freedom for americans act of 2011, which is a model for the amendment i'm now offering. this amendment provides for accountability in the process by requires the -- requiring the approval of the legislatetures and governors of the state where monuments are proposed pob located. with the government owning such a large percentage of the land, it is important to allow state lawmakers to weigh in on issues within their borders. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gri hall have spak i rise in strong opposition to the foxx amendment and in strong support of the antiquities act. follows in the -- following in the footsteps of need dore roosevelt and franklin roosevelt, 16 presidents, eight

republicans and eight depps have used the antiquities act to designate approximately 130 national monuments. in most recent history, president george w. bush used the antiquities act to designate the largest national monument in history. most recently, president obama used the act to preserve an enormously important road in virginia. these special places may have been lost to development or destruction had the 59th congress not authorized presidents to use the antiquities act to move quickly to protect federal lands and this is worth repeating. the antiquities act allows designation of national monoyumes on federal land only. this is already owned by the federal government and to claim there is some kind of land grant going on is totally false. or national monuments are valuable. popular tourism that serve as

powerful economic engines. they studied 17 large national monuments in 11 western states and found positive impacts to local economies and employment. the antiquities act have served well for more than a century and there is no need for this amendment. national monuments do not harm private property rights. they improve the quality of life in surrounding communities, and while saving historic, cultural and scenic resources for our children and grandchildren. the foxx amendment will hobble the antiquities act by giving states a veto by giving federal designations on federal land, and it will do so based on criticisms of the act and the national -- and the national monuments that are patently false. the foxx amendment should be defeated, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north

carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, again, mr. chairman. i now yield 40 seconds to the distinguished chairman of the committee, mr. hastings. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 40 seconds. mr. hastings: unfortunately, the antiquities act is used more-on-than not to circumvent congress' role in studying land use policy or foreclose any opportunity for anyone outside the white house to participate in whatever decision they make, including the affected state. unlike america in 1906, when there were -- the antiquities law was first enacted, we now have an elaborate set of laws that have procedures to be followed before any significant action affecting public lands can be taken. i think the gentlelady's amendment would improve this process and with that i support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield the remaineding time to the gentleman from new jersey, --

from new mexico, mr. heinrich. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heinrich: the antiquities act has helped threatened places. we see the benefits of the antiquities act in my state. crarlsbad cavens national park and more, all originally protected through the antiquities act. research by the new mexico green chamber of commerce shows that new mexico's 10 national monuments established through the antiquities act account for 1.3 million annual tourist visits and $54 million in annual tourist spending, supporting over 1,000 new mexico jobs. in the last few weeks, countless new mexicans, including sportsmen like myself, have asked president obama to designate a new national monument to protect the oregon mountains outside las cruses new mexico.

we are asking them to protect our valuable natural resources through the antiquities. this amendment, offered by my colleague from north carolina, would take that power away from the president and give state legislatures the power to make decisions about public lands that belong to all americans. the antiquities act was made to -- had the act been written with the language of this amendment, the grand canyon could have been overrun, ancient clift dwellings in the petrified park may have been looted and/or charred park may not have exist. several legislatures meet for a limited number of days a year and can't respond to urgent threats to public lands. in my state we meet for 60 days in odd years and 30 days in even years. the foxx amendment would prevent sites from receiving the urgent protections they

need. it also doesn't recognize that the united states has vast areas of unincorporated territory that is not under the jurisdiction of any state legislature. president george w. bush used the antiquities act to protect lands and waters in unincorporated federal areas, including the marianas trench islands national monument. national monuments should not be a partisan issue. before being signed into law by president theodore roosevelt, 16 presidents of both parties, eight democrats and eight republicans, have used this act to better protect america's treasures for future generations. and by attaching this divisive issue to this bill, the chances of a presidential veto are greatly increased. i hope that we will refrain from endangering the pro-sportsmen issues of this bill with controversial issues like this one. as an active sportsman, i strongly support the

antiquities act. i ask for a no vote on the amendment and i'd yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman's time has expired from arizona. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. the antiquities act, which allows the president to designate land, is a legislative function that the legislature gave to the executive branch in teddy roosevelt's time. whether it's good or not it's wrong for congress to give its authority away to the executive branch. it was time it was thought it would be ok because there were specific restrictions placed on it. you'd have to have a specific something geologically. historical you were going to preserve it, was in imminent danger and was going to be in the smallest area possible that was going to be over a couple hundred acres. presidents since that time have

used that monument designation power for political purposes in areas quite bigger than that. the last monument that was created in my state was on a couple acres. it was bigger than the states of connecticut, delaware and rhode island combined. it was done at 9:00 a.m. after the governor of the state was told about it at 2:00 a.m. after being told the earlier day nothing was going to happen in this kind of area. earlier this year the act was used at fort monroe when the entire delegation and the local community were in favor of it. as well as many of the other act was done, the local government was not in favor of it. what her amendment tries to do is simply say, look, if you are going to keep this power with the president, at least give a check and balance system somewhere. let's make sure that the local people, the state people are fine with this designation before the president does something arbitrarily, capriciously and too auve for political reasons. keep -- too often for political reasons. keep the power where it should

be, with the legislature, at least put a logical checks and balance on the system. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: -- the chair: has 45 seconds remaining. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my two colleagues who spoke on behalf of my amendment and tell them how much i appreciate their comments, and i want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if designating an area as a national monument would be such a good idea, there shouldn't be any problem with gaining approval from the legislatures and the governors, and it takes no power away from the president but it allows the states to be part of the process. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: 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 gentlewoman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 4089 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that that committee has had under consideration h.r. 4089 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

i think yesterday was just the tip of the iceberg of what is indicative of what's going on in these agencies. host: what did you make of mr. neeley pleading the fifth? guest: i think it was wise for him on the advice of his counsel. as trey gowdy said, i think he wants to see an combimet coming out of it. pleading the fifth is not done so without of -- you know, out

of fancy. in this particular case. i think it was probably necessary for him to do that. to do what he did in this regard, with the western regional conference event, was absolutely ridiculous and appalling. you know, to have a budget of $250,000, spend over $80,000 of taxpayer dollars on trinkets, i mean, anybody who looks at this, no matter how deep you go, is going to understand this is just wrong. host: necessary because of legal reasons? is there criminal activity here? guest: well, it depends. i don't know for sure. but i think the only reason you would plead the fifth is if there was some suggestion there might be criminal penalties forthcoming or at least alleged. host: here's what the inspector general found in his investigation. the conference cost $823,000. and the -- let me see here.

the food and beverage catering, about $146,000. team building exercises, building a bike, $75,000. commemorative coin, $6,300. semi private room parties, $6,500. and mind entertainment reader about $3,200. we learned yesterday from the inspector general will could be possible kimbacks happening here. this has been -- kickbacks happening here. there has been referred to the justice department. what do you think happens next? guest: the i.g. has completed his report. now we'll see congress take its toll with the next three hearings that go on. they'll probably be some legislation forthcoming. i would most likely expect there will be legislation forthcoming that will require more oversight, more accountability of the agency has that is charged with the responsibility of making these payments. also, why is a government agency going out there and doing that which the private sector would do in having these conferences? we don't operate on profit. these are taxpayer dollars.

we need to make sure that we are the stewards of these dollars and that we responsibly spend them. host: as chairman of the work force subcommittee, do you plan to sprow deuce legislation yourself? -- introduce legislation, what would it say? guest: my staff and i talked about it. what can be spent without congressional oversight? these agencies to whom we have delegated this authority from congress, if they cannot responsibly do this then we as congress who fwafe them this authority should -- gave them this authority should reach back and have this oversight authority over them. we are going in our fourth year of well over $1 trillion deficits. the american public have had enough. we as members of congress have to show some proactive, not reactive, but proactive position in trying to make sure this doesn't happen again. host: so four hearings. one yesterday. another one today before the transportation -- house transportation committee, mr. mica's committee, we are going to be covering that. then the senate takes it up.

two senate committees. are four hearings necessary? guest: well, this is very sensational. we're seeing a very bad situation being brought to light and i think a lot of those that are in positions of authority to investigate this want to make sure they have their day and have their say in what needs to be done. are we actually going to do something that prohibits this type of activity from ever happening again. host: what does the g.s.a. do and are you in favor of privatizing perhaps? guest: well, they go out and procure contracts. they maintain the leases. they maintain the real property. they maintain the equipment for the federal government. do we need to privatize it? maybe we need to look into it.

if they are essentially in a nongovernment business, then maybe we need to delegate that to the private sector. but maybe not. but what we have to do is investigate to see what they've been doing over the last several years no matter what administration they were under, whether it be republican or democrat, because what happened in october of 2010 with this western regional conference is wrong. and that has to be corrected and we need to dig deep to make sure that this isn't the only agency doing this. host: speaking of today's hearing, here is c-span's website that shows the hearing examining g.s.a. management strength practices. this is john mica's committee. this hearing starts at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website, c-span.org, to find out when this will air and who's testifying and other details on our website, c-span.org. so what happens next then with g.s.a.? i mean, specifically they need

something coming forward. guest: you may something come forward from mica's transportation committee but it will all be substantiated from the testimony we gain from the forthcoming hearings. why was this gentleman given a $9,000 raise in december of 2011 when he knew for well over a year what he did was wrong? why didn't ms. johnson, when she was notified in may of 2011 by the inspector general that this report was being forthcoming, that there were terrible improprieties, why didn't she take proactive then? it wasn't until the report was released april 2 she decided to resign that other actions were taken by employees. i think you'll see fallout based on the testimony. i think mr. foley testified they wanted to make sure they can preserve themselves that will probably be more open to discuss what happened.

host: have you heard from republican leadership on the house they want legislation to debate this soon? guest: oh, yes. host: let's take a look at g.s.a. by the numbers here. 2011 budget was about $30 billion. the 2011 federal buildings fund, about $17 billion. has about 12,000 employees. 11 regional offices and in d.c. manages about $5 billion. those are the builders that you referred to. manages 9,600 buildings. preserves 478 historic properties. 98% of its budget paid for through g.s.a. services and 2% of budget paid for by congressional appropriations. it's not taxpayer -- most of it is not taxpayer dollars. the budget comes from what are they make off the leasing, is that right? how does it work? guest: that is correct. however, there are taxpayer dollars. that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for being good stewards of what they do. they would not exist but for

the federal government. they are stewards of the federal government's assets and they need to keep that in mind and be prudent how to -- how they spend their dollars. even by their own admission what happened was wrong, it was appalling, it was ridiculous, it was out of control, it was contrary to the g.s.a. regulations. it doesn't matter whether it was 98% of self-generated dollars or 2% of taxpayer dollars. the fact remains they are an agency of the government. they need to be held accountable for what they do. host: right. i might have misspoke there. the profits that generates, that's taxpayer money? guest: right. host: first for dennis ross, republican of florida. go ahead, jim. caller: good morning. i listened to mr. neeley's responses to the questions that were posed to him. as a taxpayer i decline to pay his salary, heal benefits and retirement. if we continue to have these criminals in our government, we need to shut them off from their salary, health benefits

and retirement. so mr. ross, the only thing i have to say to you and your colleagues is to fix this. this is why the taxpayers are so disgusted. we see this stuff going on and nothing ever happens to rectify it. so please fix it. guest: i agree. you know, yesterday when ms. johnson testified and asked why he received a $9,000 raised and she said there is two reasons. one is by performance and other is by conduct. she tried to distinguish between the two and said she had to because his performance was good even though his conduct was bad. if your conduct's bad that in and of itself should be reason, cause enough to not only terminate your employment but also to be the basis upon which you cannot receive your retirement benefits, the expense they invested. these are issues that now have been brought to light for us. we need to hold people accountable the same way we should be held accountable in congress. we need to make sure these employees are held accountable

as well. host: can you take away mr. neeley's pension away, retirement away? guest: the only way this can happen if his conduct and his duties resulted in a criminal penalty might be able to do that. to do so ipso facto, no. host: ok. don. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would pose to senator ross that i fail to see the difference between that g.s.a. administrator strength lavish funds on this type of an enterprise. i have trouble distinguishing that between the president of the united states traveling around raising money for his own personal campaign benefits and the first lady accompanying

in different planes and those lavish expenses and expenses that should rightfully be charged to the d.n.c. host: mr. ross. guest: it doesn't tell you it doesn't matter what administration, democrats and republicans, they should be held accountable how they spend the taxpayer dollars. they should be transparent in it. we need to make sure that these expenses are posted, that they are made public to the american people, let the american people decide. we can clearly show by way of this g.s.a. report what was misappropriated, if you will, for this event. and, again, i think that yesterday was indicative of what is just the tip of the iceberg of what may be going on in other agencies, in other departments in the federal government. host: here's a tweet from don richie who says --

guest: oh, i agree we have to make some reductions in the department of defense. no doubt about it. we have to do that in every agency. the g.s.a. reported that 20% of the programs that the federal government has is duplicative, that includes the department of defense. again, this is the tip of the iceberg. we've grown government to a degree that we've never seen before. we can't sustain over the next several years if we don't do something about it. let this be a warning sign to us with the g.s.a. it's not just the g.s.a. it's every agency out there including congress, including the executive. that we have to look at in order to trim our budget. the american people demand that. host: as chairman of the subcommittee over federal work force, will you be looking in to the secret service issue, the alleged misconduct by 11 or dozen of those employees, does that fall under you? guest: you know, we do the federal work force. yes, it may go to the full committee over me just because there will be more participation from more people. we would love to have the

hearing on that. and, you know, if i'm fortunate enough to get that, most likely be the full committee. host: have you heard from your chairman on it? guest: not yet. host: earl, democratic caller, jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for the call. i got a couple comments. one, i believe ms. johnson was about as honest as she can be. she made a bad decision, giving the guy a bonus there. but how she -- i think she did well. now, when it comes to -- i think all you guys should be audited all of the time. you all are strength lavishly. i am not saying you. i don't know. i know a lot of congressmen, congresswomen, going around strength our money. not getting audited. not being held accountable. it's not a good accountability strategy for what you guys do.

you spend taxpayers' money on golfing or all sorts of lavish things. guest: i don't know about the golfing or lavish dinners because i don't believe i participated in any of that but i tell you we have some stringent transparent rules. not only our financial statements we have to disclose every year, but our members' account we use to fund our offices here in d.c. and the district, including our payroll for all our employees is public record. it should be public record. it should be opened to scrutiny. whether we're audited or not, there is the g.a.o. that will do that. but i will tell you all this is open for public inspection and should be inspected by the public and scrutinized. host: alexandria, virginia, kent, independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. i watched the investigation yesterday, the congressional hearings, and one of the -- couple things they were talking about, trying to find out is just how could this happen and the i.g. told them how it could

happen. he said it was the lack of accountability. and as it continued it was the lack of accountability because congress had failed to appoint the appropriate minute straightors to over-- administrators to oversee it. mr. neeley was apparently wearing two hats and he could approve any amount of money he wanted to because congress had failed to appoint the appropriate administrators and, of course, the current -- the previous director waiting for appointment also. they just drifted over that. host: all right. mr. ross, is that -- how does that work? guest: i mean, i'd like to think that all those people over there, even though they're adults, have some sense of logic and reason to dictate their behavior. it didn't require, it should have never have required an agency director to tell mr. neeley what he was doing was wrong. mr. neeley should have known that from the beginning. it wouldn't have mattered if we had an agency director in place

or not. we did have acting agency directors in place at the time. he can't stand by and say, oh, i did this because we didn't have an agency director. no. what he did was wrong. he knew it was wrong. logic dictates it was wrong and a reasonable person dictates it's wrong. i don't put much credibility on the issue is because congress failed to appoint a full-time agency director. we did have interim directors at the time all of which were charged with accountability for that office and none of which should be exonerated because they didn't exercise that accountability. host: martha johnson in her opening statement talked about she used to head up the g.s.a. under clinton. she left. she came back. she talked about the condition she found g.s.a. in and then what she did under her leadership. we'll take a look and then we'll get your reaction. >> by the time i was sworn in the sequence of four acting administrators had overseen the agency. what i did not know was there was yet another problem.

the western region conference and economic training event in the late 1990's had evolved into a rackus, arrogant, self-congratulatory event that belittled federal workers. leaders apparently competed in entertainment rather than building performance capability. the expensive planning for that conference was well under way when i came to g.s.a. thus i began my tenure as administrator. as for my part, i set about reconstituting g.s.a.'s executive team. over 3/4 of the senior executives are now in different roles than they were when i arrived. g.s.a.'s strategic path is clear. customers praise us publicly. praise g.s.a. publicly. the labor partnership is fruitful. g.s.a. has email in the cloud. g.s.a.'s renovated 1800 headquarters which has 2400 people, will be home to 4500 people next year, allowing

g.s.a. to relinquish leases and save millions. guest: having ms. johnson come in after october, 2010, when the western regional conference event took place, i would give some credibility to the argument there was a culture she couldn't change and that she came in to now clean up a mess. she was appointed full time in february of 2012, some eight months before this event took place as a leader she should have stopped it. i don't believe she can stand there today and say there was a -- there was so much disarray that in eight months she couldn't stop what was obviously an event that should have never taken place, contrary to regulations of the g.s.a. she has a wonderful resume. i give her a lot of credit for stepping down when she did but this culture of hypocrisy, this culture of behavior that took place under both administrations needs to be corrected. it requires congressional involvement at this point. what's going to be done, i don't know, but ms. johnson, as

the leader, as the head of the agency, who was there eight months before this event, could have stopped it. host: charles, a republican in maryland. caller: calling about this top hat program where in the ipads came from this purchase card rebate. it's my understanding. now, my question to you, mr. ross, is, does the government pay to get these rebates? in other words, when the procurement goes up to the banks and the work prints these purchase cards, it's my belief

that these rebates are not free to the government. the government pays a cost for these rebates. therefore, i urge in your legislative study of this to -- in your next procurement, just eliminate these darn rebates. so get rid of these programs such as this. the government workers makes plenty of money. they don't need any of these kind of insent programs. two, it will save the taxpayers money. what is a i? guest: i concur with you. there is five event planners for the g.s.a. event planners for the government service administration. that's the fact that's hard to believe. what's really hard to believe is irrespective of those five, the g.s.a. in this particular case went out and hired their own event planner who was paid a $12,000 finders fee for setting up this event at the spa and resort in las vegas. that's absurd.

that's absolutely untenable. and i agree with you. you know, these rebates, if they are done at the government expense, needs to be eliminated. host: this tweet follows up on the caller who was talking about the g.s.a.'s scandal was -- contributed to by the fact that neeley had two different roles and he was able to approve strength. a lack of over-- prove spending. a lack of oversight. asking indirectly here, congress goes on breaks. are you doing enough oversight? guest: i would hope so. i think we have been the most active committee in congress. which most people would say, that doesn't matter. it's an irrelevant term. just because we are not in washington, d.c. doesn't mean we are not working in our district workweeks. i challenge you to follow us at home. we are very busy at home but doing oversight as well in field hearings. it's interesting if we had been

given a heads up in may of 2011 by then-director martha johnson about this oversight -- this independent -- the inspector general's report, we might have been able to take a little bit quicker action. we might have been able to do hearings as early as last summer instead of now doing it when it's released in april of 2012. host: during ham, north carolina. cheryl is joining us -- durham, north carolina. cheryl is joining us, a democratic caller. go ahead, cheryl. caller: i don't see the difference between them wasting money and republicans saying no to the president. the republicans have accomplished nothing in the past three years. host: all right. let's get a response to that. guest: well, i've been going on 29 years of consecutive marriage and my wife and i don't always get along. in order to get things on we have to agree on something.

the house has to agree with the senate. there's no one party that can be held liable in this allegation that you make. i think there are two parties, both the house and the senate, and they have to come to terms. and i think what you're seeing is evidence of a gridlock that came about as a result of the election of 2010 when the american people spoke up and said we don't want to go down the path we've been going the past two years and so the house has been working on that course. we'll see what happens in 2012. host: oversight and government reform committee, he chairs the subcommittee on federal work force, represented the 12th district, serving in his first term. joe an independent in virginia. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i just have a quick question. the g.s.a. is the only agency that gets a large bonus for doing their job? i mean, we pay them a good salary. and we pay their insurance,

salary, per diem card, how much do we have to pay these people? >> no, they are not the only agency that gets bonus. guest: there is the g.s. -- the government schedule which is a schedule by which people are paid their quarterly salary in most cases with regard to federal employment. it's one of the areas i'd love to see addressed. members of congress reduce their pensions, increase the amount of vesting -- a year's of vesting and put it with the federal work force and make sure the federal work force is being paid so we make sure we are in line with the state governments and private sector. i was able to get it passed out of committee. it would save $42 billion, but it's not going to go anywhere because it affects those of us that are up here and that's unfortunate. i agree with you. i believe there should be performance incentives for people to do good work. no question about that. because if you're just paid because you're there, you're

not going to get the quality of work that one could and should perform. i believe pay for performance is something we need to explore in order to get the best employees out of other federal employees. host: ohio, ron, republican caller. caller: they are going to do nothing about this. until the next situation arises. mr. ross is probably trying but it's going to be ineffective. we are going to be stuck again with a bill. they are going to do nothing. they are going to rake in the $179,000 a year and steal the public blind. host: what do you make of that sentiment? guest: i think he expresses the sentiment of the majority of americans out there and that's most unfortunate. i think it's time that this congress -- these are times that in my lifetime i have not seen as far as the controversial, the partisanship

that's going on right now. you raised some very good points. we need to act. the american public are demanding that we act and yet we still seem to wander along. i hope we put a stop to this. that's what we're charged with. i understand your frustration and your anger and it's probably not misplaced at all. host: you said house republican leadership has indicated they would like some legislation on the floor. guest: yes. host: do you know a timeline? guest: forthcoming i would say hopefully by the end of the month we should see something, the end of april. host: dealing with g.s.a.? guest: governmentwide. host: is that what it would do, governmentwide? guest: agencywide. i think congressional appropriations need to have better oversight. host: all right. connie, democratic caller from bowie, maryland.

caller: this has happened under republicans and democrats. i worked as a contractor for the government for 37 years and seen this happen so many times. and everybody wants to always say it's the democrats that waste and spend. well, i found out that it wasn't. that republicans wasted, spent more than anybody. when they come in, when they get elected and come into an agency, they have to have new desk, new curtains, new carpet and throw something out that's just been brought in. host: dennis ross. guest: i would not take issue with you about either democrats or republicans being wasteful. i think they both have been. i wasn't here when the republicans were in charge, and so i'm not here to apologize or make excuses for them. i'm here to tell you regardless of the party, what's been done is wrong and it needs to be corrected. host: patrick, independent, wisconsin. patrick, you with us?

caller: yes, i'm here. i have two quick comments. one was, there's an assertion about does this need to be privatize, the g.s.a., and i worked in the private sector in management for a very long time. and have seen a ton of corruption throughout the private side so that is -- i don't think that's going to clear up. i do believe our government needs to be held to a higher standard, though. the -- and while i was on hold, i heard somebody accuse the president of his travels and all this stuff and i'm little disappointed in the representative saying, it's been disproven and it just seems like we are so hyper partisan that he couldn't even just say, there's no evidence of that. other presidents have traveled on campaign trails and that's my two comments. thank you much. guest: i don't think i ignored that at all. i said i believe under all administrations you've seen that happen. you know, the expenses for

those particular trips by regardless who the president may be under whatever administration are open to public scrutiny and i think that's transparency we absolutely need. host: louisiana, scott, republican, lafayette. there you go. caller: why are we spending so much money? really. years and years and years we have been spending so much money. it hasn't stopped. i agree we need to spend money. we've been spending money for too far long. we are bankrupting this country. aren't you worried about china and the dollar and the yuan? come on. guest: amen. i agree with you. again, we've had four years, successive years of over $1 trillion deficits. our spending to g.d.p. is at 24%. the amount of revenues we bring in to g.d.p. is 14.5%. when you're spending nine times -- more than what you are'

taking in, nobody can manage a household or business like that. you're absolutely correct, we are going bankrupt. and we need to make these spending decisions and we need to make them soon because we can't sustain our government under the current course we are. it's going to be a painful process but the american people deserve to be told the truth. the american people need to know that we are going to do what's necessary to reduce our spending so that we can become, again, that economic world power that we have always been. host: rockville, indiana, tim, democratic caller. caller: yeah. what i'm wondering, has anybody ever -- as far as oversight goes, checked into combining some of your federal law enforcement agencies such as like the a.t.f. and the d.e.a.? the drugs and guns go hand in hand. i am retired law enforcement. they bump heads. probably 95% of the time. is there any consideration of combining the different law enforcement agencies?

guest: yes, there is. if you followed any of the hearings we've done on the fast and furious with the a.t.f., f.b.i., the -- under the department of justice, you know, they're not always cooperating. they're duplication of efforts and the lack of communication unfortunately led to the death of some people. i think consolidation is important. i think as shown by the g.a.o. report is something we could take to heart. we could save 20% of expenditures by reducing duplication. host: amy, independent caller from jacksonville, florida. caller: hello. i know you are just an individual representative, but i'll speak to you as representing the entire government. and i just want to say i am totally disgusted with the government. i don't really understand, why do government employees need conventions and retreats and

why do they act as if they are a private company handling private funds that they have gained through their work? host: congressman ross. guest: you know, as an employee of a federal government, as an elected official, as an appointed official, if you are involved in public service, you have an obligation, a fiduciary responsibility to the american taxpayer to be good stewards of those dollars and unfortunately that culture of being a good steward does not permeate as well as it should through all levels of government. you hit on something very true. why is the federal government doing that which the private sector would do because the private sector operates on profits and the government produces nothing but a service and should not have profits? it's a question i think we need to answer and i think it's something we need to address. while i believe in performance pay for exceptional work, i don't believe that the government services administration or any other agency needs to be done in the western regional conference event they had in october of

2010 which is the subject of this debate. we need to put a stop to that. host: this is a tweet here from one of our viewers who said, representative ross, why do you and your colleagues need such exosh tent budgets to run your -- exorbitant budgets to run your congressional offices? let's start there. guest: we've taken an 11% budget reduction. we are returning dollars back to the speaker of the house that we did not spend. i filed a bill at the beginning of my term called zero-based budgeting which would require our agencies to start off on a baseline of zero instead of last year's baseline and request an increase. i believe that we need to justify every expense that we make. if we're going to be the true stewards of the american taxpayer dollars that we were elected to do then we have to justify the expenditures that we make. our budgets are not set by us. just because we're given a budget doesn't mean we have to spend it all and i believe we're doing our job to do

responsibly in our office, to make sure those dollars are spent appropriately in spite of the fact we had to reduce our budgets by 11%. host: we are talking about spending at the appropriate levels, the g.s.a. conference in las vegas. there were hearings on capitol hill. we covered that. go to c-span.org if you want to see the whole thing. the hearings continue today, wednesday, and thursday. today, the house transportation subcommittee takes up the issue momentarily here at 8:30 a.m. eastern time, go to c-span.org for more details. bonnie is a republican. lincoln, nebraska. go ahead, bonnie. caller: ok. my question here is, why we have so many departments of the government. we need to cut their salaries, everybody that works for the government, i don't care who

you are, cut it down by 5%, and you'd be surprised how many trillions of dollars you would save. this is ridiculous. this government's completely out of control. and if anybody thinks it's funny, i'm sorry for you because this is not funny. you were losing -- we're losing our government. we're losing our democracy. host: mr. ross. guest: bonnie, i couldn't agree for with you. for every three federal employees that retire or resign we would only replace with one. you know, we have a federal government larger than it's ever been before. well over two million employees. there are many out there, many federal employees who provide a very valuable service and work very hard and perform very well. but we have to take a look what we're doing here.

when the rest of our country doesn't find a job we have to make sure that those have a job do it well, efficiently and economically and our government has grown way too much. we do need to cut. even the president and the simpson-bowles commission, his debt commission, suggested we reduce our work force by 10%. i think that's a ludible goal that we bipartisan ought to look at and accomplish. host: mr. ross, if you cut the federal work force by 5%, 10%, have you looked into the impact that would have on government services for the taxpayers and what would it be? guest: negligible. negligible. because we can take away those services that are predominantly nongovernmental and start cutting there. essential government services are exactly why we have the federal government, to provide those services. we don't need to be in the business of business. g.s.a. is an example of that. you know, we can make these cuts. we can reduce our work force and we can do it by way of attrition so we're not laying people off. it is something that we have to take very seriously. that we have to address because the size of government is

becoming greater than the size of the private sector if we're not careful. host: carl, democratic caller from l.a. caller: yes. i see the -- [inaudible] i don't think the representative realized that before that president clinton gave president bush a surplus and we had two wars that we didn't pay for so just remembering obama, why don't you remember the whole eight years that bush was in office and obama? because obama can't just erase the deficit or erase the debt. host: mr. ross, i think you touched on it a little bit. guest: i'll touch on it again. this president has increased our spending, our deficit by 1/3. i am not here to apologize what happened under the bush administration. it too had spending. i am not pointing the blame at somebody. i think it's important we find the solutions, that we in a bipartisan fashion implement

those solutions. it's an american issue. we all know the logic and reason dictates that expenditures have to be brought down well within our revenues. and that's what we have to address. as a congress, as a bipartisan congress. not as a republican or a democrat. host: congressman, one last phone call here for you. kevin, an independent in niagara falls, new york. caller: hello and god bless c-span. i'd like to ask the congressman, ok. if you're talking about performance-based -- when over 70% of the people in america did not want the oil subsidies to go through, why should any congressman, most of you are rich anyways, why should you get paid at all when you are not doing the will of the people? and you're talking about an agency that basically pays for itself, all of 2%, and you guys

are -- not being done whatsoever. host: mr. ross. guest: i understand your frustration and i shouldn't suggest you shouldn't have those frustrations. we need to correct those. as far as what we're paid, believe me, i did much better in the private sector. i didn't do this for the money and i won't do this for a career. i will tell you that we need to be better stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, and that's going to be our charge that the american people demand for us and hopefully as a result of this g.s.a. investigation we will do something -- >> "washington journal" airs every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. going live now to the house. they're coming back in for votes on a sportsmen bill they debated this afternoon. t to accompany house resolution 619, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3438 to provide extension of federal aid, highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety and transit pending enactment of a multi

year law reauthorizing such programs and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 620, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 9 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 614 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4089. will the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house in the

committee of the whole house for the fort consideration which the clerk will report guy title. the clerk: a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for hunting fishing and shooting. the chair: a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-444 by the gentlewoman from north carolina had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-444 on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number 2, amendment number 3, amendment number 4 and amendment number 7 and amendment 8 by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote after the first electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 2 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. >> the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor say aye. will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. , this is 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 speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 152 and nays are 260. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished is request depor a record the vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report

112-444 on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: those in support of the request for a rodded vote will rise. 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 speaker pro tempore: the

yeas are 138, the nays are 279. the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-44 on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-44 offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. , 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: the yeas are 155, the nays are 262. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 print in house report 112-444 on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. heinrich of new mexico. the chair: those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 274, the motion is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8, printed in house report 112-444, offered by the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will deres. -- redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report 112-444, offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vo is

requested. a those in support of a recorded vote will rise, a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 193, the nays are 19 . the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it, the amendment is adopt asmede cordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. 12k3 the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4089 and pursuant to house resolution 614 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. it is a -- is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the whole? if not, the sque on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.

those in favor say aye. national oceanic and atmospheric administration. the veas visit. engrossment and third reading. third reading. the clerk: a bill to enhance and protect opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies, the clerk will report the motion. clip mr. tierney of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill and moves to reminority same back to the committee forthwith with the following amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from washington is recognized. point of order ised or -- point of order is reserved by the

gentleman from washington. the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: at the thoached bill, add the following, title 5, fighting oil market speculation, manipulation and friday, section 1, fighting oil speculation, manipulation and fraud. there is hereby appointed to the commodities and futures trading commission such sums as may be necessary to carry out enforcement and analyst registration which relate to oil and refined programs, excessive speculation and market manipulation. title 6. prohibition on hunting and fishing trips paid for by registered lobbyists or registered foreign agents. section 60, prohibition on hunting and fishing trips paid for by registered lobbyists or registered foreign agents. nothing shall allow or facilitate recreational

hunting, fishing or shooting activities on trips paid for by registered lobbyists or registered foreign aids for the ben foist a member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i continue to reserve my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's point of order is recognized. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer the final amendment to this bill. it would give the commodities future trading commission fer the resources it needs to put an end to the speculation that's contributing to the high cost of gas prices across this country. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: i want to be clear this amendment will not kill the bill, will not send it pack to committee. if this amendment is adopted, the house will still immediately proceed to vote on final passage of the bill and it should. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will come to order. both sides will come to order. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. today, the estimates are that speculators control about 70% of the open interest in commodities markets. 70%. 10 years ago, the numb would have been 30%. speculators are essentially large banks, hedge funds, they never actually take control of

the oil. they just get the contract, make a quick profit and get out. unlike trading in stocks and bonds and traditional companies, it has a big effect on americaering it raises the price of gas, creates undue hardship with you're a small business owner with a fleet of coarse trucks, or you're a housewife running errands and taking kids to school. this hurts people already struggling to make ends meet. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members kindly take their conversation off the floor. the gentleman from massachusetts may continue. mr. tierney: according to one official at the commodities future trading commission, not production, but speculation,

has increased prices by 22 cents, about 56 cents per demron. this should be unacceptable for every one of us. what's needed is for this congress to have a concerted effort to curb wall street's anti-consumer practices. this amendment will do that. it will ensure that the cftc has the resources it needs to stop excessive speculation and market manipulation. the president recognizes the importance of this issue and called on congress to support changes in the sf -- stftc for oil futures market trading among other things. we need to give families the confidence that illegal ma nip haitian, illegal fraud and illegal market rigging are not contributing to the high prices of gas. this house can take the first step and approve this amendment. the amendment also ensures that nothing in the underlying bill allows, promotes or facilitates

hunting, fishing or other recreational activities on federal lands. my amendment simply ensures that this is the case. i urge my colleagues to support theament and yield the plans of my time to the ranking member of the natural resources committee, mr. markey. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. the raise -- rise in gas prices is not about opaw ma, it's about opec, oil companies and wall street speculators. wall street speculators now control nearly 2/3 of the oil market up from 11% just 10 years ago. mordepan stanley now controls 15% of new england's home heating oil. and experts tell us as much as 25% of the price of oil is the result of excessive speculation. that means american drivers are paying a wall street

speculation tax of more than 70 cents on every gallon of gasoline. wall street speculators have turned oil market intoss a crude oil casino, yet the majority actually tried to cut funding for our wall street cops, the commodity futures trading commission, by $30 million and today mitt romney called the administration's efforts to crack down on speculation a gimmick. for pro-- they're protecting wall street consumers -- -- protecting main street consumers over wall street consumers isn't a gimmick, it should be a fiven this motion will give the cftc, the speculation cops, the resources and personnel they need to put an end to wall street's gas lean gambling. vote aye on the tierney motion to crack down on wall street speculation and protect main street consumers.

vote aye on the tierney recommit. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: point of order withdrawn. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, a week or so ago, i said history repeats itself and i said it in the context that we keep hearing the same arguments over and over and over again and history repeats itself it seems like every week. here we are back from the district work period and history is repeating itself all over. we are talking about energy but about the wrong solution. the reason we have an energy problem in this country is because of the policies of this administration. it is so simple. we said over and over, in fact,

last year, we addressed the issue of trying to increase energy supply, american energy to create american energy jobs. unfortunately, only a few on that side voted with us. now the other side is starting to get it. energy matters in this country. we need to develop our american energy. this is history repeating itself. vote no on the motion to recommit. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the moigs to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion is not adopted. mr. markey: i ask for a recorded vote so we can record who is going to work for the speculators. the speaker pro tempore: a vorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 160, the nays are 261, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is adopted. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i request the yeas and nays -- mr. markey: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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 speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 274, the nays are 146. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as co-sponsor to h r. 3288. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain one-minute requests.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, the march employment report continues to show us that the federal government has not been helping to create jobs in our economy. a "wall street journal" editorial from april 9 highlighted a few examples from the report. here is one extremely startling statistic.

the labor force participation rate or the share of civilian population that is working dropped again to 63.8%. in march, 2009, a month after the $800 billion stimulus passed congress, the labor participation rate was nearly two percentage points higher at 65.6%. this is a prime example that throwing the money of hardworking taxpayers that the federal government takes from them at a problem will not solve it. we need real solutions that will stimulate our proven economic engine, small businesses. that's why i support the small business tax cut act that will help 22 million hardworking small businesses retain and create more jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous done sent -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to bring attention to h.r. 1959, the medicare ored to thisics improvement act. this legislation has been designed to improve the quality of prosthetic care and reduce fraud leapt payments for prosthetic services under medicare. this legislation would require the centers for medicare and medicaid services to imbureaus only those providers who have been accredited or licensed in prosthetics. the legislation will also require them to report to congress on its enforcement efforts to reduce fraud and abuse. fraud and abuse contributes not only to rising costs but it also harms patients. particularly when medical -- medicaly necessary devices are provided without qualified providers. mr. speaker, we need to collectism look at ways to create savings by combating

waste, fraud and abuse in the medicare system. this legislation will enhance patient care and ensure that medicare fraud is addressed. particularly when the fiscal solvency of the medicare program is in question. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it's party time at the general services administration. the good times rolled in las vegas where the g.s.a. spent over $800,000 of tax money on a conference for 300 people. now we learned that back in 2010 the g.s.a. employees escaped their marble palace in washington, d.c., and jetted off to sin city for a taxpayer-funded high-dollar boondoggle. this so-called conference included a $31,000 reception, fancy awards, food, wine, lavish

suites with bubbling hot tub, swanky party, ipod giveaways and even a mind reader. this kind of lavish spend something exactly why americans don't trust the government with their money. but what happened in vegas just didn't stay in vegas. a g.s.a. whistle blower snitched off the bureaucrats gone wild bunch. now g.s.a. officials are folding their cards, cashing in their chipping and resigning. the day of reckons has come for those who played poker with the people's money. public servants should not be public serpents. these government bureaucrats should pay out of their own pocket. the taxpayer money they squandered in las vegas. and that's just the way it is. for what purpose does -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you for your courtesies. rise because i truly believe we can do better. i join my colleague from texas

to speak and raise the question of what was the g.s.a., the general service administration, thinking? there are a lot of good workers and we should not attribute to them bad acts. but it was such poor judgment. $800,000 to be spent recklessly on party hardy. but i also want to raise a question of the contracts that the g.s.a. sends out. in the instance of the stimulus dollars. my federal building that has been rehabbed under the stimulus moneys to create jobs, and we can't get a contract to address the question of diversity in work force or diversity in contractors. what a terrible shame. there's been some hard work and some attention, but not the hard-pressed that should come about when you seek fairness. mr. speaker, i also want to mention the fact that i'm supporting mr. courtney's bill of kentucky because it is a shame to double -- connecticut because it is a shame to double,

triple the interest rates that college students need for their education. finally i want to say that nasa has sent the "discovery" to the smithsonian. i want a shuttle in houston and we're never gesk giving up until we get -- giving up until we get. it we are the historic home for the shuttle. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute request he? -- questions? -- requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. marino of pennsylvania for monday, april 16, today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlelady from kentucky, ms. delauro, is recognized for -- connecticut, ms. delauro, is recognized as 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. delauro: thank you, mr. speaker.

i claim the time for tonight's democratic special order. thank you, mr. speaker. and tonight -- in tonight's democratic special order we will be highlighting the severe and immoral cuts made to anti-hunger and nutrition programs in the house republican budget. right now millions of american families and children are suffering from food insecurity. as the map here clearly shows. food hardship is a national tragedy. it is present in every -- each and every congressional district. the districts that are highlighted in pink and in red have the most food hardship while the districts in yellow are not far behind. districts highlighted in blue

have the lowest food hardship. but the national average is that nearly one in five americans struggles with food hardship. simply put, they are at risk of going hungry. according to a study done by the center for budget policy and priorities, the republican budget composed by chairman paul ryan and endorsed by presidential candidate mitt romney would, and i quote, impose extraordinary cuts in programs that serve as a lifeline for our nation's poorest and our most vulnerable citizens. not the least of these are america's critical anti-hunger initiatives. like food stamps and the women, infants and children or w.i.c. program, all of which the ryan republican budget threatens to slash by as much as 19%. that means, for example, that over eight million men, women

and children could be cut from food stamps and 2 1/2 million pregnant and post par tomorrow women, infanlts and children may be slashed from the w.i.c. program. the ryan budget slashes these anti-hunger initiatives while preserving subsidies for big oil, tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. it is a reverse robin hood budget that in the words of robert green stein, the head of the center for budget and policy priorities, would, and i quote, likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern u.s. history. and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times. and possibly in the nation's history. as many as -- as many religious and ethical observers have noted this week, the dwgses -- decisions made in this budget are anti--- antithetical to our basic moral values. last friday, 60 catholic leaders

and theologians wrote a letter to chairman ryan arguing that his budget was, quote, morally indefensible and betrays catholic principles of sol darity. just -- solidarity. just taxtation and a commitment to the common good. a budget that turns its back on the hungry, the elderly and the sick while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few can't be justified in christian terms. end quote. this ryan republican budget is particularly cruel when you consider the scale of need in the current economy. when 13 million are unemployed, one in six are living below the official poverty line. as another group of christian leaders, the circle of protection, has urged, congress should, and i quote, give moral priority to programs that protect the life and the dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times. our anti-hunger initiative, like food stamp it's, and w.i.c., are

just -- stamps and w.i.c., are just such programs. tonight i'm proud to be joined by my colleagues. we will discuss the profound impact of the ryan-romney republican budget -- romney-republican budget will have on these programs. with that i am so pleased to ask my colleagues -- colleague from california, mr. farr, who is a ranking member of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee, to continue our dialogue for this evening. mr. farr: thank you very much, madam chair. i call you chair because you were chair when i was on the committee and i always respect your leadership in this field. as was stated, i'm ranking member of the house appropriations, agriculture committee and that is responsible for the u.s. department of agriculture and the food and drug

administration. the entire budgets of those administrations are bigger than the budget of all of california. it's a very important program and the u.s. department of agriculture is responsible for food policy. most of our food policy in the united states is about health care, it's about feeding people and assisting those who don't have adequate access to fresh fruits and vegetables, through creation of farmers market it's and things like. that i'm here tonight because i'm deeply disturbed by the attention and sort of the media satisfaction that some are getting when they hear about the ryan budget cut, squeeze and trim. i want to talk tonight a little bit about not only the families that receive the benefits, but to the farmers who grow the food in this country. the ryan budget is one you ought to look before you leap. because if you look at it in detail, you'll find that it has a lot to do with knowing about

the price of everything and the cost of everything. but very little about the value of what these programs are all about. look, food in america's very important. and we wouldn't be having all these health care debates and issues if it weren't for the issues of health care. health care begins with food. if you're going to drow healthy people it has to do with what they eat and we also know it has to do with the exercise that they participate in. of about $100 billion budget, $65 billion of that is in food nutrition. it's about feeding people. we feed a lot of people in the government. we certainly feed everybody in the military, we feed people in public institutions, we feed children in schools. we also give families a choice

at what they want to buy with the old food stamp program now know known as the staff program. supplemental nutritional assistance program. and in my district one out of every five families is receiving this assistance. and what do they do with that? they can buy, because we produce so much fresh fruits and vegetables, a much healthier diet than they would have otherwise. and indeed if we're going to prevent illness in america, we've got to keep people healthy. who grows this food? who produces this food? it's the farmers of america. they don't give it away. we buy it from them. a huge percentage of the income to farmers in this country comes from the food they produce for our institutional feeding and for our health care programs. the ryan budget devastates that. he cuts, squeezes and twims the -- trims the farmers in this country, the growers, the people that create the food security in america.

so look before you leap. this budget, it does a lot more harm than good. and frankly this supplemental nutritional program is a very good program. we even have spouses and children of military families that are receiving this because in some locations the pay isn't great enough to be able to give them all of the nutritional foods that they need. so if we're going to grow a healthy america, we've got to keep this program and we've got to avoid falling in love with the ryan budget, which will do everything but create a healthier, safer, sounder and more fiscally capable of government. i urge defeat of that budget and support the american farmers. i yield back. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman. now i would like to recognize our colleague from

massachusetts, someone who has been a champion of eliminating hunger in the united states, jim mcgovern of massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, i want to thank my colleague for reminding us all of a terrible truth, that is, there is not a single community in the united states of america that is hunger free. there are millions of our fellow sit zepps, men, women, and children, of every age and background you can imagine, who are hungry or who are food insecure. they don't have enough to eat, can't put a nutritious meal on the table for their families. they go without meals on a regular basis. this is happening in the united states of america, the richest country on this planet and every one of us, democrats or republicans alike, should be ashamed of that fact. i tell people all the time that hunger is a political condition. we have the food, we have this incredible -- this incredible natural resource in this country that we're able to produce enough food to be able

to feed our population. we have this incredible agricultural community -- agricultural communities who can deprow our food yet millions of our citizens go without. we have the food, we have the infrastructure, we know what to do, we have everything but the political will to eradicate hunger in america. now, look, we all agree we have a problem with our debt and we need to get our budgets under control. but it's hard to believe that the first place the republicans are looking to balance the budget are on the backs of the poor and most vulnerable in this country, on the backs of people who are hungry. because tomorrow in thing a cull -- in the agriculture committee, following in line with the republican budget, the -- they are going to ask that the agriculture committee cut $33 billion out of the snap program, that's how they're going to plans the budget.

first thing out of the box, going after the snap program, a program that's worked to keep millions of people, not only out of hunger but out of poverty. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record a -- an article that appears in the "new york times," talking about how the snap program has prevented millions of americans from going into poverty. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i also want to take on a myth that some of my republican friends have been propagating that somehow the snap program is a wasteful program. i've heard over and over again that the amount we've spent on snap has risen over the last decade. it has in part because we've gone through a terrible economic crisis. more and more of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty and had to rely on snap. they tell us we expect what we spend on toyota go down as we get better. this is a social safety net a program that provides

protection for people when they hit difficult economic times. so that is -- so that is why spending has increased. it has nothing to do with fraud or waste or abuse. in fact, g.a.o. and usda have reported time and time again that snap is one of the most efficiently run programs in the federal government, less than 3% error rate, and that includes people who get understood paid what they're entitled to. i dare anybody to find me a department at the pentagon that has such a low error rate. the bottom line is this, what we're talking about here is not just a program, is not just numbers. we're talking about people. we're talking about our neighbors. and we're talking about not people -- not just people who are unemployed, we are talking about working people, millions of working families benefit from snap. they're out there working, trying to make ends meet but they don't earn enough.

so because of that, we have this program called snap to help them get by and to put nutritious food on the table for their children. we can talk all we want about our budgetary problems. i want to close with this. people say to me, we can't afford to spend any more on hunger programs because, you know, things are tough and the budgets need to be tight. but i would counter, mr. speaker, by saying, we can't afford not to therest a cost to hunger in america. and that cost we all pay for, avoidable health care costs. lost productivity in the workplace. children who go to school without enough to eat, can't learn in school. that all adds up. that's a huge cost of billions and billions of dollars that we all have to pay. that doesn't even count what we invest in programs like snap and w.i.c. and other programs designed to provide nutrition and food for our fellow zit e-- citizens.

i would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the battle against hunger has historically been a bipartisan one. we've been able to come together, republicans and democrats, and be able to stand together to support programs that provide a circle of protection for our most vulnerable citizens. all of a sudden, you know mitigating circumstance republican colleagues, some of the presidential candidates, are using hunger as a wedge issue. i'm going to say -- calling president obama the food stamp president. i'm proud that in this country we care about our fell he citizens, especially when they fall on hard times. i urge my colleagues, especially the republican side, to stand up against our leadership and stand with people in need. if government is not there for the needy, i'm not sure what good government. is mitt romney doesn't need government, he's a multimillionaire. donald trump doesn't need government. but there are millions of our fellow citizens who through no fault of their own find themselves in a difficult

economic situation who rely on these programs. it is beyond comp rehence -- comprehension to me that tomorrow, the republicans want to cut $33 billion. with all the places they could look for savings, they're going after programs to help the most vulnerable. that's unacceptable and unconscionable. i hope the majority in this house stand up strongly against that. i thank my colleague for yielding the time. >> i want -- ms. delauro: i want to thank my colleague for his eloquence he makes a comment that these are not just statistics, about the people who are being hurt. the fact of the matter new york my district, during our district break, i did an event on hunger in our community. ed they head of the connecticut food bank, the woman who heads up the end hunger connecticut organization, and the young tissue a young woman named susan from branford, connecticut, shea stood up and with fares -- tears in her eyes talked about her circumstances. out of a job, someone who is a

former -- a pension advisor, human resources director, who is now unemployed, cannot find a job. she has three boys, 18, 14, and 10 years old. they eat, she stood there, crying, one meal a day. if we cut back on food stamps, because she is now not eligible, the can't -- she can't get them because her unemployment benefits take her over the mark, so she relies on the connecticut food bank and when food -- when the food stamps are cut, the food banks don't get the emergency assistance program funding so her ability to feed her family will continue to drop, it's wrong, it's immoral, and in a land that has plenty and we are bountiful with food in this nation, and i'm so delighted that our colleague, jackie

speier, from california, has joined us tonight for this conversation. ms. speier: i thank my colleague from connecticut, who says it better than any of us. and with such great fervor and passion. you know, there are times here when i am elated and there are times when i'm sick to my stomach. and tonight is one of those times when i'm sick to my stomach. i am embarrassed for this body. i am embarrassed that the republicans want to stuff polar bears and bring them back to this country as trophies for their hunters but they do not want to stuff the bellies of poor kids in our country. there is something fundamentally wrong. and i say that with a great deal of remorse, really. one in seven americans, now, is in poverty and needs the --

needs to be part of the snap program. i think it's really important for us to say it over and over again, this program is not filled with fraud. this program is one of the best programs that we run in the government, where the error rate and fraud is less than 3%. now i took the food stamp challenge last fall. i got to tell you that it was a humbling experience. for every one of my colleague who want to cut the food stamp program by $33 billion, i challenge them to live on the equivalent of food stamps for just five days. i did it for five days. $4.50. there were no lattes in my diet. there were no big macs in my diet. there was no sushi in my diet. my diet consisted of canned

tuna, eggs, one head of lettuce, and tomatoes for five days. and a can of instant coffee from the dollar store. that's how i survived. and at the end of five days, i thought to mice, i just did this for five days. how about a family that needs to do this day in, day out, month after month. and what we don't say often enough on this issue is that you are only eligible for the snap program if you are a family of four making less happen $22,000 a year. if you make more than $22,000 a year, you are not eligible. and you're only place you think -- and your only place you can go to is the food banks. if we really are going to be a country that thinks about the poorest among us, we cannot reduce this program. we cannot say to those who are

just making it, who are making less than $22,000 as a family of four that we're not going to help you put food into the bellies of your kids. i say to my republican colleagues, don't do this. and if you are in fact going to vote for this budget, then you take that food stamp challenge for five day, you see what it's like, and then vote for it. i thank thinkmy colleague and i yield back. ms. delauro: i thank the gentlelady and your words are poignant. if anybody would like to do this, they really should walk in people's shoes and understand what it's about, when the american people say they don't believe that congress understands what their lives are about, in this instance, you bear it out. thank you. someone who we are deeply going to miss in the next session of this congress, there hasn't been a greater champion for women and their families in the house of representatives and our colleague -- than our colleague from california,

congresswoman woolsey. ms. woolsey: i thank the congresswoman from connecticut for this special order and for those kind words. thank you very much. so let me see, doif this right? am i getting it? my colleagues on the ore side of the aisle think it's just fine for the wealthiest -- wealthiest americans to avoid their fair share of the tax burden, that it's fine for a millionaire to pay a lower federal tax rate than his secretary, so tell me who they believe should make do with less in order to close the budget deficit? just who do they want to sacrifice? oh, of course, those americans who are barely getting by. who can't afford life's basic necessities without support from the federal government.

mr. speaker, to convert snap into a block grant program and cut nutrition assistance would cut a giant hole in the social safety network. actually, the snap program is a smart investment in americans who need help the most. it stimulates the economy, it increases worker productivity, it's good for our children's development and academic performance. at this very moment, when a harsh economy is threatening the security of so many families, we should be increasing these investments. we shopt be standing here talking about scaling them back. you know, mr. speaker, you know, mr. speaker, you probably don't know, i know what it's like to be working and still not earn enough to put food on the table. i was a single mother. it was 45 years ago. i had three small children. they were 1, 3, and 5 years

old. their dad was ill. he abandoned us. i went back to work to support my family, in fact, i had to lie about my marital status and about my child care arrangements just to get a job, but remember, that was 40 years ago. but my salary was not enough to provide for the four of us. so to help my paycheck cover the basic needs of my family, i went on public assistance, kept on working, and that was how i could make ends meet, but without food stamps, we never could have made ends meet. as i said, my children were 1, 3 and 5 years old. they had needs. eventually we got through the rough patch and my children grew up to be healthy, successful

adults, they're amazing, by the way. but i don't know what we would have done or how we would have survived without that help. in fact, isn't that what america is about? when our fellow citizens fall on hard times, don't we pitch in to help them? well, that's not what the republican philosophy is. it's quite different than that. i believe they believe every man and woman is on their own and should be fending for themselves. millionaires and billionaires deserve the special breaks that they don't need and more hardship for americans who are suffering enough already. is just what they have to do when they happen not to be very wealthy. or in need. it's appalling and it's shameful

. mr. speaker, you don't need to have my personal experience. nobody needs to. i didn't have to do the food stamp test for five days. i know what it's like to live on food stamps. but we as americans, as members of congress, have to fight with everything that we have to protect the nutrition programs that we have in this country because families in america depend on it. thank you and i yield back. ms. delauro: i thank the gentlelady for her words and for her telling about her personal experience. i'd like to recognize the vice chair of our democratic cause, the honorable mr. becerra of california, which by the way has a 19%, over 19% food hardship race. beckbeck i thank -- mr. bass: i thank --

mr. becerra: i thank the gentlelady for the years she has done in committee, for her district and simply in congress as being one of the champions of not just children and families who are in need, but the fight to make sure that all these families have an opportunity to be or to have access to real nutrition. not just food, but real nutrition. because there were days when catchup was called a vegetable and some people made the fight to make sure that nutrition really meant good food so that if we were going to help americans as we want to as good americans help our fellow americans then let's be sure we're doing it so that they end up healthy americans as well. so we're here to talk about the supplemental nutrition assistance program. snap. snap is the acronym. but really what we're here to talk about is the fact that in america children still go to bed hungry. it's hard to believe, but that's

the way it is for too many families in our country. now, the numbers are staggering. they're staggering because of the bush recession which left so many americans in a place they'd never been before. and in fact you had to go back some 70, 80 years to find a situation similar when we saw the great depression in america. we went from somewhere in the mid 1920's, some 26 million americans who qualified for snap assistance to over 45 million. around 45 million families, during the height of this great recession, who qualified for benefits. most of those folks who qualified included families with children or seniors or persons with disabilities. it should come as no surprise. but what's really disheartening is to see how many americans live in extreme poverty, a life that most of us would not

recognize. when we talk about extreme poverty, we're talking about americans who are living on less than $2 a day. the number of americans who were living on less than $2 a day doubled during the bush recession. the number of poor children who were in extreme poverty doubled during the bush recession. most of the people we're talking about, as my colleagues have said earlier, are living on less than $22,000 a year, as a family of four. those in extreme poverty obviously far less. an individual, not a family, but just an individual, we're talking about someone who would have to have an income of $11,000 or less to be age to qualify for any assistance with the snap program. what probably makes it most difficult for many of us here in congress, but for most americans to really grapple with this

issue of food insecurity and children in america going to sleep hungry, is the fact that this congress is taking on legislation which would actually provide tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, at this very moment that we speak about food insecurity. and so it is difficult to comprehend how we can say to americans today that are working hard but earning very little and trying to figure out how they keep their kids from going to sleep hungry at night, that we still have the money to provide tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires but we can't figure out a way to continue a great program called snap that relies on our farmers to grow this food and then make some of it available at a discounted rate to american families who are having a tough time. this is all about values. this is all about talking about

the american family. it's all about whether we believe in the better days still to come for our country. i happen to be someone who grew up in a very tiny house, about 600 square-foot home with my three sisters. my father got about a sixth grade education. my mother came from mexico whether she married my father at the age of 18. they came to sacramento, california, with only the money they had in their pockets. they never once had to ask for assistance. they worked very hard, they were fortunate that they always found a way to make ends meet. i never had the levis genes. my first bike was the bike that my -- jeans. my first bike was the bike that my friend was willing to sell to my father and me because i had just gotten a new waun. but i never went to sleep hungry and so i will tell you right now, it's a different thing to experience something where the thing you want most before you go to sleep is a bite to eat.

too many of our kids are upset that they didn't get to watch that television program or didn't get to play on the computer very much at night. there's still too many american children who are concerned that when they go to bed, they wish they had something else in their stomach. i believe america has the moral fibers to say, we're going to deal with this problem. and i thank the gentlelady from kentucky for once again making -- connecticut for once again making the fight. the reality is, we can figure out a way to help millionaires and billionaires continue to be successful and create the next wave of wealthy and successful americans. at the same time we should be able to figure out a way to make sure that the snap program is there for americans who through no fault of their own find themselves without work, through no fault of their own are trying to figure out how they will let their child go to bed with a full stomach and if we do in the rate way, we'll get it solved -- the right way, we'll get it

solved. i sat on the simpson-bowles of a year and a half ago which found a way to make $4 trillion in savings in our budget. it did not touch the snap program. i sat on the supercommittee which was supposed to also fashion a budget deficit reduction deal and that of course was also going to come up with a deal that also would not have touched the snap program. we can certainly do far better than what we see in the house republican budget, which is going after the snap program. and i encourage all of my colleagues to stand up, not just for the snap program, but for americans today because there are some families that are trying to figure out how they can keep their children tonight from going to bed hungry. and so i thank the gentlelady from connecticut for all she has done for so long to champion this issue for america's families. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman. i think one of the most important things that you commented on tonight was there's

a number of u.s. households living below the world bank measure of severe poverty in developing nations. that means they're living on less than $2 a day per person. at the start of 2011 we had 1.4 million households, 2.8 million children, that's 800,000 households that are living on $2 a day and we have colleagues in this institution that want to take food out of the mouths of those children. mr. becerra: some people don't believe that's the case. that is america. ms. delauro: with that i'd just like to say a thank you to our colleague from new jersey, congressman holt, and ask him to join our conversation this evening. mr. holt: i thank my friend from connecticut. i thank mr. becerra for his heartfelt and very moving remarks and ms. speier from

california. look at this, look at this map. 46 million americans relied on snap, more than nine million others relied on this supplemental w.i.c., women, infant and children's food assistance. in new jersey, my home state, more than a million residents rely on snap benefits to keep food on the tables. and the budget. the republican-ryan budget endorsed by mitt romney would have red our social safety net -- sled our social safety net -- is shred our social safety -- net. it would cut food stamps by $133 billion over 10 years. the authors of this or anyone who voted for it should walk a little bit in those shoes. i've walked in the shoes. more specifically, i've walked

down the supermarket aisle with beneficiaries, with people who work in the food assistance program, with food stamp dish mean, with food bank representatives. and how does it go? well, you can't buy that. no, you can't afford that. oh, mommy, can i have this? no, we're going to have to put that back on the shelf. $31.50 a week. nobody is doing this to have a little taste of luxury and yet we have people come to the floor here on the house and say, before any of these millions of people get this assistance, they should have drug tests. or means tests. i call them suspicion tests. somehow they're trying to rip us

off. , no these are not -- no, these are not welfare queens. look, the average recipient is on this -- these benefits for less than a year. more than half of them go to households where the income is below half the poverty line. the poverty line is low enough. but half of these recipients are at half that rate. nearly 75% of snap participants are in families with children. and about half are working. these are working families, trying to make it. is anybody who voted for this budget suggesting that the millionaires who might get an extra $100,000 on average submit to a drug test? submit to a means test? are we suspicious of them?

how about the executives of the oil companies? getting billions of dollars of benefits in this, are we going to subject them to drug tests? means tests? show that they're deserving? my friend from connecticut, ms. delauro, already mentioned the united states conference of catholic bishops. they wrote, as pastors and teachers, we remind congress that these, meaning the budget decisions, are economic, political and moral choices with human consequences. please respectfully they urge, reject any efforts to reduce funds or restructure programs in ways that harm struggling families and people living in poverty. i thank my colleagues so much for shedding this bright light for shedding this bright light on this