Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. You don't have anything else on this section of the bill?

Mr. KINGSTON. You are taking from the same account twice?

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, we were talking earlier about some of the overlaps in these Federal food assistance programs. To me, this is a case where this is a program where there is a lot of overlap with food stamps, and we should look at that, realizing that that is the authorizing committee's jurisdiction. There is not much more that I can do than comment on it. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KINGSTON. With that, I withdraw my objection, and we accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. I recommend to the Committee H.R. 2112, the House Agriculture, FDA, and CFTC funding bill for fiscal year 2012, and I want to make a few remarks about it. Number one and foremost, because a lot of people are very concerned about the allocation for this bill and the funding level, I want to remind everybody of a couple of things: Number one, our national debt is now 95 percent of the GDP. It's $14 trillion. For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Now, both parties have fingerprints all over this. We have all overspent. For example, for 8 years under President Bush the national debt increased $3\1/2\ trillion. Way too much. And yet, in contrast, in just 3 years President Obama has added to the national debt $5 trillion, an increase of 56 percent. And so much of this is due and owed to foreign countries, and much of it to China. Can you imagine what kind of deal Communist China, a major competitor of ours, would impose upon us if they forced us to restructure our debt? We have to do it ourselves. Now, the House has passed the Ryan budget, which many people oppose, and I understand that. But I want to point out the President of the United States' budget failed in the Senate 97-0. Harry Reid voted against the President's budget. And in the House, the Congressional Black Caucus offered a budget that failed. The Congressional Progressive Caucus offered a budget and it failed. The Republican Study Committee offered a budget and it failed. The Democrat Caucus offered a budget and it failed. In the Senate, budget plans were offered by Mr. Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mr. Paul of Kentucky; both failed. The only budget that has passed either body is the Ryan budget, and that's what we are looking at today, those numbers. Now, I understand there's a lot of reluctance to make some of these tough decisions. Today in America 61 million people receive monthly government checks. That's anything from welfare to Medicare to farm payments to veteran retirement to Social Security--lots of people receiving lots of money. These programs are enormously popular, and they're deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. Therefore, reforming these programs is very, very difficult. And to further complicate things, 47 percent of American households do not pay income taxes. For them the status quo is working just fine. So addressing these things is very difficult. And if you look at the spending pattern in the last several years, it's frightening: March, 2008, $29 billion to bail out Bear Stearns; May of 2008, a $168 billion stimulus package from the Bush administration; in July of 2008, $200 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; then in November of 2008, $700 billion for TARP, or the Wall Street bailout; and then in January of 2009, $878 billion for the Obama stimulus program, which, by the way, Madam Chair, was to keep us from getting to 8 percent unemployment. Now, we're hovering between 9 and 10 percent, and I don't need to remind you but this is the 1-year anniversary of the ``summer of recovery.'' There has not been any recovery. We're still looking for those jobs. Spending our way into prosperity does not work. If it did work, we would be having prosperous times right now. So the Ryan budget for this bill is $17.25 billion, our reduction of $2.7 billion, approximately a 13\1/2\ percent decrease in spending, and yet, despite this, because of the mandatory spending portion of this bill, the bill actually has a net increase, mostly driven by food stamps and the school lunch program, which have gone up about $7 billion between the two of them. We still have a net increase in this bill. Now, there's going to be a lot of discussion on lots of different accounts, and one of them is the WIC account, the Women, Infants, and Children account, something that I'm very concerned about, something that all of our committee has always supported on a bipartisan basis. But last year, there was some money taken out of it, $562 million, to settle a lawsuit which had nothing to do with school nutrition. A lot of the critics are going to be saying WIC has never been cut. Last year, the Obama administration cut WIC $562 million.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 additional minutes. USDA numbers show that WIC participation has dropped 300,000 from February 2010 to February 2011, yet we are still funding it at 8.7 million people. We do not intend for anybody to fall through the cracks. If there is a shortage, there are three discretionary accounts that we can draw upon: a contingency fund of $125 million; a carryover fund, which is in excess of $350 million; and the Secretary's interchange authority, which is $210 million. There are a lot of things in WIC we can do to improve to make sure that children don't fall through the cracks. Right now, for example, 49 percent of the kids in America participate in WIC. Do we really believe 49 percent are impoverished? Perhaps it's oversubscribed. Maybe we can work with the WIC folks on that. We had a very healthy debate about WIC overhead, and the USDA has given us conflicting numbers on that. We're planning to meet with the USDA and find out what the real story is. I understand there may be amendments to say let's all agree what an overhead limit should be for WIC and then not spend money on overhead for that. We are concerned about these things, but I want to close with this. Today, in America, a child under 5 years old is eligible for 12 Federal programs. After that age, he or she is eligible for 9 Federal feeding programs. At 65, you're eligible for 5 different Federal feeding programs. We want to make sure no one falls through the cracks and no one goes hungry, yet at the same time, is it possible that some folks are eligible for not just three meals a day but maybe four and five? And can we enter into that discussion without a lot of finger- pointing and a lot of emotion? Can we also talk about the fraud and the misuse and the administrative costs without a lot of screaming and hollering? I think we can. I look forward to that debate, and I recommend passage of this bill. I. 14 percent down. Reflects the House Rep/Ryan budget which reflects our attempt to deal with the national debt. A. I don't need to lecture anyone on the national debt but I need to remind all of us on a few facts: 1. At $14T the national debt is 95 percent GDP. 2. For every dollar we spend $.40 is borrowed. 3. While both parties have been responsible for this the spending by this administration has been tremendous. For example, the national debt under President Bush increased $3.5 trillion in 8 years. Way too much! In contrast, however President Obama has increased it by $5T in 3 years. That's 56 percent. 4. Much of this almost half is due to foreign countries, China being a high leader. If we don't address our debtor crisis eventually our creditors will. With a communist country as a major competitor can you imagine what China could impose on us? It's nothing I want my children and future generations to deal with. We have to do it ourselves. B. Let me continue with the Ryan budget we hear non stop changes from its critics that it's too harsh but where is their alternative? 1. The Potus has been all but absent. In fact his own budget was rejected by the Harry Reid Democrat led Senate 97-0. 2. Other proposals have been furled as well: a. In the House: Congressional Black Caucus. H. Amdt. 256 to H. Con. Res. 34. Failed by recorded vote: 103-303. Congressional Progressive Caucus. H. Amdt. 257 to H. Con. Res. 34. Failed by recorded vote: 77-347. Republican Study Committee. H. Amdt. 258 to H. Con. Res. 34. Failed by recorded vote: 119-136. Democratic Caucus: H. Amdt. 259 to H. Con. Res. 34. Failed by recorded vote: 166-259. b. In the Senate: Toomey's plan to balance the budget in 9 years: Failed 42-55. Rand Paul's plan: Failed 7-90. 3. Having failed to pass a budget in either the House or Senate, it seems the POTUS and Harry Reid have given up. That's correct there no ongoing negotiations, conferences or hearings. They have totally abandoned their duty and obligations. C. One can understand cowardice when we look at political realties. 1. Today in America 61 million people receive monthly government checks. That's anything from welfare to Medicare, to farm payments, veteran retirement and social security. Lots of people receive lots of money. 2. These programs are enormously popular and deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. Reforming these programs is at best politically difficult even if both parties dealt in good faith and earnestness. 3. To further complicate the situation 47 percent of American households did not pay income taxes. For them the status quo is just fine. i. According to the tax policy center. D. Continuing our spending path has not created prosperity. Think about the big ticket items in the last few years. March '08 $29 billion to bailour Bear Sterns, May '08 $168 billion for the Bush Stimulus Package, July '08 $200 billion for the Fannie May/Freddie Mac bailout, Nov '08 $700 Billion TARP/Wall Street Bailout. Jan. '09 $878 billion for the Obama Stimulus bill which by the way was to keep unemployment below 8 percent but it has bounced between 9-10 percent ever since. Real growth comes from less government, less job killing regulations, a tax structure that is simpler, clean and fair. E. One last word on the Ryan budget. Despite the spending reduction in discretionary accounts be of entitlements, food stamps and school lunch there is a net increase in spending! That's right at $17.25 billion, a reduction of $2.7 billion below FY2011 or 14 percent discretionary, the mandatory spending has still increased from $105 billion to $108.3 billion, resulting in an overall increase of 283 million! Food stamps have increased $5.6 and school lunch $1.5. Thus one more time underscoring the need for long term entitlement reform. II. Our bill attempts to move us in this direction. Mr. Farr and I have had 11 hearings. These were long with several rounds of questions. We don't agree on all issues but we found much common ground and where we disagree no one was shut out of the process. III. I will now go through some specific accounts. A. Research is funded at $2.2 billion. Almost half goes to Agriculture Research Service at $993 million. This allows ARS to focus on high priority items such as food defense and food safety. 1. It also includes vital pest and disease research such problems with the: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug. Commerants. Cotton Pests. Sudden Oak Death. Equine Disease. 2. Finally, I would like to point out that the bill assumes ARS will close 10 facilities, as proposed in the budget, and provides USDA with the authority to transfer those facilities to a land-grant or other agricultural college or university that agrees to continue agricultural related research at the facility for a minimum of 25 years. One billion dollars on this account goes to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and gives level funding for land-grant university research. B. Farm Programs are funded at $1.7 billion discretionary and $18.3 in mandatory or traditional as Ag programs specified in the five year authorized farm bill. 1. These programs are the target of much of the criticism and at least one awkward int'l into agreement w/ the Brazilian government over cotton. Mr. Fluke offered an amendment to affect this and committee act was passed; however if it is out of order and will be struck. Nonetheless our AS committees are planning to address it. 2. Also in this section of the Bill is Farm Service Agency funding at a level of $1.46. Modernization of FSA technology systems remains a committee priority. The MIDAS, Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems, request was $96 million on top of $49.5 million from last year but USDA had reprogrammed $23 million for salaries. The heart of the MIDAS initiative is to improve the delivery of FSA farm program benefits and services through the re-engineering of farm programs business processes and the adoption of enhanced and modernized information technology. 3. Many members requested funding for the FSA Grassroots Source Water Protection program and the bill includes $3.6 million for this program. Agricultural Credit loan levels are at $4.7 billion which is $95.8 million below the fiscal year 2011 level and the same as the fiscal year 2012 request. C. The majority of the $910 million in funds for the Marketing and Regulatory Programs is slated in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Salaries and Expense account at $790 million, which is $73.3 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. These funds will allow the agency to continue to control and eradicate plant and animal pests and diseases. The bill includes language that allows APHIS to access emergency funding to address pest and disease outbreaks. In addition to other related programs at USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serves, this Bill provides $147 million for Specialty Crop Pests to control or eradicate invasive pests and diseases, especially for those pests and disease in California, and the west. Although this funding level is below the President's Request, this Program is funded at $4.4 million above the level spent in the fiscal year 2010. Within the program, we have also supported language from members regarding Sudden Oak Death. D. Conservation Programs are funded at $787 million of which $770 million is for NRCS's Conservation Operations, which is $99 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. This allows NRCS to maintain its core conservation mission and will drive efficiencies to create more farmer- friendly programs. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program is funded at $15 million, which is $3 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. In addition to discretionary appropriations, USDA will provide $5.8 billion to farmers and ranchers through its mandatory conservation programs in fiscal year 2012. (In the farm bill, the Agriculture Committee will review these especially the Conservation Reserve Program which pays farmers not to plant.) E. More than $2 billion is provided in the bill for Rural Development Programs including section 502 low income housing loan level of $24.845 billion. The President's budget proposed a loan level for direct loans for $211 million and the bill provides for $845 million for this program that serves very low-income rural Americans. Rural Water and Waste--$730 million is provided for loans, which is $242 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. $430 million is provided for grants, which is $28 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. We received many requests from Members for funding for the Circuit Rider program, and the bill provides $14 million for this purpose. Electric and Telecommunications Program level is at $7.3 billion in the bill, which is on par with historical levels. The bill denies the budget request to limit the use of electric loans to renewable energy and retrofitting, and requests a report on baseload generation needs. F. Food Safety and Inspection--$973 million--a funding level that will allow FSIS to maintain meat, poultry, and egg products inspection, as well as to expand poultry inspection system that results in a safe and more efficient poultry inspection regime that will result in a safer food supply. III. Our committee had 2 good debates on the funding of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition programs. Our mark attempts to address the aggressive marketing growth of WIC w/a funding level of $5.9 billion. Or 1.2 below FY 2011, which was 7,128,424,000. A. We will hear from many that this hurts the nations most vulnerable but lets look at some fact. 1. Many critics act like WIC has never been cut but last year in order to pay for a completely unreduced program--a legal settlement on a farm loan dispute call Pigford the Democrats cut WIC by $562 m. 2. The latest data from the USDA shows a drop of 300,000 participants between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. However; our level still funds at the higher number of 8.7 m people which is the projection for FY 2012. Now if that changes and there is in unexpected jump in participation then we have 3 reserve accounts in which we can draw. Contingency fund: $125 million. Carryover Funds: $350 million+. Secretary's Interchange Authority: $210 million. 3. So the issue is act one of kids at risk but one of politics. a. A couple of notes: 49 percent of children in America participate in WIC. Clearly a number that suggests it goes well beyond the poorest of our society. b. WIC is notorious for a high over head. As noted at the Full Committee hearing, administrative--as defined by all overhead and program delivery costs--equals 45 cents per benefits dollar spent in FY 2010. 8.9 million participants for March. From the beginning of FY2009 to March 2011 (most up-to-date data), average monthly participation has dropped by 440,000. c. WIC has had its share of fraud, yet WIC officials seem dedicated to only keeping their funding stream rather than addressing these issues. 4. Finally going beyond the politics let's put some force on it. Take a 3 year old child named Bob. Today Bob is eligible for 12 federal programs: Bob's Food Assistant Programs: At age 3, Bob is eligible for 12 programs: 1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). 2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). 3. Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (FFVP). 4. School Lunch Program (SBP). 5. National School Lunch Program (NSLP). 6. Special Milk Program (SMP) [Can receive if not on any other program]. 7. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). 8. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 9. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 10. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). 11. Women, Infant & Children (WIC). 12. WIC's Farmers Market Nutritional Program (FMNP). At age 10, Bob is eligible for 9 programs: 1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CAFP). 2. Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (FFVP). 3. School Lunch Program (SBP). 4. National School Lunch Program (NSLP). 5. Special Milk Program (SMP). 6. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). 7. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 8. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 9. The Emergency Food Assitance Program (TEFAP). At age 35, Bob is eligible for 7 programs: 1. Child and Adult Care Food Programs. 2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). 3. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 4. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 5. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). 6. Women, Infant & Children (WIC). 7. WIC's Farmers Market Nutritional Program (FMNP). At age 65, Bob is eligible for 6 programs: 1. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). 2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). 3. Sr. Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP). 4. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 5. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 6. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). At all ages, Bob can receive: 1. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation (FDPIR) if living on Indian Reservation & Not receiving SNAP. 2. Disaster Assistance Program (D-SNAP) if family experiences natural disaster. 3. Nutrition Assistance Block Grant (NABG) if family lives in U.S. Territory. This doesn't sound like a nation that turning its back on the poor. Indeed the First Lady has made a campaign against over eating not hunger, and I will challenge our critics to take the discussion records from our learning. Google the world's hunger and obesity and see which one we talked about the most. B. As I stated earlier overall this bill is a net increase and that increase comes from these safety net food programs. Child nutrition programs are funded at $18.8 billion which is $1.56 above last year. This provides 68.8 percent of all school lunches and 85.5 percent of all school breakfasts at a free or reduced price. 1. As respects to SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, or food stamps there is a $5.66 increase approx 45 million people participate in this program. 2. Again, the administrators tend to ignore these problems. Overpayments of $141 receipt in Michigan for steak, lobster, and sodas were reported. The man was later arrested for selling goods. 3. Michigan man won 2 million in lottery and still uses food stamps WIC--ex-WIC worker in Atlanta stated that no ID, no address and no income information was needed to apply for WIC. There was also an undercover film about the WIC clinic. C. We have hope to allow some flexibility between emergency and developmental accounts in order for groups like the World Food Program to meet unexpected challenges around the globe. I have met with Josette Sheeran and our food ambassador to the UN Ertharin Cousins, and commend their position and their commitment. Food air combines our humanitarian values and national security so our committee supports it. However; keep in mind we are borrowing from our own future generations to finance this, so we must be good stewards. Worldwide the U.S. provides 57% of food aid followed by EU 27 percent, and Japan 6 percent. Food Aid and National Security/`International Harmony' We have heard several comments today about why we absolutely cannot reduce our food aid programs this year. In spite of the fact that we are out of money, we have driven ourselves to a crippling level of debt and--from a more immediate perspective--we don't have the allocation for this bill to provide more to any program, we are told it is impossible to cut international food aid, even as we cut almost every other single line item in this budget out of necessity. Among other arguments, we hear it is a national security imperative. There are legitimate national security aspects to this issue. Food aid does provide a market to drive our domestic food production, which in turn helps ensure a perpetual safe and abundant domestic food supply as we provide surplus overseas. It also supports our merchant marine fleet, which provides an important cargo capacity for the armed forces in the event of a major deployment. This surge capacity might not be available, at least at a similar cost, without the support of the food aid programs. However, I don't think the argument that this assistance builds international goodwill to the U.S.--an enduring friendship that is reciprocated when we need it--pans out. For example, I have here the voting practices in the United Nations for 2010 as compiled by the U.S. Department of State. This list includes the nations by region who have received assistance through any of our international food aid programs along with the percentage they supported the U.S. position on votes the State Department deemed most important. Unfortunately, we see numbers like 16 percent, 0 percent, 30 percent, 36 percent, 27.3 percent, right down the line. It would be nice to see some of the oil rich countries to step forward and help out.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to comment on that. But that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. KINGSTON. My friend from Connecticut, you know that's what we're doing.

Mr. KINGSTON. The participation in WIC in 2010 was $9.2 million. Today it's about $8.8 million. This bill, because the level has dropped and is dropping, is at a level of $8.3 million, but can go over $9 million with the contingency. So I believe that when you cut WIC last year, you did it in good faith. I would only ask that you give us that good faith too.

Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of funding and outlays in the bill, and outlays in budget authority have to be equal. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman from California yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. The Ag Marketing Service actually gets that $77.5 million in appropriation, and in addition, has the ability to collect up to $61 million in fees. If you think about it, that's not unusual in this account. The FDA actually does the same thing. I think they get over $1 billion in fees. So some of these accounts do get an appropriation, and then they on their own can go out and get some fees, not just to supplement them, but in some cases to almost match them as the AMS has done.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment and move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. KINGSTON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chair of the Republican Conference, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will my friend yield a minute?

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2112 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I want to say to my friends from Texas and Connecticut that, number one, the DeLauro amendment which you alluded to that increases WIC $147 million is intact, and that increase has gone on. We do have to offset it from another portion of the bill, and the reason is because that Brazilian cotton agreement was a WTO agreement that President Obama agreed to. The money is restored. So if that helps clarify things, and if not, let me know. I want to just remind everyone, if you want to help hungry people you've got to have the money to do it. Now, both parties have overspent. For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Both parties. Under President Bush, in an 8-year period of time, the debt went up $3.5 trillion. Now, under President Obama, in a 3-year period of time it's gone up $5 trillion, a 56 percent increase. And President Obama now owns the wars in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan in terms of this is his watch. He has had opportunity to change the direction. He has not done so. So let's quit hiding behind, We're at war, and therefore, it's the Republicans' fault. I also want to remind my friends that the only budget that has passed either House is the Ryan budget, which is what we're operating under. The President of the United States' budget failed on the Senate floor 97-0. He did not even get Harry Reid's vote. So we're operating under the budget constraints that we have. Let me say this--very important about the WIC program. From February 2010 to February 2011, the number of participants has dropped 300,000. The level now is 8.7 million. We will make sure no one falls through the cracks. There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens. And I want to point out for all the screaming and hollering and the self-righteousness, last year the Democrats cut WIC by $562 million and put the money into an unrelated account that had nothing to do with hunger. It was a political settlement. Where was the screaming and hollering then? And I want to say this in terms of the World Food Program, if we want to help these countries--and I am committed to it--we have to have our own financial house in order. Otherwise, all we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is borrowing from our children to feed children overseas. That does not make sense. I appreciate it, and I urge everyone to support the rule.