On the recordDecember 1, 2010
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the argument that we have been making in the debate today is that this really isn't about dietary guidelines or even school nutrition strategies. The point was made there are a lot of people caring, from local school boards to Members of Congress and certainly the First Lady. It's not a debate about keeping our children healthy and active. We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is a debate about spending and the role of government and the size of government, a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not. Reauthorizing child nutrition should be easy. We should be able to extend these programs and approve them. We should be able to do that without adding to the cost. I'm confident Members on both sides of the aisle would welcome the opportunity to do just that at no new cost to taxpayers. Unfortunately, that option is not on the table today. Instead, we are voting on yet another bill that calls for the government to grow, expand, to spend more and intrude more, and I am arguing that this bill is in fact not paid for. It's an argument that I made minutes ago. I would quote from an article, the newspaper yesterday, I think Congress Daily. It says: ``Antihunger advocates opposed House consideration of the bill before the election because part of the offset for the bill is a cut in future food stamp benefits.…





