dana milbank this morning. many have pieces on michele bachmann and her performance at the gop debate. another story about michele bachmann in the "usa today," already emerging as one of the congress most prolific of fund- raising share is $13.5 million

for election, more than any other house incumbent. the trend has continued this year. she collected more than 1.7 million during the first three months of this year. frederick, md., we're talking about president obama winning reelection. caller: first of all, thank you for taking my call. i believe that president obama is doing wonderful job. the policies that he and his fellow democrats are trying to push through the house and the senate to get this economy back on its feet are getting blocked by republicans. everything that they try to do to help this economy recover, they are blocking. what i do not understand is why

the media is not exposing these crooks for what they a doing. what he really needs is and these two wars. he needs to do that, -- end these two wars. by the republicans and let us know what they're doing. they are going to destroy this world if we allow allow them to get into control. obama has done everything that he can to at this point in his election, in his term. he has done everything humanly possible. i do not understand what else he could possibly do. host: we will go to robert in virginia beach. caller: i do plan to vote for obama in 2012. i was unsure because of how he has been treating people in the middle class, the progressive base, young people and students, but after watching the

republican debate on monday, it was just scary. i'll vote straight democrat this year and next year. but i think that obama could benefit ending the wars and pushing more progressive things. it is good to see that all of the -- most of the blue dogs were sent out. he needs to do more to energize the left wing of the democratic party, to help him win reelection xt year. host: the senate sparred over the ethanol tax credit. they appeared to break with gop orthodoxy ainst higher taxes to cancel billions of dollars in ethanol tax credits.

votes we expect the u.s. house is returning now, votes expected about 3:30. e on tuesda, june 14, 2011, a request of a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, had been postponed and the bill had been considered as read. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house resolution 2112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making

appropriations for agriculture, food and drug administration and related agencies and programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, june 14, a request of a recorded vote of the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, had been postponed and the bill had been read through line 17. the clerk will read. the clerk: page of it, line 18, natural conservation resources. $7,950 to remain available until september 30, 2013. watershed rehabilitation program, $15 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia.

the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment would eliminate one of 20 different programs that usda operates, the water rehabilitation program. the chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from georgia, has stated during debate on funding for agriculture programs that he hopes to see a reduction in the number of federal programs included in this bill. i understand that some of my colleagues have a vested interest in this program. but when we have a program, its funding projects in only a handful of states, we must take a long, hard look at our priorities. mr. chairman, even the president did not request funding for this program. it cannot be understated that we are facing unprecedented fiscal challenges in our nation. we just simply have to stop spending money that we don't have and we have to start creating jobs out in the

private sector. and my amendment will, by cutting this program, will help to stop the bleeding economically that we're having. the consequences of failure to reduce spending jeopardize the current and future stability of the nation. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment and i think it might be worthwhile to explain for just a moment what the small watershed program is and the small watershed rehabilitation program is all about. these efforts were begun in the 1930's, i'm sorry, the 1940's and 1950's in this body to

address flooding conditions. under this program, 10,000 small earthen dams were built across the country, working in interlocking series to prevent downstream flooding by capturing floodwaters at the source. mr. lucas: like anything, after 50 years, its life expect anti-- expectancy can be expected to come to an a conclusion system of we made the rehabilitation program to extend their life span. now based on modern technologies these 50-year structures will wind up with 150-year total life expectancy in many instances. this is where the -- this is a program where rehabilitation resources are based on need, as scored by usda. the money is made available and as the structures need work, they are prioritized. it's a wonderful way to address this issue. now, if you look at the amount

of property and life and infrastructure that have been protected in the life of these programs, it's almost incalculable. in oklahoma in the range of $81 million a year worth of property saved. my colleague alluded to programs that only affect limited numbers of air cras. i would note even in the great state of georgia, there are 357 of these watershed structures. there are 69 that in the next 10 years will need the rehabilitation program. there are benefits in every state. i would simply say, if you care and believe the infrastructure is part of our responsibility if you believe that protecting every life from below that dam all the way to the ocean is important and the property, then this is a wise, small use of resources. what my friend attempts to do here is to zero out the whole program.

no money for rehab this year. no money for rehab this year. that would be a travesty. that would be a tragic use of resources in the past. it's important, edge, that we continue this program. >> if the gentleman will yield. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman. >> the chairman of the agriculture knows and is aware of, wants to underscore the point that you just made, the ordinary, mandatory, authorization for this program is $165 million, that has been zeroed out and the only thing we're doing this year is this $15 million and so even at the current $15 million level, it's still $150 million less than it ordinarily has been. mr. lucas: i would say, reclaiming my time, that the gentleman is right. s that dramatic reduction over what had been expected during the farm bill yet this $15 million will do tremendous work

and it's allocated on a 65-35 cost basis. local and state government have to come up with a third of the money, more than a third of the money, to be able to implement these rehabilitation programs. for these few pennies, based on need, not anyone's political priorities but based on need. this is an exceptional program. i would ask my colleagues to turn back this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: who seeks time? seeing none, the question son the question offer -- the question son 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. the seament not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3, line 1, rural go rural development salaries and expenses including transfers of funds,

$166,11,000. rural housing service. rural housing insurance fund program account, including transfer of funds for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $40 million. in addition, for the cost of direct loans, delrks 12,500,000, in addition for administrative expenses, $12 million, rental assistance program, $890 million. multifamily housing revitalization program account, $11 million. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. >> number 28. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona, page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $100 billion. page 35, line 1, after the

dollar amount, insert, increased by $149 million. page 39, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert, redeuced by $200 million. the chair: the amendment is being distributed.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm offering an amendment that offers a billion dollar food for peace program. regardless of its merit, our country is deep in debt and we have problems in america, particularly in rural america, that need our attention. the reasons for my amendment are more direct. the current funding for budget at over $1 billion, we stand today with a $14.3 trillion deficit. at the same time, we have unmet needs in our own back yard. my amendment cut $300 million from this program and sets aside $100 million into the spending reduction account. then of the remaining $00 million, $100 million each is directed into the rural development title 3 here in the

united states. the reason for this amendment is straightforward. parts of rural america rival parking lots of some third world countries where we spend tens of millions of dollars. we need to focus on our own people and communities before we spend money in foreign lands. one example is the area known as the former bennett freeze area, an area of 100 million acres of navajo reservation. where the -- where 0% of the homes have no electricity. there are few paved roads or communication structures. how do we justify spending $1 billion in foreign countries when we have so many unmet needs in the united states. the world development loan program would receive additional funding this under this amendment, a program that gets high marks for success system of too would the multifamily housing

revitalization program. with millions of people losing homes, they are moving into multiunit housing. this program would help americans, it is easy to understand that the emotional appeal program like food for peace may have, a program that would be reduced by this amendment. but ultimately, we are using taxpayer money for charity. improving literacy, redeucing hunger, educating girls in foreign countries are issues that are charitable and emotionally appealing but we have our own literacy, hunger and gender issues in our own country. at a time when we have a $14.33 trillion debt, massive unemployment and rates of poverty and school underperformance, we should focus here at home. we owe it to our constituents, the tax payers to help them. surely one can see this program has laudables a prages but that won't help the u.s. economy or tabblings payer. -- taxpayer. president obama issued an

executive order to have a commission to create problems in rural america. in the executive order the president stated that 16% of the american population live in rural counties. strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring americans' competitiveness in years ahead. these communities supply our food, energy, safeguard our natural resources and are essential in the area of science and technology. they have enormous economic potential. the federal government has an important role to play in order to expand access to capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care, education, and recreation on public lands. i agree. but instead of just forming a committee to form the problems, problems that are well-known and need no further study, my amendment would do something about it and direct money to the multifamily home revitalization program for our rural housing voucher program.

and rural business account which provides loan guarantees for development programs including business grants to indian tribes and rural economic partnership zones for farm and rural development. again, instead of having the study of lagging infrastructure and opportunities, let's do something about it. the rural american poverty rate has exceeded the national rate by three percentage rates. the child poverty rate is five percentage points than urban metropolitan areas. why can't we invest millions in our rural communities instead? we should tolerate poverty, unemployment and infrastructure in our rural counties while we send millions and billions of dollars to our countries? in good faith, knowing how hard these people in my district work, i can't agree to send their money overseas while they suffer in our back yard. knowing that infrastructure is lacking, this amendment helps start the process of directing our money to the unmet needs in

the united states. i ask my colleagues to accept this amendment. i yield back. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: and wanted to make a few notes on it. i appreciate my friend for offering it. i think he's raised some serious philosophical questions particularly about the 480, the foreign food program. i wanted to point out, we have reduced that by 31% in this account, but we've also reduced the multifamily housing revitalization account, as he's well aware of, but his amendment would actually increase that 10 times at an $11 million level and bring it up to $111 million. the highest funding level was in f.y. 2010 at $43 million. so we have been ratcheting it down using a voucher program,

but feel it was overfunded. the rural business program account right now is about $64 million. and so this amendment almost doubles that. it doesn't quite double it, but there, again, we have brought that account down from a high of $97 million. and with his amendment it would go up to $164 million. these two accounts would go to higher levels than they have historically had, and in contrast, the pl-480, the foreign food program, is at one of the lower levels that it's been at. so i have to say to my friend that i am sorry to reluctantly oppose you but we are going to oppose the amendment at this point and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offer by the

gentleman from -- the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: rural area is hurting. we're -- rural america is really under a depression. we have not done a very good job of having a rural strategy for america. i applaud secretary vilsack for trying to pull together programs to invest in rural america and make sure the different agencies in the federal government are working in collaboration. and i think this amendment addresses some of those issues, not on the collaborative but just putting more money into rural america. but unfortunately that good intent is offset by the evil done in taking it out of the foreign ag account. i can't support the amendment for that. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. if no one is seeking time, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the clerk: mutual and self-help housing grants. $22 million. rural housing -- including transfer -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> seek to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would rise to engage in a colloquy with my friend from california, mr. farr, about cuts in this legislation that mr. farr, if you would yield to our colloquy? mr. farr: certainly. thank you. mr. blumenauer: as i've been analyzing the legislation coming before us, mr. farr, it appears that the legislation, if approved in the form that is

before us, would have a really devastating impact upon american farmers, families and the environment. the legislation before us, as i understand it, cuts nearly $1 billion from the five main conservation programs. conservation programs that put money directly in the pockets of family farmers. over the last five years, these programs have been so popular that the list of farmers who want to participate greatly outweighs the availability. both the conservation stewardship program and the environmental quality incentives program have twice as many applicants as they can serve, and the wetlands reserve program and the grasslands reserve programs combined have over a million acres waiting to apply. these are not programs that are underutilized or ineffective. they appear to be widely popular and appear to have a direct benefit to america's

farmers and ranchers. thess would appear to be exactly the same programs we should be supporting. they provide support for family farms and producers who are doing exactly the right thing. ensuring that we use precious tax dollars not only to support farmers and ranchers but to ensure clean water, clean air and fertile productive soil. they are a blueprint for a better path forward, a farm bill that helps farmers add value and truly supports small and mid-sized operations. i was wondering if you would care to comment on my concerns. mr. farr: i appreciate mr. blumenauer's sentiments and as ranking member of the house ag appropriations subcommittee i'm a stronger -- strong supporter of these programs. i'm distressed by the proposed cuts to these programs. i'd like to point out that the farm bureau also opposes large

cuts to the important working lands program and the environmental quality incentives program. i find it especially disappointing that these funding levels are low enough that the usda will have to break current contracts. that is an unfair result for our farmers and ranchers who have counted on the support and technical assistance for the year ahead. the funding levels for the 2008 farm bill were carefully negotiated. it is frustrating to me and to many others to see the mandatory funding for conservation programs decrease so drastically because this bill was given such a low allocation. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the sentiments of my good friend from california as i appreciate his leadership on issues that relate to both agriculture and protecting the environment. mr. chairman, i am hopeful that members will spend time looking

at what this means to farmers and ranchers in their communities and hope that as the legislation works its way through congress we will be able to reverse these efforts. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. >> mr. speaker. the clerk: page 33, line 8, rural housing assistance grants including transfers of funds, $32 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 33, line 12, insert reduce by $20,480,000. page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount insert increase by $20,480,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer my amendment

which would reduce the budget for the rural housing assistance program by over $20 million. my amendment would drop the allocation for this program from $32 million to just around $12 million. this is a modest request, particularly considering the president initially asked for a funding level of just $12 million. and we would simply be dropping the levels back down to what the administration itself requested. it is absolutely critical that this congress cut spending wherever possible, and if the president can do without that extra $20 million, so can we. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: it's very interesting that your colleague, mr. gosar, just a minute ago was trying to add money to this account because of the catastrophe in rural america. this rule -- rural housing

assistance grant program is primarily to repair very low-income rural housing. this account was increased from the request of the president by the committee. the effect of this amendment would be to knock it back, and the reason the committee increased it was because of the need out there. we know what kind of a housing crisis we're having in america, particularly people have no other place to go. this allows the lowest of income people in the poorest areas in the country in rural america to have some assistance to upgrade their houses and to bring them up so that the cost of utilities and high utility bills can be brought with weatherization issues and things like that. i mean, this is not a smart cut. this goes to hurting people who can least afford it at a time

when they most need it. i would oppose this amendment. 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. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 32, line 50. rural community facilities program account including transfers of funds. $18 million. rural business cooperative service, rural business program account including transfers of funds, 64,500,000. rural development loan fund program account including transfer of funds for the principal amount of direct loans, $14,758,000. for the cost of direct loans, $5 million. in addition, for administrative expenses, $3,500,000. rural economic development loans program account, including cancellation of funds, for the principal amount

of direct loans, $33,077,000 of the funds derived from the interest as authorized in section 313 of the rural electrification act of 1936, $1 ,000,055 are hereby canceled. rural energy for america program, $1,300,000. rural utilities service, rural water and waste disposal programs, including transfers of funds, $500 million. loans program account, including transfer of funds, $6,500,000,000. in addition, for expenses necessary to carry out the loan program, distance learning, telemedicine and broadband program, including cancellation

of funds, $15 million. title 4, domestic food programs, office of the undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, $689,000. food and nutrition service, child nutrition programs, including transfer of funds, $ 18,770,570,000. to remain available through september 30, 2013. special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, $6,258,000 to remain available through september 30, 2013. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 34, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert, reduced by $6,0 -- by $604,000,000.

page 2, line 13, insert $604,000,000. >> we don't have the amendment. the chair: copies of the amendment are being distributed. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this nation has almost a $14.5 trillion debt. we're spending 40 cents of every $1 the federal government spends, we're borrowing. we've just got to stop the outrageous spending going on here in washington and both parties have been guilty over the years.

this amendment would simply cut 10% out of a program. 10%. it's -- some people say, well, it's just a small amount of money, but as i was doing a town hall meeting back during last week in georgia, one lady got up and said $1 million makes a lot of difference. it is a lot of money this does cut a great deal of money out of this program. but mr. speaker, we just have to stop spending money that we don't have. it's just absolutely critical. the economy depends upon it. creating jobs in the private sector depend upon it. the future of our nation depends upon it. we're in an economic emergency, mr. speaker and if we don't stop spending money we don't have, we're going to have an economic collapse of this nation. i'm a physician. i worked in emergency rooms. i've seen a doctor open up a

man's chest and do open heart massage in the emergency room trying to keep a patient alive. it's time for open heart massage of our economy. we've got to stop spending money we don't have. we've got to put this country back on the right financial course and start creating jobs in the private sector. my amendment will be one small step toward that. so mr. speaker, i hope that my colleagues will support this amendment so that we can put this country back on the right course so we can create jobs in the private sector and can have a strong economy again. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i'd be curious at your town hall meeting if you said, would you rather take $604 million out of the program that feeds women, infant and children or would you like to take $604 million out of the defense department for a war we're putting on a credit card? for an afghan war we're putting

on a credit card, the iraq war we're putting on a credit card or the prescription drug program that wasn't paid for under the republican plan? how about asking people about their choices. we authorized a defense bill in committee where we talked about billions and billions of dollars. and those were all borrowed money. so why don't we get our priorities straight. we spent three hours here last night discussing what the implications are of cutting the w.i.c. program. i don't think this is a country that wants to balance its budget on the backs of the poorest people in the united states. on the people most vulnerable, on the people that need basic services. that's what this amendment does. mr. broun, i know you're interested in cutting, squeezing, and trimming but there are places to do that and this is not one of them. certainly if you were here on the floor listening to the passions last night of three

hours of debate on what the implications were for cutting w.i.c. program, and it seems to have -- it seems none of that was listened to by you. this is an amendment that goes right back to reducing that account by $604 million. take the money out of the people most vulnerable in the united states to write down the deficit and ignore the defense department, ignore the spending for weapons programs, ignore the wars in iraq and afghanistan, ignore everything that is with d.o.d. and expose everything that's with people in poverty. this is the wrong amendment and i hope it's defeated. mr. broun: does the gentleman zeeled mr. farr: yes, sir. mr. broun: i want to do both. i think every dollar the federal government spends needs to be looked at. we're spending money we don't have, even in d.o.d. i think we could cut a lot of funding there, particularly

with wasteful spending the department of defense does. the thing is, if we continue down this road that we're on economically, everybody is going to be poor, nobody is going to have money for any groceries, nobody is going to be able to get any health care, we're just going to be in a financial quagmire as a nation. it's absolutely critical in my opinion that we do emergent -- emergency procedures to get this country back on the right course economically. to answer your question that you asked me, yes we need to do all of the above and i'm eager to do both. i yield back. thank you for the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? >> i move to strike the last word. i think dr. broun has raised a lot of good points about the financial future today, for

every $1 we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. mr. kingston: the national debt is 45% of the g.d.p., we have to make some difficult choices ahead. that's why in the committee we have reduced w.i.c. funding already $686 million. now these numbers aren't random. w.i.c. participation in 2010 was 9.2 million and in 2011, 8.9 million. our committee mark for f.y. 2012 contemplates a participation level of 8.3 million. however, if the economy does not improve and the number of those -- and the number goes back up, with contingency funds, we have enough money to fund a participation level of over nine million. but it's very difficult, mr. chairman, because as we said many times during yesterday's

debate, that the only budget that has actually passed either house is the ryan budget and our 302-b allocation funding level comes from that budget. the president's own budget failed in the senate, 97-0. the democrat leadership in the senate is unable to pass a budget. they're not trying to pass a budget. so using the 302b allocation, which we have, we have come up with these numbers, not done in random, not done with any recklessness at all, trying to be very care to feel make sure no one falls through the cracks, but because this is a delicate card house, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. broun: mr. speaker. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentlelady has one printed and one unprinted amendment. can you specify which you wish to offer? ms. foxx: it is the printed amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. foxx of north carolina, page 45, line 1 after the dollar amount, insert

reduced by $75 million. page 45, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert, reduced by $7,500,000. page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $82,500,000. the chair: i ask the gentlelady from north carolina is this the correct amendment? ms. foxx: yes, sir. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. foxx: my amendment today is an effort to save taxpayers' hard earned money by ending funding for an unnecessary program that spends money coming to the federal government from our hard working taxpayers. mr. chairman, i want to say that i very much believe in

breastfeeding. we wouldn't have a human race here today if it weren't for the fact that breastfeeding has been in existence since the beginning of time. however, i am opposed to the federal government funding breastfeeding programs. under the special supplemental program for women, infants, and children, or the w.i.c. program, congress directed the united states department of agriculture to create a national program for the promotion of breastfeeding. in fiscal 2010, the federal government spend $ 5 million to educate women on how to breastfeed. we're facing a national debt of over $14 trillion. spending taxpayer money to promote breastfeeding is simply not the proper role of the federal government and serves to illustrate just one reason government mission creep that we are so deeply in debt.

administrative costs for the w.i.c. program have grown 72% while enrollment has increased by only 26%. it is difficult to understand how this program's pew rackcy has grown three times as fast as its enrollment. again, it's an accepted fact that breastfeeding is good for infants and mothers and i support mothers who choose to breastfeed. but coaching women on breastfeeding is not the role of the -- of washington. this program came to my attention earlier this year because of the budget crunches that all levels of government are feeling and i was contacted by counties in north carolina about this program. it was brought to my attention that most of the money is being used to pay salaries and benefits, some is being used for travel expenses, and some is being used for cell phone

use so that the peer counselors are available 24 hours a day. to the people that they are counseling. my colleagues across the aisle will shout about this and i may even be opposed by the colleagues on this side of the aisle but last year, my colleagues across the aisle cut more than $550 million from the w.i.c. program to fund unrelated activities at the usda. these were totally unrelated. it was obviously not a high priority then. if we want to promote the health and well being of women, infants and children, then let's get serious about it by creating a job-friendly environment that puts people back to work and allows american families to keep more of what they earn. let's stop spending money on every well-intentioned program and return the federal government to its constitutionally mandated purposes. mr. chairman, the american people are tired of washington taking their hard earned

dollars in taxes and wasting it on a bloated federal bureaucracy. it's time we stopped the culture of spending in washington and that's why i urge adoption of my amendment which will save taxpayers $82.5 million in just one year. the money will go into spending reduction account and i want to say my total concern here is the spending of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. on a program that the federal government has no business running. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. it has come to my attention that i need to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment that i -- and offer an amendment that was not printed in the record. i apologize. the chair: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. the amendment is withdrawn.

the clerk will report the other amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. page 44, line 19, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $8 ,500,000. page 45, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $78 million. page 45, line 3, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $700,000,500. increase by $82,500,000 page 45, line 4. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: i appreciate the indulgence of the ranking member and the chair of the committee and i'll just say that i appreciate very much having the support for moy amendment, and i thank you, again, for the indulgence. the chair: the gentlelady yields back.

who seeks time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from california. mr. farr: mr. chairman, i claim opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you, mr. chairman. again, how many times do we have to keep attacking the w.i.c. account? women, infants and children. america has long decided that we ought to be taking care of the most vulnerable people in america. there are women who are pregnant, low income. what we found is if the don't invest in teaching them how to have proper nutrition during their pregnancy you have a risk of having a low-weight baby, a low-weight baby, as dr. mcdermott told us yesterday on the floor, can cost up to a quarter million dollars in incubation and hospital costs. this is preventable with good nutrition. we go on to teach women once

that baby is born how to breast-feed that child. we know that is good health practices. and then we keep the children with nutrition in the first five years. that's why it's called women, infants and children. it's about pregnancy, birth and raising that child. and this amendment wants to take $82 million out of that program which instructs women how to do proper breast-feeding, it works with the states to do educational programs. we spent three hours last night debating the consequences of these cuts. and it's one of those penny-wise superpound foolish. it's also one of those where you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. there is a lot of value of keeping women well nourished during pregnancy and certainly

keeping that newborn child well-fed and nourished. to strike money from this program is ill founded and i strongly oppose the -- ill-founded and i strongly oppose the amendment. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: i'd like to take this time to yield to the gentlelady from north carolina who is an expert on this topic and whom i rely on and i want to thank the lady for her comments today. ms. foxx: i thank the gentleman from georgia, mr. chairman, for yielding time for me. i think it's unfortunate that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle characterize our doing our best to bring fiscal sanity to this congress by saying that we do not care for people who are poor or disadvantaged. mr. chairman, i grew up as poor as anybody in this body, and i

know what it means to be poor and to be hungry. i have no malice toward any person in this country. none. no malice toward anyone in this body. however, we are on the verge of a fiscal disaster in this country. there are many things that could be done at the local level and the state level that should be done at the local and state level, but absolutely should not be done at the federal level. again, my colleagues across the aisle come here and say, what a shame it is that you are picking on the w.i.c. program. well, they took over $500 million out of the w.i.c. program last year, put it in a totally unrelated program and said nothing about it. we didn't come to the floor and

say, you are mistreating poor and disadvantaged women and children. no comments were made about that. and i think it's very unfortunate, again, that that's how we're characterized. i believe that we have an obligation, an obligation given to us by god to help our fellow americans who are less fortunate than we are, but it is not our responsibility as members of congress to tax hardworking americans who are working all the time just to pay their bills and survive and use that money to help other people. that's not our job. our job is to do everything we can to create a good environment in this country for everyone to succeed, and that's the direction that i want to go. and by lowering our dependency on foreign governments, we will

make our country a better place to be. as my colleagues have said over and over and over again in the debate on this bill, we're borrowing 43 cents for every dollar that we spend. we have $14 trillion debt. there's huge debate about raising the debt ceiling. that's going to be facing us. do we really want to ignore the opportunity to save $82.5 million in a program that has no business being run out of the federal and help us deal with the big issue that's dealing with us? that's what congress should be dealing with. we should be dealing with the big issues. we should let these other issues be dealt with at the local and state level. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from georgia yield back his time? mr. combrafse -- mr. graves: yes, sir.

the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: i move to strike the last word. i want to thank my colleague from north carolina for putting this discussion on the table because i think that it is important for us to look at the w.i.c. program, make sure that we're doing everything as efficiently and as effectively as possible and that we're putting the money in the right direction. we have a very thorough, about a six-hour debate about w.i.c. yesterday. we're trying it to balance it. i think the more sunshine we have, not just on w.i.c. but on other federal feeding programs, i think the better product we're going to come up with. she and i have had some discussions on this. we are going to continue to have discussions on it. i wanted to say i think it's a good debate to be having, although that i am not supportive of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. dr. broun.

mr. broun: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield as much time as she may consume to my good friend, virginia foxx, dr. foxx. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has to stay on his feet. ms. foxx: i thank my colleague from georgia for yielding time, mr. chairman. and i just want to make a point in response to my other colleague from georgia. i agree with him. we are bringing light to many of these programs, and i think it's very important that we do so. i want to point out again, the w.i.c. bureaucracy has grown three times as fast as its enrollment in the last 10 years. this is an increase of $800 million in administrative costs. if we are not prepared at least to cut administrative costs and programs that have no business being offered at the federal level, then we are never going

to get control of our debt and our deficit. and i want to encourage both my republican and democratic colleagues to think about this. we have got to have accountability, and we have got to start cutting, especially in the area of administration. with that i yield back. mr. broun: i yield back. the chair: there being no request for time, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. foxx: on that, mr. chairman, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from north carolina will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 45, line 12.

supplemental nutrition assistance program. $71,173,308,000. commodity assistance program, $192,500,000 to remain available through september 30, 2013. nutrition programs administration, $125 million. title 5, for an assistance and related programs, foreign agriculture service, salaries and expenses, including transfers of funds, $175 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise to offer my amendment which would cut $175 million in f.y. 2012 by eliminating the foreign agricultural service. this is a corporate welfare program that essentially gives handouts to private businesses that don't need taxpayer dollars in order to grow their profits. it's essential that we make significant cuts to our budget this year and focus on reducing our deficit and tackle our debt. this is an unnecessary program, and a waste of money that we could use to reduce this fiscal burden. i understand the position that my dear friend from georgia is in. it is true that the ryan budget is the only budget to pass either house. i supported the ryan budget, and i supported the republican study committee budget which would have reduced even more money from this bill. regardless of how one voted on a particular budget, we all have an obligation to move the debate in a direction that calls for more serious spending

cuts. it's critical for the economic future of our nation. it's critical for our children and our grandchildren. it's critical in creating new jobs and having a stronger economy here in america. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the question's on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. 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 49, line 3, food for peace title 1, direct credit and food for progress program account including transfer of funds, $2,385,000. food for peace, title 2 grants,

$1,040,198,000. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the table, number 29. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. after the dollar amendment insert reduced by $100 million. page 80, line 2, after the dollar amendment, insert increased by $100 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in support of my amendment that would cut $100 million from the billion dollar food for peace program and redirect it to the rural american communities, specifically the rural business loan program. this $100 million will provide resources to rural businesses

and the developmental loan programs. small, rural businesses and indian tribes and community organizations can use these loans to jump-start businesses in our devastated rural communities. give you one example. the bennett freeze. in the 111th congress,, we lifted this part on the navajo nation last year. this prohibited any type of improvement to any homes, businesses and the livelihood and as a result the bennett freeze resulted in an area that is worse than any third world nations. what we're trying to do is address this need and try to provide some resources this this group of folks. we need to empower our rural communities. please vote in favor of this amendment. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields whack. who seeks time? the gentleman from california. mr. farr: rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fash: this amendment reduces $100 million from food for peace. i don't know if mr. gosar was

here, the gentleman from arizona, was here last night, but there was a lot of discussion about american image abroad and certainly at a time when world economy is hurting, this food for peace program is exactly that. we buy american good will. we buy this food from american growers, farmers. they produce it. we buy it. we ship it. in american ships and we distribute in a food program that buys a lot of good will for america. i don't think at a time when conflicts of this globe are generated in cultures of poverty where people don't have access to proper nutrition diet, i know from being a peace corps volunteer the first thing people try to do is figure out whether they are going to have enough food to eat. you can't go to school with kids because you are hustling to get firewood. you are hustling to get water. you are hustling to find anything that will produce food

for the day. you cannot -- a woman can't do any of the other things that might -- raising livestock if she's just trying to hustle for food all day long. i mean it just seems to me the most basic i vestment -- investment in preventing violence and war is investment in nutrition and trying to get particularly people in the poor sectors of the world. we've got sub-saharan africa that if people don't get fed there, are you going to have migrations of millions and millions of people. there's going to be no place to put them. nobody's going to want big immigration of starving people from other parts of africa. it's going to an impact on us. our intelligence agencies tell us this is a security threat. investment in food for people at the basic level is absolutely essential. this is food raised by american farmers. paid for by american dollars. and sent where most needed in

the world. it's a very good program. and it does indeed trade food for peace. and stability. i think it would be unwise to cut it by $100 million. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. mr. brown: i move to strike the last -- mr. broun: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: i had an amendment following this one that would have totally elimb named -- eliminated funding for this program and it would present a problem to the house. so i'm going to withdraw my amendment since dr. gosar has introduced his. but it's absolutely critical we stop spending money we simply do not have. frankly i don't like transferring money from account to account because i think the only transfer that we should do is transfer it into the debt

reduction program so we can reduce the federal debt. it's absolutely critical for the economic future of this nation. so since i'm going to withdraw my amendment following this, i want to get up and speak about this particular amendment and just say that i really appreciate what my good friend from california, mr. farr, was saying about poor people. i'm a medical doctor. i deal with problems with nutrition for my patients. i appreciate what dr. foxx did with her amendment about eliminating this breast-feeding program. but you see, we are constrained by the constitution, or should be. and congress has gotten way, way, away from the original intent of the constitution. we cannot try to feed everybody in the world. we cannot continue to try to be a nanny state for everybody

even in this country. the private sector if we mobilize them, there would be plenty of dollars to take care of the needs of american citizens and -- as well as people around the world by leaving dollars in the hands of the private sector. in people's hands, churches, synagogues, and mosques and different areas. the private sector, salvation army, efforts. i think we need to as a congress start being fiscally responsible. we have been fiscally unresponsible for many years. in democrat as well as republican administrations, as well as democrat and republican controls of congress. we just have to stop spending money. i appreciate, mr. farr, and i would be glad to yield to you. mr. farr: thank you for yielding. i just want to point out you used the term nanny state. i don't think anybody wants to

be, since we are government responsible for everybody, to raise the whole society. but i do think that this help that you give people from the federal government and from local and state governments is absolutely essential. i tell you when you don't have that infrastructure of social services and social needs there, i'll tell you what happens. people still have those problems. only they don't have a place to go get them. you know what they do? they knock on your door. and in america we don't have to open our door day after day with somebody holding a baby, as i saw in the peace corps, people all the time with dead babies, infants, begging for money to bury them properly. or people asking you for extra food. ask you to finish your people. they know what time you eat saying could you give your leftovers to us? we don't have that in america because we have a infrastructure that takes care of people. and i think if you totally wipe that out and say we'll leave that to charity, charity is -- it's voluntary. it doesn't always work when the

markets crash, charity isn't there. the poverty is still there. the need's still there. you know you have serviced people that couldn't pay their bills. if you do have medicare reimbursements and other kind of medicare reimbursement so you can even if they can't pay their bills, somewhere to pay, if it was all left up to voluntary, the doctors would have to serve people that don't have money, i don't think all the poor people in america would be taken care of. we do have to concern ourselves about how much care and spending we do. but at the same time don't wipe out the programs that are the -- essentially the life support systems of a society that is richest america. we can't -- we can afford to take care of the people most vulnerable. whether they are aging or infants. and i think a lot of the discussion here has been about trying to delete the programs that help people. mr. broun: i appreciate your

comments. when i was sworn in the marine corps and congress now three times, i swore to uphold the constitution. and i believe in this document as our founding fathers meant it. which means very limited government. we are destroying the very thing that has made this country so great, so powerful, so rich as a nation. and that's constitutional limited government, the free enterprise system, private property rights, personal responsibility. rule of law. and morality. it's absolutely critical if we are going to have a bright, shining star of libet over the heads of america we -- liberty over the hids of america -- heads of america, we build those foundations. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to rise in opposition to a previous amendment, the gosar amendment, to eliminate the food for peace program and transfer it to

rural development. but i'm also going to rise in opposition to the gentleman from georgia's amendment which also goes after food for peace. and i'm glad he's withdrawing it. but i find it astonishing that there is so many on the other side that are attacking programs that i think are so vital to our national security. but mr. gosar's amendment would tell farmers that we will take away from them $1 million in u.s. purchases of their crops so that we can borrow money in the form of loans for other purposes. that's essentially what he's proposing. does that make sense to anyone? so we tell u.s. farmers who have been selling rice, soybean, vegetable oil, beans, pease -- pees -- peas, lent ills, this market is closed to them. so long, goodbye, take out a loan to develop the rural economy.

mr. chairman, i support the rural development program. and i obviously support the food for peace program. both of them directly benefit american farmers. mr. gosar himself said food for peace title 2 p.l. 480 merits support. let's talk about why. it supports u.s. farmers, millers, freight rail, truck and shipping. food aid provided by usaid is a lifesaving measure for 11 million to 16 million vulnerable people overseas. our largest emergency food aid program, including darfur in southern sudan, afghanistan, haiti, and thope. u.s. food aid not overwhelm -- ethiopia. u.s. food aid not only helps people survive, it supports u.s. security interests. it promotes good will especially in libya, afghanistan, and pakistan. our emergency and humanitarian food aid sends the clear message to desperate people in need that the american people care.

the gosar amendment sends the off sit message. the american people don't care, go ahead and starve. we need to support food for peace. we need to oppose that amendment but we also need to he o pose amendments that gut essential food and nutrition programs for poor people not only here in the united states but around the world. this notion that somehow that when we support programs like food for peace that it's just helping a bunch of foreigners overseas. it's just wrong-headed. it is american farmers that produce much of the food that goes to support the hungry around the world. it is american farmers that are so much -- that are so important in our battle against terrorism because quite frankly, i think these programs, as secretary gates has said, do more to enhance our homeland security -- national security than anything else. i urge my colleagues coming to the floor with amendments to gut these programs to stop it. enough. these are essential programs to help people who are helpless overseas.

but they also support our economy here in the united states and help our u.s. farmers. with that i yield back my time. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: number one, we have actually reduced this account 31% and again as i have said many times, passing an appropriation bill that builds a card house there is a delicate balance. i have my friend, mr. mcgovern, who believes we have cut too much. got my friend, dr. browne, who believes we haven't cut enough. and so we are trying to move this legislation. i wanted to talk a little bit about p.l. 480 and make a couple things. number one, there is a national security interest in it. this is not about international charity alone. we do have an interest. america needs to be engaged around the world. when there is a natural disaster or man-made disaster, if we are not there, who will be there? and this is very important.

my friend, mr. dicks, is here. former chairman of the committee knows in terms of the national defense we have soldiers right now as i speak in 60 different countries around the globe. now, they are engaged for a reason. it's not a job creation program. they are keeping an eye on national security interests. if you travel in china -- excuse me if you travel in africa or south america right now, you'll see a new player that was not there 10 years ago, and that is the country of china. china is not necessarily an immediate threat to us, but it is a concern to us. china is rising as a military force and certainly as an economic source. and they are engaged all over the globe. often our international programs, including food programs, keeps us engaged and gives us an opportunity to have some doors opened which we would not ordinarily have.

america provides 57% of the food aid in the world, followed by the e.u. at 27% and japan at 6%. right now china is not a major player. the oil rich middle east countries certainly aren't major players. it is about engagement and it's interesting that we have a balance between developmental aid and emergency aid, because if there is a haitian disaster, we are the first on the ground trying to get food to the people, but we need to also be there with developmental aid to make sure that these countries aren't dependent, these countries do know how to grow their own food and have their own resources. i just want to emphasize again that this program has been trimmed already, 31%, and it seems to me the balance that will get this bill over to the senate so that we can negotiate further on it. we are in many, many different countries around the world. with that i want to yield the

balance of my time to dr. gosar. mr. gosar: i'd like to reiterate this is an issue we also have to take care of folks at home. for example, i brought up the navajo nation. this is a treaty responsibility of the united states in which we forbade different groups from even raising to take care of a window pane or create economic certainty. we have to take care of our own and not help everybody across this world. that's why i rise in support of my amendment. . mr. kingston: mr. chair, i yield back the balance of my time. i do want to point out some of the things that this program is doing in pakistan, haiti, the sudan and afghanistan and i will submit that for the record at the proper time. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the request of the gentleman from georgia will be handled in general leave. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: mr. speaker, i have an amendment that i hope is at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 49, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $140,198,000. page 80, line , after the dollar amount insert increased by $140,198,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. again, as i spoke on the previous amendment, we just don't have the money, and it's

very altrueistic of my friends on both sides to want to feed people all over the world. i very much would like to be able to do so, but we can't feed our people here at home. we have a high jobless rate. >> mr. chairman. mr. broun: mr. chairman -- mr. farr: mr. chairman, we have couldn't have a copy of the amendment. the chair: the copies are at the desk. the chair: the gentleman from georgia may proceed. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. we have to stop spending money we don't have. and this would zero out the balance of the funds if my friend from arizona's amendment is indeed passed into this bill. so, mr. chairman, i just -- as we look at where we're going as a nation, we got to be focusing

on jobs and the economy. we have to leave dollars in the hands of businesses, particularly small businesses. leave the dollars in the hands of individuals so that they could take care of their own needs in their own communities. instead of being a bigger and bigger federal program to try to take care of everybody's needs all over the world. we just simply do not have the money, and it just has to stop and it's time to stop right now. we're headed towards an economic cliff in this nation. it may be very soon where we're going to be off that cliff where everybody in this country except for the extremely wealthy are going to be forced into just tremendous poverty. we have a potential of having riots in the street because of the great debt and spending that's going on. we're destroying jobs. we're destroying our economy, and it just must stop. the sooner the better.

my amendment would simply zero out the rest of the funds in this program. i think it's critical for us to stop spending money. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the gentleman from california. who seeks time? mr. farr: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: again, i don't know how many times we have to reiterate these cuts squeezes and trims, hurt the most vulnerable people at home and abroad. my good friend talked about this fiscal disaster that we're having in america and then just amendment after amendment attacking the people that are most vulnerable. this one just wipes out the entire program. i hoped the member was here and

watched in an earlier part of the decade where a partnership with the rich was made in this congress to help in every tax way possible and every expenditure way possible, in building up to the war machine in response to iraq and afghanistan. the rich got richer. the corporations that build all the equipment for our men and women in uniform got a lot of profit. we did that by putting it all on the credit card of the american taxpayer. we just charged it up. yes, we ran up a credible -- an incredible deficit. he fails to lock at the other side of the coin. talks about the fact that he's been in the marine corps. marine corps was also put on that tax credit card. the uniform, the free medical service he got, the food that he ate as a marine, all these things, thank god, we paid for. but then to say, ok, we're going to now reduce this fiscal disaster by just attacking the

most vulnerable people in the world, wiping out the food for peace program. i'll tell you, this is just -- where are we? where is the image of america? where is that heart and soul? where is that feeling of people that love our country because the handouts we do give in a time of need? we're there to respond to disasters. we can't just be that responders that says, ok, we are going to respond with our war machine. we have to also respond with our heart and our soul and the character of american human beings which is very giving and very compassionate. to wipe out the food for peace program is not a wise thing to do. >> will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman from washington state is recognized. mr. dicks: i will just say to

the chair and to the author of the amendment who's a doctor, a medical doctor, remember the hippocratic oath, do no harm. this amendment, if enacted, will harm millions of people in the world. millions of children will die because of this amendment. and i just think it's outrageous and i hope it will be defeated. mr. kingston: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i don't have the time. the chair: the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. farr: i yield my time to mr. dicks. or yield it to you for a question. the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. farr: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half of his time. mr. farr: mr. broun, i yield to you.

mr. broun: mr. farr, thank you very much. i resent the fact that you are accusing me to do harm. dick dicks you don't think your -- mr. dicks: you don't think your amendment will do harm? mr. broun: no, sir. i think it will do good. we have come to the crux of the problem that some people in this congress believes that the federal government ought to take care of everybody in the world and i would love to do it. for to you accuse me of wanting to do harm to people, i resent that. mr. dicks: sir, i didn't offer an amendment to -- sir -- mr. broun: sir, i have the time. i resent the fact that you are accusing me that i would do harm. i don't know if this is a point of order -- mr. farr: reclaiming my time. mr. broun: mr. chairman, i bring forth a point of order. mr. farr: i reclaim my time,

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california reclaims his time. in -- mr. farr: in finishing, i'd like to say, there is some inconsistency and insincerity here about stating what you did as a profession and then cutting these programs because these go to the children that we think the medical profession so much appreciates trying to care for. i mean, if you can't feed children, if you can't feed women and you can't feed infants, no matter where in the world they are, problems are going to occur. big, serious problems. that is not fiscal conservative. that is just not very intelligent. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. broun: i bring a point of order, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i

would like to bring a point of order about the gentleman's accusations that i want to do harm, and i believe this meets the criteria of taking down his words, and i'd like a ruling from the chair regarding that. the chair: all members will suspend. the chair would ask the clerk to transscribe -- transcribe the words. mr. broun: mr. chairman. mr. chairman. mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i withdraw my point of order. the chair: the demand is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. dicks: i will revise my words and make sure that it is not anywhere close to -- to

being an insult to the gentleman. i appreciate him withdrawing his point of order. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from washington may revise his remarks. >> mr. chairman. the chair: does any member -- mr. mcgovern: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i rise in very, very, very strong opposition to this amendment. gutting the food for peace program. food for peace. i find it somewhat ironic that we have people who oppose food for peace but support weapons for war. without giving it a second thought. the fact of the matter is this amendment would do great harm to some of the most helpless people in the world. and i believe very, very strongly that i think on a bipartisan basis that this amendment should be defeated. the food for peace program has saved the lives of millions and

millions of people. it is a good program. it is something we should be proud of in this country, and we are on a bipartisan basis, i believe, we are proud of the food for peace program. and i think we need a big bipartisan vote to defeat this amendment. i appreciated the chairman's remarks earlier. i thank him for his comments on this issue. i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: cut this program by 38% below the president's budget request and 31% below last year. i mean, that is a major cut in this program. to go any further i think would be a big mistake. i yield. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman. and i would just say, yes, we need to get serious about the deficit and we need to find ways to, you know, to bring this deficit down, but taking the food out of the mouths of

children is not the way to do it. it's not the way we need to -- not the way we do this. i mean, i can go through a litany of things that deserve to be cut from some of the subsidies that we provide to some of the big agricultural businesses to the subis i diization -- subsidization of the big oil companies to the donald trumps of the world. to denigrate this program i think is wrong. this is something we should be proud of. republican and democratic presidents have supported this program, and this is vital to the survival of so many people around the world. and, again, i would reiterate what secretary gates said. these programs, these developmental programs, you know, are important to our national security. i'm going to tell you, they do more to help improve our image and protect our security around the world that a lot of these

other programs that we have that export military hardware around the world. this spornt. this is real. this -- this is important. this is real. this saves lives. so i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to soundly reject this amendment and let us support food for peace. let us support food programs for the poor. that's who we are. that reflects well on this country, and i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: i have been hearing this subject that is near and dear to our heart. this has been near and dear to my family since my late husband came back fromth openia having sobbed, as he told -- from having sobbed, as he told me,

of a child in ethiopia who died in his arms. i will say that there's been an awful lot of rhetoric on this and i think the chairman, in spite of the fact i don't like the number, i don't like the numbers that we've been giving the chairman, who has also traveled to africa and has seen up close and personal to see how these programs really do make a difference for those of us who live here in the united states. how important these programs are for our national security, as mr. mcgovern said and mr. dicks and also how important it is that america, which is still the richest country in the world in spite of our financial difficulties, has respect and wants to help others because we ourselves have been so well blessed. so i rise in opposition to this amendment, and i want to -- i want to thank my colleagues on

the other side and thank mr. kingston as well and hope as we proceed through the process that we might be able to find some common ground. perhaps get a little bit more assistance for these vital programs, but let's try to keep our emotions down a little bit because this -- everybody feels very strongly but yet our common goal is to lift this country up and by helping others we do that. . yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. is anyone seeking recognition? the question is on the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. broun: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. 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 50, line 1, commodity credit corporation export loans, credit guarantee program account. including transfers of funds, $6,820,000. the government international food for education and child nutrition program grants, $180 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, 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, mr. chairman.

i rise to offer my amendment which would zero out the mcgovern-dole program and save taxpayers $180 million in the coming fiscal year. we simply cannot continue to dole out money that we simply don't have. and we -- particularly when we are experiencing such a huge economic crisis and economic emergency here at home. it's important to make serious cuts wherever and whenever we can. this funding is not tied to a specific national security interest. so we can afford to do without it. i think we should do without it. thus i'm offering my amendment. i hope it passes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. mcgoven: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, this is simply a bad amendment. it eliminates funding for one of the u.s. signature programs to reduce child hunger in the

world. i helped establish the george mcgovern, robert dole international food for education program. first as a pilot project in 2000, and then as a permanent program in the 2002 farm bill. it has always had strong bipartisan support, including my colleague and my friend, jo ann emerson, and then congressman now senators john thune and jerry moran. mcgovern-dole has one basic goal. provide at least one nutritious meal to some of the world's most vulnerable children in a school setting. it has reduced the incidents of hunger among school-aged children. it has increased school enrollment and attendance. it has increased the support of families and communities for education, especially for girls. mcgovern-dole is a proven success. instead of cutting its funding, let alone eliminating it, we should be scaling it up. the cuts to mcgovern-dole already in the bill would end school meals for more than

400,000 children. eliminating the funding would literally take the food out of the mouths of over five million of the world's most vulnerable children. mr. chairman, it's bad enough to ignore hungry children. it's even worse to give a hungry child a meal to give their parents hope for a better future and take it away. these are not just numbers in a bill. these are real living, breathing human beings. real children who are in school. many for the very first time because the u.s. is working with local communities to advance education and nutrition. i have visited some of these programs around the world. i respectfully suggest to those who want to eliminate them to first go and see with their own eyes what they are doing on the ground. look at these children. their parents, their teachers, community leaders in the eye and make sure you want to tell them you don't care if they go hungry or get a chance to go to school.

in colombia i visited a program on the outskirts of bogota on the hillside shur rounded by shanty housing thousands of displaced families. children were receiving school breakfast and lunch. mothers and grandmothers were training as cooks, preparing the meals. clearly visible in the cafeteria were usaid bags of beef and beans. one mother said please thank the american people when you go back home. i couldn't feed my children. i couldn't send them to school. i was afraid my son who is 11 years old was going to join the paramilitaries and guerrillas just to get food. now my son is getting fed and staying in school. please tell the american people, thank you. in kenya in the largest slum in the world, i went to a mc govern-dole breakfast and lunch program, i was amazed by the school's energy and achievements. the school's principal told me how they store and prepare the

commodities that feed her students and all they all know this program is a program from the people of the united states of america. i ate a serial mush made from yellow peas grown by american farmers in a room full of children. the kids dug into this food like manna from heaven. one little boy would take a bite and scoop a small amount from his bowl and put it in his pocket. he was taking food home to his siblings who don't get anything to eat. outside nairobi in a school for the girls mcgovern-dole provides a hot lunch. i helped cook and serve the meal of u.s. bulgar wheat and locally grown vegetables. one student told me how grateful she was to go to school and eat every day. she grew up in a village over 100 miles away. when she was 12 her father told her she had to marry a much older man. she refused. her father ordered her to go to her uncle's house, get his machete, and bring it back to him. she knew her father was going to kill her.

she ran away, walking alope for days, because she had -- alone for days, because she had heard of this school. she was then 15, healthy, well-fed, at the top of her class. i knew i was talking to someone who could be president someday. and the very best way this young woman will never forget us. in a very worst way where we take food away from children, families, schools those communities will never forget us, either. they won't forget that we took away their children's future. i wouldn't forget it if it were my child. would you? mr. chairman, there are many ways to advance u.s. national security and economic interests abroad. education and child nutrition are very much at the top of that list. it is important that we support the mcgovern-dole program. this is a joy, incredible bipartisan support. and i want to tell you, this does more to enhance our national security than sending weapons to countries all over the world. to people who benefit from this

program know it comes from the people of the united states of america. this is a good program. support the mcgovern-dole program. reject this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: for what reason does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? mrs. emerson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. emerson: i'm not going to take the entire five minutes. i do want to say a couple things. number one, i totally associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from massachusetts. it is quite true that taking away the program funding would in fact literally take food out of the mouths of five million hungry, hungry children. i also want to add because i know the people probably don't understand this if you haven't been working with this program is that countries actually graduate from this program. this is not an ongoing effort in every single country cl colombia might have graduated, nicaragua, and other countries.

you know, with so many threats against our nation, i just think it's important to share america's bounty with hungry children in other places. and in critical places around the world so that we can help america feed their hungry bodies out of goodness. and it really is something that the entire key fence department -- defense department, you ask any army officer, any member of the armed services, when they are in areas where these children's lives are being changed by a bowl of mush, as mr. mcgovern said, it makes a huge difference. it makes them able to go to school. it makes little girls have the only opportunity they will ever get for any kind of education. and it is absolutely ridiculous

that people don't understand how important this is for the security of our country. i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments and thank her for her leadership not only on this issue but so many other issues to help hungry children around the world. i just want to also commend her for making the point that the mcgovern-dole program, in the program there are provisions that require that countries graduate out of the program. this is not a permanent u.s. handout, if you will. this is some support to help get established school feed programs that will, one, get more kids in school, two, give kids a nutritious meal. mrs. emerson: reclaiming my time. the countries actually take this program over. this is a jump-start. and one that for no other reason little girls would never go to school. and to me it's just shocking. we take these things for

granted in this country. but it sets a very, very good example and gives these children and their families an opportunity to do more for themselves. with just a wee bit of help from us. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: i'd also want to say that this is -- this program is named after george mcgovern and robert dole. so by the very naming of this program it shows the bipartisanship that has been involved in forming this program from the very beginning. i this -- think we should be proud. mrs. emerson: we should be. elizabeth dole took over for bob after he left the senate. and this was a very important issue for her, but it has always been one that's been bipartisan. and one that helps lift other people up because we really do have so much here. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: i want to make one short comment. i rise in opposition.

what happened to this program is that we contract with countries to create these incentives to get kids to go to school. you have heard the incredible stories, jim mcgovern just gave us, on his experiences in vissutting these countries. it's not only that these contracts are made with countries so that they have to put something into it, but they also have a way of working themselves out. it's not one of those going back to the comment earlier about nannygate, this is a work yourself out of a program. you can get off the program by having it work. and then you can move the moneys to another country. i think it's an outstanding program and worth keeping and certainly this cut would ruin it all. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this shortsighted and i believe dangerous

amendment which will increase suffering and misery around the world and put american men and women in danger. my colleagues have addressed that issue as well. the appropriation legislation before us is already remarkably stingy with regards to international food aid. it cuts mcgovern-dole food for education program by 10% below the president's request and food for peace by an astonishing $650 million. 38% reduction. now mr. broun proposes to zero out mcgovern-dole entirely. this is a program as you can tell by its name has been the hallmark of bipartisan leadership for over a decade now. it is a linchpin in our diplomatic efforts in developing nations. make no mistake, cutting mcgovern-dole endangers our national security. zeer he row out this program as this amendment calls for would needlessly put the safety and the security of american families at risk. for the first time in history, over one million people, one in

six are undernourished worldwide. every six seconds a child dies because of hunger and related causes. this hunger forces people into desperate acts, dangerous packs, famine and starvation create the conditions for militant extremism, the very extremism our troops fight in afghanistan and around the world. . and so mcgovern-dole is a crucial front to fight global terror. we undercut the recruiting base of those who would threaten us. as former national security advisor, sandy berger wrote in "the los angeles times" to ensure a child goes to school no hungry is the single best investment we can make in building a prosperous, healthy and stable society.

mcgovern-dole is that. operating in 8 countries around the world, including afghanistan, pakistan, mcgovern-dole provides at least one new trishes meal each day to vulnerable children in schools. it has shown demonstrated success in reducing hunger and increasing school enrollment and attendance. especially, as my colleagues pointed out, for girls. otherwise little girls in these countries don't get any education and they don't get any food. last month, a g.a.o. released a report on mcgovern-dole and it calls for strengthening monitoring by the usda, accelerating the time frame for reporting. it did not, however, call into question any of the objectives of the program. this program works. since becoming a permanent program in the 2002 farm bill, it has reduced hunger and violence, increased education and nutrition, become a vital element in our international diplomacy. zeroing out the program, as this amendment demands, would

not only destroy all these benefits for america and the developing world. it would mean five million kids will go hungry again. five million children, and yet even as this amendment threatens to force millions in starvation, somehow the majority's budget still finds money for oil companies' subsidies and tax breaks for millionaires. cutting this funding is shortsighted in the extreme. it -- mcgovern-dole works. it works for america. it works for developing nations around the world. it moves children from starvation to education, and it undercuts the recruiting ability of those who would do america harm. i urge my colleagues, stand with our troops, stand against hunger worldwide and oppose this disastrous amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. anyone else seeking

recognition? 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. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: request for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. 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 50, line 1, page 51, line 1, title 6, related agencies and food and drug administration, department of health and human services administration, salaries and expenses, $3,654,148,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment that was just read. the clerk: page 51, line 18,

insert after the dollar amount the following -- reduced by $392 million. page 52, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the following -- reduced by $392 million. page 54, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the following -- reduce by $392 million. page 80, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the following -- increased by $392 million. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just briefly say this is a very simple amendment. it takes the center for tobacco products back to the 2009 level. now, all of you should realize this agency never existed in 2006. there has been increases in this center. so it's a very simple amendment. we're taking back the funding for this center for tobacco products back to the 2009 level.

now, under the president's plan, the budget for the f.d.a. center for tobacco products has simply exploded. the administration's budget justification to congress states, quote, f.d.a.'s experiencing an unprecedented and dramatic surge in staffing and facilities needs that will cause the f.d.a. facility requirements to exceed the scope of the 2009 master plan. i understand that. the f.d.a. is expanding. does good work. we're not criticizing it. but one area of the f.d.a.'s budget that is growing way too fast under this administration's budget is the brand new center for tobacco products. again, this agency, this center did not exist in 2006. in the f.y. twelve agriculture appropriation -- 2012 agriculture appropriation committee it has reductions

sought by the republican majority. the same fiscal restraint should be applied to the center for tobacco products. we're talking about appropriation levels going back to 2006, 2009, 2010. so all i'm asking, let's move this back to 2009. an f.y. 2012 budget that was requested by the f.d.a. tobacco's act was $454 million, an increase of $238 million from fiscal year 2010, enacted levels of $235 million. so in one year it practically doubled. 110% increase. now, this is when we have a deficit. $1.5 trillion every year and we have a debt that's approaching $15 trillion. if we look at f.y. 2009, $185

million funding. from the fiscal year 2009, there's been a 500% increase in this new center for tobacco products. tobacco regulation is obviously the new program at the f.d.a. they have been just chomping at the bit over there for the last 25 years to being involved with the regulation of cigarettes and everything like that. they want to regulate tobacco and i think frankly, you know, the house voted for it. i accept that. but we don't need to increase from 2009 up to what we're looking at these large increases. we got to return some of these increases to the debt and to the deficit. so a 500% increase in the budget is way too large. i suggest that funding should continue at the 2009 levels. >> will the gentleman yield for a brief request? mr. stearns: are you accepting my amendment? reclaiming my time.

we're rolling back funding for many other programs and it's proper to ensure that f.d.a. also bears some of the burden during this most austere budgetary times. now, everyone knows that smoking is bad, and the question is, what is the f.d.a. doing through this center for tobacco products? not clear to me. do they have to increase over the years almost 500%? reducing their funding to fiscal year 2009 levels will be a restraint and will give the authorizing committee a chance to review the f.d.a. regulations and review how the f.d.a. plans to implement the law. i ask that the f.d.a. does not overreach their authority and is using the best approach to see tobacco reduced. we all have to take a sacrifice. don't the center for tobacco products also have to contribute? there's no reason for it to have over these years a 500%

increase. and so, mr. chairman, i think this is a modest attempt to try and save money. it's quite a substantial amount of money for a good cause which is reducing our deficit, our debt. in the long term, let the f.d.a. and this new center for tobacco products move forward but not at these chomping, gargantuan increases because they felt it's catch-up time. everyone can say it's catch-up time. under this huge deficit, we can't continue to look at agencies like this during this period of time getting a 500% increase in funding. so with that i ask my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: first of all, i hope we don't have one of these ambush amendments that we haven't had a chance to really look at. this one really has serious

implications. what this -- it seems that this amendment does is first of all reduce the tobacco industry's fees that they have to pay the federal government. this is a big help to the tobacco industry. cuts fees that the private sector has to pay the federal government. and what do these fees go into? into campaigns for -- to reduce tobacco consumption and to treat issues related to tobacco. that's the way the amendment reads to us. i'd just like to remind the author that i represent california. california's time after time put taxes on the ballot to increase tobacco taxes and they've passed overwhelmingly and we use those fees that would come from the industry from the sale of -- not only from the industry but the user -- to run very effective

anti-tobacco campaigns. we reduced smoking in california almost to zero. i mean, it's incredible. most cities in california don't allow any smoking in public places. the communities i represent along the coastline don't allow you to smoke on the beaches. you certainly can't smoke in public buildings. and any other kind of -- even in public places that are privately owned. so to do this, to ambush the anti-tobacco campaign with his amendment is a giveaway to the tobacco companies. and reduces the fees they have to pay and urge the ability to eliminate the illnesses caused by tobacco and anybody who's had cancer in their family, as i have, are aware of the illnesses caused by tobacco usage. i think this is a dangerous

amendment, and hopefully the gentleman will withdraw it. if not i will oppose it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seeking recognition? seeing no one, the question is on the amendment offered by mr. the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: i'd like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. farr: i'd like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: mr. chairman, i was going to introduce an amendment, but i just want to make a statement and i'll withhold the amendment. the statement i want to make is about what the underlying bill does to f.d.a.

it cuts the f.d.a., food and drug administration, by 21%, about $580 million. on top of that, the f.d.a. has to absorb another $37 million in higher rent costs. so we really are talking about a reduction to f.d.a. about $600 million, and yet we keep the law in place so they have to continue all the current requirements and activities that are mandated to them. this kind of cut means that 2,000 fewer domestic and foreign inspections of firms that manufacture food and medical products can be made. this kind of cut means that more than 9,000 fewer f.d.a. import inspections to verify that imported food and medical products meet safety standards. this kind of cut means there will be 4,000 fewer food and medical products samplings to

identify safety problems. the amendment i would have introduced would have moved some of the funds to the center of devices and radiological health, known as cdrh. the center for devices and radiological health is responsible for bringing new technologies to market and to make the medical devices that are already on the markets safer and more effective. the f.d.a. has implemented a more streamline process by which medical devices can get to market, called the innovation pathway, but with the cuts to the f.d.a. budget in this bill, the innovation pathway will become innovation roadblock. at a hearing at the energy and commerce committee, subcommittee on health on february 17, 2011, the director of cdrh testified that these cuts, i quote, the innovation pathway would be not an option, and for the rest of what we do,

this would increase delays in decisions. it would deny patients truly safe and effective innovative technologies, and it will result in jobs being lost, unquote. so moving funds, even nominal funds to cdrh, makes a point that we would have to maintain a commitment to getting critical medical devices to market and to patients. the other point i want to make is the center for devices and radiological health is also responsible in part for the f.d.a.'s advances in medical countermeasures. these medical countermeasures programs extends across several f.d.a. offices. the program coordinates the appropriate responses to national medical catastrophes. for them to put in place the right medical responses to radiological threats. threats like a dirty bomb, a rogue nuclear device or even natural disasters like the one that occurred in fukushima

nuclear reactor after the earthquake and tsunami. this isn't just a health concern. it's a homeland security concern. unless we are ready to handle these emergencies, many, many people could die or be permanently disabled. we have to prepare, and the cdrh can do that for us, but not with the budget cut it's facing. this means the public health of america is put on risk is put on hold. medical safety devices with put on hold. medical countermeasures are put on hold. radiological treatment improvements like the new forms of x-rays, pet scans and m.r.i.'s are put on hold. the 21% cut in the f.d.a. intunlt not good for america's health. i wish that we didn't have to adopt a budget with that kind of a cut. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seeking recognition?

the gentleman no longer wishes to offer his amendment? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 55, line 6. buildings and facilities. $8,788,000. independent agencies, commodity futures trading commission, $171,930,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. farm credit administration limitation on administrative expenses, $62 million. title 7, general provisions, including cancellations, resigses and transfers of funds. section 701, appropriations shall be available for purchase of passenger motor vehicles. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i rise tufere my amendment that would reduce the fleet of vehicles the -- they are able to purchase by half. it's a simple way to save taxpayers some of their money, their hard-earned money. i know many of my amendments cut programs that are near and dear to my colleagues and their districts' hearts. we've heard clearly from friends on both sides regarding that. but together, my amendments cut over $2 billion. and if we accrue more than twice that amount of debt every single day. it's time to make the hard choices. for the greater good of our economy. we have to cut wherever we can. and cutting by $-- by 230 vehicles out of the usda fleet is another way to save taxpayers money. i encourage people to vote for

my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: i'm curious, can i request a point of inquiry, mr. broun? do you lease a car? mr. broun: do i lease a car? no, i do not. mr. farr: you use your own car. mr. broun: i do indeed. mr. farr: so you want to cut this account that's vehicles for the department. mr. broun: 230 vehicles. mr. farr: how do you expect them to get around? mr. broun: i've introduced -- maybe they could ride share, that would be a good way to save taxpayers' dollars. mr. farr: i don't think we can operate government on a maybe and i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seeking recognition?

seeing no one, the question son 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. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 56, line 21, section 702, the secretary may transfer unobligated balances for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment. section 703, no part shall remain available beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided. section 704, no funds may be used to pay indirect costs, rate -- cost rates on cooperative agreements. section 705, the direction appropriation of costs shall remain available until expended. section 076, none of the funds may be used to carry out section 410 of the federal meat inspection act.

section 707, none of the funds may be used to acquire new informing technology systems without the apraufl of the chief information officer. section 708, funds shall remain available to disburse obligations in the current fiscal year. section 709, any former or u.s. boffer roer eligible to receive an insured loan shall be eligible for assistance. section 710, up in of the funds may be wrused to prohibit the acquisition from nonfederal sources. section 71, unobligations balances shall remain available through september 30, 2013, for information technology expenses. section 712, the secretary may authorize a state agency to use funds provided to exceed the maximum amount specified when issuing liquid infant formula to participants. section 713, none of the funds may be used for first class travel.

section 714, each program established or amended by the food conservation and energy act of 2008 public law 110-246 using funds of the commodity credit corporation shall be available for salaries and related administrative expenses. section 715, in carrying out subsection 6 of section 502 of the housing act of 1949, the secretary may use the authority described in subsections h and j. section 716, clause ii of section 524b-4-b is amended. section 717. appropriations to the department made available in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007 to carry out section 601 of the rural electrify case act of 1936 shall remain available until expended. section 718, none of the funds

shall be used to carry out a program under subsection 32a of public law 110-246 in excess of $948 million. section 719, of the funds available not more than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses related to all advisory committees. section 720, none of the funds shall be available to pay indirect costs charged against any agricultural research or grant awards issued by the national institute of food and agriculture. section 721, none of the funds may be used to write or publish a final rule in furtherance of the proposed rule. section 722, the unobligated balances available for the natural resources conservation service forestry incentive programs, $5,500,000 are rescinded.

section 723 of the unobligated balances provided pursuant to section 16h-1-a of the 2002 nutrition act $11 million is rescinded. section 724, section 1228-e-a is amended. section 725, section 1240-b-a is ameppeded. section 726, section 1241 of the food security act of 1985 is amended. section 727, section 1241-a-7-d of the food security act of 1985 is amended. section 728, none of the funds shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the conservation stewardship program. section 729, funds made available in public law 111-344

through february 12, 2012, for trade adjustment for farmers are hereby rescinded. section 730, none of the funds shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out emergency food assistance program if such program exceeds $200 million. section 731, closure and conveyance of research facilities, the secretary may close up to 10 facilities of the research service as proposed in the budget of the president. section 732, section 9 of the richard b. russell national school lunch act is amended. section 733, unobligated blangses available to the department from prior appropriations, $63 million with appropriate discretionary funds are hereby rescinded. section 734, none of the funds shall be used -- made available

to any nondepartment of agricultural employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. section 735, none of the funds shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds. section 736, none of the funds shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who prepare appropriations language for programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittees. section 737, none of the funds may be used by an executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story intended for broadcast unless the story includes a clear notification that the story was prepared or funded by that executive branch agency. section 73 , no employee of the department may be detailed from an agency to any other agency or office of the department for more than 30 days unless the office is fully reimbursed by

the receiving agency. section 739, none of the funds may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to inspect horses. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. page 77, line 12, strike the semicolon and insert or. page 77, line 15, strike or and insert a period. page 77, strike line 16 through 17. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would remove the restriction only on the fee for service horse meat inspection program. since fiscal year 2006, congress has prohibited the use of federal funds to inspect

horses. however the usda allowed for a fee for service programs for mandatory inspection of horses destinned for food until 2008 when congress prohibited the program through an appropriations rider. before these bans, horse processing was a $65 million a year industry. and owners could receive about $400 to $800 when selling a horse. i'm offering this amendment because owners should have the option of selling their horse for processing under their personal property rights. it is not the federal government's role to ban this option. the decision to allow for processing should be made by the states. the senate committee on appropriations has directed g.a.o. to examine the effects of this ban on the welfare of horses and on the agriculture industry. this report was expected by march 1 of 2010, over a full year later, we still have yet

to be delivered a final report from g.a.o. but expect one within weeks of the debate. it is important that this analysis be considered when determining whether to consider this ban. in particular, the g.a.o. was asked to examine how many horses are now being shipped to mexico and canada for slaughter. which outside analysis has confirmed is increasing. with the increased exporting of animals comes the concern of longer transportation times to slaughter and reduced inspections by usda of travel conditions. usda has no authority to ensure humane treatment once horses cross the border to mexico or can ka. -- or canada and there's no reason to believe horses are receiving better treatment by continuing this ban. additionally, there continue to be reports of increased animal abuse during the reduced options for unwanted horses.

i can assure you this is true in my home state of wyoming. recently, 100 horses have been seized from a western wyoming ranch where they were being starved and had to be transported to the eastern side of the state to the state's cheyenne stockyards. while the state veterinarian is caring for the animals currently, the options for selling these horses are limited. there is just no place to send unwanted horses and neglect will continue to rise across the country without a viable alternative. in fact, the wyoming legislature this year needed -- made it a crime to release a horse onto public lands. the reason people do that is because there's no other way to get rid of an unwanted horse. there's no opportunity to sell them into this meat market so people are turning them loose, with the ferrell horse the wild horses, further exacerbating

the federal wild horse problem. congress needs to examine these concerns and the g.a.o. report should provide us the information needed to make an educated decision on this matter. now, i plan to withdraw my amendment after discussing this issue, but would like to provide my colleagues with the opportunities to present their state's concerns with this ban and to ensure moving forward we examine the g.a.o. report before finalizing any appropriations language before fiscal year 2012. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. is anyone else wish to be recognized? the gentleman from new mexico seeks recognition. the gentleman from new mexico

is recognized for five minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentlelady from wyoming bringing this bill. you know, many times people think that horse slaughter is simply inhumane. some think that horse starvation is more inhumane. the truth is people are going to get rid of their horses in some way. what they do in new mexico and the western states is they simply take them out and turn them loose. right now we're struggling with an economy, an economy that is having difficulties in every area. too often it says it's the problem of the economy. we don't break it down to its individual components. one of the components in new mexico is that we've completely eliminated sheep from new mexico. new mexico used to be a large area of sheep production. that piece of the economy is simply gone because of regulations that we in washington and in the states have put into place. new mexico also used to have a vibrant apple population, apple economy.

that's now gone because we've given favorable treatment to overseas' products. this is another element of an economy that has simply disappeared. new mexico used to have a vibrant horse trade. prices were how. now -- prices were high. people are doing away with the horse market. so we find that we in congress are causing the economic decay of our entire nation and this lady's amendment says let's study the effect, let's understand what we are causing, let's understand the economic dueress that washington and the states are putting on their own economy. it makes ultimate sense and for us in the west it should be reinstated. we should reinstate the market there because horses have been very unhumanely treated in the guise of more humane treatment. i thank the lady for her presentation. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i

move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i'm disappointed that she's planning to withdraw it and we are not going to vote on it. we had a vote in full committee. it was another's amendment. i did not support the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran's amendment, because i believe there is a lot of emotion when it goes on when we're dealing with a horse. it still is a private property issue, a personal private property issue. while i do not own horses, i have family members who own horses. i know that you do have to have some place to move the horse on when it ages out on you. very emotional in america. we look down at other nations that eat horses, but i have eaten horse before in kazakhstan. it isn't bad. we in america we have an obesity problem. we can pick and choose what we want to eat. what we don't want to eat. people feel like we're too good to be eating horses. i understand that.

but the rest of the world does eat horses. and i think frankly it's a different discussion, as my friend from virginia knows. i wish we were having a vote on it. if the gentleman, do you want to get some time from me or do you need to use five minutes? i'll yield to you and we'll give you some time. ok, i yield back the balance of my time. but i did want to encourage the gentlewoman to continue working on this. i will be supportive of you and i will work with our friend from virginia on it as well. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. is there anyone else wishing to seek recognition on this amendment? the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: you're recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: and i do rise in opposition to this amendment that would allow horse slaughtering to resume in the

united states. the language that this, the lady's amendment would strike was put into the bill as a bipartisan amendment. two republicans and a democrat. mr. sweeney, mr. whitfield and mr. spratt. what it did was to restrict funding for federal activities involved with meat inspection and thereby it stopped horse slaughter for the purpose of human consumption in any facility in the united states. it stopped new facility -- facilities from opening. well, it passed this body by an overwhelming vote, 269-158. now, every year since, the language has been retained in the agriculture appropriations bill. there's six very good reasons for doing this. one, it's money badly spent.

only foreign corporations which dole in horse meat for consumption in foreign markets would benefit from the federal inspection of u.s. horse slaughter plants. so we are using american taxpayers' money so foreign corporations can send it overseas so people living in foreign countries can consume it. there's a $37 million cut below last year's levels in the food safety and inspection service. so here you are cutting $37 million in food safety inspection and yet you would be adding this additional burden onto the food safety inspection service, the additional responsibility to inspect horse meat. remember, this is meat that will be exclusively consumed in foreign countries. before the ban, most meat was

exported to france, belgium and japan. we should be using our resources to focus on meat consumed by our constituents. the american public overwhelmingly does not support the slaughter of horses for human consumption. three quarters of our constituents across the country oppose slaughter of horses for human consumption. thirdly, american horse meat invariablely contains harmful chemicals because horses are not raised for human consumption. a recent f.d.a. toxicity report found any number of substances that could cause adverse effect in humans. one example is the most common anti-inflammatory given to horses. it's difficult to know everything given to every horse in the united states because they are not intended to raise as food. the only way to ensure that such harmful substances don't

make it into the food supply is to prevent horse meat from entering the market. fourth, most slaughter is healthy. it's framed it's a way to dispose of unwanted horses. the facts don't expose this claim. when horse slaughter was allowed in the u.s., 92% were healthy, could continue to be used as productive horses. sick and old horses aren't use as a food source. people don't want to eat meat from sick, old horses. the -- so we're talking primarily healthy horses. or humane options are available. a licensed veterinarian can humanely euthanize a horse for $250. that's not cost prohibited. i want to underscore, too, my very good friend was complaining there was too much emotion in this argument. what's wrong with emotion? i mean, the horses inspire us.

that's why most of the staff use around the u.s. capitol, there are horses. our heroes riding on horses. horses were critical to the expansion of the west. they aided in the development of agriculture. they provide entertainment and recreation, similar to dogs and cats. they are treasured, loyal, companioned animals. that's why the american public does not allow slaughter for consumption. a vote for this amendment is a vote to overturn established policy that was enacted under republicans, supported by the american people to prevent horse slaughter to resume in this country. we would be diverting inspection funding which is being cut substantially, diverting that to inspect meat that foreign corporations will be able to sell to foreign consumers. that's not something this body should support, and with that i

can argue against every claim that was made but i don't think i'll take up your time to do that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: at this point i suspect my time has expired, and i thank the chairman for yielding. thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to clarify for the record this amendment is not about tax dollars. this amendment is about adjusting some policy that would put into an openingses bill some time ago, long before the current makeup of congress. and we're talking about a fee-for-service scenario that would allow the private sector to ensure there is safe, affordable horse meat to the general public, to a market overseas that is very robust. but let me say that in a g.a.o. study on the effects of horse

slaughter, plant closings on the welfare of horses and the farming economy as a whole was requested by the senate ag appropriations subcommittee more than a year and a half ago and is overdufort a report. the devastated horse industry continues to be attacked by misinformation and we certainly have a problem here because i would allege that the horse economics or the ownership of horses, the economics are upside down. unfortunately, mr. speaker, the result of this misguided campaign will eventually be a nation where very few can even afford to own a horse. without a secondary market, the value of horses at every level has plunged. fewer horses means fewer jobs. fewer horse trailers sold, fewer veterinary dollars spent, fewer saddles sold and the list continues. destroying the u.s. horse industry closed the u.s. to a very robust global market and gave other countries this economic opportunity. with the ability to ethically produce horse meat under regulated, humane conditions in the united states, we would

almost immediately create jobs and minimize suffering. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. is there anyone else wishing to seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, the gentleman from virginia inadvertently misrepresented the terms of this amendment. they only apply to the fee-for-service component. with that, mr. -- mr. dicks: the gentlelady has already spoken on her amendment. mrs. lummis: i'm asking unanimous consent to withdraw. mr. dicks: i didn't hear that and i object. if you withdraw the amendment, i won't object. she hasn't withdrawn it. mrs. lummis: now i'm not going to withdraw the amendment. i ask for a vote. i'll ask for a vote.

the chair: is there anyone seeking recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. burton: let me just say to the gentlelady -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: let me say to the gentlelady, this is an emotional issue, and those of us that do not agree with you feel strongly about it. now, i believe if you put that amendment in it could very well jeopardize the ag bill. and i don't think you want to do that. so i hope you'll reconsider withdrawing this amendment. in committee your amendment was defeated. and there's a lot of people in this country that feel very strongly on both sides of this issue, but the american public, whether or not you agree with them, feel very strongly, as mr. moran said. and so i hope you'll change your mind. and regarding some of the things that i've heard, and i was not going to speak on this.

did you have something, jay, you want to say? regarding -- regarding some of the things i heard about these horses starving to death on the plains and everything, there are a number of people in this country that are willing to put up millions and millions of dollars. in fact, i know some of them who have bought ranches and want to take these wild horses and put them into an area where they'll be safe, they will be protected and they will be cared for. and we're talking about maybe in addition to the ranches another 600,000 or 700,000 acres that would be used for these horses and for them to be able to survive. if you have ever looked at the way they transport these animals for slaughter, they cram 20 horses into a trailer built for 10.

they don't feed them they don't water them properly and the horses are so mistreated it's unbelievable. in addition, you ought to see what they do in the slaughter houses. they hang them up by a hook when they're still alive and they're squealing and they kill them in a very inhumane way. now, you know -- i am not for changing our agricultural attitudes in this country. we have to have the slaughter of pigs and cows and chickens and that sort of thing, so a lot of times people say, if we're against horse slaughter we want to do something to hurt the agricultural community. that couldn't be further from the truth. we want to make sure these animals are treated in a hue hew main way, number one, and number two, the american taxpayer is not paying for the french to get horse meat. let me say to the lady one more time, i hope she will reconsider, we have a

disagreement you know i love you, but i hope you'll reconsider and withdraw this amendment. i don't think something of this emotional status should impede or impair something as important as the ag bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i rise in strong support of the amendment and believe while it may be an emotional issue, and as my friends said, emotion is good, there's a lot of logic in the gentlewoman's position. that's why i'm a strong supporter of it and recognizing she's on her feet, i'd like to yield her the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. before i withdraw the amendment, i wish to correct that this amendment has never been considered in committee or on the floor.

this amendment only applies to the two lines in this horse inspection issue which deal with an individual's right to pay their own money to have a horse inspected. there are no taxpayer dollars involved in this amendment. i'm only striking the two lines that now you're even not allowing people to pay their own money to have a horse inspected. with that -- with that opportunity to correct the record, mr. chairman, i withdraw my amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yields back his time? mr. kingston: i yield back. the chair: is there objection to withdrawing the amendment? seeing none so ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. first, the amendment offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the amendment offered by mr. segs of texas. the amendment offered by mr. farr of california, amendment number eight by mr. broun of georgia, amendment offered by mr. chaffetz of utah, amendment number four by mr. broun of georgia. amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan, amendment number 9 by mr. brun of georgia, amendment offered by ms. richardson of california, the amendment a by mr. gosar of arizona, amendment a by mr. broun of fwea, amendment offered by ms. foxx of north carolina, amendment number 12 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment b by mr. gosar of arizona, amendment b by mr. broun of georgia, amendment c by mr. broun of georgia, and

amendment offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 192.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 193, the nays are 296, the amendment is not adopted. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent that the house observe a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the tornado which hit joplin, missouri, on maye 22. as the congressman representing missouri's seventh district, which includes joplin, i ask that we observe a moment of silence for those affected by the ef-5 tornado that struck this area on the 22nd of maye. mr. long: this horrific event led to the loss of life of 153 individuals from babies to folks in their 90's. they also lost 54% of their school capacity, 8,000 homes, and 500 businesses. the chair: without objection, so ordered. all members please rise and observe a moment of silence.

the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business and the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> on this vote, the yeas are 225, the nays are 199, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a record vote on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from california, mr. farr, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. farr of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted, a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: on this vet, the yeas are 350, the nays are 70, think amendment is adopted. 352 yeas, 70 nays. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number eight printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from

fwea, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a rored vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 121 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 120 and the nays are 304, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redessnaret the amendment. cloip the clerk: amendment offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 83 and the nays are 338. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 125, the nays are 298, the

amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan. the chair: a record vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 142 and the nays are 282, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 107, the nays are 318, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, there are 200 yeas, 224 nays, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on the amendment a offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment a offered by mr. gosar of ayes arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 139, the nays are 285. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment a offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment a offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 64, the nays are 360, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished bids is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the woman from north carolina, ms. foxx, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 119, the nays are 306, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a vorded -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 99, the nays are 324, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment b offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gowsar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment b offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 1 -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 124, the nays are 300, the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment b offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on whiches noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment b offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 107, the nays are 312.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 108, the nays are 316, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment c offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 120, the nays are 303, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]