tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 14, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
a few moments putting our discussions in context. this year the deficit will be perhaps as much as $1.6 trillion. now, a total discretionary spending, that's the money that we vote here to spend and spend doing it is a little over $1 trillion, a bit more than half of that is the defense budget. what that means is if we didn't have any government that we'd vote to spend money for here, we have no defense, we have no homeland security, we have no e.p.a., if we had no n.i.h., if we had no w.i.c. program, if we had none of the myriad departments of government that serve us every day, we'd still have a half trillion dollar deficit.
i'm not sure the reality of this has goten through our congress or -- gotten through our congress or the american people. another way of looking at this is we have revenues of about $2.2 trillion a year. but our mandatory spending, that's interest on the debt and our means tested welfare program and medicare and medicaid and social security are several hundred billion dollars more than that. what that means is that one second after midnight on january 1 we're already in debt that year several hundred billion dollars, and we haven't even started to pay for the defense of our country, for homeland security, for n.i.h., for the w.i.c. program, for any of these many, many programs that our government supports. there is no way, there is no way with the meager cuts that
we're making in these budgets that we're voting on that we're ever going to get anywhere near a balance. i'll be happy to yield for a moment. mr. conyers: thank you very much, sir. we're good friends. what you're telling me, i presume, is that you approve a $650 million cut from the women, infants and children fund, is that correct? mr. bartlett: i was trying to put in context our discussion here and what it -- and what it means. mr. conyers: right. you approved a cut -- mr. bartlett: reclaiming my time. if we have a $6 trillion, and we're coming close to that this year -- you know, the ryan budget was kind of the expression of his road map and the last congress only eight of us had the courage to sign on
to his road map because it was pretty tough. this year when he filed that road map again i think 13 of us signed on. and then we had the ryan budget which is even tougher than i think his road map, but what else was there to vote for and almost nobody read it and somehow we passed it anyhow. the ryan budget doesn't balance for 25 years. it doesn't balance for 25 years. that means -- what that budget, with all of its austerity, for 25 years we still are accumulating more and more and more debt. every six hours we have another $1 billion deficit which means another $1 billion debt. about every 12 hours we have another $1 billion trade deficit. mr. chairman, i just want to put our discussions in context. you know, i have 10 kids and 17 grandkids and two greatgreat
grandkids. i'd -- and two great grandkids. and what i'd like to do for republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, sit down and talk through this how we're going to solve this problem. grandstanding and making these political points is not going to get us there. mr. chairman, we have to do something serious. i don't see the congress doing that. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman. i thank mr. bartlett from maryland for making the case. i tell my friends that when they say women and children first, it means to save them, not to throw them overboard. women and children first means that they are the most vulnerable and need to be lifted up, need to be
protected, need to be given the handup, not the handout. ladies and gentlemen of this house, i rise in opposition to this bill, and i thank my friend from maryland, for whom i have great respect. i think in fact he did put this in context. we will not balance the budget on the backs of children. we will not balance this budget on the backs of women who need nutrition and health care. that's not how we're going to balance the budget, and the gentleman from maryland made that point i think very effectively. if we cut out all defense and discretionary spending, we wouldn't balance our budget. that's the magnitude of the problem that faces us, but a great country, america, should not ask our children who need nutritional programs, who need health programs, to pay the
price, to pay the price of our irresponsibility because we have failed to pay for what we buy. but let us not repair to our little children and their mothers to pay the bill that we refuse to pay. while at the same time we pass a rule the first day in this house that provides for $5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest in america, including me. i don't want a tax cut if it means that a child goes hungry in america, the richest nation on the face of the earth. that is not my priority. that is not my morality. that is not my faith. lift up the little children. surely, surely america is not a country that wants to see its children go hungry or its
pregnant women go without services they need for healthy babies. surely america is a generous enough country to feed those who need food. my faith tells me to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe those who have no clothes. i rise in opposition to this bill, and i rise in strong opposition to attempts to dramatically cut the food programs that serve some of our most vulnerable constituents. bowles, a democrat, a republican, former member of the united states senate, just issued a report and in that report it lays forth a number of premiseses on which that report is based. and one of its first premiseses
is, do not hurt the vulnerable in america because, as my friend from maryland points out, that won't get you to where we need to get. and we need to get there. and i'm going to work with my friend from maryland, a republican, and all republicans who know that we need to get to balance budgets, to reduce debt, and my friends on my side of the aisle, this appropriation bill would sharply reduce funding for the vital nutrition programs for women, infants and children. surely, surely americans did not send us the message to go to washington and undermine women, infants and children. at a time when we are still recovering from the worst economic crisis in a generation , where unemployment is
unacceptably high, where people have lost their homes, where people, too many people are in great distres, surely this is not a time to say we turn our back on you. this budget, this bill, pushing to cut $37 million in support for hungry, low-income seniors. not just women, infants and children. this bill cuts seniors as well. surely our people did not send us to this congress to cut seniors. $11 million to cut our community food banks. by the way, if you visited your food bank, you know there is more demand on our food banks than there has ever been. ladies and gentlemen, reject this bill. stand up for the values of america and of our people. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose
does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i rise and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: i thank you. i'd like to follow on to our great whip's very moving statement and ask our good friend, roscoe bartlett, a distinguished member from maryland, whether or not he would pass a bill that would cut funding in the amount of $650 million for women and infants and children out of the department of agriculture's program?
so in the four decades that i have served an been honored to serve in this congress, i believe that we will have reached an all-time low today if we pass a bill that will cut funding for the department of agriculture's women, infants and children program. ladies and gentlemen, my brothers and sisters, how can anybody in congress with a conscience seriously consider passing a bill, even proposing one that will result in more hunger for hundreds of thousands of the poorest and neediest low-income children across this nation who are already suffering from hunger and malnutrition?
i fail to understand the logic of any elected official who serves in congress who would actually support a $650 million cut from the women, infants and children program during one of the worst economic downturns since the great depression without feeling some kind of moral or ethical guilt for doing so. the women, infants and children program serves nearly 10 million people each year and costs less than $100 per person. what could be more important than supporting a federal program that provides nutritious food to new mothers, babies and children under 5 who
have been identified as nutritionally at risk? cutting the women, infants and children program for poor children and mothers is clearly an abandonment of our family values. promoting policies that we know will result in scores of children feeling the painful sting of hunger, not being able to focus in school or not to be able to do their home work is far from what i would consider having good family values. it is simply un-american, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction.
ladies and gentlemen, have we no shame? the majority of americans do not support slashing vital food and nutrition programs for our nation's poorest children. let's get rid of the tax breaks for billionaires so all children in this country can live the american dream and not go to bed hungry at night. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. schakowsky: i rise in opposition to the agriculture bill. and like so many before me, i am opposed to cuts in funding to provide food and nutrition
to american families, to pregnant women and infants and children and seniors and families struggling in this country to put food on the table at a time of rising unemployment and poverty. i have to tell you, i am at a loss to understand why, my republican colleagues, give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires that they're willing to take food from children. tax cuts to the very wealthy and subsidies to big oil companies and companies that sends jobs overseas are a bigger priority. and medicare and medicaid and education and, again, in this bill, they even take food out of the mouths of hungry children to give those tax breaks. understand what this bill does. .
the commodity supplemental food program which provides food to seniors is cut by more than 20%. or $40 billion. in this bill, the republicans will take food out of the mouths of hungry, poor, old people. the snap reserve fund will get less. it provides critical nutrition support to low-income families and the reserves helps meet the demands created by unexpected participation in higher than projected food costs. food costs everybody knows, are going way up and with high unemployment and food prices rising, the reserve fund is likely to be tapped more than ever and depleting reserve funds will increase the likelihood of a food crisis in united states of america. let me tell you what this means
to people of illinois. lorraine is 82 years old and started receiving social security at age 65, and 975 a month, doesn't carry her home, utilities and health insurance and that is well over 700 and relies on the snap or food stamp program. her monthly benefit is $16, the minimum amount allotment. the republican cuts likely mean that many seniors will be turned away from snap if they find themselves in that circumstance next year. our seniors deserve better. mr. kingston: would the gentlelady yield? mr. kingston: snap goes up $5 opinion 6 billion on this --
$5.6 billion. and i did want to say that the snap portion of this bill does go up $5.6 billion. and i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. ms. schakowsky: what is that? still below -- $2 billion lower than the president's request and we want to make sure the money is there at a time of high unemployment, of disappearing 401k's and savings and the emergency food assistance program is cut by more than 20% or $60 million. and commodities to food banks to assist in relief efforts, and with unemployment is still high, and i know this in my district, many people who used to contribute to food banks are now waiting in line to get the food to keep food on their tables and with diminished federal support, they may show up only to find empty shelves. and then we get to the w.i.c.
program. i'm a mother and grandmother and for the first time in american history, we will turn away eligible mothers and children from the program, an effective program where infapts and children can get a healthy start in life and without it, they can suffer from life-long health problems. for every dollar spent, w.i.c. provides health care savings of as much $3. $3 for every $1 spent. we talk a lot about children, seniors in this house. but let's be clear, the choice before us is not whether we have to deny children food in order to reduce the deficit, the choice is whether we make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share so women, infants and children will be fed. vote no on this legislation. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from wisconsin new york rise? the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clarke: i rise in opposition to the underlying bill, the agricultural, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies appropriations act of 2012 and the cuts to the w.i.c. program. we want to talk about right to life, w.i.c. is a right to life. it's an essential program that offers nutrition, education, breast feeding support, referrals and a variety of nutritious food to low-income, pregnant, infapts and children up to the age of five. the program is administered through hospitals, mobile clinics, community centers, schools, public housing sites. and camps and indian health service facilities. in new york state, the w.i.c.
programs provides services to one half million low-income women, infants and children through 103 local w.i.c. agencies statewide. local agencies, such as brooklyn's healthy start, have provided w.i.c. services to low-income women in my district for more than 20 years. it is because of the work of the brooklyn healthy start and other w.i.c. programs who are on the front line that are fighting against this country's already shamefully high infant mortality rate. decreasing funding to w.i.c. programs will undoubtedly increase my district's infant mortality rate and infant mortality rates across this nation. given w.i.c. like snap and food stamps, school meals, after school and food programs, it is uncon shonnable that the
republicans are seeking to cut these programs that help seniors, low-income people who aspire to be part of our nation's middle class. first, republicans went after our seniors who rely on medicare and now they're going after the children and mothers who rely on our social compact for food assistance. if we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we would pay for the entire w.i.c. program for a year. it is my believe that cuts to the w.i.c. program are based on an ideological political rationale that defies human understanding and not an honest desire to cut deficits. this agricultural appropriation bill continues to protect tax cuts for multi-millionaires while having poor women and children stuck to pay the dear price. w.i.c. has been shown to improve
the health of pregnant women, new mothers and infants and children. the food provided through w.i.c. are a good source of nutrients that are often missing from the diets of women and children. w.i.c. participants have longer and healthier pregnancies and fewer premature births. we all understand the need to reduce the deficit, but we must do so in a pay way that is consistent with our shared values. it is a moral imperative that we look after those who are forgotten, marginalized in our society. in the words of a prolific poetic philosopher, kanye west, how can you be so heartless? republicans shouldn't destroy programs on which citizens depend upon the most in exchange to pay for $45 billion in tax breaks for multi-millionaires. shame.
i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and protect low-income women, infants and children. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? the gentleman from minnesota recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, we're told that we're broke. we're broke and because we're broke, we can't possibly pay for things like women, infants and children. we can't have a jobs bill. we can't build our nation's infrastructure. we can't, we can't, we can't. we have to cut because according to some, we're broke. but when we think about how the bounty of this nation is spread, we aren't so broke that committee can't give subsidies to oil inspects, that we can't
ask the richest americans to do a little more, we aren't so broke that we call on people who are millionaires and say you know what? now your nation needs you. we are told no, those people don't have to sacrifice, but we're broke so women and infants and children and seniors, they have to sacrifice. they have to go without. they have to tighten their belts. it's a shame. we are not asked to be one america, to bear the burden together. if there is a burden to be borne, surely oil companies can bear it with the american people. if there is a burden to be borne, surely the wealthiest among us can pitch in and help out. but not according to the republican majority, according to them, we're broke and the poor must suffer. the aged must do without.
those in need have to figure out how to make it one more day. because we're broke. and we have to take food out of the mouths of infants and pregnant mothers. and because we are broke, we need to increase the risk of food-borne illness. and because we are broke we can't afford to pay cops on the beat who are going to regulate the speculators on wall street who drive up the price of gasoline and food. we can't pay for these important public servants because they say we're broke. but we're not too broke to ask our oil companies to help. we aren't too broke to ask the top 2% to pitch in. the day must come, mr. chair, when we have -- when the poor the poor are not thought to have too much and the rich are not too thought to have too little. we have to be one america and
come together to deal with the burdens of this nation and not leave the westiest and the most privileged scot-free while the other people have to bear the burden of we're broke. i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, my colleagues, what we really have here is a discussion, not so much as to which party has more superiority here, but it's really a deeper question about what's the purpose of our nation and whether we are aligned with the founding fathers' spiritual principles.
because while the founders separated church and state, they did not intend our nation to be separated from spiritual principles. and i think that at this moment, if we really want to sincerely appreciate the dilemma we have created with these cuts, we need to reflect on some of our own spiritual training for those of us who are christian when in john. . 15, jesus was dining with his apostles and when they dined, jesus said to simon peter, let us thou mean more than these. he said on to him, lord, i love thee and jesus said, feed my lambs. he said to him again, the second
time, simon, son of jonas, know it is me. he said, lord, i love thee and the lord answered, feed my sheep. he said unto him, simon, thou love me and he said to him the third time, and he said lord, thou know that i love thee. jesus said unto him, feed my sheep. there are spiritual principles at stake here. we know what the right thing is to do. we know that feeding the hungry is a corporate work of mercy. we know that we have a responsibility to do this. we know that when the bible says, whatever you do, these are the least of my brothers and
sisters, you do for me in matthew 25 and we are referring to how spiritual is the act of feeding the poor. this decision that we make with respect to whether or not we are going to fully fund the w.i.c. program does have profound spiritual consequences. we cannot escape them, for when i was hungry, you gave me food. remember that. when i was hungry, you gave me food. you didn't give me war. you didn't give me a tax break, you didn't give me an oil depletion allowance. when i was hungry, you gave me food. . son asked for bread would give them a stone. these were principles you are
talking about here. this really goes to the core of who we are as a nation. whether we recognize that people out there are suffering. people may not have a roof over their head. mothers who may be living in a car having to tend to their children. america today is not the country it was at its founding. but it can be a nation that aspires to great things again, but it cannot do it if we forget the poor, if we forget the children, if we forget their mothers, if we tell them that, no, you cannot have the resources you need to be able to provide proper nutrition to their child so that he or she can grow up in this united states of america to be a full participant in this nation. this is a defining moment for who we are as a nation. this is not whether we are democrats or republicans. this is about whether we are prepared to realign ourself
with the deeper truths of the spiritual mission of the united states of america. feed the hungry. feed my sheep. when i was hungry, you gave me food. restore these cuts. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman from indiana rise? >> yes, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the honorable colleague from georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman from indiana for the time. i want to make a couple of points that are very important. number one, this bill increases food stamps $5.6 billion. now, somebody had said, that's
not as much as the president requested. well, it's an increase of $5.6 billion. i'm sorry, the president's crystal ball isn't always the best one. don't need to remind you about last summer's celebration of recovery or whatever it was called. school nutrition goes up $1.5 billion under this bill. we did what has been done in the past with w.i.c. we fund the participation level that is anticipated. last year the democrats voted to cut w.i.c. funding by $562 million. got the votes right here. democrats not sure how -- in case the democrats don't know how he or she voted. i'll put it in the record so everybody can look at it because after a while you have to wonder. also have the vote record for extending the bush tax cuts, which was signed by mr. obama.
got the vote record for that. want to say some of the friends over there voted no on that. very important, this bill funds w.i.c. at $8.3 million participants. now, -- 8.3 million participants. now, if it goes over nine million, the contingency fund is there to cover it. the contingency fund for w.i.c. is $350 million. it would have been higher, mr. chairman, but the democrats voted to cut it for -- cut it $562 million last year for an unrelated account. now to quote the well-known democrat, that's an inconvenient truth for some of the speakers here tonight. it is very important. now, it is not the intention of this bill to let anybody go hungry, and i am glad anytime the bible is quoted on the
floor of the house. i think it's a good thing, but i think there are some lessons in there, if there is a target on children's backs, perhaps it's the fact that our nation is over $14 trillion in debt and for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. most of that from china. and who do you think is going to pay that back? it's not going to be the generation who is making the decision. it's going to be the children. so what our challenge is, mr. speaker, is to balance the fiscal need with the heart. and i believe that this budget very carefully does that. it increases food stamps $5.6 billion. it increases school lunch $1.5 billion. it funds w.i.c. at a level of 8.3 million and has a contingency that will cover over nine million participants. so for all the drama that we're hearing, and it's a very good
rhetoric and very good drama, but is not accurate. now, we could be talking about the w.i.c. overhead, the w.i.c. administrative costs. we could be talking about the fraud in w.i.c. we could be talking about the coordination of feeding benefits. you know, if a child is 3 years old in america he or she is eligible for 12 different programs. at 10 years old they're eligible for nine programs. at 65 they're eligible for five different feeding programs. those are federal programs that does not state local programs and does not mention the charityible organizations out there. so -- charitable organizations out there. so, again, we're hearing lots of rhetoric, lots of drama, but it's not accurate. these numbers are important for reasonable debate for people who are trying to balance the runaway spending in this country.
56% increase in the national debt under president obama. and the need to take care of the poor. and i want to say to my friend, mr. kucinich, because i know he's been very consistent, and i do agree that everybody here has passion and conviction and idealism. i voted with you, mr. kucinich, last week. i think we're spending a lot of money in libya, and those are things that is something we need to be debating on the floor of the house. the president of united states of either party goes and obligates billions of dollars in overseas contingency operation. with that i want to thank the gentleman from indiana and yield back the balance of my time. >> i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise?
>> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill in part because the truth of the matter is the $562 million that was cut in w.i.c. funds last year did not affect participants. the reason it didn't affect participants was that the w.i.c. foods cost less and there are fewer participants in fiscal year 2010. so the funds were not needed. now, today it's flag day and we're celebrating flag day, and i want to celebrate that great liberal of the united states of america, richard m. nixon. richard m. nixon put this program in. now we know he was a bleeding heart liberal, right? he just couldn't -- he couldn't wait to give money to poor folks and he also, by the way, put out a universal health care plan. so, you know, there's some question you might ask yourself
about why we have w.i.c. well, the social safety net is like a spiderweb, and there's a whole lot of places you have to help people. we have social security and we have unemployment insurance and we got foster kid money and we got -- and we got things for women and children. now, the republicans in this session have deliberately set out to go after women and children. the first place was planned parenthood. we don't want to give any young women any information about anything having to do with getting pregnant. now, more kids get pregnant, they're 16 years old, they have a kid and they don't have any counseling and nobody talks to them about nutrition and gives them the things that they need. what is the result of that? the result of that is more low birth weight babies, more
babies born with poor development because they didn't have the nutrition during the cycle of development. and let's say we have -- you know how much they spend? the average amount spent on a woman in the w.i.c. program, it's $100. $100 to deal with the problems of infants and children on average. now, i happen to know, being a physician, if you got a premature baby who comes in at 2.5 pounds, anybody is so excited that we can save these kids. but, let me tell you, it costs money. if you can deal with a premature baby at the hospital for under a quarter of a million dollars, you have a real miracle. and you could have prevented it for a hundred bucks. you could have saved.
if you're really about deficit reduction, i know you don't care about human beings, particularly, but you do care about saving money. mr. kingston: will my friend yield? mr. mcdermott: no, you're going to break my train of thought here. mr. speaker, i have the time. the chair: you certainly do. mr. mcdermott: if you're going to save money, then you're going to put it into the children at the beginning. now, there's other reasons for that. if they don't get good nutrition at the beginning and they don't get good brain development and they don't do well in school, they trop out. right? -- they drop out, right? and then we don't have a work force in this country to do what needs to be done in this country. so we get immigrants to come in and do things. you don't want immigrants, then feed the children that you insisted that women have in this country. you don't want anybody to have any planning on birth, and then
the kid comes and you won't feed him, you won't take care of them and you're going to pay the price. i remember, there used to be a television commercial when i was a kid that was called the fram commercial. it was an air filter on your automobile. the commercial was pay me now or pay me later. change the filter or you're going to pay having the engine redone. that's why we have all these kids dropping out of school because we don't -- that's why -- it's fascinating. the children's feeding program in schools was from harry truman. why did he do that? well, they looked at the records of the secretary world war and they rejected so many draftees because they didn't have good bones, they were malnourished, they were maldeveloped. they weren't fit to be soldiers. they put that school lunch program in so they could make strong kids so we could have a strong army.
this business about saving a hundred bucks on a woman who has a child and doesn't know. she's 16 years old. she's 17 years old. she's 18 years old. she doesn't -- this is the most shortsighted bill i've ever seen. vote no. the chair: virginia rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in strong support of the women, infants and children program that provides food to new mothers, babies and children under 5 who have been identified as nutritionally at risk. w.i.c. ensures that infants and children grow in a healthy manner. the program reduces levels of anemia, increases immunization rates and access to health care and social services and helps improve diets.
more than 50% of the babies born each year benefit from the w.i.c. program. numerous studies have shown that women who participate in w.i.c. have fewer premature birth, fewer low birth weight babies, seek prenatal care earlier in their pregnancy and consume more key nutrients in their pregnancies. the benefits of w.i.c. participation extend beyond the short term. a baby's physical, cognitive and physical growth depend on what types of foods are eaten during the pregnancy and especially the first year after birth. this period is critical because more than half a child's brain growth is completed by the child's first birthday and malnutrition during this period can call irreviewsible immunization and brain
development. in 5-year-olds whose mother participated in the w.i.c. program have better vocabulary scores than those who did not benefit from the w.i.c. program. that leads to higher dropout rates and other factors we're trying to work on. furthermore, mr. chairman, if we want our nation's children to be the strongest and smartest they can be, we need to make sure that our children are receiving the nutritional support they need during these formative years. finally, w.i.c. is cost-effective. serving nearly 10 million people each year, cost less than $100 a person. and that cost, it is so low if we suspended the bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for only one week we could pay for the entire w.i.c. program for a full year. and we save a substantial of that little cost by reducing health care costs, medical costs for a premature baby is much greater than those for a
healthy newborn. for a baby born without complications, the average cost for first-year medical costs is about $4,500. compared to a premature or low birth weight baby which will cost about $50,000 in short-term medical costs and significantly more in long-term costs resulting from higher incidences of mental so, mr. che interested in the budget impact of w.i.c., the department of agriculture estimates the health care cost savings between $1.77 and $3.13 for every dollar invested in the w.i.c. program. the department of agriculture estimates that the health care cost savings within 60 days of a child's birth are between $1.77 and $313 for every dollar invested in the program. mr. chairman, the benefits of
the w.i.c. program are not spec cative bsh speculative and are clear. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: seems the republicans aren't stopping at medicare but cutting crucial assistance to women and children. we simply cannot afford to lose our values. when the going gets tough, are we a nation that abandons our most vulnerable by giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires or a nation that holds close the most basic obligations we have to our fellow citizens, food for young children, medicare and social security for our seniors and an education for our students. we have many tough choices to make during these tough economic
times. cutting a program that provides food assistance for families that would otherwise go without should absolutely not be one of them. the w.i.c. program is one of our nation's most cost effective and successful programs. nearly 50% of babies born in the united states rely on w.i.c. 10 million americans benefit from this most basic food assistance at a cost of less than $100 per person. the cuts included in this legislation will leave as many as 350,000 women, infants and children without access to necessary food assistance. the capital region of upstate new york, my own community, ranks among the 100 most in need of food assistance. my constituents see the plans to cut medicare and the plans to cut food assistance programs and they are wondering why their health is being put on the line while some of our nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations are let off the
hook in tax breaks. the republican budget simply doesn't add up, mr. chair. every $1 we invest in w.i.c. saves up to $.13 health costs per child. cutting this program doesn't cut spending and doesn't even help reduce our long-term deficit. this program brings down long-term health care costs and most importantly, most importantly, it saves lives. in just one week, millionaire tax breaks cost our country, $866 million and reach only 321,000 individuals. the w.i.c. program on the other hand, costs $33 million, less for entire year of serving 9.2 million women, infants and children in need. it is clear from these numbers where republican priorities lie. we are concerned about the federal deficit, but the majority insists upon cutting programs that work and work well
for america's middle class and her families. w.i.c. saves the taxpayer money in future health care costs and ensures our most vulnerable citizens they will have the most basic food and nutrition assistance. 64% of americans are concerned that this budget plan will take away needed protections for the poor and underserved. we have good reason to be concerned given the plan to end medicare and this most recent attack on the w.i.c. program. in these tough times, we must stand together. this is not the time to abandon our friends and neighbors in need of a helping hand. from medicare to w.i.c., education and housing assistance, we simply cannot turn our backs on our fellow americans while we reward the wealthiest. that is not the compassionate thing to do. it is not the america thing to do nor is it the answer to solve our debt problem. we can and must do better. thank you, mr. chair, and i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: mr. chairman, how many times will republicans attempt to rob innocent americans of their health and their wellness? first they morally bankrupted themselves when they took a hatchets or i should say a scythe, that's that thing that the grim reaper walks with, they took it to the budget, attempting to increase the health care costs to seniors and passed it unanimously -- unanimous republicans' support for the ryan grim reaper budget plan that cut medicare.
really destroyed medicare as we know it. replaced it with a voucher system. that's what they have passed in this house. and now, the grim reaper is coming again. not to cut tax cuts to the rich. not to cut tax subsidies to big oil companies. the grim reaper is not here to cut from wealthy individuals all of the tax breaks that they have been getting. no. the grim reaper is here to cut something that is fundamental to
life and that is money for food, for human beings. the grim reaper moving slowly, not bouncing at all, just creeping through the night with his scythe ready to cut the w.i.c. program. i'm opposed to any effort to remove funding for nutrition assistance for women and children, leaving them to go hungry in the streets. during these difficult times, soup kitchens, pantrys, nonprofits, including many in my district, they have reached their limits in terms of the assistance that they can give to those who need it. mr. chairman, the budget brought to the floor today will lead to a drastic, multi-million dollar
shortfall for the w.i.c. program, not only resulting in more individuals going hungy, but placing additional strain on many aid agencies who have already reached the end of their rope. this week, i've spobe spoken to pastors and rabbis and haven't heard a single one of them express support for reducing nutrition assistance. in fact, many of them today, right now, are roaming the halls of congress speaking to anyone who cares to listen to express their opposition to this bill. they are desperate, desperate to talk about the effects of these drastic cuts. i came down to the well of the house earlier today to speak about republican efforts to take
food out of the mouths of mothers and children across the country. today with the help of this bill, this congress will accomplish something that has not been done in 14 years. today, looks like this congress, the grim reaper, will pass a bill that doesn't provide enough money to serve all w.i.c. participants. instead we will pass a bill that forces vulnerable families to depend completely on the same food banks that have run out of food while we continue to subsidize tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires and big oil. grim reaper is not calling for them, not coming for them. doesn't want to bother them. i can't in good conscience
support this effort of the grim reapers to rob low-income americans of basic necessities like food, while giving millions to those who no longer need our assistance in a nation as great of the united states, we should not be promoting corporate welfare, while taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: we are morally broke, but that's how we're broke. let's be straight here. what's our vision for america? that has to be that issue. we can say we don't want it to be fiscally broke, but no one comes to this well with clean hands. this is something we should be sitting down and talking about
together. how can we solve america's problems. so what's our vision? it may be a balanced budget. i could support that. it may be cutting waste and fraud. well, that sounds good. we should all be supporting that. and maybe to get americans back to work, over 14 million are still unemployed and the underemployed. it may be to halt the loss of our homes, like we did on the western frontier 150 years ago when people worked together to end those foreclosures. my vision does not include hurting our most vulnerable children and seniors just to make a point.
you heard -- the gentleman from maryland talk earlier how little this means in bringing down the deficit for one year or 10 years. we've got our priorities screwed up. so, yes, we want a balanced budget. isn't it interesting the last president who balanced the budget was a democratic budget -- president. isn't it interesting in the past four decades, the only president that reached over 10% increase, 10% increase, business investment, was a democratic president. bill clinton. three times almost more than ronald reagan. check your facts. we need a fact check here. a fact check. the last four years, the number of children affected has grown from 12.4 million to 17 million.
have we no responsibility for that? in my district, 109,000 constituents suffer from food insecurity, only half of whom are eligible for federal food aid programs. what do the other half do? yet, here we are discussing cuts . and i understand neither party is privy to virtue on these issues, but you cannot tell me that we can't rise above. if we have a vision of america that encompasses everyone, not just some and not just the few, the long-term effects of a child struggling with hunger does not add up to any real savings. child was hungry cannot learn. a child who can't lrn will not
succeed. a child without an education will have difficulty finding a job. we know the records of those unemployed and how many years they are in school are debately and essentially connected to how many years they have in school and that tells you how many people are unemployed. the children affected by these cuts that you're talking about in the agricultural bill are our future. they go hungry today, they will not be ready for tomorrow. i simply disagree with the other side, in all due respect, logic behind these cuts. shes shortsighted and we can't cut the safety net while people are in that net. seniors, children, working poor, it doesn't make sense. what have we become as a nation? we aren't asking for handouts or giveaways, but talking about people who are working and many of them poor. there are many of those, and it took a republican president to
recognize it. the tax credit was something that your side created. and who would yet take away the incentive for people to keep working? . the proposed cuts you have proposed, $572 million below the president's request, this means fewer inspectors, fewer inspections, plain and simple. oh, i forgot, that's the idea in this age of antiregulation. so what we do want to do is go back to 2008. let's go back to where we were. i say no. we're better than that. we're better than 2008. and if we work together we can get over that hump. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
for what purpose does the minority leader rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from california seek recognition? for what purpose does the minority leader rise? ms. pelosi: i ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's kf across america or at least in the east time zone. families across america are getting ready to sit down for dinner. at their kitchen table, many homes in our country, parents, moms are saying to their children, eat your vegetables. eat your dinner. but in some homes in america there isn't adequate food on the table. there isn't adequate nutrition for our children. it's hard to imagine that, that one in five kids in america may go to sleep hungry tonight.
with pains in their stomachs because they just didn't have enough food to eat. in its wisdom, the united states of america established the w.i.c. program,a while back for women, infants and children, to make sure our nation was strong, to make sure that we fed our children. our country made the decision that feeding our children was a priority. it's so obvious. families make decisions about their budgets, that they're going to feed their children. they wouldn't think of saving money by not feeding their children. but for some in low income areas and for others now, this is into the middle class, it's very hard to make ends meet. and so you wonder, these people who are sitting down to dinner, how the congress of the united states should decide that in
trying to reduce the deficit, which we're all committed to do, that's important to our children as well, why we would decide to balance that budget on the little tiny backs of our children, our children, many of whom don't have enough to eat. i want to commend congresswoman delauro for her leadership as a member of the ag subcommittee of appropriations, the former chair of that subcommittee. she successfully passed an amendment in committee which had bipartisan support, it would have to have bipartisan support to pass, to restore $147 million to the w.i.c. program to feed the children. i congratulate her for that, it is part of the bill that was supposed to come to the floor, the republican leadership has decided not to protect that bipartisanly passed amendment.
what we're seeing is cutting support for children, infants -- women, infants and children is in the context of something bigger. at the same time as we are making these cuts we are giving tax subsidies to big oil, the price at the pump is also an imposition on the budgets of these families and that is something that we can do something about by ending speculation, harmful speculation, and -- but you have to do that we have to fund the commodities, futures trading commission which is in this bill as well. and the republicans are saying they want to delay, delay, delay and defeat the enforcements of laws which would end speculation, which would reduce the price at the pump, goldman sachs says, by at least 20%.
at the same time this same republican majority has passed a bill not once but twice to abolish medicare. food, price at the pump, medicare, these are assaults on the middle class that are hard to with stand. in fact, they're -- withstand. in fact, they're hard to understand. it's hard to understand why we'd say to seniors, you're going to pay more for medicare, for fewer benefits as we abolish medicare while we give subsidies to big oil. we're going to say to seniors in nursing homes, you're going to go home and live with your family who can probably ill afford for you to do so so we can give tax breaks to corporations to send jobs overseas. we say to children that we're cutting education funding as well as making college more expensive for nearly 10 million students in our country, for some making it unaffordable to go to college while we give tax
breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. so they're cutting support for women, infants and children while handing a blank check to speculators. they're ending medicare while they give subsidies to big oil. these do not reflect america's values and priorities. these choices. these are tough choices, they will not bring the growth we need to expand our economy, put people back to work as we create jobs. they will not make america strong. as moms across america are saying to children right now, 6:00 in the east, eat your vegetables, they will make you strong, we are acting on this floor to do just the opposite. to cut the funding for the initiative that will help feed the children of america. it's unthinkable that a family would say we can't afford to feed the children, it's unthinkable that a nation
committed to the future would say we can't afford to feed the children. these families need our help. it's a large amount of money, $1 47 million, very small compared to the subsidies to big oil, and a small price to pay for the health and well-being of our children and the strength of our country as we go into the future. so i commend congresswoman delauro for her tremendous leadership, for fighting for this, for not taking no for an answer in the committee and i would hope that we could prevail on the floor but the republican majority has left little option for that to happen. i also want to commend the ranking member, congressman farr, now the ranking member on the ag subcommittee, probably nobody in the congress knows more, there may be some, there are people i don't know, but probably no one knows more about this issue representing an
agricultural issues -- region as he does and also being committed to the health and well-being, the good nutrition of our children, so they can be strong, so that they can learn in school, so that they can be part of our great country in the best possible way for them. so i thank you, rank member farr, for your leadership as well and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. young: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity and i appreciate the leadership of our subcommittee chair who i'll recognize and yield some time to here in just a moment. obviously we are spending more than we make. mr. womack: i don't know how many times we have to articulate the condition, the financial condition of our country, that we're borrowing over 40 cents on the dollar for everything we spend, the country is in a financial crisis and you've got
members on this side of the aisle that are doing everything they can to bring fiscal sanity back to the table, to put america on a different path. and i'm amused at how many times we continue to be portrayed as being insensitive to women, infants and children, to older folks and how so many half-truths are being spoken about, the things that this conference is trying to do in order to right america's financial ship. suffice it to say that we have much work to do and it is our intent to do it in a way that is rational and feasible and brings this country back to fiscal order and can take away that clout of uncertainty that continues to hover over the job creaters in this country, the threat of higher taxes that is tied to our tremendous deficit and debt, the overregulation that is keeping those entrepreneurs parked on the sideline for fear of higher
costs of job expansion, higher energy prices, on and on and on, the challenges facing this country are many and we have much work to do. at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he'd consume to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: i thank mr. womack for yielding and i wanted to make a couple of points that i think are very important, mr. chairman. number one, the only budget that has passed is the ryan budget. the democrats, have -- the democrats have not passed the budget. the democrats are the majority party in the senate. the majority party in the senate, the democrat party, rejected president obama, another democrat, they rejected his budget by a vote of 97-0. now, what did harry reid and president obama do after that? nothing. that was it. went to the house, no problem. where's the leadership? i guess it's the same place the jobs are. we're still looking for it. if the democrats were concerned about balancing fiscal
responsibility and so many of these vital programs which we're all trying to work through, then why are they working on a budget? point number one. point number two, this bill increases food stamps $5.6 billion in the school lunch program $1.5 billion. it also increases from the committee mark w.i.c. $147 million under the delauro amendment. it will not be offset by the obama w.t.o. cotton agreement, but it will be offset. that amendment is in tact as rments w.i.c. number three, the big oil, when the democrats were in charge of the house and the senate and the white house, if they were concerned about tax cuts for big oil, why didn't they go after them? what they did do is extend the bush tax cuts which i voted against. if they were concerned about the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, why did president obama and the
democrat house and the democrat senate extend them? i would ask you that, mr. speaker. what this bill does as respects w.i.c., it funds it at a level of $8.2 million in participation. should it go up to $9 million in participation which is higher than the current level there are three contingency funds that will pick up the difference. we have reduced w.i.c., as did the democrats. the democrats cut w.i.c. funding $562 million. i have the vote right here for those democrats who are forgetting how they voted on it, they might want to look. but they voted to cut w.i.c. funding, therefore the contingency fund is not as high as it could be. so if we want to talk about all these things, there's lots to talk about, but one things that's very important for members to realize is that no one's going to fall through the crack. and i keep hearing about how this is going to starve people. w.i.c. is $42 a month.
that's why w.i.c. isn't the only program for these people. that's very important for everyone to remember. i don't even think most members if you gave them a pop quiz could say what w.i.c. is. but -- because it sounds like it's thousands of dollars a month. but i don't believe $42 is anything more than a supplement. yet that supplement will still be there because, again, mr. chairman, we have funded this with an eamented level of $8.3 -- anticipated level of $8.3 million. but should it go up to $9 million, it has been trending down, but should it go back up, the contingency funds will be there to pick up the difference. i thank mr. womack for his time. mr. womack: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to respond to my -- >> parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. kingston: i say this in good spirit to my friend, but i believe he has to ask for
unanimous consent to strike the last word twice. the reason why i said that is because i might be inclined to ask for it myself and i want to be sure. >> this is the first time i've asked for it. mr. kingston: i stand corrected. but you understand why i was asking. thank you. the chair: members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise because i want to respond to my chair that i represent deeply but i think there's a misstatement of fact here. farr farr the only budget that's ever been -- mr. farr: the only budget that's ever been ban balanced in the last 20 years is the budget that the democrats did. and we hear that unholey thing that the other part can't accept, it's going to be absolutely necessary to balance any budget and that is we to increase revenues and what did we do? we closed the tax loopholes on the richest families in this country and corporations. we closed loopholes. . and with we made a lot cuts
because we dedicated revenues to pay off the deficit. a guess what? we paid it off. we paid it off ahead of schedule. and when the clinton administration left town and the bush administration came on, $800 billion surplus. surplus. and what immediately did they do? they repealed the mechanism that was balancing the budget and said, no, we'll give back the tax loopholes to the richest people in the country. and then, we go to war. whenever we have gone to war, people have paid for it. not these wars. we have put it on the credit card. mr. kingston, let's be fack tall about the democrats being in
charge. we were able to balance the budget, something that your party hasn't done. just on this whole w.i.c. thing. we all know that the administration administers the program and has to estimate how many people are going to be in need. that's the way we put together these big budgets, whether they be medicare, w.i.c. or other kinds of things. and last year, what we found out is that the estimates were not needed. in fact, there was a surplus. but it was based on fact after the fact, not ahead of time. this year, the economy's down. we heard speakers talk about the impacts in their districts about the number of unemployed and seeking benefits like this. the chairman has indicated that almost 50% of the children in this country are using one or more of these programs. so this idea that this cut can
be sustained when it's based on an estimate, didn't take in the rising food costs and two, the number of people still unemployed and frankly, people who are underemployed, including military members and their family who depend on w.i.c. funding. i want to put it in perspective that the budget has been balanced by this party and paid for and left in a surplus. and the fact that the estimates on the w.i.c. cuts will do more harm than good. and i yield to my colleague. ms. delauro: i reinforce what my colleague from california has said but there is a repetition on the other side of the aisle that there are contingency funcheds and carry-over funds. you can continue to say it and it continues to be wrong. the center for budget
priorities, the estimates reflect the use of all contingency funds as well as the use of carry-over funds from fiscal year 2011 to close funding shortfall and will result in a large participation cutbacks that have been outlined. there are no contingency funds and no carry-over funds and no matter how many times you say it, that money will not materialize. mr. farr: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? i just want to make sure that my friend, the ranking member, former ranking member knows that the contingency fund data that we got did come from the usda. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to tell you about a young
woman who is named sarah and lives in a shoreline community in representative delauro's district. four kids, playing by the rules, good job and last year she got laid off, got laid off like thousands of other connecticut residents and four kids ages seven to 15. and since that day, she has been confronted every day with a decision. she has enough money to put one meal on her table for her kids. and she makes the decision, does she put breakfast on the table to make sure they have food in their bellies or dinner on the table when they come back. that's her daily challenge every single day. she gets a little bit of help from a food bank, soup kitchen around the corner, a soup kitchen that likely gets money from the emergency food assistance food program, one of
the programs that gets cut by 25%. that is her daily reality. let me tell you another story, a man named tony and lost his job last year as well. he was the c.e.o. of a big oil company and on his way he got $1.6 million payout and $17 million pension payout and might be spending part of his summer on his yacht named bob and might be sailing in around the isle race as one of his oil rigs collapsed and his struggle he has been only to raise $1.6 billion for his new oil venture around the world. president roosevelt said the test is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much but whether we provide for those who have little.
i have listened to my friends on the republican side try to create a choice here today, that because our children later on are going to have to pay back the debts that this country owes, that we have to sacrifice the lives of those kids living today. that is a false choice. the two are not mutually exclusive. the fact is we are making choices in the budget now. we are giving choices to give more money to the defense budget, business overbloated and cutting 25% from the food emergency assistance program and hand ink $40 billion to the oil industry and cutting back for the commodity supplemental food program. and as the republican budget calls for we are cutting taxes for the richest 1% or 2% wealthiest americans and cutting
w.i.c. programs. in my district, the story is the same. we've got 17% of households in my district who have reported going hungry at the friendly hands food bank in torrington and new britain, they have seen 100 new families come through the doors this year and they are watching with horror as we try to create some false choice between feeding kids today and protecting this country's fiscal situation down the line. you know, when i meet republicans and democrats in my district, regardless of their political persuasion, they want this body to start working together to solve the biggest problems in this country. but i have news for my republican friends. they want us to solve sarah's problem, not tony's problem.
this budget, this bill is a travesty. and i urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. towns: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. towns: let me thank congresswoman delauro and congressman farr for the work they are doing. here we go again. i rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill. this bill reduces the amount of funds awarded to public nutrition programs such as snap, w.i.c. and many other programs that lend assistance to families in economically disadvantaged communities. this session of congress has really been tough on those that are in need. first, our nation's seniors are threatend with potential cuts to medicare proposed by the ryan
budget. now, hunger programs for women and children are being targeted. it is a tough year indeed, but let me tell you now, i was not sent to congress to sit back and watch these crucial programs be cut. i came here to fight for their existence and i don't plan to stop now. i will not sit idly by as we destroy programs on which citizens depend on the most to pay for $45 billion in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. i9 is a shame and it is a disgrace. and for people to try and stand here and justify as to why we're doing it does not make any sense at all.
if we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, just one week, just seven days, we would pay for the entire w.i.c. program for 365 days. mr. speaker, i'm greatly disturbed by the negative impact this bill will have on those individuals who depend on public assistance to feed their families. it is projected that the expected funding cuts will result in 350,000 losing their w.i.c. benefits. nearly 50% of the babies born in this country each year rely on w.i.c. on top of that, it is cost effective, serving nearly 10 million people each year and costing less than $100 per
person. i don't understand why we want to understand and hustle back. that's what they say in my neighborhood. we need to do what is right and going to benefit the young children. let's not forget that we're here to serve and meet the needs of our nation supporting this bill would be a great disservice to those who elected us to congress. supporting this bill will significantly cut the funding to programs that feed thousands of families. supporting this bill will lead to the devastation of many hunger programs. there are many families who depend on government funding to put food on the table every day and every night. voting in support of this bill will only make their lives more difficult. i urge -- i urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
this bill does not help those that are in need. it protects the millionaires and billionaires with their greed. on that note, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? plounsplouns i move to strike -- >> i move to strike the last word. when you are born, you get a birth certificate and when you die, you get a death certificate and that tombstone reflects what you did to make this a better place. i rise in strong opposition. i can't believe the republicans are attacking the disabled, the seniors and now the children. you know, i really do believe the scrupttur to whom god has
given much, much is expected. and they really do expect more out of this congress, the people's house. you know, i may be the only person in the house with any institutional memory, because it seems as if no one remembers that we didn't get in this mess 18 months ago. no. when president bill clinton left us, he left us with a surplus. and then we had eight years of what i call reverse robin hood. you know what i mean? you got to to be a certain age but robic from the working poor to give tax breaks to the rich. my colleagues talk about the fact that the president insisted on passing that $780 billion not
just for the rich and the millionaires but the billionaires in december and everybody was slapping themselves on the back, what a great job, because we didn't raise the taxes on the average america. and i would have voted not to raise it on the average american, but i knew that in april, we were talking about cutting funds, pitching funds, and now cutting funds for the children, the babies. it is inconceivable that we will cut funds to w.i.c., providing food for new mothers, babies and children under five years old. nearly 50% of the babies born in our country is on the w.i.c. program. many my state of florida, as many as 19,000 people are affected -- would be affected by this cut. you know, lawsuiton chiles,
former governor of florida, used to have a slogan, this dog don't hunt. the american people will wake up, and wake up to what you're doing and wake up to the fact that when you have your head in the lion's mouth, the deficit, you have to ease it out. you don't affect programs affecting children and giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. and the sad fact is if we put it on the board tomorrow, the republicans will vote again to give the tax breaks to the billionaires and millionaires and yet leave the children and the elderly people holding the bag. the american people, you need to wake up to what's going on. there is money in the house of representatives, but you are choosing to give it to millionaires and billionaires.
as i close and yield back my time, i really do believe what the bible says, to whom god has given much, much is expected and he is expected more out of the people of the house of representatives. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? new jersey, excuse me? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to vote against any language in the agriculture appropriations bill that would seek to cut funding for the w.i.c. program. mr. payne: as you know, the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, w.i.c., makes it possible for vulnerable children to have a healthy start. the republican cuts will deny many children the chance to receive nutritious food by
cutting w.i.c. funding from $6.73 billion this year to $6.05 billion in 2012. this cut is a cut of more than $650 million below the fiscal level, -- level of 2011. and this is much less than the continuing cost of the high end bush tax cuts, oil company tax breaks and various other writeoffs for well-to-do taxpayers or powerful corporations. if we allow these cuts to take place approximately 200,000 to 300,000 women and children nationwide will lose w.i.c. benefits next year. in fact, in the state of new jersey, approximately 4,000 to 6,000 low income families will be turned away by w.i.c. this is very alarming to me
because these cuts will negatively impact a substantial number of low income women and children in my district. as a former public school teacher in the inner city of newark, new jersey, i witnessed firsthand the effects of hunger and malnutrition on children trying to learn. when they came to school to take tests they couldn't concentrate, they were unable to really focus on what they had before them. the reality is this, if a children is hungry, he simply cannot learn. if a child is hungry, he is unable to focus in class. what are his chances of thriving academically? if we are serious about closing the achievement gap and ensuring that students are career and college ready, cutting w.i.c. will be in direct contradiction. in light of rising food prices
and current unemployment rates, it would be catastrophic to strip funding from this vital program. i strongly believe that by cutting w.i.c. funding we risk neglecting and preventing children from getting a head start in recognizing the excellence of their human potential. we as a nation are still a great nation. we are the wealthiest nation in the world. we have the greatest ideals and opportunities for people but i think that we are being shortsighted. we have a problem and we will deal with it as we've done for all other problems in world war ii we had no navy, we had no army, that was significant. however we built ships that floated, we trained people in 20 and 30 days to rivet and to make our powerful defense mechanism work.
s and we won the war for the world. we can win this war of the deficit in this country but not by giving -- and i think that even the constituents of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, my tea party friends, my republican friends, go back home and ask people, do you want to pull the food out of the mouths of babies? because from the mouths of babies oftentimes comes gems and if our nation is going to be a great nation in the world as we are today we're not going to do it by starving the children. and harming the women. it's unconscionable, it's disgraceful and it's a mark on the house of representatives. it's really something that shouldn't be, therefore i urge my colleagues to vote against any provisions cutting funding for the w.i.c. program. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you. i strongly object to this bill. in his second inaugural address, franklin delano roosevelt laid out i think a very good test for us, it was the test for this nation at one of its most desperate periods. we too find ourselves in a difficult situation, we do have a big deficit and we need to make some tough choices and today as we debate this piece of legislation we are indeed making choices and we are being tested. we're being tested about our values, we're being tested about what we think is important. franklin delano roosevelt suggested this be the test, the test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much , it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. ponder those words and apply those words to what we are debating and what we will soon vote for or against on this floor. the test of our progress. add more to the abundance of those who have much we've discussed here many times in the last couple of hours, the options that are given to us on tax policy, continuing to provide subsidies to the wealthiest industry in the world, the oil industry, not to the tune of a couple of billion, but when you add it all up, some $40 billion a year. whether we continue to provide a tax break to the wealthiest in
this nation, those whose annual incomes are in the millions and indeed some who are even in the billions, we make choices and we're being tested. that's one option that our republican colleagues seem to want to present to us. the other option is what we on the democratic side have been debating and asking for and that is the second part of what franklin delano roosevelt said and that is, whether we provide enough for those who have too little. i was on this floor not more than three hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old. and in the arms of mothers and grand fathers and grand mothers and -- grandfathers and grandmothers and parents across this nation are children of that age who depend upon women, infants and children's program which this republican
appropriation brought to this floor reduces by 10%. $3 -- 350,000 children will not be able to have the food that they need, the care that they need to be able to be healthy. to be able to grow and indeed in the future to be able to pay as we will today one way or another for the deficit that we have. a 10% reduction from last year and is there anybody in this house that's prepared to argue that somehow things are better out there and that a 10% reduction in the face of increased number of women and children who need help, that that is a worthy choice for us to make? i think not. i think that this bill miserably fails the test that franklin
delano roosevelt laid out during the great depression. this does not provide for those who have too little. and it's not just in the women, infant and children program. across the board thousands, indeed 480,000 or so americans -- 48 million americans become ill each year because of food-borne illnesses. and yet in this budget another 12% reduction from last year's funding for food safety programs . at a time when we have a new food safety program to implement , 350,000 americans wind up in the hospital as a result of food-borne illnesses. and the republicans want to cut the money to provide the
protection for americans. it's about choices. it's about values. what do you value in this system? yes, we have a deficit. yes, we must deal with it. and yes, according to our republican friends, we must take that food out of the children's mouths, we must make sure that people will not be able to be healthy. i don't understand. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: to strike the last word. the chair: is there objection to the gentlelady from wyoming striking the last word a second time? if there is no objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not produce a budget. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not raise taxes
on the mineral industry as they now assert we should, my colleagues ran this house for six years, my colleagues ran this house with a democratic president and a democratic u.s. senate. the things of which they argue are the fixes, are things you did not do when you were in control of all three, the house, the senate and the presidency. i will not yield right at the moment. without a budget, with the keynesian philosophy that you attempted to implement and it was worth a try but it failed, the massive increases in spending, in social programs, in entitlement programs, the massive increase in spending that amounts to obamacare, the
massive stimulus bill, the massive efforts that you made, all the time asserting you that -- that you had something called pay-as-you-go, pay gd, where as a matter of fact there were more exceptions to pay-go than the rule ever provided. you took half a trillion dollars out of medicare, you destroyed medicare. you destroyed it. >> would the gentlelady yield at this point? mrs. lummis: i will yield. >> thank you. if the gentlelady from wyoming would recall the years past she would recall what's known as the senate filibuster. mr. garamendi: the graveyard of legislation that the democrats put forth many, many times, died in the senate as a result of the filibuster. with regard to the issues of entitlements and this particular
bill, we're talking here about the issue of how we care for those who have little. i'd be happy to debate with you on this floor or any other place the import of the stimulus program and in fact most every economist argues that without the stimulus program we would have fallen into a great depression, not just a very serious recession. mrs. lummis: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time from the gentleman, the crisis is worse than the people realize. . in some respects, the people are way ahead of us and that's why the people of this country chose to elect fiscal conservatives during the current congress. and we presented to the american people what we intended to do,
which was cut spending. we told the american people, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. the american people chose to give my party the opportunity to lead and to exhibit the fiscal restraint that the american people voted for in the last election. we are now exercising that fiscal restraint in a way that preserves 87% of the funding level of the w.i.c. program that is currently being alleged that we are destroying. now, there are millions and millions of americans who are functioning in this recession on 87% of what they used to make. the drivers of our economy, the
creators of jobs, are functioning far less than 87% of what they used to make. i will not yield. it is time for this house to exercise the fiscal restraint in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the people in this country, that we told the american people in november we would do. mr. garamendi: would the gentlelady yield? mrs. lummis: i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all remarks should be addressed to the chair and not to each other. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. there steams to be a little uneasy this this chamber. in january, of 2009, we were
losing 775,000 jobs a month. then the obama administration and the democratic congress enacted remedial legislation and we stopped losing 775,000 jobs a month. we have gained 1.5 million jobs, but unfortunately, state and local government had to lay off 1.2 million people because we didn't give them enough to prevent that. but we did reverse the result of the bush policy of eight years which was 775,000 jobs a month lost. don't forget in 2000, in the presidential election, the great debate was, what should we do about the $5.6 trillion? bush got elected and enact d the bush cuts and said they would stimulate the economy and what happens? we had the slowest economic
recovery of any economic recovery or any recession. the only eight-year period in which we did not gain one net new job even before the 2008 recession from which we are now recovering albeit too slowly, the american people did not vote to kill remedial programs last year. they voted for jobs. they were told, vote for the republicans, we'll get you jobs. you don't see any jobs. let's forget this revisionist history. i rise in strong opposition to the republican effort to cut funding for the special supplemental nutritional program known as w.i.c. this program provides food to mothers, infants and children under five. this will help their babies grow. w.i.c. provides the breast feeding support to make sure the babies continue to develop and to grow. and for young children, w.i.c. provides milk, eggs, fruit,
breads and vegetables. babies rely on w.i.c. to get a healthy start. but during this time of rampant unemployment, the republicans oppose extendings unemployment benefits and now want to assure the wives and children of the unemployed can't get food and baby formula. this bill says let them starve. this bill will mean a 200,000 to 350,000 pregnant women and children will be denied food. knocking these families out of the w.i.c. program is an about face on a commitment to ensure w.i.c. funds cover all eligible women, infants and children who apply. at the same time republicans are demanding that they starve, they continue to promote tax holidays for millionaires and billionaires. if we suspended the tax breaks for just one week, just one
week, we could cover the cost of the republicans' latest cut of $833 mill yonch to the w.i.c. program. the debate over w.i.c. funding specifically and the federal budget generally is about priorities. by supporting the republicans' proposal to slash funding forcing women and children from the rolls, the republicans are saying that america prioritizes tax holidays for those who need it the least. mr. speaker, make no mistake about it, this is about literally taking food out of the mouth of babies. this republican bill is immoral. food for women and children is more important than tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and oil companies. reject this bill and just maybe the republicans given enough time will find their consciences. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. coffman: it is remark -- -- mr. tipton: looking throughout my district, i see people that care about their families, care about their children. what are they asking for? jobs. they want to be able to go back to work. and we are seeing far too often from the opposition, people who aren't willing to be a stepping stone but to become a stumbling block, but to have rely on another government program. the proposed cuts, these are minor. these are minor in the sense of the real life, real live americans are living today. come with me, come with me and
walk through my district. i have communities that are not in a recession. they are in a depression. they need to be able to get back to work. what do i hear as i walk through those communities? from city councils, county commissioners, small business people are saying that they shall being inhibitted from being able to get people back to work so they can take care of their children, mr. speaker, so they can take care of their children, by opes i have government regulation -- oppressive government regulation, by not allowing us the opportunity to live that american dream. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. tipton: i see an america that will rise again and become the economic power that we know it all can be, but this will not happen as long as we try to build reliance on government rather than rugged
individualism. ms. delauro: would the gentleman yield? mr. tipton: in just a moment, ma'am. ms. delauro: thank you. mr. tipton: we have an opportunity, we have a challenge. the question is, will we rise to meet that challenge? we have a $14.4 trillion debt in this country. let's put that in context. you know, last night, we saw the nba final. you had lebron james, one of the best basketball players, he signed for $40 million a year to play basketball. if he wants to earn just $1 trillion, he has to play basketball for 25,000 years. this is the burden that we have put on the backs of our children and grandchildren that they can no longer afford. the recipe is not the keynesian
economics. we are the richest and most powerful nation on the earth. that is it going to be the free enterprise system. let's get our people back to work. let's create those opportunities once again. ms. delauro: would the gentleman yield? mr. tipton: i would yield to the lady. ms. delauro: i would quote to you from the citizens for tax justice, 12 corporations, largest corporations in the nation, pay effective tax rate of negative 1.5% on $171 billion in profits. the tax subsidies, this is not rugged individualism. mr. tipton: this is the challenge we face and she points to it directly. we have an oppressive convoluted tax code. let's simplify that tax code and
let's not punish success. ms. delauro: let's get them to pay fair their fair share. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from colorado controls the time. the gentleman may continue. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. these are the challenges that we have distinct choices to be able to make. will we continue to follow the pathway to poverty, of government programs, government taxation, government solutions or will we follow that expressway to real enrichment in this country, by geticing the american people back to work. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five words. scott mr. lewis: i want to thank ms.
delauro and mr. farr for their work. i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. mr. chairman, nutrition programs did not run our economy into the ditch. nutrition programs did not drive us into debt or stopping the banks from extending cre credit. but my colleagues want to cut programs that feed million of women, infants and children. who is next? i ask you, who is next? the republican went after seniors in medicare. now they are going after the babies. who is next? mr. chairman, the w.i.c. program is a necessity. it is a lifeline. it is our obligation. this is not the way america treats our seniors. this is not the way america treats our mothers.
this is not the way america treats our children. this is not the america we want to live in. if we repeal tax breaks for the wealthy for just one week, we could pay for this entire program. make no mistake, this bill will reduce the number of people served by nutrition programs. right now, almost 50% of the children born in our country rely on these programs every single day, every week. they serve almost 10 million people each year. my beloved brothers and sisters across the aisle know that, but they should also note that this bill would mean empty shelves at food banks and smaller portions at dinner time. and not a dent in the deficit.
make no mistake, make no mistake, this bill will not hurt -- will hurt people. it will reduce the number of people who seff assistance, the poor, the sick, the mothers and little babies. they didn't do it, they didn't overspend our credit cards. why are we doing this? why are we punishing and cutting the w.i.c. program. it is a lifeline. no one in this country should have to go hungry. it is not right, not fair. it's not the just thing to do, not the good thing to do. the atlanta community food bank in my district in the heart of downtown atlanta distributes 35% more food than last year. the funding will be cut as well. countless people already own the -- on the waiting list. one such man in my district,
this man worked all of his life and he worked very hard. mr. battles is 71 and his wife is 76. he can't look for work because his wife has fallen ill. he is her care giver. we should look after those who are suffering through no fault of their own. they are receiving food assistance from the baptist church when they can and receive only $16 a month in food stamps. assistance from the food bank would make a huge difference in their lives. 60,000 people depend on the atlanta community food bank to make it through the month. we can't allow more people to be pushed into the waiting list like mr. battles and his wife. our country is hurting and our people are hungry and they need our help.
this is not how america treats her children and how america treats her seniors and this is not how america treats their little babies and their mothers. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? cuptcupt i move to sthrike the -- -- ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. rugged individuallism produces a heartless bill like this. if you look back to why we're in the dumpster economically, go back to the 1990's, read alan greenspan, a great advocate of rugged individuallism and ayn
rand, right? make all of his friends rich. jpmorgan chase, wells fargo, morgan stanley, it's an interesting group of characters up there that took america to the cleaners. they took and outsourced our jobs. now they took our home equity. and now it's getting so bad we even have a bill that's going to take food away from about 350,000 women and children. now whose fault is that? here's a little note from somebody in my district. she says, she signed up this plate at the food bank, the local food bank, she said, without help from the food bank i would be on the streets. i struggle every day to make ends meet, so my kids have a place to lay their heads at night. i have a job but with two kids it's still very hard. i have a lot of trouble paying
rent and bills, i just wish there were more help to parents like myself. that's from the rural part of my district. from the urban part of my district, a plate is signed at the food bank, my income is spent on bills which leave very little money for me to purchase food for myself and my two daughters. now you know the majority of people in this house are christian and i'm not pushing that though i am one of them. but the attitude says feed the hungry. it doesn't say rugged individualism. i'm as individualistic as anybody else in this chamber. but i'll tell what you, there's a heartlessness that goes with people who take everything for themselves and turn their back on the rest of the american people. so when big oil makes record profits and pays no taxes there's something really wrong. there's something really wrong with the country. and the american people know it.
they didn't clean house here last november because they thought you were better, they just wanted a change and they'll vote for it again. if their lives don't get better. and their lives won't get better unless they fix what alan greenspan and goldman sachs and bank of america and the whole rest of those buzzards up there did to this country. and they're taking bonuses. in fact, they're making so much money they take members of congress out, you know the average amount a meal, $193. $1 3 a plate. these folks -- $193 a plate. those feeks, a couple of bucks in day they spend on food. so i stand with the american people, not those wealthy interests who took the nation to the cleaners. you know those hedge funds? they pay at a 15% tax rate. mrs. lummis talked about businesses in her district. they pay a 5% rate. why don't we hold -- a 35% rate. why don't we hold those up at
wall street accountable for what they did, let them pay their fair share of taxes? we couldn't take one penny of their bonuses. this was the most gutless institution. and i'll tell you what, the real straw that broke the camel's back was 1998 when glass steagall was thrown out and acted, it separated banking and commerce and you know the name on that bill, there wasn't a single democratic name, it was graham, leech, bliley. all republicans. and they shoved it through this house, i didn't vote for it, and then wall street -- oh, my gosh, you talk about rugged individualism. they hurt the republic. they hurt our country. and they have not been held accountable. george bush's chief of staff, mr. bolten, he came from goldman sachs. he was there. he was there in the fall of 2008 when the treasury was just
opened up to them. isn't that an interesting coincidence? very interesting when you look back and see what really happened. i refuse to have the people of my district or any district pay for what they did. i got people who are lined up in our food banks because of unemployment and i know who caused it and don't have enough power to hold them accountable. but i hope god does. because what they've done is unforgivable. their rugged individualism is unpatriotic, it is unchristian and it hurts this country. if i take a look at the bill before us, if we look at the cuts to seniors in the commodities supplemental food program -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: is there objection to the gentlelady striking the last word a second time? for what purpose does the gentleman from --
mr. kingston: i reserve the right to object. i want to say to my friend, the ranking member, that i understand the passion on that side and the number of people who want to start speaking or who have been speaking but if we're going to start speaking twice then i hope will you give me the courtesy of speaking twice. i just want to mention that. mrs. lummis spoke twice while i was going to the restroom. once again i will sit down and as i -- i could continue on my reservation i want to explain to my friend from ohio that i was concerned about members speaking twice but i understand that you've done that now that mrs. lummis -- i certainly will not object and -- i withdraw my objection. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for an additional five minutes. mrs. capito: i thank the gentleman and i --
ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman. maybe we can do something right for the republic and certainly for those people who are lined up across this country as victims of the abuse that came from that rugged individualism for which there has been no justice. there has been no justice to this date. what a sad thing for us to say institutionally. if we look at this bill, nearly half of the babies born in our country rely on w.i.c. the women, infants and children food program. they're in every district in this country. and i can guarantee you for all the billing shot -- big shots that cleaned up at the expense of the american people they've never even been to a w.i.c. site. they've never even sat with moms, they never sat with families trying to figure out how they're going to make it from the beginning of the month to the end of the month on the few pennys -- pennies that they have to live on. i think that the sad fact of this bill is that rather than
big oil paying their fair share of taxes, rather than us taking those bonuses from those who truly don't deserve them because of what they did to the republic , for all the tax breaks that are going to companies that are locating jobs overseas and taking our livelihoods away from us, the answer isn't to take food away from those people that are paying the price. so i want to thank my colleagues and particularly mr. kingston for not objecting, to mr. farr for the great job you've done in trying to bring some justice to this bill and to say in closing that there are many people who talk about life, without decent nutrition, the children who will be affected, the hundreds of thousands of children who will be affected in this bill, their brains won't grow as fast, they won't have the kind of nutrients that produce strong bodies and strong minds for the future. this is a time to stand up in defense for those who are defenseless and particularly
with this economy, the last place to cut is food. every christian in here knows that's true, we need to do better as this bill moves forward, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill on final vote and i thank my colleagues for yielding me additional time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. ms. hirono: ours is a compassionate country. we have leaders who can put themselves in the shoes of americans who are struggling, doing their best, we have compassionate leaders on both sides of the aisle. this is why it is so inexplicable that the underlying bill as well as bill after bill brought by the republican majority to this floor make cuts after huge cuts to people's
programs, not corporate programs, not programs that hit wall street, but people's programs. and again, today, in this agricultural spending bill we are targeting cuts that hit women, infants, children and seniors in hawaii and nationwide. in my district in hawaii 19.5% of our residents experience food hardship in the last year. let me repeat. nearly one in five people in my district did not have enough money to buy food that they and their family needed in 2010. today's bill will cut crucial nutrition programs for thousands of hawaii's most vulnerable and hundreds of thousands of -- across the country. and while the richest in our country continue to get billions in tax breaks and the oil companies continue to get their billions in tax breaks, why are
we balancing the budget on the backs of women, infants, children and seniors? first today's bill makes a $650 million cut to the women, infants and children, w.i.c., nutrition program for fiscal year 2012. this will cut as many as 350,000 eligible low income women and yng children from the program. -- young children from the program. w.i.c. provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating and health referrals to pregnant, postpartum and breast feeding women and their children under age 5. this program has had well documented success in improving nutrition and health of families in poverty. w.i.c. has reduced low weight births, anemia and hunger. let's put ourselves in the shoes of 350,000 women and their children who depend on this
program. second, the emergency food assistance program supports food banks on all of our islands and across the nation to support the hungry and i have visited many of the food banks in my state, in my district, and we know that there is a growing need, there are many, many more families now relying on food banks. and yet this bill cuts $12 million from food banks at a time of great, great need. let's put ourselves in the shoes of the hundreds of thousands of families all across our country who are relying on food stamps. third, today's bill cuts 20% from the commodities supplemental food program which provides food packages to over 600,000 people nationwide and 96% of these recipients are low income seniors. you've heard others say ending
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for just one week alone would save $866 million. that is enough to support poor women, infants and children for the entire year. and when we say this bill brought to us by the republicans literally takes food from babies to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires we are not engaging in hyperbole. this is what is happening in this bill. let's get our priority norsd. balancing the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable is totally indefensible when we are giving tax breaks to those people, the richest people in our country, corporations that are making billions of dollars, it's indefensible. and where do we live? do we live on wall street? people who want this bill, i think they live on wall street. well, those of white house are opposing this bill, we live on
-- those of us who are opposing this bill, we live on main street. that's where the majority of our people live. they live on main street, they expect us to support those people, working people, families, women and children all living on main street. i urge my colleagues to oppose this antipeople, wrong-headed, down right cruel cuts to low income women, infants, children and seniors all across our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? edsedseds i move to strike the last word -- ms. edwards: i move to strike the last word. chape the gentlelady is recognized. mr. edwards: ids i've been listening all afternoon and i heard -- ms. edwards: i've listened all afternoon and i heard fiscal conservatism and rugged individualism. we even heard talk of lebron james. one thing is really true, we haven't heard anyone on the
other side of the aisle talk about hunger. even lebron james is not hungry. i want to talk about a simple economic theory, it's called hunger. it means when you're a young child in this country and you wake up in the morning and your parents can't afford to feed you, you're hungry. it's about going to school and not being able to consen trait -- concentrate because you're hungry. it's about going home on a weekend, having eaten a school lunch on friday, but not eating again until monday, and being hungry. i had a physical, i described -- i went 10 hours without eating, i described myself as starving. clearly neither i nor any member of the house of representatives knows what it's like to be really hungry today.
before i came to the floor, i had my piece of chicken. that was more than the republicans are prepared to give america's women, infants and children. so i rise today in opposition to these extreme cuts to the women, infant and children program and the underlying bill. we know the program is essential to providing nutrition to our nation's most vulnerable children. i don't need a study to know what it means to be hungry. but studies show that women, infant and children programs reap tremendous benefits to the participants. they lead to fewer premature births, fewer fetal an infant deaths and result in better cognitive and physical health for children. that's the difference between eat agnew trishes meal and being hungry. i also rise today in support of my colleague, lynn woolsey's, amendment to block g.o.p. attempts to roll back nutrition
standards for our children. not only are some children hungry, but we need to make sure they're eating to a standard that allows them to learn in our class threevepl w.i.c. program is essential to ensuring the youngest americans receive the nutrition they need. the amendment, the underlying amendment, will ensure that children continue to receive nutritious foods throughout their school day. when i first came to congress, i worked with our then-chairwoman and our friend, rosa delauro, to secure after-school supper programs in my area for home children -- for hungry children. we have served millions of meals through this prasm i know that in my state and aross the country, the women, infant and children program serves 140,000 women, infants and children every month in the last year. the program serves 9.2 million
low-income exam families across the country. as our nation continues to recover throughout the recession, the benefits provided by these families are an essential safety net for the families. according to feeding america, last 50% increase in need among families, infants and seniors right now. this is a time when ensuring the economic security of the american people is critical and we can't stand by the republican pledge to cut essential safety net programs. it's no surprise to the american people that the republican congress selected yet another vulnerable group to slash while continuing to support big oil companies, farm subsidies, huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires instead of supporting women, infants and children. in this 112th congress this new and bold republican majority began with an attack on women. they proceeded to attack our seniors, to have through a plan
to eradicate medicare and now they're commit to an attack on our neediest and the health of our neediest women and children. it's shameful, it's hard to talk about, because it's hard to believe that in america even those who sit on the other side of the aisle are willing to take awayway nutritious programs for needy women, infant and children. rather than take away the tax breaks for billionaires, take away subsidies for ail exone -- oil companies while the gas pries rise. i think those on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves. i know some of my creags have quoted bible passages, i don't know, maybe quote the statue of liberty. what's happening in this house is not american at all. it doesn't hold to the values we hold to take care of our -- of our neediest to take care of our poor. i will be gaveled down but we need to support women, infants and children and stop the slash
and burn on the nation's neediest people. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> thank you very much, plch. -- mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. people across the country have agreed we have to reduce our deficit but they also understand we shouldn't do it on the backs of working and middle class people who are already struggling to make ends meet. mr. hinchey: the republican-sponsored agriculture appropriations bill, on the other hand, cuts all the wrong things at exactly the wrong time. here are five reasons i plan on voting against it. first, this bill will raise gas prices by cutting anti-speculation efforts. with speculation at an all-time high, american families are paying now more than 60 cents more per gallon at the pump than they should be. but instead of ramping up
anti-speculation efforts, this bill cuts almost half the funding for the commodity futures trading commission. the very agency charged with policing oil speculation. second, this bill takes foods out of the mouths of low-income mothers, babies, and kids, cutting w.i.c. for about 15,000 people just in new york state alone. the bill cuts food assistance for pregnant women, for infants and children, by $650 billion or 10%. denying food and health counseling for up to 475,000 low income women, infants and young children throughout america over the course of the next year if this bill passes. the bill also would cut food and for low income seniors and help for -- cut the help for food banks. third this bill increases the risk of our food supply by cutting safety inspections. as many as 48 million americans
are sickened every year by contaminated food. that's why with my support last year we stepped up efforts to increase inspection of food manufacturing plants and imported foods. with new strains of lethal e. coli sickening hundreds throughout europe, now is not the time to be getting the food tissue for cutting the funding for food safety inspections, but this legislation would do just that, making it impossible to implement new safety standards, guaranteeing thousands more americans will get sick from bad food. fourth, this bill cuts anti-childhood obesity efforts. childhood obesity has tripled in the last 30 years. it costs our country $147 billion a year in medical costs. for the first time in history, life expect anti-- expectancy will be lower for the current
generation than the previous generation. but the bill eliminating funding for the healthy food finance initiative derek sine t.d. to -- to combat childhood obesity by bringing foods to urban and underserved facilities. finally, bill raises the cost of prescription drugs. by severely cutting the food and drug administration, american consumers will get food and medical products that will be less safe uh due to the oversight an prescription drugs . just for those five reasons, obviously, big reasons, this bill should not be passed and while i oppose these cuts, i do support responsible ways in which we can reduce our deficit such as cutting wasteful
subsidies and giveaways for the oil industry. ending special tax earmarks for wall street bankers. and allowing medicare to negotiate for bulk rate prescriptions on prescription drugs for seenors in the cop text of medicare. these reforms in and of themselves, just those few, would save hundreds of billions of dollars without harming working and middle class americans who are already struggling to get by. this agriculture appropriations bill accomplishes the goal of deficit reduction in the wrong way. let's move forward with a plan that doesn't -- that does it the right way. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i think it's easy for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to forget that this bill deals with programs on
which the most vulnerable in our society rely. my republican colleagues propose about $650 million in cuts to the w.i.c. program this will cut 250,000 to 350,000 women, infants and chirp off the roll. the republicans claim getting our house in or order requires shared sacrifice. however, they're only requiring the sack fites of those that are most in need. the cost of one of these could be covered by ending the bush tax cuts to the wealthy for just one week. if we want to talk about being fissll ray -- fiscally responsible, there's almost no better investment to make than investing in the program. for every $1 invested in week, $1 ppt 77 to $3.00 are avoided in the day that was infant's birth. doesn't this alone make perfect
sense? the w.i.c. program is preventive. it's a mission-driven program that improves birth outcomes, improves the women and children and delivers packages tailored to meet the needs of low-income women and chirp. w.i.c. serves approximately 8.9 billion knowlow-income, pregnant wirges children, an babies urn 5, who are determined to be of at wisconsin. are these the people my colleagues want to carry the burden of shared sacrifice? do you honestly expect your constituents to find releaf if they're not willing to provide even the most basic services. you don't want to provide basic services for the people, where will they get relief in the economic downturn we face. if my republican colleagues continue to pursue this action,
they will have hundreds of thousands of hungry, malnourished children and women on your conscience. that's not something i'm willing to accept. i urge my leagues to vote against this appropriations bill and give the necessary support to the nation's most vulnerable members. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. frup does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 38. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. delauro of connecticut, page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert increased by -- ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. ms. delauro: my amendment offered with my colleagues would se store full funding for the president's request for the
trade commission. the goal is to protect the public from fraud, manipulation, and other dangers of derivatives, including speculation in the oil market that drives up prices. funding the cftc at the prth's request will put 159 more cop thopes beat, provide the agency with the updated legacy to protect american consumers and cush excessive speculation by wall street banks and oil companies. the current version of the bill, by gouging the cftc by as much as $30 million, makes cheer the majority is putting profiteering and special interests. three careers ago, we suffered an economic meltdown in the wall street derive ties mark.
we're still deal twheg implications of that today. millions of jobs disappeared, millions of farms foreclosed on, millions are strugtling get by. same families they have. goletman sachs has found an unregulated speculation adds over $20 per barrel to the price of oil. even exxon's top executive recently conceded that the price of gas is surging because of speculators. because of the bad behavior by dodd frank -- we passed a bill in the congress last year. it would protect the public from future malfeasance. among the reforms was the strengthening of the commodity future trade commission. their ability to regulate derivatives and prevent speculation in oil. the majority's now trying to starve the cftc of the resources
it needs to do the job. the decision helps wall street firms, big oil companies. if it passes wall street it continue -- can continue the manipulatives. big oil can continue profits due to artificially swollen oil prices. losers, american families, forced to pay more at the pump with this decision or worse. eviscerating the cftc here, the majority is setting up taxpayers to pay for yet another costly bailout of wall street. the choices made in this legislation are reckless and disturbing. more to do with ideology than basic economics. yet part of a pattern by this majority. under their watch, gas prices have reached an average of around $4 a gaen across the country -- gallon across the country, up dramatically from $2.78 national average in 2010. and yet they saw a rush to protect billions in oil company subsidies even as they cut the budget of one of the agencyings we know that can do something
about this speculation. cftc has already made a difference. earlier this year they charged five oil speculators with manipulating the price of crude, netting them more than $50 million, even as oil prices climbed to a record high of $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008. we need this type of accountability in our oil markets to protect american families. we do not need a congress that puts the profit margins of wall street and oil speculators over the needs of american families and the american economy. we came here to represent the american people, not banks and oil companies. and that means giving the cftc the resources that it needs to do its job properly. i urge my colleagues to put main street before wall street and to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. chair, parliamentary inquiry.
the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. kingston: i accept the amendment and was wondering if we could go ahead and call the question and move on. >> objection. the chair: the chair is proceeding under the five-minute rule. mr. kingston: ok, mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: it's interesting, i want to read this amendment because it would -- i've heard some comments about this bill has been serious or whatever. look at this amendment, i don't know you could call it serious. it says on page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $136 million, reduce by $136 million. the affect of this amendment is nothing. it's a legitimate vehicle on a parliamentary rule to discuss something but if there is a problem with the cftc not doing its job or being unable to do the job because of this, there should be an amendment that addresses that. this is not an amendment, this is just a discussion. but i will enter into the discussion.
first of all, i want to quote michael dunn. he's a democrat member of the commission. here's what he had to say as far as oil speculation goes. the cftc staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support the contention that accessible speculation is affecting the markets we regulation. that's from the democrat member of the cftc. if i quoted a republican member and they said the same thing, then the democrats would be crying, no, no, no, but that was the quote of the democrat member of the commission. now why is the democrats so interested in blaming high energy costs on the cftc? it's because they have opposed our own development of energy domestically. we do not want to explore for oil in alaska but the president of the united states goes down to brazil and apparently understands or in his view
believes that they are maybe technologically superior to americans, that they can drill for oil off the shore of brazil and they can do a better job than the good people in louisiana or texas or florida can and so the president of the united states, a democrat, goes down to brazil and says, drill for oil here and we'll lend you the money and we want to be your best customer. now, if we want to decrease the price of domestic energy then we need to explore our own energy. instead of this phony argument that somehow -- and by the way, i'm not sure but i think goldman sachs is a huge supporter of president obama. in fact i think they were his second largest contributor, not 100% sure on that, i'm sure somebody over here might be very quick to correct me if i'm wrong, but i know this, that i've heard over and over again that somehow goldman sachs is
the problem with this bill. you know, i wasn't listening to every single speech but that's one of the things we kept hearing. but if we want to decrease the cost of energy in the united states of america you need to increase the supply. and the production of domestic energy. and get away from this, well, it's the cftc is not getting enough money. i want to say this, it's very important about this budget, this budget's number. the president of the united states, a democrat, budget failed in the senate which is also run by the democrats by a vote of 97-0. now, i keep hearing not this bill, not here, not now, well, where? the ryan budget is the only budget that has passed either body. it has not passed the senate, but the president's budget failed 97-0.
so if the democrats are concerned then why aren't they work on a budget that is acceptable to them? we had a number of budget votes here. none of them passed. there was one vote -- one budget proposal, the r.s.c., republican study committee, budget that was mr. garrett's and mr. jordan's and it failed because they felt the ryan budget did not go far enough. but the ryan budget did get a majority of votes. the president obama budget did not. and what did the president and harry reid do do when their budget failed? nothing. they left, that was it. if they're concerned about funding for the cftc and the usda and the f.d.a., why aren't they working on a budget that's more acceptable? isn't that what leadership is all about? so what we're having here now is because we won't explore our own
energy and we won't develop it we're going to blame it on the cftc's funding level. i think that this amendment, although it does nothing, i think we should move on to more serious discussions and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: mr. chairman, having heard the subcommittee chairman's discussion of this bill, i now understand why he didn't want to have a discussion of this bill. he wanted simply to accept it so he would not have had to say nothing. since it was not accepted, he did say nothing, he just took five minutes to say it. i take it back, he did say one very important thing and it defines this issue. he apparently believes that speculation in oil is no part of the reason that oil prices go high. and he quoted a democrat, he found a democrat, one of the three democratic members of the commission, the other two of course very he mentally
disagreed and we of course did not say this is something goldman sachs doesn't like. goldman sachs is on the gentleman's siled. goldman sachs opposes regulation of derivatives. they merely mentioned in an list report that they believed that -- in an analyst report that they believed that $20 a barrel of the cost of oil comes from the speculation that they engage in. maybe they were bragging. they certainly weren't objecting. and here's what speculation means. by the way, in our legislation that the republicans are trying to undo and in what the cftc is trying to do, people who use oil are not regulated. an airline trying to hedge against volatility in prices, they're left alone. here's what we want to say. if you do not use oil, if you never go near a barrel of oil, in fact, if you're one of those people who never even goes near the gas pump because you have somebody to pump it for you, if you never tump a -- touch a barrel of oil and never use it, please do not buy up two derivatives so you put up only a
little bit large amounts so you can keep it off the market and the price goes up. that's what we want to do. the cftc, we think, should be able to say to people who don't use the commodity, please don't buy it up and hold it off the market so you can then sell it when the price goes up and make a profit. the gentleman from georgia said speculation is not an issue. he says it's drilling. mr. chairman, i do not know a thoughtful person who thinks that complex issues like the price of a commodity have a single explanation accept the gentleman from georgia. i wouldn't want to violate the rules by excluding him from the ranks of the rational. but every other rational person says that things like the price are set by a number of factors. no, i do not think speculation is the major cause. neither does goldman sachs, neither does wilber ross, the great investor, they say it's perhaps 0%. so we're not saying we're going to cut the price in half. we're saying could you reduce it by 20%.
it's not just oil. we just had a debate about food. frankly the w.i.c. program that they are cutting wouldn't cost so much if we were to also limit speculation in food prices. and here's what we are talking about. and apparently the -- maybe the gentleman from georgia speaks for his party, i've heard no dissent. the official republican position is speculation is fine. let's not interfere with speculation. it's people who do not use the commodity, who don't use oil, who don't use the foodstuffs, if they want to buy it up and keep it off the market so they can then sell it when the price goes up, why else would they buy it? they're not collectors, this is not stamps, this is not a hobby, it's a way to make money. and how do they make money? by driving up the price of the commodity by boying -- buying and with holding it and then selling it when they can make a profit and what we want is for the cftc to tell to people who don't use it, no, there are limits on what you can buy. and we believe that contributes to the price of oil and unlike the gentleman from georgia who said, no, the price of oil has
only to do with exploration and drilling, well, no one i think really thinks. that maybe not even the gentleman from georgia. and what they do is to say, no, the cftc would have that money. they in fact in their budget will give the cftc less money in the next fiscal year than they have this year. we have given the cftc new powers under the financial reform legislation which they don't like to cover swamps. by the way, it's not simply speculation that's at risk here. a.i.g. helped plunge this country in auto -- into an economic disaster. and that's something again we would like to see cftc to be able to regulate. they were allowed to get in way over their heads. what we have here is part of a one-two punch from the republicans. they want to do it legislatively and that will come up later, but here they're telling the cftc, you should get less money and we give you this complicated issue of derivatives. by the way, they've also had a catch-22.
if you read the current republican arguments, they have very -- they are very critical of the cftc for not moving quickly enough. so first you complain that they aren't doing enough. then you reduce the money that they need and by the way these are complicated things. they need to be able to hire very smart people. they need to be able to hire important information tech noming. you can't have dumb people regulating and i will give credit to those people out there manipulating drisktives and speculating, they're very smart. they have start of the art d equipment and you want to put the cftc in shackles. it is an effort to make speculation free of any regulation with a consequent increase in food surprises and energy prices and hope the bill is defeated. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment.
we're slowly re-- rebounding from a financial crisis that crippled our economy and left millions of americans out of work. clearly consumer protection is important now more than ever. farr farr the -- mr. farr: the commodities future trading commission, known as the cftc, is an independent agency that protects market users and the public from abusive practices related to drisktives. this includes help -- derivatives. this includes helping regulate food price speculation. now more than ever we need a well-resourced cftc and as mr. frank pointed out this is new legislation, the agency is growing by hiring people who are going to be weg laters and expects by september 30 of this year to have in place what we have given the money for last year which is $720 -- 720 full-time equivalent positions. they will help ensure that the public is protected from fraud,
manipulation and systemic risk and they will make sure that americans aren't paying exorbitant prices at the pump and grocery stores. and the cftc can do just that. in the past three years the cftc has obtained over $1.3 billion in judgments for americans who have been victimized by thousands of profit-hungry investors around the country. and yet now in the fiscal year 2012, this bill, the agriculture appropriations bill, slashes the budget of the cftc by 44%. so the first time that we begin to regulate an industry we are going to cut it back by 160 jobs, they will have to let go. remember, they're regulating an industry that's seven times larger than all regulated markets today. seven times bigger than all regulated markets. this job cut will dangerously
undermine the cftc's regulation of commodities and will contribute to rising oil and food prices, as mr. frank pointed out. the cftc can't put enough cops on the beat to keep the big banks from making a risky bet. so the american taxpayer will foot the bill to bail out taxpayers all over again. you know what else it means? it means americans will be exposed to manipulation of oil prices when folks are scraping together pennies to pay for rent and cover groceries. our job in congress is to be the best possible stewards of taxpayer dollars and this shortsighted cut will yield no return on investment in fact, we could be lining ourselves up to lose big all over again.
i urge my colleagues to support the delauro-kaptur-farr- courtney-welch-boswell amendment and i avoid this misguided attack on the american taxpayer. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields pack. for what purpose does the quelt from iowa rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the cftc acts as wall street watchdogs, overseeing something that affects our nation's families. they are in charge of higher gas prices, higher food prices.
the derivatives mark has grown by 40% over the last 10 years and the u.s. government has failed to match that growth in regulators and now the -- they want to take more cops off wall street, as some said, put the little league champions up against the new york yankees. mr. bezz well: in this industry that invests $25 billion in technology each year, the commission that regulates behavior on wall street cannot afford to be left behind. our taxpayers cannot afford to pick up the bill again. to monitor and regulate this market and protect american taxpayers, last congress, we passed the dodd-frank wall street reform act and i might add that that was not an a knee jerk reaction. we took months and months, many, many hearings, working across the aisle together to try to do something to help prevent the rehappening of what we were going through and still have the after-effect of.
as ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees the cftc, i heard from countless witnesses, including chairman ginsler himself, that we must properly fund the cftc to protect american consumers and market end users. they need, they must have, the tools and resources to d their squob. adequately funding the cftc would allow the commission to increase staff to do the job that congress directed them to do, which is to prevent another 2008 financial crisis. it will allow the commission to keep pace with the growth of the market they are charged to regulate and invest $66 million in technology to improve oversight of electronic trading. still, the majority is dead set on delaying an defunding the cftc. this legislation returns the cftc to their 2008 level funding, the same level of funding that led to the taxpayer bailout of wall street
and only allows half of what they need now to do the job correctly. defunding an delaying the majority's handout to wall street millionaires and billionaires who have been caught red hanned gambling with the pension plans of regular americans and speculating on oil driving the cost of oil $20 a barrel more than the actual cost. to fund the cftc at 2008 levels is an insult to the american taxpayers who are asked -- who were asked to foot the bill in 2008 as a result of wall street's -- wall street's reckless behavior. we have seen the result of the 2008 funding level and what happens when our market lacks properover sight. we must protect our constituents if the situation that led to the financial collapse and we must fairly fund the cftc. thank you and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose
does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'd like to yield time to the gentleman from georgia. >> i thank the gentleman from nebraska. i find it irn credible that i'm hearing people say that the fall of the wall street meltdown was because of the cftc not doing its job. mr. kingston: i cannot believe that the meltdown in the financial situation is now being attributed to the cftc and to avoid it we have to put in more money for the cftc. i voted against the wall street bailout. the president of the united states voted for it. as a senator. and again as president wanted part two of it system of i'm not buying that the wall street bailout, you know, a.i.g. was mentioned earlier, that was done by the fed. the bear stearns bailout, that was done by the fed. the bailout of fannie maye and
freddie mac was done by the house democrats. i don't need to be sitting here listening to people preach to me about bailouts and the solution to lower gas prices is to fund a bureaucracy and it's a group that has been averaging about four regulations a year and now between now and late summer 34rk regulations, and i understand that those in the big government circles in washington love more regulations, more government growth, but to say to the taxpayers that funding cftc at a higher, unprecedented level is going to avoid the need for bailouts is ridiculous. and again, mr. speaker, i'm somebody who has consistently voted against these bailouts and the stimulus programs. i don't believe that government is the answer. i think the market still has
the answer. i do not support the dodd-frank bill. what is th is, a lot of it is just an overreach, more government, telling people how to do, conduct their business. do i think there's a role for cftc? i do. can cftc be effective? yes. but when their own democrat member says, and i quote again, the cftc staff, not his personal opinion, but the cftc staff which is over 700, has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support the contention that too much speculation has affected the market. that's not my opinion, that's what the democrat member says the cftc staff has reported. should we be concerned about speculation? yes, we should. but i don't think it's fair for any member of congress to go back home to the taxpayers and say, i'm going to bring down the price at the pump because i
have put millions of dollars into a washington bureaucracy and they are really going to get tough on the wall street crowd now. if we want to bring down the price of energy in america, we have to increase our supply and i don't know of any other way to do it. supply goes up, the cost goes down. if we want to help the consumers at the pump, we have got to explore and develop our own domestic energy resources and discussion about cftc funding comes second, third, fourth, fifth tyre to that and so the -- tier to that and so the objective is to bring down the price of gas at the pimp, let's don't pretepid that increasing spending for the cftc is going to achieve that i thank the gentleman from nebraska. >> mr. chairman, let me add as well, it's difficult for me to sit here quietly and listen to the pontiff case --
pontificating about the wall street bailouts. there are now five banks that control over 50% of the deposited assets in this country. those banks deemed too big to fail are in reality too big to succeed. the main street banks are now urn pressure from the large banks so it's difficult to sit here and take that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is reck noozed. >> i rise in support of this. mr. courtney: i would cite exxonmobil as my validator in terms of the point, on maye 14 in "forbes" mag -- on may 14,
in "forbes" magazine, hardly a left wing publication, there was an interview with the c.e.o. of exxonmobil who stated the real price with traditional supply and demand should be roughly $50 to $60 a barrel not $115 a barrel. this is where the article said. mr. tillerson stated the reason it's above $100 a barrel is due to the oil majors using futures contract to lock in current high prices and speculation that is being engaged in by the high freerktcy trading of quantitative hedge funds. again, traditional supply and demand, according to exxonmobil, suggests that the price of oil and gas should be roughly $60 or $70. how will the cftc bring us back to a mark that's actually kebted to supply and demand forces as opposed to the market we have today? under dodd-frank, what the cftc
was given is the authority to impose position limits on noncommercial interests who have swamped into the commodities trading markets of this country since congress foolishly deregulated the commodities markets back in 2000. today the number of noncommercial traders in the commodities markets is twice what it was in 2000 and using virtually no money down because the margin limits are almost nonexistent, they have basically hijacked this market so that real end users, the people who depend on future trading to lock in positions, whether it's airlines or back home in connecticut whether it's oil delivery guys, who are trying to figure out whether they can offer lock in contracts for next winter, they have been basically driven from this market. in connecticut today, you cannot get a lock-in contract for next winter because of the fact that these traders now have absolutely no confidence in whether or not this market will be in any rational place
six months or eight months from now. so the need for the cftc to reimpose some reasonable, quote-unquote, limits which is what the dodd-frank bill empowers them to do, is the reason why their staff needs to be put into place so we can have a market existed back in the 1990's, our parents' commodities trading mark, which was a stable market, which was basically for the use of end users, not for people using high frequency trading which the ceo of exxonmobil cited as the cause of the swing in pices we were seeing. let's be clear here, folks. supporting this budget from the majority is not about being a deficit hawk. secretary ray mavis of the navy testified before the house armed services committee that every $10 a barrel increase in oil costs the navy, in terms of annual fuel costs, $300 million a year. if you look at what the c.e.o. of exxonmobil says, the neaf
right now is overpaying easily, on an annualized basis $300 million to $500 million a year and that's just one branch of the military. the air force uses a greater amount of fossil fuels than the navy does so if you are truly a deficit hawk if you really want to make sure the pentagon who is going to be going through some gut wrenching decisions about whether or not to provide for the war fight for the this country an protect weapons plat forms we need to defend this country, then we need a high functioning cftc to make sure that the pentagon, as well as the rest of the government at state and local level are in the overpaying for gas an oil. the taxpayers has a huge stake in making sure that this agency, the cftc, has adequate funds to do its job because the savings to not just consumers and small businesses but the savings to the taxpayers will be in the billions abbillions be in the billions abbillions of dollars.