[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4108-H4183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz). Pursuant to House Resolution
300 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2112.
{time} 1435
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with
Mrs. Miller of Michigan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
{time} 1440
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
[[Page H4109]]
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.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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
[[Page H4110]]
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
FY 2012.
Now if that changes and there is in unexpected jump in participation
then we have 3 reserve accounts in which we can draw.
Contingency fund: $125 million.
Carryover Funds: $350 million+.
Secretary's Interchange Authority: $210 million.
3. So the issue is act one of kids at risk but one of politics.
a. A couple of notes: 49 percent of children in America participate
in WIC. Clearly a number that suggests it goes well beyond the poorest
of our society.
b. WIC is notorious for a high over head.
As noted at the Full Committee hearing, administrative--as defined by
all overhead and program delivery costs--equals 45 cents per benefits
dollar spent in FY 2010.
8.9 million participants for March. From the beginning of FY2009 to
March 2011 (most up-to-date data), average monthly participation has
dropped by 440,000.
c. WIC has had its share of fraud, yet WIC officials seem dedicated
to only keeping their funding stream rather than addressing these
issues.
4. Finally going beyond the politics let's put some force on it. Take
a 3 year old child named Bob. Today Bob is eligible for 12 federal
programs:
Bob's Food Assistant Programs:
At age 3, Bob is eligible for 12 programs:
1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
3. Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (FFVP).
4. School Lunch Program (SBP).
5. National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
6. Special Milk Program (SMP) [Can receive if not on any other
program].
7. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).
8. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
9. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
10. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
11. Women, Infant & Children (WIC).
12. WIC's Farmers Market Nutritional Program (FMNP).
At age 10, Bob is eligible for 9 programs:
1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CAFP).
2. Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (FFVP).
3. School Lunch Program (SBP).
4. National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
5. Special Milk Program (SMP).
6. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).
7. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
8. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
9. The Emergency Food Assitance Program (TEFAP).
At age 35, Bob is eligible for 7 programs:
1. Child and Adult Care Food Programs.
2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
3. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
4. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
5. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
6. Women, Infant & Children (WIC).
7. WIC's Farmers Market Nutritional Program (FMNP).
At age 65, Bob is eligible for 6 programs:
1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
3. Sr. Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP).
4. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
5. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
6. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
At all ages, Bob can receive:
1. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation (FDPIR) if living
on Indian Reservation & Not receiving SNAP.
2. Disaster Assistance Program (D-SNAP) if family experiences natural
disaster.
3. Nutrition Assistance Block Grant (NABG) if family lives in U.S.
Territory.
This doesn't sound like a nation that turning its back on the poor.
Indeed the First Lady has made a campaign against over eating not
hunger, and I will challenge our critics to take the discussion records
from our learning. Google the world's hunger and obesity and see which
one we talked about the most.
B. As I stated earlier overall this bill is a net increase and that
increase comes from these safety net food programs. Child nutrition
programs are funded at $18.8 billion which is $1.56 above last year.
This provides 68.8 percent of all school lunches and 85.5 percent of
all school breakfasts at a free or reduced price.
1. As respects to SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
program, or food stamps there is a $5.66 increase approx 45 million
people participate in this program.
2. Again, the administrators tend to ignore these problems.
Overpayments of $141 receipt in Michigan for steak, lobster, and sodas
were reported. The man was later arrested for selling goods.
3. Michigan man won 2 million in lottery and still uses food stamps
WIC--ex-WIC worker in Atlanta stated that no ID, no address and no
income information was needed to apply for WIC. There was also an
undercover film about the WIC clinic.
C. We have hope to allow some flexibility between emergency and
developmental accounts in order for groups like the World Food Program
to meet unexpected challenges around the globe. I have met with Josette
Sheeran and our food ambassador to the UN Ertharin Cousins, and commend
their position and their commitment. Food air combines our humanitarian
values and national security so our committee supports it. However;
keep in mind we are borrowing from our own future generations to
finance this, so we must be good stewards.
Worldwide the U.S. provides 57% of food aid followed by EU 27
percent, and Japan 6 percent.
Food Aid and National Security/`International Harmony'
We have heard several comments today about why we absolutely cannot
reduce our
[[Page H4111]]
food aid programs this year. In spite of the fact that we are out of
money, we have driven ourselves to a crippling level of debt and--from
a more immediate perspective--we don't have the allocation for this
bill to provide more to any program, we are told it is impossible to
cut international food aid, even as we cut almost every other single
line item in this budget out of necessity.
Among other arguments, we hear it is a national security imperative.
There are legitimate national security aspects to this issue. Food aid
does provide a market to drive our domestic food production, which in
turn helps ensure a perpetual safe and abundant domestic food supply as
we provide surplus overseas.
It also supports our merchant marine fleet, which provides an
important cargo capacity for the armed forces in the event of a major
deployment. This surge capacity might not be available, at least at a
similar cost, without the support of the food aid programs.
However, I don't think the argument that this assistance builds
international goodwill to the U.S.--an enduring friendship that is
reciprocated when we need it--pans out. For example, I have here the
voting practices in the United Nations for 2010 as compiled by the U.S.
Department of State. This list includes the nations by region who have
received assistance through any of our international food aid programs
along with the percentage they supported the U.S. position on votes the
State Department deemed most important. Unfortunately, we see numbers
like 16 percent, 0 percent, 30 percent, 36 percent, 27.3 percent, right
down the line.
It would be nice to see some of the oil rich countries to step
forward and help out.
IV. FDA.
The Food and Drug Administration is funded at $2.2 billion which is
$284 million below the fiscal year 2011 level of $2.457 billion. While
the overall discretionary allocation to the subcommittee was a
reduction of 13.4 percent, the overall FDA reduction is 11.5 percent.
Total funding for FDA, including user fees, is $3.684 billion versus
$3.681 that was provided in fiscal year 1022. We passed in fall
committee an amendment that urged FDA to use sound science in making
decisions.
V. CFTC. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is funded at $171
million, which is $32 million below the fiscal year 2011 funding level.
A number of concerns have been raised by the Inspector General at the
Commission that proposed rules are not undergoing a thorough cost-
benefit analysis.
VI. This bill takes spending to below pre-stimulus, pre-bailout
levels while ensuring USDA, FDA, CFTC, and other agencies are provided
the necessary resources to fulfill their duties. Our members have
worked to root out waste and duplication and, where they have strayed
from their core mission, we rein in agencies so they may better focus
on responsibilities for which they are intended. In doing so, we
balance the urgent need for fiscal restraint with the necessity to
provide and abundant food supply, robust trade, prudent conservation
measures, and strong rural communities.
VII. Madam Chair, this legislation would not be passable without the
great working relation I enjoy with our ranking member Mr. Farr. Again,
we don't always agree but we do try to communicate and put together a
sound product. I also thank all the staffers who have averaged about
50-60 hours a week since Dec. to make this happen. Matt Smith and
Martha Foley with the Minority, and Rochelle Dornatt and Troy Phillips
with Ranking Member Farr's office, our majority staff clerk of many
years Martin Delgado and his team Tom O'Brien, Betsy Bina, and Andrew
Cooper. From my personal office, Allie Thigpen, Michael Donnal, Adam
Sullivan, Chris Crawford, Caroline Black, and Mary Carpenter. You might
not see them on the House floor, but their fingerprints are all over
the bill.
[[Page H4112]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.001
[[Page H4113]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.002
[[Page H4114]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.003
[[Page H4115]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.004
[[Page H4116]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.005
[[Page H4117]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.006
[[Page H4118]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.007
[[Page H4119]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.008
[[Page H4120]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.009
[[Page H4121]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TM14JN11.010
[[Page H4122]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. 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.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding the time
and congratulate him and Mr. Farr on producing, I think, a good bill.
The bill answers the call from Americans to reduce government
spending while still providing for critical programs that keep American
agriculture competitive in a global economy. The $125.5 billion in both
discretionary and mandatory funding in this bill will help our rural
communities to thrive, provide daily nutrition to children and
families, and keep our food and drug supply safe.
However, we can't spend at the rate we used to. We've hit the debt
ceiling. We're borrowing more than 42 cents on every dollar we spend.
We're mortgaging our children's futures. We have to rein in spending,
even if it may not be the most popular thing to do.
Accordingly, Chairman Kingston and his subcommittee did not provide
the agencies and programs funded by this bill with carte blanche. This
bill trims lower priority services, eliminates duplicative and wasteful
programs, and limits funding and increases oversight for agencies that
have been less than transparent with taxpayer money. All in all, this
bill cuts nearly $5 billion in discretionary spending from the
President's request.
{time} 1450
With this legislation, we are helping to put the Department of
Agriculture, the FDA, and the other agencies funded by this bill back
on a sustainable budget path that is accountable to the taxpayers of
this country. In addition, more than taking the first steps to help
balance our budgets, we're taking the necessary steps to increase
transparency.
Not only does this legislation encourage, but it requires, each and
every agency to submit spending plans for every program funded by this
bill. This commonsense oversight will go a long way in demonstrating to
the American public our commitment to fiscal responsibility.
I am confident not only that Chairman Kingston and his subcommittee
have made the smart, but necessary, cuts in this bill to help balance
our budgets but also that this bill adequately funds important
government programs, including ag research, rural health and economic
development, and safety net food and nutrition services.
I want to commend the chairman, the ranking member, the subcommittee
members, and the staff all for their dedicated and thoughtful work on
this bill, and I urge support in its final passage.
Mr. FARR. 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.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding.
With an allocation that cuts $2.9 billion below the current level and
$5 billion below the amount requested by the Obama administration for
the next fiscal year, the subcommittee has drafted an Agriculture
appropriations bill that drastically reduces funding for food programs
that serve women, children, and the elderly, and for the Food and Drug
Administration, among other drastic cuts.
The economy is still struggling, Madam Chairman. Unemployment is
still far too high, and people around the country are still hurting.
American families need help just to make ends meet. The bill slashes
funding for WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, leaving more people to fend for themselves during the worst
recession since the Great Depression.
While I am pleased that we were able to provide a slight increase for
the WIC program in full committee markup with the acceptance of the
DeLauro amendment, this bill still drastically underfunds this critical
program. This bill reduces funding from $6.73 billion this year, 2011,
to $6.5 billion, a cut of more than $650 million below current levels.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the drastic
reduction would require us to turn away anywhere from 200,000 to
350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. That's
a tragedy. Unemployment is still hovering around 9 percent, and the
economic recovery has faltered since the new Republican majority took
the reins with their illogical ``cut and grow'' strategy. Again, this
is no time to be pulling the rug out from underneath the people who can
least afford it, Madam Chairman.
The cut to the budget of the Food and Drug Administration represents
[[Page H4123]]
another perfect example of the Republican majority's commitment to
shortsighted budgeting. In the aftermath of several nationwide recalls,
Democrats in Congress passed a food safety bill that added new and
important capability to the FDA, but this bill actually moves us
backward in protecting our food supply and medical products. It is 12
percent below the current level and 21 percent below the amount
requested by the administration. These cuts will increase the risk of
recurring outbreaks of food-borne illness. The FDA would inspect fewer
firms that manufacture food and conduct fewer inspections of imported
food.
This bill also takes a shortsighted approach with respect to our
international food aid programs, cutting Food for Peace by $457 million
below current levels and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program
by $19 million, 10 percent below 2011. By slashing funding for these
critical overseas programs, we risk exacerbating food insecurity and
strife in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world and are
essentially undermining our own national security interests.
Beyond food programs, there are numerous other programs that take
egregious cuts. Notably among those is the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. The CFTC takes a cut of $30 million below current levels
and is funded at $136 million below the President's request.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FARR. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
Mr. DICKS. The requested increase for FY 2012 is needed in order to
implement the measures put forward in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform
bill and provide oversight and regulation of the options and futures
markets that wrought such havoc on our economy just a few years ago.
One can't help but notice the efforts in this bill to drastically cut
food assistance to the poor while actively undermining any efforts of
oversight and regulation of the wealthy on Wall Street. So I urge all
Democrats to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time.
Madam Chair, farmers are good Americans. They understand our tight
budgetary times and the need to tighten the belt, and they are willing
to do their part. But before we vote on this bill, which does some very
heavy lifting in this regard, let's consider the profound benefits
American agriculture brings to people across the country. It's about
food security. Today Americans pay only 10 to 12 percent of their
income on food, compared to those in other nations who pay up to 50
percent or more. Ag policy now is also about economic security, energy
security, and even national security and global stability.
Agriculture, Madam Chair, is one of the few bright spots in the
American economy. Agriculture is consistently one of the few trade
areas where the U.S. still holds a positive trade balance. And exports
are growing as the world demands more and more American-grown food.
Last year, ag exports neared $108 billion, and projections indicate an
even stronger total this year.
Agriculture is also helping strengthen our energy independence. From
rural wind and solar farms to biofuels and biogas production from
livestock waste, we are beginning to see the vast potential of
renewable sources found on America's farms and ranches.
Not only does food security bolster our own national security, but it
also aids in global stability. Our farmers help feed the world and keep
the peace in understated but very important ways. In my home State of
Nebraska, for instance, our farmers are rebuilding war-torn fields in
Afghanistan, countering the illicit poppy trade and helping to create a
new sustainable and lawful agricultural production. I just came from a
ceremony where we sent off 57 members of the agricultural unit of the
Nebraska Air and Army National Guard, who will be using their farming
skills to help the Afghan people with new irrigation techniques and new
models for wheat and grassland production.
Our farmers participating in global agricultural training projects
achieve key humanitarian goals as well. We have made significant gains
in empowering women producers, which gives rise to greater equality and
social mobilization and engagement in their local communities. For
instance, they are helping to rebuild Haiti's decimated agricultural
sector in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake. And through various
U.S. agricultural food aid programs, they are combating global hunger.
Again, Madam Chairman, American farmers are ready to do their part
and help fix our Nation's fiscal mess. But in cleaning up this mess,
it's very important not to forget about the hard work our farm families
put in day in and day out to help feed and fuel and protect all of
America.
Mr. FARR. How much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 22\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from Ohio,
Marcy Kaptur, the former ranking member of this committee.
Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank the ranking member from California (Mr.
Farr) for his hard work and Mr. Kingston, the chairman from Georgia,
for bringing this bill before us today. And I am really sorry I can't
support it. At a time of such instability in the American economy, this
committee bill simply further destabilizes one of the most productive
sectors of the American economy, agriculture, further, it hurts all
Americans who depend on the Department of Agriculture for nutritional
support during these hard times that we are experiencing.
This legislation has some of the most destructive sections in it that
eliminate, for all practical purposes, the Rural Energy for America
Program, that was supposed to take America into a new energy future. It
takes the cops off the beat at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
to hold Wall Street accountable and clamp down on speculation. We all
know that hasn't been happening.
{time} 1500
The drastic decrease in the nutrition and commodity supplemental food
programs hurt people across this country and with decreases in the WIC
program, children will be harmed. They can't speak for themselves here.
As well, there is a dangerous directive included in the bill that would
further erode the minimal competition in the meat industry in which
real competition hardly exists at all. We must defend our farmers and
ranchers to be treated on an equal par with the big packers and
processors through the grain inspection, packer, and stockyards agency.
Later in the consideration of the bill, I'll be dealing with that in a
different way.
But let me just say a word about the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. The level of funding provided in this bill is inadequate.
We all know it's inadequate because of the mess we face in the
derivatives market today. The small agency called the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission provides a critical bulwark against the gouging of
the American people in the type of manipulation, speculation, and
outright fraud that led our country into the worst economic recession
since the Great Depression.
With gas prices now rising above $4 a gallon and food prices just
skyrocketing, who's really the watchdog in charge of implementing
market reforms to protect the consumer by regulating the market to
prevent excessive speculation in all fields? I'd hate to think that
this bill is being purposefully underfunded to prevent robust
regulation of speculation and allow these massive interests on Wall
Street--and in the Chicago futures market--to continue doing what they
have been doing, and that is gouging the pocketbooks of the American
people, whether it's gas prices or food prices or mortgage speculation.
Just to give you an idea, this proposal would not fund the agency to
implement reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank bill in a futures market
that's grown from $13 trillion back in the mid 1990s to over $600
trillion notional value today. The bill's funding level basically takes
the cops off the beat. It takes the watchdogs away. And one might say,
the bill gives a green light for Wall Street to harm America again.
[[Page H4124]]
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FARR. I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.
Ms. KAPTUR. In sum, this bill falls far short of what America needs.
I mentioned the nutrition programs, and their serious underfunding
affecting seniors, children and women across our Nation. I want to
thank the chairman for accepting an amendment to restore just $1.3
million to the Rural Energy for America Program, as America struggles
to regain our energy independence. But we are a very long way from
restoring our liberty. Rural America simply has to be a full partner in
this effort. This bill does not do that. GIPSA needs to be strengthened
not weakened and the CFTC must be allowed to severely regulate the
future markets and clamp down on speculation to prevent another
meltdown.
And though we disagree on this bill and its funding levels, I
congratulate both the new chair and ranking members on their hard work
over the last several months to prepare this bill, though imperfect,
and bring it to the floor.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
vice chair of the Republican Conference, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of
Washington.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
appreciate his commitment to the future of America's agriculture.
I rise in support of this legislation because I believe that it sets
the important priorities that must be made in order to rein in the
runaway spending of previous Congresses while still providing funding,
important funding, for agriculture's safety net, vital research,
oversight, and increased opportunity.
I grew up in eastern Washington, working on my family's orchard,
where the number one industry is agriculture, and I know what it's like
to pick and eat what you pick and have your family's livelihood depend
on the success of your annual crop.
For the last 16 years, I have actively engaged the agriculture
community in eastern Washington to identify solutions to ensure farmers
remain productive and competitive. The success of the farmers in
eastern Washington and all across our Nation hinge on two important
issues: The ability to adapt and apply cutting edge research, and the
ability to access markets.
H.R. 2112, for the first time, directs ARS to prioritize its research
and make the vital investments to see those top priorities implemented.
We must all remember that it's the American farmer who has fed the
world for the last hundred years, kept our Nation's food prices low as
a percentage of our income, and has done more to combat poverty around
the world than any other antipoverty program; and it's, in large part,
due to scientific breakthroughs in agriculture research.
We need to be focusing on research that has the potential to affect
the global population. Two such initiatives have national and
international importance, and those are crop protection and production
research housed within the ARS. These initiatives are on the front line
of the fight against stem rust, Ug99, stripe rust, which all have the
potential to eliminate our Nation's and, in turn, the world's wheat
supply.
I applaud the gentleman from Georgia and his subcommittee for
recognizing and including this specific language in the report to study
and prevent the spread of these harmful diseases.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the Member from Memphis,
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the Member from Carmel yielding time to the
gentleman from Memphis.
This is unfortunate. Mr. Kingston, in presenting his side of the
budget, was almost apologetic about WIC, and I can understand that, why
he would be apologetic.
This is a sacred portion of the budget to people on my side of the
aisle, and it should be sacred to all people in America--newborn
mothers, babies, and children under 5 who are identified as
nutritionally at risk, and yet we are cutting that budget 13 percent.
There's good reason you'd be almost ashamed to introduce it. And the
way he introduced it showed concern. He thought it was difficult, and
it is.
The fact is some people talk about, in difficult economic times,
everybody has to tighten their belt and everybody ought to tighten
their belts equally. Well, what about the obesely wealthy? They're not
being asked to tighten their belt at all. In fact, there's not a belt
big enough to go around their obesely successful selves. They are doing
great.
And it seems like in this budget there are only about two things that
seem to be sacred. One is tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cuts that
were created when there was a surplus created by a Democratic Congress
and a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Those tax cuts were passed
because we had a surplus. Now we've got a great deficit and they are
being extended, and even to people making over $1 million a year. There
is rejection of having them pay more so that mothers, babies, and
children under 5 identified as nutritionally at risk can get the WIC
payments. There's something wrong here.
Economists estimate that for every $1 invested in WIC, there are
savings between $1.50 and $3 in health care costs just in the first 60
days after an infant's birth. Talk about a return on investment.
However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle obviously think
this return isn't good enough and so we should gut the program, just
like what they want to do with Medicare, until it can no longer
function adequately to serve so many of the Americans who need it the
most.
This measure funds the WIC program at $686 million less than the
current level, which is the equivalent of kicking off 475,000 eligible
mothers, infants, and children.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FARR. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. COHEN. It's equivalent to kicking 475,000 eligible mothers,
infants, and children off one of the most cost-effective programs in
our country. It will cost Tennessee over $1 million. If we get rid of
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for 1 week, we could pay
for the entire WIC program for a year.
I cannot see this. It seems to me it's distorted values, and I would
ask that they reconsider and put the WIC program back to its basic
level.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Chair, along with my Republican colleagues, I
share a commitment to fiscal discipline in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
And while it's important to find savings and carefully consider every
item in the budget, it's also important to maintain commitments that
have already been authorized.
The 2008 farm bill authorized the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, or
BCAP for short. So I stand here today to support at least partial
funding for the BCAP program. In my district, hundreds of farmers have
worked hard in preparation for planting a variety of switchgrass called
Miscanthus giganteus, which has proven to be a viable cellulosic
biofuel feedstock. In fact, 1 acre is capable of producing 20 tons of
biomass, as opposed to corn, which produces less than 8, on average.
This program will help our country produce renewable energy and
accelerate economic growth. I hope my colleagues in the House will keep
an open mind about the program and will find a way to give it the
priority it deserves as this bill moves through the legislative
process.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member
from California (Mr. Garamendi), former Lieutenant Governor of the
State of California.
{time} 1510
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Each piece of legislation that passes the House is really a
reflection of our values. It speaks to our heart; it speaks to what we
care about and what's important to us. This particular bill does that
in a way that more than ever highlights values. Is it about children,
about infants? Or is it about tax breaks for the very, very wealthy? Is
it about safe food? Or tax breaks for oil companies and subsidies for
oil companies? Is it about those people around the world that are
hungry and the Food for Peace program that provides them with
[[Page H4125]]
enough food to be able to survive and to live? Or is it about a
continuation of very fat, unnecessary farm crop subsidies?
It's about our values. It's about what we care about and what we
think is important. And if there's anything that's important in life,
it's food. It's the ability for our youngest children--I was on this
floor not more than 2 hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old.
Out there in America there are hundreds of thousands of young children
that will not have the food that they need to be able to be healthy,
will not be able to have the care they need. This is about our values.
What does this bill say of our values? It says that those children
are of little value. Is that what this is about? Is it about those
people around the world that are starving that will not have the Food
for Peace program? Is that the value of this Congress, that we cannot
find the money, in this wealthiest of all nations, to provide the
health care for our young children and the food for those around the
world?
What is it that we care about then? The very wealthy? About Wall
Street? About the Commodity Futures Trading Commission not having the
money that they need to regulate the programs that brought this country
to its knees? What is it that we value? Big question.
In this bill, obviously there's a great difference in what we value
on our side and what this bill, brought to us by the Republican
majority, values.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 16 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from California has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota
(Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. Madam Chairwoman, we have important things to discuss, and
it truly does deal with our values.
As the previous speaker was talking about his grandchild that was on
the House floor previously, I wondered if he had told the grandchild
that from the moment they were born they owed $47,000 in Federal debt.
That is their responsibility because of the spending that's gone on and
because of the fact that when we are going to start with feeding
programs and distribute food to other countries, we're going to borrow
money from other countries and have our grandchildren and great-
grandchildren pay for that so we can do that.
So this discussion truly is about values and getting back to our
priorities and getting back to what's important in this country, and
it's fiscal responsibility. There are tough decisions to make, but we
talk about what we need to do. And the fact that we're increasing food
and nutrition programs and spending shows that we dedicate ourselves to
those values and taking care of our children into the future while
remembering that we're not going to saddle them with a debt that they
certainly cannot pay.
Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support and to speak a little bit about
the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, the BCAP, which is addressed in
this bill as well. I just want to talk about some of the projects that
have offered some alternatives in South Dakota.
This program, authorized in the 2008 farm bill, is part of our all-
of-the-above energy program. BCAP promotes second-generation biofuels
refined from renewable biomass and can reduce our dependence on foreign
sources of energy.
I have been a firm supporter of an all-of-the-above American energy
plan, and this can certainly continue to play a role in that. It
reduces barriers that farmers face to diversify their farms. BCAP, if
funded and used as the program was intended as cellulosic biofuels, can
spur economic growth in rural areas such as those in South Dakota.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise to point out that once
again we find ourselves in a familiar situation. Once again, under the
guise of fiscal responsibility, austerity, and a blind allegiance to
supply-side voodoo economics gimmicks, Republicans have brought forth
another effort to cut away the social safety net, this time kicking
low-income mothers and their young children into the depths of hunger
and food insecurity.
It's like deja vu. Just months ago, Democrats defended the American
people from the Ryan Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher
program. Unfortunately, the plan to get rid of Medicare was passed with
the unanimous support of every single Republican in the House. Now,
here we stand once again trying to prevent Republicans from delivering
a swift kick to the stomachs of low-income mothers, many of whom are
already struggling to get by during this economic downturn.
Reducing WIC funding by more than half a billion dollars in the name
of deficit reduction while unanimously refusing to eliminate or even
decrease tax cuts for big businesses, oil companies and wealthy
individuals, Republicans have forgotten one of mankind's most basic
human values: upholding our moral responsibilities to our fellow man.
Recently, I received a gift from the House Members Bible study group,
and I do appreciate it. My heart compelled me to open it today. When I
turned the pages separated by the book divider, I was at Mark 6:33, and
nothing could have been more appropriate for the day. It was the
passage on Jesus feeding his followers.
Just as Jesus walked with his disciples, preaching the Gospel and
healing the sick, he also fed 5,000 of his followers who would have
gone hungry without those five loaves of bread and two fish.
If Jesus can feed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two
fish, then surely America, the wealthiest Nation in the world, and
surely this Congress, the greatest deliberative body in the world,
should continue to provide for Americans in their time of need.
Just as Jesus provided for his followers, He also broke with
tradition and compassionately watched as His followers ate bread with
impure hands--as they were called--unclean hands. This upset some of
those righteous observers, and they asked Jesus, ``Why do your
disciples not wash according to the tradition of the elders, but eat
their bread with impure hands?'' Jesus called them hypocrites and then
He said, ``Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition
of men.'' Is that what we're doing here today? Does the man-made rule
of reducing our country's debt trump our moral responsibility to
provide for Americans in their time of need?
We as Members of Congress must also feed the hungry among us. Isn't
this our moral and civic duty? According to the USDA, 750,000 of our
fellow citizens, women and children, could be turned away from WIC.
This is unconscionable. And the result is crystal clear--more Americans
will be left to fend for themselves in their time of need.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Meanwhile, the $800 million that we give away
on one week of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, we could
ensure, with that $800 million, that over 9 million WIC participants
receive nutrition, education, food and services for an entire year.
America is better than this. Don't hurt the women and the children
who need help. I stand opposed to this bill.
{time} 1520
Mr. KINGSTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts, Mr. Steve Lynch.
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I speak in favor of a measure that will be coming up
shortly, offered by my friend Ms. DeLauro, which goes to a major
weakness in the underlying bill.
The core mission of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is to
ensure the integrity and transparency of derivatives markets. Yet,
despite the recent spike in gasoline prices and despite the great
difficulty we had in this recent financial crisis with respect to
commodities-based swaps, we have to come to the floor today to fight
for funding for the one agency that would police that activity. It is,
indeed, unbelievable that this House would consider
[[Page H4126]]
a proposal that would eviscerate the agency with the central
responsibility for regulating the commodities markets.
But here we are.
The price of everyday items, from milk to gasoline, depends on the
fair and open operation of commodities markets policed by the CFTC, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The recent spike in gasoline
prices is not due to a shortage of supply, as we have seen, or
increased demand. Clearly, this is a problem of unchecked speculative
interests making money off the commodities markets as there are some
who believe that as much as $27 of a barrel of oil today is the result
of sheer speculation.
It is our hope that through the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill the
CFTC's responsibilities will be expanded to include oversight of the
nearly $300 trillion in previously unregulated domestic swaps on the
market today. This is a key step to bringing the shadow markets, which
helped crash the economy, under sensible regulation. This is where the
CDOs, CDSs and other complex derivatives deals were made. This is how
AIG helped bring down the economy. We have to regulate this financial
market and these financial products. However, the notional size of the
market that the CFTC now must supervise has increased seven-fold, and
the CFTC needs more resources. But in this bill, we will see its budget
slashed. Instead of giving the agency the tools it needs to prevent
another financial collapse, we are planting the seeds for the next
financial crisis.
The result of this Republican legislation to delay reform and the
underlying bill to starve this agency would allow large, interconnected
financial companies to engage unsupervised in activities and
transactions similar to the activities that got us into this crisis in
the first place. This would perpetuate an era of no oversight, no
regulation and no transparency--in a similar fashion that nearly
destroyed our economy. CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has warned that
denying funding to this agency and delaying the implementation of Dodd-
Frank will greatly ``increase risk to the American people and leave
significant uncertainty in the marketplace.''
The CFTC is vital to the proper functioning of our financial markets
and the American economy. Underfunding the commission is deeply
irresponsible, so I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment
to properly fund the CFTC.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, how much time do both sides have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Georgia has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
{time} 1530
Mr. FARR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the former ranking member of this committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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
[[Page H4127]]
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.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a great member of the
committee.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, this is my third year in this Congress. During my first
2 years, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the
Presidency, and during that time the subsidies or tax loopholes for the
rich, for the oil companies, for these bailouts of Wall Street were
going on just like they allege they are now. And did they do anything
about it when they controlled the entire government? No. Nope. They
didn't do anything.
Instead, they created massive new entitlement programs. Instead, they
did TARP part two without accounting for part one. They did massive
bailouts of the auto industry. They created huge new health programs.
They gave massive blank checks to bureaucrats. They increased spending
at the EPA, one agency, by 39 percent in 1 year. It is incredible. They
taxed, they spent, yet they didn't go after the very people that today
they allege are the source of the problem.
Now, when the Republicans were elected in the House to do what the
American people felt needed to be done, which is to grapple with
spending first, spending being the problem in our country, amassing a
huge amount of debt, deficits, borrowing money from foreign countries,
risking our own credit rating, risking our own ability to borrow money,
risking the value of our currency, now they are alleging we are
addressing the wrong targets.
Madam Chair, this very budget we are debating today increases
spending for food programs. It increases funding for both food stamps
and school lunch. It increases it more than we are cutting spending for
WIC and other programs. It increases spending for the human needs that
are legitimate for the people in this country by over one-quarter of a
billion dollars.
Madam Chair, I allege that this is a responsible budget, that we are
beginning to get off that unsustainable path of spending that even the
President acknowledges and get back on a path where we can live more
reasonably, where we can protect our currency, where we can protect our
job market, where we can protect our tax structure and improve it in a
way that makes America strong for our grandchildren.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, how much time does each side have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes, and the
gentleman from Georgia has 6 minutes.
Mr. FARR. 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.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will my friend yield a minute?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Mr. FARR. 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.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, more than 2 years ago, Democrats claimed that their
trillion dollar stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8
percent, and we know now it is above 9 percent.
Recently, the CBO released their annual budget and economic outlook
report which projects the 2011 deficit will reach $1.48 trillion and
our national debt, as everybody knows, is over $14 trillion. We are
borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from the
Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Every
child born today owes $45,500 to the debt.
For the past few years, the American people have been told that
government spending is the answer. They had their chance to prove this
economic model, but it failed. It is time we changed our approach,
because our country has a spending problem and not a revenue problem.
Debt by the public is estimated to increase to 94 percent over the next
10 years. Over 10 years, the annual government spending will consume an
average of 23.5 percent of GDP, which is significantly higher than the
post-World War II average of 20 percent.
In a 2010 article for the Cato Policy Report, economists Jason Taylor
and Richard Vedder outlined the lessons of the largest public sector
drawdown in our country's history--the cuts to government spending
after World War II. Taylor and Vedder point out that the Federal
spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to $30 billion in 1946, a
reduction of more than 60 percent.
{time} 1540
The point is that despite these warnings from economists that this
withdrawal of Keynesian stimulus would sure lead to a second Great
Depression, civilian employment grew by over 4 million between 1945 and
1947, with unemployment remaining under 4\1/2\ percent in the first
three postwar years. The postwar era provides a classic illustration of
how government spending ``crowds out'' private sector spending and how
the economy can thrive when government's shadow is dramatically
reduced. The lesson from the 1945-1947 era is that a sharp reduction in
government spending frees up assets for productive use and leads to
renewed growth.
When spending is slated to reach an all-time high of $3.7 trillion
this year and we're living through the weakest jobs recovery since the
Great Depression, it's time to get our fiscal house in order. Vigorous
and sustained economic growth, fueled by investment and
entrepreneurship, is needed for the private sector to create more jobs
and increase incomes of the poor. In turn, this will generate the
revenues that governments need to expand access to health, education,
and infrastructure services and help improve productivity. Spending
cuts work; tax increases
[[Page H4128]]
don't. Despite the evidence, many liberals continue to call for more
spending, more taxing, and red tape.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. These ideas won't solve the problem; they are
the problem. Washington needs to stop creating uncertainty and get out
of the way.
I commend the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers, and Chairman
Kingston for crafting a bill that's $5.041 billion, or 22.6 percent
less than the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and $2.672
billion, or 13.4 percent less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
However, I believe the financial catastrophe facing our Nation requires
us to do even more, and so I hope my colleagues will realize this and
do what is necessary to get our fiscal house in order.
Mr. FARR. 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.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying
bill for its drastic and extreme cuts to various critical food programs
funded through the Department of Agriculture. While we face a great
challenge in reducing the deficit and creating jobs, the greater
challenge is to do this in a way that is consistent with our values.
Slashing funds for programs that help put food on the table for the
neediest of Americans, young children, pregnant mothers, the elderly,
and those struggling to make ends meet, is not good policy.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP) which serves predominantly low-income seniors, and The Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) which works with states to assist food
banks are just some of the programs that were targeted for extreme
cuts.
The cuts to WIC concern me the most. WIC provides food to new
mothers, babies, and children under five who have been identified as
nutritionally at risk. Nearly 50% of the babies born in our country
each year rely on WIC. On top of that, it is incredibly cost-effective,
serving nearly 10 million people each year, and costing less than $100
per person.
In my district, nearly 54,000 children and women suffer from food
hardship, and depend on WIC to make ends meet.
This is yet another chapter in the Republican attack on working
families to give handouts to special interests.
First they came after seniors who rely on Medicare, and now they're
coming after children and mothers who rely on food assistance.
We cannot let Republicans destroy programs on which our most
vulnerable population depend to pay for $45 billion in tax breaks for
millionaires.
According to the Center for American Progress, if we got rid of tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we would pay for
the entire WIC program for a year.
I urge my colleagues to protect working Americans, not millionaires
and billionaires.
Thank you.
Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the FY 2012
Agriculture Appropriations Act. This bill makes devastating cuts to
nutrition programs. It also undermines the ability of the Food and Drug
Administration to protect our food supply and the Commodities Futures
Trading Commission to rein in the reckless speculation that is driving
up gas prices.
The cuts to nutrition programs in this bill would put hundreds of
thousands of our most vulnerable citizens at risk. Working families,
the millions who remain out of work, and senior citizens trying to
survive on fixed incomes are the Americans who continue to feel the
effects of the recession most painfully. This bill adds insult to
injury by literally taking food off of their tables.
In my district, there are more than 90,000 people facing hunger each
day. That is unacceptable. Fortunately, they have some support,
including through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which
offers nutrition education to pregnant women and mothers and provides
food to meet the nutritional needs of young children. The $686 million
dollars that this bill cuts from WIC means 200,000 to 350,000 people
will lose access to this program.
This bill would also slash the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP), which primarily serves senior citizens living on less than
$14,000 a year. The proposed $38 million in cuts to this program would
force 150,000 seniors to lose the regularly delivered box of food that
they depend on to survive.
Perhaps those turned away from WIC or CSFP could go to a local food
bank for assistance? No longer. This bill cuts $50 million from the
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) that supplies food banks, so
the shelves will be empty when people come for help.
Doing away with just one week's worth of the Bush tax cuts is more
than enough to prevent the cuts to WIC, CSFP, and TEFAP proposed in
this bill. Yet that's not what we're debating today.
While Republican leaders defend their tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires, people are going hungry. Something is seriously wrong in
this country if we are willing to pay for a week of tax cuts for the
wealthy but cannot afford to feed all of our people.
We cannot balance the budget or erase the deficit by taking more away
from those who already have the least. I urge my colleagues to stand
with me and oppose the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong objection to the Fiscal Year
2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The bill before us is simply
inadequate. While there is little disagreement that we must reach
agreement on a balanced framework to reduce our deficit, we cannot do
so by quite literally taking food from the mouths of children. This
hinders our long term prosperity, and it is simply wrong.
In expressing serious concerns about this bill, the Administration's
statement on this bill says: ``The Administration strongly objects to
the level of funding provided for nutrition programs that are critical
to the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants, children, and
elderly adults. The proposed funding levels would led to hundreds of
thousands of participants being cut from the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and reduce Federal support
for food banks. These cuts would undermine efforts to prevent hunger
and support sound nutrition for some of the most vulnerable members of
our society.''
The human impact of the bill would be devastating. Hundreds of
thousands of low-income children, mothers and seniors would lose WIC
assistance. The National Commodity Supplemental Food program estimates
that more than one hundred thousand low-income seniors would lose
access to nutritious food assistance. Feeding America estimates that
approximately 32 million pounds of nutritious food would not be
available at food banks and food pantries for working Americans
struggling to feed their families.
I want to say a word in particular about CSFP. This program is a
vital component of our nutrition efforts because it reaches many
seniors who qualify for no other program while providing delivery for
those that are homebound. CSFP provides 600,000 food packages each
month in 39 states and the District of Columbia, including seven new
states as a direct result of increased funding in Fiscal Year 2010.
This year 97 percent of the participants are elderly individuals with
an income at or below $14,157. Food packages are designed to supplement
needed sources of nutrients typically lacking in participants' diets,
and are delivered through local providers in a very cost efficient
manner: the typical food package has a retail value up to $50 but costs
the Federal governments less than $20 per participant package.
Earlier this year, a number of us wrote to the Appropriations
Committee requesting that funding for CSFP simply be held at the 2011
level of $176.8 million. Not an increase, though there is certainly
greater need, just level funding. Instead, the Committee cut CSFP by
more than 20 percent. As a result, if these cuts become law, more than
100,000 low-income seniors will be at greater risk of hunger.
[[Page H4129]]
Madam Chair, this bill represents the wrong priorities. Under the
guise of deficit reduction, of which it does very little, it imposes
harmful cuts on the most vulnerable among us. I urge all of my
colleagues to reject it.
Mr. BACA. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition ot the
unerlying bill--H.R. 2112--the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
With continued unemployment and high home foreclosure rates--these
are tough economic times for Americans everywhere.
We all understand that our debt and deficit are significant issues--
that we must begin to address with intelligent spending cuts.
But it is essential that we reduce the deficit in a way that is
consistent with our American values--and not on the backs of
impoverished women, children, and seniors.
The Agriculture Appropriations bill we are considering today
undermines the food security of the American people.
In my district--in California's Inland Empire--my constitutents face
a 16 percent unemployment rate; and a food insecurity rate of almost 22
percent.
Food banks throughout California are reporting a 30 to 40 percent
increase in the number of people needing food assistance.
This is the wrong time to cut nutrition benefits for struggling
American families.
Unfortunately--the bill the House is set to consider--takes food off
the table for low-income women, children, and seniors.
This bill:
Cuts $650 million from WIC--causing hundreds of thousands of women
and children to lose benefits;
Cuts $50 million from TEFAP--forcing struggling familes to face empty
shelves at the food bank;
Cuts $38 million from the Commodity Supplemental Foods Program--
leaving thousands of seniors without help; and
Cuts $2 billion from the SNAP reserve fund--at a time when a record
44 million plus Americans need this assistance.
Sadly, this bill is just the next chapter in the Repubilcan
Congress's assault on middle class families.
Already this year--Republicans have voted to end Medicare as we know
it.
And they've voted to cut thousands of jobs in order to give tax
breaks to the ultra-rich, the big oil industries, and companies that
ship jobs overseas.
But with this bill--we may have sunk to a new low.
It is wrong to dismantle the programs that our most vulnerable
Americans rely on--in order to pay for $45 billion in tax breaks for
millionaires.
If we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one
week--we would save enough to pay for the entire WIC program for a
year.
During the last Farm Bill--in 2008--I served as Chair of the
Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition.
I am proud of the work we did to improve SNAP and other federal
nutrition programs.
These improvements helped feed 38 million hungry Americans.
We must not turn back the clock.
Let's focus on the real priorities of the American people--and stop
these misguided funding cuts.
I urge my colleagues to protect the health of working families--and
vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. HANNA. Madam Chair, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Organic
Caucus, I rise today in support of adequate resourcing for the Organic
Data Initiative, ODI, in Fiscal Year 2012.
Organic agriculture in my district in upstate New York and across
this country is a thriving industry that is creating jobs and exporting
American products across the world. Last week I visited an organic farm
in Herkimer County that produces mike, beef, chicken, eggs, garlic and
other vegetables, and field crops.
The Organic Data Initiative collects and distributes organic
agriculture price data. This data helps maintain stable markets for
organic products, is crucial for the development of risk management
tools, and is necessary to negotiate organic standards equivalency
agreements with foreign governments. It is important that the organic
agriculture has the same access to data that other agriculture sectors
currently enjoy. The Organic Data Initiative is cost-effective and is
vital to ensure a continued upward trajectory for the organic industry
in the United States.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill,
H.R. 2112, the Republican Appropriations bill for Agriculture, Food
Safety and Nutrition Programs for the coming fiscal year. This bill
drastically underfunds critical nutrition programs for hungry people
throughout the United States.
This bill is yet another chapter in the Republican attack on working
families.
First, the Republicans tried to cut benefits for seniors who rely on
Medicare.
Then, they went after low-income families who rely on Medicaid.
They tried to dismantle health care reform and leave people with pre-
existing conditions at the mercy of profit-hungry insurance companies.
Now, they're coming after hungry people who rely on food assistance.
The bill cuts funding for the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC,
nutrition program by more than $650 million below the fiscal year 2011
level. The WIC program provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy
eating habits, and health care referrals to about 9 million low-income
pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under five. WIC is
an effective program with a long history of bipartisan support. For the
past 15 years, Congresses and Administrations of both parties have
always provided enough funds for WIC to serve all women, infants and
children who qualify--until now. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities estimates that the funding cut in this bill would force WIC
to turn away between 200,000 and 350,000 eligible low-income women and
young children next year, including 32,000 to 56,000 women and children
in my home state of California.
This bill also cuts funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food
program, CSFP, by 22 percent below this year's funding level. CSFP is
an agricultural commodity program that provides nutritious food
packages to about 604,000 low-income people each month, 96 percent of
whom are senior citizens who earn less than 130 percent of the federal
poverty level. The Republicans' proposed funding cuts would result in
loss of food for at least 130,000 low-income seniors.
The bill cuts funding to The Emergency Food Assistance Program,
TEFAP, by $51 million and cuts TEFAP administrative funding for food
storage and distribution by 23 percent. TEFAP provides nutritious food
commodities to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger
relief. TEFAP commodities are distributed by organizations like soup
kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, and faith-based food pantries
at churches, mosques and synagogues. These cuts would force many local
organizations to turn away hungry people.
Finally, the bill underfunds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, SNAP. SNAP provides monthly benefits to 44 million low-income
Americans using a grocery debit card. The Administration requested a $5
billion reserve fund for SNAP to assure that there would be adequate
resources to help needy people in the event of continuing high
unemployment or unexpected increases in demand from events like natural
disasters. The Republicans cut the reserve fund by $2 billion.
Meanwhile, the Republican budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts beyond
their expiration in 2012 and cuts the top individual tax rate down to
25 percent from 35 percent. According to the Center for Tax Justice,
the Republican budget cuts taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans
by 15 percent while raising taxes for the lowest income 20 percent of
Americans by 12 percent.
Madam Chair, if we got rid of the tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires for one week, we could pay for the entire WIC program for
a year.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for working families--not
millionaires and billionaires! Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this
legislation. Let's take a step back and talk about what this bill does;
Instead of ending wasteful subsidies that go to multi-million dollar
agri-business, the Republicans have decided to pay for a Brazil Cotton
trade problem by cutting nutrition assistance to poor women and
children, cutting conservation funding, and by raising gas prices for
Americans by cutting those policing wall street oil speculators.
These subsides aren't supporting family farms; they are supporting
multi-billion dollar companies, changing the food we eat and the health
of our country's citizens. I commend the progress that Congressman
Flake has made in the Committee to lessen these wasteful subsidies, and
ask my colleagues to support other floor amendments, like the
Blumenauer amendment, which will ensure that subsidies are capped
ensuring that any needed help is distributed to those who need it, not
simply concentrated amongst a few mega-corporations.
Madam Chair, I also strongly support the Woolsey Amendment, which
would allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue developing
scientific-based nutritional standards for school meals. This amendment
supports the USDA rule that carries out the intent of the Child
Nutrition Act passed last year. The standards in this rule are central
to students' nutrition, resulting in better child health, better
student behavior, and better academic outcomes.
It's been 17 years since the last update of the national school meal
standards. The USDA recently proposed much-needed updates to those
standards based on consensus recommendations from the Dietary
Guidelines
[[Page H4130]]
for Americans. The proposed updates will ensure that school lunch and
breakfasts provide recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables and whole
grains; fat-free and low-fat milk; less salt; fewer unhealthy saturated
and trans fats; and moderate calories. Instead, too may schools are
currently serving too much sodium, sugar, unhealthy saturated and trans
fats, and starchy vegetables, such as French fries. To make this
change, USDA received over 130,000 comments from advocates, parents and
concerned citizens in support of the rule.
Yet, while school meal quality has been modestly improving in some
schools, much more needs to be done. The proposed standards maximize
the national investment in the school meal programs, helping to reduce
both child hunger and obesity, and providing balanced meals to 31
million children each day. Our current national investment in school
lunch and breakfast is about $12 billion per year--we need to make sure
that these meals are healthy.
Delaying the rule--as this legislation would do--goes against what
Congress passed and the president signed last year. It would damage the
opportunities of our current and future generations by denying them
healthy school meals, which limits their ability to live healthy lives.
That's why this amendment is so important.
We have heard specious arguments that the law saddles school
districts with unfunded costs and mandates. Besides a 6 cent increase
in school lunch reimbursements, the law's nutritional improvements in
both school meals and school snacks will help increase student
participation in school meals by 900,000 students according to USDA,
raising school district revenues by an estimated $7.5 billion over the
next five years on top of the $3.2 billion from the 6 cent increase. So
there is funding for better nutritional food for children. Too many
school districts are behind the times on ensuring that students have
healthy foods.
That is why we changed the law and why we need to move forward with
timely implementation of the proposed rule. We need to get the most out
of the national investment in the National School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs. Our children's health and educational outcomes depend on it.
Madam Chair, this bill is simply bad policy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the
FY12 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This measure includes a $650
million cut to the WIC Program, which would cut up to 1,000 eligible
recipients in Rhode Island.
This program provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating,
and health care referrals for low-income women and children under age
five. In Rhode Island, the WIC program collaborates with local culinary
programs and farmers markets on cooking demonstrations, healthy eating
habits and children's activities.
While all our constituents are feeling the effects of the economic
downturn, our most vulnerable citizens are disproportionately affected
by job cuts, higher food prices, turmoil in the housing market and
other burdens, and the impact can be devastating. Programs like WIC
support these families and help put food on the table.
It is our responsibility to ensure that children born into poverty
have the same opportunity to achieve the American Dream as any other
child in our country and that cannot happen if children grow up
malnourished and hungry. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill
and to reject these harmful cuts.
Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I have no further requests for time, I move passage of
the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2112
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2012, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, $4,293,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000
of this amount shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as
determined by the Secretary.
Ms. DeLAURO. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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
[[Page H4131]]
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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to again rise in strong opposition to the
underlying bill and express my deep outrage over the deep cuts in food
and nutrition programs that benefit some of the most needy and
vulnerable people in our country.
{time} 1550
I am particularly outraged at the cuts in WIC. As we heard from our
colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), WIC is one of the most
effective programs that exist. There has been a strong bipartisan
tradition of fully funding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children--WIC--to ensure that every eligible
family that applies receives benefits. WIC is not an entitlement, but
we have made a bipartisan, concerted effort in the past to make sure
that everybody who qualifies and who needs it can actually get it. This
is the first time since that commitment was established that the
appropriations bill is providing less funding than what is needed to
serve all eligible young children and pregnant or postpartum women.
Now, Republicans argue that somehow they're not cutting anything,
that everything will be okay. That's not at all the case. That's, in
fact, a complete distortion. We are told by organizations that monitor
this that as many as 350,000 women and children would be thrown off the
program as a result of these cuts. That's a conservative estimate. And
since we've passed the rule, which does not protect the amendment that
Ms. DeLauro got into the appropriations bill, which basically said that
we're going to increase WIC funding by cutting subsidies to Brazilian
cotton farmers--that is not protected, so somebody on the other side of
the aisle, I'm sure, will raise a point of order against that language,
and just like that, $147 million will immediately be cut from the WIC
program, throwing, again, 100,000 to 200,000 additional women and
children off the program. This doesn't make any sense, Madam Chair.
We're told by my friends on the other side of the aisle, well, don't
worry, all the faith-based groups will take care of everything; that's
what they're all there for. Well, talk to any leader in any faith-based
community in this country, and they will tell you that they are working
overtime right now to try to provide for the struggling families in
their communities. In every part of this country, from urban to
suburban to rural, faith-based communities are stepping up, but they
cannot do it alone. They need us to be a partner. I don't know a single
faith-based leader who would say to anybody in this Congress don't
adequately fund WIC or don't adequately fund the TEFAP program or these
other programs that provide food and nutrition to needy people.
The fact of the matter is that is not an answer. To put the burden on
the faith-based community is basically an excuse for us to do nothing,
and that is just unacceptable.
We've heard on the other side of the aisle, well, there are just so
many programs out there, we're just eliminating all the duplication and
triplication. Again, this is just another justification to try to
rationalize the cuts that are being made here, but there's no basis of
fact. That distortion ignores the fact that programs don't overlap;
they complement each other. There is a difference between programs like
SNAP and WIC and school lunch programs and summer feeding programs.
They're not all the same. They're designed to complement each other.
And in reality they do not provide enough benefits to eliminate hunger
and food insecurity in this country.
The problem is not that we're giving too much to low-income families.
The problem is not that we're giving them too much food. That is not
the problem. We have a hunger problem in the United States of America.
Tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. And
we're the richest, most powerful country on the planet. We should be
ashamed of that fact. We should be working overtime in this body to try
to remedy that fact, to make sure that the neediest among us get what
they need.
By ignoring the plight of the poor, by ignoring the plight of those
who are hungry in this country, they don't just all of a sudden go
away. What we do is we end up creating other problems which turn out to
be more costly. Hungry children can't learn in school. Hungry workers
are less productive in the workplace. People who don't have enough to
eat tend to have their immune systems compromised so that a common cold
results in their staying in a hospital for a prolonged period of time.
It costs this country a great deal that there is food insecurity in
America. Hunger is not cheap. It costs a great deal, and we are paying
billions and billions of dollars for that.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I don't know how old my colleague
is who just spoke, but Lyndon Johnson worked very hard to pass what was
called the Great Society. And when he passed the Great Society, he said
we're going to do away with hunger, we're going to do away with poor
people, we're going to do away with all the problems facing mankind in
the United States. And what happened? Things are worse now than they've
ever been with all these social programs.
I just spoke a couple of minutes ago about what happened after World
War II. In 1945 the spending was $84 billion. In 1946 it dropped 60
percent to $30 billion. So a 60 percent reduction in spending, but it
freed up money for the private sector, and as a result, in the next 2
years there were 4\1/2\ million new jobs.
All these giveaway programs and all these programs that you guys talk
about indicating that we don't care about seniors, we don't care about
kids, we don't care about anybody, we're heartless, the fact of the
matter is the thing that's heartless is 9.1 percent unemployment. The
President, when he took office, said he was going to keep it under 8
percent. It's 9.1 and it's going up, not down. The economic figures we
see today are terrible. Yet you want to continue to just keep spending
money and spending money and spending money.
What we need to do is we need to cut spending. We need to cut taxes
so people will have more disposable income. We need to cut business
taxes so that business has more money to invest so they'll create jobs
and create plants and equipment. But, no, you want to just keep
spending on these programs and don't want to make any cuts.
Spending is out of control. The shortfall this year is going to be
over $1.46 trillion. We don't have the money. The national debt is over
$14 trillion right now, and it's going to get worse over the next 10
years by about a trillion dollars a year.
And yet every time we come down here and want to cut spending, you
start saying we don't care about the poor, we don't care about the
kids, we don't care about seniors. And then you see ads on TV with the
little old lady's foot dragging as we throw her over the cliff.
What kind of nonsense is that? If we don't get our fiscal house in
order, we're all going over a cliff. This country is in terrible fiscal
shape right now, and we have to get control of spending. And it really
bothers me every time I come down here and I hear you guys talking
about we don't care about the children, we don't care about the
seniors, we don't care about anybody.
What we care about is jobs and creating an economy that's growing so
[[Page H4132]]
that we can once again become the great economic power of the world.
But everything that's going on with this administration and everything
that you guys keep advocating is putting us more and more in the tank.
And let me tell you something: The American people get it. And if you
don't think they get it, look at what happened in the last election.
People are tired of the spending, tired of the runaway, giveaway
programs. They want jobs that will create a growing economy. And we're
not going to get it with more and more spending.
Keynesian economics, socialistic approaches to government do not
work. Free enterprise does. And once again I want you to listen to
these statistics:
After 1945 we increased jobs by 4\1/2\ million. At the same time we
cut spending by 60 percent because we freed up the free enterprise
system. That's what we ought to be doing right now if we're going to
lower unemployment and get this economy back on track.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise in strident opposition to the
underlying bill.
We've all heard Michael Masser and Linda Creed's lyrics, ``I believe
the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the
way.'' The song is sung by every megastar and quoted at every
whistlestop by every politician.
{time} 1600
Well, if we believe this, then our most basic and most fundamental
obligation of a civilized society is not only to teach them well but to
feed them.
The WIC program is the USDA's largest discretionary program that
provides assistance to children up to 5 years of age, to pregnant
women, post-partum women, breast-feeding women who are nutritionally at
risk because of inadequate nutrition and income.
We've heard a great deal from the other side--just recently the
previous speaker--talk about the importance of letting the free market
system work, that we need jobs. Infants cannot work. They are helpless.
And according to the most recent census, almost 20 percent of the
Nation's children are living in poverty. A recent report estimates that
the annual estimated cost of domestic hunger is $90.4 billion, the cost
of hunger, the consequences of hunger.
According to the American Community Survey, almost half of the
children living in single, female-headed households in my district live
in poverty and about 39 percent in Wisconsin are poor.
This program represents in any decent society the basic obligation we
have to our fellow citizens. Half of the babies born in our country
each year rely on WIC. This bill cuts a devastating $650 million from
the WIC program; and in my State, this represents about 4,800 people
who would lose the WIC program.
The Ryan budget cuts an astounding $833 million from the WIC program;
and if you compare this to the Bush cuts, which gave the average
millionaire a $139,199 tax break in 2011, or $2,700 a week, that comes
up to a total of $866 million to the wealthiest people in 1 week. One
week of the Bush-era tax cuts would pay that WIC for a year for the 20
percent of our kids in this country who are hungry. So that really, in
my mind, demonstrates what the priorities of this body are. One week of
the Bush-era tax cuts could feed and fund this program.
Now, if you truly believe that children are our future, note that
numerous studies have shown that pregnant women who participate in the
WIC program have longer pregnancies, lead to fewer premature births,
fewer low and very low birth weight babies, experience fewer fetal and
infant deaths, seek prenatal care earlier in pregnancy, and consume
more of such key nutrients as iron, protein, calcium, vitamins A and C.
Now, if you're not moved by the whole children are our future bit, at
least be persuaded that not investing in WIC is a costly proposition,
and I know the other side is very concerned about costs because several
Members have pointed out that we have all these multiple feeding
programs. They're concerned with fraud, and God forbid some of these
kids might be getting three, four, five meals a day based on funding of
all these programs.
But pre-term births cost the U.S. over $26 billion a year, with the
average first-year medical costs of the premature, low birth weight
baby roughly costing $49,000 compared to $4,500 for a baby born without
complications. WIC prenatal care benefits reduce the rate of low birth
weight babies by 25 percent.
Now, for those of you who support these gargantuan ag subsidies,
moneys for the various wealthy, I commend to you the words of Theodore
Parker, a minister and abolitionist in the early 19th century who's
been quoted by both Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, and by Dr.
Martin Luther King, in their epic speeches. Theodore Parker said, ``The
miser, starving his brother's body, starves also his own soul, and at
death shall creep out of his great estate of injustice, poor and naked
and miserable.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just say that I don't think poor people are
ignorant.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield, I would also say, the
gentleman raised the issue of obesity. There is a relationship between
food insecurity and obesity and poverty and obesity. And so what we're
talking about here is the importance of good nutrition, and the fact of
the matter is that a lot of the people that we are trying to target
some of these programs to don't have access to good nutrition. They
live in food deserts where they can't buy good food, where they can't
afford fresh fruits and vegetables.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. I think we're all for efficiency and good coordination,
but I just want to read one line from a letter that Secretary Vilsack
sent up here, where he says that he is confident the proposed funding
level in your bill would lead to a substantial reduction in the
program, meaning the WIC program, likely by hundreds of thousands of
participants per month. That is substantial. That is something we can't
afford.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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
[[Page H4133]]
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.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would also just point out to the gentleman that
there's another phenomenon going on here, and that is the rising cost
of food. So the numbers that group that you're referring to has
mentioned are pretty conservative. Food costs have been going up and up
and up, and I think every American family can feel that. As a result,
we're going to need to step up and not undermine these programs that,
quite frankly, provide people basic nutrition of food.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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----
Mr. McGOVERN. But it's not an unknown factor. Food prices are rising.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
{time} 1610
Ms. DeLAURO. I want to offer some solid numbers.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying
bill where the House GOP guts critical food assistance programs that
help America's low-income and less fortunate families at a time when
they need it the most. This is yet another chapter in the Republican
attack on working families to give handouts to special interests. First
they came after seniors who rely on Medicare, and now they're coming
after our young children and their mothers.
Millions of Americans are now struggling to get through the worst
economy since the Great Depression, and America's food assistance
programs are proving to be an essential safety net for the jobless and
low-income families of America. At a time when the need is greater than
it's been in generations, Congress should be reaffirming our commitment
to helping these needy families, not pulling the rug out from under
them. But alarmingly, that's just what the Republican Agriculture
appropriations bill does.
This bill slashes funding for the nutrition program for Women,
Infants, and Children by $686 million. WIC is a program that provides
low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and children with
nutritious foods and improved access to health care. This funding is
critical to ensuring America's new mothers, babies, and young children
are fed right and grow up to be healthy, happy kids. But these slash-
and-burn cuts completely end food assistance for up to 350,000 low-
income women and children nationwide. Republicans, take the target off
these kids.
Now let's distinguish between wasteful spending and investments that
help the less fortunate get back on their feet. How can anyone say that
WIC is wasteful when it serves nearly 10 million people each year for
less than $100 per person? To some, these dollars may not sound like
much, but they mean all the difference for mothers like Amanda.
Amanda was blessed with three children after she was told she
couldn't even have one. But working in the food industry simply wasn't
enough to support a family and certainly not one with as many needs as
Amanda's. She has one son with disabilities, another that was born
prematurely, and a third that requires special formula. All these
demands quickly stretched her finances and her time. She couldn't
afford the basics for her baby, like cereal, peanut butter, milk, and
juice, much less the special formula that kept her son healthy. She was
struggling to get by. But with WIC's help, she was able to make ends
meet and even found time to get her bachelor's and master's through
online classes while raising her kids. Now she is a registered nurse
working on her Ph.D. And it was taking that first step to join WIC that
helped keep her children healthy and helped her make a better life for
her family. We should be investing in Amanda and her children, the
future of our country, not leaving them to fend for themselves.
But instead of helping build a stronger American workforce for our
future, the Republicans are providing more breaks so Big Oil can line
their pockets. This same bill blocks efforts to rein in oil speculators
that are manipulating the energy markets at the expense of American
families at the pump. And, in fact, in April, Goldman Sachs found that
this type of unregulated speculation adds over 20 percent to the price
of oil, and that's why our gasoline prices are going sky high.
So what was the Republican reaction to this? They slashed $30 million
in funding from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which would
stop this illegal speculation in the oil markets. So, as they gut
funding from struggling mothers and tiny babies like this, Republicans
are keeping gas prices high and pouring more profit into Big Oil's
coffers.
We cannot balance the Nation's budget on the backs of everyday
Americans just so that Big Oil can make big profits. Stop these cruel
cuts to women, children, and infants.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.
A mother's greatest fear is not being able to provide food and
security for her children, not being able to provide nourishment for
her kids to grow up and to learn. She worries about where she will find
their next meal. Each morning, she is greeted by growling stomachs and
an all-too familiar sense of anxiety. This mother is desperate to
provide food for her hungry children and depends on our local food
banks. But when she arrives at the food bank, she finds that the
shelves are empty. That is the time at which her anxiety turns to fear
and desperation.
Some of you might think that I am exaggerating, but if you come to my
district and visit the city of Cleveland and other parts of my
district, you can meet people who, for them, this is their reality,
just as it is the reality for people throughout this Nation who rely on
essential nutrition programs like TEFAP, WIC, and SNAP.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program, better known as TEFAP,
provides food to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger
relief through food banks. This bill caps TEFAP funding at $200
million, which is a $51 million cut; and, in addition to that, another
$12 million in grants for TEFAP for storage and distribution equipment
is also being cut. These cuts affect the storage of food that requires
refrigeration, forcing many food banks to only provide unhealthy,
nonperishable foods.
And to my friend Mr. Kingston, there is, indeed, a correlation
between hunger and obesity. Twenty-five percent of the food distributed
at Cleveland food banks is from TEFAP, and it is some of the most
nutritious food they have available. Even without the cuts that are
proposed in this bill, food banks are facing a shortage of food,
impairing their ability to provide for their communities. Parents turn
to food banks especially in the summer when school is out, when their
children no longer have a guaranteed breakfast and/or lunch 5 days a
week.
And it didn't stop at TEFAP. Also on the chopping block is funding
for WIC
[[Page H4134]]
and SNAP. Nearly 50 percent of the babies born in this country each
year rely on WIC. The proposed cuts to SNAP and WIC would result in
hundreds of thousands of low-income women, infants, and children losing
needed nutrition assistance. These massive cuts to WIC would force
vulnerable families to go hungry, to be completely dependent on food
banks which, unfortunately, are losing vital funding through this
legislation.
WIC provides food to almost 9 million low-income pregnant and nursing
women and young children. This bill cuts WIC by over $800 million; and
it's estimated that, because of these cuts, between 350,000 and 475,000
mothers and young children will be eliminated from the program. If we
can just get rid of the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires
for 1 week, as my colleague has said, we can pay for the entire WIC
program for an entire year. These cuts will cripple families and could
have a detrimental effect on the futures of these children.
A quarter of the people in my district have difficulty accessing
affordable food. But the chairman, Mr. Rogers, indicated, ``this
legislation reflects hard decisions to cut lower priority programs so
that our Nation continues on the path to fiscal recovery.''
To a hungry child, SNAP and WIC are not low-priority programs. These
cuts will not set our Nation on a path to recovery but, rather, make it
significantly more difficult for mothers to ensure the safety and
health of their children.
So what we are doing is punishing children for being poor. That is
what we are doing. We're not talking about, necessarily, adults.
Children have done nothing to us. I don't know how we sleep at night.
The Bible tells us--and I know my friends like to talk about faith, and
I am a person of strong faith. The Bible tells us that the poor will
always be among us. So we need to make a provision to take care of the
poor.
First, Republicans came after seniors who rely on Medicare, and now
they're coming after children and mothers who rely on food assistance.
Who's next, Mr. Chair?
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and protect our
children and pregnant women.
{time} 1620
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the underlying bill, H.R. 2112, because of the deep cuts to the Women,
Infants and Children's program.
I've always been told that you can measure the greatness of a society
by how well it treats its young, how well it treats its old, and how
well it treats those who have difficulty caring for themselves. All of
us know that there is no way that children, infants, can adequately
care for themselves.
The WIC program serves pregnant women through pregnancy up to 6 weeks
after birth, or after pregnancy ends; breast-feeding women up to the
infant's first birthday; and non-breast-feeding women up to 6 months
after the birth of an infant or after the pregnancy ends, as well as
infants up to their first birthday and children up to age 5.
Poverty and an identified medical or nutritional risk are two
eligibility requirements. Nutritious foods, nutrition education, and
referrals to maternal and child health services are among the program's
benefits. WIC serves 45 percent of all infants born in the United
States.
Now, there is no way that anyone can suggest that any of these
individuals, especially the children, had anything at all to do with
their level of poverty or the fact that there is not nutritious food
available to them. And even if there were not food deserts, they
wouldn't have the money to purchase what was available.
How one can reconcile taking milk out of the mouth of babes, or how
one can suggest that some way or another we are spending money when, as
the gentlelady from Wisconsin pointed out, the additional health care
cost resulting as a result of the individual's not having basic food
and care far outweighs any money that you could possibly spend.
And so it's not a matter of spending. It's a matter of investing. How
do you invest in America? You invest by providing for those who have
the greatest amount of need.
I know that we debate whether or not we are spending more than we're
taking in. Well, there's a way to rectify that. We just take in more.
We just charge people more who can afford to pay.
I don't believe in overspending. I don't believe in having huge
deficits. But I don't believe in seeing people suffer and die because
the society in which they live will not provide for them the basic
necessities of life.
I urge we vote against this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman from Florida controls the time, and I
recommend that he does yield to you.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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----
Mr. NUGENT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to comment on that. But that's exactly what
we're doing.
Ms. DeLAURO. But the----
Mr. KINGSTON. My friend from Connecticut, you know that's what we're
doing.
Ms. DeLAURO. Can I finish?
The Acting CHAIR. Members will suspend. The gentleman from Florida
controls the time. To whom does he yield?
Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has the time.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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
[[Page H4135]]
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.
Mr. NUGENT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
Ms. DeLAURO. The fact of the matter is what we are not asking about
is not utilizing funds if we don't need them.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is yielding to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1630
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) brought up a quote
about how you look at government. And it was Hubert Humphrey who said
that governments are judged on how they treat those in the dawn of
life--the young; in the twilight of life--the old; and the shadows of
life--the disabled, people with handicaps. And that is the way you
should judge it. I sometimes think with this budget and what we're
seeing here from the other side is they think the way you judge a
government is by the way it treats the millionaires, the billionaires,
the way it treats the oil and gas industry, or the way it treats the
Wall Street folks who do the hedge funds. And I think if that's the way
you're being judged, it's going to be a harsh, harsh condemnation.
My friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) came down and he spoke and he
said something about, look at what happened in the last election. Well,
I'll tell you what happened in the last election--it was in New York
State and the people spoke loudly. In a district that in 2010 was
strongly Republican, they said we don't want Medicare destroyed, we
want to keep Medicare, and they elected a Democrat. And the people are
seeing what these budget cuts are doing.
One of the reasons we've got all these problems and the reasons why
we have more and more people falling into needs for the SNAP program
and the WIC program and others is because the middle class is
disappearing in this country because jobs are being shipped overseas.
We're giving millionaires and billionaires tax breaks, and we're saying
everybody should share, but the sharing isn't going to the rich; it's
only going to the poor people, and they're getting cut and cut and cut.
This WIC program, Women, Infants and Children, should be the last
place anybody would consider cutting, it should be the absolute totally
last place; and yet the cuts are there, 13 percent. The fact is those
people are in the place in life where if we don't give moneys to the
food for pregnant mothers we're going to have more infant mortality. In
my district, we've got an infant mortality rate similar to Third World
countries. We've tried to have programs passed up here to deal with
infant mortality and to study it and to try to save the lives of
babies, and we're not going to be doing that.
I've heard a lot from the other side about being pro-life. We have a
difference on that. I'm pro-choice, but I'm pro-life after birth. And
pro-life shouldn't just be during a period of gestation; it should
include a time after birth. And we're not hearing pro-life-type
statements and pro-life-type budget provisions; it is all about saving
money on the backs of the poor. This is something that is not
appropriate, and it's something that I think should shame the other
side.
Mr. Kingston is a fine man. I heard him say he voted against the Bush
tax cuts, which I did. I got confused on what you did on Libya, but I
don't know what that had to do with it. You voted with Kucinich? Well,
I didn't. I don't know what it has to do with women, infants, and
children. There's a whole lot going on in Africa. That's another issue.
The bottom line is he's a good man, but he has a bad provision here,
and he could see to it that we change that. The women and the infants
and the children are dependent on the man from Georgia to try to come
up with a provision to help them.
The lady from Connecticut wanted some more time a few minutes ago,
and I would like to yield to her on this issue.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MATSUI. I rise today in opposition to the underlying bill. This
legislation makes dangerous cuts to essential antihunger and nutrition
programs.
In addition to their plan to privatize Medicare, House Republicans
are now proposing to cut the Women, Infants and Children program,
otherwise known as WIC. This is a much-needed, Federally funded health
and nutrition program which provides support, resources, and education
to low-income women.
This preventative public health nutrition program connects mothers
with prenatal care, increases healthy birth outcomes, and educates new
mothers about caring for their children and providing healthy food
options for their families.
In my home State of California, there are 82 WIC agencies serving
over 1.4 million women, infants, and children, but the bill before us
today cuts $650 million from the program, and these cuts we cannot
afford to make.
There are two WIC programs at work in my district, and I recently saw
firsthand the critical demand and needs for
[[Page H4136]]
their services. I witnessed a long line of women trying to provide for
their families and trying to receive the support they need to have a
healthy pregnancy. This WIC office alone has a case load of over 32,000
individuals a month but can only serve 30,000 because of a lack of
resources.
In this economic downturn, people who never before knew about WIC now
find themselves relying on its services to feed their families. These
include State workers who were furloughed, nurses and teachers who have
lost their jobs. Unfortunately, demand for these programs is
increasing, not decreasing. With Sacramento's unemployment rate at 12
percent, these resources are not only needed and appreciated but are
vital.
One recipient is a mother who once thought WIC was only about giving
free food or formula to low-income families, but her perspective about
the program changed dramatically when she enrolled in the program
herself. As she was expecting her first and only child, she entered the
program to help her family make ends meet. Throughout her pregnancy,
she received nutrition information and referrals. Unfortunately, she
was diagnosed with gestational diabetes, but because she was on WIC at
the time she was seen by a dietitian every month. With WIC's support,
her baby was born healthy and she had the support she needed to provide
for her family.
But the cuts in this legislation do not end at WIC. The Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, which helps supplement meals for low-income
individuals, and The Emergency Food Assistance Program, otherwise known
as TEFAP, which provides food banks with food they distribute, are both
on the chopping block.
A month ago, I visited the Stanford Settlement Senior Center, which
participates in the California Emergency Foodlink Senior Brown Bag
Lunch run by volunteers, many of whom are recipients themselves. The
California Emergency Foodlink distributes over 80,000 pounds of food
per month to approximately 8,000 low-income seniors in need in
Sacramento County. For many of these seniors this is the only
nutritious food they will have for a week. TEFAP also provides funding
for approximately 18 percent of food that comes into the Sacramento
food bank. This food bank provides a 5-day supply of emergency
groceries to those who are struggling to get by, and over 18,000
individuals receive fresh groceries from this site every month.
In addition to all of the cuts I've mentioned, the legislation also
includes report language to stop the process of updating the school
nutrition standards. It is essential for our students to have the
nutrition they need to be productive and successful at school. In the
Sacramento City Unified School District, approximately 67 percent of
students are eligible for free and reduced lunches. Without an
investment in proper nutrition, these students will not only fall
behind in their studies, they can also face serious health issues.
{time} 1640
Unfortunately, the legislation before us proposes some of the hardest
cuts to endure. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the speakers have chosen to cut $562
million out of WIC, which would have carried forward into this year,
and this year would have carried forward into next year. That's because
the WIC Program has a 2-year carryover. So, when the previous speakers
voted to cut WIC by $562 million, they truly were cutting money that
could have been available now.
The reason they chose to cut that is they found a higher priority
expenditure than WIC, and when they made that choice, they took that
money out of the program, money which could have been available now.
They did that based on real numbers of WIC participation, not on
estimates. They did it on real numbers, and the real numbers showed
that WIC participation was in decline.
We are now looking at about 8.3 million per month in WIC
participation with about 9 million per month fundable via contingency.
We are looking at funding WIC at 87 percent of what it has been. We're
not looking at decimating it. We're not looking, like some people have
said on the other side, at levels that will cause children to go hungry
or to starve, as one of the people said on the other side of the aisle.
We're funding it at 87 percent of the level it has been. In addition,
there are State food programs. There are county food programs. There
are city food programs. There are religious organization food programs.
There is the Salvation Army--501(c)(3)-type programs--neighborhood
programs, Meals on Wheels programs, food banks; and there are
goodhearted, wonderful Americans who help their neighbors in need.
This is an adequate budget in tough economic times. In addition, as I
said earlier, we are funding a net increase in food programs because we
are increasing the amount of money that will go to food stamps and
school lunches.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I guess my question to the gentlelady is: Does she believe we do not
have a hunger or a food and security problem in this country and that
everything is being taken care of?
My other question is: Why are Brazilian cotton farmers more important
than poor pregnant women and their children?--because that's another
choice we're making here.
Mrs. LUMMIS. In reclaiming my time, I do not believe that cotton
farmers in either the United States or Brazil are more important than
WIC Program participants.
Mr. McGOVERN. Do you believe we have a hunger problem?
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, our committee is only able to look at
discretionary spending. We cannot look at mandatory spending, and we
cannot look at programs that are subject to the 5-year farm bill, such
as subsidies for farmers. I think subsidies for farmers can go by the
wayside, and I hope that when the Ag Committee meets to restructure the
5-year farm bill that they will do away with farmer subsidies.
I think it is ridiculous that we are paying cotton growers subsidies
in this country that violate the World Trade Organization to an extent
that we then have to subsidize Brazilian cotton growers in order to
rectify our violation of the WTO. That's one of the most ridiculous
things I've ever heard. I wish we could have addressed that in this
bill.
I wish we could have addressed the categorical eligibility that is
available. Once you qualify for one type of Federal program, you're
eligible for all of them whether you need them or not. I wish we could
address how much money people get on earned income tax credits. I wish
we could make sure that 100 percent of the people in this country paid
a little bit of tax and that the rich people paid a lot more.
None of that is true, and none of that is within the purview of the
Appropriations Committee with regard to discretionary spending.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr.
Chairman, it is often said that a society can be judged by how it
treats its young, its elderly and the less fortunate. Today is a
perfect example of that.
Instead of feeding the women, infants and children, it appears that
the Republicans in Congress are slashing the Ag budget to make room for
more tax breaks for the wealthy. Let's have a look at how these
priorities balance out. If we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires
and billionaires for one measly week, we would pay for the entire WIC
Program for a year--a full year. So let's get this straight.
During these times when there is a job shortage, when a person has a
job but wages are lower than they should be, when the cost of food is
very high and when we have low taxes on the
[[Page H4137]]
rich, pregnant women will go hungry and their babies will be born
underweight so that someone can afford another beach vacation. Kids
will go without breakfast so that someone can buy a second home.
First, the Republicans in Congress passed the Ryan budget act to
dismantle Medicare for our seniors and for our disabled. Now they want
to take food from the mouths of needy children and women. Honestly, Mr.
Chairman, I don't know how they sleep at night.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. There are WIC recipients in every
single congressional district in this country--red States, blue States.
Hunger doesn't see political affiliation. This is not some abstract
political theory. There are real women and children in every single
congressional district who will have to forgo meals. How many of us
have ever given up a meal so that a child could eat or have explained
to a 3-year-old why there won't be lunch today or have soothed a crying
baby who won't get formula?
We should end this shameful spending of $10 billion a month in
Afghanistan. We should bring our troops home. We should stop the war
tax. We should tax millionaires and billionaires. We should create
jobs. We should vote against this bill. Let's show America's working
families that we stand with them and that we will be there for them
during times of need.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know this is a very, very
tough state of affairs and time frame that we are in. I also know this
is a time when America calls upon all of us to stand not for our
individual selfish interests but to look at the country as a united
team that believes in lifting the boats of all people.
I want to thank my friends who have struggled on this committee to
deal with the bare necessities of life, of food. That is why I come
today, unfortunately, to oppose this legislation, because it does not
take into account that without sustenance and nutrition that people
die.
{time} 1650
It is plain and simple. We are not talking about knicknacks or
trains, buses, highways, bridges, all very important and job creators,
and in fact efforts that the Democrats have made very clear that they
are the job creating caucus for the press and push that we have made or
are making in America. We have asked our colleagues to join us. But
today we talk about feeding people.
I rose earlier today to say that it is in the DNA of the 18th
Congressional District, because one of my predecessors, Mickey Leland,
actually died delivering food to starving people around the world. He
thought so much of hunger in America that he organized the Select
Committee on Hunger, joined by Tony Hall and Congressman Emerson; and
his legacy was that we cannot do without substance.
So it makes no sense to cut $3 billion from WIC; a WIC program that
indicates that WIC moms are more likely to have initiated breast
feeding than low-income non-WIC moms. Middle- to high-income moms are
more likely to have initiated breast feeding than both WIC and low-
income non-WIC. One in five children do not drink water easily. WIC
children were more likely to drink juice daily than children not on
WIC. Ninety-three percent of children drink milk daily. About one-
quarter of all children had drunk seven or more sugar-sweetened
beverages in the previous week. These are without the ability to have
nutritious meals. This is in my own State of Texas, which indicates
that food does not matter in terms of how wealthy a State may be.
So I can't imagine why, as my colleagues have said, we can't find $3
billion from the $10 billion a month that is being spent in Afghanistan
and the moneys that have been stolen in Iraq, where we don't even know
where it is. It is all about priorities.
So I rise today to express great consternation over the cut in WIC
and to indicate that WIC is about growing, it is about providing
nutrition so that children can think, so that they can be able to be
strong leaders. It is to grow children healthy, it is to stop disease,
it is to provide the kind of immune system that thwarts disease.
In a State like Texas, the 18th Congressional District which I
represent has a strong work ethic. I am so proud of them. But they also
have a rate of poverty that is frightening. Food insecurity in my
district ranks number 32 in the Nation. That means that there are only
31 districts ahead that have that degree of food insecurity. And yet I
am going to have to go home and tell them that the priorities of this
Congress were something other than feeding children and providing
mothers, prenatal and prenatal condition and after birth, the kind of
resources to provide for a healthy child.
That means my pre-K little babies will be going to school hungry.
That means they will come home to a non-dinner. And that means that we
as a country have failed in our natural value that we all are created
equal with certain inalienable rights of life and liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
It is shocking to be able to stand here today and know they are
cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and now they add insult to injury that
they are cutting food stamps and the WIC program. So I guess our
soldiers, who themselves, young soldiers, young families on food
stamps, will suffer as well.
But the WIC program, that has gotten blamed for everything but what
is right, and that is the Women, Infants and Children program provides
nutrition for healthy children, and to stand here today to have to look
Americans in the face and those in the 18th Congressional District who
are 32nd in food insecurity and say that we do not have the money.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to go back to the drawing
board. Don't put this bill on the floor. Take it off, because you are
now handing to the children of this Nation a ticket that says no food
at the end, no food at this table, no food.
Mr. CICILLINE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in defense of 76,000 residents of the First
Congressional District of Rhode Island, which I have the privilege of
representing who, according to the advocacy group Feeding America, are
at risk of losing their ability to feed themselves and their families.
That is because this week the majority party in the House is ready to
vote on a measure that will undermine the safety net in this country
designed for our Nation's women, infants and children.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that one of the greatest challenges before
us is reducing our deficit, but we have to do it in a way that is
consistent with our values, consistent with the values of our great
country. And this week we will be voting on a measure that fails those
values miserably.
If the majority party has their way and denies necessary funding to a
critical safety net for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens,
nearly 1,000 women, infants and children in Rhode Island's First
District will be denied the assistance they need to survive.
WIC represents the most basic obligation we have to our fellow
citizens most in need--food and nutrition. On top of that, it is an
incredibly cost-effective program, serving nearly 10 million Americans
each year and costing less than $100 per person. In my district, more
than 18 percent of the residents suffer from food insecurity and depend
on WIC to make ends meet.
At a time when the middle class in our country is being crushed with
high unemployment and still reeling from a housing crisis that has left
countless families in foreclosure, we are seeing more and more people
in need of assistance just to get by. And it is not just affecting
people without jobs. It is folks who have a job as well, but they have
had their wages cut or they have had their wages diminished or their
hours cut.
This is not the time to allow people to lose the lifelines they need
to survive. We have helped the auto industry. We have helped big banks.
It is time to sustain support for families that are most in need and
have been most devastated by this difficult economy.
Yet we see again this week another attack by the Republican majority
in
[[Page H4138]]
the House on working families while they continue to fight to protect
subsidies for Big Oil and to protect tax breaks for the outsourcing of
jobs overseas. First they come after seniors by trying to end Medicare,
and now they are coming after women, children, and infants who rely on
food assistance.
We should not be destroying programs upon which citizens rely for
their most basic needs in order to fund tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires or big subsidies for the big oil companies. If we got rid
of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we could
pay for the entire WIC program for an entire year.
I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal, to ensure instead that
families most in need who have been hardest hit by this recession have
access to food and nourishment. We have the ability to provide
nourishment to families, and that is a cornerstone of a free and decent
society. We cannot abandon this great responsibility.
I yield to the gentlelady from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much for yielding.
I just wanted a few seconds to clarify something I have heard over
and over again. We continue to say that first they have come after the
seniors with Medicare and Medicaid and now they are coming after the
children. No. We ended the entitlement to AFDC back in the nineties,
and WIC is not an entitlement like the SNAP program, the food stamp
program. It is not an entitlement like school lunch programs.
So what this bill does is it double-downs on not providing food to
infants and children. No, we have already cut the entitlement and
snatched the safety net from underneath kids. This double-downs on
that. We have torn the safety net for children, and now we are pulling
it through the shredder for the second time.
As a person who has personally had sugar sandwiches, mayonnaise
sandwiches and mustard sandwiches, I can tell you that funding this
program at only 87 percent of its value will mean we will see a lot
more malnourishment in our communities.
Mr. CICILLINE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTLETT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to spend just a few moments
putting our discussions in context. This year, the deficit will be
perhaps as much as $1.6 trillion.
{time} 1700
Now, our total discretionary spending--that's the money that we vote
here to spend, and spend nearly a year doing it--is a little over a
trillion dollars. A bit more than half of that is the Defense budget.
What that means is if we didn't have any government that we vote to
spend money for here, if we had no Defense, we had no Homeland
Security, if we had no EPA, if we had no NIH, if we had no WIC program,
if we had none of the myriad Departments of government that serve us
every day, we'd still have a half-trillion-dollar deficit. I'm not sure
that the reality of this has gotten through to our Congress or the
American people.
Another way of looking at this is that we have revenues of about $2.2
trillion a year, but our mandatory spending--that's interest on the
debt and our means-tested welfare programs and Medicaid and Medicare
and Social Security--are several hundred billion dollars more than
that. What that means is that one second after midnight on January 1,
we're already in debt that year several hundred billion dollars, and we
haven't even started to pay for the defense of our country, for
Homeland Security, for NIH, for the WIC program, or for any of these
many, many programs that our government supports.
There is no way with the meager cuts that we're making in these
budgets that we're voting on that we're ever going to get to anything
near a balance.
Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, sir. We're good friends.
What you're telling me, I presume, is that you approve a $650 million
cut from the Women, Infant, and Children's fund. Is that correct?
Mr. BARTLETT. I was just trying to put in context our discussion here
and what it means.
Reclaiming my time, we have a $1.6 trillion deficit. We're coming
close to that this year. The Ryan budget was kind of an expression of
his roadmap. And in the last Congress only eight of us had the courage
to sign on to his roadmap, because it was pretty tough. This year, when
he filed that roadmap again, I think 13 of us signed on. And then we
had the Ryan budget, which is even tougher, I think, than his roadmap,
but what else was there to vote for, and almost nobody read it, so we
voted for it anyhow.
The Ryan budget doesn't balance for 25 years. It doesn't balance for
25 years. That means with that budget, with all of its austerity, for
25 years we still are accumulating more and more and more debt. Every
six hours we have another billion-dollar deficit, which means another
billion-dollar debt. About every 12 hours we have another billion-
dollar trade deficit.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to put our discussions in context. I have
10 kids and 17 grandkids and two great-grandkids. I sure would like to
leave them a country better than the country as I find it. And it's
going to be really tough to do that. What I want for us to do as
Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, is to sit down
and talk through this. How are we going to solve this problem?
Grandstanding and making these political points is not going to get us
there.
Mr. Chairman, we have got to do something serious. I don't see the
Congress doing that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Mr. Bartlett from Maryland for making the case. I tell my
friends that when they say women and children first, it means to save
them, not to throw them overboard. Women and children first means that
they are the most vulnerable and need to be lifted up, need to be
protected, need to be given the hand up, not the handout.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, I rise in opposition to this
bill. I thank my friend from Maryland, for whom I have great respect. I
think in fact he did put this in context. We will not balance the
budget on the backs of children. We will not balance this budget on the
backs of women who need nutrition and health care. That's not how we're
going to balance the budget. And the gentleman from Maryland made that
point I think very effectively.
If we cut out all defense and discretionary spending, we wouldn't
balance our budget. That's the magnitude of the problem that faces us.
But a great country, America, should not ask our children who need
nutritional programs, who need health programs, to pay the price--to
pay the price of our responsibility because we have failed to pay for
what we buy.
But let us not repair to our little children and their mothers to pay
the bill that we refuse to pay while at the same time we pass a rule
the first day in this House that provides for $5 trillion in tax cuts
for the wealthiest in America, including me. I don't want a tax cut if
it means that a child goes hungry in America, the richest Nation on the
face of the Earth. That is not my priority. That is not my morality.
That is not my faith. Lift up the little children.
Surely, America is not a country that wants to see its children go
hungry or its pregnant women go without services they need for healthy
babies. Surely, America is a generous enough country to feed those who
need food. My faith tells me to feed the hungry, house the homeless,
clothe those who have no clothes.
I rise in opposition to this bill and I rise in strong opposition to
attempts to dramatically cut the food programs that serve some of our
most vulnerable constituents. Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and Alan
Simpson, a Republican and former member of the United States Senate,
just issued a report. In that report it lays forth a number of premises
on which that report is based.
[[Page H4139]]
And one of its first premises is: do not hurt the vulnerable in
America. Because, as my friend from Maryland points out, that won't get
you to where we need to get. And we need to get there. I'm going to
work with my friend from Maryland, a Republican, and all Republicans
who know that we need to get to balanced budgets to reduce debt, and my
friends on my side of the aisle.
This appropriations bill would sharply reduce funding for the vital
nutrition programs for women, infants, and children. Surely, Americans
did not send us a message to go to Washington and undermine women,
infants, and children. At a time when we are still recovering from the
worst economic crisis in a generation, where unemployment is
unacceptably high, where people have lost their homes, where too many
people are in great distress, surely this is not a time to say, We turn
our back on you.
This bill is pushing to cut $37 million in support for hungry, low-
income seniors, not just women, infants, and children. This bill cuts
seniors as well. Surely, our people did not send us to this Congress to
cut seniors. Also, $11 million in support for our community food banks.
By the way, if you visited your food bank, you know that there is more
demand on our food banks than there has ever been.
Ladies and gentlemen, reject this bill. Stand up for the values of
America and of our people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. I would like to follow on to our great whip's very
moving statement and ask our good friend Roscoe Bartlett, a
distinguished Member from Maryland, whether or not he would pass a bill
that would cut funding in the amount of $650 million for women, infant,
and children out of the Department of Agriculture's program.
{time} 1710
So in the four decades that I have served and have been honored to
serve in this Congress, I believe that we will have reached an all-time
low today if we pass a bill that will cut funding for the Department of
Agriculture's Women, Infants, and Children program.
Ladies and gentlemen, my brothers and sisters, how can anybody in
Congress with a conscience seriously consider passing a bill, or even
proposing one, that would result in more hunger for hundreds of
thousands of the poorest and neediest low-income children across this
Nation who are already suffering from hunger and malnutrition?
I fail to understand the logic of any elected official who serves in
Congress who would actually support a $650 million cut from the Women,
Infants, and Children program during one of the worst economic
downturns since the Great Depression without feeling some kind of moral
or ethical guilt for doing so.
The Women, Infants, and Children program serves nearly 10 million
people each year and costs less than $100 per person. What could be
more important than supporting a Federal program that provides
nutritious food to new mothers, babies, and children under 5 who have
been identified as nutritionally at risk?
Cutting the Women, Infants, and Children program for poor children
and mothers is clearly an abandonment of our family values. Promoting
policies that we know will result in scores of children feeling the
painful sting of hunger, not being able to focus in school or not being
able to do their homework, is far from what I would consider having
good family values. It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless, and
unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in
the name of deficit reduction. Ladies and gentlemen, have we no shame?
The majority of Americans do not support slashing vital food and
nutrition programs for our Nation's poorest children. Let's get rid of
the tax breaks for billionaires so all children in this country can
live the American dream and not go to bed hungry at night.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the
Agriculture appropriations bill. And like so many before me, I'm
particularly opposed to cuts in funding to provide food and nutrition
to American families, to pregnant women and infants and children and
seniors and families struggling in this country to put food on the
table at a time of rising unemployment and poverty.
I have to tell you I am at a loss to understand why my Republican
colleagues are so insistent in providing even more tax breaks to
millionaires and billionaires that they are willing to take food from
children. In the Republican world view, apparently, tax cuts to the
very wealthy and subsidies to big oil companies and companies that send
jobs overseas are a bigger priority than Medicare and Medicaid and
education. And, again, in this bill they even take food out of the
mouths of hungry children to give those tax breaks.
Understand what this bill does. The Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, which provides low-income seniors with emergency food and
nutrition education, is cut by more than 20 percent, or $40 million. In
this bill the Republicans will take food out of the mouths of hungry,
poor, old people.
The SNAP reserve fund will get $2 billion less. SNAP, formerly called
food stamps, provides critical nutrition support to low-income
families, and the reserve helps meet the demands created by unexpected
participation in higher-than-projected food costs, food costs everybody
knows are going way up. And with high unemployment and food prices
rising, the reserve fund is more likely to be tapped than ever before,
and depleting reserve funds will increase the likelihood of a food
crisis in the United States of America.
Let me tell you what these cuts mean to people in Illinois. Lorraine
Dzieginski is 82 years old and started receiving Social Security
benefits at age 65. Her monthly benefit is $695 a month. But this
amount doesn't even cover her property taxes, her home insurance, her
supplemental health insurance and utilities. That amounts to well over
$700. She relies partially on the SNAP, or food stamp program, to feed
herself. Her monthly benefit is $16, the minimum SNAP allotment.
Republican cuts likely mean that other seniors like Ms. Dzieginski will
be turned away from SNAP if they find themselves in that circumstance
next year. Our seniors deserve better.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to remind you SNAP actually goes up $5.6 billion
on this, and you're not talking about it, but school lunch also goes up
$1\1/2\ million. So I did want to say that the SNAP portion of this
bill does go up $5.6 billion.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. It's still $2 billion lower than
the President's request.
We want to make sure the money is there at a time of high
unemployment, of disappearing 401(k)s and savings. And the Emergency
Food Assistance Program is cut by more than 20 percent, or $60 million.
And TEFAP provides commodities to food banks to assist in relief
efforts. And with unemployment still high, and I know this in my
district, many people who used to contribute to food banks are now
waiting in line to get the food to keep food on their tables. And with
diminished Federal support, they may show up only to find empty
shelves.
And then we get to the WIC program. I'm a mother and a grandmother,
and for the first time in American history, we will turn away eligible
mothers and children from the program, an effective program. With it,
infants and children can get a healthy start in life, and without it
they can suffer from lifelong health problems. For every dollar spent,
WIC provides health care savings of as much as $3--$3 for every $1
spent.
So we talk a lot about children, we've talked a lot about seniors in
this House, but let's be clear. The choice before us is not whether we
have to deny children food in order to reduce the deficit. The choice
is whether we will
[[Page H4140]]
make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share so that low-
income mothers, infants, and children will be fed.
The choice is clear. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.
{time} 1720
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. I rise today in opposition to the underlying
bill, H.R. 2112, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012, and
the cuts to the WIC program.
We want to talk about right to life. WIC is a right to life. It's an
essential program that offers nutrition, education, breast feeding
support, referrals, and a variety of nutritious foods to low-income
pregnant, breast feeding and postpartum women, infants, and children up
to the age of 5. The program is administered through county health
departments, hospitals, mobile clinics, community centers, schools,
public housing sites, migrant health centers and camps, and Indian
health service facilities.
In New York State, the WIC program provides services to nearly one-
half million low-income women, infants, and children through 103 local
WIC agencies statewide. Local agencies such as Brooklyn's Healthy Start
have provided WIC services to low-income women in my district for more
than 20 years. It is the work of the Brooklyn Healthy Start and other
WIC programs who are on the front lines that are fighting against this
country's already shamefully high infant mortality rate. Decreasing
funding to WIC programs will undoubtedly increase my district's infant
mortality rate and infant mortality rates across this Nation.
Given the spike in demand for WIC and other nutrition programs like
SNAP and food stamps, school meals, summer, after-school, and child
care food programs, it is unconscionable that the Republican-led
Congress is seeking to cut these critical programs that help seniors,
children, and low-income people who aspire to be part of our Nation's
middle class.
First, Republicans went after our Nation's seniors who rely on
Medicare, and now they're going after the children and mothers who rely
on our social compact for food assistance. If we got rid of tax breaks
for multimillionaires and billionaires for just 1 week, we would pay
for the entire WIC program for a year.
It is my belief that cuts to the WIC program are based on an
ideological political rationale that defies human understanding and not
an honest desire to cut deficits. This Agriculture appropriations bill
continues to protect tax cuts for multimillionaires while having poor
women and children stuck to pay the dear price.
WIC has been shown to improve the health of pregnant women, new
mothers, and infants and children. The food provided through WIC is a
good source of essential nutrients that are often missing from the
diets of women and young children. WIC participants have longer,
healthier pregnancies and fewer premature births.
We all understand the need to reduce the deficit, but we must do so
in a way that is consistent with our shared values. It is a moral
imperative that we look after those who are forgotten, marginalized in
our society. In the words of a prolific, poetic philosopher, Kanye
West, ``How could you be so heartless?'' Republicans shouldn't destroy
programs upon which citizens depend on the most in exchange to pay for
$45 billion in tax breaks for multimillionaires. Shame.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and protect low-income
women, infants, and children.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we're told that we're broke, we're broke,
and because we're broke, we can't possibly pay for things like women,
infants, and children. We can't have a jobs bill. We can't build our
Nation's infrastructure. We can't, we can't, we can't. We have to cut
because, according to some, we're broke.
But when we think about how the bounty of this Nation is spread,
we're not so broke that we can't give subsidies to oil companies. We're
not so broke that we can't ask the richest Americans to do a little
more. We're not so broke that we don't call upon people whom America
has benefited and allowed them to become millionaires and say, You know
what? Now your Nation needs you. We're told, No, those people don't
have to sacrifice, but we're broke.
So women and infants and children and seniors, they have to
sacrifice. They have to go without. They have to tighten their belts.
It's a shame.
We're not asked to be one America, to bear the burden together. If
there's a burden to be borne, surely oil companies can bear it with the
American people. If there's a burden to be borne, surely the wealthiest
among us can pitch in and help out. But not according to the Republican
majority. According to them, we're broke, and the poor must suffer. The
aged must do without. Those in need have to figure out how to make it
one more day because we're broke, and we have to take food out of the
mouths of infants and pregnant mothers. And because we're broke, we
need to increase the risk of food-borne illness. And because we're
broke, we cannot afford to pay cops on the beat who are going to
regulate the speculators on Wall Street who drive up the price of
gasoline and food. We can't pay for these important public servants
because they say we're broke. But we're not too broke to ask our oil
companies to help. We're not too broke to ask the top 2 percent to
pitch in.
The day must come, Mr. Chair, when the poor are not thought to have
too much and the rich are not thought to have too little. The day must
come when we have to be one America and come together to deal with the
burdens of this Nation and not leave the wealthiest and the most
privileged scott free while the other people have to bear the burden of
``we're broke.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, what we really have here
is a discussion not so much as to which party has moral superiority
here, but it's really a deeper question about what's the purpose of our
Nation and whether we are aligned with the Founding Fathers' spiritual
principles, because while the Founders separated church and State, they
did not intend our Nation to be separated from spiritual principles.
And I think that at this moment, if we really want to sincerely
appreciate the dilemma that we have created with these cuts, we need to
reflect on some of our own spiritual training for those of us who are
Christian, when, in John 21:15, Jesus was dining with his apostles. And
so when they dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these?
He said unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.
And the Lord said to him, Feed my lambs.
He said to him again, the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me?
He said unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.
And the Lord answered, Feed my sheep.
He said unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?
Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest
thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things. Thou
knowest that I love thee.
Jesus said unto him, Feed my sheep.
There are spiritual principles at stake here. We know what the right
thing is to do. We know that feeding the hungry is a corporal work of
mercy. We know that we have a responsibility to do this. We know that
when the Bible says, Whatever you do for the least of my brothers and
sisters, you do for me, in Matthew 25, that we're actually referring to
how spiritual is the act of feeding the poor.
{time} 1730
This decision that we make with respect to whether or not we are
going to fully fund the Women, Infants, and
[[Page H4141]]
Children program does have profound spiritual consequences. We cannot
escape them. ``For when I was hungry, you gave me food,'' remember
that. When I was hungry, you gave me food. You didn't give me war. You
didn't give me a tax break. You didn't give me an oil depletion
allowance. When I was hungry, you gave me food. Who among you, the
Bible asks, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone? These
are spiritual principles we're talking about here. This really goes to
the core of who we are as a Nation, whether we recognize people who are
out there are suffering. People may not have a roof over their head.
Mothers may be living in a car, having to tend to their children.
America today is not the country it was at its founding, but it can
be a Nation that aspires to great things again. But it cannot do it if
we forget the poor, if we forget the children, if we forget their
mothers, if we tell them that, No, you cannot have the resources you
need to be able to provide proper nutrition to your child so that he or
she can grow up in this United States of America to be a full
participant in the affairs of this Nation.
This is a defining moment for who we are as a Nation. This isn't
about whether we're Democrats or Republicans. This is about whether we
are prepared to realign ourselves with the deeper truths of the
spiritual mission of the United States of America. Feed the hungry.
Feed my sheep. When I was hungry, you gave me food. Restore these cuts.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I yield to my honorable colleague from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I want
to make a couple of points.
Number one, this bill increases food stamps by $5.6 billion. Now,
somebody has said, But that's not as much as the President requested.
Well, it is an increase of $5.6 billion. And I'm sorry, the President's
crystal ball isn't always the best one. I don't need to remind you
about last summer's celebration of recovery or whatever it was called.
School nutrition goes up $1.5 billion under this bill.
We did what has been done in the past with WIC. We fund the
participation level that is anticipated. Last year, the Democrats voted
to cut WIC funding by $562 million. I have got the votes right here for
any Democrat who is not sure how he or she voted. I want to give you
the vote. I will put it in the Record so everybody can have a chance to
look at it because after a while, I have to wonder. I also have the
vote record for extending the Bush tax cuts, which was signed by
President Obama. I have the vote record for that. I want to say to some
of my friends over there, I voted ``no'' on that. Very important.
This bill funds WIC at 8.3 million participants. Now, if it goes up
to over 9 million, the contingency fund is there to cover that. The
contingency fund for WIC alone is $350 million. It would have been
higher, Mr. Chairman, but the Democrats voted to cut it $562 million
last year for an unrelated account. Now, to quote one of the well-known
Democrats, That's an inconvenient truth to some of the speakers here
tonight. But it is very important.
It is not the intention of this bill to let anybody go hungry. And
any time the Bible is quoted on the floor of the House, I think it's a
good thing. But I think there are some lessons in there that if there
is a target on children's backs, perhaps it's the fact that our Nation
is over $14 trillion in debt; and for every dollar we spend, 40 cents
is borrowed, much of that from China. And who do you think is going to
pay that back? It's not going to be the generations who are making the
decisions. It's going to be the children.
So what our challenge is, Mr. Chairman, is to balance the fiscal need
with the heart, and I believe that this budget very carefully does
that. It increases food stamps $5.6 billion. It increases school
lunches $1.5 billion. It funds WIC at a level of 8.3 million and has a
contingency that will cover over 9 million participants. So for all the
drama that we're hearing--and it is some very good rhetoric and some
very good drama, but it's not accurate.
Now we could be talking about the WIC overhead, the WIC
administrative costs. We could be talking about the fraud in WIC. We
could be talking about the coordination of feeding benefits. If a child
is 3 years old in America, he or she is eligible for 12 different
programs. At 10 years old, they're eligible for nine programs. At 65,
they're eligible for five different feeding programs. Those are Federal
programs. It does not mention any of the State or the local
participation in programs that are out there. It doesn't mention any of
the charitable organizations that are out there.
So, again, we're hearing lots of great rhetoric, lots of drama; but
it's not accurate. These numbers are important for reasonable debate
for people who are trying to balance the runaway spending in this
country--a 56 percent increase in the national debt under President
Obama--and the need to take care of the poor.
I want to say to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), because I know
he has been very consistent--and I do certainly agree that everybody
here has passion and conviction and idealism, which I think we all need
more of--I voted with you, Mr. Kucinich, last week. I think we are
spending a lot of money in Libya. And those are things that are very
important for us to be debating on the floor of the House before the
President of the United States--of either party--goes and obligates
billions of dollars in a new overseas contingency operation. We need to
be discussing that. So I would say, put that on the table.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I rise in opposition to this bill in part because the
truth of the matter is that the $562 million that was cut in WIC funds
last year did not affect participants. The reason it didn't affect
participants was that the WIC foods cost less and there were fewer
participants in fiscal year 2010. So the funds were not needed.
Now, today it's Flag Day, and we're celebrating Flag Day, and I want
to celebrate that great liberal of the United States of America,
Richard M. Nixon. Richard M. Nixon put this program in. Now, we all
know he was a bleeding heart liberal. Right? He just couldn't wait to
give money to poor folks. And he also, by the way, put out here a
universal health care plan.
So there is some question you might ask yourself about why we have
WIC. Well, the social safety net is like a spider web, and there are a
whole lot of places that you have to help people. We have Social
Security, and we have unemployment insurance, and we've got foster kid
money, and we've got things for women and children.
Now, the Republicans in this session have deliberately set out to go
after women and children. The first place was Planned Parenthood. We
don't want to give any young women any information about anything
having to do with getting pregnant. Now more kids get pregnant. They're
16 years old. They have a kid, and they don't have any counseling, and
nobody talks to them about nutrition and gives them the things that
they need.
What is the result of that? The result of that is more low birth
weight babies, more babies born with poor development because they
didn't have the nutrition during the cycle of development. Do you know
how much is the average amount spent on a woman in the WIC program?
It's $100 to deal with the problems of infants and children, on
average.
{time} 1740
Now, I happen to know, being a physician, that if you get a premature
baby who comes in at 2.5 pounds, and everybody's so excited that we can
save these kids, but let me tell you, it costs money. If you can deal
with a premature baby at the hospital for under a quarter of a million
dollars, you have a real miracle, and you could have prevented it for
100 bucks. You could have saved--if you're really about deficit
reduction, I know you don't care about human beings particularly, but
you do care about saving money. If you're going to save money, then
you're going to put it into the children at the beginning.
Now, there's other reasons for that. If they don't get good nutrition
at the beginning and they don't get good brain
[[Page H4142]]
development and they don't do well in school, they drop out; right? And
then we don't have a workforce in this country to do what needs to be
done in this country. So we get immigrants to come in and do things.
People don't want immigrants, then feed the children that you insisted
that women have in this country.
You don't want anybody to have any planning on birth, and then the
kid comes and you won't feed him, you won't take care of him, and
you're going to pay the price.
I remember, there used to be a television commercial when I was a
kid. It was called the FRAM commercial. It was an air filter on your
automobile. And the commercial was, Pay me now or pay me later. Change
the filter or you're going to pay having the engine redone.
That's why we have all these kids dropping out of school, because we
don't take--that's why it's fascinating.
The children's feeding program in schools was from Harry Truman. Why
did he do that? Well, they looked at the records of the Second World
War and they rejected so many draftees because they didn't have good
bones. They were malnourished. They were maldeveloped and they weren't
fit to be soldiers. They put that school lunch program in so that they
could make strong kids so we could have a strong army.
This business about saving 100 bucks on a woman who has a child and
doesn't know--she's 16 years old, she's 17 years old, she's 18 years
old.
This is the most shortsighted bill I've ever seen. Vote ``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
underlying bill and in strong support of the Women, Infants, and
Children program that provides food to new mothers, babies, and
children under 5 who have been identified as nutritionally at risk.
WIC ensures that infants and children grow in a healthy manner. The
program reduces levels of anemia, increases immunization rates,
improves access to regular health care and Social Services, and it
improves diets.
Nearly 50 percent of babies born in this country each year benefit
from the WIC program, and the success of the program is clear. Numerous
studies have shown that pregnant women who participate in WIC have
fewer premature births, fewer low and very low birth weight babies,
experience fewer fetal and infant deaths, seek prenatal care earlier in
their pregnancy, and consume more key nutrients during their pregnancy.
Simply put, WIC infants are in better health than eligible infants not
participating in WIC.
But the benefits of WIC participation extend beyond the short term. A
baby's physical, cognitive, and emotional growth and development depend
largely on how much and what types of foods are eaten during pregnancy
and the first years after birth, especially the first year after birth.
This period is critical because more than half of a child's brain
growth is completed by the child's first birthday, and malnutrition
during this period can cause irreversible diminution in brain
development. And so 4- and 5-year-olds whose mothers participated in
WIC during pregnancy have better vocabulary scores than children whose
mothers did not receive WIC benefits. This leads to better academic
achievement, lower dropout rates, and other factors that we're trying
to work on.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, if we want our Nation's children to be the
strongest and smartest they can be, we need to make sure that our
children are receiving the nutritional support they need during these
formative years.
Finally, WIC is cost effective. Serving nearly 10 million people each
year, it costs less than $100 a person. And that cost is so low that if
we suspended the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for
only 1 week, we could pay for the entire WIC program for a full year.
And we save a substantial amount of that little cost by reducing health
care costs.
Medical costs for a premature baby are much greater than those for a
healthy newborn. For a baby born without complications, the average
cost for first year medical costs is about $4,500, compared to a
premature or low birth weight baby which will cost about $50,000 in
short-term medical costs and significantly more in long-term costs
resulting from high incidence of mental retardation and learning
disabilities.
And so, Mr. Chairman, for those interested only in the budget impact
of WIC, the Department of Agriculture estimates that the health care
cost savings within 60 days of a child's birth are between $1.77 and
$3.13 for every dollar invested in the WIC program. Let me say that
again. The Department of Agriculture estimates that the health care
cost savings within 60 days of a child's birth are between $1.77 and
$3.13 for every dollar invested in the program.
So, Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the WIC program are not
speculative; they are clear. And I commend my colleagues that are here
fighting to maintain funding for this important program, and I urge
others to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.
It seems the Republicans aren't stopping at Medicare alone. Now
they're cutting crucial assistance to women and to young children.
In addressing our Nation's fiscal future, we simply cannot afford to
lose our values. When the going gets tough, are we a Nation that
abandons our most vulnerable while giving tax breaks to millionaires
and billionaires? Or are we a Nation that holds close the most basic
obligations we have to our fellow citizens, food for young children,
Medicare and Social Security for our seniors, and an education for our
students?
We have many tough choices to make during these difficult economic
times. Cutting a program that provides food assistance for families
that would otherwise go without should absolutely not be one of them.
The WIC program is one of our Nation's most cost-effective and
successful programs. Nearly 50 percent of babies born in the United
States rely on WIC. Ten million Americans benefit from this most basic
food assistance at a cost of less than $100 per person. The drastic
Republican cuts included in this legislation will leave as many as
350,000 women, infants, and children without access to necessary food
assistance.
The Capital Region of upstate New York, my own community, ranks among
the 100 most in need of food assistance. My constituents see the plans
to cut Medicare and the plans to cut food assistance programs, and they
are wondering why their health is being put on the line while some of
our Nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations are let off the
hook with $45 billion worth of tax breaks.
The Republican budget simply doesn't add up, Mr. Chair. Every $1 we
invest in WIC saves up to $3.13 in health costs per child just in the
first 60 days after an infant's birth alone. Cutting this program
doesn't cut spending, and it doesn't even help reduce our long-term
deficit. This program brings down long-term health care costs and, most
importantly, most importantly, it saves lives.
In just 1 week, millionaire tax breaks cost our country $866 million
and reach only 321,000 individuals. The WIC program, on the other hand,
costs $33 million less for an entire year of serving 9.2 million women,
infants, and children in need.
It is clear from these numbers, Mr. Chair, where Republican
priorities lie. We're all concerned about the Federal deficit. But the
majority continues to insist upon cutting programs that work and work
well for America's middle class and her families.
WIC saves the taxpayers money in future health care costs and ensures
some of our most vulnerable citizens that they will have the most basic
food and nutrition assistance. Recent polls show that 64 percent of
Americans are concerned that this budget plan will take away needed
protections for the poor and underserved.
{time} 1750
We have good reason to be concerned given the plan to end Medicare
and this most recent attack on the WIC program.
[[Page H4143]]
In these tough times, we must stand together in solidarity. This is
not the time to abandon our friends and neighbors in need of a helping
hand to make ends meet. From Medicare, to WIC, to education and housing
assistance, we simply cannot turn our backs on our fellow Americans
while we reward the wealthiest amongst us. That is not the
compassionate thing to do, it is not the American thing to do, nor is
it the answer to solving our debt problem. We can and we must do
better.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how many times will Republicans
attempt to rob innocent Americans of their health and their wellness?
First, they morally bankrupted themselves when they took a hatchet, or
I should say a scythe--that's that thing that the Grim Reaper walks
with--they took a scythe to Medicare in the Ryan budget, attempting to
increase the health care cost to seniors, and passed it unanimously,
unanimous Republican support for the Ryan ``Grim Reaper'' budget plan
that cut Medicare. It really destroyed Medicare as we know it and
replaced it with a voucher system. That's what they have passed in this
House.
And now the Grim Reaper is coming again, not to cut tax cuts to the
rich, not to cut tax subsidies to big oil companies. The Grim Reaper is
not here to cut from wealthy individuals all of the tax breaks that
they have been getting. No, the Grim Reaper is here to cut something
that is fundamental to life, and that is money for food for human
beings. The Grim Reaper, moving slowly, not bouncing at all, just
creeping through the night with his scythe, ready to cut the WIC
program.
I'm opposed to any effort to remove funding for nutrition assistance
for women and children, leaving them to go hungry in the streets.
During these difficult times, soup kitchens, pantry shelters, churches,
nonprofits, including many in my district, they have reached their
limits in terms of the assistance that they can give to those who need
it.
Mr. Chairman, the budget brought to the floor today will lead to a
drastic multimillion-dollar shortfall for the WIC program, not only
resulting in more individuals going hungry, but placing additional
strain on many aid agencies who have already reached the end of their
rope.
This week, I have spoken to pastors, rabbis, and faith-based leaders
of all stripes and haven't heard a single one of them express support
for reducing nutrition assistance. In fact, many of them today right
now are roaming the halls of Congress speaking to anyone who cares to
listen to express their opposition to this bill. They are desperate,
desperate to talk about the effects of these drastic cuts.
I came down to the well of the House earlier today to speak about
Republican efforts to take food out of the mouths of mothers and
children across the country. Today, with the help of this bill, this
Congress will accomplish something that has not been done in 14 years.
Today, it looks like this Congress, as the Grim Reaper, will pass a
bill that doesn't provide enough money to serve all WIC participants.
Instead, we will pass a bill that forces vulnerable families to depend
completely on the same food banks that have run out of food while we
continue to subsidize tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires, and
Big Oil. The Grim Reaper is not coming for them, doesn't want to bother
them.
I can't, in good conscience, support this effort of the Grim Reapers
to rob low-income Americans of basic necessities like food while giving
millions to those who no longer need our assistance. In a Nation as
great as the United States, we should not be promoting corporate
welfare while taking food out of the mouths of hungry children.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PASCRELL. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe we are broke, but we're morally
broke, that's how we're broke. Let's be straight here.
What's our vision for America? That's got to be the barometer. What
do we want this country to be in the future? We can say we certainly
don't want it to be fiscally broke, but no one comes to this well with
clean hands. This is something we should be sitting down and talking
about together, how can we solve America's problems.
So what's our vision? It may be a balanced budget, our vision; I
could support that. It may be cutting waste and fraud; well, that
sounds good, we should all be supporting that. It may be to get
Americans back to work. Over 14 million are still unemployed. And the
underemployed. It may be to halt the loss of our homes like we did on
the Western frontier 150 years ago when people worked together to end
those foreclosures. My vision does not include hurting our most
vulnerable children and seniors just to make a point. You heard the
gentleman from Maryland talk earlier about how little this means in
bringing down the deficit for 1 year or 10 years. We've got our
priorities screwed up.
So yes, we want a balanced budget. Isn't it interesting that the last
President who balanced the budget was a Democratic President? Yes, we
want business investment. And isn't it interesting that in the past
four decades the only President that reached over a 10 percent increase
in business investment was a Democratic President? Bill Clinton; almost
three times more than Ronald Reagan. Check your facts. We need a fact
check here, a fact check.
The last 4 years, the number of children affected has grown from 12.4
million to 17 million. Have we no responsibility for that? In my
district, 109,000 constituents suffer from food insecurity, only half
of whom are eligible for Federal food aid programs. What do the other
half do? Yet, here we are discussing cuts.
And I understand neither party is privy to virtue on these issues,
but you cannot tell me we can't rise above if we have a vision of
America that encompasses everyone, not just some and not just the few.
The long-term effects of a child struggling with hunger does not add up
to any real savings. If a child is hungry, he cannot learn. A child who
can't learn will not succeed in school. A child without an education
will have difficulty finding a job.
We know the records of those who are unemployed. And the records of
how many years they are in school are greatly and essentially connected
to how many years they have in school, and that tells you how many
people are unemployed.
{time} 1800
The children affected by these cuts that you're talking about in the
Agriculture bill are our future. If they go hungry today, they will not
be ready for tomorrow.
I simply disagree, with all due respect, with the other side's logic
behind these cuts. It's shortsighted, and we cannot simply cut the
safety net while people are still in that net--seniors, children, the
working poor. It doesn't make sense. What have we become as a Nation?
We're not asking for handouts or giveaways. We are talking about
people who are working, and many of them are poor. There are many of
those, and it took a Republican President to recognize it. The Earned
Income Tax Credit was something that your side created. So who would
yet take away the incentive for people to keep working?
The cuts that you have proposed to the Food and Drug Administration
in this bill are $572 million below the President's request. This means
fewer inspectors and fewer inspections, plain and simple. Oh, I forgot.
That's the idea in this age of anti-regulation. So what we do want to
do is go back to 2008. Let's go back to where we were. I say no. I say
we are better than that--we are better than 2008--and if we work
together, we can get over that hump.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is 6 o'clock across America, or at least
in the eastern time zone. Families across America are getting ready to
sit down for dinner at their kitchen tables in many homes in our
country.
[[Page H4144]]
Moms are saying to their children, ``Eat your vegetables. Eat your
dinner.''
But in some homes in America, there isn't adequate food on the table,
and there isn't adequate nutrition for our children. It's hard to
imagine that one in five kids in America may go to sleep hungry tonight
with pains in their stomachs because they just didn't have enough food
to eat.
In its wisdom, the United States of America established the WIC
Program awhile back for women, infants and children to make sure our
Nation was strong. It was to make sure we fed our children. Our country
made a decision that feeding our children was a priority. It sounds so
obvious. Families make decisions within their budgets that they are
going to feed their children. They wouldn't think of saving money by
not feeding their children. Yet, for some in low-income areas and for
others now, as this is into the middle class, it is very hard to make
ends meet.
So you wonder, in thinking of these people who are sitting down to
dinner, how the Congress of the United States in trying to reduce the
deficit, which we are all committed to do--that's important to our
children as well--would decide to balance that budget on the little,
tiny backs of our children, many of whom don't have enough to eat.
I want to commend Congresswoman DeLauro for her leadership as a
member of the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations and as the former chair
of that subcommittee. She successfully passed an amendment in committee
which had bipartisan support--it would have to have bipartisan support
to pass--to restore $147 million to the WIC Program to feed the
children. I congratulate her for that. It is part of the bill that was
supposed to come to the floor. The Republican leadership has decided
not to protect that bipartisanly passed amendment. What we are seeing
is that the cutting of support for Women, Infants and Children is in
the context of something bigger.
At the same time as we are making these cuts, we are giving tax
subsidies to Big Oil. The price at the pump is also an imposition on
the budgets of these families, and that is something that we can do
something about by ending harmful speculation. To do that, we have to
fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is in this bill as
well. The Republicans are saying they want to delay, delay, delay, and
defeat the enforcement of laws which would end speculation, which would
reduce the price at the pump, Goldman Sachs said, by at least 20
percent. At the same time, this same Republican majority has passed a
bill, not once but twice, to abolish Medicare.
Food, price at the pump, Medicare, these are assaults on the middle
class that are hard to withstand. In fact, they are hard to understand.
It's hard to understand why we'd say to seniors, ``You're going to pay
more for Medicare, and for fewer benefits as we abolish Medicare, while
we give subsidies to Big Oil.'' We are going to say to seniors in
nursing homes, ``You're going to go home and live with your families,
who can probably ill-afford for you to do so, so we can give tax breaks
to corporations to send jobs overseas.'' We are going to say to
children whom we are not feeding that we are cutting education funding
as well as making college more expensive for nearly 10 million students
in our country and, for some, making it unaffordable to go to college
while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country.
So they are cutting support for Women, Infants and Children while
handing a blank check to speculators. They are ending Medicare while
they give subsidies to Big Oil. These choices do not reflect America's
values and priorities. These are tough choices. They will not bring the
growth we need to expand our economy and put people back to work as we
create jobs. They will not make America strong. As moms across America
are saying to children right now at 6 o'clock in the East, ``eat your
vegetables; they will make you strong,'' we are acting on this floor to
do just the opposite--to cut the funding for the initiative that will
help feed the children of America.
It is unthinkable that a family would say, ``We can't afford to feed
the children.'' It is unthinkable that a Nation committed to the future
would say, ``We can't afford to feed the children.'' These families
need our help. It's a large amount of money, $147 million, but very
small compared to the subsidies to Big Oil and a small price to pay for
the health and well-being of our children and for the strength of our
country as we go into the future.
So I commend Congresswoman DeLauro for her tremendous leadership--for
fighting for this, for not taking ``no'' for an answer in the
committee. I would hope that we could prevail on the floor, but the
Republican majority has left little option for that to happen.
I also want to commend Congressman Farr, now the ranking member on
the Ag Subcommittee. Probably nobody in the Congress knows more about
this. There may be some who are his equal--I don't know--but probably
no one knows more about this issue in his representing an agricultural
region as he does and also being committed to the health and well-being
and to the good nutrition of our children so that they can be strong,
so that they can learn in school and so that they can be a part of our
great country in the best possible way for them.
So I thank you, Ranking Member Farr, for your leadership as well.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. I appreciate the leadership of our subcommittee chair,
whom I will recognize and yield some time to in just a moment.
Obviously, we are spending more than we make. I don't know how many
times we have to articulate the financial condition of our country:
that we are borrowing over 40 cents on the dollar for everything we
spend. The country is in a financial crisis, and you've got Members on
this side of the aisle who are doing everything they can to bring
fiscal sanity back to the table and to put America on a different path.
{time} 1810
I am amused at how many times we continue to be portrayed as being
insensitive to women, infants and children, to older folks, and how so
many half-truths are being spoken about the things that this conference
is trying to do in order to right America's financial ship.
Suffice it to say that we have much work to do, and it is our intent
to do it in a way that is rational and feasible and brings this country
back to fiscal order and can take away that cloud of uncertainty that
continues to hover over the job creators in this country, the threat of
higher taxes, the tremendous deficit and debt, the overregulation that
is keeping those entrepreneurs parked on the sideline for fear of
higher costs to job expansion and higher energy prices. On and on and
on, the challenges facing this country are many and we have much work
to do.
At this time, I would like to yield to the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding. I
wanted to make a couple of points that I think are very important, Mr.
Chairman.
Number one, the only budget that has passed is the Ryan budget. The
Democrats, for all their crying, have not passed their budget. The
Democrats are the majority party in the Senate. The majority party in
the Senate, the Democrat Party, rejected President Obama, another
Democrat, they rejected his budget by a vote of 97-0. Now, what did
Harry Reid and President Obama do after that? Nothing. That is it. It
went to the House. No problem. Where is the leadership? I guess it is
the same place as the jobs are. We are still looking for it.
If the Democrats were concerned about balancing fiscal responsibility
and some of these vital programs which we are all trying to work
through, then why aren't they working on a budget? That is point number
one.
Point number two, this bill increases food stamps $5.6 billion and
the school lunch program $1.5 billion. It also increases from the
committee mark WIC $147 million in the DeLauro amendment. It will not
be offset by the
[[Page H4145]]
Obama WTO cotton agreement, but it will be offset. That amendment is
intact as respects WIC.
Number three, Big Oil. Well, when the Democrats were in charge of the
House and the Senate and the White House, if they were concerned about
tax cuts for Big Oil, why didn't they go after them? What they did do
is extend the Bush tax cuts, which I voted against. If they were
concerned about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, why did President
Obama and the Democrat House and the Democrat Senate extend them? I
would ask you that, Mr. Chairman.
What this bill does as respects WIC, it funds it at a level of 8.2
million in participation. Should it go up to 9 million in
participation, which is higher than the current level, there are three
contingency funds that will pick up the difference.
We have reduced WIC, as did the Democrats. The Democrats cut WIC
funding $562 million. I have the vote right here. For those Democrats
who are forgetting how they voted on it, they might want to look. But
they voted to cut WIC funding. Therefore, the contingency fund is not
as high as it could be.
So if we want to talk about all these things, there is lots to talk
about. But one thing that is very important for Members to realize is
that no one is going to fall through the crack.
I keep hearing about how this is going to starve people. WIC is $42 a
month. That is why WIC isn't the only program for these people. That is
very important for everyone to remember. I don't even think most
Members, if you gave them a pop quiz, could say what WIC is, because it
sounds like it is thousands of dollars a month. But I don't believe $42
is anything more than a supplement. Yet that supplement will still be
there, because, again, Mr. Chairman, we have funded this with an
anticipated level of 8.3 million; but should it go up to 9 million--it
has been trending down--but should it go back up, the contingency funds
will be there that will pick up the difference.
I thank the gentleman for his time.
Mr. WOMACK. I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to
the Chair.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I want to respond to my chair,
who I respect deeply, but I think there is sort of a misstatement of
fact here.
The only budget that has ever been balanced in the last 20 years has
been the budget that the Democrats did. We did an unholy thing that the
other party can't accept that is going to be necessary to balance any
budget, and that is we had to increase revenues. And what did we do? We
closed the tax loopholes on the richest families in this country and
corporations. We closed loopholes. And we made a lot of cuts, because
we also dedicated revenue from those loophole closures to pay off the
deficit. And, guess what? We paid it off. We paid it off ahead of
schedule.
When the Clinton administration left town and the Bush administration
came on, we had an $800 billion surplus--a surplus. And what
immediately did they do? They repealed the mechanism that was balancing
the budget and said, no, we will give back those tax loopholes to the
richest people in the country. And then we go to war. Whenever in
history we have gone to war, people have paid for it. Not these wars.
We just put it on the credit card.
So, Mr. Kingston, you know, let's be factual about the Democrats
being in charge. We were able to balance the budget, something that
your party hasn't done.
And just on this whole WIC thing, we all know that the administration
administers the program and has to estimate how many people are going
to be in need. That is the way we put together these big budgets,
whether they be Medicare or WIC or other kinds of things. And last year
what we found out is that the estimates were not needed, so in fact
there was a surplus. But it was based on fact after the fact, not ahead
of time.
This year the economy is down. We have heard many, many speakers talk
about the impacts in their districts, of the number of people that are
unemployed and are seeking benefits like this. I think the chairman
himself has indicated that almost 15 percent of the children in this
country are using one or more of these programs.
So this idea that this cut can be sustained, when it is based on a
guesstimate, and a guesstimate that didn't take in, one, the rising
food costs, and, two, the number of people that are still unemployed,
and, frankly, people that are underemployed, including members of the
military and their families who depend on this WIC funding.
So I just want to put it in some kind of perspective here, that the
budget has been balanced by this party and paid for and left in a
surplus, and the fact that the guesstimates on these WIC cuts are going
to do more to do harm than to do good.
I now yield to my colleague from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would reinforce what my colleague from California has
said, but there is a repetition on the other side of the aisle that
somehow there are contingency funds and carryover funds which can be
used if there is a shortfall. You may continue to say it. It continues
to be wrong. This is, again, the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities. The estimates reflect the use of all contingency funds, as
well as the use of the carryover funds from fiscal year 2011 to close
funding shortfalls, and the funding level would still result in the
large participation cutbacks that have been outlined.
There are no contingency funds and no carryover funds; and no matter
how many times you say it, that money will not materialize.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I just wanted to make sure that my friends, the ranking
member and former ranking member, know that the contingency fund data
that we get did come from the USDA.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you about a
young woman, a young woman named Sarah. She actually lives in a
shoreline community in Connecticut in Representative DeLauro's
district. She has got four kids. She was playing by the rules, did
everything that we asked. She had a good job in purchasing, and last
year she got laid off.
{time} 1820
She got laid off, like thousands of other Connecticut residents. She
has four kids ages 7 to 15. Since that day, she has been confronted
every day with a decision. She's got about enough money to put one meal
on the table for her kids. They'll get one meal while they're at
school. And so she makes the decision: Does she put breakfast on the
table to make sure that they have food in their bellies when they show
up to school or does she put dinner on the table when they come back.
That's her daily challenge every single day. Now, she gets a little bit
of help from a food bank, from a soup kitchen around the corner from
her--a soup kitchen that likely gets money from The Emergency Food
Assistance Program, one of the programs that is cut 25 percent under
the President's proposed budget. That's her daily reality.
Let me tell you a story about another American. His name is Tony. He
lost his job last year as well. He was the CEO of a big oil company. On
his way out he got about a $1.6 million salary payout and a $17 million
pension payout. He might be spending part of his summer on his yacht
that he's nicknamed ``Bob.'' He might be sailing in the J.P. Morgan
Asset Management Round the Isle Race, like he was a summer ago as one
of his oil rigs collapsed in the Gulf. His struggle is that he's only
been able to raise about $1.6 billion for his new oil exploration
venture around the world.
Franklin Roosevelt said, The test of our progress is not whether we
add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we
provide for those who have little.
[[Page H4146]]
I have listened to my friends on the Republican side try to create a
choice here today; that because our children later on are going to have
to pay back the debts that this country owes, that we have to sacrifice
the lives of kids who are living today. That's a false choice. The two
are not mutually exclusive. The fact is we are making choices in the
budget right now. We are making choices to give more and more money to
the defense budget, which is already over-bloated, and cutting 25
percent from The Emergency Food Assistance Program. We are handing
another $40 billion subsidy to the oil industry. And we're cutting back
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. As the Republican
budget calls for, we are further cutting taxes for the richest 1 or 2
percent of Americans while we underfund the WIC program that gets badly
needed nutrition to kids like Sarah's kids.
In my district, the story is the same. We've got 17 percent of
households in my district who have reported going hungry. At the
Friendly Hands Food Bank in Torrington they've had a 40 percent
increase this year. New Britain's municipal food pantry has seen a
hundred new families come through the doors this year. And they are
watching with horror as we try to create some false choice between
feeding kids today and protecting this country's fiscal situation down
the line.
When I meet Republicans and Democrats in my district, regardless of
their political persuasion, they want this body to start working
together to solve the biggest problems in this country. But I have news
for my Republican friends. They want us to solve Sarah's problem, not
Tony's problem.
This budget, this bill, is a travesty, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOWNS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TOWNS. Let me thank Congresswoman DeLauro and, of course,
Congressman Farr, for the work that they're doing.
Here we go again. I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill.
This bill reduces the amount of funds awarded to public nutrition
programs such as SNAP, WIC, and many other programs that lend
assistance to families in economically disadvantaged communities.
This session of Congress has really been tough on those that are in
need. First, our Nation's seniors are threatened with potential cuts to
Medicare proposed by the Ryan budget. Now, hunger programs for women
and children are being targeted. It is a tough year indeed. But let me
tell you, I was not sent to Congress to sit back and watch these
crucial programs be cut. I came here to fight for their existence. And
I don't plan to stop now. I will not sit idly by as we destroy programs
upon which citizens depend on the most to pay for $45 billion in tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires. It is a shame and it is a
disgrace. For people to try and stand here and justify as to why we're
doing it just does not make any sense at all. If we get rid of tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires for 1 week--just 1 week--I'm
talking about 7 days--we would pay for the entire WIC program for 365
days.
Mr. Chair, I'm greatly disturbed by the negative impact this bill
will have on those individuals who depend on public assistance to feed
their families. It is projected that the expected funding cuts will
result in 350,000 people losing their WIC benefits. Nearly 50 percent
of the babies born in this country each year rely on WIC. On top of
that, it is cost-effective, serving nearly 10 million people each year
and costing less than $100 per person.
I don't understand why we want to stand around here and try to hustle
backwards. That's what they say in my neighborhood. We need to make
certain that we do what is right and is going to benefit the children.
Let's not forget that we're here to serve and meet the needs of our
Nation. Supporting this bill would be a great disservice to those who
elected us to Congress. Supporting this bill will significantly cut the
funding to programs that feed thousands of families. Supporting this
bill will lead to the devastation of many hunger programs. There are
many families who depend on government funding to put food on the table
every day and every night. Voting in support of this bill will only
make their lives more than difficult. I urge all of my colleagues to
vote ``no.'' This bill does not help those that are in need. It
protects the millionaires and billionaires with their greed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. When you're born, you get a birth certificate.
When you die, you get a death certificate. That dash on your tombstone
in the middle is what you've done to make this place a better place.
I rise in strong opposition against this bill. I can't believe that
the Republicans are attacking the disabled, the seniors, and now the
children. I really do believe the Scripture, To whom God has given
much, much is expected. They really do expect more out of this
Congress, the people's House.
I may be the only person in the House with any institutional memory
because it seems as if no one remembers that we didn't get in this mess
18 months ago. No. When President Bill Clinton left us, he left us with
a surplus. And then we had 8 years of what I have called reverse Robin
Hood. You know what I mean. You've got to be a certain age to know who
Robin Hood was. But robbing from the poor and working people to give
tax breaks to the rich.
My colleagues talk about the fact that the President insisted on
passing that $780 billion--not just for the rich and the millionaires,
but the billionaires--in December.
{time} 1830
And everybody was slapping themselves on the back, what a great job
because we didn't raise the taxes on the average American. And I would
have voted not to raise it on the average Americans, but I knew that in
April we were talking about cutting funds, pension funds, and now
cutting funds for the children, the babies. It is inconceivable that we
would cut funds to WIC, providing food for new mothers, babies, and
children under 5 years old. Nearly 50 percent of the babies born in our
country are on the WIC program. In my State of Florida, as many as
19,000 people would be affected by this cut.
Lawton Chiles, former Governor of Florida, former Senator, used to
have a slogan: ``This dog don't hunt.'' Folks, this dog don't hunt. The
American people will wake up and wake up to what you're doing and wake
up to the fact that when you have your head in the lion's mouth, the
deficit, you've got to ease it out. You don't destroy programs
affecting children and babies and senior citizens while giving tax
breaks to billionaires and millionaires. And the sad fact is, if we put
it on the board tomorrow, the Republicans would vote again to give the
tax breaks to the billionaires and millionaires and yet leave the
children and elderly people holding the bag. The American people need
to wake up to what's going on. There is money in the House of
Representatives, but you're choosing to give it to millionaires and
billionaires.
As I close, I really do believe what the Bible says: To whom God has
given much, much is expected. And He's expecting more out of the people
of the House of Representatives.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against any
language in the Agriculture appropriations bill that would seek to cut
funding for the WIC program.
As you know, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children, WIC, makes it possible for vulnerable children to
have a healthy start. The Republican cuts will deny many children a
chance to receive nutritious food by cutting WIC funding from $6.73
billion this year to $6.05 billion in 2012. This cut is a cut of more
than $650 million below the fiscal level of 2011. And this is much less
than the continuing cost of the high-end Bush tax cuts, oil company tax
breaks, and various other write-offs for well-to-do taxpayers or
powerful corporations.
If we allow these cuts to take place, approximately 200,000 to
300,000 women
[[Page H4147]]
and children nationwide will lose WIC benefits next year. In fact, in
the State of New Jersey, approximately 4,000 to 6,000 low-income
families will be turned away by WIC. This is very alarming to me
because these cuts will negatively impact a substantial number of low-
income women and children in my district.
As a former public school teacher in the inner city of Newark, New
Jersey, I witnessed firsthand the effects of hunger and malnutrition on
children trying to learn. When they came to school to take tests, they
couldn't concentrate. They were unable to really focus on what they had
before them. The reality is this: If a child is hungry, he simply
cannot learn. If a child is hungry, he is unable to focus in class.
What are his chances of thriving academically? If we are serious about
closing the achievement gap and ensuring that students are career and
college ready, cutting WIC will be in direct contradiction.
In light of rising food prices and current unemployment rates, it
would be catastrophic to strip funding from this vital program. I
strongly believe that by cutting WIC funding, we risk neglecting and
preventing children from getting a head start in recognizing the
excellence of their human potential.
We, as a nation, are still a great nation. We are the wealthiest
nation in the world. We have the greatest ideals and opportunities for
people. But I think that we are being shortsighted. We have a problem
and we will deal with it, as we have done for all other problems. In
World War II, we had no navy. We had no army that was significant.
However, we built ships that floated. We trained people in 20 and 30
days to rivet and to make our powerful defense mechanism work, and we
won the war for the world.
We can win this war of the deficit in this country. I think that even
the constituents of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, my
tea party friends, my Republican friends--go back home and ask people,
Do you want to pull the food out of the mouths of babes? Because from
the mouths of babes ofttimes come gems. And if our Nation is going to
be a great nation in the world, as we are today, we're not going to do
it by starving the children and harming the women. It's unconscionable,
it's disgraceful, and it's a mark on the House of Representatives. It's
really something that shouldn't be.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against any provisions
cutting funding for the WIC program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to this bill.
In his second inaugural address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out,
I think, a very good test for us. It was a test for this Nation at one
of its most desperate periods. We, too, find ourselves in a difficult
situation. We do have a big deficit, and we need to make some tough
choices. And today as we debate this piece of legislation, we are
indeed making choices and we are being tested. We're being tested about
our values. We're being tested about what we think is important.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt suggested this be the test:
``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the
abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for
those who have too little.''
Ponder those words and apply those words to what we are debating and
what we will soon vote for or against on this floor. The test of our
progress, whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much.
We've discussed many times here in the last couple of hours the options
that are given to us on tax policy, continuing to provide subsidies to
the wealthiest industry in the world, the oil industry, not to the tune
of a couple of billion but, when you add it all up, some $40 billion a
year. Whether we continue to provide a tax break to the wealthiest in
this Nation, those whose annual incomes are in the millions and,
indeed, some who are even in the billions. We're making choices and
we're being tested. That's one option that our Republican colleagues
seem to want to present to us.
The other option is what we on the Democratic side have been debating
and asking for, and that is the second part of what Franklin Delano
Roosevelt said, and that is whether we provide enough for those who
have too little.
I was on this floor not more than 3 hours ago with my granddaughter,
11 months old. And in the arms of mothers and grandfathers and
grandmothers and parents across this Nation are children of that age
who depend upon the Women, Infants, and Children program, which this
Republican appropriation brought to this floor reduces by 10 percent.
350,000 children will not be able to have the food that they need, the
care that they need to be able to be healthy, to be able to grow, and
indeed in the future, to be able to pay, as we will today, one way or
another, for the deficit that we have.
{time} 1840
A 10 percent reduction from last year, and is there anybody in this
House that's prepared to argue somehow things are better out there and
that a 10 percent reduction in the face of an increased number of women
and children who need help, that that is a worthy choice for us to
make? I think not.
I think that this bill miserably fails the test that Franklin Delano
Roosevelt laid out during the Great Depression. This does not provide
for those who have too little.
And it's not just in the Women, Infants, and Children program. Across
the board, thousands, indeed, 48 million Americans become ill each year
because of food-borne illnesses, and yet, in this budget, another 12
percent reduction from last year's funding for food safety programs at
a time when we have a new food safety program to implement. 350,000
Americans wind up in the hospital as a result of food-borne illnesses,
and the Republicans want to cut the money to provide the protection for
Americans.
It's about choices. It's about values. What do you value in this
system? Yes, we have a deficit. Yes, we must deal with it. And yes,
according to our Republican friends, we must take that food out of the
children's mouths; we must make sure that people will not be able to be
healthy. I don't understand.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Wyoming is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not produce a
budget. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not raise
taxes on the mineral industry as they now assert we should. My
colleagues ran this House for 6 years. My colleagues ran this House
with a Democratic President and a Democratic U.S. Senate. The things of
which they argue are the fixes are things you did not do when you were
in control of all three: the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Without a budget, with the Keynesian philosophy that you attempted to
implement, and it was worth a try but it failed, the massive increases
in spending, in social programs, in entitlement programs, the massive
increase in spending that amounts to ObamaCare, the massive stimulus
bill, the massive efforts that you made, all the time asserting that
you had something called Pay-As-You-Go, PAYGO, when, in fact, there
were more exceptions to PAYGO than the rule ever provided. You took
half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. You destroyed Medicare. You
destroyed it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
If the gentlelady from Wyoming would recall the years past, she would
recall what is known as the Senate filibuster. The graveyard of
legislation that the Democrats put forth many, many times died in the
Senate as a result of their filibuster.
With regard to the issues of entitlements and this particular bill,
we're talking here about the issue of how we care for those who have
little. I'd be
[[Page H4148]]
happy to debate with you on this floor or any other place the import of
the stimulus program, and, in fact, most every economist argues that
without the stimulus program we would have fallen into a great
depression, not just a very serious recession. I'm sure the gentlewoman
recalls those words.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, the crisis is
worse than the people realize, and, in fact, in some respects, the
people are way ahead of us on this, which is why the people of this
country chose to elect fiscal conservatives to run this House during
the current Congress, and we presented to the American people what we
intended to do, which is cut spending.
We told the American people we have a spending problem, not a revenue
problem. The American people chose to give my party the opportunity to
lead and to exhibit the fiscal restraint that the American people voted
for in the last election. We are now exercising that fiscal restraint
in a way that preserves 87 percent of the funding level of the WIC
program that is currently being alleged that we are destroying.
Now, there are millions and millions of Americans who are functioning
in this recession on 87 percent of what they used to make. In fact, we
know that small businesses all over this country who are the drivers of
our economy, the creators of jobs, are functioning on far less than 87
percent of what they used to make.
It is time for this House to exercise this fiscal restraint in a way
that is sensitive to the needs of the people in this country, that we
told the American people in November we would do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair again reminds all Members that all
remarks should be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the
second person.
Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a little amnesia in this
Chamber today. In January of 2009, we were losing 775,000 jobs a month.
Then the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress enacted
remedial legislation and we stopped losing 775,000 jobs a month. We
started gaining. We have gained a million and a half jobs in the
private sector in the last year and a half, not enough with a million
and a half jobs, but unfortunately State and local government had to
lay off 1.2 million people because we didn't give them enough to
prevent that. But we did reverse the results of the Bush policy of 8
years, which was 775,000 jobs a month being lost.
Don't forget, in 2000, in the Presidential election, the great debate
was what should we do about the $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10
years. Bush got elected. They enacted the Bush tax cuts, which they
said would stimulate the economy and pay for themselves. What happened?
We had the slowest economic recovery of any economic recovery after any
recession in the history of the United States, the only 8-year period
in which we did not gain one net new job even before the 2008 recession
from which we are now recovering, albeit too slowly.
The American people did not vote to kill remedial programs last year.
They voted for jobs. They were told, Vote for the Republicans; we'll
get you jobs. You don't see any jobs. So let's forget this revisionist
history.
I rise in strong opposition to the Republican effort to cut funding
for the special supplemental nutritional program for Women, Infants,
and Children, known as WIC. This program provides food for low- and
moderate-income mothers, babies, and children under 5. WIC provides the
food pregnant women need to help their babies grow. After the baby is
born, WIC provides the breast feeding support or infant formula to make
sure the babies continue to develop and to grow. And for young
children, WIC provides staples like milk, eggs, bread, fresh fruits and
vegetables. Nearly 50 percent of the babies born in the United States
each year rely on WIC to get a healthy start to life.
{time} 1850
But in this time of rampant unemployment, the Republicans oppose--
they oppose extended unemployment benefits and now want to ensure that
the wives and children of the unemployed who don't get unemployment
benefits can't get food and baby formula. This bill says, Let them
starve.
This bill will mean that 200,000 to 350,000 pregnant women and
children will be denied food. Knocking these families out of the WIC
program is an about-face on a 15-year bipartisan commitment to ensure
WIC funds cover all eligible women, infants, and children who apply.
Shockingly, at the same time that the Republicans are demanding that
pregnant women and children starve, they continue to promote tax
holidays for millionaires and billionaires. If we suspended the Bush
tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans for just 1 week, we
could cover the cost of the Republicans' latest cut of $833 million to
the WIC program.
The debate over WIC funding, specifically, and the Federal budget,
generally, is about priorities. By supporting the Republican proposal
to slash WIC funding, forcing thousands of women and children from the
rolls, the Republicans are saying that America prioritizes tax holidays
for those who need it the least over providing food to pregnant women,
infants, and small children.
Mr. Chair, make no mistake about it. This is about literally taking
food out of the mouths of babies. This Republican bill is immoral. Food
for women and children is more important than tax cuts for
millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies.
Reject this bill. Reject this bill, and maybe, just maybe, the
Republicans, given enough time, will find their consciences.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIPTON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, you know, it's remarkable, the theater that we
see. Looking throughout America, throughout my Third Congressional
District--at least in Colorado--I see people who care about their
families, who care about our children. What are they asking for? Jobs.
They want to be able to go back to work. And we're seeing far too
often, from the opposition, people that are willing not to be a
steppingstone to American success but to become a stumbling block, to
have us rely on another government program.
The proposed cuts, these are minor. These are minor in the sense of
the real life that real Americans are living today. Come with me. Come
with me and walk through my district. I have communities that are not
in a recession; they are in a depression. They need to be able to get
back to work. What do I hear as I walk through those communities? City
councils, county commissioners, small businesspeople are saying that
they are being inhibited from being able to get people back to work so
that they can take care of their children, Mr. Chair, so that they can
take care of their children by oppressive government regulations, by
people who are not willing to allow us that opportunity to live that
American Dream.
I see, Mr. Chair, an America that can rise again and become the
economic power that we all know that it can be; but this will not
happen as long as we try to build reliance on government rather than
the rugged individualism that has made this country great.
Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIPTON. In just a moment, ma'am.
Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you.
Mr. TIPTON. We have an opportunity. We have a challenge. The question
is, Will we rise to meet that challenge?
We have a $14.4 trillion debt in this country. Let's put that in a
little bit of context. Sunday night, we saw the NBA finals. You had
LeBron James, maybe one of the best basketball players the world has
ever seen. He signed for $40 million a year to play basketball. Well,
if he wants to earn just $1 trillion, he's going to have to play
basketball for 25,000 years.
This is the burden that we have put on the backs of our children and
our grandchildren that they can no longer afford. The recipe is not the
Keynesian economics that my colleague has
[[Page H4149]]
brought up. The answer is going to be found in the very solutions that
made us the richest, the freest, and the most powerful Nation on the
face of the Earth. That is going to be the free enterprise system.
Let's encourage it. Let's get our people back to work. Let's create
those opportunities once again.
Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIPTON. I yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
I would just talk about rugged individualism. And I will just quote
to you from the Citizens for Tax Justice: 12 corporations, largest
corporations in the Nation, pay an effective tax rate of negative 1.5
percent on $171 billion in profits.
Mr. TIPTON. I reclaim my time, and I thank the lady for bringing up
that very point, Mr. Chair. This is the real challenge that we face,
and she points to it directly. We have an oppressive, convoluted Tax
Code that is stripping American business of that opportunity to be able
to create wealth in this country. Let's simplify that Tax Code. Let's
not punish success in this Nation, but let us reward success in this
Nation to be able to get our people back to work.
Ms. DeLAURO. Let's get them to pay their fair share of taxes.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado controls the time.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, these are the challenges, and we have very
distinct choices to be able to make. Will we continue to follow the
pathway to poverty of government programs, government taxation,
government solutions? Or will we follow that expressway to real
enrichment in this country by getting the American people back to work?
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank Ms.
DeLauro and Mr. Farr for their wonderful, unbelievable work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr.
Chairman, nutrition programs did not run our economy into the ditch.
Nutrition programs did not drive us into debt or stop the banks from
extending credit. But my colleagues want to cut programs to feed
millions of women, infants, and children. Who is next? I ask you, Who
is next? The Republicans went after the seniors' Medicare. Now they are
going after the babies. Who is next?
Mr. Chairman, the WIC program is a necessity. It is a lifeline. It is
our obligation. This is not the way America treats our seniors. This is
not the way America treats our mothers. This is not the way America
treats our children. This is not the America we want to live in.
If we repeal the tax breaks for the wealthy for just 1 week, we could
pay for this entire program. Make no mistake, this bill will reduce the
number of people served by nutrition programs. Right now, over 50
percent of the children born in our country rely on this program every
single day, every week. They serve almost 10 million people each year.
My beloved brothers and sisters across the aisle know that, but they
should also know that this bill will mean empty shelves at food banks
and smaller portions at dinnertime--and not a dent in the deficit.
Make no mistake, make no mistake, this bill will hurt people. It will
reduce the number of people who receive assistance. The poor, the sick,
the mothers, these little babies. They didn't overspend our credit
card. They didn't do it. They didn't overspend our credit card. Why are
we doing this? Why are we punishing? Why are we cutting the WIC
program? It is a lifeline. No one in this country should have to go
hungry. It is not right. It is not fair. It is not the just thing to
do. It's not the good thing to do.
The Atlanta Community Food Bank in my own district, in the heart of
downtown Atlanta, is distributing 35 percent more food than last year.
Their funding would be cut as well. Countless people are already on the
waiting list. One such man in my own district, Johnny Battle, this man
worked all of his life, and he worked very hard. Mr. Battle is 71, and
his wife is 76. He can't look for work because his wife has fallen ill.
He is her caregiver.
{time} 1900
I say we should be their caregiver. We should look after those who
are suffering through no fault of their own.
They receive emergency food assistance from Antioch Baptist Church
when they can and receive only $16 a month in food stamps. Assistance
from the food bank would make a huge difference in their lives.
Sixty thousand people depend on Atlanta Community Food Bank to make
it through the month. We cannot allow more people to be pushed onto the
waiting list like Mr. Battle and his wife.
Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, our country is hurting. Our people
are hungry. They need our help. This is not how America treats her
children. This is not how America treats her seniors. This is not how
America treats her little babies, the mothers.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Rugged individualism. Oh, am I glad the gentleman brought
that up. Rugged individualism produces a heartless bill like this.
Now, if you look back to why we're in the dumpster economically, go
back to the 1990s. Read Alan Greenspan, a great advocate of rugged
individualism, and Ayn Rand; right? Just drive them into the ground.
Make all of his friends rich. JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman
Sachs, Morgan Stanley--it's an interesting group of characters up there
that took America to the cleaners. They took and outsourced our jobs.
Now they took our home equity.
And now, it's getting so bad we even have a bill that's going to take
food away from about 350,000 women and children. Now, whose fault is
that?
Here's a little note from somebody in my district. She says--she
signed up this plate at the food bank, the local food bank. She said:
Without help from the food bank, I would be on the streets. I struggle
every day to make ends meet so my kids have a place to lay their heads
at night. I have a job, but with two kids, it's still very hard. I have
a lot of trouble paying rent and bills. I just wish there were more
help to parents like myself.
That's from the rural part of my district.
From the urban part of my district, a plate is signed at the food
bank: My income is spent on bills, which leaves very little money for
me to purchase food for myself and my two daughters.
Now, you know, the majority of people in this House are Christian.
And I'm not pushing that, though I am one of them. But the first
Beatitude says, ``Feed the hungry.'' It doesn't say ``rugged
individualism.''
I'm as individualistic as anybody else in this Chamber, but I'll tell
you what. There's a heartlessness that goes with people who take
everything for themselves and turn their back on the rest of the
American people. So when Big Oil makes record profits and pays no
taxes, there's something really wrong. There's something really wrong
with the country, and the American people know it.
They didn't clean house here last November because they thought you
were better; they just wanted a change. And they'll vote for it again
if their lives don't get better. And their lives won't get better
unless we fix what Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs and Bank of America
and the whole rest of those buzzards up there did to this country. And
they're taking bonuses. In fact, they're making so much money they take
Members of Congress out. You know the average amount of a meal? $193,
$193 a plate. These folks, a couple of bucks in a day they spend on
food.
So I stand with the American people, not those wealthy interests who
took the Nation to the cleaners. You know, those hedge funds? They pay
at a 15 percent tax rate.
Mrs. Lummis talked about businesses in her district. They pay at a 35
percent rate. Why don't we hold those accountable up on Wall Street for
what they did? Let them pay their fair share
[[Page H4150]]
of taxes. We couldn't even take one penny of their bonuses, not a
penny. This was the most gutless institution.
And I'll tell you what. The real straw that broke the camel's back
was 1998 when Glass-Steagall was thrown out, an act that had separated
banking and commerce. And you know the name on that bill? There wasn't
a single Democratic name. It was Gramm-Leach-Bliley, all Republicans,
and they shoved it through this House. I didn't vote for it.
And then Wall Street, oh, my gosh. You talk about rugged
individualism. They hurt the Republic. They hurt our country, and they
have not been held accountable. George Bush's Chief of Staff, Mr.
Bolton, he came from Goldman Sachs. He was there. He was there in the
fall of 2008 when the Treasury was just opened up to them. Isn't that
an interesting coincidence? Very interesting when you look back and see
what really happened.
I refuse to have the people of my district or any district pay for
what they did. I've got people who are lined up in our food banks
because of unemployment, and I know who caused it. And I don't have
enough power to hold them accountable, but I hope God does, because
what they've done is unforgivable. Their rugged individualism is
unpatriotic. It is un-Christian, and it hurt this country.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the gentlewoman's striking
the last word a second time?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chair, reserving the right to object, I want to say
to my friend, the ranking member, that I understand the passion on that
side and a number of people who want to start speaking, or who have
been speaking. But if we are going to start speaking twice, then I hope
you will give me the courtesy of speaking twice. I just want to mention
that.
I've just been informed Mrs. Lummis spoke twice while I was going to
the restroom, so, once again, I will sit down.
If I could continue on my reservation, I want to explain to my friend
from Ohio that I was concerned about Members speaking twice. But I
understand that you've done that now with Mrs. Lummis, so I certainly
will not object.
I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Ohio is
recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for yielding. We may
not agree on everything, but I think if we agree on some of the history
that brought us to this point, maybe we can do something right for the
Republic, and certainly for those people who are lined up across this
country as victims of the abuse that came from that rugged
individualism for which there has been no justice. There has been no
justice to this date. What a sad thing for us to say institutionally.
If we look at this bill, nearly half of the babies born in our
country rely on WIC, the Women, Infants and Children food program. They
are in every district in this country. And I can guarantee you, for all
the big shots that cleaned up at the expense of the American people,
they've never even been to a WIC site. They've never seen sat with
moms. They've never sat with families trying to figure out how they're
going to make it from the beginning of the month to the end of the
month on the few pennies that they have to live on.
So I think that the sad fact of this bill is that, rather than Big
Oil paying their fair share of taxes, rather than us taking those
bonuses from those who truly don't deserve them because of what they
did to the Republic, for all the tax breaks that are going to companies
that are locating jobs overseas and taking our livelihoods away from
us, the answer isn't to take food away from those people that are
paying the price.
So I want to thank my colleagues, and particularly Mr. Kingston for
not objecting, to Mr. Farr for the great job you've done in trying to
bring some justice to this bill, and to say, in closing, that there are
many people who talk about life. Without decent nutrition, the children
who will be affected, the hundreds of thousands of children who will be
affected in this bill, their brains won't grow as fast. They won't have
the kind of nutrients that produce strong bodies and strong minds for
the future.
This is the time to stand up in defense for those who are
defenseless. And particularly with this economy, the last place to cut
is food. Every Christian in here knows that's true. We need to do
better as this bill moves forward.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill on final vote, and I
thank my colleagues for yielding me additional time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1910
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.
Ours is a compassionate country. We have leaders who can put
themselves in the shoes of Americans who are struggling, doing their
best. We have compassionate leaders on both sides of the aisle. This is
why it is so inexplicable that the underlying bill, as well as bill
after bill brought by the Republican majority to this floor, makes cuts
after huge cuts to people's programs--not corporate programs, not
programs that hit Wall Street, but people's programs. And again today,
in this agriculture spending bill, we are targeting cuts that hit
women, infants, children and seniors in Hawaii and nationwide.
In my district in Hawaii, 19.5 percent of our residents experienced
food hardship in the last year. Let me repeat: nearly one in five
people in my district did not have enough money to buy food that they
and their family needed in 2010. Today's bill would cut crucial
nutrition programs for thousands of Hawaii's most vulnerable and
hundreds of thousands all across the country. And while the richest in
our country continue to get billions in tax breaks and the oil
companies continue to get their billions in tax breaks, why are we
balancing the budget on the backs of women, infants, children and
seniors?
First, today's bill makes a $650 million cut to the women, infants
and children, WIC, nutrition program for fiscal year 2012. This would
cut as many as 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children
from the program. WIC provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy
eating, and health referrals to pregnant, postpartum and breast-feeding
women and their children under age five. This program has had well-
documented success in improving the nutrition and health of families in
poverty. WIC has reduced low-weight births, anemia and hunger. Let's
put ourselves in the shoes of 350,000 women and their children who
depend on this program.
Second, the Emergency Food Assistance Program supports food banks on
all of our islands and across the Nation to support the hungry. I have
visited many of the food banks in my State, in my district; and we know
that there is a growing need. There are many, many more families now
relying on food banks; and yet this bill cuts $12 million from food
banks at a time of great, great need. Let's put ourselves in the shoes
of the hundreds of thousands of families all across our country who are
relying on food stamps.
Third, today's bill cuts 20 percent from the Commodities Supplemental
Food Program, which provides food packages to over 600,000 people
nationwide, and 96 percent of these recipients are low-income seniors.
You've heard others say ending tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires for just 1 week alone would save $866 million. That is
enough to support poor women, infants and children for the entire year.
And when we say this bill brought to us by the Republicans literally
takes food from babies to give tax breaks to millionaires and
billionaires, we are not engaging in hyperbole. This is what is
happening in this bill.
Let's get our priorities in order. Balancing the budget on the backs
of our most vulnerable is totally indefensible when we are giving tax
breaks to those people, the richest people in our country, corporations
that are making billions of dollars. It's indefensible. And where do we
live? Do we live on Wall Street? People who want this bill, I think
they live on Wall Street. Well, those of us who are opposing this bill,
[[Page H4151]]
we live on Main Street. That's where the majority of our people live;
they live on Main Street. They expect us to support those people--
working people, families, women and children all living on Main Street.
I urge my colleagues to oppose these anti-people, wrong-headed,
downright cruel cuts to low-income women, infants, children and seniors
all across our country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. I've been listening all afternoon and I've heard
economic philosophy described as Keynesian and I've heard talk of
fiscal conservatism and regulation and rugged individualism. We even
heard talk of LeBron James. But one thing is really true, we haven't
heard anyone on the other side of the aisle talk about hunger, and even
LeBron James is not hungry.
So I want to talk about a really simple economic theory and it's
called hunger. It means when you wake up in the morning and you're a
young child in this country and your parents can't afford to feed you,
you're hungry. The demand of hunger when you're going to school and you
can't think through the school day because you're hungry. It's about
going home on a weekend after receiving a school lunch on a Friday but
not eating through the entire weekend because you're hungry. And
really, Mr. Chair, that's the only economic theory we need to discuss
this afternoon.
So just before I came to the floor, earlier in the day I had a
physical. I had to go 10 hours without eating. I described myself as
starving. But clearly, neither I nor any Member of this House of
Representatives knows what it's like to be really hungry today. And so
before I came to the floor, I had my piece of chicken. And you know
what? That was more than the Republicans are prepared to give America's
women, infants, and children.
And so I rise today in opposition to these extreme cuts to the Women,
Infant and Children program and the underlying bill. We know the
program is essential to providing nutrition to our Nation's most
vulnerable children.
Now, I don't need a study to know what it means to be hungry; but
studies show that women, infant and children programs reap tremendous
benefits to the participants. They lead to fewer premature births,
fewer fetal and infant deaths, and result in better cognitive and
physical health for children. That's the difference between eating a
nutritious meal and being hungry.
I also rise today in support of my colleague, Lynn Woolsey's,
amendment to block the GOP's attempts to roll back our USDA nutrition
standards for our children because not only are some of our children
hungry, but we need to make sure that they are eating to a standard
that allows them to learn in our classrooms.
The WIC program is essential to ensuring our youngest Americans
receive the nutrition they need, and the underlying amendments will
ensure that children continue to receive nutritious foods throughout
their school day.
Now, when I first came to Congress, I worked with our then-chairwoman
and our friend, Rosa DeLauro, to secure the Afterschool Supper Program
in my home State of Maryland for hungry children. We have fed millions
of meals through this program. And so I know that in my State and all
across the country the Women, Infant, and Children program served
140,000 women, infants and children every month in the last year.
The program serves 9.2 million low-income families across the
country. And as our Nation continues to recover from a recession, the
benefits provided to these families are an essential safety net for our
vulnerable populations. And according to Feeding America, there's a 50
percent increase in need amongst families, seniors, and children right
now. This is a time when ensuring the economic security of the American
people is critical, and we can't stand by the Republican pledge to cut
essential safety net programs.
It's no surprise to the American people that the Republican
Conference selected yet another vulnerable group to slash while
continuing to support big oil companies, farm subsidies and huge tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires instead of supporting women,
infants, and children.
In this 112th Congress, this new and bold Republican majority began
with an attack on women. They proceeded to attack our seniors with a
plan to eradicate Medicare, and now they are committed to an attack on
our neediest and the health of our neediest infants and children.
{time} 1920
It's actually really shameful. It's even hard to talk about because
it's hard to believe, in America, that even those who sit on the other
side of the aisle are willing to take away nutrition programs for needy
women, infants and children rather than take away the tax breaks for
billionaires and take away the subsidies for oil companies while our
gas prices rise. I think that those on the other side of the aisle
should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. I know that some of my
colleagues have quoted Bible passages. I don't know. Maybe quote the
Statue of Liberty. What is happening in this House is not American at
all. It doesn't hold to the values that we hold to take care of our
neediest, to take care of our poor.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. EDWARDS. I'll be gaveled down, but we need to support Women,
Infants and Children and to stop the slash and burn on the Nation's
neediest children.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.
People across this country have agreed that we have to reduce our
deficit, but they also understand that we shouldn't do it on the backs
of working and middle class people who are already struggling to make
ends meet. The Republican-sponsored Agriculture appropriations bill, on
the other hand, cuts all the wrong things at exactly the wrong time.
Here are five reasons that I plan on voting against it.
First, this bill will raise gas prices by cutting anti-speculation
efforts: With speculation at an all-time high, American families are
paying now more than 60 cents more per gallon at the pump than they
should be; but instead of ramping up anti-speculation efforts, this
bill cuts almost half the funding for the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission--the very agency charged with policing oil speculation.
Second, this bill takes food out of the mouths of low-income mothers,
babies and kids, cutting WIC for about 15,000 people just in New York
State alone: The bill cuts food assistance for pregnant women, infants
and children by $650 million, or 10 percent, denying food and health
counseling for up to 475,000 low-income women, infants and young
children throughout America over the course of the next year if this
bill passes. The bill also would cut food aid for low-income seniors
and would cut help for food banks.
Third, this bill increases the risk to our food supply by cutting
safety inspections: As many as 48 million Americans are sickened every
year by contaminated food. That's why, with my support, last year we
stepped up efforts to increase the inspections of food manufacturing
plants and imported foods. With new strains of E.coli sickening
hundreds throughout Europe, now is not the time to be gutting the
funding for food safety inspections; but this legislation would do just
that, making it impossible to implement the new safety standards and
guaranteeing millions more Americans will get sick from bad food.
Fourth, this bill cuts anti-childhood obesity efforts: Childhood
obesity has tripled in the past 30 years. It's an epidemic. Obesity
costs our country $147 billion a year in medical costs, and for the
first time in American history, life expectancy for the next generation
is going to be lower than for the current generation. But instead of
boosting efforts to combat this problem, the Republican bill eliminates
funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, designed to combat
childhood obesity by bringing healthy foods to underserved urban and
rural communities.
Finally, this bill raises the cost of prescription drugs: By severely
cutting funding for the Food and Drug Administration, American
consumers will get food and medical products that are less
[[Page H4152]]
safe due to the erosion of essential oversight and prescription drugs
that are more expensive as a result of the agency's limited ability to
approve less costly generics.
Just for those five reasons, obviously big reasons, this bill should
not be passed. While I oppose these cuts, I do support responsible ways
in which we can reduce our deficit, such as cutting wasteful subsidies
and give-aways for the oil industry, ending special tax earmarks for
Wall Street bankers, and allowing Medicare to negotiate for bulk rate
discounts on prescription drugs for seniors in the context of Medicare.
These reforms in and of themselves--just those few--would save hundreds
of billions of dollars without harming working and middle class
Americans who are already struggling to get by.
This Agriculture appropriations bill accomplishes the goal of deficit
reduction in the wrong way. Let's move forward with a plan that does it
in the right way.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is easy for my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to forget that this bill deals with
programs on which the most vulnerable in our society rely.
My Republican colleagues are proposing about $650 million in cuts to
the WIC Program. This action would essentially kick 200,000 to 350,000
women, infants and children off the rolls. Now, the Republicans claim
that getting our fiscal house in order requires shared sacrifice.
However, they are only requiring the sacrifice of those most in need.
In fact, the cost of funding this program for 1 year is less than the
revenue that would be generated by ending the Bush tax cuts to
millionaires for just 1 week. Now you tell me, is that considered
shared sacrifice?
If we want to talk about being fiscally responsible, then there is
almost no better investment and choice we can make than the WIC
Program. For every dollar invested in WIC, $1.77 to $3.13 in health
care costs are avoided in the first 60 days after an infant's birth.
Doesn't this alone make fiscal sense?
The WIC Program is preventative. It's preventative in terms of public
health nutrition. It is a mission-driven program that seeks to improve
birth outcomes, improve the nutrition of women and children, and
provide nutrition education and food packages tailored to meet the
needs of low-income women and children. I can't think of anything that
is more preventative in nature and that ultimately saves money.
WIC serves approximately 8.9 million low-income pregnant women, new
moms, babies, and children under 5 who have been determined to be
nutritionally at risk. Are these really the people that my Republican
colleagues want to carry the burden and weight of shared sacrifice?
What do the Republicans expect? I mean, do you honestly expect your
constituents to find relief if they're not willing to provide even the
most basic of services? You don't even want to provide basic services
for people in need. Where are they going to get relief in this economic
downturn that we face right now?
If my Republican colleagues continue to pursue this kind of action,
they're going to have hundreds of thousands of hungry and malnourished
women and children on their consciences--and I really mean that, on
your consciences--and that's not something that I am willing to accept.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this appropriations bill and to
give the necessary support to our Nation's most vulnerable members.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $136,070,000) (reduced by $136,070,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. My amendment offered with my colleagues, Representatives
Kaptur, Boswell, Farr, Courtney, Larson, and Welch, would restore full
funding for the President's request to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
The CFTC's mission is to protect the American public from fraud,
manipulation, abusive practices, systemic risk related to derivatives,
including speculation in the oil markets that drive up gas prices, and
to foster open, competitive and financially sound markets. Funding the
CFTC at the President's request will put 159 more cops on the beat,
will provide the agency with the updated technology it needs to
properly regulate the multi-trillion-dollar derivatives market in order
to protect American consumers, and will curb excessive speculation by
Wall Street banks and oil companies.
The current version of the bill, by gouging the CFTC by as much as
$136 million, makes it clear that the majority is putting profiteering
and special interests above the basic, commonsense priorities of the
American people. Three years ago, we suffered an economic meltdown
brought on by greed, corruption and a total lack of regulation in the
Wall Street derivatives market.
{time} 1930
We are still dealing with the economic ramifications of that collapse
today. Millions of jobs disappeared, millions of homes foreclosed on,
millions of families are struggling every day to get by.
If that were not burdensome enough, the same families are paying
excessive prices at the pump right now because of dangerous oil
speculation. Goldman Sachs has found that unregulated speculation adds
over $20 per barrel to the price of oil. Even Exxon's top executive
recently conceded that the price of gas has been surging due to
speculators, who now make up nearly 70 percent of the market.
Because of all the bad behavior by Wall Street, we passed the Dodd-
Frank financial reform bill in the Congress last year which would
reintroduce transparency and accountability in commodities markets and
protect the public from future malfeasance. Among these reforms was the
strengthening of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, their
ability to regulate derivatives and to prevent speculation in oil. Yet
in this appropriations bill the majority is now trying to starve the
CFTC of the resources that it needs to do the job.
The decision helps Wall Street firms and big oil companies. If it
passes, Wall Street can continue the risky manipulation of derivatives
that brought on the last collapse. Big oil can continue to enjoy
inflated profits every year due to artificially swollen oil prices. The
losers are Americans families forced to pay more at the pump with this
decision, or worse. Eviscerating the CFTC here, the majority is setting
up taxpayers to pay for yet another costly bailout of Wall Street.
The choices made in this legislation are reckless and disturbing,
more to do with ideology than basic economics. Yet it is part of a
pattern by this majority. Under their watch, gas prices reached an
average of around $4 a gallon across the country, up dramatically from
the $2.78 national average in 2010. And yet they still rush to protect
billions in oil company subsidies, even as they cut the budget of the
agency we know can do something about this speculation.
CFTC has already made a difference. Earlier this year they charged
five oil speculators with manipulating the price of crude, netting them
more $50 million, even as oil prices climbed towards record highs of
$147 a barrel in the summer of 2008. We need this type of
accountability in our oil markets to protect American families. What we
do not need is a Congress that puts the profit margins of Wall Street
and oil speculators over the needs of American families and the
American economy.
We came here to represent the American people, not banks and oil
companies, and that means giving the CFTC the resources that it needs
to do its job properly. I urge my colleagues to put Main Street before
Wall Street and to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
[[Page H4153]]
Mr. KINGSTON. I accept the amendment and was wondering if we could go
ahead and call the question and move on.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee is proceeding under the 5-minute rule
and debate will proceed on the amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. It is interesting. I want to read this amendment,
because I have heard some comments about this bill isn't serious or
whatever. Well, look at this amendment. I don't think you could call it
serious. It says on page 2, line 14, ``after the dollar amount insert
increased by $136 million, reduced by $136 million.''
The effect of this amendment is nothing. It is a legitimate vehicle
on a parliamentary rule to discuss something. But if there is a problem
with the CFTC not doing its job or being unable to do the job because
of this, there should be an amendment that addresses that. This is not
an amendment. This is just a discussion. But I will enter into the
discussion.
First of all, I want to quote Michael Dunn. He is a Democrat member
of the commission. Here is what he had to say as far as oil speculation
goes. ``The CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic
analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is
affecting the markets we regulate.''
That is from the Democrat member of the CFTC. If I quoted a
Republican member and they said the same thing, then the Democrats
would be crying, no, no, no. But that was the quote of the Democrat
member of the commission.
Now, why are the Democrats so interested in blaming high energy costs
on the CFTC? It is because they have opposed our own development of
energy domestically. We do not want to explore for oil in Alaska, but
the President of the United States goes down to Brazil and apparently
understands or in his view believes that they are maybe technologically
superior to Americans, that they can drill for oil off the shore of
Brazil, and they can do a better job than the good people in Louisiana
or Texas or Florida can. So the President of the United States, a
Democrat, goes down to Brazil and says, drill for oil here, and we will
lend you the money, and we want to be your best customer.
Now, if we want to decrease the price of domestic energy, then we
need to explore for our own energy, instead of this phony argument that
somehow--and, by the way, I am not sure, but I think Goldman Sachs is a
huge supporter of President Obama. In fact, I think they were his
second-largest contributor. I am not 100 percent sure on that. I am
sure somebody over here might be very quick to correct me if I am
wrong.
But I know this: that I have heard over and over again that somehow
Goldman Sachs is the problem with this bill. I wasn't listening to
every single speech, but that was one of the things that we kept
hearing. But if we want to decrease the cost of energy in the United
States of America, you need to increase the supply and the production
of domestic energy and get away from this, well, it is the CFTC is not
getting enough money.
And I want to say this, which is very important about this budget
number. The budget of the President of the United States, a Democrat,
failed in the Senate, which is also run by the Democrats, by a vote of
97-0. Now, I keep hearing, not this bill, not here, not now. Well,
where? The Ryan budget is the only budget that has passed either body.
It has not passed the Senate. But the President's budget failed 97-0.
So if the Democrats are concerned, then why aren't they working on a
budget that is acceptable to them?
We had a number of budget votes here. None of them passed. There was
one budget proposal, the RSC, Republican Study Committee budget that
was Mr. Garrett's and Mr. Jordan's, and it failed because they felt the
Ryan budget did not go far enough. But the Ryan budget did get a
majority of votes. The President Obama budget did not. And what did the
President and Harry Reid do when their budget failed? Nothing. They
left. That was it. If they are concerned about funding for the CFTC and
the USDA and the FDA, why aren't they working on a budget that is more
acceptable? Isn't that what leadership is all about?
So what we are having here now is, because we won't explore for our
own energy and we won't develop it, we are going to blame it on the
CFTC's funding level. I think that this amendment, although it does
nothing, I think we should move on to more serious discussions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, having heard the
subcommittee chairman's discussion of this amendment, I now understand
why he didn't want to have a discussion of this amendment. He wanted
simply to accept it so he would not have had to say nothing. Since it
was not accepted, he did say nothing, he just took 5 minutes to say it.
I take it back, he did say one very important thing, and it defines
this issue. He apparently believes that speculation in oil is no part
of the reason that oil prices go high, and he quoted a Democrat. He
found a Democrat, one of the three Democratic members of the
commission. The other two, of course, vehemently disagree.
By the way, we did not say that this is something Goldman Sachs
doesn't like. Goldman Sachs is on the gentleman's side. Goldman Sachs
opposes regulation of derivatives. Goldman Sachs merely mentioned in an
analyst report that they believe that $20 a barrel of the cost of oil
comes from the speculation that they engage in. Maybe they were
bragging. They certainly weren't objecting.
Here is what speculation means. By the way, in our legislation that
the Republicans are trying to undo and in what the CFTC is trying to
do, people who use oil are not regulated. An airline trying to hedge
against volatility in prices, they are left alone.
Here is what we want to say. If you do not use oil, if you never go
near a barrel of oil, in fact, if you are one of those people whole
never goes near the gas pump because you have got somebody to pump it
for you, if you never touch a barrel of oil and never use it, please do
not buy it up, through derivatives, so that you put up only a little
bit, large amounts so that you can keep it off the market and the price
goes up. That is what we want to do.
{time} 1940
The CFTC, we think, should be able to say to people who don't use the
commodity, Please don't buy it up and hold it off the market so you can
then sell it when the price goes up and make a profit. The gentleman
from Georgia says speculation is not an issue. He says it's drilling.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know a thoughtful person who thinks that complex
issues like the price of a commodity have a single explanation, except
the gentleman from Georgia. I wouldn't want to violate the rules by
suggesting that I would exclude him from the ranks of the rational, but
every other rational person says that things like the price are set by
a number of factors.
No, I do not think speculation is the major cause. Neither does
Goldman Sachs. Neither does Wilbur Ross, the great investor. They say
it's perhaps 20 percent. So we're not saying we're going to cut the
price in half. We are saying you can reduce it by 20 percent. And, by
the way, it's not just oil. We just had a debate about food. Well,
frankly, the WIC program that they are cutting wouldn't cost so much if
we would also limit speculation in food prices.
And here's what we are talking about. Well, maybe the gentleman from
Georgia speaks for his party. I've heard no dissent. The apparently
official Republican position is: Speculation is fine. Let's not
interfere with speculation. It's people who do not use the commodity,
who don't use oil, who don't use the foodstuffs, if they want to buy it
up and keep it off the market so they can then sell it when the price
goes up--why else would they buy it? They're not collectors. This is
not stamps. This is not a hobby. It's a way to make money. And how do
they make money? By driving up the price of the commodity by buying it
and withholding it and then selling it when
[[Page H4154]]
they can make a profit. What we want is for the CFTC to tell people who
don't use it, No, there are limits on what you can buy. And we believe
that contributes to the price of oil, unlike the gentleman from
Georgia, who said, No, price only has to do with exploration and
drilling. No one I think really thinks that--maybe not even the
gentleman from Georgia. What they do is to say, No, the CFTC won't have
that money. They in fact in their budget will give the CFTC less money
in the next fiscal year than they have this year.
We have given the CFTC new powers under the financial reform
legislation, which they don't like, to cover swaps. By the way, it's
not simply speculation that's at risk here. AIG helped plunge this
country into an economic disaster by an absolutely irresponsible use of
derivatives. And that's something, again, we would like the CFTC to be
able to regulate. They were allowed to get in way over their heads.
So what we have here is part of a one-two punch from the Republicans.
They want to do it legislatively--and that will come up later--but here
they're telling the CFTC, You should get less money as we give you this
complicated issue of derivatives than you had before. And by the way,
they also have added a Catch-22. If you read the current Republican
arguments, they are very critical of the CFTC for not moving quickly
enough. They aren't using the authority they've got.
So, first, you complain that they aren't doing enough. Then you
reduce the money that they need. And by the way, these are complicated
things. They need to be able to hire very smart people. They need to be
able to hire important information technology. You cannot have dumb
people regulating. And I will give credit to those people out there
manipulating derivatives and speculating--they're very smart. They have
state-of-the-art equipment. And you want to put the CFTC in shackles.
It is an effort to make speculation free of any regulation, with a
consequent increase in food prices and energy prices. And I hope the
bill is defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. We are
slowly rebounding from a financial crisis that crippled our economy and
left millions of Americans out of work. Clearly, consumer protection is
important now more than ever. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
known as the CFTC, is an independent agency that protects market users
and the public from abusive practices related to derivatives. This
includes helping regulate oil speculation and food price speculation.
Now, more than ever, we need a well-resourced CFTC. As Mr. Frank
pointed out, this is new legislation. The agency is growing by hiring
people who are going to be regulators, and expects by September 30 of
this year to have in place what we have given the money for last year,
which is 720 full-time equivalent positions. They will help ensure that
the public is protected from fraud, manipulation, and systematic risk,
and they will make sure that Americans aren't paying exorbitant prices
at the pump and grocery stores. And the CFTC can do just that.
In the past 3 years, the CFTC has obtained over $1.3 billion in
judgments for Americans who have been victimized by thousands of
profit-hungry investors around the country. And yet now, in fiscal year
2012, this bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, slashes the
budget of the CFTC by 44 percent. So the first time that we begin to
regulate an industry, we are going to cut it back by 160 jobs they will
have to let go.
Now, remember, they're regulating an industry that is seven times
larger than all regulated industry and regulated markets today. Seven
times bigger than all regulated markets. This job cut will dangerously
undermine the CFTC's regulation of commodities and contribute to rising
oil and food prices, as Mr. Frank pointed out. This is blatant fiscal
irresponsibility because here's what these cuts mean. The CFTC can't
put enough cops on the beat to prevent the big banks from making risky
bets that could lead to another financial crisis. So the American
taxpayer will foot the bill to bail out Wall Street all over again.
This puts the needs of Wall Street over the needs of Main Street. But
you know what else it means? It means Americans will be exposed to
manipulation of oil and food prices at the very time when folks are
scraping together pennies to pay for rent and cover groceries.
Our job here in Congress is to be the best possible stewards of
taxpayers' dollars. And this shortsighted cut will yield absolutely no
return on investment. In fact, we could be lining ourselves up to lose
big all over again. I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Kaptur-
Farr-Larson-Courtney-Welch-Boswell amendment to restore funding to the
CFTC and avoid this misguided attack on the American taxpayer.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. I rise to support the fair and necessary funding for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC acts as a Wall Street
watchdog, overseeing American markets that directly impact our Nation's
workers, businesses, and families. Refusing to responsibly fund this
Commission puts our constituents in danger of higher gas prices, higher
food prices, and a greater likelihood that Wall Street will once again
take advantage of them. While the derivatives market has grown by 400
percent over the last 10 years, the U.S. Government has failed to match
that growth in regulators. Now the majority wants to take even more
cops off Wall Street, and as someone has said, it's like putting the
Little League champions up against the New York Yankees. With
speculators making up 70 percent of market players and an industry that
invests $25 billion in technology each year, the Commission that
regulates behavior on Wall Street cannot afford to be left behind. Our
taxpayers cannot afford to pick up the bill again.
To monitor and regulate this market, and to protect American
taxpayers, last Congress we passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
Act. And I might add that that was not a knee-jerk operation. We took
months and months, many, many hearings, as you well know,
working across the aisle together to try to do something that would
prevent a re-happening of what we were going through and still have the
aftereffect of.
As ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees the CFTC, I have
heard from countless witnesses, including Chairman Gensler himself,
that we must properly fund the CFTC to protect American consumers and
market end-users. They need and must have the tools and the resources
to do their job. Adequately funding the CFTC would allow the Commission
to increase staff to do the job that Congress directed them to do,
which is to prevent another 2008 financial crisis. It would allow the
Commission to keep pace with the growth of the market they are charged
to regulate and invest $66 million in technology to improve oversight
of electronic trading.
Still, the majority is dead set on delaying and defunding the CFTC.
This legislation returns the CFTC to their 2008 level funding--the same
level of funding that led to the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street and
only allows half of what they need now to do the job correctly.
Defunding and delaying this implementation is the majority's handout to
Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, who have already been caught
red-handed gambling with the pension plans of middle class Americans
and speculating the cost of oil $20 a barrel beyond actual cost.
{time} 1950
This is why I support and have cosponsored the amendment to increase
CFTC funding to the fair level of $308 million. To fund the CFTC at
2008 levels is an insult to the American taxpayers who were asked to
foot the bill in 2008 as a result of Wall Street's reckless behavior.
Our Nation has seen the effects of the 2008 funding level and what
happens when our market lacks proper oversight. We must protect our
constituents from the vulnerable situation that
[[Page H4155]]
led to a financial collapse, and we must fairly fund the CFTC.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska.
I just want to say I find it incredible that I'm hearing people say
that the fault of the Wall Street meltdown was because of the CFTC's
not doing its job. I cannot believe that the meltdown and the financial
situation is now being attributed to the CFTC and, to avoid it, we have
to put in more money for the CFTC.
I voted against the Wall Street bailout. The President of the United
States voted for it as a Senator, and again as President he wanted part
two of it. So I'm not buying that the Wall Street bailout--AIG was
mentioned earlier. That was done by the Fed. The Bear Stearns bailout,
that was done by the Fed. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
that was done by the House Democrats.
So I don't need to be sitting here listening to people preach to me
about bailouts and that the solution to lower gas prices is to fund a
bureaucracy. It's a group that has been averaging about four
regulations a year and between now and late summer 34 regulations.
I understand that those in the Big Government circles of Washington
love more regulations, more government growth; but to say to the
taxpayers that funding CFTC at a higher, unprecedented level is going
to avoid the need for bailouts is ridiculous. And, again, Mr. Chairman,
I'm somebody who has consistently voted against these bailouts and
these stimulus programs.
I don't believe that government is the answer. I think the market
still has the answer. I did not support the Dodd-Frank bill. What this
is--a lot of it is just an overreach, more government telling people
how to conduct their business.
Do I think there's a role for CFTC? Certainly I do. And can CFTC be
effective? Yes. But their own Democrat member says, and I will quote
again: ``The CFTC staff''--not his personal opinion but the CFTC staff,
which is over 700--``has been unable to find any reliable economic
analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is
affecting the markets we regulate.'' Now, that's not my opinion; that's
what the Democrat commission member says the CFTC staff has reported.
Should we be concerned about speculation? Yes, we should. But I don't
think it is fair for any Member of Congress to go back home to the
taxpayers and say, I'm going to bring down the price at the pump
because I have put millions of dollars into a Washington bureaucracy
and they're really going to get tough on that Wall Street crowd now.
If we want to bring down the price of energy in America, we have to
increase our supply. And I don't know of any other way to do it. Supply
goes up and the cost goes down. If we want to help the consumers at the
pump, we have got to explore and develop our own domestic energy
resources. And discussion about CFTC funding comes second, third,
fourth, fifth tier to that. So if the objective is to bring down the
price of gas at the pump, let's don't pretend that increasing spending
for the CFTC is going to achieve that.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me add as well
it's a little difficult for me to sit here quietly and listen to the
pontificating about Wall Street bailouts. I didn't support the Wall
Street bailout either.
There are now five banks who control over 50 percent of the assets,
deposited assets, in the country. Those banks that were deemed ``too
big to fail'' in reality are too big to succeed. It's the Main Street
bank that's under constant competitive pressure from these large
institutions that have been empowered by further consolidations by the
actions of this very body. So it's very difficult to sit here and take
that.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, as
someone who also voted against the Wall Street bailout.
I, however, would certainly disagree with the conclusion that
speculation is not a factor in the price of oil and certainly the huge
swing that we have seen just in the last 6 months in this country. And
I would cite ExxonMobil as my validator in terms of that point.
On May 14 in Forbes Magazine, hardly a Democratic left-wing
publication, there was a story regarding an interview with Rex
Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, who stated that the real price with
traditional supply and demand for oil and gas should be roughly between
$60 and $70 a barrel, not $115 a barrel, which it was back in mid-May.
And this is what the article said: that Mr. Tillerson stated that the
reason it's above $100 a barrel is due to the oil majors using futures
contracts to lock in current high prices and speculation that is
engineered by the high-frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds.
Again, traditional supply and demand, according to ExxonMobil,
suggests that the price of oil and gas should be roughly $60 to $70.
Well, how will the CFTC bring us back to a market that is actually
connected to supply and demand forces as opposed to the market that we
have today?
Under Dodd-Frank, what the CFTC was given was the authority to impose
position limits on noncommercial interests that have swamped the
commodities trading markets of this country since Congress foolishly
deregulated the commodities markets back in 2000. Today, the number of
noncommercial traders in the commodities markets is twice what it was
in 2000 and using virtually no money down, because the margin limits
are almost nonexistent. They have basically hijacked this market so
that real end-users, the people who depend on futures trading to lock
in positions, whether it's airlines or back home in Connecticut whether
it's oil delivery guys who are trying to figure out whether they can
offer lock-in contracts for next winter, they have been basically
driven from this market. In Connecticut today you cannot get a lock-in
contract for next winter because of the fact that these traders now
have absolutely no confidence in whether or not this market will be in
any rational place 6 months or 8 months from now.
So the need for the CFTC to reimpose some reasonable ``appropriate
limits,'' which is what the Dodd-Frank bill empowers them to do, is the
reason why their staff needs to be put into place so that we can have a
market that existed back in the 1990s, our parents' commodities trading
market, which was a stable market which was basically for the use of
end-users and not for people who were using high-frequency trading,
which the CEO of ExxonMobil cited as the cause of the swing in prices
that we're seeing.
And let's be clear here, folks. Supporting this budget from the
majority is not about being a deficit hawk. Secretary Ray Mabus from
the Navy testified before the House Armed Services Committee that every
$10-a-barrel increase of oil costs the Navy, in terms of annual fuel
costs, $300 million a year. If you look at what the CEO of ExxonMobil
says, the Navy right now is overpaying easily on an annualized basis
anywhere from $300 million to $500 million a year, and that's just one
branch of the military. The Air Force uses a greater amount of fossil
fuels of oil and gas than the Navy does.
So if you are truly a deficit hawk, if you really want to make sure
that the Pentagon, which is going to be going through some gut-
wrenching decisions about whether or not to provide for the Warfighter
in this country and protect weapons platforms that we need to defend
this country, then we need a high-functioning CFTC to make sure that
the Pentagon as well as the rest of the government at the State and
local level are not overpaying for gas and oil.
The taxpayer has a huge stake in making sure that this agency, the
CFTC, has adequate funds to do its job because the savings to not just
consumers and small businesses but the savings to the taxpayers will be
in the billions and billions of dollars. It far exceeds any of the
claimed savings that this budget seeks to obtain through the
[[Page H4156]]
cuts, through the unbelievably shortsighted cuts to the CFTC in terms
of being able to do its job.
We should oppose this budget. We should support this amendment which
is on the floor of this House.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COURTNEY. No, I will not yield.
Not only small businesses and consumers but the taxpayer needs us to
act to make sure that we have a rational oil trading market that is
tied to real traditional supply and demand, which the CEO of ExxonMobil
has told us is overpriced today to at least $20 to $30 a barrel.
{time} 2000
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the previous
speaker's arguments, and I'm glad to hear that he's concerned about the
U.S. Navy's energy supplies, and I was going to ask him, if he had been
kind enough to yield to me, whether he was in favor of us starting to
develop our own energy resources here in the United States.
We've got a tremendous amount of energy that our Creator has given us
here in this country off the northern coast of Alaska, in the Western
United States, in the gulf coast, and certainly, I would like to see
the oil prices drop. The best way to get those oil prices to come down
to a reasonable level is for us to start developing our own energy
resources here in this country. Certainly, our oil and natural gas
resources need to be developed, clean coal energy, alternative sources
of energy, nuclear energy, all these other things.
And I just hear all this pontification from my colleagues on the
other side about the CFTC and the oil speculators. The best way to make
the oil speculators lose money, which they would do when they increase
the prices of oil by speculating on future prices, is by producing more
oil here in this country. We've got a tremendous amount of uncertainty
with all the things that are going on in the Middle East today, and
that causes speculators to think the price of oil is going up.
Now, I'm not one who's here arguing for the speculators by any means.
I believe in the marketplace. I believe that the marketplace,
unencumbered by government regulations and taxes, is the best way to
control quality, quantity, and cost of all goods and services,
including oil. And the best way to do that is to lower the cost of oil
here in this country, natural gas and all of our energy supplies for
the U.S. Navy as well as for the Federal Government and for everybody,
to lower the cost of gasoline at the pump. It's best to develop our own
natural resources, our God-given resources that are plentiful in this
country.
But I have seen in, now, three Congresses that I have been here my
Democrat colleagues block every effort that we have made to develop our
own resources. I never will forget in 2008, while we were coming during
the August break and talking about the Republicans' all-of-the-above
energy policy, that a Democratic staffer said that the Democrat Party's
energy policy was drive a small car and wait for the wind. That's not
an energy policy.
We need to develop the God-given resources that we have here in this
country, to lower the cost of gas at the pumps, to lower the cost of
heating oil, particularly for our elderly citizens and poorest people
across this Nation that this winter are going to be suffering,
suffering tremendously economically because of the high cost of oil.
It's not the speculators and the CFTC that's going to do that.
Drilling for oil and natural gas and developing our own natural
resources here in this country is going to be the solution. And I just
encourage my Democratic colleagues to join with me and others here on
our side, let's develop these resources, not just talk about the CFTC,
not just talk about more regulations on the marketplace, because the
more regulation we put on the marketplace, the higher the cost goes. So
let's get the regulatory burden off of the energy sector so that we can
start developing our own God-given resources here in this country.
So, if the gentleman had been kind enough to yield, I would have
asked him and congratulate him on being concerned about our U.S. Navy
and how much extra they're paying for oil, for all the energy sources
that our military has to spend. We've got to stop this outrageous
spending that the Federal Government's been doing, and the way to do
that is lower the cost of energy here and that will help everybody.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to associate myself with the fine efforts of
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and Ranking Member Sam Farr to point out the
anemic funding that is contained in the base bill for the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. The Republican bill reduces below the
President's request by 44 percent the necessary funding for staff for
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and provides significantly
fewer resources for the agency to do the job America expects.
Now, why is this important? The CFTC is supposed to regulate betting,
B-E-T-T-I-N-G, because really what's going on is all the American
people know is a very sophisticated type of gambling that when the
bettors lose, rather than absorbing their losses, they come to the
American people, but they're very powerful and they create new
mechanisms. They create mechanisms. They don't call it betting, but
they have a term, ``collateralized debt obligations.'' That gives it a
kind of luster. And from that, they might drive a credit default swap.
But in the end, as the book by Joe Nocera, ``All the Devils Are
Here,'' recounts what we really have is a Wall Street and a Chicago
futures market that has run amok, where market manipulation,
speculation, and outright fraud led our country into the worst economic
recession since the Great Depression.
Make no mistake about it: These folks are very powerful, and one of
the most important trades involved in this very sophisticated gambling
is oil. This particular chart shows the profits being made by the major
oil companies and compares the profits in the first quarter of last
year to this year. If you look at ExxonMobil, over $10 billion more
profits this year than last year. And the list goes on. Whether it's
Conoco at $2 billion, whether it's BP at $7.2 billion, these folks are
not hurting.
President Obama said, back in April, that part of the oil problem and
the gas price problem is speculation. He's absolutely right. Even
Goldman Sachs, one of the big beneficiaries of the betting, admits that
a huge portion of the increase in the gas price is due to betting. And
of all people, the chief executive officer of Exxon admitted in
testimony in the other body recently that $60 to $70 per barrel of oil,
whether it's $60, $70, $80, $90, $100, is actually due to speculation.
So even those involved in it are admitting they're crying for help. So
let's give it to them. Let's give them the help they want and
desperately need.
This Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been charged with
shining a bright light into the dark recesses that Wall Street and the
futures markets would love us to ignore. In fact, I think the currency
markets actually got themselves exempted, so there's huge sections of
trades that are going on in our world today that aren't even the
subject, even if we were to have the staffing we need over at the CFTC,
that would not be affected by it.
But I ask myself: Could it perhaps be the intent and consequence of
this restrictive funding proposal at the CFTC to prevent robust
regulation of this market? If we look at what happened with mortgage-
backed securities and all the derivatives that flowed from that, we
know absolutely for certain that the lack of regulation is the reason
for our demise.
We must make sure that the CFTC is able to take on speculation in the
markets, and there's no more nontransparent market than this one in
oil. So when the American people go to the pump and they cuss, they
have to think about this little agency called the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission that back in 2000 tried to get the
[[Page H4157]]
right to regulate derivatives, and they were denied that right by a
vote right here in the Congress, and most Members had no idea what they
were voting on because it was included in an omnibus appropriations
bill.
{time} 2010
Isn't that interesting? Legislating on an appropriation bill, and
nobody found it. Well, they must have a lot of power in order to do
that. So if we look at a few years ago when these derivative markets
were worth about $13 trillion--now nobody I represent, including
myself, can even imagine $13 trillion. But that derivative market grew
from the mid-nineties to the present where it was about $40 trillion,
and we had 475 employees over at the CFTC trying to figure out what was
going on in all these markets. Well, today that market is over $600
trillion in notional value and 15 times more than before, and there's
not sufficient staff in order to regulate these markets. It's pretty
obvious where we need support in order to rein in these abuses.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I don't come to the floor very often anymore
to debate. I have kind of changed my pattern. Eighteen years ago, 19
years ago, when I saw egregious things, I would be right here in the
heart of the debate, ranting and raving, some people would say.
When my colleagues and sometimes my constituents now ask me, Have you
lost your passion, I tell them that there are some reasons that I don't
come to the floor anymore. One is that I find that most of the time, my
colleagues on the opposite side are tone deaf. They are not really
listening to what anybody is saying to them. They are off on some
radical right undertaking, falling off the right edge of the Earth, and
they are not listening to anything I say.
They don't share my values, and they don't really care about this
debate that we had, 3 hours of talking about women, infants, and
children going hungry. They really don't much care about that, I say to
my constituents. And, third, they just make up stuff. You know, they
have this--you know, if we repeat it enough, it's got to be true, and
we will convince the American people of about anything if we just keep
saying it over and over again. Or they . . . have convenient memories
that forget that it was President Bush----
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Nebraska rise?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. The gentleman has accused our side of the aisle of
lying. Is that a cause for having his words taken down?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair construes that as a demand that words be
taken down. All Members will suspend. The gentleman will take his seat.
The Clerk will report the words.
{time} 2020
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, some people have
said that I called somebody a liar and, obviously, that would be in
violation of the rules. I am aware of that. So if I did, I ask
unanimous consent that those words be removed from the Record.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina may proceed in
order.
Mr. WATT. Can the Chair tell me how much time remains in my 5
minutes?
The Acting Chair. The gentleman from North Carolina has 3 minutes
remaining of his 5 minutes.
Mr. WATT. All right. Well, let me try to pick up essentially where I
was without offending anybody else.
There's some conveniently forgotten items that I think we need to be
reminded of. Number 1, that it was President Bush who requested the
government bailouts. That occurred on his watch. It was President Bush
that was responsible for the tax cuts for the rich that got us out of
surpluses as far as the eye could see and into this deficit spending.
And it was rampant speculation and abuse of derivatives on Wall Street
that resulted in a meltdown that made Dodd-Frank and the CFTC
regulation that we're here debating necessary. Those are the three
important things that I think we need to take note of.
It also resulted in a tremendous economic downturn that resulted in
more people needing food stamps and the benefit of the WIC program. So
these two things are really not disconnected from each other, the 3
hours of debate that we had previously and the debate on whether we are
going to adequately fund the CFTC, which has been given authority under
the Dodd-Frank legislation to rein in the speculation that is taking
place that's driving up food prices, oil prices, and if we're not
careful, will result in the same kind of economic meltdown that we
experienced that got us into this in the first place.
So this whole process of being in denial about this and ignoring the
facts is something that I think we should not countenance on this
floor. We need the CFTC to regulate derivatives and speculation. And to
the extent that we cut the staff and the funding of the CFTC, we could
be replicating exactly what led President Bush to say we needed a
bailout in the first place.
So, that's what this debate is all about. I think it's terrible that
we are cutting funds under this bill for women, infants, and children,
the most vulnerable in our society. But it's even more terrible that we
are going to run the risk of allowing the same kind of rampant
speculation, unregulated, to get us back into another meltdown that
will result in our being back here trying to figure out how to dig
ourselves out of this ditch. A year from now, 18 months from now, 2
years from now we'll be right back here again.
Now, this is not rocket science. It's all just connected to each
other. And my colleagues can deny it all they want. They can say that
this is about drilling for oil in the United States. That's not what
it's about. All of the science I've seen says there's more supply of
oil now than there is demand, and if we were operating in a regular
domestic market on regular economics, the price of gas would be going
down.
We need to regulate the CFTC. We need to have them regulating
derivatives and speculation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Reed). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. It seems that if I'm the American people
watching this on C-SPAN tonight, I think we have a very clear picture
of the difference between what the Republicans want and what the
Democrats want.
Now, as my good friend from North Carolina very eloquently laid out
the scenario of how we got to where we are, the question becomes: How
do we solve this problem? The Democrats are saying we got into this
problem because we did not have the proper oversight to abusive
practices, to manipulation, to the use of derivatives, and allowing
them to use a leveraging position that brought great havoc to our
economic system in a way that brought about a havoc to our economic
system not seen since the 1930s and the Depression.
The American people, under the leadership of President George Bush
and his Treasury Secretary Paulson, came to our Financial Services
Committee with just one little piece of paper, but on that piece of
paper it said, We need to be able to bring some oversight and
regulation to this new area of derivatives and credit default swaps. It
is tearing a hole in our economy. We moved. We moved and we passed the
Dodd-Frank bill.
Now, what we have before us now is a continuation of a very misguided
policy by the Republicans. Let me remind you, this same scenario was
carried out to cut Medicare. It's all been cutting programs, cutting
efforts to respond to the basic needs of the American people.
Now, my issue is this: If my Republican friends were very sincere
about what they were doing--and let me qualify that because I don't
want my words taken down. But ``sincerity'' is a very important word
here. And my sincerity point is this:
If they were sincere, why would they advocate cutting the very
programs
[[Page H4158]]
that the American people need at the time and, at the same time, saying
we're in such dire budget consequences but yet we can give billionaires
and millionaires $2.5 trillion, but we cannot adequately fund the CFTC
to go in and have the power to put forward the very controls needed so
that we will never have the kind of meltdown that we had before?
That is the hypocrisy here, Mr. Chairman. That's what the American
people are watching tonight on C-SPAN in this debate, and I hope they
see a very clear message of who it is that's standing up for the
American people at their time of need.
{time} 2030
And there's no greater need than to rein in these speculators who
have been a primary cause to the high rise in gasoline. That's what
they want us to do, and that's what we're doing. But the Republicans
want to cut the budget so that we will not be able to have the
staffing, so that we could go into the dark corners and the crevices
and be able to shine the light and pull out these speculators that are
driving up these gasoline prices to $5 a gallon.
So I hope that tonight, after this debate, the American people will
clearly see who's on the side of the American people. Without any
question, without any doubt, it is the Democrats who are standing in
the way to make sure that we do all we can to make sure the CFTC, our
primary regulator, will be able to put in place those entities, those
regulations that will prevent this meltdown from happening before and
will rein in these speculators and give the American people the day
that they deserve, a better day in the sun.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Nebraska is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to address this
issue of who's on the side of the American people. We have a $1.6
trillion deficit this year. Over 40 cents on every dollar that the
government is spending is borrowed. We have $14 trillion of debt. This
is a very tough Agricultural appropriations budget. I don't like it.
The CFTC is a very important organization; it does very important
work. I think as well there are structural flaws in the commodities
markets. Futures markets that are designed to decrease volatility and
mitigate risk are actually increasing volatility and causing risk.
There's a structural problem there. But the issue comes down to what
are we going to prioritize and where.
The CFTC has received--since the recklessness of Wall Street in 2008
and those bailouts that were voted on by a majority of this body--has
received a 53 percent increase in its funding. I wish it didn't have to
be reduced, but it's being asked to share in this overall budget of
reducing the entire cost of the Agricultural appropriations bill by a
margin that is actually less than other parts of the bill.
It's a tough budget. I don't like it either. But we've got to try to
tighten our belt in a responsible manner. And given the increases that
have occurred, I think it's important to have some historical
perspective here.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I represent metropolitan
Detroit. And not too long ago I took some corporate officials for a
tour of neighborhoods on the city's east side near where I grew up. I
showed them blocks of big, beautiful brick homes, three and four
bedroom homes. And when you got up close to those homes, you realized
that none of them had windows, none of them. There were blocks and
blocks and acres and miles of neighborhoods that have been devastated,
devastated.
Now, I'm a member of the Homeland Security Committee. My duty is to
protect metro Detroit from terrorist attack or tornado or some other
natural disaster, but it wasn't a flood or a fire that destroyed those
neighborhoods. They were devastated because of foreclosures,
foreclosures that this body--that I accused when I was a member of the
Michigan legislature of not effectively addressing the housing crisis.
But also foreclosures that were caused in part by a lot of rich folks
around here who are hoping, praying, gambling, wishing, betting that
homeowners would lose everything that they have. What kind of country
is this that we encourage people to make money--billions of dollars--
off people losing everything? That's outrageous. That's not American.
Come on, people. We want folks to get rich because families lose their
homes and other neighbors stay in their homes but they lose their
entire life savings that they invested in it? Of course not.
This is why I ask us to support the Rosa DeLauro amendment, because
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission needs more staff, it needs
more resources. And some of you are saying, well, we can't afford it.
But look at the cost, the cost to our families, the cost to our local
units of government that can no longer afford to hire police and fire,
the cost to our taxpayers who are now living in fear of crime because
they don't have the protection of their first responders. That's a cost
that we cannot afford to bear.
I urge all of you to support the DeLauro amendment. It's something
that we need, and it's right for this country. We want people to earn
money from offering value, not by destroying neighborhoods. I'm
appealing to the best in you, support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KINGSTON. Isn't it true, for the record, that we do support the
amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I rise in strong opposition to the underlying
bill and in support of the DeLauro amendment.
Mr. Chairman, hardworking families all across America have been
whipsawed in recent years by Wall Street and special interests who have
had free rein to place bets on mortgages and place bets on future oil
prices. And you know what? We fought back. We fought back, and we
passed a Wall Street reform law that outlaws risky financial practices
by banks and lenders and that protects consumers.
Taxpayers should never, ever again be left on the hook for Wall
Street's reckless actions, and yet my GOP colleagues propose to do just
that with this bill, let Wall Street off the hook and put consumers and
our economy at risk again. This bill significantly cuts the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC is a major piece of the landmark
Wall Street reform law because the law put cops back on the financial
beat into areas where the financial industry was left largely
unsupervised. And you know who suffered because of that? American
families suffered the firsthand consequences of an unsupervised and
unregulated Wall Street.
And now they're proposing a real double whammy to the American
family, because my GOP colleagues are pairing their push to put
consumers at risk and threaten their economic security with their GOP
plan to end Medicare as we know it and undermine retirement security.
I would have hoped that we would have all learned a lesson and that
you do not return to the policies of the past that led to the financial
meltdown and the economic hardship for all Americans, but it appears
that some have not learned that lesson.
And you have to ask why, why are we trying to go back to the same
policies that led to the meltdown and led to such pain all across the
country that started back in 2007?
{time} 2040
I'll tell you why.
I have an article that was published during the debate of the Wall
Street reform legislation. It is dated December 8, 2009. The headline
reads: ``House Republicans Huddle with Lobbyists to Kill Financial
Reform Bill.''
[[Page H4159]]
The article continues: ``In a call to arms, House Republican leaders
met with more than 100 lobbyists at the Capitol Visitor Center on
Tuesday afternoon to try to fight back against financial regulatory
overhaul legislation.''
Now, in another article written during the consideration of H.R. 1,
the headline reads: ``Industry Looks to Derail Dodd-Frank
Enforcement.''
It continues: Republicans ``make no bones about their goal: to defang
Dodd-Frank,'' our landmark Wall Street reform law that was put in place
to protect consumers and hardworking American families.
[From Roll Call, Dec. 8, 2009]
House Republicans Huddle With Lobbyists To Kill Financial Reform Bill
(By Anna Palmer)
In a call to arms, House Republican leaders met with more
than 100 lobbyists at the Capitol Visitors Center on Tuesday
afternoon to try to fight back against financial regulatory
overhaul legislation.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) kicked off the
4 p.m. meeting, along with Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
and GOP Reps. Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Scott Garrett (N.J.)
and Jeb Hensarling (Texas).
``The message was [House Financial Services Chairman
Barney] Frank and the Democratic majority are ruining
America, ruining capitalism, and stand up for yourselves,''
said a lobbyist who attended the meeting. ``They said, `Look,
you all oppose this bill, but only a few of you have come out
publicly.' ''
In addition to asking trade associations to get their
members in Congressional districts to write letters opposing
the legislation, Republicans asked for companies and trade
associations to use their Democratic consultants to gather
intelligence on where members of the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Blue Dog Coalition are in supporting the
legislation.
____
Industry Looks To Derail Dodd-Frank Enforcement
(By Kelsey Snell)
Wall Street and the banking industry, unable to stop
Congress from passing the huge Dodd-Frank financial reform
law last year, might get better traction this year by
squeezing regulators through the budget process.
For the second year in a row, President Obama is pushing
for big budget increases at the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But
Republican lawmakers are headed in exactly the opposite
direction, and they make no bones about their goal: to defang
Dodd-Frank.
Both the SEC and the CFTC received broad new powers to
regulate the financial industry, especially the vast and
largely unsupervised swaps market for financial derivatives.
Both agencies need to hire hundreds of additional people to
both make and enforce a sweeping array of new rules and to
revive their depleted enforcement ranks.
But Congress has frozen their budgets at 2010 levels, and
House Republicans now want to slash them even more.
In a multi-pronged assault, banks and other financial firms
have been blanketing lawmakers with testimonials and
industry-funding ``studies'' that warn about the lost jobs
and lost economic growth that new financial regulation could
cause.
But the real battleground is the budget.
Under Obama's budget, the CFTC would see its budget nearly
double from about $169 million in 2010 to $308 million. The
SEC, which has new responsibilities to oversee hedge funds,
private equity funds, and complex new market tools, would see
its budget jump from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion.
House Republicans would move the other way. Under the House
GOP's stop-gap spending bill to fund government operations
for the remainder of this fiscal year, the CFTC's budget
would be slashed to just $112 million and the SEC's budget
would be essentially frozen at $1.07 billion.
At a hearing Tuesday of the House Financial Services
Committee, Republican lawmakers made it clear they wanted to
stop the agencies in their tracks.
``When you look at this freight train of rulemaking that is
running down the track to a July deadline, I think not enough
alarm has been raised about the potential devastating impact
this rulemaking could have on the U.S.-based derivatives
marketplace,'' said Financial Services Capital Markets
Subcommittee Chairman Scott Garrett, R-N.J., in his opening
statement.
Mr. Chairman, we need to ask ourselves: Who is being represented here
in the Nation's capital? Do we come to this House to represent the
people or do we come here to represent the special interests and the
high-flying financiers of Wall Street who have already caused so much
damage to this economy?
The financial meltdown caused many people to lose their life savings,
their pensions, their homes. I have had six foreclosure prevention
workshops since 2008 in Florida. These were largely middle class
Americans, our neighbors, and we are here to fight for them and not for
those who caused the damage to the economy.
But do you know what?
Since January, under this new majority, day after day, we have to
come to the floor of the House to fight the misguided agenda of the
majority that wants to roll back policies that are beneficial to the
middle class--roll back Wall Street reform and end Medicare as we know
it. Big Oil gets to keep its tax break, and companies still get breaks
for exporting jobs overseas.
Meanwhile, the GOP majority has not brought one bill to create jobs
across our great country, and instead thinks it is wise to undermine
the economic and retirement security for American families, end
Medicare as we know it, and roll back consumer protections under Wall
Street reform--take the cops off the beat.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for Representatives to represent
their neighbors back home, to get their priorities in order--to
represent these hardworking American families and put their interests
before the special interests on Wall Street.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I strongly oppose the underlying bill, and I support
the proposed amendment.
Earlier today, we had a long discussion about one portion of the bill
that dealt with Women, Infants and Children and the way in which the
legislation inadequately funds the necessities for pregnant women,
infants and children to lead healthy lives. We are now on to another
issue that is extraordinarily important.
In the '90s, the idea of deregulation took hold and was expanded
throughout the 2000 to 2008 period, so much so that we had the
financial meltdown. We had Wall Street bankers and hedge funds running
wild, gambling on the future, and America was the great loser in that
gamble.
Over the last several years, we have seen the derivative market
increase from a $30-$40 trillion notional value to an over $300
trillion notional value today. Every day across the Wall Street
tickers--across the wires--and in the back rooms of the hedge funds and
the big banks, $300 trillion of risk is traded back and forth, risk
that is not backed up by assets but by bets that are made. It is the
great crap shoot in the alley of Wall Street--$300 trillion.
Where is the money? Where is the enforcer to make sure that the bet
against Greece and the bet against the price of oil is going to be
backed up? It's not there. It is the shell game of all shell games.
There are no assets. I was the insurance commissioner, and we
understood a couple of things very clearly: If an insurance company
were going to make a bet that something would go wrong, then they had
to have the asset to pay if that bet ever came to pass.
That's not the case here. There is no regulation of this market.
Understanding the need for this back in the 1930s, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission was established to make sure that, if bets
were made on the future price of grain, somebody would be able to pay
if that bet had to be paid off. It worked okay until the great period
of deregulation. Let's understand the definition of ``insanity.'' It's
when you repeat what you did before and expect a different answer.
This bill is asking us to, once again, repeat the deregulation of the
derivative market by defunding, not providing adequate funding, for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. We are betting that things are
going to work out, that this $300 trillion of notional value out there
in the derivative market is somehow going to work out okay. We learned
in 2007 and 2008 that it doesn't work out okay--literally collapsing
the entire financial market of the world.
Okay. Speculation? Let it rip. We did that once before. It is
insanity to assume that this time it's going to work out okay.
This amendment puts back in the necessary money for the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission to adequately regulate a huge market beyond
the imagination of all of us. We need
[[Page H4160]]
this money. We need the systems in place to make sure that this
derivative market is adequately regulated so that we do not, once
again, find this Nation bailing out or falling into a great recession
and depression yet again.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will my friend yield for a minute?
Mr. GARAMENDI. No, I don't think so because, I suspect, I'm pretty
much out of time.
Let us understand what is at stake here. It is the very nature of our
economy to be able to survive in an era of rapid speculation that has
driven up the price of oil. We know from Goldman Sachs and we know from
the CEO of Exxon that some $20 of the $100-per-barrel oil price today
is speculation. We can take a look at the other markets where
speculation is also running rapid, and it is the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission that is specifically under Dodd-Frank required to
rein in the excesses of this market, to end the speculation, to
ultimately make a rational market out there for the futures market.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to point out to my friend from California of a number of the
previous speakers who keep speaking about the DeLauro amendment. The
DeLauro amendment does not do anything. We accept the DeLauro
amendment, but I'm not sure that the folks over there who are speaking
for the DeLauro amendment have read the DeLauro amendment because, if
they had, they would know that it does nothing to restore the funding.
I will be glad to yield to my friend from California because I
understand your speech was right, but that's not what the amendment
did.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida controls the time.
Mr. NUGENT. I reclaim my time, and yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let us understand that the underlying bill does not provide the
necessary money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to conduct
the necessary oversight and regulations to adequately control the
derivative market.
Are we in agreement on that?
Mr. NUGENT. I reclaim my time, and yield to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. We are not in agreement on that. No, I did not support
the Dodd-Frank bill, and I can tell you some of the problems with it.
The gentleman sounds like somebody who has studied the CFTC; but as
you know, of the many rules which they are planning to implement under
Dodd-Frank, some of them actually were implied under Dodd-Frank and not
specifically laid out. A number of them have no cost-benefit analysis,
and a number of them will strap American companies and not the Asian or
the European markets.
{time} 2050
The reason why that is important is because you are a market. You
know, it is not like a manufacturing plant where you are making
automobiles or tanks or something like that. The commodity business is
more computers. So if you change the rules in an international
marketplace where American companies have to deal with things at one
level and their Asian and European counterparts and competitors don't
have to, then what is going to happen is these companies are going to
go overseas.
We keep talking about jobs, and the gentleman knows that this is the
one-year anniversary of the summer of recovery, when I guess we were--I
am not sure what we were celebrating last year because the jobs were
not created. But this runs off jobs, and that is what we are concerned
about.
The CFTC has averaged four regulations a year, and this year they
want to put in 36 regulations. I am concerned about the cost-benefit
analysis. I am concerned that American companies will have a different
set of rules than their competitors. I am concerned about the
overreach. I am concerned about the way the rulemaking sequence is
going.
The gentleman also knows there is a lot of terms that they haven't
even defined, like who is a swap dealer, a mega-swap dealer, a swap
participant. And, by the way, I am not trying to filibuster. I think
that franchise does not go to the Republican Party tonight.
Mr. NUGENT. I reclaim my time, if you would allow me to speak just
for a second.
States and counties and cities have figured out that they don't have
the money to spend. America has got to figure out, the Federal
Government has to figure out that we in fact have to cut spending. I
hear this across the aisle all the time, that we all agree that America
has a debt of over $14 trillion and a deficit of over $1.4 trillion.
We hear the same arguments, but we never hear how are we going to do
it, other than one gentleman that was up here earlier that said we just
need to raise taxes. That is the answer to all of our problems. That is
not the answer. The answer to our problems is really about using the
dollars that we have, spending them efficiently and looking at ways to
maybe work harder with less.
I will tell you, as a sheriff, we had to cut our budget and we worked
harder with less. And, do you know what? The Federal Government doesn't
believe in that. The Federal Government believes that how we solve a
problem is to throw more people at it, to spend more money. And I think
what the American people were telling us, what the American people told
us back in November, was that we have got to get our house in order. We
have got to get our spending under control. It is not about taxing us
to death. It is not about overregulating us. It is about bringing
common sense back into the Federal Government that has been sorely
lacking.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the irresponsible cuts
this bill makes to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission budget and
in support of the DeLauro amendment which allows us to debate this
issue.
These cuts to CFTC indicate that the majority believes that CFTC can
carry out its duties with even less funding this year than they had
last year, or that their duties aren't of great importance to the
American people to begin with.
For those of us who may have forgotten, the financial crisis was the
result of some very bad bets, bets made by Wall Street firms in the
unregulated $300 trillion derivatives market. The bankruptcy of Lehman
Brothers, the collapse of the mortgage market, and the bailout of AIG
and other firms are all a result of these bad bets. The 14 million
unemployed, the still weak job market, and the tremendous loss of hard-
earned home equity and retirement savings are also a result of these
bad bets. That is why we worked so hard this last Congress to pass the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This act
gives CFTC tremendous responsibility for making sure that the public
never again has to bail out the Wall Street firms that rolled the dice
with taxpayers ending up holding the bag.
CFTC's new responsibilities are important, and so is the job that
CFTC already does. The current role of the CFTC is to regulate the
commodity futures and options markets in the United States. What began
as a market for buying and selling agricultural products has become a
complex, wide-ranging market for financial contracts. These contracts
are based on commodities like oil, wheat, livestock, metal, and cotton,
the types of products that we all use every single day. We have to
prevent unnecessary increases in the cost of these necessities,
increases brought about by speculation.
Preventing speculative price increases for basic necessities is vital
to consumers in Hawaii. As the only island State in the Nation, we must
import 85 percent of our food and 90 percent of the oil we use for
energy. We know what $6 a gallon gasoline is like in some parts of my
district, and we constantly face higher prices than the mainland for
food.
[[Page H4161]]
So I am strongly opposed to underfunding CFTC, the cop on the beat
that watches out for price manipulation. Without a strong CFTC, prices
will increase for our basic necessities while speculators pocket
millions of dollars. Make no mistake about that. We know this is true
because the oil executives, themselves, have told us this is so. At a
recent congressional hearing, the Exxon CEO testified that oil should
``only'' cost--``only,'' that should be in quotations--$60 to $70 a
barrel. Instead, the price has hovered around $100. Why? Because of
speculation.
Clearly, to protect the public from fraud, manipulation, abusive
practices, and systemic risks, we need to fully fund the President's
request for CFTC. This bill not only cuts $30 million from the current
CFTC budget, it seeks to deny the agency the vital resources that it
needs to meet its new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank. This bill is a
de facto repeal of Dodd-Frank. What the Republican majority can't do up
front, which is repealing Dodd-Frank, they are seeking to do by the
back door by making sure CFTC can't do its job as the cop on the beat.
To keep things in perspective, the Republicans are taking a meat ax
to people's programs to address the $14 trillion debt, and yet they are
perfectly happy to give Wall Street traders a $300 trillion unregulated
playground. Talk about going backwards. Cutting the funding for an
agency with such important responsibilities is a roll of the dice, and,
again, the people of America will be the ones who lose.
Once again I ask: Where do we live--on Wall Street, which is where
cutting CFTC is, or on Main Street, where the rest of us live?
I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying legislation and
the defunding of CFTC.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am listening to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle and I am really saying to myself, who are they
kidding? They are saying that this effort to cut the CFTC is for
deficit purposes because, of course, all agencies have to be cut in the
name of cutting the deficit. But you have to look at everything, every
cut and every agency in terms of what it actually does.
And we all know, we all know what the GOP is up to. The Republicans
side with big banks and Wall Street and big insurance companies and Big
Oil and against the middle class. So here we go again. They are siding
with the Wall Street speculators and the profiteers by cutting the
CFTC.
Well, what does the CFTC do? It is responsible for policing
commodities trading and speculation, including oil and food products.
Well, I have to tell you, last week we were at home, we weren't in
session, and what did I hear from my constituents? All of them are very
concerned about the price of oil going up and about the price of food
going up. So you are basically taking money out of the middle class
people's pockets.
{time} 2100
The average American has got to pay more for oil because of
speculation. And more for their food. And it hurts the economy because
if people have to pay more money for that, then industry, for example,
has to pay more if they want to function, because the oil costs more.
And it has a downward effect on the economy. It not only impacts
individual people and our constituents who can't afford to pay more for
gasoline and for food, but it also has a downward impact on the economy
itself because it means that businesses don't expand, they don't
invest, and as a consequence we don't recover from the recession.
The Agriculture appropriations bill reduces CFTC funding by $136
million. That's from the President's request. What it essentially does
is cripple the agency's ability to do its job. And make no mistake
about the Republican intentions. They're defunding. And that's the same
as deregulation. And deregulation will allow the speculators and
profiteers to engage in the same reckless actions that caused the
financial meltdown on Wall Street. The end result with commodities is
higher gas prices and higher food prices. The Wall Street speculators
get rich while everyone else pays at the pump and the grocery store.
The speculators treat the markets like a casino, but the risk of
another market meltdown is harm to everyone else.
Some industry experts say that speculators have added $15 to a barrel
of oil. Goldman Sachs put the figure higher at $27 a barrel. The bottom
line is that the Dodd-Frank bill brought more oversight to Wall Street
and provided resources to empower the CFTC to police speculators. The
Republicans are trying to cripple the CFTC by slashing its funding so
much that it would force layoffs of one-third to one-half of its staff.
They're not doing this because they're trying to save money, save the
taxpayers' money, trying to the reduce the deficit. They're doing it
because they want to cripple this agency, force layoffs of one-third to
one-half of its staff.
In case there are any doubts about the Republicans' motives, they're
also pushing legislation that would delay all the reform measures in
Dodd-Frank. Terms like derivatives, leveraged positions, future
markets, buying long and buying short, these are foreign to many
Americans, but it's a vocabulary of practices that can be abused as
easily as they are used. Most Americans know that allowing Wall Street
bankers to run wild contributed to financial chaos and the recession.
What they need to know and what we're stressing more and more on the
floor is that allowing commodity traders to run wild contributes to
higher gas and food prices.
I am shocked, frankly--I shouldn't be, but I am--that my colleagues
on the other side, when you go home, didn't you hear complaints about
higher gas prices? Didn't you hear people complaining about higher food
prices? That's what I heard when I went home. People want us to stand
up for them. They want us to stand up for the little guy. They don't
want us to stand up for the speculators. They don't want us to stand up
for those people that caused the recession to begin with. And by doing
this, all you're doing is prolonging the pain--the pain for the average
American who's got to pay these higher prices and the downward impact
on the economy. Because we know in the last couple weeks that the
economy is struggling once again. We were starting to recover. But now
signs are not good. So why in the world would you try to contribute to
the same problem that caused this recession to begin with? A very
simple answer: All you care about are the big banks, Wall Street, the
big insurance companies, and Big Oil. The special interests. That's who
you're for, and that's who you're always going to be for.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this underlying bill muzzles
the Federal watchdog agency now responsible for regulating agriculture,
energy, and financial markets while letting speculators run loose. By
cutting 44 percent from the President's budget request for the CFTC,
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that we've been talking about,
we're saying it's just okay to have fewer and less qualified regulators
to protect us from market abuses, to protect our constituents from
market abuses. Haven't we learned any lessons?
Speculation on Wall Street has caused massive harm on Main Street.
Not sufficiently funding the CFTC will hamper our efforts to recover
from the recession and hinder middle class prosperity. Commodity
futures and options markets are complicated systems. We know that. They
require a complicated skill set to understand. Some of the smartest
people are engaged in doing this. But this bill ensures that the
playing field is tilted toward those who are in favor of the same risky
practices that led to the financial crisis.
Without full funding the CFTC will have 159 fewer full-time employees
and an inability to procure the technology needed to properly regulate
the derivatives market. If the last 5 years has taught us anything, we
need more consumer protections, not more market speculation that will
drive up gas prices, food prices, and play Russian roulette with our
financial system.
[[Page H4162]]
What is disturbing, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill continues the
House majority's assault on lower- and middle-income families who are
struggling to put food on the table and gas in their cars. I cannot
support, I will not support, a bill that refuses to protect American
families. And so I urge my colleagues to please review this bill
carefully and join me in opposition.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I rise today in support of my colleague from Connecticut to properly
fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, otherwise known as the
CFTC. All eyes are upon us. Well, at least we hope they are.
Unfortunately, the regulatory eyes of the speculating process are
slowly being closed. The CFTC represents the cops on the beat, the
regulators in charge of overseeing Wall Street speculators, the eyes of
the watchdog, specifically as it relates to the price of oil we're
asked to pay.
Let me be clear. Without a proper cop on the beat, the roads are not
safe and wrongdoers will get away with whatever mischief they can. In
the same way, without a cop on the beat of Wall Street, oil speculators
will run rampant and drive the cost of oil and gasoline even higher
than it is today. Make no mistake. Fluctuating oil prices with
extremely high peaks make many on Wall Street extremely rich. But their
gain becomes our loss. Their profit drains our pockets. Their greed
causes our pain. Their joy drives our sticker shock at the pump,
estimated to increase the cost per gallon by some 67\1/2\ cents due to
speculation.
To his credit, President Obama has asked for increasing the
investment in cop count on the beat of speculators. Not only does the
Republican bill reduce the President's request, but it ends up
providing less funds than we have available this year, all while the
CFTC is supposed to prepare itself to take on the enhanced powers and
responsibilities granted to it under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
bill. This will mark the third time this year that House Republicans
will vote to effectively cripple the CFTC by draining funds it needs to
do its job.
Since 1990, the number of oil speculators has more than doubled--from
30 percent of the market to nearly 70 percent today. Even oil
executives admit that oil prices are higher than they should be, with
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson recently testifying before Congress that a
barrel of oil should cost some $60 to $70 based solely on supply and
demand, not the $100 like it is today. Yet the Republicans are once
again choosing Wall Street over Main Street. This bill chooses more
pain at the pump over reason and fairness.
The world's largest commodity trader, Goldman Sachs, recently
admitted that speculation was to blame for higher oil prices, telling
its clients that it believes speculators, like itself, had artificially
driven the price of oil as much as $27 higher than supply and demand
would dictate. Nearly 90 percent of all traders betting on rising
prices are speculators, while about 12 percent of those bets were held
by producers, merchants, processors, and users of the commodity.
Our families and small businesses simply cannot afford the Wild, Wild
West of Wall Street that runs roughshod over our wallets and family
budgets. That is why I commend my colleague from Connecticut for her
leadership on this issue and implore this body to increase the number
of cops on the beat, not lessen them. And who wins in this scenario?
The profit-rich oil industry, which is on pace to make over $100
billion in profit this year alone.
{time} 2110
And who loses? You got it--working families and middle class
Americans that work hard and play by the rules and now are asked to pay
for this free rein that keeps driving up prices.
We cannot keep mindlessly handing billions of tax breaks to big oil
companies that don't need it while they're raking in record profits at
our expense. Again, we simply can't afford it.
The best way we can control gas prices is by developing alternative
technologies that will drive down our demand and compete in the
marketplace. We can better use the billions going to oil companies in
the form of tax breaks on clean energy alternatives that have the
potential to make a real impact on our energy costs and on our wallets
and will create jobs in the process.
With that, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
gentlelady from Connecticut's amendment and thank her for her vision.
I thank my good friend from Georgia who is the chairman of this
committee, and I thank the manager who has represented our good friends
very well tonight. I thank them for their courtesies. And I thank our
ranking member, Mr. Farr, for his passion about ensuring that every
person in America has an opportunity for good and healthy food. The
Agriculture Department and the work that the Agriculture Department
does is both domestic and international.
But today we rise because there is an inequity and an unfairness. It
is complicated to discuss something called the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission. What is that and how does that have an impact on
making sure that Americans have a quality of life that they are
deserving of, hardworking, everyday Americans that get up at the sign
of dawn and carpool their children and go to work and return at the end
and attempt to be able to provide for their families? The Commodity
Futures Trading Commission is that arbiter. It's the entity that will
implement the consumer protection and armor that was given during the
Dodd-Frank legislation.
And how in the world can you work on behalf of consumers and
Americans if the legislation that is before us obliterates this
commission, eliminates 600 positions that would allow these hardworking
Americans to gain what they deserve? And what is that? A better quality
of life.
I am glad my good friend from New York cited the energy industry as
recognizing themselves that the price of oil has gone beyond reason,
that the gasoline prices have gone beyond reason. But who is gaining?
Speculators whom you cannot see. You couldn't find a speculator if you
tried. And that is the purpose of a commodity trading commission, which
is to find the individuals that want to cripple the system and make
sure that the American public suffers.
Look at this document that I'm holding in my hand. It lists the
States and the districts that have the highest degree of poverty,
States and districts that, in essence, have individuals who do not eat,
for example, who have to borrow from one payment or one bill to take
care of another need. So maybe the electric bill goes or the home
mortgage or the rent goes so they can actually feed their families. Or
they put the car up and cannot get to work because they cannot afford
the gasoline.
This is what the underfunding of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission will do. It will pile onto people who cannot afford any more
pile-on; 600 workers taken away from implementing legislation and laws
that protect the consumer from the daggers of high gasoline prices, the
daggers from high food prices, and the daggers from a poor quality of
life.
There are people in the United States that go hungry. And in talking
to seniors while I was home, you cannot understand their life until you
talk to them one on one. When they get their benefits that they worked
so hard for and they have to parcel out dollars for their needs and
they go to the grocery store and the food prices are soaring, that is
speculation. That's the speculators raising food prices. So seniors
can't eat. Families that are on a single income, disabled persons,
single parents, they can't have a nutritious meal; compounding them
with the high costs of moving around, gasoline prices, the high cost of
rent, and, of course, the difficulty sometimes in finding work.
Let me say this. This administration and Democrats have been working
hard to shove jobs out on this economy. And if you listen to the
economists, they
[[Page H4163]]
believe that as bad as it is and how sympathetic we are and how we
know that we can't rest, that we've got to put a jobs bill out here,
there is some suggestion that those businesses will be hiring because
we've tried to make sure that we study the economy. Do you think
they'll be hiring with 600 jobs thrown out of the commodity commission
that is supposed to regulate to ensure that consumers can get the best
deal; that if you do get a job, you can pay for the gasoline; that if
you're in need of a healthy meal, you can go to a grocery store and
actually pay for it because the speculators haven't raised the prices
of food?
This is what we are talking about when we are arguing against the
underlying bill and the elimination of $136 million to devastate this
commission so that consumers cannot be protected.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to recognize who's boss. It is the American
people. And I like them being a boss. I'm going to stand with my boss,
the good boss, and fight for them to be protected. This bill does not
do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
In 2002, Warren Buffett called derivatives ``financial weapons of
mass destruction.'' As Wall Street firms used these derivatives to
construct highly leveraged speculative positions in 2008, these
positions generated losses so large across the financial system that
the Federal Government bailed out Wall Street to prevent a financial
and an economic collapse. The cost of the bailout was $800 billion. By
choosing not to sufficiently fund the CFTC, and we are talking about
$130 million, the Republicans are ensuring average American taxpayers
will once again have to bail out their friends on Wall Street
potentially to the tune of $800 billion.
Tonight on this floor, we heard a colleague say that the savings to
the Navy in taking speculative trading out of the market would result
in billions of dollars saved with regard to the cost of fuel. We are
talking about $130 million to protect taxpayers.
The 2012 Defense bill is $118 billion for two wars the American
people did not support. The previous administration spent hundreds of
billions of dollars without paying for it, and this majority is
unwilling to pay $136 million to prevent another financial collapse.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to think that
they're talking seriously about deficit reduction, about a country
going broke, and that what they're here to do is to save money.
Well, in trying to save $130 million, why don't we, once again, take
a look at the $8 billion that we supply for agricultural subsidies, not
to small farms like dairy farms in my community or specialty crop
farms, but to big agribusiness? What about the $8 billion to the
multinational corporations to take their jobs overseas? Why aren't we
closing that loophole? What about the $41 billion to the oil industry
where they're reaping profits hand over fist and speculating, driving
up the costs so that American taxpayers cannot afford to go to work,
can't afford to get their kids to school?
That's what this is about. If you're really serious about it, do not
permanently extend the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of the
people in this country. That costs $750 billion, none of which is paid
for. It only adds to the deficit.
{time} 2120
You do not want to spend $130 million tonight. This is a false
construct. The people of this country see right through what it is
you're doing, and it is about protecting banks. It's about protecting
the oil interests. It's about protecting the oil companies--that's
where you come down--and not protecting the American people and
American families who are struggling, struggling day in and day out to
be able to provide a decent economic future and security for their
family.
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the DeLauro
amendment.
The underlying bill slashes Commodity Futures Trading Commission
funding to levels well below what is needed to implement the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Dodd-Frank will ensure
the CFTC receives information on swap trading and it also directs the
CFTC to set position limits on swaps and futures. These provisions are
crucial to monitoring and understanding the role of speculation in the
energy commodity markets.
Oil rose above $140 per barrel in the summer of 2008, only to fall
below $40 per barrel six months later. The prices of commodities rise
and fall; however, it is difficult to explain a 70 percent price drop
without wondering about the role of speculators. Just 10 years prior to
that oil shock, in 1998, hedgers--producers or commercial users of
commodities who use the markets to offset price risk--outnumbered
speculators by a ratio of three to one. Now speculators outnumber
hedgers by a ratio of four to one.
CFTC Commissioner Barton Chilton feels that the increased amount of
speculation in the market is a reason to put limits on speculation.
CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has stated that it is necessary to ``address
excessive speculation through aggregated position limits.'' Even
Goldman Sachs reported that speculators could be driving up oil prices
by up to $27 per barrel, saying that there was an eight to 10 cent
increase in the price of oil for every million barrels of oil held by
speculators.
With all this in mind, I cannot understand why Congress would move to
handcuff the CFTC. Earlier this year, oil topped $110 per barrel and
gas prices hit $4 per gallon. Previous oil price spikes have come in
the summer, and already in April working families had to make tough
decisions as gas prices approach the all-time high. While speculators
may not be the single driving force behind dramatically increasing oil
and gas prices, I do believe their role is not insignificant and that
we must ensure the CFTC has the resources it needs to keep speculators
in check.
I believe it is unconscionable that while Americans face the prospect
of a summer of record-high oil prices, this bill would deny funding to
the CFTC for putting in place position limits that could help deter,
detect, and measure any inappropriate speculation that might drive up
the costs of oil.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by
Representative DeLauro to H.R. 2112, the FY 2012 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, which would fully fund the Commodities Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC). By gutting funding for the CFTC, the
underlying bill would fulfill the Republican agenda of dismantling the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and
Government Sponsored Enterprises, I am very concerned that in the
absence of this amendment, we will continue to see the same
unregulated, unchecked, and unmitigated speculation in the derivatives
market that led to the financial collapse, the impacts of which
included:
Over $10 trillion in household wealth destruction, with the average
household losing 23 percent of its stored wealth;
Nearly 10 million lost jobs;
Wage losses of approximately $3,250 per household;
12 million expected foreclosures; and
A 30 percent peak to trough decline in home prices.
Moreover, by underfunding the CFTC, this bill would contribute to the
high gas prices that are already harming our economy and our
constituents. The CFTC wants to set position limits on speculative
trading, including speculation on gasoline. Without adequate funding,
the CFTC will not be able to do this.
We know that consumers felt the pain of runaway speculation at the
pump. According to a recent poll by the Associated Press, 71 percent of
Americans said rising prices will cause some hardship for them and
their families, including 41 percent who called it a serious hardship.
While gasoline prices have recently declined--several weeks ago the
average cost of a gallon of gasoline in Los Angeles was $4.27--if
speculation on gasoline rises to the levels it was several weeks ago,
gasoline prices will shoot back up.
According to Goldman Sachs, speculation on gasoline alone added $20
to the price of a barrel of oil. The CFTC has a proposed rule that
would prevent this type of abuse. But by underfunding the CFTC, H.R.
2112 would stop that rule, an action that will ensure that our
constituents continue to feel pain at the pump.
As you can see, Mr. Chair, it is our constituents who suffer the
consequences of unregulated derivatives. Underfunding the CFTC is not
only irresponsible, it is a slap in the face to the taxpaying Americans
that bailed out the institutions that cost them their retirement funds,
their jobs, and their homes.
This is why I support the amendment by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut. If her amendment is not adopted, passage today of H.R.
2112 will come at the expense of these Americans, who will see higher
oil prices as a direct result of this bill.
[[Page H4164]]
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 14, after the aggregate dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $200,000)''.
Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $300,000)''.
Page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $100,000)''.
Page 3, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $300,000)''.
Page 7, line 17, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $50,000)''.
Page 8, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $50,000)''.
Page 51, line 18, after the aggregate dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 53, line 17, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. My amendment would transfer $1 million to the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration.
The funding would come from the U.S. Department of Administration from
several of the administrative accounts: Office of the Secretary, the
Chief Economist, Budget and Program Analysis, Chief Information
Officer, Office of Communication, and General Counsel. The intent is
that it will be used to protect the American public from E. coli
sickness originating from FDA-regulated foods. This is something we
have to do. Our primary responsibility as the people's representatives
is to protect the health and safety of American families, and the
current funding level for the FDA in this bill puts these at risk.
We know that food-borne illnesses are always a major public health
threat. They account for roughly 48 million illnesses, 100,000
hospitalizations, and over 3,000 deaths in our country each year. Put
another way, one in every six Americans becomes sick from the very
foods they eat each year.
Specific to E. coli, well over 200,000 sicknesses every year are
because of this one type of food-borne bacterial sickness, and the
threat of a more serious outbreak is also very real. Right now in
Europe we are witnessing just such a lethal outbreak. In Germany,
thousands have been affected, hundreds have become sick, and 37 have
died from an E. coli outbreak. Just this morning, a 2-year-old German
boy perished from kidney failure as a result of E. coli poisoning,
which authorities think began with raw bean sprouts in northern
Germany.
This sort of fatal outbreak could all too easily happen here. In many
ways, we have been extraordinarily lucky that it has not happened more
often. In recent years, all types of food have become contaminated and
forced into recall from Froot Loops to SpaghettiOs and salami to eggs.
We have to be continually vigilant on the food safety front to keep
families safe.
That is also why we passed the Food Safety Modernization Act last
year, to give FDA the tools to better respond to food-borne illness
outbreaks and to hold industrial food production facilities to higher
standards. But for no budgetary purpose to speak of, this legislation
would undo all of these overdue and much-needed improvements.
In so doing, it effectively ties the hands of the FDA, ensures it
will not have the funds to implement or enforce the Food Safety
Modernization Act or to fulfill its mandate to guard against
contaminated foods. Once again, we will be stuck with the status quo,
and that status quo means that people will continue to become sick and
people may die.
With so much food coming in from overseas, we should be improving our
food safety system right now. For example, the GAO recently issued a
report highlighting the shortcomings in our ability to ensure the
safety of imported seafood.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to restore $1 million
in funding to food safety efforts at the FDA. We should be doing more,
not less, to keep our fridges and our kitchen tables safe.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. And I wanted to say food safety is something that we
all place a very high priority on and we're very concerned about, and
we have been watching this situation in Europe daily as we're all
concerned, and our prayers are with the people who have suffered and
those who have died.
I do want to read a quote that Secretary of USDA Mr. Vilsack said
yesterday, and I will just quote: Secretary John Vilsack said he is
``reasonably confident'' that U.S. consumers won't face the same sort
of E. coli outbreak now plaguing Germany. And we're doing a lot and
have done a lot in the last 15 years to make sure that we address
potential E. coli infection. For example, the type of ground beef that
has had a repeated problem with it has actually been cut in half.
Also, I want to say I do have concerns about the FDA implementation
of food safety. We hear quite often that 48 million people have
suffered from food-borne illnesses--a very high number, a number that
we're all very concerned about--but only 20 percent of these are from
known pathogens. If you look at it even further, 60 percent of the
illnesses from known pathogens come from norovirus.
And how do we address this? Well, CDC said on March 4, to update the
norovirus, that appropriate hand hygiene is the likely most single
important method to prevent norovirus infection and control
transmission. Reducing any norovirus present on hands is accomplished
by thorough hand washing with running water and plain antiseptic soap.
Now, in the FDA 630-page budget request, there was not one single
mention of norovirus. I would ask anybody, isn't that odd to you?
That's something we need to be concerned about. Why would they not
mention that, if nearly 60 percent of the illnesses are from norovirus?
Second highest cause of illness is from salmonella. And under the
authority that FDA had before the Food Safety Modernization Act and the
authority that the FDA has right now, they finalized the salmonella egg
rule in July of last year, almost a year ago. According to the FDA's
own press release, FDA said that as many as 79,000 illnesses and 30
deaths due to consumption of eggs contaminated with salmonella may be
avoided each year with new food safety requirements. They have that
authority right now, and that was last year's budget. They can still do
it this year with this budget.
The third highest cause of food-borne illness comes from
crossbreeding, and crossbreeding is mentioned one time in FDA's 2012
budget request as it was related to food defense. And the reason why
this is important is because the FDA always seems to be ready to take
on new initiatives, and yet it doesn't seem to be tackling the food
safety challenges that we have right now in an orderly fashion under
its current budget.
Now, the CDC statistics, which we got through hearings, go back to
that 48 million food-borne illnesses a year, 128,000 hospitalizations,
and 3,000 deaths, very high numbers, numbers that we are all concerned
about. But if you look at 311 million Americans eating three meals a
day, that would be 933 million meals eaten daily or 340 billion eaten
each year. If you do the math on this, the food safety rate is 99.9
percent safe.
Why is that relevant? Because something's working without the FDA and
without the USDA and without the nanny state saying we're in charge of
everything. And that's how the private sector--the private sector is a
dirty word for many people in Washington, D.C. But food processing
companies are very concerned about food safety and their customers'
safety, because the way you keep your customers coming back to buy more
is to keep them happy, and that means to keep them safe.
[[Page H4165]]
{time} 2130
And it would be hard for me to believe that some of the leading
companies in America, such as McDonald's or Burger King or Coca-Cola,
have anything on their minds except for food safety.
So I appreciate the gentlewoman offering this amendment, but it's
only $1 million. And if it were a serious amendment, certainly it would
be more than that. But based on what we've seen so far, I don't think
this amendment is going to do anything.
[From USA TODAY]
Vilsack: U.S. Largely Safe From European E. coli Outbreak
(By Dan Vergano)
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is ``reasonably
confident'' that U.S. consumers won't face the same sort of
E. coli outbreak now plaguing Germany.
But the European episode ``reinforces that we need to
remain vigilant here about food safety,'' Vilsack said
Monday, speaking with the USA TODAY editorial board.
Public health experts, however, warned that another serious
outbreak in the U.S. is just a matter of time and luck.
``Could it happen here? It already has,'' says infectious-
disease expert Larry Lutwick of SUNY-Downstate College of
Medicine in Brooklyn, citing past U.S. outbreaks that
involved strains of E. coli other than the one that has
struck Germany.
He points to last year's romaine lettuce-related outbreak
of an E. coli strain that sickened 26 people, and the 2006
fresh spinach-related episode that hospitalized 199 people in
26 states.
In Germany, officials backtracked Monday for the second
time in a week and said testing ruled out bean sprouts from
an organic farm as the possible source for the outbreak that
has killed 22 people and sickened more than 2,330 people
across Europe. Testing earlier ruled out cucumbers from Spain
as the culprit.
``This investigation has been a disaster,'' Michael
Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, tells the
Associated Press.
``This kind of wishy-washy response is incompetent,'' he
says, accusing German authorities of casting suspicion on
cucumbers and sprouts without firm data.
Some U.S. health experts say government assurances face
constant trials.
``Food isn't just grown locally, it comes from all over the
world, which poses a lot of challenges'' for food safety,
says epidemiologist Elaine Scallan of the University of
Colorado-Denver. She notes the current system heavily relies
on rapid responses to outbreaks but is not as well positioned
to prevent them.
``We are relying on state and local health departments to
pick up these outbreaks, just like their equivalents in
Europe,'' she said.
In January, President Obama signed a food safety act
ramping up Food and Drug Administration authority to police
food imports.
But Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the
Public Interest warns those inspections may be cut in the
ongoing congressional budget battle.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 14, after the dollar figure, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 5, after the dollar figure, insert ``(reduced
by $25,000,000)''.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman from
Georgia, who I am hoping will be inclined to recognize the importance
of this amendment and work with those of us who are interested in
healthy food.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fund and seek to have the Secretary
of Agriculture focus on the healthy food funding initiative. This
initiative would increase the availability of affordable healthy foods
in underserved urban and rural areas and, as well, particularly through
the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food
retailers.
We call these ``food deserts.'' And the reason why I am standing next
to this tragic picture of the disasters that have hit the American
public is to emphasize what Americans go through. In this instance, we
see a disaster of unbelievable proportion, from Missouri to Alabama to
the flooding that occurred up and down the Mississippi. I can assure
you that these individuals are suffering from the lack of access to
healthy food. We've got to get them back on their feet.
This idea of food deserts impacts rural and urban areas, but it also
impacts the millions of Americans, thousands upon thousands of
Americans who have recently been impacted by disaster. Everything is
gone. And although they are now probably experiencing the distribution
of food from food centers sponsored by FEMA and volunteers, they will
come back to a food desert. Particularly in the African American and
Hispanic communities, for example, food comes from fast foods and
convenience stores. And as I indicated before, those fast foods come
from, if you will, the places where the expiration dates are sometimes
way over the time of expiration.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 80
percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight.
African American children from low-income families are at a much higher
risk for obesity. Why? Because there is no access or limited access to
good food. The CDC also estimates that African American and Mexican
American adolescents ages 12 to 19 are more likely to be overweight at
21 percent and 23 percent, respectively.
This amount of money will allow us to focus on the importance of
correcting food deserts.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture identified 92 food desert census
tracks in Harris County alone, and that is in the 18th Congressional
District. These areas are subdivisions of a county with between 1,000
to 8,000 low-income residents, with 33 percent of the people living
more than a mile from a grocery store.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children
in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the
staggering effect food deserts have.
I am asking that we look at the idea of ensuring healthy food.
Targeting Federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the
Healthy Food Finance Initiative will provide more healthy food to
affected areas.
We can create jobs, we can help farmers, and we can bolster the
development in distressed areas. It is an easy fix, and the fix is to
find a way to cooperate, collaborate--not do a handout, not dole out--
to make sure that we provide the incentives to come into our areas to
ensure that we have a healthy child.
This is a healthy child, we hope, getting access to health care. But
I can assure you that their health is based upon not only health care
but the food that this little one will eat.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I represent communities that have
the inability to access good food. This initiative will increase the
availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people
living in food deserts nationwide.
We must be reducing the deficit, I agree, but cutting programs that
provide healthy food--and create jobs, because it would certainly
create jobs by adding access to healthy food and sites for healthy
food, meaning grocery stores, farmer's markets. All of those will be
part of this initiative. And it would assist the many, many census
tracks in Houston, alone, that are now suffering from the lack of
access to good food.
Just a picture of green vegetables inspires us to support this
amendment. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to
H.R. 2122, which allocates an additional $25 million to the budget of
the Office of the Secretary, in order to fund President Obama's Healthy
Food Funding Initiative (HFFI).
Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy
foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through
the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food
retailers.
[[Page H4166]]
These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have
access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect
African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and
convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods,
offering few, if any, healthy options.
Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the
economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we
must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make
irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income
families, and minorities.
Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has
increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave
health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a
toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing
obesity rates and health problems.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 80
percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or
obese. African American children from low income families have a much
higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families.
The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American
adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent
and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who
are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of
Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of
African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white
children.
Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th
Congressional District, and citizens throughout the State of Texas.
Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified 92 food desert census
tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the
county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low-income residents, with 33
percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children
in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the
staggering effect food deserts have on the health of low-income and
minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country,
local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance
can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy
food.
Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through
the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to
affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and
bolster development in distressed communities.
The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout or a crutch.
Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and
technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts,
infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability
of locally and regionally produced foods.
This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food
alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts
nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting
programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have
access to nutritional options, is not the way.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
wanted to object to this and explain the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. KINGSTON. I continue to reserve.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Point of Order
Mr. KINGSTON. The reason is that the amendment may not be considered
en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to
increase the level of funding and outlays in the bill. And under the
House rule, the amendment has to be budget neutral with budget
authority and with outlays. This only does one of those.
I know the gentlewoman has worked very hard on this, and that was the
intent. But because the budget authority and outlay both have to be
considered, that is what the problem is under rule XXI. I know the
gentlewoman is an expert in this, has put a lot of time and a lot of
compassion in it, and it is something that the committee is not turning
our backs on at all. But that's why we're objecting to it.
And I know that my friend from Houston is very passionate on this and
will be back again doing other things to try to make sure that we
address food deserts and so forth. I appreciate her conviction on that,
and I wanted to explain that.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First of all, let me thank the ranking
member, Mr. Farr, as well as his staff for recognizing the importance
of food deserts. And let me thank Mr. Kingston. If I might, I would
offer, out of your thoughtfulness, I would even ask for the point of
order to be waived in the face of 23.5 million individuals who live in
food deserts.
I will make the argument, in speaking to the point of order and,
particularly, procedurally, of course, that, you know, it was a
challenge to be able to frame language that would allow us to address
this crisis. So I believe we made every effort to ensure that we were
in compliance.
It is my understanding that the language or funding for this
initiative was not in this legislation or pulled. We wanted to give the
discretion to the Office of the Secretary to not leave places like
this, that I just lifted up, disasters, suffering from not having
access to food.
I would simply ask the gentleman in this moment when I'm asking for a
waiver of the point of order to have the ability to work with this
great subcommittee to think of this as a valuable issue and to work on
this point that has to do with helping those who live in food deserts.
I yield to the gentleman.
{time} 2140
Mr. KINGSTON. I reluctantly have to insist on the point of order.
It's actually scored by CBO at $5 million, and that is beyond my
authority to waive anything. And it's not a numerical thing. It's just
a rule.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Do you have an interest in working
together?
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say, we'll see what we can do. I'm not fully
versed on it. But the gentlewoman knows that the door is always open to
my office, and we'll continue to work with you. But I do have to insist
on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Members may not yield or engage in colloquy on a
point of order. The Chair is prepared to rule on the matter.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays
in the bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address
portions of the bill not yet read. The point of order is therefore
sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of Tribal Relations
For necessary expenses of the Office of Tribal Relations,
$423,000 to support communication and consultation activities
with Federally Recognized Tribes, as well as other
requirements established by law.
Executive Operations
office of the chief economist
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Economist, $10,707,000.
national appeals division
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$12,091,000.
office of budget and program analysis
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $8,004,000.
office of homeland security
For necessary expenses of the Office of Homeland Security,
$1,272,000.
Office of Advocacy and Outreach
For necessary expenses of the Office of Advocacy and
Outreach, $1,209,000.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $35,000,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
[[Page H4167]]
Page 39, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, before I begin the discussion on the
amendment, I'd like to correct the Record in regard to something I said
earlier. The CFTC budget is actually decreased by a slightly higher
amount than the overall Ag budget, rather than a slightly lower amount.
In addition to that, I do wish to address a number of charges laid
before the chairman of the Ag Appropriation Committee. We've heard for
hours that this bill is about supporting Wall Street, Big Oil and tax
breaks at the expense of food security. I think it's very important to
note that food security is an important American value. It's important
to me. It's important to many of us. So much so that in a time of very
tight budgets, this bill actually raises food and nutrition spending by
nearly $7 billion, approximately 7 percent more than current levels,
because there are many vulnerable Americans out there who now qualify
during these very tight economic times.
Secondly, I also wish to reiterate, I did not support the Wall Street
bailouts. Many of us didn't, both Democrat and Republicans. Five banks
now control more than 50 percent of the deposited assets in this
country. Main Street banks, many of whom had no role in the reckless
behavior on Wall Street, are now under the constant competitive
pressure from those banks that were deemed too big to fail, but in
actuality are too big to succeed.
Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to point out that I did not vote for the
tax deal passed at the end of last year, an 11th-hour deal that was
cobbled together because of the mismanagement of this institutional
process. We could have done much better for the American people, both
Democrats and Republicans.
So the reality is this is a very difficult process we're in now to
right-size our budget and make government more efficient and effective.
In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer an
amendment that invests in renewable energy in rural America.
Clearly, America needs a bold new energy vision, and this amendment,
I believe, can help. A sustainable energy future must include the
integration of conservation and new technologies, powered by clean
renewable sources such as wind and solar, geothermal, biofuels, and
biomass. Increasing our energy portfolio and the diverse range of
opportunities available to produce energy domestically is all the more
important in light of skyrocketing fuel prices. Rural America should
continue to play an important role in this regard.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $1 million
from the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief
Information Officer to the Rural Energy For America Program, also known
as REAP. While I recognize the importance of funding for the Office of
the Chief Information Officer, and its role in providing enhanced
technology for the USDA, I believe it is appropriate to transfer a
small amount by Federal standards, $1 million, to our Nation's
renewable energy efforts.
The REAP program funds a wide range of renewable energy projects that
stimulate rural economies, help create jobs, and address environmental
concerns. This funding promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy
production, and is directed to farming communities and rural small
businesses.
Mr. Chairman, renewable energy is changing today's agriculture and
rural communities. It is clearly in our national interest to help rural
communities integrate a wide variety of renewable energy sources and
technology as we move toward energy independence and environmental
security.
New development and signs of interest in renewable energy production
are booming, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strengthens Congress' resolve
to creatively develop new energy options throughout America, and I urge
its adoption.
I want to also thank my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) for his
support of this amendment, a native son of Nebraska.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. We do accept the amendment with reservations. I want to
say to my friend from Nebraska, he's been working very hard on this
amendment, particularly in the last 5 hours. But we had a debate about
this in the full committee. Ms. Kaptur offered an amendment that
restored funding for the REAP account. It was my intention to zero it
out because I do want to reduce the number of Federal programs that are
out there. The full committee did restore it. I'm not sure what $2
million in that account will do.
I do support renewable energy, but I will say that there are dozens
of programs and dozens of research channels available to people for
renewable energy, particularly in the rural area.
So I want to say to my friend from Nebraska and from Minnesota that
we'll accept the amendment, but you need to keep your eye on us because
it's not a program I particularly like. And I'm very serious about
eliminating as many programs as possible. So we need to continue
talking about that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Georgia, first of all, for his generosity to us. And we
certainly understand the position you're coming from.
And I think yes, it's probably a small amount of money, but I think
all of us recognize too the need to send a strong clear signal of the
importance of these programs to the Senate and let them take a look at
it over there.
So with that, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I
want to thank my colleague from Nebraska for his hard work on behalf of
all rural communities.
I certainly urge support of this amendment. It restores $1 million to
the REAP program. And the gentleman's right. It is a small amount, but
these are important programs.
And I'd like to also thank Ms. Kaptur from Ohio for putting that back
in this program. REAP's vitally important for rural communities.
Farmers and rural small businesses in my district use REAP grants and
loan guarantees to cut their energy bills and improve energy
efficiency. REAP allows farmers and small businesses to help move our
country to cleaner energy future by building wind, solar, biomass,
anaerobic digester, geothermal, and cutting edge technologies that were
funded by this.
I think all of us recognize it's far better for us, Mr. Chairman, to
get our energy needs and control our energy future from here at home
instead of putting our national security, our energy security in the
hands of countries that don't like us. We spend $400 billion a year on
imported oil from countries that hate us. They'll hate us for free. We
can keep the money at home through programs like this, investing in
diversity to keep the jobs at home.
And I want to say that I've seen this through the energy
manufacturing supply chain in my district, that the spinoff from these
jobs in the private sector is incredibly valuable.
{time} 2150
Unfortunately, while I think the REAP amendment is a good one, the
underlying bill I don't believe reflects the priorities of rural
America.
Our farmers and ranchers clearly understand that we've got to tighten
our belts, cut our budgets, and become more efficient. I simply think
this piece of legislation puts a disproportionate burden on those that
are doing so much for this country. A 25 percent cut over the FY10 bill
is irresponsible. In fact, I would argue that if it doesn't ensure that
a safety net is there, that abundant, safe and affordable food supply
that we keep talking about will be put in jeopardy.
This bill decimates farm bill conservation programs, takes money away
from proven nutrition programs, and strips, as you heard for the
previous 3 hours, the CFTC of critical resources it needs to regulate
irresponsible behavior. For that reason, I'm going to have
[[Page H4168]]
a difficult time supporting the overall bill.
But I do believe the REAP program does give America a way to move
towards energy independence. I have seen these programs that have
worked in my district. I believe it lets us take control of our energy
future, lets our farmers and ranchers be part of the solution, and lets
us get back on the track to prosperity.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his work on this
and other issues in rural America, and I truly do thank the gentleman
from Georgia for indulging us and for hearing us and letting us put it
forward.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment and
to stand up for rural America and our Nation's farmers.
The appropriations bill in front of us today eliminates a program
that helps rural communities invest in energy-efficient and renewable
energy projects to improve their quality of life and local economies.
The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) has given Iowa farmers
and businesses more than $57 million in grants and $74 million worth of
loan guarantees since 1993 when it started, according to the USDA.
The majority of the projects have helped growers purchase higher-
efficiency grain drying equipment which saves them thousands in propane
costs. Additionally, helps farmers install geothermal heating and
cooling systems and wind turbines. Just this year, Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the Department would begin award grants
to rural gas stations to install gas pumps for ethanol-blended fuel.
Iowa is the largest beneficiary of REAP funds, and I am committed to
working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to reach a
compromise on its funding. REAP has already been cut by 25 percent for
this fiscal year and the majority's intention to reduce its funding
from $75 million to $1.3 million is unacceptable.
When the House Appropriations Committee passed this legislation,
Members chose to dismantle a program that helps rural communities
thrive and their economies grow in order to maintain tax breaks for oil
and gas companies and incentives for companies that outsource American
jobs. This is not about reducing spending. It is an outright attack on
Middle America to protect Corporate America.
I will not stand by as appropriators blindly cut spending in programs
that truly grow the economy and support rural businesses and
communities.
Every American needs an affordable and accessible food supply grown
in the most efficient way possible. Effectively terminating the REAP
program will reduce efficiency in food production, increasing prices in
the grocery store, and, in the end, hurting every American family, not
just rural America.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will slowly
rebuild the REAP program and send a message to the Senate that this
program is important to every American.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, $5,310,000: Provided, That no funds made available
by this appropriation may be obligated for FAIR Act or
Circular A-76 activities until the Secretary has submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives a report on the Department's
contracting out policies, including agency budgets for
contracting out.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, beginning line 22, strike the proviso relating to
FAIR Act or Circular A-76 activities.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Federal Government
employs some 2 million executive branch, non-postal full-time and
permanent employees; 850,000 of these employees hold jobs that are
commercial in nature. Of the 850,000 commercial jobs, only a handful
have been characterized as government employees or private sector
workers who can perform these activities more efficiently and more cost
effectively.
My amendment strikes the current insourcing language found in this
legislation which, as drafted, would prevent the funds spent by this
bill from being used to conduct public-private competitions or to
direct A-76 conversions for any program, project or activity within the
United States Department of Agriculture without a contracting report to
Congress by the Secretary.
Two weeks ago, the House voted in favor of striking similar
problematic and anti-competitive A-76 language from H.R. 2017, the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The same change
and reversal of bad policy which I undertook at that time should also
be implemented in this legislation by striking this anti-competitive,
free market language.
The A-76 process provides a valuable option for taxpayers and
requires real competition. A former assistant director at USDA, Shawn
Kingsbury, managed information technology programs at the Department.
Mr. Kingsbury, in his tenure, implemented A-76 by transitioning to the
first performance-based project management organization within the
USDA, and it resulted in over $100 million in savings.
Without the ability to add competitive insourcing, ballooning
deficits and out-of-control spending will continue in our government.
It is time that Congress explores and gives all solutions to save
taxpayers and the managers of the business in the government their
hard-earned money.
The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee
positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost
comparison will generate on average a 30 percent cost savings
regardless of who wins that competition. Rather than preventing market
competition that would improve service and lower costs, we should be
encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to
citizens of this great Nation. The role of government should be to
govern, not to operate businesses inside the government.
Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent. We must allow
the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair
disadvantage. We must get more results for our money.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-
first amendment and ensure cost-saving competition is available to the
managers within this agency. Congress should be looking to use all the
tools that it can find to help save taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill primarily
because if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
This has been a law for a long time. It allows our committee and the
public to know what the A-76 circular review did. The report is on the
Department's contracting-out policies and its budget for contracting
out, that information, which Congress has been getting year after year
without any problems. The language has been in the bill for many years,
and we have always received the report allowing the contracting-out
activities to proceed. It hasn't stopped anything.
The language specifically requires a report to go to the authorizing
committee reflecting the agreement reached with the former Republican
chairman of the Oversight Committee many years ago. It was his
amendment that did this.
I have to say personally too that I've done the A-76 circular
contracting out. We have a military base in my community, the Defense
Language Institute, and the city of Monterey surrounds it. We ended up
with an A-76 review, ended up where the city could provide the base
operation services much cheaper than the Federal employees on the base,
saving the Army about $4 million a year and having much better services
delivered.
So, again, delivering this report to Congress seems to me hasn't been
a problem for anyone. And it ain't broke, so I don't think we ought to
support fixing it with Mr. Sessions' amendment.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
[[Page H4169]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, $760,000.
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$19,288,000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Administration, $683,000.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
(including transfers of funds)
For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984
delegation of authority from the Administrator of General
Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C.
121, for programs and activities of the Department which are
included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions
needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate
unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to
the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings
and facilities, and for related costs, $209,505,000, to
remain available until expended; of which $151,396,000 shall
be available for payments to the General Services
Administration for rent; of which $11,452,000 shall be
available for payment to the Department of Homeland Security
for building security activities; and of which $46,657,000
shall be available for buildings operations and maintenance
expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may use unobligated
balances from prior years to cover shortfalls incurred in
prior year rental payments: Provided further, That the
Secretary is authorized to transfer funds from a Departmental
agency to this account to recover the full cost of the space
and security expenses of that agency that are funded by this
account when the actual costs exceed the agency estimate
which will be available for the activities and payments
described herein.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 5, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $342,000)''.
Page 5, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $342,000)''.
Page 17, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $300,000)''.
Mr. FARR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to waive the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to move funding
from the Agriculture Building and Facilities and Rental Payments
account and investing that money in the Organic Data Initiative.
Organic agriculture is a very important and growing sector of our
farm and ranch community. It has continued to grow at a double-digit
rate since Congress passed the Organic Act in 1990.
The office collects and disseminates data regarding organic
agriculture through the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Economic
Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The
organic sector should have the same access to data available to all
agriculture--a building block to a successful U.S. agricultural
economy.
As the industry surpasses $29 billion, this information is vital to
maintain stable markets, create proper risk management tools, and
negotiate equivalency agreements with foreign governments. It is
imperative that we continue to collect information gained by ODI.
The AMS collects organic prices and disseminates the data through
Market News Reports.
{time} 2200
NASS conducts surveys and collects data used for the Census of
Agriculture. The ERS published the consumer survey ``Marketing U.S.
Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to Consumers 2009,'' and
continues to produce reports which used the data collected by AMS and
NASS in addition to surveying Americans about their organic consumption
patterns.
This amendment is needed for the following reasons:
The AMS needs to continue to expand organic price reporting services
to more commodities and price points and distribute the data through
Market News, creating price stability.
The NASS will be collecting more information on organic production in
the next agricultural census.
It is needed to understand the size of the organic industry and
create risk management tools.
The ERS is continuing organic economic analysis and expanding to
include organic trade data needed to expand export markets.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests $300,000
specifically for AMS to continue the collection of and distribution of
data.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
continue the Organic Data Initiative.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,900,000)''.
Page 5, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,900,000)''.
Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,900,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. This amendment simply reduces by 10 percent the
account for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
My friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and I have partnered to bring
this commonsense amendment before the House, and I would like to thank
him and his staff for all their hard work.
Mr. Chairman, we are in an economic and fiscal emergency. The Federal
Government spends too much money. It is irresponsible and immoral to
keep spending beyond our means. Not only do we need to reduce our
deficit, but we need to begin to make an impact on eliminating the huge
debt that has been accumulating over the last few years.
I greatly appreciate the effort and the difficult decisions the
Appropriations Committee must make. That said, we must continue to make
meaningful cuts to show the American people and the President that we
are serious about controlling spending and serious about the future of
our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Let's
show the American people that we are serious about controlling spending
and stopping the outrageous spending that has been going on here in
Washington under Democrat as well as Republican leadership. I encourage
a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FARR. I normally wouldn't oppose this because it cuts from the
account that I just tried to cut from, but I only cut $300,000 to pay
for something. This amendment cuts $20 million, and it pays for
nothing. I just think that that's not a very good proposition.
We have an awful lot of facilities that are around this country.
Agriculture is everywhere--in every single
[[Page H4170]]
State and in almost every congressional district. I happen to represent
the leading agricultural State in the United States--California--where
we grow some 40, 50 crops that no other State grows in addition to
hundreds and hundreds of other crops, so we need facilities out there.
I know this is an account that is easy to be offset, and as I said, I
tackled the same account myself. Yet, since the gentleman opposed my
amendment, I think it's only good quid pro quo that I oppose his.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentleman from Georgia's amendment to cut $20.9 million from the
Department of Agriculture's Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments account and redirect those funds for deficit reduction.
I commend the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers and Chairman
Kingston for crafting a bill that is $5.041 billion or 22.6 percent
less than the President's FY 2012 budget request, and $2.672 billion or
13.4 percent less than the FY 2011 enacted level. However, I believe
the financial catastrophe facing our Nation today requires us to do
even more.
Recently, the CBO released their annual Budget and Economic Outlook
report which projects that the FY 2011 deficit will reach an all time
record high of $1.48 trillion; the third year in a row our Nation's
budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. Our national debt is a
staggering $14.2 trillion, almost more than our entire economy.
We are borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it
from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and
grandchildren. Every child born today already owes $45,500 in debt they
didn't create.
Now, more than ever, it is clear that we must be bold and take the
steps necessary to tackle the unprecedented deficits and debt facing
our country and get our economy moving again. I urge my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle to work together on this bill to cut spending
where we can, get our fiscal house in order, and protect the American
Dream for our future generations.
In light of the looming and ever growing Federal deficit, an
amendment like this is simply common sense. It merely cuts $20.9
million a modest cut of only 10 percent; a very measured step that
reduces spending without threatening the mission of the Department of
Agriculture.
Our country has a spending problem--not a revenue problem; support
the Broun Amendment.
Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Hazardous Materials Management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), $3,393,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to
the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be
transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in
meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on
Federal and non-Federal lands.
departmental administration
(including transfers of funds)
For Departmental Administration, $23,900,000, to provide
for necessary expenses for management support services to
offices of the Department and for general administration and
other miscellaneous supplies and expenses not otherwise
provided for and necessary for the practical and efficient
work of the Department: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be reimbursed from applicable appropriations in this
Act for travel expenses incident to the holding of hearings
as required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 6, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. This amendment would restore $5 million to
the Women, Infants and Children Farmers Market Nutrition Program. This
would allow low-income pregnant women and low-income women who have
just given birth to purchase food directly from farmers to benefit
their young infant children up to age 5.
This is very important in many areas around the country, especially
in the area that I represent, the city of Detroit, where you don't
really have that many markets around. Many times, families--even young
mothers--have to go to gas stations and drug stores just to purchase
groceries. That's not acceptable. That really encourages poor eating
habits, poor nutrition, and it really increases our health care costs
that all of us as taxpayers ultimately bear.
So I urge you to consider this amendment. It's a fair proposal, and
it's very cost-effective. It provides low-income mothers and their
children with good nutrition, which is the best medicine for health
care--helping to get better nutrition to prevent people from getting
sick.
The other thing, too, is that, throughout the entire debate on this
budget, many of the speakers would say that those who benefit from
these programs--low-income women, infants and children--really don't
have a voice, so many of us here in Congress have to be their voice.
I'd like to say, though, that the people who have benefited from these
programs do have a voice.
My mother, Thelma Clarke, was a single parent, and she raised me. She
was a child of the Great Depression. Ironically, during the Great
Depression, she passed out in her school classroom because of
malnutrition. It was during the 1930s, and times were very dire in the
city of Detroit. She was experiencing tough economic times all the
while I was growing up as a young kid and as a teenager. She vowed what
happened to her would never happen to me, so she provided me with all
the food I wanted--great meals with groceries that she purchased with
food stamps. It worked for our family, so I want to say this, not just
about this amendment but about the role of government.
{time} 2210
I think the reason why this country is so great, and I thank God that
my dad immigrated to this country, the United States, as opposed to
another one, we are so great because we understand the value of pooling
our tax dollars together to help each other. That makes this country
stronger. It provides everyone, everyone, with an equal opportunity.
That is what makes this country one of the most extraordinary in modern
civilization. So I ask for $5 million. Let's give every child that same
chance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I was going to ask my friend if he is planning to offer
his other amendment. Don't you have another related amendment?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Well, it relates to a different issue. It
deals with food safety, and that comes right after this. It does amend
page 6 as well.
Mr. KINGSTON. You don't have anything else on this section of the
bill?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. At least not dealing with this specific
subject matter. I do have an amendment that amends this same page, page
6, and page 17, but that deals with reinstating funding on a food
safety bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. You are taking from the same account twice?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Let me consult with our staff here.
Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to explain to my friend about it. I am
uncertain about this current amendment, but
[[Page H4171]]
that departmental account, as unglamorous as they are to all of us, has
been cut about 15 percent, and then this cuts it, and then your food
safety amendment will cut it as well. So that is what my dilemma is at
the moment. I don't know if anybody over there has actually heard from
the department. I am assuming they are going to be against it.
Also I want to point out to my friend that one of the things that I
think our authorizing friends should do is combine this program with
food stamps anyhow, because there is duplication and overlap.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR. The concern here is that this amendment double dips from
the same account. Maybe we can work something out here. Mr. Broun took
money out of this account. I took money out of this account.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, we were talking earlier about some
of the overlaps in these Federal food assistance programs. To me, this
is a case where this is a program where there is a lot of overlap with
food stamps, and we should look at that, realizing that that is the
authorizing committee's jurisdiction. There is not much more that I can
do than comment on it.
I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you very much, and I will ask for a
vote on this.
Mr. KINGSTON. With that, I withdraw my objection, and we accept the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Indiana
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 6, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $2,390,000)''.
Page 80, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $2,390,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Chair, this amendment is quite simple.
The amendment would simply reduce by a modest 10 percent that part of
the USDA's budget used for ``general administration and miscellaneous
supplies.''
This category of spending is so broadly defined that Washington
bureaucrats could use this money as a sort of gift card for these
general administration and miscellaneous expenses. My amendment would
put over $2 million of the money back into the spending reserve account
to reduce our Federal deficit. That, of course, will lead to lower
future taxes, lower future interest rates and thus a lower future
unemployment rate.
I was sent here by the great people of Indiana's Ninth Congressional
District to focus like a laser on creating jobs and to get our Federal
spending under control so that we can keep our tax burden low. That
will serve to the benefit of businesses and all that work for them
around our country. Since being sworn in on January 5, that has been my
mission, and I know it has been the singular focus of many of my
colleagues.
So this simple amendment advances this mission by trimming more
bureaucratic fat from Washington, and it signals to all job creators
and to our financial markets that we in Congress are serious, very
serious, about cutting unnecessary spending wherever we can find it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out the
programs funded by this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch, $3,289,000: Provided, That these funds may be
transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture
funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level;
Provided further, That no funds made available by this
appropriation may be obligated after 30 days from the date of
enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary has notified the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on
the allocation of these funds by USDA agency: Provided
further, That no other funds appropriated to the Department
by this Act shall be available to the Department for support
of congressional relations activities.
Office of Communications
For necessary expenses of the Office of Communications,
$8,058,000.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
including employment pursuant to the Inspector General Act of
1978, $80,000,000, including such sums as may be necessary
for contracting and other arrangements with public agencies
and private persons pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, and including not to exceed
$125,000 for certain confidential operational expenses,
including the payment of informants, to be expended under the
direction of the Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-
452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.
Office of the General Counsel
For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $35,204,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Research, Education and Economics, $760,000.
Economic Research Service
For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service,
$70,000,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 8, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $43,000,000)''.
Page 8, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $85,000,000)''.
Page 9, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $650,000,000)''.
Page 49, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,040,198,000)''.
Page 80, line 2, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,818,198,000)''.
Mr. CHAFFETZ (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Utah?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, this amendment deals with three different
services within the Department of Agriculture. The idea and the goal of
the situation here is that perhaps they could take a reduction in
funding, not totally zero them out, and really look at these
duplicative programs as being something that can be ultimately unified
over the course of time. My amendment simply drives down the cost of
these, and the hope and desire is that they will somehow unify to do
and accomplish what these duplicative services are. This relates to the
Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the
National Agriculture Statistics Service.
{time} 2220
Now, the one other one that I would also point out that is funded is
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, where we are not
suggesting a reduction in the amount. But the overall goal here is to
reduce the amount of the expenditure here 50 percent from 2011 and 43
percent from the current bill. I think this is common sense.
We have to make difficult decisions. We recognize the value the
Department of Agriculture brings. A lot of people rely on these types
of statistics and information that is needed so that we can make sure
that we have the very best Department of Agriculture that we can.
But in these tough and difficult economic times, it is imperative
that we make difficult decisions. And sometimes that means we are
looking at duplicative programs, maybe scaling those back a little bit,
and refocusing the mission so that they can actually do what matters
most and prioritize their own mission.
[[Page H4172]]
So we think it is the financially responsible thing to do. I would
urge my colleagues to look closely at this. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. This amendment cuts ERS by $43 million, and that's the
Economic Research Service for Agriculture. Then it goes on to cut
another $85 million out of the National Agriculture Statistical
Service, which is essentially the census of Agriculture. And then it
goes on and cuts $650 million out of the Ag Research Service, which is
two-thirds of the entire budget--and a budget that is absolutely to
keep America competitive.
This is an agrarian world we live in. If we're going to stay ahead of
the competition and not have all our food imported, we've got to stay
ahead of the curve. That's the think tank, the creativity of America.
It's also where we know whether we're getting all the bugs and
infestation that's coming in. That's what agriculture research is all
about.
It zeroes out the Food for Peace program. My God, in the world that
we're living in now, we don't want to have any friends left? It puts
all that savings into a spending reduction account, does nothing to
help anybody except do a lot of damage for agriculture, for all the
economics of agriculture, the research of agriculture, and the Food for
Peace program. I think this is a very bad amendment, and I hope we
strongly oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JORDAN. I first want to thank the committee, and in particular
the chairman of the subcommittee, for the good work he's done on the
bill overall. But I support the gentleman from Utah's amendment. Any
Member of Congress can do this in their district. You're at any group
giving any speech and you say, Do you think maybe there's a little
redundancy, maybe a little duplication, maybe a little overlap in the
Federal Government? And the whole audience begins to laugh and everyone
raises their hand because they get the joke.
In fact, we just had a hearing in the Subcommittee of Oversight
dealing with regulation and overspending and the GAO was in there and
they had done a study and we asked them, How many different means-
tested social welfare programs are there? And they said, Well, we
really can't give you a number because we can't tell; it's so
ridiculous in government. But there are over a hundred.
They couldn't even tell us. But what they did tell us was there's a
lot of redundancy, a lot of duplication, a lot of overlap. The
gentleman from Utah's amendment just seeks to deal with that and says,
Look, it recognizes a couple of facts. It recognizes that, yes, there
is redundancy, but also we're broke. In fact, it's not we're going
broke. We are broke. And we have to cut some spending, just like every
single family, every single small business in this country has had to
do over the last several years.
Remember some of the numbers because at some point something has to
give. And we've got to be willing to cut spending. We've got a $14
trillion national debt. We've run trillion-dollar deficits for the last
3 years in a row. The three largest deficits in American history have
been in the last 3 years, and $200 billion we're paying each year in
interest. Right now, interest rates are at lowest levels--historically
low levels. They're going to go up.
Something has to give. And the gentleman from Utah has a basic
amendment which says, Let's reduce the spending in five programs that
the Federal Government doesn't need and, frankly, cannot afford. And it
would save the taxpayers of this great country $1.8 billion at a time
when we're going broke. Some people would say we are broke.
So this is a commonsense amendment, something we should do. It builds
on the good work that the gentleman from Georgia is getting ready to
speak on, the gentleman from Georgia, who's the chairman of the
committee, has already done. But it builds on their good work and
respects the taxpayers.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, frankly, I think that statement is a flat
Earth statement because it doesn't even look before you leap. It just
says, Let's whack because there's redundancy. There is redundancy in
our own body. We've got two eyes, two ears, two arms, and two legs. Why
don't we just whack one of them out because you've got the other one.
Look at the consequences. ARS is the Agricultural Research Service.
Do you know what they do? They look at how we can make a plant
structure more healthy, how we can combat the bugs that come in. I
represent a county where we have glassy-winged sharpshooters that
affect the wine industry. It's a multimillion-dollar eradication
program. We wouldn't know how to eradicate it without the research. We
have the brown apple moth that infects nurseries, multimillion dollars
of attacks. This is a war, just like those disasters you have been
seeing on television that are natural disasters. These are natural
disasters, only they're small little bugs. Or E. coli that we've talked
about. Why would you want to cut the very service that keeps American
agriculture healthy and competitive? This amendment wipes out two-
thirds of the entire budget.
I'm one of those that thinks there's a lot of redundancy in
government, but what I do is try to get the agencies together in my
district and figure out where they overlap and how we can consolidate
them, how we can get them to do joint operations. I think if you want
to really consolidate a lot of Federal Government, it's going to take a
lot more than just whacking away with an amendment making a list of
zeroing out money for economic research for the census for agriculture.
That's the last thing we want to do. It's a huge, huge market. You've
got to have market information. As I said, you certainly don't want to
whack ARS. That's the competitive arm. That's where America stays ahead
of the rest of the world.
So redundancy is a problem, but it's not always smart just to knock
off something because there's more of it, just like your arms, legs,
and eyes. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Utah bringing
this forward. This is a time when we've got to be looking for every
opportunity to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. And all
we're asking here is $1.8 billion out of trillions of dollars of
spending here in the Federal Government, $1.8 million more. I think the
taxpayers understand that. They expect that.
I don't know that anyone here has criticized the use of these funds,
where it is going. It's not that. It's just the fact that the money is
not there. How can you continue spending money you do not have? I think
back on the average American families at home. They have to make
difficult decisions. There are a lot of things that the average family
would like to do each and every week; but if they don't have the
resources to do it, they wait until they can save up and do it at
another appropriate time. They enjoy it at a later date when they have
the ability to do that.
Madam Chair, right now we do not have that ability as a Federal
Government. For far too long we've spent too much. It's not a partisan
issue, necessarily. Both parties are responsible for the reckless
spending that's gone on in Washington. But this is the day, this is the
time that we can correct that course. We can correct the path. We don't
have to continue down this same path that's been going on over and over
and over again. The status quo is not acceptable.
In fact, the American people, they deserve better. We have an
opportunity
[[Page H4173]]
right now to send a strong message to the American people that $1.8
billion is being sent back to the taxpayers. Just imagine that--taking
money from the Federal Government that it's used to absorbing from the
taxpayer and allowing the taxpayers to choose how they wish to spend
it. What a great concept. How novel is that, to allow the taxpayers to
choose how they invest their money, where they might spend it. Which
leads to the number one issue facing this Nation--and it's jobs and the
economy.
If we want to see the economy improve, if we want to see revenues
here in Washington improve, it's not through tax increases. It's
through the economy improving. It's through the GDP, the engine of this
Nation moving once again. And how do we do that? We release the dollars
we hold as a Federal Government and the additional dollars that we're
borrowing from foreign countries and we allow the private sector to
hold that, allow the private sector to make those investments, allow
them to be the dreamers. Those that have the ideas, those that have the
ideas, entrepreneurs, allow them to be the risk-takers, the job
creators we know they are and they want to be.
{time} 2230
Instead, we hear again opposition which says, no, we know better as
the Federal Government. Let us keep that money. Let us take it from
your wallet. Let us distribute it out as we know best. I think I heard
a speaker earlier today say the Federal Government is better at making
decisions than the American people. I mean we've heard that concept
expressed here already, that we know better. Well, the fact is the
American people know better how to spend their money.
So the gentleman from Utah brings up a great amendment that says $1.8
billion in additional cuts, saving the taxpayers once again additional
money. That only adds to the savings that the chairman of the
subcommittee has already fought for, and I'm happy to serve with him on
the committee. He's done a fabulous job of taking us back to 2006
spending levels, an amazing effort on behalf of the subcommittee, and
this just takes it back just a little bit further. Surely we can do
that for the American people tonight in this House.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I heard a very instructive quote. Even as important as this
legislation is, in actuality it appears that my friends on the other
side of the aisle simply want to zero out this whole appropriation for
the important agricultural work that is done in this Nation, just zero
it out. Mr. Chaffetz's amendment seeks to zero out a very important
program, which includes zeroing out Food for Peace, and it apparently
ignores the basic purpose and the crisis that we're facing dealing with
food insecurity in the world.
The United Nations World Food Program acknowledges severe acute
malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of
5 worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half
of all the deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately 1
million children each year, or an average of one every 30 seconds.
This is not the direction we want for the world or the United States.
There are priorities. And I ask my colleagues, what are their
priorities?
Now, I have a deal for them. Let's make a deal. Let's take the $10
billion that we're spending every month in Afghanistan and spread it
out on deficit reduction. I will take up that challenge and accept that
challenge. In fact, we will be able to put $1 billion or $2 billion
every week for a 4-week timeframe in deficit reduction if we bring the
troops home from Afghanistan. And while we do that, we'll have the
opportunity to answer the question that I'm asking to my colleagues:
Who will stand by while a child dies, one every 30 seconds around the
world?
Food for Peace is a program that our farmers have bought into from
the perspective of the service and the Good Samaritan that they do by
providing the goods of the world's bread basket. The United States is
the world's bread basket. We have been blessed with the bounty of
topography and weather, in spite of the disasters we've now faced, to
be able to feed the world. And Food for Peace is that program.
Just a few hours ago, I stood on the floor of the House and I
mentioned my colleague, the Honorable Mickey Leland. Some of my new
friends should read about this unselfish man. I know she didn't ask me
to call out her husband's name, but those of us who knew Mickey knew
that he loved Congressman Emerson and Congressman Hall. They had a
passion for finding out how can we stop the devastation of hunger. So
they circled around programs that dealt with it, programs like Food for
Peace or the Select Committee on Hunger or a number of other programs
around the Agriculture appropriations, not to waste money but to
partner between the great agricultural agrarian society of the United
States, and its ability to grow food, to also be able to provide for
those who cannot.
Do I have to say it again? We buy the food from our farmers. Let me
make it very clear. In the very places where, as I showed earlier
today, the devastation of tornadoes and floods, these people are trying
to come back. Some areas did not suffer. They're trying to get their
goods to market. It cuts here in the very jobs that we are saying that
we want to keep. We're cutting jobs. We're throwing people out of work,
the work that farmers love. You try to get a farmer off his land or her
land. They don't want to go because they love the soil. They love
producing food. They love helping people. Yet my friend wants to come
and cut this program that creates jobs, buys the food, and sends it to
starving, dying children.
I don't understand. In the legacy of our friends, some of them you
did not know, but if you read about them, you will understand their
passion and their heart. Mickey Leland used to bring us to tears
because he would leave the devastation of Fifth Ward, Houston, where
there was poverty, and he'd get on an airplane to deliver food to the
dying around the world. He lost his life in the course of delivering
food.
My final word, Madam Chairman, is to ask my colleagues not to support
this amendment and to support Food for Peace and support the underlying
message of providing the jobs and a helping hand.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I oppose this.
I want to say to my friends who have offered it, I did support this
budget on the House floor and did support this 302(b) allocation in
full committee. However, as I pointed out several times to my Democrat
friends during the course of the debate today, the only budget that has
passed is the Ryan budget. The President's budget failed in the Senate
97-0. The RSC budget fell on the House floor. The Congressional Black
Caucus budget fell on the House floor. The Progressive Caucus budget
fell on the House floor.
Our job is to try to move this under the circumstances that we have
and the restraints that we have. The bill before us represents a cut in
discretionary money of 13.4 percent, which is one of the largest cuts
that we will be considering in the 12 appropriation bills.
I want to point out also that in terms of P.L. 480, that account
alone has been cut 31 percent. And I met with the World Food Program
three different times now and certainly expressed lots of concerns
about America's role around the globe. We need to be engaged in the
countries that we are engaged in. Sometimes this program is oversold as
national security, which I believe it contributes to. It is not
necessarily everything people want it to be in national security, but
it is a program that keeps America engaged around the world and
therefore promotes stability around the world. And when you have
instability, there is a concern in terms of national security. It also
actually does have an implication for the merchant marine because
there's a cargo preference clause to it. It keeps the American merchant
marine healthy, and those are the ships
[[Page H4174]]
that take our military equipment overseas during engagements such as
what we have going in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ms. Jackson Lee had raised some of the points about the war. I voted
for the Kucinich amendment the other day because I do not think we
should be in Libya at this time. I'm very concerned that that's going
to be one of those classic cases of mission creep, that right now we're
saying no troops on the ground, but after we get through blowing up
their buildings, who do you think is going to rebuild it? It's going to
be America. So that mission is going to morph into troops on the ground
in one form or another. That's why I thought the Kucinich amendment was
appropriate.
I want to just conclude, though, that I think the spirit of the
gentlemen--and they're very consistent in terms of their fiscal
restraint, but, again, the only budget that has passed any body is the
Ryan budget.
{time} 2240
One of the balancing acts of this, if you go too far, you lose votes;
if you don't go far enough, you lose votes. The Ryan budget got over
the finish line and did not get all the Republicans voting for it, so
I'm going to have to oppose this amendment, but I want to say to my
friends, I appreciate the vigor in which you've offered it and your
consistency on things.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I will be brief, Madam Chair. I recognize
the spirit in which you are doing this, and I appreciate the process
and the back-and-forth.
I did want to say for the record, I would join with the gentlewoman
from Texas, and I have advocated for a long time that we pull out of
Afghanistan and that we put that towards deficit reduction. But I also
think we have to bring back discretionary spending even further.
And I would like to mention to this body that really what happens
with the so-called Ryan budget, the budget that this House passed, is
that sets ceilings but it doesn't set floors, and I believe that one of
the greatest threats in security to our future is the out-of-control
debt and deficit that this country is encompassing.
Let's also remember that we spend in the neighborhood of $40 billion
on U.S. aid. We haven't been able to take care of our own pocketbooks
in our own country, and so it's very difficult to justify not only a
very healthy and robust USAID budget--by the way, having conducted
oversight is not necessarily accountable. You can't go back and
actually look at the accounting and see where all this money is flowing
and what it's doing. But let's also remember that then we still have
tens of billions of dollars to help people across the world. We have
149 countries in this world that are getting USAID money. They're
getting aid from the United States of America through various programs.
So, again, I would just want to briefly say I do think we can do
better. I think we have to do better. The out-of-control spending in
the past puts us in a perilous position where we spend $600 million a
day just in interest on our debt. And so when I look at $1.8 billion in
reduction and I look at the fact that our interest payment is $600
million a day, the best thing we could probably do for the world and
certainly for ourselves is to get that deficit under control. We could
do a lot more good in this world if we were to take care of our own
financial pocketbooks, and we have not yet done that.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I appreciate the spirit
of this body allowing me to add this extra comment.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment
that would reduce the budget for the USDA's Economic Research Service
by $7 million. We don't know what's going to happen with the previous
amendment, but whether it passes or fails, this would cut another $7
million. It's just a modest 10 percent that would help end some of the
duplicative research the USDA is currently conducting.
For example, the USDA has four separate services that conduct
research, as Mr. Chaffetz has already spoken about here on the floor.
All four of these entities have numerous overlapping issues, and it
would be more fiscally responsible to simply consolidate them, and I
wish we had done so.
The American people have demanded that we cut the outrageous spending
that's going on here in Washington, and we must cut the spending in
every corner of the budget possible. They deserve our very best efforts
in being good stewards of their tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. You know, it's very easy to just go through and start
cutting these services because they sound like they're sort of
bureaucracy offices, but, in fact, we've been on the committee a long
time and we get, you know, oversight of these budgets. We get the
Economic Research Service to come before us. And I remember a couple of
years ago when they were before us, and I think the committee really
got engaged because this is the research service that does the study on
the WIC program, what the economic effects are, does the study on the
economic conditions of rural America, something that's totally ignored.
We've been finding out from them that essentially rural America has
been in a recession for the last 10 years, maybe even a depression.
So, if you're going to have strategies which are going to include the
Federal Government as part of your strategy, it's also going to include
local and State government, you've got to have the economic data on
which to build those strategies. And I think to just go and take $7
million out of there because you can and get no benefit out of it and
hurt what they do, I mean, these services, whether they be the Economic
Research, that information is also used in our marketing activity.
Now, it's a little bit different than the census stuff that we talked
about earlier, but I think that this is really a cut that does a lot
more harm than the gentleman who's introducing it intends to do, and I
think if he really understood what the full scope of the Economic
Research Service was he wouldn't ask that he take 10 percent out of
that Department just merely to reduce the amount of money that we're
spending.
So I oppose this amendment, and I think it does big harm to rural
America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
[[Page H4175]]
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service, $149,500,000, of which up to $40,000,000
shall be available until expended for the Census of
Agriculture.
Agricultural Research Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Agricultural Research Service
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land
exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value
or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor
which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership,
$993,345,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft
and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only:
Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be
available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction,
alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but
unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one
building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or
greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and
except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a
cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering
any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10
percent of the current replacement value of the building or
$375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the
limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not
apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities
at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting
easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center:
Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not
apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the Act
of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That
funds may be received from any State, other political
subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of
establishing or operating any research facility or research
project of the Agricultural Research Service, as authorized
by law.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nugent
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, every night millions of families sit down to
meals where ingredients are produced here in the United States. The
Agricultural Research Service is a vital part of our Federal
Government's continued efforts to help farmers, producers and,
ultimately, consumers.
I firmly believe that the Federal Government has a terrible spending
problem and that tough decisions must be made.
{time} 2250
I have the utmost respect for Chairman Kingston and all of the
members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. They have done
a great job of crafting this piece of legislation.
My amendment would reduce $2.5 million from the Foreign Agricultural
Service and transfer $2 million of that money to the Agricultural
Research Service. By adding these funds back to ARS's budget, we will
be helping guarantee that our farmers remain competitive with farmers
from other nations. We should be supporting increased food production
here in America and maintain our domestic independence in this area of
our economy and not increasing our usage and demand for foreign
agricultural imports. There is still important work to be done by ARS,
and that must be continued. There have been significant cuts made to
the budget of ARS that jeopardize research already in progress.
During my 5 months in Congress, I have had the great pleasure to meet
and interact with many farmers and ranchers in my district. These men
and women are some of the hardest workers that I know. They are the
first up and the last to go to bed. Research must continue to be funded
in order to guarantee that America's agriculture community is
independent, that it remains the most productive and the greatest
agricultural producer in the world.
ARS's work has resulted in an oat-based cholesterol fighter, a
replacement for blood plasma, a biofungicide to help prevent apple and
pear rot--and I'm sure on grapes from California--and is a method to
increase production of penicillin and other antibiotics.
As you can see, ARS's research successes are not just limited to the
agricultural community, but they help all Americans. So my goal is to
make sure that America remains strong as an agricultural producer, that
we don't outsource agricultural production to other nations to provide
our food, and maintain a safe food source for Americans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. I am very interested. One of your colleagues just cut the
heck out of this Department, and you want to add money back in. I am
kind of for that. But I am kind of curious because I understand--and
the question is, do you intend in the general provisions of this bill
later to add some language regarding cattle research?
Mr. NUGENT. We have withdrawn any other amendment. There is no other
amendment.
Mr. FARR. So there is no other amendment? This hasn't to do with an
earmark to try to stop closure of--
Mr. NUGENT. Sir, there is no other amendment. We withdraw that
amendment.
Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to clarify some things on this that are
important. Number one, I want to make sure that we all realize that ARS
is currently, in this bill, funded at $993 million and that the Foreign
Ag Service is at $175 million. And the Foreign Ag Service actually does
have an invaluable role in representing U.S. agriculture overseas. And
it's not all about importing their products as much as it is working
and making sure that it's kind of a two-way street.
But I wanted to yield to the gentleman if he wanted some more time to
explain it. My inclination is to take the amendment--although ARS, as I
am saying, has a pretty big funding level already. And I just wanted to
invite you to speak a little bit more and maybe warm us up a little,
because I am like Mr. Farr. There's a lot of criticism of ARS. So
somebody coming in to increase it, the amendment is paid for. I don't
know that $2 million is going to help significantly one way or the
other.
Mr. NUGENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. NUGENT. Our goal with regards to strengthening ARS is to make
sure that we strengthen the American ability to produce goods within
this country. It is simple and focused. It's about keeping American
agriculture strong. While we may be asking to reduce what we send
overseas, I think it's more important that we have a strong
agricultural base here.
I will tell you, just in my home State, that agriculture accounts for
over a third of the income to the State of Florida. It is one of the
three legs that support Florida. One is tourism, the other one is
industry, but the third one that has been there for Florida in this
downturn economy has been agriculture. So our goal is to make sure that
Americans can depend upon American sources of food that are safe for
Americans.
Mr. KINGSTON. I will accept the amendment. I want to say to my friend
from Florida, we're going to be looking at all this as the process goes
on, and we'll certainly work with you. We, Mr. Farr and I and the
committee, do appreciate all the research that the ARS does and all of
the good things. And I am glad to know that you are following them
because I do think it's a significant agency within the USDA.
Mr. NUGENT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H4176]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $681,750,000'').
Page 44, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $681,750,000'').
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As the gentleman rises, I ask myself the
question and I ask this body, Who will speak for the children? And
that's why my amendment attempts to fully fund the Women, Infants, and
Children program that provides food for the Nation's children. It
provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, nutrition,
education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and
postpartum women, infants, and children up to 5 years old.
We must remember that children have always been the largest category
of WIC participants. Of the 8.7 million people who received WIC
benefits, each month in fiscal year 2008, about 4.33 million were
children, and 2.2 million were infants. This bill cuts $650 million out
of WIC, and I am so glad my good friend from Georgia--and I appreciate
his friendship--just got up and said the Agricultural Research Service
is pretty darn well funded, $900 million.
I am simply asking to address the question of the staggering
devastation of malnutrition in our children. And I have indicated that
when you look at worldwide numbers, malnutrition can kill. But here in
the United States, there are children that go to bed hungry. There are
women that do not eat properly. There are babies that do not get
nourishment.
In Texas alone, between 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be
dropped from the WIC program if the funding is not restored; and each
and every State in the Union is going to receive that kind of
devastating impact. Can you imagine 40,000 women, infants, and children
not being able to eat because we won't restore full funding? Texas has
three of the top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship
rates; and in the 18th Congressional District, there are 159,000 food
insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23 percent, and Texas
stands 32 in the Nation out of 435 districts. We are 32 in food
insecurity.
So, let me just say, alongside of obesity, eating wrong, we have to
face the actual question of hunger. Children who are served by the WIC
program in Texas are less likely to eat fast food in comparison to
children who are not in this program.
{time} 2300
Again, I want you to look at this picture. Healthy children need to
eat healthy. And I ask my colleagues why, in fact, would we not want to
fully fund the program of women and infant children?
I will say that the impact of not eating healthy is obesity and poor
health. This healthy baby, healthy-looking baby has a future that is
undetermined when you have an issue of lack of healthy food and access
to such.
So $650 million, when we're, in essence, funding research for $900
million, I believe you can share a little, because the WIC program is
beneficial in helping the most vulnerable in our country.
I ask the question: Who will speak for the children? It is important
that the WIC program, 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics, among this
group, 4.9 million children, 2.1 million infants, and 1 million women
have the ability to be served around the Nation. It's a complementary
program, having healthy mothers, healthy pregnant mothers to give birth
to healthy babies, to raise healthy children, not obese, nourished and
ready to be leaders in this Nation. Who are we if we are not going to
speak for our children?
And I ask my colleagues to consider waiving procedural issues to
ensure that children are served. I believe that is an important issue.
And in my district, in the 18th Congressional District, with 1,000
census tracts of people who are food insecure, I am arguing vigorously
for the full funding of the WIC program to help our women, our infants,
and their children.
Who will speak for our children? What will their future be, and how
will they lead this country if we do not invest with them today?
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2112 ``Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2112,'' as it restores full funding to the Women,
Infant, and Children (WIC) program.
As the Founder of the Children's Caucus and a Member of the Women's
Caucus, I have firmly stood in support of the nutritional needs of our
Nation's families. As a country we must protect and safeguard the
health and nutrition of our Nation's low-income families. Women,
Infant, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to states for
supplemental foods, nutrition education, and health care referrals to
low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children up to
age 5 who are found to be at nutritional risk. During the final quarter
of Fiscal Year 2009, the number of women, infants, and children
receiving WIC benefits each month reached approximately 9.3 million. We
must remember that children have always been the largest category of
WIC participants. Of the 8.7 million people who received WIC benefits
each month in Fiscal year 2008, about 4.33 million were children and
2.22 million were infants.
WIC is essential because it affords many women, especially women of
color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for themselves
and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as WIC, many
mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle during
pregnancies and after childbirth.
Because of WIC, mothers can afford the nutritional foods they need to
sustain their pregnancies and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and
defects caused by malnourishment during pregnancy.
Today, I am proud to support a full restoration of funding to WIC.
This program, which is distinctly American, demonstrates that we place
a high value on feeding our Nation's children and tending to the needs
of our Nation's poor.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are
endowed ``with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed. . . .'' I believe that it is no
coincidence that life is listed first--for without it, the Founders
realized, no other rights can be realized. Over many years, the
millions of Americans who could not access medical services were denied
their right to life--a life with access to quality and affordable
health care.
Let me set the record straight, WIC is good for the American people
and will go a long way in ensuring access to quality and affordable
care to those millions of Americans who will need access to proper
nutrition. WIC helps to ensure that our country will not succumb to one
of the most staggering causes of death in children around the world:
Malnutrition. Malnutrition remains a significant problem worldwide,
particularly among children. It should not be a problem within the
United States; that is why we have programs like WIC. According to the
United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute malnutrition affects
an estimated 20 million children under the age of five worldwide and is
responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all deaths of
children. Malnutrition kills approximately one million children each
year, or an average of one every thirty seconds. This is not the
direction we want to take the United States.
Madam Chair, when I stand here today and reflect upon what we are
about to embark upon, I cannot help but think of some of the last words
that the Great Senator Ted Kennedy shared in his letter to President
Obama. The Senator said, ``And so because of your (Obama's) vision and
resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health
coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a
family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's
wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look
forward and know that we will--yes we will--fulfill the promise of
health care in America as a right and not a privilege.'' Well, Senator,
your life's work shall today be proven to not be in vain. I continue to
stand by protecting the health needs of low income families. And, yes,
this program ensures the health of infants and children will never
again depend on the amount of their family's income.
In the words of the great President John F. Kennedy, ``the voters
selected us, in short, because they had confidence in our judgment and
our ability to exercise that judgment from a position where we could
determine what were their own best interests, as a part of the nation's
interest.''
Madam Chair, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem
to believe that
[[Page H4177]]
without a cut to WIC this will harm Americans, nothing could be further
from the truth. This bill is indeed in their best interests:
There are 110 million school-aged children suffering from hunger
every day, and they are counting on America's leadership and generosity
to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. The
WIC program provides that leadership and generosity and it is for this
reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for restoring
full funding to WIC.
In the words of the great civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., ``We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America
of the fierce urgency of now.'' We cannot wait. We will not wait to
protect the lives of our children. We can not delay in providing the
most vulnerable citizens of this great Nation access to proper
nutrition.
facts on wic--the 18th congressional district
In Texas, between 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be dropped
from the WIC program if the funding levels are not restored.
Texas has 3 of the top top 40 districts with the highest national
food hardship rates. In the 18th Congressional district there are
159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23% and ranks
32nd nationally.
WIC Combats Obesity
Let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is overweight or obese
and more than 9 million children are struggling with obesity. WIC aims
to improve the eating habits of Americans, particularly our children
through programs that provide children with healthy food. At its core,
H.R. 2112 decreases funding for nutrition programs for children.
Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and
life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
It is important to keep our nation healthy by providing access to high
consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great
country, our children. By supporting WIC we assure a healthy
consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that
their families are poor.
Children who are served by the WIC program in Texas are less likely
to eat fast food in comparison to children who are not in the program.
These children are also more likely to eat home cooked meals. When
children reduce their consumption of less fast food then they
drastically lower their chances of developing heart problems, diabetes,
and obesity which could again end up saving billions of dollars in the
healthcare system. All the health issues that are currently
contributing to health disparities among minorities in this country.
Certain minorities have a higher rates of diabetes-related
complications and death, in some instances by as much as 50 percent
more than the total population. It is truly an epidemic. Combating
obesity in from childhood utilizing programs like WIC is vital to
decreasing health disparities.
24% of Texans were obese in 2001, the 3rd highest rate in the nation.
Nearly 31% of African American girls in the 4th grade were overweight
and 52% were overweight or ``at risk of overweight'' in Texas in 2001.
13% of Houston high school students are overweight and 17% are at risk.
Over 71% of African American Texans are overweight or obese.
Over 34% of African American women are obese, compared to 19% of
white women.
44% of African American women are projected to be obese by 2020, and
47% by 2040.
Obesity
Although the obesity rates among all Americans are alarming, as Chair
of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am especially concerned about
the childhood obesity epidemic among African-Americans. More than 40
percent of African-American teenagers are overweight, and nearly 25
percent are obese.
When ethnicity and income are considered, African-American youngsters
from low-income families have a higher risk for obesity than those from
higher-income families. Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of
overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and
children. Eighty percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are
overweight or obese. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), among African-American male adults aged 20-74 years
the prevalence of obesity increased from 15.0% in 1980 survey to 32.9%
in the 2004.
There were also increases in overweight among children and teens. For
children aged 2-5 years, the prevalence of overweight increased from
5.0% to 13.9%; for those aged 6-11 years, prevalence increased from
6.5% to 18.8%; and for those aged 12-19 years, prevalence increased
from 5.0% to 17.4%.
Government reports indicate that an estimated 17 percent of children
and adolescents aged 2-19 are obese. According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, African American and Mexican American
adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent
and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who
are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of
Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of
African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white
children.
Impact of Obesity on Houston, Texas
The obesity epidemic has also heavily impacted my district in the
city of Houston. In 2005, Men's Fitness Magazine ranked Houston the
Fattest City in the Nation. In 2006, Houston ranked as number five and
in 2007, it was ranked the sixth fattest city in the Nation.
These statistics underscore why we must continue to vigorously
identify ways to address the childhood obesity crisis, by starting with
programs such as WIC, that provides proper nutrition to low income
families.
As the debate over how to address the rising childhood obesity
epidemic continues, it is important to continue to target and aid
children who are nutritionally at risk.
h.r. 2112 cuts more than $650 million from the wic program
Since this bill seeks to cut more than $650 million from the WIC
program, countless scores of women, children, and infants will also no
longer have the same access to healthy food. According to the National
WIC Association between 200,000-350,000 people will be cut from the
program. That is hundreds of thousands of women, infants, and children
who will not get the assistance they need. This is not simply about
adding and subtracting numbers on a page this is a family tragedy. We
cannot ignore the nutritional needs of our children; we should not
starve low income families. As our economy awakens from this long,
cold, slumber we must ensure that our nation's children are fed. This
is a moral question.
As financial hardships continue to impact millions of families, now
is not the time for us to turn our backs on them. This is the time to
show our compassion. I urge the full funding of WIC, because it will
impact hundreds of thousands of people nationally, but also because it
will end up costing billions more in the long run if we will have a
nation of unhealthy families. Consider the consequences of children who
lack the necessary nutrition as they grow into adults who have high
health costs.
the wic program helps families
The WIC program has been beneficial in helping some of the most
vulnerable members of our country.
Among the WIC's goals is to improve health care access for low and
moderate income women and children at risk of developing health
problems which include obesity and type 2 diabetes.
WIC served 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics. Among this group were
4.9 million children, 2.1 million infants, and 1 million women.
WIC works with pregnant mothers to help reduce costs of prenatal
care. Preterm births cost the U.S. over $26 billion a year. As a result
of pregnant women getting the services they need, the National WIC
Association states that Medicaid costs are reduced on average between
$12,000 and $15,000 for every low birth-weight incident prevented. It
is also estimated that $3.6 billion would be saved if current U.S.
exclusive breastfeeding rates increased to at least 50% at 6 months.
facts on wic cuts
If WIC funds are not fully restored the impact on low income families
will be devastating. An estimated 200,000 to 350,000 will be cut from
the WIC program. That's 200,000 to 350,000 low income Americans who
will be denied access to nutrition.
The cuts in the WIC program touches every state in this country. In
my State of Texas between 23,000 and 40,000 people will be left out in
the cold. We should be able to provide food to the young children of
our country.
Of the top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship
rates, Texas has 3 of them. In the 18th Congressional district there
are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23% and
ranks 32d nationally.
In 2005, in Harris County, there were 62 pregnant women who had
prenatal care in the first trimester. In the State of Texas there were
64 women. Without the WIC program, many of these women might not have
been able to get the services they needed.
WIC children in Texas are less likely to eat fast food over non-WIC
children. WIC children are also more likely to eat home cooked meals
compared to non-WIC children. Children who eat less fast food
drastically lower their chances of developing heart problems, diabetes,
and obesity which could end up saving billions of dollars in the health
care system.
As financial hardships continue to impact millions of families, now
is not the time for us to turn our backs on them. Now is the time to
show them that we care. I urge opposition to
[[Page H4178]]
this bill, not only because it will negatively impact hundreds of
thousands of people nationally, but also because it will end up costing
billions more in the long run. The American people are wondering when
their bailout will come years after we saved Wall Street from the brink
of destruction. This bill sends them a message that that day is not a
priority of the Federal Government.
We must continue to fight for pregnant mothers and low-income
families and so I urge for full funding to be restored to the WIC
program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
point of order
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for that purpose.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, the amendment may not be considered en
bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to
increase the level of funding and outlays in the bill, and outlays in
budget authority have to be equal.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
gentleman's point of order?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would, Madam Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Well, outlays have to do with the
evenhandedness of spending at the same time, which section you take the
monies out and which section you put them in.
Again, the point that I want to make to this body is that my focus is
on keeping our children in this country from being malnourished and
pregnant mothers from not having the access to good healthy food that
they need to give birth to a healthy child.
And I've asked the question before, in the instance of speaking for
our children and saving our children, a procedural waiver is in order.
This is a procedural question. I have actually taken money from a
legitimate account, and that is the Agriculture Research Service that
my own friend and colleague had said is funded quite well. Now we've
added another $2 million to the research program. $902 million.
And I'm simply asking for a measure of that amount to help provide
care and nourishment for our children. I believe it is appropriate to
eliminate a procedural, if you will, flaw that only speaks to the
timing of spending to be able to provide for the children of America.
That's what agriculture is all about: our farmers, our families who
need to eat good food, our undernourished and impoverished communities
which are aplenty.
As I spoke earlier today, those communities that are experiencing
disasters and those mothers who are now pregnant and who need access to
good food, we need to be able to not cut off in the State of Texas, in
my district, 40,000 or so individuals that will not be able to be part
of the WIC program because we're talking about a procedural flaw.
And so, Madam Chairperson, I am suggesting that this amendment is in
order, and I'd ask my colleagues to consider a waiver. But I'm also
asking the Chairwoman to rule in my favor so that the people of America
most vulnerable will have access to quality food and a healthy life.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the gentleman from
Georgia's point of order.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays
in the bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address
portions of the bill not yet read.
The point of order is sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
research and education activities
For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for
cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and
for other expenses, $600,800,000, as follows: to carry out
the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i),
$208,000,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research
(16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $30,000,000; for payments to
eligible institutions (7 U.S.C. 3222), $48,000,000, provided
that each institution receives no less than $1,000,000; for
special grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $1,250,000; for
competitive grants for Integrated Pest Management and
Biological Control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $14,000,000; for
competitive grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), $229,500,000, to
remain available until expended; for the support of animal
health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195), $4,000,000; for
a program pursuant to section 1415A of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3151a), $4,200,000, to remain available until
expended; for a higher education multicultural scholars
program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), $1,000,000, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for an education
grants program for Hispanic-serving Institutions (7 U.S.C.
3241), $7,800,000; for competitive grants for the purpose of
carrying out all provisions of 7 U.S.C. 3156 to individual
eligible institutions or consortia of eligible institutions
in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds awarded equally to each
of the States of Alaska and Hawaii, $2,700,000; for secondary
education, 2-year post-secondary education, and agriculture
in the K-12 classroom (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), $900,000; for
aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $3,300,000; for
sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C.
5811), $12,300,000; for a program of capacity building grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to institutions eligible to receive
funds under 7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222, $16,400,000, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to
the 1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public
Law 103-382, $2,800,000; for resident instruction grants for
insular areas under section 1491 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3363), $900,000; for distance education grants for
insular areas under section 1490 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3362), $750,000; for competitive grants for policy
research (7 U.S.C. 3155), $3,000,000; and for necessary
expenses of Research and Education Activities, $10,000,000,
of which $2,500,000 for the Research, Education, and
Economics Information System and $2,000,000 for the
Electronic Grants Information System, are to remain available
until expended.
native american institutions endowment fund
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note),
$11,880,000, to remain available until expended.
extension activities
For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, the Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $411,200,000, as follows:
payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever
Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said
Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for
retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension
agents, $259,200,000; payments for extension work at the 1994
Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)),
$3,600,000; payments for the nutrition and family education
program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act,
$58,000,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $8,400,000; payments for New
Technologies for Agriculture Extension under section 3(d) of
the Act, $1,400,000; payments to upgrade research, extension,
and teaching facilities at institutions eligible to receive
funds under 7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222, $16,700,000, to remain
available until expended; payments for youth-at-risk programs
under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $7,100,000;
payments for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable
Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.),
$3,400,000; payments for the federally-recognized Tribes
Extension Program under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act,
$2,600,000; payments for sustainable agriculture programs
under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,000,000; payments for rural
health and safety education as authorized by section 502(i)
of Public Law 92-419 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)), $1,500,000; payments
for cooperative extension work by eligible institutions (7
U.S.C. 3221), $36,000,000, provided that each institution
receives no less than $1,000,000; for grants to youth
organizations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 7630, $1,500,000; for
payments to carry out the food animal residue avoidance
database program as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 7642, $1,000,000;
and for necessary expenses of Extension Activities,
$6,800,000.
integrated activities
For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants program authorized under section 406 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626), including necessary administrative
expenses, $8,000,000, as follows: for a competitive organic
transition program, $4,000,000; and for the regional pest
management centers program $4,000,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, $760,000.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, including
[[Page H4179]]
up to $30,000 for representation allowances and for expenses
pursuant to the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4085),
$790,000,000, of which $2,000,000, to be available until
expended, shall be available for the control of outbreaks of
insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for control of
pest animals and birds (``contingency fund'') to the extent
necessary to meet emergency conditions; of which $16,000,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be used for the
cotton pests program for cost share purposes or for debt
retirement for active eradication zones; of which
$32,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
Animal Health Technical Services; of which $54,000,000, to
remain available until expended, shall be used to support
avian health; of which $4,200,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for information technology infrastructure;
of which $147,000,000, to remain available until expended,
shall be for specialty crop pests; of which, $9,000,000, to
remain available until expended, shall be for field crop and
rangeland ecosystem pests; of which $52,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for tree and wood pests;
of which $2,300,000, to remain available until expended,
shall be for the National Veterinary Stockpile; of which up
to $1,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
for the scrapie program for indemnities; of which $1,000,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be for wildlife
services methods development; of which $1,500,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for the wildlife damage
management program for aviation safety; and up to 25 percent
of the screwworm program shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That no funds shall be used to formulate
or administer a brucellosis eradication program for the
current fiscal year that does not require minimum matching by
the States of at least 40 percent: Provided further, That
this appropriation shall be available for the operation and
maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed
four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided
further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any
segment of the agricultural production industry of this
country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations
or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the
Department such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be
available only in such emergencies for the arrest and
eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of
animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance
with sections 10411 and 10417 of the Animal Health Protection
Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and sections 431 and 442 of the
Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772), and any
unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency
purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with
such transferred amounts: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law
(7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased
buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the
cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year
shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value
of the building.
In fiscal year 2012, the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be reimbursed to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.
buildings and facilities
For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $3,200,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 17, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 17, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, this amendment would restore $1
million to the Microbiological Data Program. Now, this is a USDA
program that collects and tests fruits and vegetables, domestic and
imported fruits and vegetables for bacteria that could cause illness
and even death. Recent tests have discovered salmonella and strains of
E. coli similar to that found in the German food supply that resulted
in the deaths of 24 people and which infected over 2,400. So this
amendment is important in order to protect the public from food-borne
pathogens that could make the public sick or that could put innocent
lives at risk.
I do urge your support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word and oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I'm continuing to study this. And you
know, fortunately, one of the great things about the open rule that
we've had is we've had a lot of good debate tonight, had a lot of
speakers. I think we broke the record tonight on the speech contest
about WIC. I'm not sure who Mr. Farr will be awarding, giving that
award to, but we had a lot of good contenders.
Mr. Clarke, unfortunately, I just, within the last minute, have seen
this, and I'm not sure that it will do what you're saying or what your
intention is, and so I'm going to oppose the amendment.
I will promise to work with you. It's a million dollar transfer, and
don't know that it accomplishes what you want. I don't know that it
doesn't accomplish what you want. And I don't necessarily think it
causes a big disruption in the bill either. But for right now, I'm
going to have to oppose it. And let me continue to research it, and
maybe as the process goes through we can see what we can do to work
with you and Mr. Farr on it.
{time} 2310
We are very concerned about food safety and the pathogens and the
situation in Europe, and we want to make sure that we're studying this
stuff very closely ourselves. So I reluctantly oppose it for the time
being.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment not
because it is unworthy, but because I believe that there are funds
elsewhere in the bill that could be used to cover the services and
research that the gentleman requests. I refer the gentleman to page 10,
the National Institute of Food and Agricultural Research and Education
Activities. Those activities include: for ag experiment stations,
$600,800,000; for grants payable to eligible institutions, $48 million,
provided that each institution receives no less than $1 million; for
special grants, $1.2 million; for competitive grants for integrated
pest management and biological control, $14 million; for competitive
grants, $229.5 million to remain available until expended.
This is sloshing with research dollars, sloshing. I think there's
plenty in this bill to cover the worthy research that the gentleman has
requested, so I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, the funding source that I'm
using to offset the cost of this amendment I believe won't undercut the
vital mission of this agency, unlike the other sources that have been
mentioned. However, I am willing to work with the majority on
negotiating a proper funding source. All I care, the bottom line, is
that the public is safe and that we are diligent and do the best that
we can to identify these bacteria sources that could make the public
sick.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman from California yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say that the concern that I have--again, not
having the advantage of being able to research things thoroughly, but
we're taking $1 million out of a $3 million account and putting it into
a $77 million account, and it just seems disproportional at this point.
I'm wondering if during the process there might be an opportunity to
emphasize that we want the Ag Marketing
[[Page H4180]]
Service to really be sure that they're following the E. coli situation.
That would be helpful. I certainly would be interested in doing that
and working with him, but I want to continue to oppose the amendment at
this point.
Mr. FARR. I share your concerns, but I'd certainly like to see what
we can do to accommodate my colleague.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
For necessary expenses of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, $77,500,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall
be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the
alteration and repair of buildings and improvements, but the
cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year
shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value
of the building. Fees may be collected for the cost of
standardization activities, as established by regulation
pursuant to law (31 U.S.C. 9701).
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 17, line 25, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,750,000)''.
Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,750,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment,
which is simply a 10 percent cut in the Agricultural Marketing Service
at the USDA.
This year, the Agricultural Marketing Service will be allocated $77.5
million for, as they state in their own Web site, ``administering
programs that facilitate the efficient, fair marketing of U.S.
agricultural products, including food, fiber, and specialty crops.''
Madam Chair, since I've been a Member of Congress, I have stated that
the marketplace, unencumbered, is the best way to control quality,
quantity, and cost of all goods and services. So we need to get the
encumbrances of the Federal Government off the marketplace, and this
will just take 10 percent. Our Nation's crops are no exception to this
rule.
Madam Chair, I think the USDA is not giving American farmers enough
credit. Our farmers are intelligent, resourceful men and women who know
the best ways to market their products here and abroad. Madam Chair,
when I was farming, I could market my products very well. I used to
farm--I wish I could get back to it, actually. Allow these farmers to
market their products without the government interference and use these
funds to reduce spending.
It's absolutely critical, Madam Chair, that we reduce the outrageous
spending that Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, have put in
place. As Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
recently said, the greatest threat to our security is this huge debt.
We absolutely have to cut spending, and this simple amendment would cut
10 percent out of this program and put it in the deficit reduction
package that is part of this bill.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this simple amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Madam Chair, this amendment would really
undercut the whole purpose that I was offering an additional $1
million: to help protect the American people from food-borne bacteria.
Over 2,400 people were infected in Germany by a strain of E. coli; 24
of them died. We don't want this to happen here in this country.
The gracious chairman, the gentleman from Georgia, and I agreed to
work something out to better protect the public. I'm just asking if
maybe you could withdraw this amendment to give us a chance to work out
something here.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment.
This is a big cut out of a very important program, just indicated by
Congressman Clarke from Michigan. For all the reasons he was trying to
increase the program, this amendment goes just the opposite way. It
knocks 10 percent of the money that's in the program out. There will be
no way that he can increase it with this and work out a deal. And for
all the reasons he indicated on food safety and issues like that that
are very, very important, we ought not risk the ability to respond to
those needs.
{time} 2320
So I think this amendment does harm, and it does more harm than the
good that it intends to do. That is the reason I oppose it, and would
ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I oppose the amendment.
I want to go back to the earlier theme I brought up when we were
discussing both WIC and the Chaffetz amendment earlier tonight. With
regard to what Dr. Broun is doing, I think there is 10 percent with
which you can make that argument there.
What we've been trying to do is to stack a card house on the Ryan
budget. That is the only budget that has passed one House. I will point
out again that the budget of the President of the United States failed
in the Senate 97-0. Similarly, three other budgets failed in the
Senate, and four other budgets failed in the House. There was a budget
that was offered that was further cut by the Republican Study
Committee, and then there were others that were less cut, the
Progressive Caucus', for example.
So one of the balancing acts that this committee is trying to
accomplish with this bill tonight is to reduce spending but also to get
218 votes to pass the bill so that we can continue this with the U.S.
Senate, which right now has not been able to pass one single
appropriations bill. They have been very remiss in their duty, so I
find myself having to balance some things that, if I were a free agent,
I would probably be voting for and some things I would be voting
against as I just told Mr. Clarke from Detroit in rejecting a $1
million transfer of account because I didn't know exactly what it did.
I want to keep that balance there.
So, with this, I am going to oppose the 10 percent reduction offered
by my friend and Georgia colleague, Dr. Broun.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. It appears from the text of this program, the Ag
Marketing Service, that the $77.5 million appropriated may be derived
from fees that are collected for the cost of standardization activities
as established by regulation, because, if you look on page 18, line 9,
it reads: not to exceed $61 million from fees collected shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative expenses.
My question then is: Is this a fee-for-service program rather than a
generally funded, taxpayer-funded program?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
[[Page H4181]]
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. The Ag Marketing Service actually gets that $77.5
million in appropriation, and in addition, has the ability to collect
up to $61 million in fees. If you think about it, that's not unusual in
this account. The FDA actually does the same thing. I think they get
over $1 billion in fees. So some of these accounts do get an
appropriation, and then they on their own can go out and get some fees,
not just to supplement them, but in some cases to almost match them as
the AMS has done.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
limitation on administrative expenses
Not to exceed $61,000,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)
(including transfers of funds)
Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity
program expenses as authorized therein, and other related
operating expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the
Department of Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife
Act of August 8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in
this Act; and (3) not more than $20,056,000 for formulation
and administration of marketing agreements and orders
pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
and the Agricultural Act of 1961.
payments to states and possessions
For payments to State departments of agriculture, bureaus
and departments of markets, and similar agencies for
marketing activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,331,000.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, $37,000,000: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
Not to exceed $47,500,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Food Safety, $689,000.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act,
including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances
and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved
August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $972,028,000; and in
addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from
fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as
authorized by section 1327 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f): Provided,
That funds provided for the Public Health Data Communication
Infrastructure system shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair
of buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any
one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10
percent of the current replacement value of the building.
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, $760,000.
Farm Service Agency
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Farm Service Agency,
$1,176,500,000: Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to
use the services, facilities, and authorities (but not the
funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make program
payments for all programs administered by the Agency:
Provided further, That other funds made available to the
Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and
merged with this account: Provided further, That funds made
available to county committees shall remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson
Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 21, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000'').
Page 46, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000'').
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, the Richardson amendment adds $10
million to the Commodity Assistance Program by reducing by the same
amount from the Salaries and Expenses section of the Farm Service
Agency, which will provide additional funding for the Commodities
Supplemental Food Program, which provides assistance to seniors who
have incomes at or below $14,157. Ninety-seven percent of all
Commodities Supplemental Food Program recipients are seniors who often
receive these as the only fresh food packages that might come to their
homes. Many of these seniors have no means of transportation to obtain
these products. These seniors also have very limited resources with
which to purchase the food that they need.
Madam Chairwoman, I don't understand why those in the majority would
believe that our seniors have caused our budget problems or, worse yet,
are able to fix our budget problems.
The Ryan budget proposes to make seniors pay an additional $6,000
out-of-pocket for their health care needs. Second, they increase the
prescription drug costs for our seniors by proposing to reopen the
Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole, which Democrats closed in the
last Congress. These are heartless legislative proposals that could
force 136,000 seniors in the Los Angeles area to pay an additional $1.3
billion for their prescription drugs over the next decade.
Now Food for Low-Income Seniors is under attack as well. Our seniors
deserve our support. They've earned it. Many of our seniors have served
our country overseas during World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Their
bravery and their sacrifices have made America the great country that
it is. Our seniors have worked hard all of their lives to provide for
their families. It is now our responsibility to help assist them.
Madam Chairwoman, the Commodities Supplemental Food Program was cut
by $37 million over fiscal year 2011 levels. This cut means nearly
81,000 low-income seniors will lose their monthly food assistance.
There are 6 million seniors who face the threat of hunger in this
country, and with 12,000 baby boomers turning 60 every day by 2025,
that number is expected to reach nearly the 10 million mark. There are
52,000 senior citizens in my district, the 37th Congressional District
in California, and between 10 and 20 percent of them depend on these
very programs.
The Richardson amendment restores $10 million in funding to the
Commodity Assistance Program, which will help to ensure that more of
our seniors will continue to receive food. We are talking about
something as basic as that--food--that our seniors would be able to
eat.
{time} 2330
I urge my colleagues to support the Richardson amendment and support
our seniors.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment and move to strike
the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to point out that FSA, the Farm Service Agency,
is already $181 million below the President's request and $32 million
below 2011. It has been trimmed a great deal. But also I wanted to
point out that we just accepted an amendment that increases the
Commodity Supplemental
[[Page H4182]]
Food Program by $5 million. The gentlewoman may not be aware of that--I
don't know if you were on the floor at the time. I know that doesn't
mean that you wouldn't offer your amendment anyway, but I just wanted
to point out that we did just increase it.
More importantly though, I have been in a mode of rejecting a lot of
amendments in the last couple of hours because this budget, this bill,
our 302(b) allocation is a reflection of the Ryan budget, which is the
only budget that has passed either body in its entirety. There were
budgets offered in the House that would have cut more, at least one.
There were other budgets that would have cut less or cut in different
directions. Yet the Ryan budget in the House or the Senate is the only
budget that has passed, and it is a card house. I know, as you know, if
we add to it we lose votes, and if we take from it we lose votes. For
that reason, I do oppose your amendment. But I understand your concern
here.
I want to point out, and I am sure the gentlewoman knows this, but a
senior who is 65 years or older is actually eligible for six different
Federal food programs, and it would certainly not be our intention to
have anybody fall through the cracks. I think there is a lot to be said
and some savings in combining the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
and the SNAP program, and maybe cut out some of the administrative
costs in order to increase the amount available.
Ms. RICHARDSON. If the gentleman would yield, might I point out that,
first of all, we would not be able to legislate on the floor having to
deal with this appropriation bill before us.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, don't we know full well on this
committee, because we have been champing at the bit to do a little bit
of authorizing, but the authorizing committees keep a pretty strong eye
on us. I certainly agree with that point.
Ms. RICHARDSON. I just want you to know I am watching and paying
attention carefully, sir. The other point I wanted to point out, as I
stated in my comments, $37 million has been cut over the fiscal year
2011, and given the $5 million that you did earlier accept, and I am
suggesting $10 million, we would still be suggesting only restoring
less than 50 percent from that level.
I would just urge you, sir, in these tough times, I understand in
future times, but in these tough times, not all other mechanisms could
help our seniors, again who are only making at or below $14,000, and
this would be a dire need, and I would strongly urge, please, your
reconsideration.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I do want to point out, and I am
sure the gentlewoman knows, that this bill actually does increase SNAP
$5.6 billion. Therefore, I think sometimes we do need to, even though
that is an authorizing issue, I think as a practical issue that is
something we need to explore and thrash about and make sure that we are
not under-serving somebody because of two programs that could be so
close that I don't know why we don't combine them. Again, I realize
that would be farm bill authority to do that. But SNAP did go up $5.6
billion because of the mandatory spending side of it.
I need to continue to oppose your amendment, but I would not slam the
door on looking at it as the process continues in the months ahead.
Hopefully, the Senate might start doing their job and passing
appropriations bills, and then we can get to conference without it
being part of an omnibus, because I think in a conference we are going
to do a lot better if it is just limited to agriculture and these
accounts.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. RICHARDSON. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
state mediation grants
For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$3,550,000.
grassroots source water protection program
For necessary expenses to carry out wellhead or groundwater
protection activities under section 1240O of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2), $3,605,000, to
remain available until expended.
dairy indemnity program
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
under a dairy indemnity program, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
such program is carried out by the Secretary in the same
manner as the dairy indemnity program described in the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law
106-387, 114 Stat. 1549A-12).
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and
operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land
acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), boll weevil loans (7
U.S.C. 1989), guaranteed conservation loans (7 U.S.C. 1924 et
seq.), and Indian highly fractionated land loans (25 U.S.C.
488) to be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund, as follows: $1,500,000,000 for unsubsidized
guaranteed farm ownership loans and $475,000,000 for farm
ownership direct loans; $1,500,000,000 for unsubsidized
guaranteed operating loans and $1,050,090,000 for direct
operating loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans,
$2,000,000; guaranteed conservation loans, $150,000,000;
Indian highly fractionated land loans, $10,000,000; and for
boll weevil eradication program loans, $100,000,000:
Provided, That the Secretary shall deem the pink bollworm to
be a boll weevil for the purpose of boll weevil eradication
program loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans and grants,
including the cost of modifying loans as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm
ownership, $22,800,000 for direct loans; farm operating
loans, $26,100,000 for unsubsidized guaranteed operating
loans, $59,120,000 for direct operating loans; and Indian
highly fractionated land loans, $193,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $268,634,000, of
which $260,730,000 shall be paid to the appropriation for
``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.
Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Program Account for farm ownership, operating and
conservation direct loans and guaranteed loans may be
transferred among these programs: Provided, That the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
Risk Management Agency
For necessary expenses of the Risk Management Agency,
$68,016,000: Provided, That the funds made available under
section 522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1522(e)) may be used for the Common Information Management
System: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).
CORPORATIONS
The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set
forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such
corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
(including transfers of funds)
For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary
to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net
realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15
U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the
Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11 of the
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i) for
the conduct of its business with the Foreign Agricultural
Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and used by
the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource
management activities of the Foreign Agricultural Service
that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation
business.
hazardous waste management
(limitation on expenses)
For the current fiscal year, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site
investigation and cleanup expenses, and operations and
maintenance expenses to comply with the requirement of
section 107(g) of the Comprehensive
[[Page H4183]]
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42
U.S.C. 9607(g)), and section 6001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6961).
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment, $760,000.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Broun of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________