it. and i'm here to do things using money, taxpayers' money to do the wise thing. this still stays in the budget. doesn't affect the outcome at all. it just penalizes certain people that happen to be in the cotton business. i don't think i want to support an amendment that isn't constructive. yield back. the chair: the amendment offered by the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. neugebauer: american farmers and ranchers are citizens, too. i represent the west texas district, 19 in texas, 29,000 square miles, 27 counties, made up of a lot of farmers and ranchers and farm families and ranch families. you know what? they are concerned about the deficit as well. they are concerned about the growing debt and the legacy that will leave for our children and our grandchildren.

. they're willing to step up and take their fair share of the burden of being able to get our country headed back on the right track again. in fact, that process started in the 2008 farm bill where a lot of these farm programs were reduced. for the last few years, for example, countercyclical payments have been neither nil in a lot of those commodities because those programs were operating as they were designed. i appreciate my colleagues' efforts to be a budget hawk and many times i supported a lot of his amendments and ideas. but today i come to the floor saying that, you know what, this is not the place to write the farm bill. that we had that process coming up next year. farm families are stepping up in this particular appropriation bill, as the chairman so appropriately

pointed out that the major cuts to agricultural programs occur in this bill that we're considering today. and so i am going to urge my colleagues that let's write the farm bill when it's time to write the farm bill. let's put together programs that are good for production agriculture. i would remind a lot of folks when we look at this farm bill, a lot of people don't understand all of the things that are in this, and it's called a farm bill, ag appropriation bill, but quite honestly, a majority of this bill is about food stamps. it's about nutrition programs, and a very smaller percentage of this bill has to do with production agriculture. i think one of the things we have to be extremely careful here, and this is the reason we need to do it right and do this in regular order is today america is dependent on 70% of its oil in this country. every day we have to go up and find 70% of our oil has to be imported in this country.

and just recently the united states of america, half of its credit is due to foreign countries. and so today we are importing today. today we have to immortgage money to finance our deficits. what we want to be extremely careful is in the future we don't -- americans don't have to wake up and determine who's going to feed them because we have eliminating the farm industry in this country. and so i think that's the reason it's important to do this carefully. it's important to do it right. and i look forward as a member of the ag community -- ag committee as we move into 2012 of sitting down with my colleagues and writing farm policy that will be good for america, be good for our budget long term and that's the appropriate time to do that. so i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise?

mr. blumenauer: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i rise in support of my amendment from my good friend from arizona. i appreciate his work over the years as we've tried to refocus attention and our resources in areas that are more productive for most american farmers and ranchers, for the taxpayer and for the general economy. i just heard my good friend talk about his concern about who's going to feed america in the future. well, the issue of having these lavish agricultural subsidies that are concentrated, 3/4 in the top 10 producers, and they are not people who are in the main producing food. the fruits and vegetables that people care about that would add to nutrition, the people that are in my agricultural community in oregon are basically shut out. they don't receive it.

they are not getting support in terms that are market neutral. in terms of marketing, in terms of research, in terms of commonsense support for meeting their environmental objectives to protect clean water and habitat. being able to start tamping this down is essential. the a.g.i. limitation, the one that i had on the floor last night that would limit the total amount of payment, these are things that there's never a good time to deal with them. i've been through three farm bill cycles. i heard the body express itself in terms of instructions to the conferees and watch them disregard it. when it came, for example, to limitation of payment. i would like to turn to my friend from arizona to yield some time. before i do i just want to correct one misapprehension

that is floating around about the amendment that we had on the floor last night that limited title 1 payments to 125,000 dollars per entity. now, some people are pretending this would somehow affect disaster payments or crop insurance. no. it is just title 1 payment. it's very simple. it's set forth in the bill. everybody can read it. it's not going to deal with, for example, disaster payment. on this note i'd like to turn to my good friend from arizona thanking him for his continued partnership and advocacy in this area for such time as he may consume that is allocated to me. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for his work in this area for a long time, over the years to try to end these out-of-step subsidy problems that we have in the agriculture field. let me correct something that was said before. it was said we're in this position because of brazil.

because of the processes they're doing. no. it's because our own agricultural policy, in this case our cotton subsidies, are trade distorting. nobody can step up in this body or on this floor and make the case otherwise. nobody can stand up with a straight face and say that our cotton program that we have is not trade distorting. that's why we're in this problem. that's why brazil was able to take this case to the w.t.o. and the w.t.o. ruled in their favor because we have trade distorting farm policies. that's what we need to fix. that's the attempt of this amendment. there was an amendment last night but congressman kind that will be voted on later today. i may not and likely will not call for a roll call on this one so people can focus on that one. that one, the kind amendment limits payments to brazil. and if we do that then we can force a change in our own

policy and we can force that issue better than perhaps any other amendment right now. and so that's what i would encourage people to vote for is the kind amendment when it comes for a roll call later. if you want to -- if you do not believe it's proper to be sending money to brazil to address our own trade distorting cotton policy then vote for the kind amendment later today. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate his clarification. i agree wholeheartedly for his sentiment. it's insane instead of changing our trade distorting unjustified subsidies that we are instead going to sdice the cotton -- subsidize the cotton industry both in the united states and in brazil. it's certainly not the approach we should be taking at a time when we're going to have to do business differently. we talk about people getting haircuts. what happens today is that 31 congressional districts get more than half of all the subsidies. not coincidently are districts that are concentrated on the ag

committee and have a different perspective than the majority of people in the house. i'm hopeful we can work our will with these amendments. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. is there any other member seek time in opposition? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the can clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. luann of new mexico. at the end of the bill -- mr. lujan of new mexico. at the of end of the bill insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the undersecretary of agriculture for regulatory programs to provide any marketing funds to any entity

that advertises, describes, labels or offers the -- for sale chile peppers as chili peppers unless such chili peppers was grown in new mexico. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: to reserve a point of order on the gentleman from new mexico's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. lujan: lately we've seen a disturbing trend where marketers and retailers falsely use the unique brand of new mexico chili to misleading misadvertise their product. we take pride in our agricultural products. in particular, we take pride in our chili. we even spell it differently, madam, we spell it crmbing --

c-h-i-l-e. around new mexico i heard the plight of new mexico farmers. there's concerns with the importation of peppers, of chili powders from out of state and even from other countries that are hurting our producers in new mexico. it's a concern that may put them out of business and it's a concern that attacking the authentic new mexico chili brand. this unfair practice has led to decreased revenues for new mexico chili farmers who work all summer and to raise their crops for harvest in the fall months and when prices are undercut by imported products that falsely advertise as new mexico chili. it would not impose any cost to the federal government. my amendment would prevent any funds from this bill from being used to advertise, describe, label or offer for sale chili peppers as new mexico chili unless the chili peppers used are grown in new mexico. this amendment is important in

the protection of new mexico's local chili producers. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and protect this unique agriculture product. as we know, madam chair, anyone who's tried it loves it i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from wyoming. for what purpose does she rise? mrs. lummis: thank you, madam chairman. i made a point of order, and i rise to insist on the point of order. it proposes changes that require new determination that is not within the purview and scope of the current bill. madam chairman, it is also violating of clause 2 of rule 21. madam chairman, i respectfully ask for the ruling of the chair in this regard. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i think this sadly

will be ruled out of order, madam chair. i ask if there is an opportunity for the committee to work with myself, not only as we get to the farm bill but also with the ag committee as we talk about the importance of this important product in new mexico and its impact there. i would certainly respectfully request from our friends on the other side of the aisle that maybe we get a chance to work to put in and i'd be happy to yield, madam chair. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: the committee would be very pleased to work with the gentleman from new mexico and myself in particular since my daughter is a new resident of your state, and i yield back. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the secretary, specifically a duty to determine the activities of entities receiving certain funds. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21 and the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: which of her amendments she is offering? mrs. blackburn: yes. it is the 5% amendment. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. each amount made available by this act other than an amount required to be made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5%. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. as you can see, this is a very simple bill. my amendment would require every single agency covered in this ag appropriations bill to be accountable to the taxpayers by reducing one nickel out of a dollar for what they have been given to spend.

it requires all accounts to absorb that equally, that 5% reduction, and it will keep the bureaucracy from picking winners and losers or choosing to fund their pet programs. certainly, the amendment will save the taxpayers money, but this is also a stand for good government. it's about taking responsibility, not torturing the american taxpayer with excuses for ineffective and inefficient bureaucracies. . there are a lot of people that say the appropriations committee deserve a pat on the back by decreasing discretionary spending by 4.7% below the 2008 levels, and i agree with that. i think they are to be commended. certainly off the president's request, the 13% reductions that they have made. i'm part of that of the that has pushed to return all of this to -- to return our spending to the

prestimulus, prebailout levels, but there is more that must be done. we have to make our government leaner. we have to make it more effective. every day americans are tightening their belts. they are asking government to do the very same thing. tennesseans keep saying, why is it that government keeps asking us to sacrifice for it when government should be sacrificing for us? every federal program needs to be held accountable. and this is a way to do it. our states have done across-the-board cuts. our city governments have done across-the-board cuts. even history will show you that twice before our presidents have pushed for across-the-board cuts. world war ii, korean conflict, there were 28% and 30% across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending.

the reason they did this, madam chairman, is because there was a crisis. there was a war. there was a need to restructure, to reorder, and to address the priorities of the day. one of my constituents came up to me recently, and this is someone who is active in the ag community in our state. and she said, it is time that the bureaucracy -- bureaucracies get their house in order. it is time that you-all in congress stop spending money you don't have on programs we don't want. so as we do our due diligence on the spending process, as we act responsibly to our constituents and to the taxpayer, it is time for us to turn to the bureaucracy, the rank-and-file federal employees who put the

pen to the paper on how this money gets spent. and say to them, find another nickel on a dollar. we are doing it for the children. we are doing it for our grandchildren. we are doing it to make certain that we stop borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that is spent. this amendment would reduce the budget authority by $951 million. it would reduce the current outlays by $675 million. that would be spread equally at a 5% rate across every single agency. it can be done. madam chairman, in these times of crisis, it should be done. as we seek to return this nation to fiscal stability and to responsibility. and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia, for what purpose does does he -- for what purpose does he rise? mr. kingston: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: i want to thank the gentlewoman tennessee for her work to reduce spending in this country. i agree with all the statements that she has made. i do want to point out, though, that the only budget that has passed either body is the ryan budget. i supported it. i know she did. the r.s.c. budget, which is actually more conservative. but it did not pass. at least we did get a budget passed on the house floor. the senate was unable to do that, even though the democrats are the majority party over there, the senate rejected the president's budget 97-0. apparently now they have given up. they are not going to try to pass a budget. the only bill we have an opportunity to move is under the ryan budget which is what this

bill reflects. it is a 134st -- actually higher than that because we cut a little bit more, we did some across-the-boards, it's about a 13.4% cut already. where the big money is, i know my friend from tennessee is as frustrated as i i am, it's in mandatory spending. it's in a chart over here. we don't have any pages, i would bring it on the floor, but 86% of this budget is mandatory spending. and i use the word mandatory loosely because it's really on automatic spending. that's where the big money is. unfortunately we can't get to it. but the portion that we do have control over used to be $23 billion and right now it's under our budget $17.2. let me show my friend this, because i think it is very important.

they'll have to see it on c-span from your office. the blue line is the mandatory spending of the agriculture budget. the red line is the discretionary spending. and the point is that this committee has jurisdiction over the red line. we do not in this committee have jurisdiction over the blue line. but you can see the blue line is the one going up and the red line is the one that's actually going down. so that's one of my frustrations about the entire process and the rules in which we govern under. but i wanted to make sure that my friend knows on the portion we do control, we did cut it 13ings had% -- 13.4%. i'll give you this chart. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it doesn't do any of the things that the author talked about.

it's a one sentence bill. this is a legal bill. we are here as lawmakers. it says each amount made available by this act other than the amount required to be made available by the provision of law, which is the one part mr. kingston talked about, is hereby reduced by 5%. that's all it says. there's nothing about accountability. the accountability goes on before our committee. that's what we do. we go over every item in the usda and f.d.a.'s budget. and in a public process where there is input and give and take. and do the scrutiny every year. that's what the appropriations committee is all about. so it makes good press releases to get up here and say if you cut, squeeze, and trim, government will get better. then they don't practice it in their own offices or lifestyle. you just demand people who give services to people can't give those services by just cutting out money. this amendment doesn't do anything the author talks about

except for whack a budget that's already been whacked. it was whacked by the allocation given to us. it's $5 billion less, 23%, almost -- 23% less than what the president requested. it's 14% below what congress enacted last year. it's 26% below what we enacted in 2010. it's even blow what we enacted in 2008. -- below what we enacted in 2008. last night we cut across-the-board, we did what this amendment does in a small proportion, but used that money to adjust for the w.i.c. program. just across the board by 5% snt going to do anybody any good. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any other member wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it -- mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. labeled flake number two. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the construction of an ethanol blunder pump or ethanol storage facility. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. this is a rather straightforward amendment and i should say before i start this identical amendment, identical amendment to this was approved when we voted on h.r. 1 earlier this year by a vote of 261-158.

mr. kingston: i supported this when you offered it on the continuing resolution and plan to support it today. mr. flake: ok. i'll be very brief. theet no industry receives the trifecta of government support. its use is mandated by law. protected by prohibitive oil tariff and receives billions in subsidies. effectively paying them to follow the law. everyone knows that ethanol subsidies are going to go away. 30 years is enough. even al gore and others who supported them in the beginning said, it was a mistake. we are going the other direction now. so ethanol supports or direct subsidies or import tariffs are going to go. so the industry is now saying, how can we keep these subsidies going? the effort now is to pay for infrastructure. so the secretary of the -- secretary of agriculture,

secretary vilsack, has indicated he wants the usda to determine how it can potentially use programs to promote distribution and storage of pumps and put money into infrastructure. as we all know once you start putting money into infrastructure, then you say, well, we have already put some money in. we got to continue 20 do it. those subdies will continue and continue and continue. we cannot continue to do this, madam chair. we cannot continue to fund this, particularly when we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. i would urge adoption of the amendment. i'm glad the chairman supports it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. peterson: i rise to oppose the amendment and strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. peterson: we are once again debating ethanol.

and there's so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what's going on. the ethanol industry has been one of the best things that's happened in rural america. created a tremendous amount of jobs in small towns that otherwise get bypassed. and they have been very successful. and the way we have been able to do it up to this point is through the blend. by having people blend 10% ethanol and now the e.p.a. is approving going to 15% ethanol. but the industry has hit what they call a blend wall. the blend was basically driven by the fact that the refineries and oil companies need octane. gasoline is low in octane and high in d.p.u.'s. ethanol is high in octane and low in b.t.u.'s. back in the old days we used

lead to raise the octane level. then the oil companies when lead was banned they decided to grate mtbe -- create mtbe. we warned them against that but they went ahead and built those plants that turned out to poison the water in a number of cities in the united states. then the oil companies, refineries went to the blend ethanol blend which they should have done in the first place. and that is working but we are at a limit now and we've got -- we are going to move ahead. we have to have access to the marketplace. and the problem that we have is that we don't have the cars like brazil has that can burn different levels of ethanol. and we don't have the pumps in the gas stations so that people have access to ethanol. if we are going to get rid of the vtac and other programs we have in ethanol, we are ok with

that as long as the consumers have the ability to make the choice at the station, if they want to burn ethanol, they've got the ability to be able to do that. so we need to get the pumps in the station. we need to get the car companies to start building vehicles like they do in brazil which run 25%, 30% blend. the american companies are buildling these cars in brazil. every gas station in brazil has ethanol as opposed to the united states and that's one of the reasons why they are -- have been so successful and why they are now completely independent from any foreign sources of fuel for their vehicles. what we are trying to do here is eventually eliminate the subsidies that people have complained about. but in order for us to be able

to maintain this industry and maintain these jobs in rural america, we have to be able to have the infrastructure. we have to have the blended pumps. we have to have the cars. the right blend is 25%, 30%. you will get the best performance, best mileage, brazil has figured this out. they have been doing this for a long time. their blend is 26%. we have people that have put in amendments that say we can't blend above 10%. we have this foolishness about how it's going to ruin small engines and so forth. this argument's been going on since 1975. we have been blending ethanol and haven't ruined any engines yet. . so we need to defeat this amendment because this goes in the wrong direction. if you want to market that's open and let consumers to weigh it is get the infrastructure in place. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: madam speaker, i rise in support of the amendment and i do it with great deference and respect to my leader, the ranking member of the agriculture committee. but here's the issue. one, at what point do we have taxpayers giving relief from these $6 billion sdeeze to an industry -- subsidies an industry? the ethanol industry gets 40 cents a gallon. they get 52 cents a gallon as a protective tariff against brazilian ethanol. then they get a mandate to put ethanol in their vehicles. now, as mr. flake mentioned, that's a trifecta. subsidy, protective tariff and a mandate. no other industry has that level of federal taxpayer and

legislative benefit. we just don't have it. second, this is helping parts of rural america. listen carefully to what mr. peterson said. but it is causing significant difficulties in my state for our dairy farmers who purchase grain. one of the rising costs for them is the cost of grain, and one of the factors in that are these tariff barriers and main dates that are pushing up their costs so it's making life on the dairy farm pretty tough. now, the final thing is folks who use small engines like chainsaws or weed whackers or lawnmowers or boats where they don't run that engine continuously as we do our cars are complaining, and mechanics are backing them up, that ethanol is doing real damage to those engines. so it's time, i think, for this congress to step back and give the taxpayers some relief. ethanol, it's going to sink or

swim, it should be doing on its own merits at this point. i'd like to yield 30 seconds to my friend from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman and thank him for his particular remarks on this. i fail to mention the breath of support for this amendment in the outside community. let me just read some of these names and you'll -- the chair: the time has expired. the time has expired. the gentleman from georgia, for what purpose does he rise? mr. kingston: i yield 30 seconds but we need to be moving on, but 30 seconds to my friend. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? the gentleman is recognized 30. mr. flake: suffice it to say, there is a list of organization is supporting this. americans pour prosperity. freedom action. friends of the oil. greenpeace. everyone in the middle, the grocery manufacturing, national chicken council.

national council of chain restaurants. national meat association. national wildlife federation and on and on and on. this is a great amendment. i urge its adoption. mr. kingston: thank you. madam chair, i yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from south dakota. ms. noem: thank you, madam chair. we talked a lot on the house floor recently about agriculture and the fact that agriculture needs a haircut and people are concerned about agriculture getting too many benefits provided by the taxpayers. i would certainly say that in the past and the most recent past agriculture has been significantly cut. under this bill before us today, we also see significant cuts. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona because this amendment is an attack on consumer choice, on free market access and on homegrown american energy. we've seen reports out there that have indicated that ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline up to 89 cents a

gallon and across this country consumers don't have the option to purchase that right now if they'd like to. it would send dollars, over a billion dollars to deficit reduction. it would make sure that we have infrastructure in place so the consumers can have relief from these high gas prices. with everything that's been going on in the country today, one of the top two issues i hear about every day in south dakota and across this country is high gas prices. if we can reduce those high gas prices for people at home struggling with that today, the best thing we can do is give them a flex pump in their community where they can access that. right now they have no choice if they want to use an american, domestically grown, renewable energy source which they can use to reduce their dependence on foreign sources of oil. i'm a strong supporter of an all-of the above american energy plan. that's what we need to do, put americans first. we need to stop relying on the middle east to provide our

fuel. we can renewablely do that over and over and over again and give them that choice and that option. we just need to give them a pump. we need to give them a pump in their community so they have that option. that's what this country is about is flexibility, about giving those people back home options and that's why i am not a supporter of this amendment. i think that that is certainly a wise place for us to invest in making sure we rely upon ourselves, that we use our own sources and we provide exactly what the american people need today, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from georgia, for what purpose does he rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i also rise in opposition to my amendment and i associate myself of the remarks of the gentlelady from south dakota. i believe that with the economic challenges that our country has felt, much of which is related to the cost of fuel, this is an amendment that i

think undermines our ability to recover and to create jobs. and our rural down in mistle county, georgia, we have a ethanol facility there that is very, very contributing to the local community. it hires people. it is i think the example of how we grow our rural economies. in fact, this amendment would stop that kind of job growth. it would not allow this facility to expand and to be prosperous, and i just think that it's the wrong way to go. when america and the american economy gets sick and gets a cold, the rural economy has pneumonia, and it's on life support. we need to make sure -- we had

some 30, 40, 50, 60 individual in rural georgia who decided they wanted to invest their own money in a homegrown industry for renewable energy so that we would be in position to contribute to our own energy self-sufficiency and we will be able to do it in a way where our local individuals would be able to create jobs and to increase the economy there in our local rural community. it has worked very well except for the fact that they don't have the facilities, don't have the pumps and we need to make sure that they do. this amendment i think is penny-wise and pound foolish and i think we need to go ahead and move ahead to help our country become energy self-sufficient. how do we do that? by making sure that consumers do have access to the blend so

that we will not continually have to fight with the middle east for the cost of fuel. oil prices are really battering our economy. energy costs are battering our economy. it's also battering our national security. when you look at how much -- how many billions of gallons of fuel that is spent for our national security without -- for our military vehicles, weapons, we need to have alternative energy sources, and i think that this amendment undermines that. i oppose it, and i associate myself with all those who oppose this amendment. i think we need to move forward with energy self-sufficiency, energy independence for our country. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any other member seeking time in opposition to the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: madam chair, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gardner of colorado. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following new section -- section. the amount otherwise provided by this act for integrated activities is hereby increased by and the amount otherwise provided by this act for national institute of food and

agriculture research and education activities is hereby reduced to be derived from amounts for competitive grants, 7 united states code, 22-450 ib by $400 million respectively. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, madam chair. this amendment moves funding over to the integrated activities account. i'm very concerned about our work when it comes to animal disease and food safety issues, especially when it relates to issues like f.m.d., chronic waste and disease, mad cao disease, other in-- mad cow disease, other infectious diseases. i'm trying to make sure we're not imperiling our livestock. if we would delay even four, five days in responding to an outbreak of f.m.d. it would possibly destroy our export markets. madam chair, i would ask for a

yes vote on the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. gardner: reserve. yield back. the chair: any other members seeking time in opposition. if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. flores: madam chairman, i rise to offer my amendment which would address other restricted and misguided law. section 526 of the energy

independence and security act prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of an alternative fuel unless, quote, if greenhouse gas emissions, unquote, are less than or equal to an equivalent conventional fuel source produced from conventional fuel sources. simply put, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing a ban on the u.s. department of agriculture and other federal agencies funded by the ag appropriations bill. the initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle a defense department plan's to buy and develop coal-to-liquid jet fuels based on the opinions of environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. earlier this week i offered a similar amendment to the milcon aprops bill and it passed by voice vote. my friend, mr. connaway, also had language -- congaway, also had language -- conaway also

had language for this burdensome legislation. we need to make sure our military can rely on domestic and more stable fuel sources. but section 526's ban on fuel choice applies to all federal agencies, not just the defense department. this is why i'm offering this milt again today. while we hope the usda is not going to be fueling up any jets anytime soon, the underlying bill does allow for the purchase of more than 400 new passenger vehicles. the department of agriculture's choice on fuel to power these vehicles to provide service to our nation's farmers and agriculture producers will be limited without my amendment. the usda should not be burdened with wasting its time studying fuel emissions when there's a simple fix and that's not to restrict their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, regulations like section 526. madam chairman, section 526 makes our nation more dependent on middle eastern oil and stopping the impact of section 526 would help us promote

american energy, promote american jobs. i urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any member in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: to rise in opposition, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the last word and is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you, madam chair. if you like dirty air you'll like this amendment. if you like dirty fuels you'll love this amendment. what this provision does, it strikes the requirement in law that says to the government, which is a big purchaser of fuel, look, don't buy dirty fuel. you buy something that is clean. i mean, that's what we're trying to do is stimulate clean air, fuel efficiency, alternative fuels. this strikes this down. this is going back to the old smokestack, fill the air full of dirty air. this is -- this goes back to all the traditional people that doesn't like the fact there's competition out there and that the federal government has to purchase that competition.

. i don't understand why in a competitive world where fuel and efficiency and engine development, where we are going to have to lead that or have our clock cleaned, this is exactly what creates markets for that. you cannot take a -- you look at venture capital, you look at all those people that go in and put private risk capital out. they have to have a market. fortunately the government tries to be that market whether we are buying healthy foods for children. whether we are buying food for our troops. weather we are trying to encourage alternative fuels as we have under this program that the navy planes have found a protch alternative to -- a proven alternative to traditional aviation fuel that they have tested in supersonic speed jets. get out there and invent something because guess what?

if you invent it, we as a purchaser of cleaner standards are going to be a market. this amendment wipes that out. it's really back to dirty smokestacks, dirty air, and no competition, and no ability for america to succeed in the future. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i rise in support of the amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: for clarification purposes i want to yield to my friend as much time as he may need. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. floor rest: thank you for -- mr. flores: thank you for yielding. let me clarify, or correct some of the comments made by my friend from california. first of all this is a typical example of the way the federal government operates where the left-hand does something that's different from the right hand. on one hand the left hand says we want to have alternative fuel sources available for our economy. the right-hand says we can do it for everybody except the agencies of the federal government.

this we got to remember -- let me give you an example. oil sands from canada. production of oil from oil sands of canada could completely displace our use of middle eastern oil. yet we are trying to block in this bill the use of oil sands from canada. virtually all the fuel in the united states has some oil from some oil sands in canada blended in its fuel. that would be all that fuel is off limits to the united states government, in particular, with this bill to the united states department of agriculture. that is something we should reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil, not increase it. and my limit to eliminate the impact of section 526 reduce that is dependence. remember also, madam chairman, this bill was amendment was passed by a voice vote from the milcon-va bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any other members seek time in opposition? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from texas. those in favor will signify by saying aye. opposed say neigh -- nay. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk labeled as flake -- the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona, at the end of the bill before any short title, insert the following new section -- the chair: objection. so ordered. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chair. much attention has been paid to making significant cuts in federal spending. first step in addressing the massive public debt that has accumulated, i would submit all areas of spending need to be on the table. this includes spending on farm subsidies. the we talked a lot about this today. this amendment would -- let me just back up a bit.

over the last 15 years almost 3/4 of farm payments have gone to just 10% of producers. the bottom 80% of recipients account for slightly more than a tenth of that money. under current law recipients are entitled to receive farm subdies so long as their adjusted gross income, a.g.i., is less than $500,000 in nonfarm a.g.i. and $750,000 in farm a.g.i. thus you can have an adjusted gross income of slightly less than $1.25 million and still ask taxpayers to foot the bill for your federal agriculture payments. let me say that again. you could have an adjusted gross income of $1.25 million, adjusted gross income, and still go to the trough here and ask the taxpayers for farm subsidy payments. i would ask anyone how they can explain why a family earning more than $1 million a year needs to receive a check from the government.

this amendment would loather that income limit to being eligible to receive farm payments from $1.25 million to $250,000 in adjusted gross income. i think a farmer has done well if they clear $250,000. i think it's wonderful if they do that. they should try to take a day off from their hard work if they do. but don't come back to the federal government and say we need more farm subsidy payments. let's have some sanity in this program here. i would urge adoption of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. bishop: move to strike the last word and oppose the gentleman's amendment. i wouldn't agree more with the gentleman from arizona who when he says that we've got to put everything on the table in order to eliminate this deficit and to put us on a path to balancing our budget. we've got a fiscal crisis. but at the same time we need to make smart choices. we need to establish priorities.

we don't need to cut off our feet, cut off our hands. we need to empower ourselves and have the tools that we need. i think that if we are going to have a strong agriculture community, if we are going to have american farmers to be able to produce high quality, safe, economical food for the people of this country and for export, and to be able to compete in a global marketplace, we are going to have to have reasonable and smart farm supports. our authorizing committee has done a great job and members of this body have done a tremendous job in trying to review over the years what we need to do to tighten up and make more efficient our farm support programs. we have to do that. they do have to be on the table. but let's be smart. let's not take a meat axe to it when we need to take a scalpel approach.

an individual or legal entity must meet, quote, actively engage in farming rules administered by the usda to participate in farm programs. to receive the payments when they are available individuals or legal entities determined to be actively engaged in farming must prove their average adjusted gross farm and nonfarm income. that are below the levels set by the statute. if an individual is determined to be eligible, the total benefits for all crops are limited to a specific amount as dictated by the statute. now, we can't have a cookie cutter approach to this. farmers in the midwest and other parts of the country other than the southeast are having -- have a different need in terms of farm support and programs. we have a diversity of crops. we have a multitude of crops in our portfolio in the southeast from virginia all the way to texas. in order to be able to grow

those crops effectively, a producer has to have versatile equipment. for example, if you grow cotton, you got to have a certain kind of equipment for cotton. if you grow corn and grain, you got to have a different piece of equipment for that. and if you grow the -- there are three different kinds of equipment. and peanut groves, cotton growers, grain growers, all in the southeast have to finance those various kinds of equipment. now, the 2008 farm law made the most comprehensive and far-reaching reforms of eligibility and limitation to farm programs in 20 years. it substantially reduced the level of the income test that was established in the two farm bill by creating two new tests to determine eligibility.

individuals or entities with a three-year average adjusted gross nonfarm income exceeding $500,000 are not eligibility. for any commodity program benefits. individuals with a three-year average of adjusted gross farm income exceeding $750,000 are ineligibility for direct benefits. while this amount may seem gene russ, the gross income is calculated before debt servicing and other expenses are met. since a new cotton harvest costs up with $750,000 and investments in land and crop inputs such as fuel are escalating, you still got to take into account the cost of the irrigation system, labor cost, the rent on the land, and health insurance for the farmers and for that family. you've really got a lot of expenses that are not taken into account when this statutory

limitation on income is calculated. it also eliminated the three entity rule and replaced it with the direct attribution rule which provides each payment is attributed to a specific individual. that reduced the payment since prior to 2008 individuals could participate in receiving payments. congress thoroughly debated the level of income tax before we developed the 2008 farm bill. so that the test for farm income and test for nop farm income were appropriate. the test administered by usd and the documents submitted to usda by program participants is subject to regular tribute by usda and i.r.s. this is a bad, bad thing. i suggest that we ought to let the authorizing committee do this to the farm bill and not do it now. i yield back.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. this is clearly an attempt to legislate policy through an appropriation bill. contrary to the intent of regular order, and this is not the way we should do business. arbitrarily changing eligibility requirements for farm programs outside of the farm bill is irresponsible. it seriously undermines the farmers' ability to make long-term plans and investments, and adds a dangerous element of uncertainty to the market. result would be reluctance to make investment in equipment and practice that is increase productivity. the process of developing the 2012 farm bill would begin in the agriculture committee next week. our first step would be a comprehensive audit of current farm programs to determine which is working, which are not. and how to best ensure that america's farmers and ranchers remain competitive and productive into the 21st century. our farm program audits are just the beginning of what will be a

very transparent, influencive, thorough process of developing -- influencive thorough process of developing the 2012 farm bill. during that process we'll be careful to consider how best to stabilize and provide certainty to farmers during lean years without appropriate risk management tools in place. a few bad seasons could put farming operations outs of business. permanently. proponents of this amendment make it sound like the agriculture committee has done nothing on this issue. that could be farther from the truth as my colleague has just alluded. in 2008 the agriculture committee under the leadership of my colleague, then chairman peterson, meticulously debated the appropriate levels for farm level eligibility. the results were some of the most aggressive reforms in a.g.i. in two decades. not only did we title eligibility but in the implementation of those rules, usda allows i.r.s. to verify a farmers' a.g.i. in 2012, we once again review

how to efficiently and effectively target farm policy. america's farmers, ranchers, and taxpayers deserve an open and accountable policymaking process. this amendment not only precludes a transparent process but it silences the voices of americans who would like to contribute to comprehensive discussion upon policy. i urge you to oppose this amendment, to prevent policy discussion from being shortchanged. allow us to work through regular order in the open process that will be used in the coming year. once again i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. peterson: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. peterson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this as chairman lucas just indicated, he spent a lot of time working through this, this is a much -- has a much bigger impact on my friends in the south than it does in our part

of the world. although it does affect some of our folks, but one of the reasons is the way they finance and operate in the south where they have a lot of shared rent, we have pretty much cash running up in part part of the world, you have folks that have land that get caught up in this a.g.i. and it causes problems in terms of financing their operations and the way that they have structured agriculture in the south. . when i've been down there in arkansas, mississippi, the people that have been most opposed to this are the bankers. if you're concerned about having family farmers and keeping many people on the land as possible, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. they will upset the whole in doing this. in having said that, why do we have an adjusted gross income

limit on farmers? why don't we have it on everybody? if this is such a good idea, why don't we have -- everybody get their money from the government be subject to this a.g.i.? if it's good enough for farmers then everybody that makes $250,000 doesn't get anything from the government, period, just like farmers. the other thing that people talk about is these payments going to 80% of the people only get 10% of the payments. well, people need to understand that we have a definition of farmers that is flawed and we should get rid of. they claim that we have two million farmers in this country. you know, but you know what it takes to be a farmer? the definition? if you could produce $1,000 of farm income. you don't have to. just if you could produce $1,000 you're considered a farmer. the true reality is we have 350,000 commercial farmers that produce over 90% of the food. and obviously they're going to

get the payments because the way the system works. so we have worked through this on the committee. i didn't agree with these a.g.i. limits and payment limits that we put in the bill, but it was something we had to work out. we worked it out. this should not be dealt with on the floor. once again, people who made decisions based on the five-year farm bill, they had a lot of investments, they put a lot of money into their operations based on how this thing is structured. we should not come in and pull the rug out in the middle of the deal here and we should do this under regular order in the farm bill. that's where it needs to be done. this is a bad amendment. i urge my colleagues to oppose it and yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: the ranking member, former chairman of the committee, made a good amendment. the percentage that seems to make the arguments a little

inflammatory are based on a skewed definition. you don't live on a farm that makes only $1,000 of gross revenue. that's not a farmer who's in the business of farming and that's who these -- the people should support. i would like to make comment of why the ag committee is one that ought to be making these kinds of things. if you will read the gentleman's amendment it says to a person, legal entity, if the adjusts adjusted gross income is $250,000. average of what, madam chairman? average of one year, average of five years, average of a lifetime, average of what? and so a poorly crafted amendment. i know the gentleman's working in good faith. he's been at this for a long time. i don't have any problem with that. this is an example of a hastily drawn, poorly drafted amendment that is unenforceable in the fact that is skewed. let the ag committee do it. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i also rise today because i strongly oppose this amendment. as i've listened to the debate, i think some folks are missing some fundamental principles of where our food supply comes from. mr. griffin: i see people come to the floor in favor of our food programs, at the same time any of those members come down and attempt to pull the rug out from under farmers by scrapping programs that provide an important safety net to our producers. we have to be clear, we can't have a stable food supply for recipients and nutritional programs unless our commodity producers have some stability. through a deliberate and balanced approach, they've targeted program benefits for those who depend on farming for their livelihood. by setting the income level at an appropriate level, the committee recognized the production costs and the

economies to scale that is necessary to be competitive in today's agriculture. and overly restrictive a.g.i. ceiling disregards the financial reality of commercially viable farms. let's be clear about this. a farmer's a.g.i. is not profit. mr. crawford: there are a number of expenses that must be covered. in addition, farmers must service the debt, the costs of machinery can reach into the millions of dollars. at a time when more and more people rely on the produck tift of american agriculture, now is not the time to pose a threat to the very food source on which they rely. with that i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any other member wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chair, i know that $250,000 sounds like a lot of money. it will buy you a third of a new john deere cotton picker. mr. woodall: agriculture and manufacturing has been the

foundations of our economy. the things that we need to get our committee back on track or access to capital and regulatory certainty. mr. scott: when you make changes that's this drastic on the floor through an amendment process instead of going through the committee process where it should be done, then you hinder those two things. farmers lose confidence and their lenders lose confidence in federal policy and that does away with stability and the predict ifblet that some of these i shall -- predictability that some of these are designed. it may be harder to come by if we start to make amendments like this and allow amendments like this on the floor. i simply -- i simply rise to say this -- agriculture has been strong. it's been one of the bright spots in america and it will continue to be one of the bright spots in america because of the work ethic of the people involved in the agricultural industry. i'd ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and allow us to deal with this in the

agriculture committee, in the farm bill that we will be starting over the next couple of weeks. thank you, madam chair. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. any other member wish to speak on the opposition. if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: on that, madam chair, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote, and 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 illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lipinski of illinois. tend of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section. none of the funds made

available by this act may be used to alter contract number gs-4076-d with regard to location storage. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you, madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved on the gentleman's amendment. mr. lipinski: i applaud the leadership's on looking ways to save money by moving data to storage in cloud computing. but the critical question -- where will this data actually be stored? there is no reason for it to be stored in offshore facilities and the usda has recognized that fact. in cloud computing contracts

signed by the usda, secretary vilsack and c.i.o. chris smith have insisted that all data must be stored in the united states. this amendment seeks to reinforce and codify this usda contract's terms specifically regarding where the data is stored. that is all that this speaks to. it says that this contract in regards to where the data is stored will be codified with this amendment. now, why is this important? it's critical for security reasons. we shouldn't have to worry about another nation seizing infrastructure where our data is stored. it's critical for reliability reasons. we don't want another country either intentionally or externally disconnecting us from running our government. it's critical because people

safeguarding this infrastructure here in the united states also means more american jobs. so what this amendment seeks to do, as i said, look at this one part of the contract, say this data must be stored here in the united states, that this cannot be changed. and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. it's budget neutral. it supports the efforts of the usda and keeps our data secure and accessible and supports american jobs. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia insists on his point of order. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i want to withdraw the point of order. it is in order. the chair: the point of order is withdrawn. does the gentleman wish to seek time in opposition?

mr. kingston: i oppose the amendment and do so out of caution and move to strike the last word. and what i want to say to my friend who knows a lot about this and is a steward of such dollars and very deliberative in his legislation in general. i'm not that familiar with the issue, and i am not certain why location is that important, and i'm very reluctant to tie the hands of the usda in seeking the best contract. i want them to do what a business would do and be free from micromanagement of the u.s. congress and if the location is outside of the united states, if the location is in illinois, georgia or california, i want them to do what's best for the usda and

the best for the taxpayers. so as i understand this amendment, it would limit that sort of flexibility. so i oppose the amendment, but i want to say to the gentleman from illinois, i will continue a dialogue with you on this because i do realize i need to learn more about it but on that basis i do not want to tie their hands based on location. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks further time? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: you can be recognized if you ask unanimous consent. is there objection? mr. kingston: i yield time. the chair: the gentleman from california, for what purpose -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. farr: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from illinois. mr. lipinski: thank you so much for yielding me the time. i know that there is -- i thank the chairman for his comments, but i think there's been a little bit of confusion. i just want to clear this up. this speaks specifically to a contract that the usda has already entered into. and essentially it is taking out that -- just looking at that one piece of that contract that says all data must be stored in the united states and codifying that to say that that part cannot be changed. this is one contract that's already been signed and is not speaking to anything else in the future, but i think that it's important that for security, i think this is a good move that the usda made. and so i just want to speak to

that in this amendment specifically, and it's not in any way tying the hands of the usda or any other agency in the future. i would hope that the other agencies, usda and other agencies follow this lead in the future because i think it is good for the united states but it doesn't any further tie the hands of the usda. i just wanted to clear it up. i yield back to mr. farr. mr. farr: mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. is there further discussion on the amendment? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman. mr. lipinski: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. who seeks recognition?

the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk labeled as flake number 4. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section. section. none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a market access program under section 203 of the agricultural trade act of 1978, 7 u.s.c. 5623. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chair. administered by the usda foreign agricultural service, the map program uses funds from the commodity credit corporation to aid the development expansion and maintenance of foreign markets for u.s. agricultural commodities and products. it does so by forming partnerships with nonprofit trade associations and cooperatives, nonprofit state regional trade groups, small

businesses and others through -- to market our products overseas. you know, in a perfect world, this might be a good thing to do to help these small companies market their products overseas. i would argue that's really not the proper role and function of government, but people would argue, when times are good, let's do that, but we're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. every dollar we spend on this kind of thing is borrowed. we're borrowing money to subsidize companies small and large to market their products overseas. a while ago, "the new york times" shone some light on this program they spotlighted the ridiculousness of a fashion show put on in india with money from the u.s. cotton council

international. the article notes that over the last decade, the program has provided nearly $2 billion in taxpayer money to agricultural trade associations and farmer cooperatives. these are as varied as a manual for pet owners in japan and a class at a mexican culinary school to teach aspiring chefs to cook rice for customers. we're spending money we're borrowing for this kind of activity. you'll hear arguments that for every dollar we spend on this it yields $20 in returned income, you always hear that when you hear about government spending people want to protect but when we're running debt and deficits like we have today, we shouldn't be running programs like this. we have to save money where we can. time magazine also -- "time" magazine noted here that a lot of money goes to large

farmer-owned cooperatives. it's helping small businesses, that there have been reforms to make sure it doesn't go to cooperations like mcdonald's or whatever else, but this article noted that groups like corporations like sunkist,. we's and blue diamond, which -- welch's and blue diamond which grows almonds are receiving subsidies. these aren't small companies yet we're subsidizing them. i'm glad they're exporting but they don't need to do it with taxpayer money. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield pack. -- yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time knopp sigs? the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much for recognizing me, i claim time in opposition. mr. farr: this is the kind of program that i think mr. flake pointed out, you wonder why we

use taxpayer moneys to market american agriculture abroad. and you'd say, well, we don't need to do that. as he pointed out, he pointed out a couple of great big companies that take advantage of it but guess what, in this legislation, we carve out so that small businesses can take advantage of this. why do we do that? i don't know how much you see of the advertising that goes on by products from other countries but remember the juan valdez coffee ads, the colombian coffee, wake up and smell the coffee? that was subsidized by the colombian government. it was very, very effective. coffee prices actually went down and they lost their ability because it cost them about $40 million a year to do that advertising. what we've created in the united states is a matching program, saying you put up your money first, put up private sector money, we'll match it,

we carve out and protect it i'm looking, california has a lot of congressional districts. you wouldn't think that districts in san francisco or los angeles, we have 53 members of congress from california. there's only four congressional districts in california that don't take advantage of this program. and i would imagine those are in the middle of los angeles. because there are companies in there, i can go through, a lot of them are very small. in my county alone, we have a -- i don't know any -- soyvey the sauce, that's a husband and wife company. they take advantage by putting some of their money up they get to advertise, i don't know what countries they choose to advertise. they can't advertise their product per se, they have to advertise the generic of it.

you don't sell sunkist oranges you sell, you should buy more california oranges. so you know, it's an easy program to attack but when you get down to managing in a global market and world competition, this stuff makes sense. and as long as other countries are going to do it to us to stay competitive, we've got to do it to them. i think our way of doing it protects the small producer more than anybody else and allows them to get in we do this in tourism promotion all the time. we just passed a bill to tids the united states abroad. and we have a tourism promotion board to do that. so we're going to have to be globally competitive and this is one of the programs that allows that. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. farr: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you very much.

i couldn't agree with mr. farr more. the one thing i think we need to understand that this program enhances is our trade deficit. mr. bishop: we have been suffering with the global economy over the years but the one aspect of the american economy in terms of our trade deficit that's kept us afloat has been agricultural exports and it's programs like the market access program that has allowed us to maintain a trade balance with our global competitors. so i would think that this is a program that we ought to carefully protect. it's a program that works. and it's what has kept american -- kept our trade deficit at the level that it is. and if we should take this away, we can look to have more products from china, fewer of our exports going overseas and fewer of the smaller companies

that benefit from this carveout being able to do -- utilize the internet marketing and to sell their products overseas. i would think that this is, again, penny wise, pound foolish. it should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. farr: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> let me briefly say, i oppose the amendment. it's cutting funding for the market access program, in effect legislating farm policy through the appropriations process. it's not appropriate under regular order. we'll consider this along with other programs in the 2012 farm bill and let me note, i agree with my colleagues, over the last 25 years, it has boosted agricultural exports and

increased american jobs and added to rural income. mr. lucas: i know we have a lot of discussion on creation of jobs and rightly so, but exports are one of the most sure fire ways to increase american jobs. in fact, for every billion dollars in export -- exports, approximately 8,400 jobs are created here at home. and 2010 agricultural exports alone supported one million american jobs. please oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment they have 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 amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be

postponed. who seeks recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i would have offered an amendment to actually control the corm rants, an in-- the cormorants, an invasive species that affects catfish but i'm hoping the chairman will allow me to engage in a colloquy about it. the chair: the gentleman from georgia? mr. kingston: absolutely. >> this afis is an agency within the usda which plays a critical role in helping farmers handle losses as a result of wolves, coyotes and other invasive species.

it's important to our catfish farmers because it helps control the livestock from cormorants that prey on -- birds that prey on catfish. ms. sewell: the continued growth of the catfish industry has really been limited by the growth of the cormorants and other invasive species that feed upon the livestock. the state of alabama has roughly 22,000 water acres of farm -- fish farms which are nearly 200 commercial farmers produce 25 different species. most of which are catfish. in alabama, farmers are quite concerned that in the committee report, it looked as if the control of these invasive species would be limited only to the southeast. i don't think that's the original intent of the committee report and i wanted to know, was hoping that the chairman would address that issue and just clarify, if you

would, whether or not the cormorants would be limited to only that area. mr. kingston: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and also for bringing up, the problem of cormorants are a problem, being from fwea, i know our armers -- farmers have the problem. i will work with the gentlewoman from alabama to make sure that the usda is addressing your cormorant problems and i met with the ranking member from california to make sure it does not get forgotten. i also appreciate your diligence on the cormorant issue and realizing that the report is a little bit misleading as we have written it, i think you've underscored a very -- something that we all are behind you on, we'll work with you on it. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kingston: thank you.

the chair: the gentlelady yields back. ms. sewell: i'd like to yield time to the gentleman. the chair: the gentlelady reclaims her time. >> i thank the gentlelady, i understand you're trying to get the cormorant damage extended to other parts of the country. that's an important thing. this is getting to be a bigger and bigger problem. we've had the problem in the midwest and in the northeast but there's a lot of problems in alabama, mississippi, and some of those states as well. these birds migrate. as i said earlier, the reason we got into this program is because we entered into the migratory bird treaty with canada and mexico in 1973. in mexico, black birds are sacred.

part of their culture down there. so there's a prohibition in that treaty against any hunting of any black birds, whether it be crows or cormorants or whatever it is. that has tied our hands in terms of trying to deal with these issues and we have been able to make changes on kind of a pilot basis in certain areas but we need to do this all over the country because the birds migrate from canada to mexico and back and forth and cause a lot of damage too fish farms, they do, in my part of the world, sport fishing lakes, a cormorant will eat three times its weight in fish a day and they do tremendous damage when they get in there. i support the gentlelady and hope we can extend this program arn the country. i yield back. ms. sewell: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i move -- i want to make a motion quickly, i

thank ranking member for working with us on this bill, i want to thank the minority and majority staff for working so hard, we would not be here with them. because the hour is late and members are eager to vote on this bill, i will submit the names of all the hardworking people who made this thing happen but i want to say thank you on behalf of all of us, i yield my friend 30 seconds or the staff will mutiny if we thank them for something publicly. >> i know we've been here -- mr. farr: i know we've been here for 24 hours of debate, i permly want to thank you for all the staff, i wore my father's day tie for you, i know your children are in town, you've been spending a lot of time here on the floor, i want to wish you a happy father's day. mr. kingston: thank you, same to you, i wore my organic cotton tie on your bhafe. i move that the committee do

now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and the recommendation that the bill be agreed to and passed as amended. the chair: i ask the gentleman to withdraw that for a moment. the gentleman withdraws the motion? mr. kingston: yes. the chair: i recommend perhaps to the gentleman from georgia that he actually reads the names. without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on the amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- an amendment by ms.

pingree of maine, amendment number 2 by ms. foxx of north carolina, amendment by mr. kind of wisconsin, amendment by mr. dingell of michigan, an amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 23 by mr. gibson of new york, an amendment by mr. blumenauer of oregon, amendment number 1 by mr. king of iowa, amendment number 2 of mr. king of iowa, amendment number 29 by ms. jackson lee of texas, an amendment by mr. scalise of louisiana, amendment number 28 by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment by ms. hire oweno of -- hirono of hawaii, an amendment by mr. campbell of california, amendment by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, amendment number 1 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 2 by mr. flake of arizona, the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

the chair will clarify that the second amendment is amendment number 1 by ms. foxx of north carolina, not amendment number 2. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree, 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. pingree of maine. 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 15-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 -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 170 the nays are 238. zero are present. the motion is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevail wid bivoice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in the con fwregsal record offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote is

requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 212. the nays are 201. zero present. the amendment is adopted. the chair will remind members these are two-minute votes in this long series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 25 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the nays prevailed by a voice vote, the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 25, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote was requested. those in support of the request for 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. 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 theys are 223. the nays are 197. zero present. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dingell of michigan. the chair: recorded vote was requested. those in support of the request for 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 178, the nays are 241, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a railroaded vote on amendment printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from texas -- the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the nays prevailed by a voice vote this eclerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. 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 167, the nays are 252 the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. gibson of new york. 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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 221 the nays are 128, the motion is adopted. the unfinished business is the amendment offered by mr. blumenauer. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in the congressional record offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote is requested.

those in favor of 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 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 154, the nays are 262 the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment one offered by mr. king of yea. -- o a. -- of oy. -- of ioh what. -- of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a 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 150.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 155. the nays are 262. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, which further proceedings were postponed which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redgget the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: recorded vote was requested. those in support of the request for 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 another alleged 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 240. the nays are 176. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 22, printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 22, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. garrett

of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 amendment the yeas are 231. the nays are 189. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29, printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen. 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 180. the nays are 2 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 287, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by mr. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote. -- 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 238, the nays are 179, the amendment is adopt the unfinished business is the request for a rored vote on the amendment offered by ms. jackson lee on which further proceedings were postponed on which the nays prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the con greng at record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote is 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 181, the nays are 235, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono on this che nays prevailed by voice vote chesm clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hirono of hawaii. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a vorded -- 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 288 -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 288, the nays are 132,

the motion is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. holden, on which the nays prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. holden of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote is requests. those in fare of 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 84, the nays are 335, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vet. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. campbell 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 is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning instut