claimed savings that this budget seeks to obtain through the 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 on the floor of the house, 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 mark that is tied to real, traditional supply and demand which the c.e.o. of exxonmobil is over-- told us is overpriced today by at least $20 or $30 a barrel. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. broun: i'm glad to hear he is concerned about the u.s.

navy's energy supplies and whether he was in favor of us starting to develop our own energy resources here in the united states. we have a tremendous amount of energy our creator has given us here in our 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 the 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, all these other things. and i hear this from my colleagues on the other side

about the f.t.c. and oil speculators and best way to have them lose money which they would do when they increase the price of oil by speculating on future prices is by producing more oil in this country. we have 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. i'm not one who is arguing for the speculators by any means. i believe in the marketplace. the marketplace is the best way to control quantity, quality 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 to the u.s. navy as well as to the federal government and everybody. lower the cost of gats lean at

the pump and develop our god-given resources that are plentiful in this country. but i have seen in three congresses that i have been here, my democratic colleagues block every effort to develop our own resources. in 2008, during the august break, talking about the republicans all of the above energy policy that a democratic staffer said the democratic party's energy policy would drive a small car and wait for the wind. that's not an energy policy. we need to develop the god-given resources we have in this country. lower the cost of gas at the pumps. lower the cost of heating oil, particularly for our elderly citizens that this winter are going to be suffering, suffering tremendously, economically,

because of the high cost of oil. it's not the speculators and f.t.c. that's going to do that, drilling for natural gas. it's going to be the solution. and i would just encourage my democratic colleagues to join with me and others on my side to let's develop these resources and not just talk about the f.t.c. or just talking about the regulations on the marketplace, because more regulation on the marketplace, the higher the cost goes. let's get the regulatory burden off the energy sector so we can develop our own god-given resources in this country. if the gentleman had been kind enough to yield, i would have asked him to -- congratulate him in being concerned about our u.s. navy and how many extra they are paying for oil, for all

the energy sources that our military sources has to spend. we have to stop this outrageous spending that the federal government has been doing and the way to do that is lower the cost of energy here and that will help everybody. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does gentleman rise? ms. kaptur: i rise to associate myself with congresswoman delauro and ranking member sam farr to point out the anemic funding that is contained in the base bill for the commodity futures trading corporation sm the republican bill reduces below the president's request by 44% the necessary funding for staff for the commodities

futures trading corporation 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-iti ninch-g. they come to the american people and they are very powerful and create new mechanisms and they don't call it betting, but they have a term, collateralized and from that they might derive a credit default swap.

in the book "all the devils are here" recounts, what we have is a wall street and chicago futures market has run awe mcwhere speculation and outright fraud led our country into the worst economic depression. make no mistake, these folks are very powerful and one of the most important trades that are involved in this 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 exxon mobil, over $10 billion more profits this year than last year and the list goes on. whether it's conoco at $2 billion, bp, 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, about it is up to $100 is actually due to speculation. even those involved in it are admitting they are crying for help, so let's give it to them. give them the help they want and need. this has been charged with shining a bright light into the dark recesses that wall street and the futures market would love us to ignore. in fact, the currency markets

got themselves exempted. huge sections of trade 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 cf tmpcrmp would not be affected by it. could it be the intended consequence of this restrictive funding proposal 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 for certain that the lack of regulation is the reason for our demise. we must make thur that the cftc is able to take on speculation in the markets. and no more more transparent market than this one in oil. when people go to the pumps and

cuss they should think of cftc that tried to regulate derivatives and were denied a vote right here by members of congress. and most didn't know what they were included -- were voting on because it was included in an omnibus appropriation bill. they must have a lot of power. if we look at a few years ago when they were worth $13 trillion. no one can imagine $13 trillion, but that derivatives market grew from the mid-1990's to the present where it was $40 trillion and 475 employees over at the cftc trying to figure out what was going on, well, today that market is over $600 trillion and 15 times more than before and there is not sufficient staff in order to

regulate these markets. it is pretty obvious where we need support. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> move to strike the last word. was was mr. chairman, i don't come to floor my more to debate -- mr. watt: i have changed my pattern, 18 years ago, 19 years ago when i saw egregious things i would be 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're not really listening to what anybody is saying. they are under a radical right under taking, falling off the right edge of the earth and they aren't listening to anything i say. they don't share my values and they don't really care about this debate that we had three 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 -- if we repeat it enough, feas got to be true -- it's got to be true and we convince american people if we keep saying it over and over again or they lie about it and

they have convenient memories that forget -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. fortenberry: the gentleman accused our side of lying, is that a cause for having his words taken down? the chair: all members will suspend. the clerk will report the words.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. watt: in the interest of time, some people have said i called somebody a liar and obviously that would be in violation of the rules, i'm

aware of that, if i did, i ask unanimous consent that those words be removed from the record. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from north carolina may proceed in order. mr. watt: can the chair tell me how much time remains in my five minutes? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has three minutes remaining of his five minutes. mr. watt: all right, let me try to pick up essentially where i was without offending anybody else. there are some conveniently forgotten items i think we need to be reminded of. number one, that president -- it was president bush who requested the government bailout that occurred on his

watch. it was president bush that was responsible for the tax cuts for the rich. -- 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 are 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 w.i.c. program system of these two things are really not disconnected from

each other. the three 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 are 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 specklation 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 the bait 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, two 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, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> it seems to me, if i'm the american people, watching this on c-span tonight, we have a very clear picture of the difference between what the republicans want and what the democrats want. mr. scott: 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 1930's and the depression. the american people, under the leadership of president george

bush and his treasury secretary paulsen, 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 and we passed the bill. what we have before us now is a continuation of a very misguided policy by the republicans. let me remind you of this same scenario that 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 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 yet, 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. speaker. that's what the american people watching tonight on c-span in this debate, and i hope they see a very clear message of who it is that is standing up for the american people at their time of need and there's no greater need than the -- 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 would not be able to have the staffing, so that we can go into the dark corners an ve vas -- ve vises -- and the crevices and be able to shine the light and find out

these speculators who are driving up gasoline prices to $5 a gallon. i hope that tonight after this debate the american people will clearly see who is on the side of the merp 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 are primary -- 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 speculateors and give the american people the day that they deserve, a better day in the sun. . the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from nebraska rise? >> move to strike the last word. mr. fortenberry: objection to the gentleman for the second time? the chair: without objection so ordered. mr. fortenberry: it is important to address the side. we have over 40 cents on the dollar is borrowed. we have $14 trillion of debt. this is a tough agricultural appropriations budget. i don't like it. the cftc is an important organization and does very important work. i think there are structural flaws in the commodities market. markets that are designed to decrease volatility and are

increasing volatility and causing risk. but the issue is what are we going to prioritize and where. the c fmptmp c since the recklessness since the bailouts that were voted on, has received 53% in its funding. it's being asked to share in the overall budget of reducing the overall cost 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 have to try to tighten our belt in a responsible manner and given the increases, it's important to have historical perspective. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise?

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: i took corporate officials for a tour on the city's east side and there were big beautiful brick homes, three and four-bedroom homes and when you got up closer, you realize that none of them had windows, none of them. there were blocks and blocks and acres and miles of neighborhoods who have been devastated, devastated. now i'm a member of the homeland security committee. my duty is to protect metro detroit from terrorist

attackers, tornadoes, or some other natural disaster. but it wasn't a flood or a fire that destroyed those neighborhoods. they were devastated because of for example, for example that this body that i accused when i was a member of the michigan legislature of not addressing of the housing crisis, but foreclosures that were caused by a lot of rich folks around here gambling, wishing, betting that homeowners would lose everything that they have. what kind of country do we have? they make billions of dollars to bet on americans losing everything they have. come on, people. we want folks to get rich

because families lose their home and other families lose their entire life savings. this is why i ask us to support this amendment because the commodity futures trading commission needs more staff and more resources and some of you say we can't afford it, but look at the cost, the cost to our families, the cost to our governments that can no longer afford to hire police and fire, cost to our taxpayers who are in fear of living in crime. i urge all of you to support the delauro amendment. it's something that we need. and it's right for this country. we are about people making money, but making money off of producing things that help

people, that uplifts society, not destroying neighborhoods. please, i'm appealing to the best of you, support this amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. >> parliamentary inquirey, mr. speaker. mr. kingston: isn't it true we do support the amendment? the chair: the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquirey. ms. castor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. castor: i rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill and in support of the did he lallo amendment. mr. chairman, hard working families have been whip sod in recent years by wall street and

special interests who have had free rein to place bets on future oil prices and we fought back. we fought back when we passed the wall street reform law. and it protects consumers. taxpayers should never ever again being left on the hook for wall street's reckless action. and yet by g.o.p. colleagues propose to do that. let wall street off the hook and put consumers at risk again. this bill significantly suts the cftc. it's a major piece of the major landmark reform because it puts cops into the financial beat where areas where they were largely unsupervised. and you know who suffered?

american families suffered the firsthand consequences of unsupervised and unregulated wall street. and now they are proposing a real double whammy to the american family because my republican colleagues are putting americans at risk with their g.o.p. plan to end medicare as we know it and undermine retirement security. i would have hoped we learned the lesson in that you do not return to the policies of the past that led to the financial meltdown and economic hardship for all americans. but 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 that started back in 2007? i'll tell you why. i have an article that was

published during the debate of the wall street reform legislation dated december 8, 2009, the headline reads, house republicans huddle with lobbyists to kill house reform bill. in a call to arms, house republican leaders met with more than 100 lobbyists on tuesday afternoon to try to fight back against financial overhaul legislation. now in another article, written during the consideration of h.r. 1, the headline reads, industry looks to derile dods dodd-frank enforcement. republicans make no bones about their goal. our landmark wall street reform law that was put in place to protect consumers. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter these articles

into the record the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentlewoman's insertion will be covered under general leaf. ms. castor: who is being represented here in the nation's capital? do we come to represent the people or do we come here to represent the special interests and the high flying finners of wall street that have caused so much damage. the financial meltdown caused many people to lose their savings, pensions and homes and i have had six foreclosure work shops since 2008 and these were middle-class americans, our neighbors and we are here to fight for them and not to those who caused damage to the economy. but since january, under this new majority, day after day we have to come to the floor 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, big oil gets to keep its tax break and companies get breaks for exporting job overseas. they have not brought one bill to create jobs and instead thinks it's wise to undermine the economic security for american families and medicare and take the cop off the beat. mr. chairman, i think it is time for representatives to represent their neighbors back home and get their priorities back in order and put interests before the special interests on wall street. i yield back. the chair: the the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i strongly oppose the underlying bill and 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 their necessities for them for both women, infants and children to lead healthy lives. we are on to another issue that is extraordinarily important in the 1990's, the idea of deregulation was expanded throughout the 2000-2008 period so much so we had the financial meltdown. we had wall street running wild, gambling, gampling 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 $30 trillion, $40 00 trillion to over every day across the wall street particularrers radios the wires and in the back room of the hedge funds and the big banks, $300 trillion is traded back and forth, risk that is not backed up. tass the great crap shoot in the alley of wall street. $300 trillion. where's the money? where's the enforcer to make sure the bet against greece, the bet against the price of oil, who's going to back that up?

it's not there. i9 is the shell game of all shell game. i was the insures commissioner and we understood a couple of things clearly. that is, if an insurance company is 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 1930's, the commission was established to make sure that if bets were made, somebody would be able to pay if that bet would pay if that was paid off off. we are now learning. 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 futures market. we are betting that things are going to work out that this $300 trillion is somehow going to work out ok. we learned in 2008 and 2007 that it doesn't work out ok. literally collapsing the entire financial market of the world. ok, speculation, let it rip. we did that once before. it is insanity to assume that this time it's going to work out ok. 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 this money. we need the systems in place to make sure that this derivative market is adequately regulate sod that we do not once again find this nation bailing out or falling into a great recession and depression yet again. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: i don't think so. i suspect i'm pretty much out of time. let us understand what's at stake here. s 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, we know from the c.e.o. of exxon, that some $20 of the $100 per barrel oil price today is

speculation. we can take a look at other markets where speculation is running rampant ands the commodity future trading commission specifically under dodd-frank required to rein in the excesses of the market to end the speculation to ultimately make a rational market out there for the futures market. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the plans of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield to the gentleman, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman and wanted to point out to my friend from california, the number of people keep speaking about the delauro amendment. we accept the delauro amendment. i'm not sure the folks over there who are speaking for the delauro amendment have read the

delauro amendment. if they would, they would know it does nothing to restore the funding. and i'll be glad to yield to my friend from california, i understand your speech all right but that's not what the amendment did. the chair: the gentleman from florida controls the time. >> i reclaim and will yield. mr. garamendi: the underlying bill does not provide the necessary money for the commodity futures trading corporation commission to conduct the necessary oversight and regulations to adequately control the derivative market. are we in agreement on that? mr. kingston: we're not in agreement with that and i did not support the dodd-frank bill. the gentleman sounds like he's

studdied the cftc, but as you know, on the many rules they're planning to implement under dodd-frank, some were implied under dodd-frank and not specifically laid out. a number of them have no cost-benefit analysis. a numb of them will strap american companies and not the asian or european markets and the reason why that's important is that if you are a market, it's not like a manufacturing plant where you're making automobiles or cars or tanks or something like that, what the commodities business has more, you change the rules in the international marketplace and american companies have to deal with things at one level and their asian and european counterparts and competitor yoss don't have to, they're going to go overseas. this is the one-year anniversary of the summer of recovery when i guess we were, i'm not sure what we were celebrating last year, because

the jobs were not created but this runs off jobs and that's what we're concerned about. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield -- mr. kingston: this year they want to put in 36 regulations, they average four a year before. i'm concerned about the cost ben in it fnl -- benefit analysis, i'm concerned that american companies will have different rules than their competitors, i'm concerned about the way the rule making sequences is going, the gentleman knows there's a lot of terms they haven't defined, who is a swap dealer, major swap dealer and participant. i'm not trying to filibuster. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield. mr. kingston feather let me yield back to the gentleman from florida. >> i reclaim my time. if you would, allow me to speak for a second. states and counties and cities

have figured out they don't have the money to spend. america's got to figure out, the federal government has got to figure out that we in fact have to cut spending. i hear this all the time that we have a debt of $14 there will an a deficit of $1.4 trillion, we hear the same arguments but we never hear how are we going to do it. other than one gentleman that said, we need to raise taxes. that's the answer to all 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 worked harder with less. and 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. mr. nugent: i think what the american people are -- i will not yield. what the american people told us back in november is that we have got to get our house in order. we have got to get our spending under control. it's not about taxing us to death, it's 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. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hirono: i am 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 a result of some very bad bets. bets made by wall street firms in the unregulated, $300 trillion derivative market. the bankruptcy of lehman brother the collapse of the mortgage market, and the bailout of a.i.g. and other firms are all a result of these bad debts. the the 14 million unemployed, the still weak job market and the tremendous los of hard-earned home equity and retirement savings are also a result of these bad debts. that's why we work sod hard last congress to pass the dodd-frank wall street reform

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 roll the dice with taxpayers ending up holding the bag. cftc's new response b89s are important and so is the -- responsibilities are important and so is the job they already do. the current role of cftc is to regulate the commodity futures market 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 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% of our food and 90% 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. i'm strongly opposed to underfunding cftc. the cop on the beat that watches out for price manipulation. without a strong cftc, prices will increase for 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, exxon's 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 country from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices and systemic risk, we need to fully fund the president's request for cftc. it not only cuts $30 million from the current cftc budget, it seeks to deny the agency the vital resources 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 a $14 trillion debt. 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 rest of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i'm really saying to myself, who are they kidding? they're saying that this effort to cut the cftc is for deficit purposes because all deficits have to be cut in the name of cutting the deficit. mr. pallone: you have to look at everything, every cut and agency in terms of what it actually does. we know what the g.o.p. is up to. the republican side with big banks and wall street and big insurance companies and big oil and against the middle class and so here we go again, they're siding with the wall street speculators and the profiteers by cutting the cftc. what does the cftc do? it's responsible for policing commodities trading and speculation. last week we were at home, we

weren't in session, and what did i hear from my constituents? all of them very concerned about the price of oil going up and about the price of food going up and so you basically are taking money out of the middle class people's pockets, the average american has to pay more for oil because of speculation and more for their food. and it hurts the economy because the people have to pay more money for that than industry, for example, does -- has to pay more if they want to function because the oil costs more and it's a down -- it has a downward effect on the economy. it not only impacts individual people in 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. you know, the agriculture appropriations bill reduces cftc fund big $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 treat. the end result is higher gas prices and higher food prices. everyone else pays at the pump and the grocery store. the speculators treat the markets like it's casino but the risk of another market meltdown is harm to everyone else. now 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 crth by slashing its funding so much it would forcely aoffs of 1/3 to 1/2 of its

staff. the -- they're not doing this because they're trying to save money, save the taxpayers' money, trying to reduce the deficit, they're doing it because they want to cripple this agency, force layoffs of 1/3 to 1/2 of its staff. and 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, leverage positions, future markets, buying long and buying short, these are foreign to many americans but it's a vocablary of practices that can be abused as easily as they are used. most meshes know that allowing wall street bankers to run wild contributed to financial chaos and the recession. what they need to know now and what we're stressing more and more on this 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 they go home, didn't you hear about complaints about higher gas prices?

didn't you hear about 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 to us stand up for the speculators. they don't want to us stand up for those people that cause 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 of 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? 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, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this underlying bill muzzles the federal watchdog agency now responsible for regulating agriculture, energy and financial markets. mrs. davis: while letting speculators run loose. by cutting 44% from the if the's budget request for the -- for the president's budget request for the cftc that we've been talking about, we're saying it's ok, it's just ok 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 option markets are complicated systems, we know that. they require a complicated skill set to understand. and 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. so 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. well, if the last five 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. what's 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, please review this bill carefully and join me in opposition and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> 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. mr. tonko: 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 regulaters in charge of overseaing wall street speculators, the -- overseeing wall street speculators, 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 speculaters 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 mane make many on wall street

extremely witch but their gains become 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 $67.5 cents due to speculation. -- 67.5 cents due to its speculation. president obama has asked for increasing investment on cop count on the beat of speculators. not only does the republican bill reduce the president's request, but ends up providing less funds than we have available this year. all while 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% of the market to nearly 70% today.

even oil executives admit that oil prices are higher than they should be with exxon c.e.o.'s 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% of oil traders betting on rising prices are speculators while about 12% of those debts 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 rough shod over our walts and -- our wallets and family budgets. that's why i commend my colleague from connecticut for her leadership on this issue and implore this body to raise the number of cops on the beat who wins in this scenario? the profit-rich oil industry who is on base to make over $100 billion in profits this year? 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 reign that keeps driving up prices. we cannot keep mindlessly handing billions of tax breaks to big oil companies that 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 command 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 to pension to make a real impact -- potential to make a real impact on our energy costs and our wallets and will create jobs in the process. with that, mr. chair, i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i rise to support the gentlelady from connecticut's amendment and thank her for a vision. i thank my good friend from georgia who is the chairman of this committee and i thank the manager who is represented -- has represented our good friends very well tonight. i thank them for their courtesy 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 and

agricultural department and the work that the agricultural 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? commodities future trading commission is that arbiter, it is the implementtater, 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 in america 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 who you cannot see. you couldn't find a speculator if you tried. and that is the purpose of a commodity trading commission. it is to find the individual 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 a-- degree of poverty. states and districts that in

essence have individuals who do not eat, he for. who have to -- for example, who have to borrow from one payment or one bill to take care of another need. so maybe the electric bill does those or the home mortgage or the rent so they can actually feed their family. 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 anymore 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 have not --

cannot understand their life until you talk to them one-on-one. when they get their benefits this they've worked so hard for and they have to partial 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 and 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 cost 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 believe that as bad as it is, how sympathetic we are and how we know 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 steady the economy. do you think they'll be hiring with 600 jobs thrown out of the commodities commission that is supposed to regulate, to ensure that consumers can get the best deals? that if you do get a job you can pay for the gasoline? 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 arguing against and elimination of $136 million to devastate this commission so consumers cannot be protected. mr. chairman, it's time to recognize who is boss and i like the american people being a boss. i'm going to stand with the good boss and fight for them to be protected. and this bill does not do that. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. walz: i would like to yield time to the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: war i don't know buff et -- warren buffet fs said these positions generated losses that the federal government bailed out wall street to prevent an economic collapse sm the cost of the bailout was $800 billion. by commoosing to not sufficiently 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 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 financial collapse. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to think they are talking serious i about deficit reduction, about a country going broke and what

they are here to do is save money of the trying to $130 million, why don't we once again take a look at the $8 billion that we sploid for agricultural subsidies, not to small farms like dairy farms but the big ag ra business. what about the $8 billion to corporations to take their businesses overseas. why don't we close that loopholes. speculating, driving up the costs so american taxpayers cannot a forward to go to work, can't afford to get their kids to school. this is what this is about. if you are seriously, do not extend the tax cuts to the 1% wealthiest. that costs $750 billion, none of which is paid for. it only adds to the deficit. you do not want to spend $130

million tonight. this is a false construct. the people see what you are doing and it is about protecting banks, and about protecting the oil interests and billion 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 for their families. i yield back. mr. walz: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise. ms. delauro: i have i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. delauro, page 2, line 14 after the dollar amount insert reduced by $200 million. reduce by $300,000. ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted as read. the chair: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. 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 frr several of the administrative accounts, office of the secretary, the

chief economist, budget and program analyst, office of communication and general counsel. the intent is that it will be used to protect the american public from e. coli. this is something we have to do. our primary responsibility as the people's representative is to protect the health and safety of american families and current funding level for the f.d.a. puts these at risk. food-borne knilness account for 100,000 hospitalizations and 100,000 deaths. one in every six americans become sick from the very food they eat each year. specific to e. coli, well over 200,000 sicknesses every year are because of this food-borne back terial sickness and a

serious outbreak is also very real. in europe, we are witnessing such a lethal outbreak. in germany, hundreds have been infected and thousands have become sick. just this morning, a two-year-old boy died from kidney failure as a result of e coli poisoning which was from raw bean sprouts. the fatal outbreak could 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 been contaminated from flute loops to spa getty-o's s. and we passed the legislation to

pass higher standards. this legislation would undue all of these overdue and much needed improvements. it ties the hands of the f.d.a. and ensures it will not have the funding to enforce the act or to mandate and guard against contaminated foods. we will be stuck with the status quo and people will continue to become sick. we should be improving our food safety system right now. for example, the g.a.o. issued a report highlighting the short delem comings to ensure the safety of imported safety. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to restore $1 million in funding to food safety efforts. we should be doing more, not less, to keep our kitchen tables safe. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield back?

the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. kingston: i rise in opposition to this the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: food safety we place a high priority on and very concerned about and we have been watching this situation in europe detail as well concerned and prayers with the people who have suffered and who have died. i want to read a quote that secretary of usda said yesterday and i will just quote, secretary tom vilsack said he is confident that the u.s. consumers won't face the same e. coli outbreak now in germany. and we are 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, has been cut in half. and i will put that into the record. i want to say, i do have concerns about the f.d.a. implementation of food safety. we hear quite often that 48 million people have suffered from food-borne illnesses. and while we are concerned about that, only 20% of these are from known pathogens. 60% come from neurovirus and how do we address this? the c.d.c., the neurovirus, the

appropriate hand hygiene is the sing the most important method to prevent transmission. reducing the virus on hand is accomplished by thorough hand washing with running warm water and soap. f.d.a., 630-page budget request, there is not one single mention of the virus. 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% of the illnesses are from neurovirus. second highest cause is from salmonella and under the authority that the f.d.a. had before the modernization act and under the authority that f.d.a. has right now, they enlisted the

rule. according to its own press release, f.d.a. said as many as 79,000 deaths 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 knilness cost from cross streeting. and there is one time in f.d.a. budget request as it was related to food. f.d.a.'s 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. the c.d.c. statistics, which we got through hearings, goes back to that 48 million food-borne ill necessaries, 128,000 hospitalizations and high numbers. if you look at 311 million americans eating three meals a day, that would be 933 million meals eaten each daily or 340 billion eaten each year. if you do the math on this, the food safety rate is 99.9% safe. why is that relative relevant. something is working without the f.d.a. and without the nanny state saying we are in charge of everything. and that is the nanny sector. 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 and it would be hard for me to believe that some of the leading companies in america such as burger king or coca-cola have anything on their mind except for food safety. and so, i appreciate the gentlewoman offering this amendment, but it's only $1 million and if it was a serious amendment, certainly it would be more than that. but based on what we have seen for i don't think it will do anything. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. ms. delauro: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut will be postponed. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. amendment number 156. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. after the dollar figure, insert increase by $25 million. page 5, line 5, after the dollar figure, insert reduce by $25 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished chairman and i also thank the distinguished chairman from georgia for i'm hoping will be inclined to

recognize the importance of this amendment and work with those of us who are interested in helping -- 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 wine crease the availability of -- would increase the availability of affordable, healthy food in underserved urban and rural areas and as well particularly through the development of equipment of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers. we call these food deserts and the reason why i'm 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. and 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 convenient stores and as i indicated before, those fast foods come from, if you will, the places where the expiration

date are sometimes way over of the time of expiration. according to the center for disease control and prevention 80% of black women and 67% of black men are overweight. african-american children from low income families have a much higher risk of obesity. why? because there is no access or limited access to good food. the c.d.c. also estimates that african-american and mexican american adolescents are more likely to be overweight at 21% and 23% 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 of between 1,000 and 8,000 low income residents with 33% of the people living more than a mile from a grocery

store. according to a foundation, 32% 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 funding nirktive -- initiative will provide healthy foods to affected neighbors. we can help farmers and 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 doll 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 the 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 live in 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, farmers 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 the picture of green vegetables inspires us to support this amendment, i'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i yield

back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? 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 chair: the gentleman will suspend. does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of order? mr. kingston: i continue to reserve. and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. kingskidges the reason -- mr. kingston: the reason is that the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 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 and this only does one of those and i know the gentlewoman has worked very hard on this and that was intent but because the budget authority and the outlays both have to be considered, that's what the problem is under rule 21. i know the gentlewoman is an

expert in this, has put a lot of time and compassion in it and it's something that the committee is not turning our back 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 and i appreciate her conviction on that and i wanted to explain that. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i would. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: first of all, let me thank the ranking member, mr. farr, and 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 it -- 23.5 million individuals who live in food dess err the -- deserts. what i would make the argument in speaking to the point of

order and particularly procedurally, of course, is that you know it was a challenge to be able to frame language that would allow us to address this crisis. and 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 polled. we want to give discretion to the office of the secretary to not leave places like this think a just lifted up, disasters, now suffering from not having access to food. i 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'd yield to the gentleman. mr. kingston: i reluctantly have to insist on the point of order. it's scored c.b.o. 5ds million and that -- $5 million and that is beyond my authority to waive anything. it's not a numerical thing. ms. jackson lee: do you have an interest in working together? the chair: if the gentleman will suspend is there any other member who wishes -- mr. kingston: we'll see what we can do, not fully versed on it, but the gentlewoman knows that the door is always open in my office and we'll continue to work with you but i do have to insist on the point of order. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the matter. to be considered en bloc, pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21, an amendment must not propose to increase the level ofs of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas proposes a net increase in the level outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations and may not avail itself to

address portionings of the bill not yet read. the point of order is therefore sustained, the amendment is -- amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 2, line 18, office of tribal relations, $423,000. executive operations, office of the chief economist, $10 million -- the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. we have not yet reached that point in the reading. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: executive operations, office of the chief economist, $10,707,000. national appeals division, $12,091,000. office of budget and program analysis, $8,400 -- $8,004,000.

office of advocacy and outreach, $1,209,000. office of the chief information officer, $35 million. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska, page 3, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the following, reduce by $1 million. page 39, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the following, increase by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman voiced -- the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: thank you. 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% 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% 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 would 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 institution -- institutional process. we could have done much better for the american people, both democrats and republicans. so the reality is, thanks 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 have -- to offer an amendment that invests in renewable energy in rural america. clearly america need as 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 program stimulates rural economies and creates job. this promotes energy efficiency and rural 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 in our interests to help rural communities integrate a wide variety of renewable energy sources and technology as we move towards energy independence and environmental security. new signs in energy production are booming, mr. chairman. this amendment strengthens congress' resolve to develop new energy options and i urge its adoption. i thank my colleague, mr. walz, for his commitment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. walz: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise?

king kings move to strike the last -- mr. kingston: move to strike the last word. we accept the amendment with reservations. my friend has been working hard on this amendment particularly in the last five hours. but we had a debate on this and ms. kaptur offered an amendment that restored funding to the 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 can restore it. i'm not sure what $2 million in that account will do. i do support renewable energy, but i will say 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. but i'm very serious about eliminating as many programs as possible. we need to continue talking about that. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. walz: i move to strike the last word. i would like to thank the gentleman from georgia for his general rossity to us and we certainly understand the position you are coming from and i think it is probably a small amount of money, but all of us recognize the need to send a strong, clear signal of the importance of these programs to the senate and let them look at it. i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. i 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 america, and it is a small amount, but i thank ms. kaptur for putting it back into this community. farmers in my zriket use guarantees to cut their bills. it allows farmers and small businesses to move our country by building geothermal and cutting-edge technologies that were funded by this. all of us recognize it is far better for us to get our energy needs and control our energy future instead of putting our energy security in the mands of countries that don't like us. wre spend $400 billion on imported oils. we can keep the money at home, investing in diversity that keeps the jobs at home. and i want to say i have seen

this through the supply chain in my district that the spinoff from these jobs in the private sector is valuable. unfortunately, while this amendment is a good one, the underlying bill reflects the priorities of rural america. our farmers and ranchers understand that we have to tighten our belts and cut our budgets and become more efficient. i think this piece of legislation puts a burden on those who are doing so much for this country. 25% cut over the bill is irresponsible. it, in fact, i would argue, it doesn't ensure that the safety net is there. that abundant food supply that we are talking about will be put in jeopardy. it takes money from nutrition programs and strips the cftc of its critical resources to get rid of bad behavior.

i believe it gives a way to move towards energy independence. i have seen this programs and it lets us take control of our energy future and lets us get back on the path of prosperity. i thank the gentleman. and i thank the gentleman from georgia for indulging us and hearing us and let us put it forward. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3, line 20, office of the chief financial officer, -- >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 3, beginning

line 22, strike the provision relating to fair act or circular a-76 activities. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, know that the million has 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 in-sourcing language which as drafted would prevent the funds spent by this bill from being used to conduct public-private competitions in order to direct oonchhafe 76 for any program,

project or activity within the department of agriculture without a contracting report to congress by the secretary. two weeks ago, the house voted in favor of striking similar problematic anti-a-76 language from h.r. 2017, department of homeland security appropriations bill. the same change and reversal of bad policy which undertook at that time should be implemented in this legislation by striking this anticompetitive free market language. the a-76 process provides a valuable option for taxpayers and requires real competition. a former assistant director at usda managed information technology programs at the department. mr. kingsbury implemented a-76 by transinging to the first performance-base the management

organization sbn within the organization and resulted in $100 million of savings. without the ability to add competitive in-sourcing, ballooning deficits and out of control spending will continue in our government. it is time that congress gives all solutions to save taxpayers and the managers of the business of the government their hard-earned money. the heritage foundation has reported that subbing federal employee positions which are in commercial to a private-public comparison will have a cost savings regardless of who wins that competition. rather than market come pigs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to services of this great nation. the role of government should be to govern, not to operate

businesses with inside the government. our nation's unemployment rate stands at 9.1%. we must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage. we must get more money for -- we must get more results for our money. i urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer first amendment and ensure that it is available to the managers within this agency. congress should be looking to use all the tools it can find to help save taxpayer dollars and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: claim time in opposition and strike the last word. i rise in op cyst to this bill because if it ain't broken, don't fix it. this has been the law for a long

time and allows our committee and the public to know what the a-76 circular review did. report is on the department's contracting out policies and its budgets 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. we always received the report allowing the activities to proceed. hasn't stopped anything. the language requires the 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 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 and we ended up where the city could provide the base operations

services much cheaper than the federal employees on the base saving $4 million for the year and much better services. delivering this report to congress hasn't been a problem for anyone and it ain't broke and i don't think we ought to fix it with mr. sessions amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from particulars as. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. recorded -- gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. continue to read. the clerk: line 5, office of the assistant secretary for civil

rights, $760,000. office of civil rights, $19 ,288,00, 6838,000. agriculture -- the chair: twrop the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments, $2019,505,000. mr. farr: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page five -- mr. farr: waive the reading. i'm offering this amendment to move funding from the agriculture building and

facilities and rental payment account and investing that in the organic agriculture initiative. it is very important and growing sector of our farm and ranch community. it has continued to grow at double-digit rate. since congress passed the organic act in 1990. the office collects and disseminates data regarding organic data. the national agricultural sector service. it should have the same access available to all agriculture, a building block to u.s. agriculture economy. as the industry surpasses $29 billion, this information is vital to maintain stable markets, create proper risk management tools and negotiate agreements with foreign agreements. it is imperative we continue to

collect the information gained by o.d.i. it collects organic prices and disseminates it through the marketing reports. it conducts surveys and collects data used by the census of -- for the census of agriculture. it publishes consumer survey marketing, recent trends from farms to consumers in 2009 and continues to produce reports which use the data collected by the organization in addition to surveying americans about their organic consumption patterns. this amendment is needed for the following reasons. it needs to continue to expand organic price reporting services to more commodities and price points and distribute the data through market news. the data will be conducting more information on organic production on the next census and fooded to understand the

size of the organic industry and create risk management tools. it is continuing analysis and expanding to include economic organic trade data needed in expanded export markets. the president's fiscal year budget 2012 requested $300,000 specifically for a.m.s. to continue the collection and distribution of the data. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to continue the organic data initiative. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. farr: i ask for a recorded

vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. >> mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. mr. broun: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment simply reduces by 10% the amount for agricultural buildings, facilities and recommend 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 their hard work and ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that we insert his written statement into the record at this point.

the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. speaker, we're 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 deficits, 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 difficult decisions that 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's been going on here in

washington on a democrat as well as republican leadership and i encourage a yes vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i normally wouldn't oppose this because it cuts from the county that i just tried to cut from but i only cut $300,000 to pay for something. this amendment cuts $20 million and pays for nothing. i just think that that's not very good proposition. we have an awful lot of facilities that are around this country, agriculture is everywhere, every single state, almost every congressional district. i happen to represent the leading agricultural state in the united states, california, and 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 and i know this is an account that's easy to be offset and i tackled the same account myself but since the gentleman opposed my amendment, i think it's only good prokyo that i oppose hits -- quid pro quo that i oppose his. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. broun: madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 5, line 21,

hazardous materials management, including transfers of funds, $3,393,000. departmental administration including transfers of funds, $23,900,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman has two amendments. would you clarify which amendment? mr. clarke: yes. madam chair, this would be amendment designated as clarke number 5. amends page 6 and page 46 of the bill. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan, page 6, line 1 1, insert after the dollar amount the following, reduce by $5 million. page 46, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the following, increase by $5 million. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman arise? mr. clarke: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading requirement. the chair: are there objections? the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, madam chair. this amendment would restore $5 million to the women, infant and children, farmers market nutrition program. and this would allow low income pregnant women, low income women who have just given child birth to purchase food from a farmers market or 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 area that i represent in the city of detroit where you don't really have that many markets around. many times teams, even -- families, even young mothers, have to go to gas stations and drug stores just to purchase

groceries and that's not acceptable. that really encourages poor eating habits, poor nutrition and 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, it's very cost effective and it provides low income mothers and their children with good nutrition and that's the best medicine for health care, to help get better nutrition, to prevent you from getting sick. the other thing, too, throughout this entire debate on this budget, many of the speakers would say that those that benefit from these programs, low income women, infant children, really don't have a voice.

so many of us here in congress have to be their voice. well, i'd like to say, though, that the people who have benefited from these programs do have a voice. my mother, selma clarke, was a single parent, she raised me, she was a child of the great depression and ironically during the great depression she passed out on her school classroom because of malnutrition. during the 1930's, times were very dire in the city of detroit. well, you know, she was experiencing tough economic times all the while i was growing up as a young kid, as a teenager, but 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. and i want to say this, not just

about this amendment, but about the role of government. 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're so great because we understand the value of pulling our tax dollars together to help each other. that makes this country stronger, it provides everyone, everyone with an equal opportunity. that's what makes this country one of the most extraordinary in modern civilization. so i ask you for $5 million, let's give every child that same chance. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. kingston: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i want to ask my friend if he's planning to offer

his other amendment. don't you have another related amendment? mr. clarke: well, it relates to a different issue, it deals with food safety and that comes right after this. it doesn't amend page 6 as well. mr. kingston: so you don't have anything else on this section of the bill? mr. clarke: at least not dealing with this specific subject matter. do i have an amendment that amends this same page, pame 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: let me consult with our staff here.

mr. kingston: i wanted to explain to my friend about it, i'm uncertain about this current amendment but that departmental account, as unglamorous as they are to all of us, has been cut about 15% and then this cuts it and the food safety amendment will cut it as well and so that's what my dilemma is at the moment. and i'm sure -- i don't know if anybody over there has actually heard from the department, i'm assuming they're going to be -- i also want to point out to my friend, one of the things i think our authorize friends should do is combine this program of food stamps anyhow because there is duplication and

overlap. mr. farr, i yield to you. mr. farr: can i strike the last word? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has the floor. mr. kingston: let me yield to you and then if -- mr. farr: you yield to me and i'll send my currier over to consult with you. -- courier over to consult with you. the concern here is that this amendment double dips in the same account. and maybe we can work something out here. mr. broun took money out of this account, i took money out of this account. the chair: the gentleman from california has been yielded time.

does the gentleman from georgia wish to reclaim his time? mr. kingston: i do, madam chair. and wanted to say to mr. far, if i could yield time to -- mr. farr, if i could yield time to mr. hanson from michigan. i think we're -- or mr. clarke. the chair: mr. clarke from michigan has been yielded time by the gentleman from georgia and he has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. clarke: -- mr. kingston: i actually want to say something, we were talking earlier about some of the overlaps in these federal food assistance programs and to me this is the case where this is a program where there's a lot of overlap with food stamps and we should look at that, realizing that that's the authorizing committee's jurisdiction, not much i can do more than comment on it. but let me yield to you. mr. clarke: thank you very much.

and i would ask for a vote on this. the chair: does the gentleman -- mr. kingston: i withdraw my objection and we accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment. the clerk: page 6, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the following, reduce by 2,980,8000, insert, increase by

2,395,00. mr. young: this amendment is quite simple. it reduce the f.d.a.'s budget used by general administration and miss supplies, unquote. this is so broadly defined that washington bureaucrats could use this as a gift card for miss expenses. my amendment would put over $2 million of the money back into the spending reserve account to reduce our federal deficit and that will lead to future tax is and future lower taxes and future lower unemployment rate. i was sent here by indiana to focus like a laser on creating jobs to get our federal spending under control and quiche our tax burden low and will serve to

businesses and all that works r work for them. it has been my mission and it has been the focus of many of my colleagues. this amendment advances this mission by trimming more bureaucratic fat from washington. and to all job creators that we in congress are serious about cutting unnecessary spending wherever we can find it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone wish to speak to opposition to the gentleman's amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read.

the clerk: page 6, line 21, office of the assistant secretary for congressional relations 3,289,00. office of communications, $8 ,850,. office of the general counsel $ 35 $204,000 office of the unsecretary of research, education $760,000, economic research service $70 million. >> madam chair.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. chaffetz: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. chaffetz of utah, page 8, after the first dollar amount reduce by $4 million. page 8, line 18 -- mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent -- the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: this amendment deals with four -- really three different services within the department of agriculture, the idea and the goal, the situation here is perhaps it could take a reduction in funding and really look at these programs as being something that can be ultimately unified over the course of the time. my amendment drives down the cost of these and the hope and

desire will they unify what these services. this relates to the agriculture research service. the economic research service and the national agriculture statistics service. now the one other one that would 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 is to reduce the amount of expenditure here, 50% from 2011 and 43% from the current bill. this is common sense. we have to make the difficult decision to recognize the value. a lot of people rely on these statistics and information that is needed so we can make sure that we have the very best department of agriculture that we can but it is imperative that we make difficult decisions and sometimes that means we are

looking at programs, maybe scaling those back a little bit and refocusing the mission so they can do what matters most. it is the financially responsible thing to do and urge my colleagues to look closely at this and urge my colleagues to vote in favor. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does gentleman rise? mr. farr: i rise in strong opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: this amendment cuts e.r.s. by $43 million and that's the economic research service for agriculture and goes on to cut another $85 out of the agriculture statistical service which is the census of agriculture and then goes out and cuts $650 million for the ag research service which is 2/3 of the entire budget and a budget that is ease to keep america

competitive. and if we're going to stay ahead of the competition and not have our food imported, we have to stay ahead of the curve. and it is where we know whether we are knowing where the bugs are coming in. and it zeros the food for peace program. in a world that we are living in, we don't have any friends left? it puts the savings in a spending reduction account and does nothing to help anybody except for agriculture and all the economics of agriculture, the research for agriculture and food for peace program. this is a very bad amendment and i hope we strongly oppose it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. anyone else seek to speak on the amendment. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise?

mr. jordan: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jordan: first, i want to thank the committee and in particular the chairman of the subcommittee for the good work he has done on the bill overall, but i support the gentleman's amendment. any member of congress can do this. you ask my group talking to, giving any speech and you say, do you think there is a little duplication or overlap in the federal government and the audience begins to laugh because they get the joke. we just had a hearing in subcommittee of oversight dealing with regulation and overspending and the g.a.o. was in there and they had done a stud and we asked them how many programs are there? and they said well, we can't give you a number because we can't tell. but there are over 100. they couldn't even tell us.

but what they did tell us, there is a lot of duplication and overlap and the gentleman from utah's amendment seeks to deal with it. yes, there is redundancy. we are broke and we have to cut spending like every single family and small business has had to do. remember some of the numbers, because at some point, something has to give and we have to be willing to cut spending. we have to -- a $14 trillion and run deficits, three largest in the last three years, we are paying each year in interest and right near interest rates are at the historic low levels and going to go up and something has to give up. and the gentleman from utah has a basic amendment that says reduce the spending that the government doesn't need and 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 going broke. it builds on the good work that the gentleman from georgia was getting ready to speak, the chairman of the committee, but built on their good work and respects the taxpayers and i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: that statement is a flat statement because it doesn't look before you leap, it says let's whack because there is redundancy. we have two eyes, two ears, two arms and two legs. look at the consequences, a.r.s. is the agriculture research

service. do you know what they do? they look at how to make a plant structure more healthy, how we can combat the bugs that come in. i represent a county that is looking at the ly mmp e industry. it is an eradication program and we wouldn't know how to eradicate it. we have the brown apple moth that affects nurseries, this is a war just like the disasters you have seen on television. these are natural disasters or e. coli. why would you want to cut the very service that keeps american agriculture healthy and competitive? this amendment wipes out 2/3 of the entire budget. so i'm one of those who thinks there is a lot of redundancy in government but i try to get the

agencies in my district to see how they overlap and how they can do joint operations and if you want to consolidate the federal government, it has to take a lot more than whacking away of zeroing out money for economic research for the census for agriculture. that's the last thing we want to do when we are trying to do -- it's a huge market. as i said, you don't want to whack a.r.s. that's the competitive arm. that's where america stays ahead of the rest of the world. redundancy is the problem but not always something to knock off just because there is more of it. i ask for a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. graves: this is the time we have to be looking for every opportunity to be stewards of the taxpayer dollars and we are asking for $1.8 billion out of trillion of dollars spending. $1.8 billion more and the taxpayers understand that and expect that. i don't know if anyone has criticized the use of these funds, where it is is going. the money is not there. how can you continue spending money that you do not have. families have to make difficult decisions. there are a lot of things that the average family would lying to do but if they don't have the resources to do it, they wait until they can do it in another appropriate time. they enjoy it at a later date when they have the ability to do that. we don't have the ability to do that. for far too long we have spent

too much. both parties are responsible for the reckless spending that has gone on. but this is the time we can correct that course. we can correct the path. we don't have to continue down the same path. the status quo is not acceptable. the american people deserve better and we have the opportunity to send a strong message that $1.8 blillyoven being sent back to the -- billion being sent back to the american taxpayers and allowing the taxpayers choose how they wish to spend it. how novel is that to allow the taxpayers to choose, which leads us to the number one issue facing this nation which is jobs and the economy. we want to see the economy improve and see washington improve, not through tax increases but through the g.d.p., and how do we do that?

we release the dollars we hold as the federal government and we allow the private sector to hold that, allow the private sector to be the dreamers, those who have the ideas and entrepreneurs, be the risk takers and instead we hear gn opposition which says no we know better. let us take it from your wallet and distribute it out as we know best. i heard a speaker earlier today say, you know what, the federal government is better at making decisions than the american people. we heard that concept expressed here already that we know better. the american people know how to spend their money. the gentleman from utah brings up a great amendment, $1.8 billion in additional cuts saving the taxpayers again additional money. not only adds to the savings

that the chairman of the subcommittee has fought for. he has done a fabulous job of taking us back to 2006 funding levels and this just takes it back a little bit further. surely we can do that for the american people tonight in this house. madam chair, i yield babbling. the chair: the gentleman yealeds back. >> -- yields back. >> i move to strike the last word. . ms. jackson lee: i rise in opposition to this amendment and 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 appropriations for the important agricultural work that is done in this nation. just zeroed out.

the 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 -- 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 one 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'll take up that challenge and accept that challenge. in fact, we'll be able to put $1 billion or $2 billion every week for a four-week time frame 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? who for -- food for speas a program that our farmers have bought into, for the perspective of the service and the good mar

tan that they do by providing -- samaritan that they do by providing the bread past. the united states is the world's breast past. we have been blessed with the bounty of at the pog are aify and despite 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 white house knew mickey knew that he loved -- of us who knew mickey knew that he loved and had a passion for finding out, how can we stop the devastation of hunger? and so they circled around programs that dealt with programs like food for peace or

the select committee on hunger or a number of other programs around the agricultural appropriations, not to waste money, but to partnership between the great agriculture society of the united states and its ability to grow food, to also as well 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 tornados 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're 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. and 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'll understand their passion and their heart. mickey leland used to bring us to tears because he would leave the devastation of texas where there was poverty and eat 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 -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: and support food for peace and support the underlying message of providing -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise?

mr. kingston: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from georgia voiced for five minutes. mr. kingston: madam chair, 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 the 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 r.s.c. budget failed on the house floor, the congressional black caucus budget failed on the house floor, the progressive caucus budget failed 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% 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 pl-480, that account alone has been cut 31%. and i met with the world food program three different times now and certainly expressed lots of concerns about america's role around the demrobe. we need to be engaged in the country -- 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, keeps the american merchant marine healthy and those are the ships that take our material equipment over -- military equipment overseas during engagements such as what we have going on in afghanistan and iraq. now, there's a lot of concern, ms. jackson lee had raised some concerns 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's 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 the other and that's why i thought the kucinich amendment was appropriate. i want to just conclude, though, that i think the spirit of the

gentleman and they're very consistent in terms of their fiscal restraint, but again the only budget that has passed any body is the r.s.c. budget -- excuse me, the ryan budget. and therefore if we deviate from the ryan budget, you know, one of the balancing acts of this is 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 viger in which you've offered it and your consistency on things. so i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i'd like to strike the last word, madam chair. can i do that? the chair: is there objection? mr. kingston: he needs unanimous

consent to strike the last word twice and let me say this, what we have been trying to do because there have been a lot of people is keep people from doing that, speaking twice. so i see mrs. lummis -- the chair: the gentleman from georgia has not been recognized. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: thank you. i yield my time to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, i'll be brief, madam chair. i recognize the spirit in which you do 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 in -- i have advocated for a long time that we pull out of afghanistan and that we put that toward 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 how this money is flowing and what it's doing, but let's remember that they will 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. that are 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 can do a lot more good in this world if we were to take care of our own financial pocketbooks. we have not yet done. that i would yield back and thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. i appreciate the spirit of this body allowing me to add this extra comment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wime yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair --

the ayes have it. mr. kingston: i ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to offer my amendment that would reduce the budget for the usda's economic research service by $7 million. we all know what's going to happen with the previous amendment, but this would,

whether it passes or fails, this would cut another $7 million, it's just a modest 10% that would help ending some of the duplicative research the usda is currently conducting. for example, the usda has four separate services that conduct researches, mr. chaffetz has already spoken about it here on the floor, all four of these entities research numerous overlapping issues and it would be more fiscally responsible to simply consolidate them. 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 and they deserve our very best efforts in being good stewards of their tax dollars. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: i rise in opposition, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for

five minutes. . mr. farr: it is easy to go through and cut these services because it sounds like they are bureaucracy offices. but we have been on the committee for a long time and we get in our oversight of these budgets, we get the economic research services to come before us, and i remember a couple of years ago when they came before us and the committee got engaged. this is the study on the w.i.c. program, and what the effectsr something that is totally ignored. we have been finding out that rural america has been in a recession for the last 10 years, maybe even a depression. so if you are going to have strategies, which are going to include the federal government, it's going to include local and state government, you have to have the economic data on which to build those strategies.

and i think just taking $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. it's a little bit different than the census stuff we talked about earlier, but i think this is really a cut that does a lot more mark mancuso than the gentleman who -- more harm than the gentleman on described it. and wouldn't ask that you take 10% out of that department to reduce the amount of money we are spending. so i oppose this amendment and i think it does big harm to rural america. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does does the

gentleman from -- does the gentleman from georgia seek time? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from requests a recorded vote. pursuant to rule 6, clause 18, further amendments will be postponed. the clerk: page 8, line 16, national agricultural statistics service $40 million. agricultural research, salaries and expenses $993,345,000 the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment adesk.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nugegent of florida. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page , line 5, insert the following, increase by $2 million, page 48, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the following, reduced by $2,500,000,. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nugent: millions of families sit down to meals where inagreed yepts are produced here in the united states. the agriculture research service is part of our continued efforts to help farmers, producers and ultimately consumers. i firmly believe that the federal government has a terrible spending problem and tough decisions must be made. i have the respect for chairman kingston and all of the members

of the agricultural 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 agriculture research service. by adding this is funds back, 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 maintaining our independence in the area of our economy and not increasing our usage and demand for foreign ag if you recall imports. there is still important work to be done and that must be continued. there have been significant cuts to the budget that jeopardizes research already in progress. during my five months in

congress,ist met 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 last to go to bed. research must be continued to be funded in order to guarantee america's agriculture community, independence and also that it remains the most productive in the greatest agriculture producer in the world. a.l.s. work has been great in a blood plasma to help apple rot. and pencilin and other antibiotics. the research successes are not just limited to the agricultural community, but they help all americans. my goal is to make sure that america remains strong as an

agriculture producer and we don't outsource agricultural products to other nations to provide our food, a safe food source for americans. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. nugent: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise in mr. farr: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i'm very interested one of your colleagues cut the heck of this department and want to money back in. but i'm 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 amendments. there is no other amendment. mr. farr: there is no other amendment? this hasn't to do with an earmark? mr. nugent: there is no further amendment. we withdraw that amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california yield back? does the gentleman from georgia wish to be recognized? mr. kingston: move to strike the last word. the chair: scrarked for five minutes. mr. kingston: i want to clarify some things on this that is important. number one, i want to make sure we all realize that a.l.s. is funded at $993 million and that the foreign aid services at $175 million and the foreign aid service actually does have a valuable 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 we can -- 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 a.r.s. is saying it has a pretty big funding level already and i wanted you to speak more and maybe warm us up a little, there is a lot of criticism and 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. so i did want to yield to you. the chair: the gentleman from florida has been yielded time by the gentleman from jea. mr. nugent: i goal in regards to strength thing is that we

strengthen the ability to produce goods in this country. it is about keeping american agriculture strong. while we may be asking to reduce what we send overseas, i think it is 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 and 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. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. kingston: with that, i yield the balance of my time.

and i will accept the amendment. i want to say to my friend from florida, we are going to be looking at this as the process goes on, and we'll certainly work with you. mr. farr and i and the committee do appreciate the research that r.r.s. does and i'm glad to know you are following them because i think it is a significant industry within the usda. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the greament is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 159. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas, page 9, line 5, after the dollar

amount reduce by $681,750,000. page 44, line 19 after the dollar amount increase by $681,750,000. florm the gentleman from georgia rise. mr. kingston: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: as the gentleman rises, i asked myself the question and i ask my body who will speak for the children. and that's why my amendment attempts to fully fund the women and infant children program that provides food to the nation's children. it provides federal grants to states for supplemental foods, nutrition, education, health care, refefrls to low-income and post-part umh women, innants and

children up to five years old. children have been the largest category of w.i.c. participants. of the 8.7 million people who receive, each month since 2008, 4.33 million were children and 2.2 million were infants. this bill cuts $650 million out of w.i.c. and i'm so glad my good friend from georgia and i appreciate his friendship, just got up and said the research services, the agricultural research services is pretty well darn well funded, $900 million. i'm simply asking to address the question of the staggering devastation of malnutrition in our children. and i have indicated to when you look at worldwide numbers, malnutrition can kill. here in the united states, there are children who go to bed

hungry and there are women who do not eat properly and there are babies that do not get nourishment, tweb 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be dropped from the w.i.c. 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% and texas stands 32 in the nation out of 435 districts.