Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this shortsighted and I believe dangerous amendment that will increase suffering and misery all around the world and put American men and women in danger. And my colleagues have addressed that issue as well.

The appropriations legislation before us is already remarkably stingy with regards to international food aid. It cuts the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by 10 percent below the President's request and Food for Peace by an astonishing $650 million. It is a 38 percent reduction. Now Mr. Broun proposes to zero out McGovern-Dole entirely. This is a program that, as you can tell by its name, has been a hallmark of bipartisan leadership for over a decade now. It is a linchpin in our diplomatic efforts in developing nations.

Make no mistake. Cutting McGovern-Dole endangers our national security. Zeroing out this program, as this amendment calls for, would needlessly put the safety and the security of American families at risk.

For the first time in history, over 1 billion people--one in six--are undernourished worldwide. Every 6 seconds, a child dies because of hunger and related causes. And this hunger forces people into desperate acts and dangerous pacts. Famine and starvation create the conditions for militant extremism, the very extremism our troops fight in Afghanistan and around the world.

And so McGovern-Dole, and the international food aid it provides, is a crucial front in our efforts to combat global terror. We fight hunger and poverty, and we undercut the recruiting base of those who would threaten us. As former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote in The Los Angeles Times, ``Ensuring that no child goes to school hungry is the single greatest investment we can make in building prosperous, healthy, and stable societies.''

McGovern-Dole is that investment, and it works. Operating in 28 countries around the world, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, McGovern-Dole provides at least one nutritious meal each day to vulnerable children in schools. It has shown demonstrated success in both reducing hunger and increasing school enrollment and attendance, especially, as my colleagues pointed out, for girls. Otherwise, little girls in these countries don't get any education, and they don't get any food.

Last month, the GAO released a report on McGovern-Dole, and it called for strengthening monitoring by the USDA, accelerating the timeframe of reporting. It did not, however, call into question any of the objectives of the program. This program works. Since becoming a permanent program in the 2002 farm bill, it has reduced hunger and violence, increased education and nutrition, and has become a vital element in our international diplomacy. Zeroing out the program, as this amendment demands, would not only destroy all these many benefits for America and the developing world, it would mean 5 million kids will go hungry again, 5 million children. And yet, even as this amendment threatens to force millions into starvation, somehow the majority's budget still finds money for oil company subsidies and tax breaks for millionaires.

Cutting this funding is shortsighted in the extreme. McGovern-Dole works. It works for America. It works for developing nations around the world. It moves children from starvation to education. And it undercuts the recruiting ability of those who would do America harm.

I urge my colleagues, stand with our troops. Stand against hunger worldwide and oppose this disastrous amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this bill because it puts the interests of Brazilian farmers above the very real needs of American women and children. It leaves the very next section of this bill, section 743, subject to a point of order.

As everyone knows, the Women, Infants, and Children program provides nutrition assistance grants to States for low-income, pregnant, breast-feeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to the age of five. It serves 9 million mothers and young children nationwide, including 58,000 in my State of Connecticut.

Nearly half of the babies born in the United States every year participate in this program. It is a short-term intervention, but it can help to provide a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors.

While in our subcommittee, this appropriations bill slashed WIC funding by $650 million. That means that as many as 300,000 women and children will be turned away and forced to go hungry; and, in fact, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has warned our subcommittee that this number could be as high as 750,000.

To alleviate this glaring shortfall, my amendment to restore $147 million to the WIC program, paid for with $147 million currently provided to the Brazilian Cotton Institute, passed with a bipartisan vote during full committee consideration. But the rule for this bill arbitrarily took away the pay-for and, instead, requires that $147 million be cut out from WIC or other programs in this bill already woefully underfunded.

What are we doing here? We are giving the money back to Brazilian farmers. The majority has decided that is more important. Where is our sense of justice to women and children in the United States?

To be sure, there are many egregious cuts in this appropriations bill and not just to WIC. Other vital nutrition programs like the Commodities Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, school lunches, food safety, the CFTC, international food aid--all of these basic, commonsense priorities of the American people take a huge hit in this legislation, mainly so the majority can preserve oil company subsidies and tax breaks for the rich.

To their credit, even the Republicans on our committee saw this $147 million handout to Brazilian farmers as a bridge too far. So they and Democrats alike overwhelmingly approved the transfer of these funds to WIC--until the Republican leadership stepped in and negated our vote.

We cannot be taking food out of hungry people's mouths here at home in order to subsidize overseas cotton production. It makes no sense. As my colleague Mr. Flake 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.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to abide by the overwhelming vote of our subcommittee, to stand up for American women and children, and to reject this bill. This is not what we voted for and not what the American people want.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source