tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 14, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
across the aisle that i grew up probably poorer than anybody in this body. and i know something about what it means to struggle to get food. i know what that's all about. and let me tell you, there's nobody here who feels more strongly that more government -- more federal government involvement in this is not the right way to go. what we need is to be able to develop policies that allow people to get a job so they can provide for themselves instead of being dependent on the federal government to provide for them. . my colleague says budgets are moral documents. again, i don't -- my colleague and i don't agree on a lot of issues when it comes to policies, but we certainly agree on that. budgets are moral tumets. what the plups have done with the budget that we passed here in this body this year is to
say to the american people, we understand that budgets are moral documents. we passed a budget. the democrats didn't even pass a budget last year. so they didn't want to face up to it. i don't know what that says about their morality but i know what it says about republicans' morality. we have a strong sense of morality. we passed a budget. we're being honest with the american people. we're telling them, you cannot continue to spend above your means. the average person understands that. and we are going to be honest, continue to be honest with the american people, we're going to cut inefficient government programs wherever we can. let me say, mr. speaker, that right now, if you're a 3-year-old child in this country, there are 12 federal feeding programs to serve you. if you're a 10-year-old, there are nine federal feeding programs. if you're 65 years old, there
are five federal feeding programs. we do not lack for programs to help take care of the hungry people in this country, mr. speaker. what we lack is efficiency in our programs and republicans are going to do all we can to make sure that we bring efficiency and effectiveness to whatever programs are funded here. i'd now like to yield three minutes to my colleague from kansas, mr. yoder. i apologize to mr. graves of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. graves: that often happens, i certainly understand the connection there. he's the smarter one. mr. speaker, i just want to take the opportunity to address this. there is one issue facing this nation right now that is far greater than what we're discussing at this point, and that is jobs. the lack of jobs in this nation
as a result of two failed years of an experiment that just didn't work. i know we're going to talk about it for the next day or two and the next couple of weeks. the american people just expect us to deal with cutting spending here. they said, take care of your job, get it done, spend within your means, don't spend more than you get, and take care of your job. at the same time, understand what's happening back home on main street. i can tell you, mr. speaker, as i go home, each and every week, and i see the devastation occurring all across the communities in my district, it's amazing to see the for sale sign the for rent signs, that pop up each and every week that are new because of a failed experiment that's occurred here. we heard the gentleman say the republicans have no plan. let's talk about their plan. and how effective it has been. we've had two years now of at or above 9% unemployment, 15 million americans looking for a job, deficit spending now, going on $1 trillion for three consecutive years, and yet we
are on the eve of the week here in which we're going to celebrate president barack obama's claim of the summer of recovery. one year anniversary of that claim. i want to tell you, mr. speaker, there has been no recovery as a result of the policies passed by this administration. we must take a different direction. it start biscuiting spending. it starts by reducing the size of government. the reason is very simple. because the less that the government has in its pocket, there is more left for the american people. when the american supreme more money in their pocket, they have the ability to expand their businesses, they have the ability to dream an idea, have a great idea, go out and invest in that idea. they have the ability to hire new employees and invest in new capital. but instead this congress over the last couple of years has horded that wealth, kept it here in washington, diveyed it out to the winners they choose just through their own picking
here, who is going to get the money of the american people. they dole it out left and right yet today when we're looking at giving it pack to the american people, the other side stands against it once again. it's time to get americans back to work. we don't do that through the expansion of the public sector, we do it through the expansion of the private sector. let's empower the american people and take power away from the federal government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back, the gentlewoman from north carolina reserve the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 10 seconds, i want to correct the record. the gentlelady suggests that people should go get a job. that's the answer to the hunger crisis. a lot of the -- a lot of the people by the way with qualify for these programs are working families, the working poor. we all need to get serious about the economy. i encourage you to work with us on a jobs bill rather than your radical right-wing agenda that
keeps coming to the floor. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. mcgovern, for your leadership on this important issue. to my colleague, the distinguished congresswoman who is managing for my friends on the other side of the aisle, there are probably many of us who lived the american story and began life on the rocky side of the mountain. i rise because i happen to come from a district where my predecessor died on the side of an ethiopian mountain. it's a far, far place away from houston but my predecessor was congressman mickey leland. he was so driven by the vastness of hunger, he was so
much a soldier of robert kennedy's message that he didn't allow danger to thwart him from trying to help people who were literally dying. so he was carrying grain and he obviously had as his colleagues who were not on that flight, tomei hall and congressman emerson and i would say to you -- tony hall and congressman emerson and i would say it gets me in my heart what we're doing today because my predecessor, a member of congress, described by many terms, but he felt hunger was so severe, he helped found the committee on hunger. you can understand why i tell you it's not good enough to feed 85% of the hungry children so that 15% of them don't get breakfasts and lumplings. that's not something to give you a halo for or to give you
an accolade. because so many of us understand how stretching that peanut butter or stretching that soup, or stretching minimal food so many of us have either heard those stories or experienced it and in this bill, $2 billion are cut from food straps. do you realize our soldiers and their families, young recruits, are on food stamps? does anyone know the population that are on food stamps? we tried to make it better for them but many of them are on food stamps. to cut the w.i.c. program, you're impacting children who are innocent. then, of course, food for peace is not a throwaway, it is to simply stop the folk who are dying in deserts around the world. $35 million has been cut from trying to increase the number of grocery stores in urban centers and rural areas to a certain extent where there are no grocery stores, where people can actually get fresh food. try coming to my district and
shopping for groceries in the local down the street two by four store where food dates that i have actually seen by myself are years old are sitting on the counter where people who only have feet transportation have to go and buy beeps that are dated a year before or tuna that are dated a year before. may i have 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i talk about tuna, i had to put it back on the shell of a little two by four where people walk. calvin coolidge, a republican president, followed in the 1920, the same pattern, which is give to the reach and let the poor die on the vine. he didn't run again because he knew there was a collapse coming. his fellow republican elected said, give to the rich and we had the 1928 collapse.
we're talking about where consumers and businesses are not buying or having business. we the government must invest i believe in the name of mickey leland we have to do a better job of feeding the hungry. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina veck niced. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my colleague from massachusetts talking about right-wing radicals because i associate myself with george washington, james madison, and thomas jefferson, who were right-wing radicals. along with the other founders. i would now like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. or mr. speaker, rather. i would like to focus on what
this bill does and what it does not do. first of all, it increases spending because mandatory programs are growing. the mandatory programs like snap and child nutrition are growing so rapidly that they exceed the cuts in the discretionary programs in this bill. so while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about the dreadful calamity associated with the cuts in this bill, the fact of the matter is, food programs get more money under this bill. and that's because they are mandatory programs. the committee has no control over them. the only thing we have control over are the discretionary
programs. snap is projected to grow almost $6 billion and child nutrition is projected to cost an additional $1.45 billion. now, those and other mandatory spending add up to an additional $282 million over the cost of if fiscal year 2012. -- cost of fiscal year 2012. so to call this a cut is not acknowledging the additional spending that's mandatory and that is in the snap program and the child nutrition program. now, we as members of congress, who are facing $1.2 trillion or
$1.3 trillion more in spending every year than we take in and are racking up $14 trillion, soon to be more, in debt, this year we have now exceeded in our national debt the entire g.d.p. of this country for one year. we cannot go on like this. we're destroying the country with spending. that's the moral imperative we're discussing today. consequently, let's keep our eye on the ball, we're not destroying spending for people in need, we're actually increasing it $6 billion for snap and almost $.5 billion for child nutrition. -- almost $1357b9 billion for child nutrition. we've -- almost $1.5 billion for child nutrition. we're saving it in other areas like research, animal plant health and conservation,
nutrition, food, and safety, rural development, the food and drug administration and the commodities future trading commission. spreading funding across this spectrum is a balancing act and i'd like to thank chairman kingston for his leadership on this bill. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: listening to the gentlelady from wyoming, one would get the impression there are no choices but to cut the programs that help the poorest of the poor. there are lots of places to find savings. we can begin by paying for the bush tax cutters in donald trumps of the world. we could maybe pay for the wars or better yet end the wars. we borrow billions of dollars every week for the wars and no one around here seems to want to pay for them. we could end up, we could maybe take back taxpayer subsidies for the big oil companies.
i don't know why we're subsidizing oil companies. maybe some of the generous agricultural subsidies that go to a lot of places in wyoming, i haven't heard the gentlelady suggest maybe we cut those subsidies. instead, all the focus is on the most helpless people in our country. and it is just wrong. it is wrong. don't do this. we can do this better. at this point, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this misguided rule. it unravels the work of the appropriations committee. it calls for even more drastic cuts to the women, infant and children food program that has already been suggested by the majority. and so doing, the rule puts the interest of brazilian cotton
farmers above the very real need of american women and children. everyone knows the w.i.c. program provides nutrition assistance grants to states for low-income, pregnant, breast-feeding and postpartum women and infants and children up to the age of 5. it serves nine million mothers and children nationwide, including 58,000 in my state of connecticut. nearly half of the babies born in the united states every year participate in the program. it is a short-term intervention that can help provide a lifetime of good nutrition and help behaviors. even notwithstanding this appropriations bill already threatens to slash w.i.c. funding by $650 million. w.i.c. has been slashed by $650 million.
that means as many as up to 300,000 women and children will be turned away and forced to go hungry. in fact, secretary vilsack, the secretary of the agriculture department, has warned or subcommittee that this number could be as high as 750,000 people, and i have his letter and his quote to confirm that. now, i understand that during the committee consideration of this, i had an amendment to restore $147 million to the w.i.c. program. i pay for it by taking $147 million which we currently provide to brazilian cotton farmers. that amendment passed with a bipartisan vote. this majority has no problem spending money for brazilian cotton farmers, but they are loathed to do something for women and children in the
united states. what this rule by this republican majority has done is they took away this $147 million. they gave it back to the cotton farmers in brazil, and then they have said, find $147 million, cut it from the w.i.c. program or cut it from somewhere else in this bill. what are we doing here? who are they trying to fool? we're going to give the money back to brazilian cotton farmers. the majority decided that that was more important. that's the fact. there are many egregious cuts in this appropriations bill. not just to w.i.c. to the commodities supplemental food program which goes to low-income seniors. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. delauro: which goes to food
banks, food pantries, one out of five people in the united states today are going hungry, and we can't find within our purview here to provide the funding to do that. again, democrats and republicans on the committee voted to take $147 million, provide it to the w.i.c. funding, take it away from the brazilian farmers. this rules committee gave it back to the brazilian cotton farmers. i urge my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, take charge of what we did on our committee, stand up for americans, reject this rule. that's not what we voted for. this is not what the american people want. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to yield three men's to the distinguished and eloquent chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr.
dreier, is recognized for three minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: it's a tall order that my friend from grandfather community imposed on me, mr. speaker, but i will say it's great to be standing here as we proceed with consideration of the appropriations process. last year we, for all intense and -- intents and purposes, had no appropriations process. it was shut down. we're here today considering the third appropriation bill under an open amendment process. now, my friend from connecticut has just characterized this as a misguided rule. since 1837, mr. speaker, 1837 -- it's been a few years -- we've had within the rules of the house a structure whereby the authorizers have a responsibility and the appropriators have a responsibility. she said that we somehow are unraveling, we're unrafbling this very, very great and -- unraveling this very, very
great compromise in the rules committee. ms. delauro: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: yes. ms. delauro: there was an amendment and the fact of the matter is it was un-- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, if i could reclaim my time. my next line, mr. speaker, was going to be my friend from connecticut, there happened to be 435 members of the united states house of representatives , and we have a process known as appropriations. we also have an authorization process as well. since 1837, the rule that my friend says is misguided, it has been the rules of the house. mr. speaker, to call it misguided to comply with the rules of the house, something our friends in the last two congresses chose to ignore repeatedly is outrageous. now, as we listen to these reports of hunger that exists in the united states of america, i was just talking to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, mr. kingston, who made it very clear that there may be a stupidity
factor, but the fact of the matter is there are so many programs that exist today, that exist today, as mr. kingston reported up in the rules committee, that people do have an opportunity to benefit from those programs. we also are dealing with tremendous constraints that have been imposed on us because of the fact we saw an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending over the past four years. and what it means is with the $14 trillion national debt, we have to make some tough choices. we want to make sure, and mr. kingston is working on this, as is the authorizers, we want to make sure those programs that do exist actually do provide an opportunity with three, not four or five, but three meals a day for people who are truly in need. and my friend from grandfather community, mr. speaker, pointed to the fact that we need to put into place a program that would encourage job creation and economic growth. for literally for years we've had languishing agreements that
would open up new markets around the market in colombia, panama and south korea. we have not taken action on that. i hope very much that before august we do. that will help create jobs and get people who may have to look to government programs today in a position where they can in fact feed themselves. that's our goal. we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity, and we want to continue this process along with democrats and republicans alike to be heard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, a vote for this rule is a vote to cut w.i.c. even further and give it to brazilian cotton farmers. at this point i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. doggett: our republican colleagues have chatted endlessly about making hard choices, but most of the hard choices they make today are hard only on the hungry. hard on hungry children, hard
on hungry seniors. they've got tremendous cuts to the women, infant and chirp nutritional assistance. it -- children nutritional assistance. it means that 350,000 women and infants will be denied assistance, including tens of thousands in my home state of texas. they made a hard choice. instead of putting food on the table for those women and infants, they chose to send $147 million to brazilian cotton farmers. i think that's not just a hard choice, it's a very bad choice. those young children will never achieve their full god-given potential if they arrive at kindergarten malnourished. and these hard-hearted cuts to our emergency food assistance programs, our food banks are doing a tremendous job. in texas they get support of grossers, of retailers, of private contributors, but they
need this emergency food assistance. i've been to those food banks. i've seen some of those rural banks in times of economic distress and it's bare. the cupboards are bare. they made a hard choice. hard on the hungry. well, i tell you, i think the only bank these republicans have found they don't want to bail out is the food banks and the food banks need that assistance. i say we should reject this bill that takes away things from those who have the least. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 8 3/4 minutes. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 2 1/2 minges. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman -- i thank the gentlewoman for the time. i want to say to my friend from
texas and connecticut, number one, the delauro amendment of which you alluded to that increases w.i.c. $147 million is intact and that increase has gone on. we do have to offset it from another portion of the bill, and the reason is because that brazilian cotton agreement was a w.t.o. agreement that president obama agreed to. the money is restored. so if that helps clarify things and if not, let me know. let me remind everyone, if you want to help hungry people, you got to have the money to do it. now, both parties have overspent. for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. both parties. under president bush in an eight-year period of time, the deficit -- excuse me -- the debt went up $3.5 trillion. now, under president obama in a three-year period of time it's gone up $5 trillion, a 56% increase.
and president obama now owns the war in iraq and libya and afghanistan in terms of this is his watch, he has had opportunity to change the direction. he's not done so. so let's quit hiding behind we're at war and therefore it's the republicans' fault. also, i want to remind my friends, the only budget that's passed either house is the ryan budget which is what we're operating under. the president of the united states' budget failed on the senate floor 97-0. he did not even get harry reid's vote, so we are operating under the budget constraints that we have. let me say this very important about the w.i.c. program, from february, 2010, to february, 2011, the number of participants have dropped at 300,000 -- have dropped 300,000. the level now is 8.7 million.
we will make sure no one falls through the cracks. there are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens. i want to point out for all the screaming and hollering and self-righteousness, last year the democrats cut w.i.c. $562 million and put the money into an unrelated account that had nothing to do with hunger. it was a political settlement. where was the screaming and hollering then? i want to say this in terms of the world food program, if he with -- if we want to help these countries, and i am committed to it, we have to have our own financial house in order because all we're doing is borrowing from our children to help children overseas. that does not make sense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kingston: i appreciate it and i ask colleagues to support the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized.
mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, the ranking member on the appropriations committee on this subcommittee, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you, mr. mcgovern, for yielding. i rise with concerns with this rule. the rule in one part is good because it's an open rule, it allows amendments. the rule in the second part which protects the work of the committee fails to do so. this committee is about food. it's about food production, about food packaging, about food delivery and about feeding people. it is the largest poverty program in the united states. we have a lot of poor people in this country at all ages, and instead of taking care of those people, instead of taking care of those people, this rule eliminates that protection. it protects those that have but not those that have not. i stand in opposition to the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, is recognized.
ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, a leader on these issues, ms. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the ag bill. instead of helping americans hit hardest by the recession today we are debating a republican spending bill that guts critical nutrition programs which literally puts food on the table so that millions of low-income women, children and seniors don't go hungry. it cuts the american food assistance program which could cause our local food banks to close their doors, and it slashes the budget of the w.i.c. program, the effects of which will leave hundreds of thousands of women and children without adequate nutrition. w.i.c. not only keeps our low-income families from hunger but by emphasizing adequate
nutrition, the program reduces the incidence of low birth weight babies, promotes school readiness by giving children the nutritional building blocks their brain needs to develop at a critical stage. it also increases child immunization rates. these are not just for the child and the family. in fact, the program helps every dollar invested in w.i.c. we save about $2 to $3 in health care costs just in the first two months of life. this is an incredible feat. it's one that should be expanded. instead, the bill before us slashes. and it has more americans going hungry. when i asked people what the republican cuts would do to our community the answer was clear. without this assistance which choice will it be, rent or food? my constituents have been loud and clear on this issue, stop
trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children. vote known rule and vote no on this devastating billism yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. mcgovern. i have some sympathy for my good friend from georgia, congressman kingston. he got dealt a tough hand by a really unpleasant, mean-spirited, unnecessary republican bill. there are real consequences for moving forward with the ryan budget. but in a sense, this is the first debate on the -- of the 2012 farm bill. we have a farm policy that spends too much on the wrong
people to do the wrong thing. there are opportunities for us to rebalance the equity. you're hearing some debate about whether or not we should honor a w.t.o. commitment to brazilian farmers for $147 million a year. the only reason we're doing this is because congress in its wisdom would not cut back on the cotton subsidies that go to american farmers that are inappropriate and unnecessary. but instead of changing the system, we're paying brazilian farmers. that's goofy. and i think at a minimum, we ought to reshift that. put it into nutrition for poor women and children. now, i will tell you that all you have to do is ask the hunger advocates in your community. every member of congress has
people who are dealing with the problem of hunger and food insecurity in their districts. i commend my friend, mr. mcgovern, for his leadership in dealing with the issue of hunger at home and abroad. we ought to be dealing with it here and now. this bill that's coming forward ought to rebalance the equities with the cotton subsidies for brazilian farmers. there are other remedies. but we ought to look at every single amendment that comes to the floor to change the farm bill allocation and appropriations as a first important step toward rebalancing and having a healthy -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 330 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: to having an agricultural policy that serve ours interests, our children, that gives more to our farmers
and ranchers and less to international farmers and huge agribusiness. that doesn't slash environmental support for american farmers. but helps us here at home. there is a better way. there is actually bipartisan support if we can ever see our way clear to having it on the floor, debate this week is an important first step and i urge my colleagues to vote accordingly this is a battle we can win on a bipartisan basis. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: could i inquire of the gentleman from massachusetts if he's ready to close? mr. mcgovern: we're ready to close. ms. foxx: then i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no
on this rule, first and foremost. there are two reasons to vote no on this rule. one is the allocation that's been given to the agriculture appropriations bill is so low that it's not fixable. i mean, the concerns you have heard raised on the floor today about underfunding w.i.c. and underfunding other programs that feed the hungry and provide good nutrition to our people, the only way to restore those cuts is by cutting another program that does good things. this is not even fixable. the second reason to vote against this rule, and i say this to my republican colleagues in particular, is because if you vote for this rule, you'll arow the -- allow the republicans to eliminate an additional $147 million if the w.i.c. program. because they have not protected the provision that was passed in the appropriations committee that took the money from the brazilian cotton farmers and gave it to w.i.c. because it will not be protect,
they'll insist on a point of order which means that -- means that money will go from w.i.c. back to the brazilian cotton farmers at a time when brazil's economy is booming. that does not make any sense. as it stands right now, we would -- the w.i.c. cuts alone would force $2, -- would force 200,000 to 250,000 low-income women and children off the rolls. if you vote for this rule, an additional 250,000 will be thrown off on top of that. that is just not right. as i mentioned at the outset, mr. speaker, this bill cuts not only w.i.c. but it cuts csfp, tfap moneys, and other programs that are important to the well-being of our citizens. it's not just an issue with regard to low-income people.
people who make money are also concerned about the safety of their food. mr. speaker, this bill is about helping the most vulnerable in our country and around the world. it doesn't usually receive a lot of attention. there's not a lot of lobbyists down here for poor people. there are not a lot of p.a.c.'s out there that support issues that benefit poor people. but in many ways this is one of the most important appropriations bills we consider. i do think it reflects on our values and what kind of country we want to be. i believe that given the fact that we're the richest country on this planet, we ought to make sure that nobody in america goes hungry. i don't know why that's such a radical idea. and yes, we need to rely in large part on the faith-based communities out there that are doing incredible work. they're working overtime trying to deal with the people who
have fallen into poverty as a result of the economic crisis we're. in they're doing all they can to brush it off onto their backs more is just wrong. and it doesn't represent the reality out there. we need to step up to the plate during these difficult times and help people get through these crises. if you don't respond, you want to ignore those who are struggle, they just don't go away. it results in other problems. and other costs to our government. to our government and to our people. hunger is not cheap. there is a price to pay for hunger. globally, mr. speaker, let me just say that no war in history has killed so many humans, spread so much disease and suffering in any year as world hunger. we have an opportunity to do something about it, we ought to do it, vote no on this rule,
please, i say to my republican colleagues, don't do this, don't go down this road, we can do so much better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to point out again what my colleague from georgia said. it was president obama's agreement with the w.t.o. that is forcing the funding for the brazilian farmers. this is not something the republicans did. mr. speaker, we cannot continue to ignore the facts. we have skyrocketing debt and unacceptable unemployment rates. the federal government must learn to live within its means and be accountable for how it spends taxpayer money. house republicans are continuing to fulfill our pledge to america and keep the promises we made to the american people before the election last november. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1c of rule 20, consideration will now resume which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making available funding for veterans affairs for the year ending september 3rks102012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on engrossment and
third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction, department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. owens of new york move trose commit the bill h.r. 2055 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, page 30, line 17, insert before the period at the end of the fol logue, provided further, that in addition to the funds made available by public law 112-10, for department of veterans' affairs medical services for fiscal year 2012, an additional $20 million is
appropriated for such account for advertising of assistance in services for the prevention of suicide among veterans as authorized by section 532 of title 38 united states code for such fiscal year. page 35, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $25 million. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. owens: i rise to offer this final amendment for the benefit of those men and women returning from iraq and afghanistan as well as for veterans of all wars in need of care. there's been much debate in the house today about hard choices. our veterans made hard choices, made difficult decisions and many of them suffer because of that.
this amendment is fiscally responsible as it is fully paid for and most importantly, it takes care of veterans. we are asking that approximately $20 million be appropriated for such account to assist in the prevention of suicide among veterans. i know as a young man, actually as a young boy, i had uncles from world war i, friends of my fathers from world war ii, who suffered from ptsd. it wasn't known by that term then, but clearly they did. when you go to walter reed, when you go to fort drummond and you look into the eyes of the young men and women returning from afghanistan and iraq, you can see the pain. this is what we are called to deal with today. america's troops have served with honor and distinction, accomplishing tremendous progress in iraq and afghanistan. while we have gone to great lengths ensuring that they have
what they need to accomplish the mission, it is the will and determination of the -- of the average service member that is winning the fight for our country. the current washes has demanded much of the soldiers, sailors, airmen overseas to carry out their mission under constant threat from enemy fire, i.e.d.'s and other dangers, all the while away from their family and friends back home. in short, the men and women of the armed forces are winning this fight through their incredible personal sacrifice. as we all know, this sacrifice often includes great costs to the physical well-being of returning veterans swlts mental health concerns from -- as well as mental health concerns from ptsd and traumatic brain injury. it is our duty to make sure that all is available for returning service members. we can and must do more to care
for them. this includes increased services to address ptsd and t.b.i. as well as adequate mental health services to prevent the tragedy of suicide among returning combat veterans. as a representative for fort drum, the most deployed unit in the united states army, i am especially committed to seeing that members of the armed forces are afforded everything they need when they return home to their families and our communities. this amendment provides an additional $20 million for veteran medical services to give the veterans administration the resources it needs to provide these essential services. my amendment is fully offset and fulfills america's commitment to the heroes that have sacrificed so much to defend america. i urge a yes vote on this final amendment. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. for what purpose does the
gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the motion and to -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from texas continue to reserve his point of order? mr. culberson: yes, i do, indeed reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes in opposition to the motion. mr. culberson: yes, i do, mr. chairman. i want to point out, mr. chairman, that the subcommittee on military construction and verns affairs has worked arm in arm in a bipartisan way in support of our troops, in support of our veterans and we have provided funding for every need that was presented to the committee to help our men and women in uniform to do the job they do every day defending our nation, to help our veterans as they move out of active duty into retired status, to help the veterans administration treat not only the veterans who have suffered or been injured in combat in defense of this nation, but also those veterans that have suffered in some way
psychological trauma that would put them at risk of suicide, a growing problem and one the committee is deeply concerned about. in fact, the committee has fully funded at the president's request of $69.9 million. the committee's provided essentially $70 million at the president's request, it the request of the veterans administration. we have fully funded every -- in every way the request of the professionals in this area what they believe is necessary to meet the need that they have determined is out there among the veterans of this nation. one of the great joys i know that all of us have as members of congress is to provide the support that is necessary for our men and women in uniform to do the extraordinarily difficult job that they confront every day. and to ensure that their families have the peace of mind
that their son, their daughter, their father, their loved one has been given every piece of equipment, every possible support, logistically, with the love and comfort and prayers that we all send them with their families, we as members of congress also have a sacred obligation to make sure those men and women who are out there defending us don't need to look over their shoulder, that they don't need to worry that they are lacking in any way the equipment, the support, the -- every -- everything they might possibly need in the course of their day defending this nation , we have made sure on the appropriations committee that the men and women in uniform have. we've made sure that the veterans administration hospitals across the nation have everything they need to take care of our men and women in uniform who have retired and
gone on to the private sector, to work in some other capacity. we as a general rule, i've heard the number, the average time that a man or woman serving the nation may serve in uniform is -- i think the numbers i heard was 36 months, but they will spend the life -- their life in the care of the veterans administration. it's our trust that our subcommittee takes very personally, as a really truly sacred obligation on our part to make sure that these wonderful men and women, these extraordinarily courageous men and women who have sacrificed so much have everything they need when they move in the v.a. system. that the v.a. hospital is providing them with the very best possible medical care physically, mentally and suicide prevention is in fact we in the subcommittee have fully funded and worked again in a bipartisan way.
in fact, our subcommittee, our committee as a whole has always worked together in a very bipartisan way. particularly the subcommittees that deal with the men and women in uniform. whether it be the military construction and veterans affairs subcommittee or the defense subcommittee, the members of the appropriations committee don't pay attention to party labels. we're focused on what's best for the men and women of the united states military. we're focused on what's best for their families and for the veterans administration, the health care that our men and women in uniform are given physically, again, mentally. and without regard to party, without regard to the distinction of the good for the men and women who serve our nation, we've worked together without truly really any real serious disagreements. we, of course, have a problem today in the nation of unprecedented debt, unprecedented deficits, record
unfunded liabilities and the new conservative majority that controls the house today is determined to do everything we can to reduce the unconscionable burden that's being passed on to our children and grandchildren, so we have found savings in this bill and money that was unspent in accounts where money has been set aside for years and unspent, where savings have been produced from concrete to steel, reduced bid savings, for example, that we then returned that money to taxpayers. we found areas where we could save money but not at the expense of our men and women in uniform, mr. chairman. and we do reserve our point of order on this motion to recommit because it violates the house rules. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
>> mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i wish to withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation on the point of order is withdrawn. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. culberson: mr. speaker, i ask for a roll call. the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. culberson: i do indeed, sir. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are
ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 2055 and adoption of house resolution 300. 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.]
every time you applaud, you're happy with the answer. we expect to get an answer, less government is better. one question we want to explore tonight is when do you reach that extraordinary moment when the government might do something. you're a businessman who supported the t.a.r.p. program initially. former senator judd gregg was one of the architects of that program during the late hours of the bush administration. you said we needed to do somethingrastic because we faced a drastic situation. >> i studied the financial meltdown and concluded on my own we needed to do something drastic, yes. when the concept of t.a.r.p. was first presented to the public, i was willing to go along with it. when the administration started to implement it on a discretionary basis, picking winners and losers and also dreking funds to general motors and other that is hadothing to do wh the financial system, that's where i totally disagreed. the government shouldn't be selecting winners and losers, and i don't believe in this
concept of too big to fail. if they fail, the pfree market will figure out who will pick the up pieces. >> tom has a question. >> thank you, john. i wanted too ask romney about the auto industry. they have rebounded since the obama administration bailed them up. would you say the bailout program fls a success? >> i was not a success, because the bailout program wasted a lot of money. about $17 billion was used unnecessarily. when the ceos went to washington asking for mey fromwash, i wrote an op-ed and said the right process is not a bailout or a big check from washington but instead letting them go through bankruptcy, re-emerge, getting ridf the unnecessary costs they had and re-emerge, and that's the preferred way to get on their feet again.
instead the bush administration and obama administration wrote checks to the auto industry, ultimately they went to the very bankruptcy process i suggested from the beginning. the big difference was $17 billion was wasted, and then president obama, given that money, was able to put his hands on the scales of justice and give the company to the uaw. there's a perception in this country that government knows better than the private sector. that washington and president obama have a better view for how an industry ought to be run. they're wrong. the right way for america to create jobs is to keep government in its place and the energy and passion of the american people a brighter future for our kids and ourselves. >> let me read you an op-piece you wrote. from a profit standpoint they're doing well right now, and that point, i understand you disagree with the policy.
kiss the industry good-bye. were you wrong? >> iasn't wrong. if you read the rest, it says they need to go through a bankruptcy process to shed unnecessary costs. any get paid checks after checks in the federal government, they're locked in with high uaw costs and legacy costs and they can't get on their feet and have to go through bankruptcy. that's what he they did. they said the government had to step in and give a check. that's the wrong way to go. use the process of law and american inbegin knit. don't have government try to guide this economy. >> is there anyone given that prospect, anyone here who have stepped in and said i don't want to do this, but this is the backbone of american manufacturing, i'll do something? >> absolutely not. we should not have had t.a.r.p. or the government bailout. they could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government. the federal government tipped to the cronies and the unions and
gave the unions the company. if they went through the orderly bankruptcy process, they'd have the same place. only we have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the governmenputting its fingers to it. >> quickly, please. >> john, i was in the middle of this debate. i was behind closed doors when secretary paulson made the extraordinary ner before made request to congress, give us a $700 billion blank check with no strings attached. i fought behind closed doors against my own party on t.a.r.p. it was a wrong vote then. it's continued to be a wrong vote since then. sometimes that's what you have to do. you have to take principle over your party. >> let's continue t conversation. let go to jean in hancock. she has a question. >> thanks, john. this question goes out to speaker gingrich. next month the space shuttle program is scheduled to retire after 30 years, and last year president obama effectively
killed government-run space flight to the international space station and wants to turn it over to private companies. in the meantime, u.s. astronauts would ride russian spacecraft at a cost of 50 to $63 million a seat. what role should the government play in future space exploration? >> sadly -- i say this sadly because i'm a big fan of going into space and i worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point. nasa has become an absolute case study in which bureaucry can't innovate. approxima if you take all the money we've spent at nasa sce we landed on the moon and alied it to the private sector, we would have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, and a new generation of lift vehicles. instead we have bureaucracy after bureaucracy.
i think it's a tragedy, because younr americans should have the excitement of thinking they can reach out to a new frontier. we're not a developed country. the scientific future is going to hope up. unfortunately nasa is standing in the way of it, when nasa ought to get out wy and encouraging the private sector. >>? vilts to american's innovation and i want the govement to stay in the lead here? >> i think the space program has played a vital role for the united states of america. >> can we afford it going forward? >> it can be refocused and reprioritized, but i don't think we shod eliminate the space program. we can partner with private providers and scale it back, but i don't think we should eliminate the space program. >> in a sentence or two. >> you mischaracterized me. i didn't say end the space
program. we built the trans continental railroads without a national department of railroads. you can get there more effectively if you decentralized and got out of washington and cut out the bureaucrac it's not about getting out of the space program. it's about getting to a real space program that works. >> i think fundamentally there are some people that really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector. they happen to be wrong. >> wll continue on the role of government. josh, please. >> thanks very much, john. governor pawlenty, back to you. there are roughly a million homes in the hands of banks and lender. they owe more than their home is worth. what would you do to try to right the housing ship? >> the first ng we needto do is get the government out of crony capitalism. we have an alliance between big government and big businesses. congressman paul said a few
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 184 and the nays are 234. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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: on this vote the yeas are 411 and the nays are five and the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 300 on which the yeas and nays were ordered and the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 45. house resolution 300. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2112, making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies, programs, for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for
other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 nays are 180. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. walden: 134rs, by direction of the republican conference i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 303, resolution electing members to certain standing committees of the house of representatives. resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committee. committee on agriculture, mrs. nome, committee on transportation and infrastructure, mr. fleischmann, committee on ways and means, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to be removed
as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, i write to inform you that effective immediately i am resigning from the house rules committee to join the house ways and means committee, signed, sincerely, tom reed, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor from h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2112, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 300 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2112, the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2112, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related
agencies, programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time and the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, and the gentleman from california, mr. farr, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself five minutes. and recommend to the house h.r. 2112, the house agriculture, f.d.a., and cftc funding bill for f.y. 2012. and want to make a few remarks about it. number one, and foremost because a lot of people are very concerned about the allocation for this bill and the funding level, but i want to remind everybody of a couple things. number one, our national debt is now 95% of the g.d.p. it's $14 trillion. for every dollar we spend, 40
cents is borrowed. 7 both parties have fingerprints all over this. we have all overspent. for example, in eight years president bush added to the national debt -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: thank you, madam speaker. for example, for eight years under president bush the national debt increased $3.5 trillion. way too much. yet in contrast, in just three years president obama has added to the national debt $5 trillion. an increase of 56%. and so much of this is due and owed to foreign countries. can you imagine much of it to china, can you imagine what kind of deal china, communist china a major competitor of ours, would
impose upon us if they were forced, if they forced us to restructure our debt? we have to do it ourselves. now, the house has passed the ryan budget which many people oppose, and i understand that. but i want to point out that the president of the united states budget failed in the senate 97-0. harry reid voted against the president's budget. and in the house the congressional black caucus offered a budget that failed. the congressional progressive caucus offered a budget and it failed. the republican study committee offered a budget and it failed. the democrat caucus offered a budget and it failed. in the senate, budget plans were offered by mr. toomey of pennsylvania, mr. paul of kentucky, both failed. the only budget that has passed either body is the ryan budget. and that's what we are looking at today. those numbers. i understand that there's a lot of reluctance to make some of these tough decisions.
today in america, 61 million people receive monthly government checks. that's anything from welfare to medicare to farm payments to veteran retirement to social security. lots of people receiving lots of money. these programs are enormously popular. and they are deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. therefore reforming these programs is very, very difficult. and to further complicate things, 47% of american households do not pay income taxes. for them the status quo is working just fine. so addressing these things is very difficult. if you look at the spending pattern the last several years it's frightening. march, 2008, $29 billion to bail out bear stearns. may of 2008, $168 million stimulus package from the bush administration. in july of 2008, $200 billion to
bail out fannie mae and freddie mac. in november, 2008, $700 billion for tarp, or the wases were bailout -- wall street bailout. in january of 2008, $878 billion for the obama stimulus program, which by the way, madam chair, was to keep us from getting to 8% unemployment. now we are hovering between 9% and 10%. i don't need to remind you but this is the one year anniversary of the summer of recovery. there has not been any recovery. we are still looking for those jobs. spending our way into prosperity does not work. if it did work, we would be having prosperous times right now. so the ryan budget for this bill is $17.25 billion, our reduction of $2.7 billion. approximately a 13.5% decrease in spending. yet despite this, because of the
mandatory spending portion of this bill, the bill actually has a net increase. mostly driven by food stamps and the school lunch program which have gone up about $6 billion between the two -- excuse me about $7 billion between the two of them. we still have a met increase in this bill. -- net increase in this bill. there is going to be a lot of discussion on lots of different accounts and one is the w.i.c. account. the women, infant, and children account. something that i'm very concerned about. something that all of our committee has always supported on a bipartisan basis. but last year there was some money taken out of it $562 million to settle a lawsuit which had nothing to do with school nutrition. a lot of the critics are going to be saying, w.i.c. has never been cut. last year the obama administration cut w.i.c. $562 million. madam speaker, i yield myself
two more minutes. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kingston: i yield two more minutes. the chair: additional two minutes. mr. kingston: usda numbers show that w.i.c. participation has dropped 300,000 from february, 2010 to february 2011. yet we are still funding it at 8.7 million people. we do not intend for anybody to fall through the cracks. if there is a shortage, there are three discretionary accounts that we can draw upon. a contingency fund of $125 million. a carryover fund which is in excess of $350 million. and the secretary's interchange authority which is $210 million. there's a lot of things in w.i.c. we can do to improve, make sure children don't fall through the cracks. right now, for example, 49% of the children in america participate in w.i.c.
do we really believe 49% are impoverished. maybe we can work with the w.i.c. folks on that. we have a very healthy debate about w.i.c. overhead and the usda has given us conflicting numbers on that. we are planning to meet with the usda and find out what the real story is. i understand there may be an amendment to say let's agree on what an overhead limit should be for w.i.c. and then not spend money on overhead over that. we are concerned about these things, but i want to close with this. today in america a child under 5 years old is eligible for 12 federal programs. after that age he or she is eligible for nine federal feeding programs. at 65 you are eligible for five different federal feeding programs. we want to make sure no one falls through the crack and no one goes hungry, yet at the same time is it possible that some folks are eligible for not just three meals a day but maybe four
and five? can we enter into that discussion without a lot of finger pointing and emotion? can we also talk about the fraud and misuse and the administrative costs without a lot of screaming an hollering? i think we can. i look forward to that debate. i reserve the balance of my time. i recommend passage of this bill. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today as the ranking member on the agriculture appropriations subcommittee to draw the concerns to this bill. i know we are in tough budget times, even in tough budget teams people have to eat. it's my opinion that this bill makes it very hard for people to eat, particularly people who don't have any money. the allocation for f.y. 2012, agriculture appropriations bill, as approved in the full
committee, is $17.250 billion. this is $5 billion or 23% below what president obama asked for. it's 14% below what congress enacted last year. it's 26 below what the congress enacted the year before. it's even below what we enacted in 2008. so it is really -- it has taken the wind out of the hopes and food lockers of people who are most poor. . with the allocation that chairman kingston was given. i don't envy his position. it will affect every heart of farm country. and i appreciate the effort he's made to our very limited resources cost-effectively. in these tough economic times we must tighten our belts. we all know that. it doesn't matter if you are a cotton or peanut producers in georgia, if the resources are
not available to deliver the program, then the affects felt by both prodeucers in most urban and rural areas are the same. i know my friend, mr. chairman -- mr. kingston, did the best he could, but agriculture is about feeding people. this isn't just about looking at the cost of everything. it's also examining the value. the about making sure that people -- makes sure that america has the production capability and enough food to go around domestically and internationally. the bill almost makes that difficult if not impossible. especially where nursing mothers and infant babies are concerned because the w.i.c. program gets whacked. the bill also calls into question the united states' commitment to our international neighbors who have hungry and malnourished people to depend on our assistance to fend off starvation because the food
nutrition program is chopped. i think there comes a point in budget exercise where you starve the program so much it just can't function. i fear this bill is going. several of the funding levels in this bill, such as implementing the food safety modernization act and the d.o.d.-frank and commodity futures trading commission. the united states is the greatest agriculture producer in the world. we prodouse more and we produce it more efficiently than any other country. but this bill will undermine the very resources that support our agriculture supremacy. i feel it's important to use this bill to strengthen our rural economy by investing our precious federal resources. investing in expanding markets for agriculture products and support international economic development by investing in developing alternative markets for agriculture products, by providing financing needed to expand job opportunity and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural america, which the u.s. department of agriculture is
responsible for, and most specifically enhancing food safety. in improving the nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion. these are the things that america does best. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, as we move through this bill, the process, again, i want to make sure that you understand that there are dryer consequences to adopting this bill. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time and congratulate him and mr. farr on producing i think a good bill. the bill answers the call from americans to reduce government spending while still providing for critical programs that keep american agriculture competitive in a global
economy. the $125.5 billion in both discretionary and mandatory funding in this bill will help our rural communities to thrive, provide daily nutrition to children and families and keep our food and drug supply safe. however, we can't spend at the rate we used to. we've hit the debt ceiling. we're bore moog more than 42 -- we're borrowing more than 42 cents on every dollar we spend. we're mortgaging our children's future. we have to rabe in spending even though it -- we have to rein in spending even though it may not be the most popular thing to do. chairman kingston and his subcommittee did not provide the agencies and programs funded in this bill with carte blanche. it trims lower priority services, eliminates duplicative and wasteful programs and limits funding and increases oversight for agencies that have been less than transparent with taxpayer
money. all in all, this bill cuts nearly $5 billion in discretionary spending from the president's request. with this legislation we're helping to put the department of agriculture, the f.d.a. and the other agencies funded by this bill back on a sustainable budget that is accountable to the taxpayers of this country. in addition, more than taking the first steps to help balance our budgets, we're taking the necessary steps to increase transparency. not only does this legislation encourage, it requires each and every agency to submit spending plans for every program funded by this bill. this commonsense oversight will go a long way in demonstrating to the american public our commitment to fiscal responsibility. i'm confident not only that chairman kingston and his subcommittee have made the smart but necessary cuts in this bill to help balance our budgets but also that this bill
adequately funds important government programs, including ag research, rural health and economic development and safety net food and nutrition services. i want to commend the chairman, the ranking member, the subcommittee members, staff all for their dedicated and thoughtful work on this bill, and i urge support in its final passage and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: madam chair, i yield to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and the outstanding player in the rose bowl from the university of washington, mr. dicks. the chair: for how long? mr. farr: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dicks: i appreciate the gentleman from california for yielding. with an allocation that cuts $2.9 billion below the current level and $5 billion below the amount requested by the obama administration for the next fiscal year, the subcommittee has drafted an agriculture
appropriation bill that drastically reduces funding for food programs that serve women, children and the elderly and for the food and drug administration, among other drastic cuts. the economy is still staggering, mr. chairman. unemployment is still far too high, and people around the country are still hurting. american families need help just to make ends neat. the bill slashes funding for w.i.c., the women, infants and children nutrition assistance program, and the commodities supplemental food program, leaving more people to fend for themselves during the worst recession since the great depression. well, i am pleased that we were able to provide a slight increase for the w.i.c. program, this bill still drastically underfunds this critical program. this bill reduces funding from
$76.73 billion to a cut of more than $650 million below current levels. the center on budget and policy priorities estimate that the drastic reduction will have us turn away from 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income and young children next year. that's a tragedy. unemployment is still hovering around 9%, and the economic recovery has faltered since the new republican majority took their raines with their illogical -- their reins with their illogical cut-and-spend strategy. we are pulling the rug from under the people who need it the most. a cut to the food and drug administration is another example of the republican majority's commitment to shortsighted budgeting. in the midst of several nationwide recalls, congress
passed a food safety bill that provided new and capable opportunity to the f.d.a., but this bill actually moves us backward in providing our food supply and medical products. it's below the level and 21% of the amount requested by the administration. these cuts will increase the risk of recurring outbreaks of food-borne illness. the f.d.a. would inspect fewer firms that manufacture food and conduct fewer inspections of important food. the bill also takes a shortsighted approach with respect to our international food aid program, cutting food for peace by $457 million below current levels and the mcgovern-doyle food for education program by $19 million. 10% below 2011. by slashing funding for these critical overseas programs, we risk exacerbating food insecurity and strife in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world, and are essentially undermining our own national security interests.
the food programs, notably amongst those is the commodities food trading commission. the cftc takes a cut of $30 million below current levels. can i have 30 second? mr. farr: yes, 30 seconds. mr. dicks: the increase is needed to implement the measures put forward in the dodd-frank wall street reform bill, and provide oversight and regulation of the options and futures markets that brought such havoc on our economy. one can't help but notice the efforts in this bill to drastically cut food assistance to the poor which actively undermines any effort of oversight and regulation of the wealthy on wall street. so i urge all democrats to vote no on this bill and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. kippings kinks madam chair, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for
three minutes. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman from georgia for the time. madam chair, farmers are good americans. they understand our tight budgetary times and the need to tighten the belt and they are willing to do their part. but before we vote on this bill which does some very heavy lifting in this regard, let's consider the profound benefits that american agriculture brings to people across the country. it's about food security. today, americans pay only 10% to 12% of their income on food compared to those in other nations who pay up to 50% or more. ag policy now is also about economic security, energy security and even national security and global stability. agriculture, madam chair, is one of the few bright spots of the american economy. agriculture is consistently one of the few trade areas where the u.s. still holds a positive trade balance. and exports are growing as the world demands more and more american-grown food. last year ag exports neared $108 billion and projections
indicate an even stronger total this year. agriculture is also helping strengthen our energy independence from rural wind and solar farms to biofuels and biogas production from livestock waste, we're seeing the vast potential of -- on american farms and ranches. not only does it bolster our security but it aids in global stability. our farmers help feed the world and keep the peace in understated but very important ways. in my home state of nebraska, for instance, our farmers are rebuilding war-torn fields in afghanistan. encountering the illicit poppy trade and helping sustain the lofty production. i just came from a ceremony where we sent off parts of the nebraska air and national guard who will be using their farming skills to help afghanistan with new irrigation techniques and new models for wheat and grass
land production. our farmers participating in global agriculture training products achieve could you humanitarian goals as well. we have made significant gains at empowering women producers which gives rise to greater equality and social mobilization and engagement in their local communities. for instance, they are helping to rebuild haiti's decimated agriculture sector in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake, and through various u.s. agriculture food aid programs, they are combating global hunger. again, mr. chairman, american familiarers are ready to do their help and help -- familiarers are ready to help do their help and help clean up the fiscal mess. it's important not to forget about the hard work our farm families put in day in and day out to help feed and fuel and protect all of america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: how much time do we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 22 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from georgia has 19 minutes. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield three minutes to the distinguished member from ohio, former ranking member of this committee, marcy kaptur. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, and i want to thank the ranking member from california, mr. farr, for his hard work, and mr. kingston, the chairman from georgia, for bringing this bill before us today. i'm really sorry i can't support it because at a time of such instability in the american economy this committee builds simply further destabilizes one of the most productive sectors of the american economy, agriculture, and all the americans who depend on the department of agriculture during the hard times that we are experiencing. this legislation had some of the most destructive sections in it that eliminate for all practical spers the rural energy for america program, taking america into a new energy future. it takes the cops off the beat
at the commodity futures trading commission to hold wall street accountable. we all know that hasn't been happening. the drastic decrease in the nutrition and commodities supplemental food program. hurting people across this country in the w.i.c. program. children, they can't speak for themselves here. and as well there's a dangerous directive included in the bill that would further erode competition which hardly exists at all, allowing our farmers and ranchers to be treated equally as the bid packers and processors are at the green inspection packers stock yard agency. later, during consideration of the bill i will be dealing with that in a different way, but let me tell you about the commodities trading corporation. the writing is inadequate. we all know it's inadequate because of the mess we face in the derivatives market today. the small agency called the
commodities future trading commission representing a critical bull work against the gouging of the american people in the type of manipulation, explanation and outright fraud that led our country into the worst economic recession since the great depression. with gas prices now rising above $4 a gallon and food prices skyrocketing, who's the watchdog in charge of implementing reform and regulating the market to prevent excessive speculation in all fields? i'd hate to think that this is being underfunded to hevpbt robust speculation and allow massive interests on wall street to continue doing, and in the chicago futures mark, continue doing what they've been doing, gouging the pocketbook of the american people, whether it's gas prices or food prices. just to give you an idea, this proposal would not fund the
agency to implement reforms contained in the dodd-frank bill in a market that's grown from $13 trillion back in the mid 1990's to over $600 trillion. it basically takes the cops off the beat, it basically takes the watchdogs away and one might say you give a green light for them to do it do to us again. mr. -- madam speaker, might i have an additional 30 seconds? >> i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. kaptur: i want to thank the chairman for accepting an amendment to restore $137b93 million to the energy for rural america program as we struggle to regain our energy independence but we're a long way from there and rural america has to be a full partner in this effort. this bill does not do that. though we disagree on this bill and the funding levels, i
congratulate the ranking chair for their efforts to prepare this bill and bring it to the floor. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. >> i yield three minutes to the gentlelady, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, of washington. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in support of this legislation because i believe it sets the important priorities that must be made in order to rein in the runaway spending of previous congresses while still providing funding, important funding, for the agriculture safety net, vital research, oversight. i grew up working on my family's orchard and i know what it's like to pick and eat what you pick and have your family's livelihood depend on the success of your annual
crop. for the last 16 years, i have actively engaged the agriculture community in eastern washington to have solutions to ensure farmers remain productive and competitive. the success of farmers in eastern washington and across the nation hinge twon important issues, the ability to adapt and apply cutting edge research and the ability took sess markets. h.r. 2112 for the first time directs a.r.s. to prioritize its research and make the vital investments to see the top priorities implemented. we must remember that it's the american farmer who fed the world for the last 100 years, kept our nation's food prices low as a percentage of our income and has done more to combat poverty around the world than any other anti-poverty program and it's in large part due to scientific breakthroughs in agriculture research. we need to be focused on research that has the potential to affect the global population. two such initiatives have national and international
importance, those are crop protection and production research housed within the a.r.s. these initiatives are on the frontline of the fight against those things that have the ability to wipe out our nation's and the world's wheat supply. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. >> i yield two minutes to the member from memphis, tennessee, mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, ma'am. i appreciate the gentleman from carmel yielding time to the gentleman from memphis. this is unfortunate, mr. kingston in present his side of the budget was almost
apologetic ability wyc. -- about w.i.c. it's a sacred part of the budget for people on our side of the aisle and should be for everyone. pregnant mothers, children under the age of 5, making sure they're healthy, you'd be almost ashamed to introduce it. the way he introduced it showed concern. and it is difficult. everybody ought to tighten their belts equally. what about the obesely wealthy? there's not a belt big enough to go around their obesely successful selves. they are doing great there are only two things in this budget that seem sacred. one is tax cut thers rich, the bush tax cuts created when there was a surplus created by a democratic congress and democratic president, bill
clinton, and those were passed because we had a surplus. now they're being extended even to people making over $1 million a year, there's rejection of having them pay more so that mothers, babies and children under 5, identified as nutritionally at risk, can get wmple i.c. payments. there's something wrong here. they estimate that for every $1 invested in w.i.c. there's a savings of $1.50 to $2 in medical costs just within the of -- first 60 days of birth. talk about return on investment. yet the republicans want to cut this investment. this measure funds the w.i.c. program at $686 million less than the current level chsm is the equivalent of kick off 475,000 eligible women, infants
and children. may i have an additional minute? >> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: this will cost tennessee over $1 million. if we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we could pay for the entire w.i.c. program for a year. ky not see this. it seems to me it's distorted values and i ask that they reconsider and put the w.i.c. program back to its basic level. i yield back the remainedmoifer time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. crawford: i share a commitment to fiscal discipline in the fiscal year 2012 budget. while it's important to find savings and consider every item
in the budget, it's also important to maintain commitments that have been authorized. the budget authorized the b-cap program. in my district hundreds of farmers worked hard in preparation to plant a variety of switch grass that can produce more biomass than corn to help produce renewable energy and accelerate economic growth. i hope my colleagues in the house will keep an open mind about the program and find a way to give it the priority it deserves that is bill moves through the legislative process. i yield pack. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> i yield three minutes to the distinguished member from california, former lieutenant governor of the state of california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.
mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. farr. each piece of legislation that passes the house is really a reflection of our values. it speaks to our heart, it speaks to what we care about and what's important to us. this particular bill does that in a way that more than ever highlights values. is it about children, about infants? or is it about tax breaks for the very, very wealthy. is it about safe food or tax breaks for oil companies and subsidies for ail companies? is it about those people around the world that are hungry, and the food for peace program that provides them with enough food to be able to survive and to live? or is it about a continuation of very fat, unnecessary farm crop subsidies? it's about our values.
it's about what we care about and what we think is important. and if there's anything that's important in life, it's food. it's the ability for our youngest children, i was on this floor not more than two hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old, out there in america, there are hundreds of thousands of young children that will not have the food that they need to be able to be healthy. will not be able to have the care they need. this is about our values. what does this bill say of our values? it says that those children are of little value. is that what this is about? is it about those people around the world that are starving, that will not have the food for peace program? is that the value of this congress? that we cannot find the money in this wealthiest of all nations to provide the food, provide the health care for our
young children and the food for those around the world? what is it that we care about, then? the very wealthy? about wall street? about the commodity future trading commission? not having the money they need to regulate the programs that brought this country to its knees? what is it that we value? big question in this bill. obviously, there's a great difference in what we value on our side and what this bill brought to us by the republican majority values. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: thank you, madam chair. how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes remaining.
the gentleman from california has 14 minutes remaining. mr. kingston: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from south dakota, mrs. noem. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. noem: thank you, madam chairwoman. we have important things to discuss and it truly does deal with our valuesful as the previous speaker was talking and talking about his grandchild on the house floor, i wonder if he told the grandchild that from the miami they were born that they owed $47,000 in federal debt? that was their responsibility because the spending that's gone on and because of the fact that when we go and are going to start with feeding programs and distribute food to other countries, we're going to borrow money from other countries and have our grandchildren and great grandchildren to pay for that so we can do that. so this discussion truly is about values and getting back to our priorities and what's important in this country. there are tough decisions to make. but we talk about what we need to do and the fact that we're
increasing food and nutrition programs and spending shows we dedicate ourselves to those values and taking care of our children into the future while remembering we're not going to saddle them with a debt they can't pay. i rise in support and to speak a little bit about the biomass crop insurance ashurens program, the b-cap program and want to talk about some projects that offered alternatives in south dakota. this program authorized in the 2008 farm bill is part of the all the above energy program. it promotes biomass and can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. i've been a firm supporter of an all of the above american energy plan and this can play a role in that. it reduces barriers that farmers face to diversify their farms. it was intended as cell ewe losic biofuel and can spur economic growth in rural areas
such as those in south dakota. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you, madam chair. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. madam speaker, i rise to point out that once again we find ourselves in a familiar situation. once again, under the guise of fiscal responsibility, austerity and a blind allegiance to supply stood voodoo economics gimmicks, republicans have brought forth another effort to cut away the social safety net this time kicking low-income mothers and their young children into the depths of hunger and food insecurity. it's like deja vu. just months ago democrats defended the american people from the ryan republican plan to turn medicare into a voucher
program. unfortunately, the plan to get rid of medicare was passed with the unanimous support of every single republican in the house. now, here we stand once again trying to prevent republicans from delivering a swift kick to the stomaches of low-income mothers, many of whom are already struggling to get by during this economic downturn. reducing w.i.c. funding by more than half a billion dollars in the name of deficit reduction while unanimously refusing to eliminate or even decrease tax cuts for big businesses, oil companies and wealthy individuals, republicans have forgotten one of mancals kind's most basic human values, upholding our moral responsibilities to our fellow man. recently i received a gift from the house member's bible study
group, and i do appreciate it. my heart compelled me to open it today. when i turned the pages, separated by the book divider, i was at mark, chapter 6, verse 33. and nothing could have been more appropriate for the day. it was the passage on feeding jesus feeding his followers just as jesus walked with his desipals, preaching the gospel and healing the sick, he fed 5,000 of his followers who would have gone hungry without those five loads of bread and two fish. if jesus can feed 5,000 people with five loads of fish -- five loves and two fish, then surely america, the wealthiest america of the world and this congress, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should continue to provide for americans in their time of need.
just as jesus provided for his followers, he also broke with tradition and compassionately watched as his followers ate bread with impure hands, as they were called, uncleaned hands. this upset some of those righteous observers and they asked jesus, why do you -- why do your desipals not wash according to the -- disciples not wash according to the traditions of the elders but eat bread with impure hands? he said neglecting the commandment of god, you hold to the tradition of men. is that what we're doing here today? does the manmade rule of reducing our country's net trump our moral responsibility to provide for americans in their time of need? we as members of congress must also feed the hungry among us. isn't this our moral and civic
duty? according to the usda, 750,000 of our fellow citizens, women and children, could be turned away from w.i.c. this is unconscionable and the result is crystal clear, more americans will be left to fend for themselves in their time of need. meanwhile, the $800 million that we give away -- 30 more seconds, please? mr. farr: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. johnson: meanwhile, the $800 million that we give away on one week of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires we could ensure with that $800 million that over nine million w.i.c. participants rereceive nutrition education, food and services for an entire year. america is better than this. don't hurt the women and the chirp who need help.
i stand opposed to this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: madam chair, we reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: madam chair, i yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from boston, massachusetts, mr. steve lynch. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i speak in favor of a measure that will be coming up shortly offered by my friend, ms. delauro, which goes to a major weakness in the underlying bill. the core mission of the commodities futures trading commission is to ensure the integrity and transparency of derivatives markets. but despite the recent spikes in gasoline prices and despite the great difficulty we had in
this recent financial crisis with respect to commodities- based swaps, we have to come to the floor today to fight for funding for the one agency that would police that activity. it is indeed unbelievable that this house would consider a proposal that would eviscerate the agency with the central responsibility for regulating the commodities market, but here we are. the price of everyday items from milk to gasoline depends on the fair and open operation of commodities markets policed by the cftc, the commodity futures trading commission. the recent spikes in gasoline prices is not due to a shortage of supply, as we have seen, or increased demand. clearly this is a problem of unchecked speculative interests making money off the commodities markets. there are some who believe that as much as $27 of a barrel of oil today is the result of sheer speculation.
it's our hope that through the dodd-frank regulatory reform bill, the cftc's responsibilities will be expanded to include oversight of the nearly $300 trillion in previously unregulated domestic swaps on the market today. this is a key step to bringing the shadow markets that helped bring the crash to the market under sensible regulation. this is where the credit c.d.s.'s and other complex derivative deals were made. this is how a.i.g. helped bring down the economy. we have to regulate this financial market and these financial products. however, the size of the market that the cftc must now supervise has increased seven-fold, and the cftc needs more resources. but in this bill, we will see their budget slashed. instead of giving the agency the tools it needs to prevent another financial collapse, we are planting the seeds for the
next fm crisis. the result of this republican legislation to delay reform and the underlying bill to stop this agency would allow large interconnected financial companies to engage in unsupervised activity similarto the activity that got us into -- similar to the activity that got us into this crisis in the first place. this would have an area in a similar fashion that nearly destroyed our economy. cftc chairman has warned that denying funding to this agency and delaying the implementation of dodd-frank will greatly increase the risk to american people and leave uncertainty in the marketplace. the cftc is vital to the proper functioning of our financial market and the american economy, underfunding the commission is deeply irresponsible, and i urge my colleagues to support the delauro amendment to properly fund the cftc.
and i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. kippings kinks i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kingston: i wanted to respond to the discussion of the cftc. you know, it seems to me there are those members of congress that bureaucrats control the price of oil. and while bureaucrats serum do have influence on the price of oil, if you really are concerned about the price of oil, you need to drill for it. very simple. increase the supply. alaska is twice the size of texas. the arctic wildlife area is twice the size of california. the proposed area is 2,000 acres. it's about the size of the national airport here. we're talking about a business card on a basketball court, and
yet you hear over and over again from people who incidentally do drive fossil fuel cars that we're unable to drill oil responsibly. if you want to decrease the price, you got to increase the supply, and there's no better way to drill your own oil. think of the absurdity of president obama going down to brazil and telling them we want you to drill offshore. apparently the brazilians are technologically more advanced than we are, and the president's comfortable with the people of brazil, a lot better comfort level than he has with the people from louisiana or from texas or from florida. he goes down to brazil and says, go ahead and drill offshore. we will lend you money, and, by the way, we want to be your best customer. now, he never mentioned anything about a cftc, but let me say what commissioner michael dunn, the democratic
commissioner of the commission said. this is january 1, 2011. the cftc staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets or that it will prevent excessive speculation. what i suggest to you, madam chair, is that the discussion of the cftc and oil speculators is a red herring. the real issue that the democrats have failed to address is drilling for oil in order to increase supply, and i yield back -- or reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: madam chair, how much time does each side have? the chair: the gentleman from california has six minutes remaining, and the gentleman from georgia has 12 minutes. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: the gentleman from georgia has how much? the chair: 12 minutes.
the gentleman from georgia. mr. farr: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: madam chair, i want to go back over this food situation and the gentleman from california, the ranking member and i have had 11 hearings on this -- excuse me. we've had 11 hearings on the agriculture bill. not on feeding programs, specifically. but i wanted to again remind the chair that this bill represents a net increase in funding largely driven by the increase of $5.6 billion in food stamps and in the school lunch program of $1.5 billion. but i also wanted to remind members of the many federal feeding programs that we have. for a 3-year-old child, there are 12 different feeding
programs. for a 10-year-old child, there are nine different programs. for a 35-year-old, there are seven. and for a 65-year-old, there are five programs that people can apply for. it is not the intention of this committee to let anyone fall through the cracks. the numbers that we have funded, for example, in w.i.c., contemplate what we believe is going to be the participation. now, should that participation fluctuate, there are three contingency accounts that the usda can access. it would certainly be our intent to have those accounts accessed before anyone fell through the cracks. now, i share frustration that the stimulus program that was supposed to create last year's somewhat of a recovery i'm sorry did not work because i'd be out celebrating with the president that the stimulus program which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%
actually increased unemployment to a level of 10%. now it's hovering a little bit above 9%. the best thing in the world would be to have prosperity, and i believe that we can get there. one way we should get there is by drilling our own oil. because if you want to keep food prices down, you got to keep the cost of distribution down. and that would be something i hope that we could work together on. i also think we need fundamental tax reform, because i know one of the things that some of the committee has talked about are some of the tax loopholes taken advantage by certain companies. i agree with them, that's why i support the fair tax. it's a consumption tax. it would actually give a tax credit for the poorest. it does not disproportionately hurt them, but it would close all the loopholes. that would be something else we could do to create jobs in america. and finally, the excessive bureaucratic regulations that our farmers and small businesses have to put up with, it's killing job creation.
if we want to do something to help people get off dependency and get to independencey we need to decrease the size of government, and this bill moves us in that direction, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: how much time do i have remaining, ma'am? the chair: the gentleman from california has six minutes. mr. farr: mr. kingston, how much? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has nine minutes. mr. farr: i yield two minutes to the former ranking member of the committee, ms. rosa delauro. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: i want to talk about my colleagues on the other side who talk about reducing the deficit and they're the only ones interested in reducing the deficit and that's what this is all about. the fact is, democrats and
republicans are both interested in reducing the deficit. the differences are where one starts to effectuate a change in that reducks. -- reduction. there are a number of ways to reduce the deficit. we can look at the $41 billion in oil subsidies we grant every year. the oil industry is flush with money. when one c.e.o. can make $21.5 million a year, make profits that are overwhelming and gasoline in the state of connecticut is $4.39 a gallon for regular gas. so let's start with the $41 billion and we can reduce the deficit how much about the $8 billion that we provide to multinational corporations to take their jobs overseas. that's another place where we could shut down the loopholes, gain some money and reduce the deficit. there's also a third area, what about agriculture subsidies, not to small farmers or dairy
farmers, but to big agribusiness. it's interesting that the "politico" article this week suggests that some members on the other side of the aisle whose states and families get rich in the subsidies they're getting. we could start there. why are we starting with women, infants and children and nutrition programs so that that is where, that is an absolute dividing of where one's values are. democrats want to reduce the deficit. the question is where do you start? that's where your values are. we don't start with women, infants and children and nutrition programs. let's start with tax subsidies for the richest people in this country and with the special interests of this nation. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia.
mr. kingston: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, mrs. lummis a great member of the committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam speaker. this is my third year in this congress. during my first two years, the democrats controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency. and during that time, the subsidies or tax loopholes for the rich, for the oil companies, for these bailouts of wall street, were going on just like they allege they are now and did they do anything about it when they controlled the entire government? no. no, they didn't do anything. instead, they created massive new entitlement programs. instead, they did the tarp part two without accounting for part
one. they did massive bailouts of the auto industry. they created huge new health programs. they gave massive blank checks to bureaucrats. they increased spending at the e.p.a., one agency, by 39% in one year. it's incredible. they taxed, they spent, yet they didn't go after the very people that today they allege are the source of the problem. and now, when the republicans were elected in the house, to do what the american people felt needed to be done, which is to grapple with spending first, spending being the problem in our country, amassing huge amounts of debt, deficits, borrowing money from foreign countries, risking our own credit rating, risking our
own ability to borrow money, risking the value of our currency, now they're alleging we're addressing the wrong targets? madam chairman, this very budget we're debating today increases spending for food programs. it increases funding for both food stamps and school lunch. it increases it more than we're cutting spending for w.i.c. and other programs. it increases spending for the human needs that are legitimate, for the people in this country, by over a quarter of a billion dollars. madam chairman, i allege that this is a responsible budget, that we are beginning to get off that unsustainable path of spending that even this
president acknowledges and get us back on a path where we can live more reasonably. where we can protect our currency. where we can protect our job market. where we can protect our tax structure and improve it in a way that makes america strong for our children and grandchildren. ma cam chairman, i yield back. -- madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has ex-fired. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: how much time does each side have? the chair: the gentleman from california has four minutes, the gentleman from fwea has six minutes. mr. farr: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: i would like to first of all compliment mr. kingston as the chair of the committee, he has come on as chair and i've come on as ranking member, we've both been on the committee a long time, served under very good chairs, two of
whom you have heard here today. he's given the allocation to fit all the programs within the department of agriculture and food and drug administration within the allocation given him and one can argue that that's it. we have to hide behind the allocation that was given, we have to do it. you've heard from many members. mr. kingston: would my friend yield? mr. farr: yes, i will. mr. kingston: we have had one more speaker show up. i know you're -- you sound like you're closing so you might want to reserve some time. mr. farr: i yield to the gentleman, not on my time, but let me just in this moment in this allocation say it is about values. i think the big debate here is not just about how you cut, squeeze, and trim spending. we have members of congress who have spoken today whose families receive millions of dollars in taxpayer money in
commodities payments, crop payments. what's the value of, you know, funding very wealthy people at the expense of taking food away from poor and starving children? i think we -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield to the gentleman from indiana three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. more than two years ago, democrats claimed their trillion dollar stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%, we know it's now above 9%. recently the c.b.o. released their annual budget and economic outlook report that predicts the 2011 deficit will reach $1.48 trillion and our national debt is over $14 trillion. we're borrowing nearly 42 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from the chinese and
sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. every child born today owes $45,500 to the debt. for the past two years the american people have been told that government spending is the answer. they had their chance to prove this economic model but it failed. it's time we changed our approach because our country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. debt by the public is estimated to increase to 94% over the next 10 years. over 10 years, the annual government spending will consume an average of 23.5% of g.d.p., which is significantly higher than the post-world war ii average of 20%. in a 2010 article for the cato policy report, economist jason taylor and richard vedder outlined the lessons of the largest public sector drawdown in our nation's history, the cuts to spending after world war ii. they point out it fell from $84
billion in 1935 to $30 billion in 1946, a reduction of more than 60%. and the point is that despite these warnings from economists that this withdrawal of keynesian stimulus was sure to lead to a second great depression, civilian employment grew by other four million between 1945 and 1947 with unemployment remaining under 4.5% in the first three post-war years. the post-war era provides a classic illustration of how government spending crowds out private sector spending and how the economy can thrive when government's shadow is dramatically reduced. the lesson from the 1945 to 1947 era is that a sharp reduction in government spending frees up assets for productive use and leads to renewed growth. when spending is slated to reach an all-time high of $3.7 trillion this year and we're living through the weakest jobs
recovery since the great depression, it's time to get our fiscal house in order. vigorous and sustained economic growth fueled by investment and entrepreneurship is needed for the private sector to create more jobs an increase incomes for the poor. in turn, this will generate the revenues governments needs to expand for access to health, education, and infrastructure sir vises and help improve productivity. spending cuts work. tax increases don't. despite the evidence, many liberals continue to call for more spending, more taxing an red tape. these ideas won't soft the problem -- could i get another 30 seconds? mr. kingston: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. burton: i commend the appropriations committee chairman chairman rogers and chairman kingston for crafting a bill that's $0.401 billion less than the president's fiscal year 2012 budget
request. and $2.67 billion or 13.4% less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. however, i believe the financial catastrophe facing our nation requires us to do even more so i hope my colleagues will realize this and do what's necessary to get our fiscal house in order. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from georgia has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. farr: madam chair, we've heard a lot today, a lo -- we've heard a lot about spending because that's what this bill is, an appropriations bill. but to talk about spending is wrong because it's not putting in the priorities of what's really important. our service to the people of this country. we don't need to be here to protect the rich and protect multinational corporations. we need to be here to protect
the rights of people who don't have the wherewithal to have enough food on their table to take care of their kids. what you've seen in the debate today is tax spending for the rich is ok, tax spending for the poor is not. tax breaks for oil companies is ok, food for the poor is not. cutting our commodities future trading commission is ok but paying for -- paying to police it so speculation and misuse of public moneys is not a worthwhile expenditure. our priorities are not straight and that's why there's so much criticism for this bill. i applaud the chairman for working hard to try to get the committee to bring together a bill that could meet the allocations but i think the allocation was all wrong and our priorities are wrong and i ask my colleagues to oppose the bill. the chair: does the gentleman yields back? does the gentleman from california yield back? mr. farr: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back.
mr. kingston: i move passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired and pursuant to the rule the bill shall be considered read for amendment urn the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment the chair may accord priority and recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record and those amendments will be considered read. the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted that the following sums appropriated for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agency programs for fiscal year 2012, namely, title 1, agricultural programs, proucks, and marketing, office of the secretary, $294,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i move to strike the last word.
the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and the drastic and ill conceived cults to the programs proposed in this appropriation. under the majority bill, our government can in the meet even its most basic responsibilities to the american people. for example, the women, infants and children program provides nutrition assistance grants to states for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum women. -- women, infants and children up to the age of 5. it affects millions of women nationwide, including 58,000 in connecticut my state. nearly half of the babyings born in the united states every year participate in this program. it's a short-term intervention that can help provide a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors and over the first 60 days of a child's life alone every $1 invested in
w.i.c. saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health care costs. but the budget before us today would leave w.i.c. with a $650 million shortfall. i repeat, a $650 million shortfall. according to the center for budget policy and priorities, that many as -- means as many as 350,000 women and children will be cut from the rolls. in fact, the secretary of argue has warned our subcommittee that this number could be as high as 750,000. if you read his letter carefully, there is no carryover, there is no contingency fund, and thereby substantial redunks in the number of people that will participate in the w.i.c. program. it is unacceptable at a time of such great economic difficulty. with the unemployment rate over 9%, more and more families are having to rely on these dollars. in the past, support for w.i.c.
has never been a partisan issue, and for 15 years, republicans and democrats have always worked together in congress to see that every woman and child eligible for w.i.c. can participate in this life-saving program. and in fact, republicans and democrats on our committee voted together to pass an amendment that i offered to provide $147 million more in funding for w.i.c. before the rules committee today, arbitrarily overturned that vote. we cannot be taking food out of the hungry people's mouths here at home in order to subsidize cotton production and to subsidize brazilian cotton farmers. it makes no sense. as my colleague, mr. flake, on the other side of the aisle, noted at the committee markup, it's quite ironic that we would subsidize brazilian agriculture so we can continue to
excessively subsidize agriculture here. this bill flies in the face of our longstanding bipartisan commitment. it will leave women and children hungry. weck is not alone on the -- w.i.c. is not alone on the chopping block. the program that provides nutritious food for low-income seniors. those making deless than $14,000 a year. according to the study by feeding mark. 30% of these households in need had to choose between food and medical care, and 35% between food and paying for heat and utility. but even in the middle of a tough economy, this proposal slashes fund for the cffp. that means an estimated 150,000 seniors all across the country will lose access to this aid. they will once again have to go hungry. take the emergency food assistance program, works with states to supplement food banks, emergency shelters, pantries, soup kitchens. right now the hard work these organizations do in helping ensure access to food is more important than ever. in fact, the demand for
emergency food assistance has shot up 46% over the past five years. this budget cuts funding for the emergency food assistance program by $38 million. nearly a quarter below last year's funding. and yet while placing this tremendous burden on our most vulnerable citizens, the majority budget finds money to give sdeeze to oil companies and -- subsidies to oil companies and tax breaks to the wealthy. in fact, the cost of the bush tax breaks for millionaires for one week is more than the cost of the proposed cuts to the w.i.c. program for the entire year. one day's tax breaks for the millionaires would pay for the commodity supplement food program and for the emergency food assistance program. it really is. this is what the majority has done. it's tax cuts for millionaires versus nutrition assistance. these are not the right choices
for america. the american people know it. gutting nutrition programs to pay for tax breaks for the rich is more than just a terrible investment in the future. it's a failure of our responsibility to the american people. oppose these reckless cuts. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i want to again rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill and express my deep outrage over the deep cuts in food and nutrition programs that benefit some of the most needy and vulnerable people in our country. i am particularly outraged at the cuts in w.i.c. as we heard from our colleague from connecticut, ms. delauro, w.i.c. is one of the most effective programs that exists. there has been a strong bipartisan tradition of fully funding the special supplemental food program for women and infants and children,
w.i.c. to ensure that every eligible family that applies receives benefits. w.i.c. is not an entitlement, but we have made a bipartisan concerted effort in the past to make sure that everyone that qualifies and who needs it can actually get it. this is the first time since that commitment was established that the appropriations bill is providing less funding than what is needed to serve all eligible young children and pregnant or postpartum women. now, republicans argue that somehow they're not cutting anything, that everything will be ok. that's not at all the case. that's in fact a complete distortion. we are told by organizations that monitor this that as many as 350,000 women and children will be thrown off the program as a result of these cuts. that's a conservative estimate. and since we passed the rule which does not protect the
amendment that ms. delauro got into the appropriations bill which basically said that we're going to increase w.i.c. funding by cutting subsidies to bra stpwhrillian cotton farmers. that is -- brazilian cotton farmers. that is not protected. i'm sure someone on the side of the aisle will raise a point of order. and just like that $147 million will again -- will immediately be cut from the w.i.c. program, throwing, again, 100,000 to 200,000 more additional women and children off the program. this is -- this doesn't make any sense, madam speaker -- madam chair. we're told by my friends on the other side of the aisle, well, don't worry. all the faith-based groups will take care of everything. that's what they're there for. well, talk to any leader in any faith-based community in this country and they will tell you that they are working overtime right now to try to provide for the struggling families in
their communities. every part of this country, from urban to suburban to rural. faith-based communities are stepping up, but they cannot do it alone. they need us to be a partner. i don't know of a single faith-based leader who would say to anybody this this congress, don't adequately -- in this congress, don't adequately fund w.i.c. or the other programs that provide food and nutrition to needy people. the fact of the matter is that is not an answer. to put the burden on the faith-based community is basically an excuse for us to do nothing and is unacceptable. we heard on the other side of the aisle, well, there are so many programs. we have eliminated the duplication and triplication. there is no basic -- no basis of fact. you know, that disportion ignores the fact that programs don't overlap, they complement
each other. there's a difference between programs like snap and w.i.c. and school lunch programs and summer feeding programs that aren't the same. they are designed to complement each other. in reality they don't provide enough benefits to eliminate hunger and food insecurity in this country. the problem is not that we're giving too much to low-income families. the problem is not that we're giving them too much food. that is not the problem. we have a hunger problem in the united states of america. tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. and we're the richest, most powerful country on the planet. we should be ashamed of that fact. we should be working overtime in this body to try to remedy that fact, to make sure that the neediest among us get what they need. you know, by ignoring the plight of the poor, by ignoring the plight of those who are hungry in this country, they don't all of a sudden go away. what we do is we end up creating other problems which
turn out to be more costly. hungry children can't learn in school. hungry workers are less productive in the workplace. people who don't have enough to eat tend to have that immune system compromise which has a common cold that makes them stay in the hospital. hunger is not cheap. it costs a great deal, and we are paying countless, billions and billions of dollars for that. i urge my colleagues to -- to defeat this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana, for what purpose does he rise? strike the last word? the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: madam speaker, i don't know how old my colleague is that just spoke, but lyndon johnson worked very hard to pass what was called the great society. and when he passed the great society said we were going to
do away with huppinger, we are going to do away with poor people. what happened? things are worse now than they've ever been with all these social programs. now, i just spoke a couple minutes ago about what happened after world war ii. in 1945, the spending was $84 billion. in 1946 it dropped 60% to $30 billion. a 60% reduction in spending but it freed up money for the private sector and as a result in the next 10 years there were 4 1/2 million new jobs. all these giveaway programs and all these programs that you guys talk about indicating that we don't care about seniors, we don't care about kids, we don't care about anybody, we're heartless. the fact of the matter is the thing that's heartless is 9.1% unemployment. the president when he took
office said he was going to keep it under 8%. it's going up, not down. the economic figures we see today is terrible. and yet you just want to keep spending money and spending money and spending money. no, i will not yield. what we need to do is we need to cut spending. we need to cut taxes so people have more disposible income. we need to cut business taxes so that businesses have more money to invest, so they'll create jobs and create plant and equipment. but, no, you want to just keep spending on these programs and don't want to make any cuts. spending is out of control. the shortfall this year is going to be over $1.46 trillion. we don't have the money. the national debt is going to be over $14 trillion right now. and it's going to get worse over the next 10 years by about $1 trillion a year. and yet every time we come down here and want to cut spending you start saying we don't care about the poor, we don't care about the kids, we don't care
about seniors. and then you see ads on tv with a little old lady's foot dragging as we drag her over the cliff. what kind of nonsense is that? if we don't get our fiscal house in order we are all going over a cliff. this country is in fiscal -- terrible shape right now, and we have to get control of spending. it really bothers me every time i come down here and i hear you guys talk about, we don't care about the children, we don't care about the seniors, we don't care about anybody. what we care about is jobs and creating an economy that's growing so that we can once again become the great economic power of the world. but everything that's going on with this administration and everything that you're advocating is putting us more and more in the tank. and let me tell you something, the american people are getting it. if you don't think they're getting at, look at the last election. people want jobs and they want -- no, i won't yield.
they want jobs that will create a growing economy. and we're not going to get it with more and more spending. keynesian economic does not work. free enterprise does. once again, i want you to listen to the statistics. after 1945, we increased jobs by 4 1/2 million at the same time we cut spending by 60% because we freed up the free enterprise system. that's what we ought to be doing right now if we want to lower unemployment and get this economy back on track. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin rise? >> -- ms. moore: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: we all heard michael massar's liquors, teach them
well and let them lead the way. the song is sung by every megastar and quoted by every whistle stop by every politician. we believe that our most basic and our most fundamental obligation of a civilized society is not only to teach them well but to feed them. the w.i.c. program is the usda's largest discretionary program that provides assistance to children up to 5 years of age. to pregnant women, postpartum women, breast-feeding women who are nutritionally at risk because of inadequate nutrition and income. we've heard a great deal from the other side, just recently the previous speaker talk about the importance of letting the free market system work, that we need jobs. it can't work. they're helpless, infants. i'm quoting to the most recent census. almost 20% of the nation's
children are living in poverty. a recent report estimates that the annual estimated cost of domestic hunger is 90.4 billion dollars, the cost of hunger, the consequences of hunger. according to the american community survey, almost half of the children living in single female headed households in my district live in poverty and about 39% in wisconsin are poor. this program represents in any decent society the basic obligation we have to our fellow citizens. half of the babies born in our country each year rely on w.i.c. and this bill cuts a devastating $650 million from the w.i.c. program. in my state, this represents about 4,800 people who would lose the w.i.c. program. the ryan budget cuts an
astounding $833 million from the w.i.c. program. and if you compare this to the bush cuts which gave the average millionaire $139,199 tax break in 2011, or doctor rs,27 -- or $2,300 a week that comes -- comes up to an amount that in one week would pay for w.i.c. for a year for the 20% of kids in our country who are hungry that in my mind, demonstrates what the priorities of the body is. one week of the bush era tax cuts could feed and fund this fund, this program. now if you truly believe that
children are our future, note that numerous studies have shown that pregnant women who participate in the w.i.c. program have longer pregnancies, fewer premature births, fewer low and very low birth weight babies, experience fewer fetal and infant deaths, seek prenatal care earlier in pregnancy and consume more of key nutrients such as iron, calcium and vitamins a and c. if you're not moved by the whole children are our future bit, at least be persuaded that not investing in w.i.c. is a costly proposition. i know the other side is very concerned about costs. because several members have pointed out that we have all these multiple feeding programs, they're concerned with fahd and god forbid some of these kids might be getting three, four, five meals a day based on funding of all these programs.
but preterm births cost the u.s. over $26 billion a year. with the average first year medical costs of a premature low birth weight baby costing roughly $49,000 compared to $4,500 for a baby born without complications. w.i.c. prenatal care benefits redeuce the weight of low birth weight babies by 25 pk. for those of you who support these garr barge wan ag subsidies, money from the very wealthy, i commend to you the words of theodore parker a minister and abolitionist in the early 19th century who has been quoted by both abraham lincoln, our 16th president, and by dr. martin luther king in their epic speeches. theodore parker said, the midser, starving his brother's body, starves also his own soul and at death shall creep out of his greatest state of injustice
poor and naked and miserable. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i mentioned this to you yesterday, i think we would both enjoy to see what the results would be if we googled our hearing and put in hunger and put in obesity which one showed up most and i believe you're going to find we talk far more about obesity than about hunger. the question that i have is on the hunger, there are so many food programs out there and this bill does have a $5.6 billion increase in food stamps and $1.5 billion increase in school lunch that maybe you and i together can focus on where this hunger is because it could be that it may be that people
don't know how to get the programs that are out there. i yield to my friend from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i don't think poor people are ignorant. mr. kingston: let me reclaim the time. i'm trying to have an adult conversation. i clarified what ignorance means, if you don't know about a program, then you're ignorant of the program's existence. if the gentleman would talk. mr. mcgovern: the gentleman raised the issue of obesity. there's a relationship between food and security and obesity and poverty and obesity. we're talking about the importance of good nutrition and the fact of the matter is, a lot of people that we are trying to target some of these programs to don't have access to good nutrition. they live in food deserts where they can't buy good food or can't afford fresh food. we're talking about the sache district of columbia mr. kingston: let me reclaim the time.
one of the things that perhaps we could do a better job at, not only explaining to people where these programs are, but also coordinating the actual program, now the previous speaker said that some children, and i can't quote her exactly, might be getting four or five meals a day, i think it would be good in a time of fiscal restraint that we talk about, can we coordinate better. let me yield to my friend. mr. mcgovern: we're all for efficiency and coordination but i want to read one line from a letter that secretary vilsack sent up here, he says he is confident that the proposed funding level in your bill would lead to a substantial reduction in the program, meaning the w.i.c. program, by hundreds of thousands of participants per month. that's substantial. mr. kingston: that is substantial but let me say this, the numbers we are operating on, 2010, there was
9.2 million participants. last year, or this year, 8.9 million. next year, the projection is less than that because 450,000 people less are on it. the number -- the base number on the bill would be about 8.3 billion but with the contingency fund it could go over nine million people and as i have shared with my friend from massachusetts before, we want to make sure no one falls through the cracks, but i'm looking at these numbers too and i know that the group that has been cited many times, the numbers they're using are using a different base than what weir using so i think some of this is actually about what is that level and i'm thinking it is the eight knoll nine million. mr. mcgovern: i would point out there's another phenomenon going on here, the rising cost of food. so the numbers you mentioned are pretty conservative. the food costs have been going
up and up and up. i think every american family can feel that. so as a result, you know, we're going to need to step up and not undermine these programs that quite frankly provide people basic nutrition of food. mr. kingston: and there's an unknown factor in the rising cost of food we're not sure about. but we've had a spirited debate, which i know my friend -- mr. mcgovern: but it's not an unknown factor, food prices are rising. mr. kingston: but we dent know the percentage. but we know this budget would allow, with contingency, nine million people to participate which is above the current level. i'm hoping the economy does turn around. i think it's important for us to be talking about some of these things that are in the mix, like solid numbers,
coordination of benefits and also sources that people can go to. the gentleman said, folks don't know about this >> i want to offer some solid numbers. mr. kings: i yield to my friend from -- mr. kingston: i yield to my friend from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: i rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill -- ms. chu: i rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill. this is yet another exapter in the republican attack on working families to give
handouts to special interests. first they came after seniors who rely on medicare and now they're coming after our young children and their mothers. millions of americans are now struggling to get through the worst economy since the great depression. and america's food assistance programs are proving to be an essential safety net for the jobless and low income families of america. at a time when the need is greater than it's been in generations, congress should be reaffirming our commitment to helping needy families, not pulling the rug out from under them. but alarmingly, that's just what the republican agricultural appropriations bill does. this bill slashes funding for the nutrition program for women, infant and children by $686 million. w.i.c. is a program that provides low income pregnant women, new mothers, infants and children with nutritious foods and improved access to health care. this funding is critical to
ensuring america's new mothers, babies, and young children are fed right and grow up to be healthy, happy kids. but these slash and burn cuts completely end food assistance for up to 350,000 low income women and children nationwide. republicans take the targets off these kids. now, let's distinguish between wasteful spending and investments that help the less fortunate get back on their feet. how can anyone say that w.i.c. is wasteful when it serves nearly 10 million people each year for less than $100 per person. to some, these dollars may not sound like much, but they mean all the difference for mothers like amanda. amanda was blessed with three children after she was told she couldn't even have one. but working in the food industry simply wasn't enough to support a family.
and certainly not one with as many needs as amanda's. she has one son with disabilities and another born prematurely and a third that requires special formula. all these demands quickly stretched her finances and her time. she couldn't afford the basics for her baby, like cereal, peanut butter, milk and juice, much less the special formula that kept her son healthy. she was drugtology get by. with w.i.c.'s help, she was able to make ends meet and found time to get her bachelor and masters through online classes while raising her kids. now she's a registered nurse, working on her ph.d., and it was taking that first step to join w.i.c. that helped keep her children healthy and helped her make a better life for her family. we should be investing in amanda and her children the future of our country, not leaving them to fend for themselves. but instead of helping build a
stronger american work force for our future, the republicans are providing more breaks so big oil and line their prockets. this same bill blocks efforts to rein in oil speculators that manipulating the energy markets at the expense of american families at the pump and in fact in april, goldman sachs found that this type of unregulated speculation adds over 20% to the price of oil and that's why our gasoline prices are going sky high. so what was the republican reaction to this? they slashed $30 million in funding from the commodity futures trading commission which would stop this illegal speculation in the oil markets. so as they gut funding from struggling mothers and tiny babies like this, republicans are keeping gas prices high and pouring more profit into big oil's coffers. we cannot balance the nation's
budget on the backs of everyday americans just so that big oil can make big profits. stop these cruel cuts to women, children, and infants. thank you. the chair: who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. fudge: you know a mother's greatest fear is not being able to provide food and security for her children. not being able to provide nourishment for her kids to free throw and learn, she worries about where she'll find their next meal. each morning, she is greeted by growling stomachs and an all-too-familiar sense of anxiety. this mother is desperate to provide food for her hungry children and depends on our local food banks. but when she arrives at the food banks she finds that the shelves
are empty. that is a time in which her anxiety turns to fear and desperation. she might -- some of you might think that i'm exaggerating but if you come to my district and visit the city of cleveland and other parts of my district, you can meet people who for them this is their reality. just as it is the reality for people throughout this nation who rely on essential nutrition programs like w.i.c. and snap. the emergency food assistance program better known as tfap provides food through food banks. this bill caps that funding at $200 million which is a $51 million cut and in addition to that, another $12 million in grants for tfap for storage and distribution equipment is also being cut. these cuts affect the storage of food that requires
rerefrigeration, forcing many food banks to only provide unhealthy, nonperishable foods and to my friend, mr. kingston, there is indeed a correlation between hunger and obesity. 25% of the food distributed in cleveland food banks is from tfap and it is some of the most nutritious food they have available. even without the cuts that are proposed in this bill food banks are facing a shortage of food, impairing their ability to provide for their communities. parents turn to food banks especially in the sum when are school is out, when their children no longer have a guaranteed breakfast and/or lunch five days a week. and it didn't stop at tfap. also on the chopping block is funding for wic -- w.i.c. and snap. nearly 50% of the babies born in the country in this year rely on w.i.c. proposed cuts would result in hundreds of thousands of low
income women, infants and children losing needed nutrition assistance. these massive cuts to w.i.c. would force vulnerable families to go hungry, to be completely dependent on food banks, which unfortunately are losing vital funding through this legislation. w.i.c. provides food to almost nine million low income pregnant and nursing women and young children. this bill cuts w.i.c. by over $800 million and is estimated that because of these cuts, between 350,000 and 475,000 mothers and young children will be eliminated from the program. if we can just get rid of the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, as my colleague has said, we can pay for the entire w.i.c. program for an entire year. these cuts will cripple families and could have a detrimental effect on the few tier of these children. a quarter of the people in my district have difficulty accessing affordable food.
but the chairman, mr. rogers, indicated, and i quote, this legislation reflects hard decisions to cut lower priority programs, so that our nation continues on the path to fiscal recovery. to a hungry child, snap and w.i.c. are not low priority programs. these cuts will not set our nation on a path to recovery. but rather make it significantly more difficult for mothers to ensure the safety and health of their children. so what we're doing is punishing children for being poor. that is what we're doing. we're not talking about necessarily adults, children have done nothing to us. i don't know how we sleep at night. the bible tells us and i know my friends like to talk about faith and i'm a personal strong faith, the bible tells that the poor will always be among us. so we need to make the provisions to take care of the poor. first republicans came after seniors, who rely on medicare and now they're coming after children. and mothers who rely on food assistance. who's next, mr. chair?
i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and protect our children and pregnant women. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill, h.r. 2112, because of the deep cuts to the women, infants and children program. i've always been told that you can measure a greatness of a society by how well it streets its young, how well it -- it treats its young, how well it treats its old and how well it treats those who have difficulty caring for them selves. all of us know that there is no way that children, infants can adequately care for themselves.
the w.i.c. program serves pregnant women through pregnancy up to six weeks after birth, or after pregnancy ends. breast feeding women up to the infant's first birthday and nonbreast feeding women up to six months after the birth of an infant or after the pregnancy ends. as well as infants up to their first birthday and children up to age 5. poverty and an identified medical nutritional risk are two eligibility requirements. nutritious foods, nutrition education and referrals to maternal and child health services are among the program's benefits. w.i.c. serves 45% of all infants born in the united states. now, there is no way that anyone
can suggest that any of these individuals, especially the children, had anything at all to do with their level of poverty. or the fact that there's not nutritious food available to them. and even if there were not food deserts they wouldn't have the money to purchase what was available. how one can reconcile, can reconcile taking milk out of the mouth of babes or how one can suggest that some way or another we are spending money when as the gentlelady from wisconsin pointed out the additional health care cost resulting as a
result of the individuals not having basic food and care far outweighs any money that you could possibly spend. so it's not a matter of spending, it's a matter of investing. how do you invest in america? you invest by providing for those who have the greatest amount of need. i know that we debate whether or not we are spending more than we're taking in. well, there's a way to rectify that. we just take in more. we just charge people more who can afford to pay. i don't believe in overspending, i don't believe in having huge deficits, but i don't believe in
seeing people suffer and die because the society in which they live will not provide for them the basic necessities of life. i urge we vote against this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to strike the last word. and i yield the balance of my time to mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman from florida, my good friend, is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and do i want to continue the discussion which we've had with our friends on the other side by pointing out that mine's very important. i had the vote from the claims act, november 30, 2010, of which i voted no. this vote cut w.i.c. $562 million.
so far every speaker who's been on the floor voted yes to this bill. so in terms of following the rhetoric, very difficult. i also want to point out, we had a vote earlier this year, late last year, on extending the bush tax cuts. i voted no. did others on that side vote no? i'm glad my friend from connecticut did. i also want to point out, we had a vote last week on the kucinich amendment to get out of libya. i voted no on that. not sure how you guys voted. i made my friend, mr. headquarter govern, has been an absolute -- i know my friend, mr. mcgovern, has been an absolute consistent critic on the money we're spending and engagement we're having in the middle east and i respect his philosophy on that. but the reason why i want to point this out is because it appears that when one side tries to cut the budget, they're either pushing children out the door, but when another side cuts
the budget it's ok. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. kingston: the gentleman from florida controls the time and i recommend that he does yield to you. gloy yield to you. >> i thank the gentleman from florida and the gentleman from florida. let me serve comment on the $562 million that there have been several references to this in the course of the afternoon. ms. delauro: this is the truth of this effort. $562 million in unspent w.i.c. funds were cut last year. but the cut did not affect any participants. the reason it didn't affect participants is that w.i.c. foods cost less, there were fewer participants in fiscal year 2010. so the funds were not needed. that shows you that because there was extra money in w.i.c. last year, the funds are -- mr. kingston: i want to comment on. that that's exactly what we're doing. ms. delauro: no. the cut to this bill --
the chair: everyone will suspend. everyone will suspend. everyone will suspend. the gentleman from florida controls the time. to whom does he yield? >> i yield. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has the time. mr. kingston: the participation in w.i.c. in 2010 was $9.2 million. today it's about $8.8 million. this bill, because it has dropped, is at a level of $8.3 million but can go over $9 million with the contingency. so i believe that when you cut w.i.c. last year, you did it in good faith. i would only ask that you give us that good faith, too. ms. delauro: if the gentleman would continue to yield. i would just -- >> i will yield. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields to the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i appreciate that. the cut in this bill is different because it does result in the loss of benefits to participants. that's not my words but the
secretary of agriculture has said hundreds of thousands. and from our last conversation which we didn't finish, we asked about rising food prices and this is from the center for budget and policy priorities. i'm not making up the numbers. if the cost of w.i.c. foods increases by 2% between fiscal years 2000 and 2012, the smallest increase likely, the proposed funding cut would force w.i.c. to serve roughly $200 -- 200,000 fewer people in 2012 and 2011. if it goes to 5% the food costs, you have to cut roughly 350,000 people. these are actual numbers. mr. kingston: let me say this. my friend from connecticut will agree though that if you on your side had not cut w.i.c. $562 million that money would still be there. right now.
ms. delauro: the fact of the matter was is that what we're not asking about is not -- the chair: i'm sorry. the gentlelady from georgia has -- everyone will suspend. you got to keep this in order here. the gentleman from georgia has the time. mr. kingston: the point that i'm making, mr. chair, is that w.i.c. is $562 million down not because of any republican action but because of the democrat action. and you know what, i don't question anyone's motives on this side and i admire the passion and my friend from connecticut is one of the most passionate persons in this body when it comes to w.i.c. and i respect that. but we also have to look at some of these numbers because if they're just airdropped into this bill then i can certainly understand they're outraged but if we look at the long-term, where w.i.c. was two or three years ago, where it's going, and the fact that there are three contingency funds to pick up the slack -- ms. delauro: will the gentleman yield?
mr. kingston: i also want to point out -- the chair: all time has expired. ms. delauro: there are no contingency -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for foive -- for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. davis brought up a quow quote about how you look at government. mr. cohen: it was hubert humphrey who said that governments are judged on how they treat those in the dawn of life, the young, the twilight of life, the old, and the shadows of life, the disabled people, handicaps. and that is the way you should judge it. i sometimes think with this budget and what we're seeing here from the other side is they think that the way you judge a government is the way it treats the millionaires, the billionaires, the way it treats the oil and gas industry or the way it treats the wall street folks due to hedge funds and i think if that's the way you're being judged it's going to be a harsh, harsh condemn nation. my friend from indiana, mr. lungren, came down and he spoke and said something about, look what happened in the last election. well, i'll tell you what
happened in the last election. it was in new york state and the people spoke loudly in a district that in 2010 was strongly republican. they said, we don't want medicare destroyed. we want to keep medicare and they elected a democrat. the people are seeing what the majority is doing. the reason we have need for w.i.c. programs and other programs is because the middle class is disappearing in this cupry. jobs are being shipped overseas, and the rich people get tax breaks and we say everybody should share but the rich people aren't having to share. the w.i.c. program should be the last place anyone consider cutting. it should be the absolute total last place. wret the cuts are there, 13%. the fact is, those people are in the place in life where if we don't give moneys to the
food for the pregnant mothers, we'll have more infant mortality. in my district, we've got an infant mortality rate similar to third world countries. we tried to have programs passed up here to deal with infant mortality and try to save the lives of babies and we're not going to be doing that. i've heard a lot from the other side about being pro-life. we have a different on that. i'm pro choice but i'm pro-life after birth. pro-life shouldn't just be in the period of gestation, it should include the time after birth. we're not hearing pro-life type statements and pro-life budget provisions. it's all about saving money on the backs of the poor. this is not appropriate and it's something i think should shame the other side. mr. kingston is a fine man. i heard him say he voted against the bush tax cuts, i got confused on what you did on libya -- you voted with kucinich? i didn't.
i don't know what that has to do with women, infant and children, except that -- that's another issue. bottom line, he's a good man. but he's got a bad provision here. he could see to it we change that and the women and infants and children are dependent on the man from fwea to try to come up with a provision to help him. i'd like to yield to the lady from connecticut who i think wanted more time a few minutes ago and i'd like to yield to her on this issue. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman. the point was that we are looking at the potential and the fact of increased food prices. that is -- and again the numbers are not mine. they belong to an organization that has very good credentials on both sides of the aisle in this town. the center on budget and policy priorities. they're very clear that if that
2% increase in food prices and that is viewed as the smallest increase likely, we will see roughly 200,000 fewer people. if it's 5% increase in food prices, that there would be a cut of 350,000. the secretary of agriculture said that the proposed amount of money would lead to the -- hundreds of thousands of people being eliminated from the program. he also is very clear as others have been that there is no carryover money, there's no contingency fund and the budget, the center for budget and policy pyrities reiterates the same effort. with regard to the $562 million, my only point on that was i'm willing -- others are willing to say if the funds are not needed at that juncture and they are extra, yes, they can be used for something else. no one is saying that the
numbers have to be static all the time but the fact of the matter is, we are in a different period in 2011 going into 2012 where there's much more serious economic difficulty. rising food prices, rising rates of people who need these programs, and we're just saying let's have the money we need in order to move forward. i thank the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. it makes dangerous cuts to essential anti-hunger plans. the republicans now propose to cut the women, infants and children program, otherwise known as w.i.c. this is a much-needed federally funded hell and nutrition program that provides support, resources and education to low-income women.
this preventive public health nutrition program connects mothers with prenatal care, increases healthy birth outcomes and educates new mothers about caring for their children and providing healthy food options for their families. ms. matsui: in my home constituent of california, there are 82 w.i.c. agencies serving over 1.4 million women, infants and children but the bill before us today cuts $650 million from the program and these cuts we cannot afford to make. there are two w.i.c. programs at work in my district and i recently saw firsthand the critical demand and need for their services. i witnessed a long line of women trying to provide for their families and trying to receive the support they need to have a healthy pregnancy. this w.i.c. office alone had a case load of over 32,000 individuals a month. but can only serve 30,000 because of lack of resources.
in this economic downturn, people who never before knew about w.i.c. now find themselves relying on their services to feed their families. these include state workers who were furloughed, nurses and teachers who have lost their jobs, unfortunately, demand for these programs is increasing, not decreasing. with sacramento's unemployment rate at 12%, these resources are not only needed and appreciated, but are vital. one recipient is a mother who once thought w.i.c. was only about giving free food or formula to low-income families, but her perspective about the program changed dramatically when she enrolled in the program herself. she was expecting her first and only child. she entered the program to help her family make ends meet. throughout her preg mancy she received nutrition information and referrals. unfortunately, she was
diagnosed with gestational diabetes, but because she was on w.i.c. at the time, she was seen by a dietitian every month. with w.i.c.'s support, her baby was born healthy and she had the support she needed to provide for her family. but the cuts in this legislation do not end at w.i.c. the commodity supplemental food program, which helps supplement meals for low income individuals and the emergency food assistance program, otherwise known as t-fap which provides food agencies with food they distribute are both on the chopping block. a month ago i visited a senior center which participates in the senior brown bag lunch, run by volunteers, many of whom are recipients themselves. the california emergency food bank distributes over 80,000 pounds of food per month to approximately 8,000 low income seniors in need in sacramento
county. for many of these seniors, this is the only nutritious foods they will have for a week. the program also provides funding for approximately 18% of food that come into the sacramento food bank. this food bank provides a five-day supply of emergency groceries to those struggling to get by and over 18,000 receive fresh groceries from this site every month. in addition to all the cuts i've mentioned, the legislation also includes report language to stop the process of updating the school nutrition standards. it is essential for our students to have the nutrition they need to be productive and successful at school. in the sacramento city unified school district, approximately 67% of students eligible for free and reduced lumplings. without an investment in proper nutrition, these students will
not only fall behind in their studies, they can also face serious health issues. unfortunately, the legislation before us proposes some of the hardest cuts to endure. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. the speakers have chose ton cut $562 million out of w.i.c. which would have carried forward into this year and this year would have carried forward into next year. and that's because the w.i.c. program has a two-year carryover. so when the previous speakers voted to cut w.i.c. by $562
million, they truly were cutting money that could have been available now. now the reason that they chose to cut that is they found a higher priority expenditure than w.i.c. and hen they made that choice, they took that money out of the program, which could have been available now. now they did that based on real numbers on w.i.c. participation, not estimates, but real numbers. the real numbers showed that w.i.c.'s participation was in decline. we're now looking at about $8.3 million per month in w.i.c. parties pation -- participation
with about nine million per month contingency. we're looking at funding w.i.c. at 87% of what it has been. we're not looking at decimating it. we're not looking at, like some people have said on the other side, at levels that will cause children to go hungry or to starve, as one of the people said on the other side of the aisle. we're funding it at 87% of the level it's been. in addition, there are state food programs. there are county foot programs. -- food programs. there are city food programs. there are religious organization food programs. there's the salvation army 50 1-c-3 type programs, neighborhood programs, meals on wheels programs, food banks and there are good-hearted wonderful americans who help their neighbors in need.
this is an adequate budget in tough economic times and in addition, as i have said earlier, we are funding a net increase in food programs because we are increasing the amount of money that will go to food stamps and school lunch. >> will the gentlelady yield? mrs. lummis: i will yield. mr. kingston: does the gentlelady believe that we don't have a food and security -- mr. cohen: does the gentlelady believe we don't have a food and security problem? mrs. lummis: i do not believe that cotton farmers in either the united states or brazil are more important than w.i.c.
program participants. mr. mcgovern spock do you believe we have a hunger problem? mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, our committee is only able to look at discretionary spending. we can't look at mandatory spending and we cannot look at programs that are subject to the five-year farm bill, such as subsidies for farmers. i think subsidies for farmers can go by the wayside and i hope that when the ag committee meets to restructure they are five-year farm bill that they'll do away with farmer subsidies. i think it's ridiculous that we're paying cotton growers subsidies in this country that violate the world trade organization to an extent that we then have to subsidize brazil's cotton growers in order to rectify our violation of the w.t.o. that's one of the most
ridiculous things i have ever heard. i wish we could have addressed that in this bill. i wish we could have addressed the categorical eligibility that is available once you qualify for one type of federal program, you're available for all of them. whether you need it or not. i wish we could address how much money people get on earned income tax credits, i wish we could make sure that 100% of the people in this country paid a little bit of tax and the rich people paid a lot more. none of that is true. and none of that is within the purview of the appropriations committee with regard to discretionary spending. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. mr. chairman, it's often said
that a society can be judged by how it treats its young, its elderly and the less fortunate. today is a perfect example of that. instead of feeding women, infants and children, it appears that the republicans in congress are slashing the ag budget to make room for more tax breaks for the wealthy. let's have a look at how these priorities balance out. if we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one measly week we would pay for the entire w.i.c. program for a year. a full year. so let's get this straight. during these times when there is a job shortage, when if a person has a job wages are lower than they should be, the cost of food
is very high and we have low taxes on the rich, pregnant women will go hungry and their babies born underweight so that someone can afford another beach vacation? kids will go without breakfast so that someone can buy a second home? first the republicans in congress pass the ryan act, the ryan budget act, to dismantle medicare for our seniors and for our disabled and now they want to take food from the mouths of needy children and women. honestly, mr. chairman, i don't know how they sleep at night. this shouldn't be a partisan issue. there are w.i.c. recipients in every single congressional district in this country, red states, blue states, hunger doesn't see political affiliation. and this is not some abstract
political theory. there are real women and children in every single congressional district that will have to forego meals. how many? how many of us have ever given up a meal so that a child could eat? or explained to a 3-year-old why there won't be lunch today? or soothed a crying baby who won't get formula? we should end this shameful spending of $10 billion a month in afghanistan, we should bring our troops home. we should stop the war tax. we should tax millionaires and billionaires, we should create jobs and we should vote against this bill. let's show america's working families that we stand with them and we will be there for them during times of need. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman
yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i know this is a very, very tough state of affairs and timeframe that we're in. mr. chairman, i also know this is a time when america calls upon all of us to stand not for our individual selfish interests but to look at the country as a united team that believes in lifting the bulk of all people. i want to thank my friends who have struggled on this committee , dealing with the bear necessities of life, food. and that is why i come today unfortunately to oppose this legislation because it does not
take into account that without us is tans and nutrition -- sustenance and nutrition, the people die. it's plain and simple. we're not talking about knickknacks or trains and buses, highways, bridges, all very important and job creators and in fact efforts that the democrats have made very clear that they are the job creating caucus for the press and push that we've made on make it in america, we've asked our colleagues to join us. but today we talk about feeding people and i rose earlier today to say that it is in the d.n.a. of the 18th congressional district because one of my predecessors actually died delivering food to starving people around the world. and he fought so much of hunger in america that he had a select committee on hunger joined by
tony hall and congressman emerson and his legacy was that we cannot do without sustenance and so it make noes sense to cut $3 billion from w.i.c., a w.i.c. program that indicates that w.i.c. moms are more likely to have initiated breast feeding than low income non-w.i.c. mom, middle to high income moms are more likely to have initiated breast feeden than both low and non-w.i.c. moms. one of the children -- one in five children do not drink water easily. w.i.c. children were more likely to drink juice daily than children not on wink. 93% of children drink milk daily . these are without the ability to have nutritious meals. this is in my own state of texas which indicates that food does not matter in terms of how wealthy a state may be and so i
can't imagine why, as my colleagues have said, we can't find $3 billion from the $10 billion a month that is being spent in afghanistan and the moneys that have been stolen in iraq where we don't even know where it is. it's all about priorities. and so i rise today to express great consternation over the cut in w.i.c. and to indicate that w.i.c. is about growing, it's about providing nutrition so children can think so, that they can be able to be strong leaders , it is to grow children healthy, it is to stop disease, it is to provide the kind of immune system that fights disease and in a state like texas, the 18th congressional district which i represent has a strong work ethic. i am so proud of them. but they also have a rate of poverty that is frightening. food insecurity in my district ranks number 32 in the nation.
that means that there are only 1 districts ahead that have the -- 31 districts ahead that have the degree of food insecurity and yet i'm going to have to go home and tell them that the priorities of this congress were something other than feeding children and providing mothers prenatal and prenatal condition and after birth the kind of resources to provide for a healthy child. that means my babies will be going to school hungry, it means they'll come home to a nondinner and that means that we as a country have failed in our natural values that we all are created equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it is shocking to be able to stand here today and know they're cutting medicare and medicaid and now they add insult to injury that they're cutting food stamps and the w.i.c. program. so i guess our soldiers who themselves, young soldiers, young families on food stamps will suffer as well. but the w.i.c. program that has
got its plame for everything but what is right and that is the women and infant and children program provides nutrition for healthy children and to stand here today to have to look americas -- americans in the face and those in the 18th congressional district who are 32 in food insecurity and say that we do not have the money. mr. chairman, i am asking my colleagues to go back to the drawing boards. don't put this bill on the floor. take it off. because are you now handing to the children of this nation a ticket that says no food at the end, no food at this table, no food. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. mr. speaker, i rise today in defense of 76,000 residents of the first congressional district of rhode island of which i have the privilege of representing who according to the advocacy group feeding america are at risk of losing their ability to
feed themselves and their families. that's because this week the majority party in the house is ready to vote on a measure that will undermine the safety net in this country designed for our nation's women, infants and children. mr. speaker, we all know that one of the greatest challenges before us is reducing our deficit. but we have to do it in a way that's consistent with our values, consistent with the values of our great country. and this week we'll be voting on a measure that fails those values miserably. if the majority party has their way, and denies necessary funding to a critical safety net for some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, nearly 1,000 women, infants and children in rhode island's first district will be denied the assistance they need to survive. w.i.c. represents the most basic obligation we have to our fellow citizens most in need. food and nutrition. on top of that it's an incredibly cost effective program. serving nearly 10 million
americans each year and costing less than $100 per person. in my district more than 18% of the residents suffer from food insecurity and depend on w.i.c. to make ends meet. at a time when the middle class in our country is being crushed with high unemployment and still reeling from a housing crisis that has left countless families in foreclosure, we're seeing more and more people in need of assistance just to get by. and it's not just affecting people without jobs. it's folks who have a job as well but they've been -- had their wages cut or they've had their wages diminished or their hours cut. this is not the time to allow people to lose the lifelines they need to survive. we've helped the auto industry, we've helped big banks. it's time to sustain support for families that are most in need and have been most devastated by this difficult economy. and yet we see again this week another attack by the republican
majority in the house on working families, while they continue to fight to protect subsidies for big oil and to protect tax breaks that are outsourcing jobs overseas. first they come after seniors by trying to end medicare and now they're coming after women, children and infants who rely on food assistance. we should not be destroying programs upon which citizens rely for their most basic needs in order to fund tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires or big suns disfor big oil -- subsidies for big oil companies. if we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week we could pay for the entire w.i.c. program for an entire year. i urge my colleagues to reject this proposal, to ensure instead that families most in need who have been hardest hit by this recession have access to food and nourishment. we have the ability to provide nourishment to families and
that's a cornerstone of a free and decent society. we cannot abandon this great responsibility and i ask my colleagues and i yield the balance of my time to congresswoman moore. ms. moore: thank you so much for yielding. thank you so much. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island has to stand while this is going on. thanks. ms. moore: thank you so much for yielding. i just wanted a few seconds to clarify something i've heard over and over again. we keep continuing to say that first they have come after the seniors for medicare and medicaid and now they're coming after children. no. we ended the entitlement to afdc back in the 1990's and w.i.c. is not an entitlement like the snap program, food stamp program, it's not an entitlement like school lunch programs and so what this bill does is it double
downs on not providing food to infants and children. no. we've already cut the entitlement and snatched the safety net from underneath kids. this double downs on that. we have torn the safety net for children and now we're pulling it through the shredder for the second time. as a person who has personally had sugar sandwiches, mayonnaise sandwiches and mustard sandwiches, i can tell you that funding this program at only 87% of its value will mean that we'll see a lot more malnourishment in our community and thank you and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. mr. bartlett: i wanted to spend