're going to now reduce this fiscal disaster by just attacking the most vulnerable people in the world and wiping out the Food for Peace program.

Where are we? Where is the image of America? Where is that heart and soul? Where is that feeling of people that love our country because of the handouts we do give at a time of need? We're there to respond to disasters. And we can't just be that responder that says, okay, we're going to respond with our war machine. We've got to respond with our heart and our soul and the character of American human beings, which is very giving and very compassionate. To wipe out the Food for Peace program is not a wise thing to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

How much time do I have left?

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in finishing, I would just like to say, there is some inconsistency and insincerity here in stating what you did as a profession and then cutting these programs, because these go to the children that we think the medical profession so much appreciates trying to care for. I mean, if you can't feed children, if you can't feed women, and you can't feed infants, no matter where in the world they are, problems are going to occur. Big, serious problems. That is not fiscal conservative. That is just not very intelligent.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I just want to make one short comment. What happens in this program is that we contract with countries to create these incentives to get kids to go to school. And you have heard the incredible stories that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Jim McGovern, just gave us on his experiences in visiting these countries.

It's not only that these contracts are made with countries so they have to put something into it, but they also have a way of working themselves out. So it's not one of those, going back to Congressman Broun's comment earlier about Nannygate--this is a ``work yourself out of a program.'' You can get off the program by having it work. And then you can move the moneys to another country. So I think it's an outstanding program and worth keeping and certainly this cut would ruin it all.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, I hope that we don't have more of these ambush amendments that we haven't had a chance to really look at. And this one really has serious implications. What it seems that this amendment does is, first of all, reduce the tobacco industry's fees that they have to pay the Federal Government. This is a big help to the tobacco industry. It cuts fees that the private sector has to pay the Federal Government. And what do those fees go into? Into campaigns to reduce tobacco consumption and to treat the issues related to tobacco. That's the way the amendment reads to us.

And I'd just like to remind the author that I represent California. California has, time after time, put taxes on the ballot to increase tobacco taxes, and they've passed overwhelmingly. And we use those fees that would come from the industry from the sale of--not even the industry, they come from the user to run very effective anti-tobacco campaigns.

We reduced smoking in California almost to zero. I mean, it's incredible. Most cities in California don't allow any smoking in public places. The communities I represent on the coastline don't allow you to even smoke on the beaches. You certainly can't smoke in public buildings and in any other kind of public space, even in public places that are privately owned.

So to do this, to ambush the anti-tobacco campaign with this amendment is just--it's a giveaway to the tobacco companies and reduces the fees they have to pay and hurts the ability to eliminate the illness caused by tobacco; and anybody who's had cancer in their family, as I've had, is very, very aware of the illnesses caused by tobacco users.

I think this is a very dangerous amendment and, hopefully, the gentleman will withdraw it. If not, we ought to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was going to introduce an amendment, but I just want to make a statement and I'll withhold the amendment.

The statement I want to make is about what this underlying bill does to FDA. It cuts FDA, Federal Drug Administration, by 21 percent, about $580 million. On top of that, the FDA has to absorb another $37 million in higher rent costs. So we're really talking about a reduction to FDA of about $600 million. And yet we keep the law in place so they have to continue all the current requirements and activities that are mandated to them.

This kind of cut means that 2,000 fewer domestic and foreign inspections of firms that manufacture food and medical products can be made. This kind of cut means that more than 9,000 fewer FDA import inspections to verify that imported food and medical products meet safety standards. This kind of cut means there will be 4,000 fewer food and medical product samplings to identify safety problems.

The amendment that I was going to introduce would have moved some funds from the Commissioner's Office to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, or known as CDRH. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health is responsible for bringing new technologies to market, and to make the medical devices that are already on the market safer and more effective.

The FDA has implemented a more streamlined process by which medical

devices can get to market called the Innovation Pathway. But with the cuts to the FDA budget in this bill, the Innovation Pathway will become Innovation Roadblock.

At a hearing at the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on February 17, 2011, the Director of CDRH, Dr. Jeffery Shuren, testified that these cuts: ``The Innovation Pathway would be a non-option. And for the rest of what we do, this would result in increased delays in decisions. It would deny patients truly safe and effective innovative technologies. And it will result in jobs being lost.''

So moving funds, even nominal funds, to CDRH makes a point that we would have to maintain a commitment to getting critical medical devices to market and to patients.

The other point I wanted to make is the Center for Devices and Radiological Health is also responsible in part for the FDA advances in medical countermeasures. This medical countermeasures program extends across several FDA offices. The program coordinates the appropriate responses to national medical catastrophes. For CDRH, that means putting in place the right medical responses to radiological threats, threats like a dirty bomb, a rogue nuclear device, or even a natural disaster like the one that occurred in Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami.

This isn't just a health concern. It's a homeland security concern. Unless we are ready to handle these emergencies, many, many people could die or be permanently disabled. We have to prepare. The CDRH can do that for us, but not with a budget cut like the one the FDA is facing. The 21 percent cut in the FDA budget means the public health of Americans is put at risk, is put on hold. Medical safety devices are put on hold. Medical countermeasures are put on hold. Radiological treatment improvements, like new forms of x rays, PET scans and MRIs are put on hold.

I say it again, the 21 percent cut in the FDA budget is not good for America's health. I wish that we didn't have to adopt a budget with that kind of a cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I'm just curious. I have a point of inquiry for Mr. Broun.

Mr. Broun, do you lease a car?

You just drive your own private car?

So you want to cut this account that is vehicles for the Department.

And how do you expect them to get around?

Well, I don't think we can operate government on a maybe, and I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would eliminate one of the 20 different conservation programs USDA currently operates, the water rehabilitation program. The chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from Georgia, has stated during debate on funding for agriculture programs that he hopes to see a reduction in the number of Federal programs included in this bill.

I understand that some of my colleagues have a vested interest in this program, but when we have a program that is funding projects in only a handful of States, we must take a long, hard look at our priorities.

Mr. Chairman, even the President did not request funding for this program. It cannot be understated that we are facing unprecedented fiscal challenges in our Nation. We just simply have to stop spending money that we don't have, and we have to start creating jobs out in the private sector. My amendment, by cutting this program, will help to stop the bleeding economically that we're having. The consequences of failing to reduce spending and the deficit jeopardize the current and future stability of our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise to offer my amendment, which would reduce the budget for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program by over $20 million. My amendment would drop the allocation for this program from $32 million to just around $12 million. This is a modest request, particularly considering the President initially asked for a funding level of just $12 million, and we would simply be dropping the levels back down to what the administration, itself, requested.

It is absolutely critical that this Congress cut spending wherever possible; and if the President could do without that extra $20 million, so can we. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this Nation has almost a $14.5 trillion debt. Forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends, we're borrowing. We've just got to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington. And both parties have been guilty over the years.

This amendment would simply cut 10 percent out of a program--10 percent. Some people say, well, it's just a small amount of money. But as I was doing a town hall meeting back, during last week, in Georgia, in Hoschton, Georgia, one lady got up and said, $1 million makes a lot of difference. It is a lot of money.

This does cut a great deal of money out of this program. But, Mr. Chairman, we just have to stop spending money that we don't have. It's just absolutely critical. The economy depends upon it. Creating jobs in the private sector depends upon it. The future of our Nation depends upon it.

We're in an economic emergency, Mr. Chairman, and if we don't stop spending money that we don't have, we're going to have an economic collapse of this Nation.

I'm a physician. I've worked in emergency rooms. I've seen a doctor open up a man's chest and do open-heart massage in the emergency room trying to keep a patient alive.

It's time for open-heart massage of our economy. We've got to stop spending money that we don't have. We've got to put this country back on the right financial course and start creating jobs out in the private sector. And my amendment will be just one small step towards that.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment so that we can put this country back on the right course, so that we can create jobs in the private sector and can have a strong economy again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In answer to your question, I want to do both. I think every dollar that the Federal Government spends needs to be looked at, and we're spending money that we don't have, even in DOD. I think we would cut a lot of funding there, particularly with the wasteful spending that the Department of Defense does that we all recognize.

So I want to do it all. The thing is, if we continue down this road that we're on economically, everybody's going to be poor. Nobody's going to have money for any groceries. Nobody's going to be able to get any health care. We're just going to be in a financial quagmire as a nation. And so it's absolutely critical, in my opinion, that we do emergent procedures to try to get this country back on the right course economically.

So, to answer to your question that you asked me very graciously, I answer, yes, we need to do all of the above, and I am eager to do both.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment which would cut $175 million in FY 2012 by eliminating the Foreign Agricultural Service. This is a corporate welfare program that essentially gives handouts to private businesses that don't need taxpayer dollars in order to grow their profits. It is essential that we make significant cuts to our budget this year and focus on reducing our deficit and tackle our debt. This is an unnecessary program and a waste of money that we could use to reduce this fiscal burden.

I understand the position that my dear friend from Georgia is in. It is true that the Ryan budget is the only budget to pass either House. I supported the Ryan budget, and I supported the Republican Study Committee budget, which would have reduced even more money from this bill.

Regardless of how one voted on a particular budget, we all have an obligation to move the debate in a direction that calls for more serious spending cuts. It is critical for the economic future of our Nation. It is critical for our children and our grandchildren. It is critical in creating new jobs and having a stronger economy here in America.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment following this one that would have totally eliminated funding for this program and, thus, would have presented a problem to the House. So I am going to withdraw my amendment since Dr. Gosar has introduced his.

It is absolutely critical that we stop spending money we simply do not have. Frankly, I don't like transferring money from account to account, because I think the only transfer that we should do is the transfer into the debt reduction program so that we can reduce the Federal debt. It is absolutely critical for the economic future of this Nation.

Since I am going to withdraw my amendment following this, I wanted to get up and speak about this particular amendment and just say that I really appreciate what my good friend from California (Mr. Farr) was saying about poor people. I am a medical doctor, and I deal with problems of nutrition for my patients. I appreciate what Dr. Foxx did with her amendment about eliminating this breastfeeding program.

But you see, we are constrained by the Constitution--or should be-- and Congress has gotten way, way away from the original intent of the Constitution. We cannot try to feed everybody in the world. We cannot continue to try to be a nanny state for everybody, even in this country. In the private sector, if we mobilized them, there would be plenty of dollars to take care of the needs of American citizens as well as those of the people around the world by leaving dollars in the hands of the private sector--in people's hands, in churches, in synagogues, in mosques, and in different areas--with the Salvation Army, et cetera.

So I think we need to as a Congress start being fiscally responsible, but we have been fiscally irresponsible for many years during Democrat as well as Republican administrations, as well as under Democrat- and Republican-controlled Congresses. We just have to stop spending money.

I appreciate Mr. Farr, and I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate your comments.

But, you see, when I was sworn into the Marine Corps and when I was sworn into Congress--now three times--I swore to uphold the Constitution. I believe in this document as our Founding Fathers meant it, which means very limited government. In fact, we are destroying the very thing that has made this country so great, so powerful, so rich as a Nation, which is constitutionally limited government, the free enterprise system, private property rights, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and morality.

It is absolutely critical, if we are going to have a bright, shining star of liberty over the heads of America, that we rebuild those foundational principles. That's what I'm fighting for and will continue to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, as I spoke on the previous amendment, we just don't have the money. It's very altruistic of my friends on both sides to want to feed people all over the world. I very much would like to be able to do so, but we can't feed our people here at home. We've got a high jobless rate. We just have to simply stop spending money that we don't have. And this would just zero out the balance of the funds if my friend from Arizona's amendment is indeed passed into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, as we look at where we're going as a Nation, we've got to be focusing on jobs and the economy. We have to leave dollars in the hands of businesses, particularly small businesses. Leave the dollars in the hands of individuals so that they can take care of their own needs and their own communities instead of building a bigger and bigger Federal program to try to take care of everybody's needs all over the world.

We just simply do not have the money. And it just has to stop. And it's time to stop right now. We're headed toward an economic cliff in this Nation. And it may be very soon where we're going to be off that cliff, where everybody in this country except for the extremely wealthy are going to be forced into just tremendous poverty.

We have a potential of having riots in the streets and bloodletting in this country because of the great debt and spending that's going on. We're destroying jobs. We're destroying our economy. And it just must stop. The sooner, the better. My amendment would simply zero out the rest of the funds in this program. I think it's critical for us just to stop spending money.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA State Department ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Programmed food aid, 2010 Voting practices in the UN, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2010--received food aid Votes only (%) Overall (%) Important (%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algeria......................................................... 30.4 81.7 16.7

Angola.......................................................... 30.6 81.9 33.3 Burkina Faso.................................................... 32.3 82.7 25.0 Burundi......................................................... 25.0 79.3 77.8 Cameroon........................................................ 44.7 88.9 60.0 Central African Rep............................................. 37.7 84.1 66.7 Chad............................................................ 0.0 66.7 0.0 Congo, Democratic Rep. of....................................... 46.2 87.2 75.0 Congo, Republic of.............................................. 37.9 84.3 42.9 Djibouti........................................................ 33.8 82.8 40.0 Ethiopia........................................................ 32.8 83.2 44.4 Gambia.......................................................... 31.3 82.0 40.0 Guinea-Bissau................................................... 31.3 82.2 40.0 Kenya........................................................... 31.7 83.0 57.1 Liberia......................................................... 35.9 83.9 54.5 Madagascar...................................................... 32.3 82.5 44.4 Malawi.......................................................... 35.3 83.2 50.0 Mali............................................................ 30.8 82.4 30.0 Mauritania...................................................... 32.4 82.4 30.0 Mozambique...................................................... 27.9 81.1 33.3 Niger........................................................... 32.8 83.1 33.3 Rwanda.......................................................... 50.0 86.9 57.1 Senegal......................................................... 31.8 82.7 33.3 Sierra Leone.................................................... 38.6 83.6 55.6 Somalia......................................................... 28.8 80.7 27.3 Sudan........................................................... 31.4 81.8 30.8 Tanzania........................................................ n/a n/a n/a Uganda.......................................................... 8.6 76.3 60.0 Zambia.......................................................... 33.3 82.9 44.4 Zimbabwe........................................................ 30.4 81.3 30.8 Afghanistan..................................................... 34.3 82.4 46.2 Bangladesh...................................................... 32.9 82.2 77.8 Cambodia........................................................ 30.9 81.9 25.0 India........................................................... 25.4 82.6 14.3 Laos............................................................ 27.4 81.6 22.2 Nepal........................................................... 35.8 83.5 33.3 Pakistan........................................................ 21.3 81.2 22.2 Philippines..................................................... 31.3 82.7 33.3 Sri Lanka....................................................... 31.9 82.1 25.0 Tajikistan...................................................... 30.0 82.1 30.0 Yemen........................................................... 33.3 82.6 40.0 Colombia........................................................ 36.1 84.7 50.0 Dominican Republic.............................................. 36.4 83.4 36.4 Ecuador......................................................... 32.4 82.4 30.0 Guatemala....................................................... 37.9 84.2 62.5 Haiti........................................................... 31.8 82.6 30.0 Honduras........................................................ 63.4 83.6 60.0 Nicaragua....................................................... 30.4 81.7 15.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Dicks, I resent the fact that you accuse me of wanting to do harm, because I do not----

No, sir. Actually, it will do good.

The thing is, we come to the crux of the problem here in that some people in this body believe that the Federal Government ought to take care of everybody in the world, and I would love to be able to do that. There's no end of good things that can be done all over this world. But for you to accuse me of wanting to do harm to people, I resent that.

Sir, I have the time.

I do resent the fact that you accuse me of wanting to do harm. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if this comes to a point of order of taking down the gentleman's words, but I bring forth a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring a point of order about the gentleman's accusations that I want to do harm. I believe this meets the criteria of taking down his words, and I would like a ruling from the Chair regarding that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment which would zero out the McGovern-Dole program and save taxpayers $180 million in the coming fiscal year. We simply cannot continue to dole out money that we simply don't have, particularly when we're experiencing such a huge economic crisis and economic emergency here at home.

It's important to make serious cuts wherever and whenever we can, and this funding is not tied to a specific national security interest. So we can afford to do without it. I think we should do without it, but I'm offering my amendment, and I hope it passes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which would reduce the fleet of passenger vehicles that the USDA is able to purchase by half. Cutting the size of their fleet from 461 to 231 is a simple way to save our taxpayers some of their hard-earned money.

Mr. Chairman, I know many of my amendments cut programs that are near and dear to my colleagues' and their districts' hearts. We have heard clearly from our friends on both sides regarding that. But together, my amendments cut over $2 billion, and we accrue more than twice that amount of debt every single day.

It's time to make the hard choices for the greater good of our economy. We have to cut wherever we can, and cutting about 230 vehicles out of the USDA's fleet is another way to save taxpayers money.

I encourage people to vote for my amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

No, sir, I do not.

I do, indeed.

By 230 vehicles, yes, sir.

Well, maybe they could ride share. That would be a good way to save taxpayer dollars also.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to a previous amendment, to the Gosar amendment, which would eliminate the Food for Peace program and transfer it to rural development.

I also was going to rise in opposition to the gentleman from Georgia's amendment, which also goes after Food for Peace. I am glad he is withdrawing it, but I find it astonishing that there are so many on the other side who are attacking programs that I think are so vital to our national security.

Mr. Gosar's amendment would tell farmers that we will take away from them $1 billion in U.S. purchases of their crops so that we can borrow money in the form of loans for other purposes. That's essentially what he is proposing. Does that make sense to anyone?

So we tell U.S. farmers who have been selling wheat, rice, soybeans, vegetable oil, beans, peas, lentils, and other commodities to the U.S. Government that this market is closed to them. So long. Goodbye. Go borrow money. Go into debt. Take out a loan to develop the rural economy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I support the Rural Development program, and I obviously support the Food for Peace program. Both of them directly benefit American farmers. Mr. Gosar himself said Food for Peace title II (P.L. 480) merits support.

Well, let's talk about why. It supports U.S. farmers, millers, freight rail, truck, and shipping. Food aid provided by USAID is a lifesaving measure for 11 million to 16 million vulnerable people overseas. Our largest emergency food aid programs include Darfur and southern Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, and Ethiopia. U.S. food aid not only helps people survive; it supports

U.S. national security interests. It promotes stability and goodwill, especially in Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Our emergency and humanitarian food aid sends the clear message to desperate people in need that the American people care. The Gosar amendment sends the opposite message--that the American people don't care at all; go ahead and starve.

We need to support Food for Peace, and we need to oppose that amendment. But we also need to oppose amendments that gut essential food and nutrition programs for poor people not only here in the United States but around the world. This notion that somehow when we support programs like Food for Peace, that it's just helping a bunch of foreigners overseas, is just wrongheaded. It is American farmers that produce much of the food that goes to support the hungry around the world. It is American farmers that are so important in our battle against terrorism because, quite frankly, I think these programs, as Secretary Gates has said, do more to enhance our national security than anything else.

I urge my colleagues who are coming to the floor with amendments to gut these programs, to stop it. Enough. These are essential programs. They help people who are helpless overseas but also help support our economy here in the United States and help our U.S. farmers.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very, very strong opposition to this amendment gutting the Food for Peace program. Food for peace.

I find it somewhat ironic that we have people who oppose food for peace but support weapons for war without giving it a second thought. The fact of the matter is that this amendment would do great harm to some of the most helpless people in the world. I believe very, very strongly on a bipartisan basis that this amendment should be defeated.

The Food for Peace program has saved the lives of millions and millions of people. It is a good program. It is something we should be proud of in this country, and on a bipartisan basis, I believe, we are proud of the Food for Peace program. I think we need a big bipartisan vote to defeat this amendment.

I appreciated the chairman's remarks earlier, and I thank him for his comments on this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman. I would just say that, yes, we need to get serious about the deficit and we need to find ways to bring this deficit down. But taking food out of the mouths of children is not the way to do this.

I can go through a litany of things that deserve to be cut, from some of the subsidies that we provide some of the big agricultural businesses to the subsidization of the oil companies to some of the tax breaks for the Donald Trumps of the world. I would rather start there. But to take, to denigrate this program, I think, is wrong. This is something we should be proud of, and, in a bipartisan way, we should be proud of this. Presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this program, and this is vital to the survival of so many people around the world.

Again, I would reiterate what Secretary Gates said. These programs, these developmental programs, are important to our national security. I'm going to tell you, they do more to help improve our image and protect our security around the world than a lot of these other programs that we have that export military hardware all around the world. This is important. This is real. This saves lives.

I would urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to soundly reject this amendment and let us support food for peace. Let us support food programs for the poor. That's who we are. That reflects well on this country. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is simply a bad amendment. It eliminates funding for one of the U.S. signature programs to reduce child hunger in the world. I helped establish the George McGovern- Robert Dole International Food For Education Program, first as a pilot project in 2000, and then as a permanent program in the 2002 farm bill. It has always had strong bipartisan support, including from my colleague and my friend Jo Ann Emerson and then-Congressmen, now- Senators John Thune and Jerry Moran.

McGovern-Dole has one basic goal: provide at least one nutritious meal to some of the world's most vulnerable children in a school setting. It has reduced the incidence of hunger among school-age children. It has increased school enrollment and attendance. It has increased the support of families and communities for education, especially for girls.

McGovern-Dole is a proven success. Instead of cutting its funding, let alone eliminating it, we should be scaling it up. The cuts to McGovern-Dole already in the bill would end school meals for more than 400,000 children. Eliminating the funding would literally take the food out of the mouths of over 5 million of the world's most vulnerable children.

Mr. Chairman, it's bad enough to ignore hungry children. It's even worse to give a hungry child a meal, to give their parents hope for a better future, and then take it away. These are not just numbers in a bill. These are real living, breathing human beings, real children who are in school, many for the very first time because the U.S. is working with local communities to advance education and nutrition.

Now, I've visited some of these programs around the world. I respectfully suggest to those who want to eliminate them to first go and see with their own eyes what they are doing on the ground, look these children, their parents, their teachers, their community leaders in the eye, and make sure you want to tell them you don't care if they go hungry or get a chance to go to school.

In Colombia, I visited a program in Soacha, on the outskirts of Bogota. On barren hillsides, surrounded by shanties housing thousands of internally displaced families, children were receiving a school breakfast and lunch. Mothers and grandmothers were training as cooks, preparing the meals. Clearly visible in the cafeteria were

USAID bags of grains, beans, and lentils.

One mother came up to me and said, Please thank the American people when you go back home. I couldn't feed my children. I couldn't send them to school. I was afraid my son--who was 11 years old--was going to join the paramilitaries or the guerrillas just to get food. Now my son is getting fed, and he's staying in school. Please tell the American people thank you.

In Nairobi, Kenya, in the largest slum in the world, I went to a McGovern-Dole breakfast and lunch program. I was amazed by the students' energy and achievements. The school principal showed me how they store and prepare the U.S. commodities that feed her students and how all the students know that this is a program from the people of the United States of America.

I ate a cereal mush made from yellow peas, grown by American farmers, in a room full of children. The kids dug into this food like it was manna from heaven. One little boy would take a bite and then scoop a small amount out of his bowl and put it into his pockets. He was taking food home to his younger siblings who don't get anything to eat at all.

Outside of Nairobi is Masai country and a school for girls where McGovern-Dole provides a hot lunch. I helped cook and serve the meal of U.S. bulgur wheat and locally grown vegetables. One student told me how grateful she was to go to school and eat every day.

She grew up in a village over a hundred miles away. When she was 12, her father told her that she had to marry a much older man. She refused. Her father ordered her to go to her uncle's house, get his machete, and bring it back to him. She knew that her father was going to kill her. She ran away, walking alone for days, because she had heard of this school. She was then 15, healthy, well-fed, and at the top of her class. I knew I was talking to someone who could be president someday. In the very best way, this young woman will never forget us.

And in the very worst way, when we take food away from children, families, and schools, those communities will never forget us either. They won't forget that we took away their children's future. I wouldn't forget it if it were my child. Would you?

Mr. Chairman, there are many ways to advance U.S. national security and economic interests abroad. Education and child nutrition are very much at the top of that list. It is important that we support the McGovern-Dole program. This has enjoyed incredible bipartisan support, and I'm going to tell you this does more to enhance our national security than sending weapons to countries all over the world.

The people who benefit from this program know it comes from the people of the United States of America. This is a good program. Support the McGovern-Dole program. Reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments and to thank her for her leadership not only on this issue but on some of the other issues to help hungry children around the world.

I just want to also commend her for making the point that in the McGovern-Dole program, there are provisions that require that countries graduate out of the program. So this is not a permanent U.S. handout, if you will. This is some support to help get established school feeding programs that will, one, get more kids in school; and two, give kids a nutritious meal.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Madam Chair, I wish to be heard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me clarify what insisting on this point of order means.

It means that the amendment that Ms. DeLauro offered in committee, which was approved in the Appropriations Committee, is nullified, which means that Brazilian cotton farmers get subsidies and poor pregnant women and children do not get the money for WIC.

I have nothing against Brazilian cotton farmers, but Brazil's economy is doing pretty good right now.

The Rules Committee could have protected the money for WIC. The Rules Committee waived points of order against a whole bunch of stuff in this bill except for three provisions. So it wouldn't have been unusual or extraordinary for the Rules Committee to protect this provision. Many of us pleaded with the committee to do just that, to respect the work of the Appropriations Committee when it came to protecting WIC, when it came to protecting poor pregnant women and children.

Madam Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle say all the time that they're with us in trying to cut excessive subsidies and putting the focus back on the people here in the United States who need help. This would have been an opportunity. If not now, when are we going to do this?

So, Madam Chair, I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would reconsider and not insist on their point of order. I think poor pregnant women and children in this country who benefit from WIC are more important right now than subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment today is an effort to save taxpayers' hard-earned money by ending funding for an unnecessary program that spends money coming to the Federal Government from our hardworking taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I very much believe in breast- feeding. We wouldn't have a human race here today if it weren't for the fact that breast-feeding has been in existence since the beginning of time; however, I am opposed to the Federal Government funding breast- feeding programs.

Under the special supplemental program for women, infants and children, or the WIC program, Congress directed the United States Department of Agriculture to create a national program for the promotion of breast-feeding. In fiscal 2010, the Federal Government spent $85 million to educate women on how to breast-feed.

We are facing a national debt of over $14 trillion. Spending taxpayer money to promote breast-feeding is simply not the proper role of the Federal Government and serves to illustrate just one reason--government mission creep--that we are so deeply in debt.

In the last 10 years, administrative costs for the WIC program have grown by 72 percent while enrollment has increased by only 26 percent. It is difficult to understand how this program's bureaucracy has grown three times as fast as its enrollment. Again, it's an accepted fact that breast-feeding is good for infants and mothers, and I support mothers who choose to breast-feed, but coaching women on breast-feeding is not the role of Washington.

This program came to my attention earlier this year because of the budget crunches that all levels of government are feeling. I was contacted by counties in North Carolina about this program, and it was brought to my attention that most of the money is being used to pay salaries and benefits, some is being used for travel expenses, and some is being used for cell phone use so that the peer counselors are available 24 hours a day to the people that they are counseling.

My colleagues across the aisle will shout about this, and I may even be opposed by my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but last year my colleagues across the aisle cut more than $550 million from the WIC program to fund unrelated activities at the USDA. These were totally unrelated. It was obviously not a high priority then.

If we want to promote the health and well-being of women, infants and children, then let's get serious about it by creating a job-friendly environment that puts people back to work and allows American families to keep more of what they earn. Let's stop spending money on every well-intentioned program and return the Federal Government to its constitutionally mandated purposes.

Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of Washington taking their hard-earned dollars in taxes and wasting it on a bloated Federal bureaucracy. It's time we stop the culture of spending in Washington. That's why I urge adoption of my amendment, which will save taxpayers $82.5 million in just 1 year. The money will go into the Spending Reduction Account. And I want to say my total concern here is the spending of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on a program that the Federal Government has no business running.

Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that I need to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and offer an amendment that was not printed in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take advantage of this mistake that I made. I appreciate the indulgence of the ranking member and the chair of the committee, and I will just say that I would appreciate very much having the support for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me.

I think it's unfortunate that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle characterize our doing our best to bring fiscal sanity to this country by saying that we do not care for people who are poor or disadvantaged.

Mr. Chairman, I grew up as poor as anybody in this body, and I know what it means to be poor and to be hungry. I have no malice toward any person in this country, none, no malice toward anyone in this body. However, we are on the verge of a fiscal disaster in this country. There are many things that could be done at the local level and the State level, that should be done at the local and State level, but absolutely should not be done at the Federal level.

Again, my colleagues across the aisle come here and say what a shame it is that you are picking on the WIC program. Well, they took over $500 million out of the WIC program last year, put it in a totally unrelated program and said nothing about it. We didn't come to the floor and say, you are mistreating poor and disadvantaged women and children. No comments were made about that.

Again, I think it is very unfortunate that that is how we are characterized. I believe that we have an obligation, an obligation given to us by God, to help our fellow Americans who are less fortunate than we are. But it is not our responsibility as Members of Congress to tax hardworking Americans who are working all the time just to pay their bills and survive and use that money to help other people. That is not our job. Our job is to do everything we can to create a good environment in this country for everyone to succeed, and that is the direction that I want to go. By lowering our dependency on foreign governments, we will make our country a better place to be.

As my colleagues have said over and over and over again in the debate on this bill, we are borrowing 43 cents for every dollar that we spend. We have a $14 trillion debt. There is a huge debate about our raising the debt ceiling that is going to be facing us. Do we really want to ignore the opportunity to save $82.5 million in a program that has no business being run out of the Federal Government and help us deal with the big issue that is facing us? That is what Congress should be dealing with. We should be dealing with the big issues. We should let these other issues be dealt with at the local and State level.

I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding.

I just want to make a point in response to my other colleague from Georgia. I agree with him. We are bringing light to many of these programs, and I think it is very important that we do so.

I want to point out again, the WIC bureaucracy has grown three times as fast as its enrollment in the last 10 years. This is an increase of $800 million in administrative costs. If we are not prepared at least to cut administrative costs and programs that have no business being offered at the Federal level, then we are never going to get control of our debt and our deficit. I want to encourage both my Republican and Democratic colleagues to think about this. We have got to have accountability and we have got to start cutting, especially in the area of administration.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.