Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman, and wanted to speak in support of H.R. 1214 for three reasons.

Number one, we have got to remember that we are now in our third year of a $1.6 trillion deficit. That's right. The Obama administration has now put us in our third year of a deficit of $1.6 trillion. For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed.

At what point will that mean anything to our Democrat colleagues? I don't understand it. At what point will it mean anything to the administration? Do you really believe you can defy gravity over and over again and expect that it's not going to come back to haunt you? I don't understand it. I'm baffled by this.

So, number one, we've got to impact the deficit as we've got to consider future generations.

Number two is duplication. The stimulus bill and ObamaCare had $3 billion that went to the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services for improvements in community health centers that many of the school-based health care clinics are eligible for. This is strictly a duplication of $50 million on top of $3 billion.

Number three, as an appropriator, I believe we have to be very careful about advanced appropriations. This goes to the year 2014. If it is so good, as we have heard--and certainly there is a level at which you can argue the effectiveness of this--why not let them get in line as soldiers have to? as educators have to? as hospitals have to? as researchers have to? As everybody else who gets Federal Government money, let them get in line each and every year, and let them justify their budgets. Then Congress, in weighing it out, will say, Okay. Let's fund it again this year.

But what the Democrats are asking us to do is to obligate future Congresses on money to the year 2014 and to put it on automatic pilot. That's not fair. That's not right. In these budgetary times--again, when we are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend--we do not need to be advance appropriating anything or any entity.

The point is, if it's a good program, then certainly they can justify their budgets each and every year just like the soldiers have to and just like everybody else has to. For those three reasons, I strongly support H.R. 1214.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to respond to my friend from New Jersey. This is very important. If we added up the Bush deficits in those

years, certainly the Bush administration overspent. There is absolutely no question about it that the Republican Party overspent. Yet not to be outdone, in 1 year, the Obama administration ran up the deficit numbers higher than the Bush folks did in 8 years. It's outrageous. The year that the Democrats won the majority, the Bush deficit was $160 billion. I agree that it was way too high. But what did they do? $1.6 trillion. That's a lot of money, and that's all the more reason that we need to eliminate duplicative spending, which is what this is.

Support H.R. 1214.

Mr. Speaker, swap data repositories have the ability to provide regulators and markets with information on aggregate data positions that can assist them in evaluating and managing risk. However, that ability can be substantially diminished if important information is excluded from them. One risk of fragmentation or exclusion of data is if a country's laws in practice provide disincentives, or even prohibitions, to the sharing of such data to a repository located in another jurisdiction.

Sections 728 and 763 of the Dodd-Frank Act require that repositories obtain indemnifications from foreign regulators before sharing information with them. There was no legislative history behind this provision, which was incorporated late in the legislative process, without having been considered in the hearing process. As a result, it was not subject to extensive discussion and consideration prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, and its negative consequences must not have been clear to the conferees or the relevant regulatory bodies. I believe that the indemnification provision will significantly impede global regulatory cooperation.

Foreign regulators are not likely to grant Derivative Clearing Organizations, DCO's, or Swap Data Repositories, SDRs, indemnification in exchange for access to information. Accordingly, regulators may be less willing to access the aggregated market data, resulting in a reduction of information consumption, domestically and internationally, which jeopardizes market stability.

Further, the provision could have an immediate negative impact on the ability of U.S. regulators to obtain information from repositories located in foreign countries should reciprocal indemnification provisions be enacted in foreign laws. U.S. regulators, like foreign regulators, might be legally or practically precluded from signing such agreements.

This is not a theoretical concern. Just a few days ago in March, Jean-Paul Gauzes, a French Member of Parliament from the Conservative Party included in a package of 950 amendments put forth by the European Parliament to the European Commission language that would mirror the indemnification clauses in Dodd-Frank Act. The amendment was a deliberate response to the extra-territoriality provisions of ``indemnity'' contained in Dodd-Frank, and adoption of the package is anticipated in May of this year.

The proposed European language would require the United States government to indemnify EU trade repositories for any expenses arising from litigation relating to the information provided by the trade repository. The provision, which could well be adopted, has the potential to create numerous problems for the United States. For starters, it is not clear that U.S. regulators have the legal authority to enter into such an indemnification. Were they to do so, the indemnification becomes an invitation to such litigation by third- parties, domestic or foreign.

These problems mirror precisely the problems for EU governments created by the indemnification clauses in Dodd-Frank. In practice, while governments worked to address the issues raised by such requirements, the default position for any SDR would have to refuse to provide such information absent the indemnification, creating fragmentation and information gaps that could meaningfully harm global safety and soundness.

Preventing the exchange of information between regulators will frustrate efforts to mitigate international financial risk and fragment regulatory oversight on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.

The goal is to ensure that in situations where foreign regulators are carrying out their regulatory responsibilities in a manner consistent with international agreements, which includes maintaining the confidentiality of data, can be appropriately exchanged without Sections 728 and 763 becoming an impediment to the goals of transparency and sound policy.

In light of the EU calendar on indemnification, swift action to prevent the unintended consequences of this inadequately considered provision of Dodd-Frank is needed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis in the country today. Imagine back home in your family budget if for every dollar you spent, 40 cents was borrowed. Surely you would bring your entire family to the kitchen table and say, okay, what can we cut out? We cannot continue to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. You would make changes in your household budget. But for some reason, many in Washington, D.C. want to stick their head in the sand and say, no, we really don't have to do this. And yet right now the national debt is 90 percent of the GDP.

We borrow billions of dollars a year from China, which is not exactly a great idea in terms of national security. I sit on the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations. We watch China year in, year out building up their army, and yet we go to them over and over again for more money. And yet, while we do that, those in Washington, D.C., don't want to do anything.

We heard yesterday the President's mulligan budget. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is responsible to submit his budget to Congress each year, which the President did in February, totally ignoring his own deficit commission's recommendations. The Simpson-Bowles language was not in there. And yet, yesterday, the President decided, oh, well, give me one more chance, I'm going to introduce another budget, which has a lot of phony numbers in there and a lot of false promises and calls for more studies and commissions. I ask my Democrat friends, is that budget going to be on the floor today? Are we going to be able to offer it?

I yield to my friend from Maryland.

You will be offering the budget the President talked about yesterday? I'm going to yield back to my friend from Maryland, but I want to say this: Unlike when you guys were in charge, we are offering the Democrats opportunities to offer budgets. We think it's very important, because we want the best of your ideas, and we think the best of our ideas can be combined together for the best of America.

I am going to yield to my friend, but here's what I want to say, that we keep hearing over and over again in the last 24 hours about the President's wonderful mulligan budget that he offered yesterday, but I don't believe it's going to be offered on the floor of the House.

Now let me yield to my friend.

Let me ask specifically, the mulligan budget that the President offered yesterday, will it be on the floor of the House today?

Let me thank my friend from Maryland for answering this, because I do think it's important for the Democrats to be given an opportunity to offer an alternative budget, and I'm glad that you will be, and there will be five such budgets. And I'm hoping even if your budgets don't pass, that we can still pick and choose some parts of those, and there will be some parts of our budget that you like and want to support as well.

But I want to emphasize over and over again that the President, who yesterday tried to reclaim some territory

because he did not take on the recommendations of his own deficit reduction commission, he was not offering a budget yesterday. What he did was give a speech. Now, the President is kind of becoming the Spectator in Chief or the Speaker in Chief. He's the guy who offers a budget, and then yesterday decides to give a speech. Well, the time has come and gone for speeches.

What our budget does is take on some serious changes in our spending habit. It does tackle the difficult choices that we have on Medicaid and Medicare. It does not create a voucher system; it is a supplemental system which will give seniors more choices. And it doesn't affect anybody 55 years or older, which is very important.

But we will hear from the liberals in this community the cage rattling of senior citizens over and over again, and that's why we can't make progress in this town, because we always reduce policy to politics.

The time to put policy first is now. We've got to tone down our rhetoric and say, you know what, here is a plan to save and protect and preserve Medicaid and Medicare, not for the next election, not for politicians, but for America's future seniors. The baby boomers who are under 55 years old will have a Medicare/Medicaid plan that they can count on because it will be there. If we don't change, it will not be there for them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me say that I want to be the first one to say we do want to close the tax loopholes for Big Oil. In fact, for the 4 years the Democrats were in charge, we're not sure why they didn't take it on. We are ready to take it on after this 4-year negligence on it.

Think about this, Mr. Chairman: For every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Now, if that was happening in your family, you would bring everybody to the kitchen table and you would say, Look, we have got to make some changes here. We can't continue to spend money the way we are doing.

Today, the national debt is 90 percent of the GDP. Spending is approaching 24 percent of the GDP. That's a historic high. We can't get to a balanced budget with a spending gap that high above revenues, and yet that is what we are doing. That is why the Republican budget, the Ryan budget, not just reduces spending by $4 trillion, but changes the trajectory of spending. Because unless we change the pattern and we make some choices for the next generation, important programs like Social Security, like Medicaid, like Medicare, will not be there.

Too often we hear from the liberals in Washington, D.C., the scare tactics: Well, Republicans hate seniors, they hate clean air, they hate education. And that's what we're seeing here tonight. In fact, yesterday the President tried to claim a mulligan on his budget. He actually introduced a budget in February and did not bring in one recommendation of his own deficit reduction commission. Even though I've seen a chart on the floor tonight about it. It sounds great, but it's not in the President's budget because it wasn't presented.

We think it might be a good idea to use some of the recommendations of the deficit reduction commission, and that's what the Ryan budget does. But more importantly, it doesn't do anything to the important entitlement programs for anybody over the age of 55. Medicare will be there for them as it is today. But for younger people, it is not going to be there because it is going broke. That's why we need to make some changes. And giving them a subsidy to help them have more choices in Medicare is the way to save the program.

That's just one of the many aspects of the Ryan budget, and it's well worth supporting.

Mr. Speaker, the spending debate in Washington boils down to a couple of fundamentals: We spend 23 percent of our GDP; that is the level of spending of Congress. The revenues to GDP are only 18 percent. So you have a 5 percent difference in what your revenues are and what your spending is. Years of doing this means that, right now, for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. You can't continue to defy gravity.

This week, we will consider the Ryan budget. It has tax reform; it has spending reform; it has regulatory reform--all things that are very good. I'm glad to see that the President will be reintroducing another budget this week, because I think it's very important that if you do not like the Republican Ryan budget, that's fine, but put your budget on the table because surely the Democrat Party has some ideas.

So far all we've heard from the Democrats is criticism. That's not

good enough in times like these. We've got to come together as a country to do what's best not for the next election but for the next generation and, indeed, for our future.

Mr. Speaker, America is at a huge crossroads right now. We're in a situation that whenever we spend $1, 40 cents of it is borrowed. Our national debt is about 95 percent of our GDP. We are losing our edge as a global leader. It hurts our job creation, it smothers the private sector, and it denies you and me of some of our basic freedoms; because the bigger the government gets, the smaller your personal freedom gets.

That's why the budget that has been introduced today is so worthy of a strong debate by both of us--both parties, that is. This is about the next generation, not about the next election. I urge my Democrat friends and my Republican friends to come together and do the best thing for the United States of America, not just for partisan politics of the day.

We are Americans. We can do better. We can get this job done, and we must get this job done.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine in your household if, for every $1 you spent, 40 cents was borrowed? Can you imagine if you were in that situation and didn't change your buying or your spending habits?

That would be absurd. Yet that's what the U.S. Congress is doing. We've had a debate on a spending reduction of less than 2 percent. Yet, the way some people are screaming and hollering, you would think that we were cutting spending in half.

This isn't about protecting programs and the status quo. This is about the next generation. Sit down, and tell your children: You know what? We've got a deficit of $1.6 trillion, and we've decided the tough decisions that are necessary to balance the budget aren't worth it for the next generation.

That is not the America that you and I know and love. We deserve better. We can do better. It's time for Democrats and Republicans and independents to come together to do what is best for the United States of America, to not worry about the next election but to worry about the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, in the classic movie by Frank Capra called ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' the main character, the hero, played by Jimmy Stewart, contemplated the question of what would the world be like if you had not have lived. In his case, what would his town have been like. And I think that's the question we 435 Members of Congress have to answer: What would Congress be like if you were not serving? Would you go on spending money--right now, borrowing forty cents for every dollar we spend; a national debt of 96 percent of GDP; a deficit right now of $1.6 trillion. What if you had not served? Would it make a difference? That's what the debate is about right now. Eighty-seven new Members who came to Congress to change this spending habit, to say ``no,'' and Democrats and Republicans have their fingerprints on overspending, but it is now time for changing.

There's another popular movie called ``The Blind Side'' in which the main character was drafted by Ole Miss University to protect the quarterback on his blind side. That's what these Members need to do, Mr. Speaker, is protect the blind side of the taxpayers from absolute disaster.

Mr. Speaker, what is the budget battle about? It is about our country; it is about our kids; and it is about our freedom.

Imagine if you were borrowing 40 cents for every $1 that you spent in your household. You would change your purchasing habits. That's what this battle is about.

Do we want to leave to our children a legacy of billions and billions of dollars in debt which they owe to China? That's what this budget battle is about. This is very important stuff.

We have to put the politics of spending and positioning and about being Democrats and Republicans aside. We've got to do what's best for the next generation, not the next election. We need to come together and come up with commonsense solutions, because you and I as Americans, we can do better and we deserve to give our children better than what we're doing right now.

I thank the chairman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I want to make three very important points right off the bat:

Number one, our debt is almost at 95 percent of the GDP. It's the highest debt we have ever had in history. Last year alone the deficit was $1.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 cents for every $1 that we spend. Now, if you and I were doing that in our households or our business was doing it or anybody else, you would say, okay, we've got to change our spending habits. But somehow there are those in Congress who think that we can continue to defy the laws of gravity. We have got to get our house in order.

Number two, why are we here? We are here because the Democrats last year did not pass a budget, did not pass appropriation bills, and did not complete their work on fiscal year 2011. That's what we're doing. We are trying to clean up the mess that was left to us. And in doing that, we are mindful of our financial situation and trying to reduce some of the spending.

Number three, let me say this. This bill was passed with an open rule. Indeed, I believe we had 127 votes on different amendments. Democrats and Republicans offered a myriad of amendments. Now, for those who are complaining on the floor today that they don't like these cuts, why didn't they offer their amendments on the floor a couple of weeks ago? That would have been the way to do this. Now, the chairman and the Speaker have committed to have open rules throughout this process this year, and so there will be a lot of opportunities to go after some of these programs. And some of the ones that are mentioned, I think I will support those cuts. But I just want to emphasize that everyone has had a bite of this apple.

Finally, let me just say this, Madam Speaker. The Zandi report comes from an economist, a political economist we might say, who was the same person who told us the stimulus bill would work, the stimulus bill would keep us from going to 8 percent unemployment. We reached 10 percent. I don't think we need to listen to any more of his advice.

I thank the chairman.

I just want to say that I don't think that Mr. Zandi has any more credibility. We have already spent $800 billion on his advice that the stimulus program would work, and it did not work.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I have heard that. And I understand there is something like 150 other economists who have signed a letter to that effect that was led by John Taylor, who is an economist as well.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, imagine in your own household if, for every dollar you spent, 40 cents was borrowed. Obviously, you would sit down with your family at the kitchen table and say, Okay, for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. We're going to have to change our purchasing habits.

That's what American families do; that's what farmers do; that's what small businesses do each and every day. Yet, for some reason, the U.S. Congress thinks it can defy gravity and not worry about this deficit, which is now $1.5 trillion. The debt is nearly 90 percent of the GDP, and we owe much of this money to China.

We have got to make tough decisions. It is not time for partisan politics. We need to come together as Democrats and Republicans and do what American families, farmers and small businesses do every day, every year. We need to reduce spending and turn this ship around.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I stand in strong support of the Rehberg amendment. I do so because of this very controversial health care bill which was passed through strong-arm tactics last year during a time period when the American public was crying out against it. This was a product of the backroom deal-making in Washington, D.C. This is one reason why the Democrats lost control of the U.S. Congress. It wasn't so much the bill; it was the process.

But let's talk about the bill. An individual mandate that's already been ruled unconstitutional by two judges, a mandate which the Governor of Alaska is saying he is not even going to implement the rule. This is hardly a law that's bringing America together. This bill needs to be put on the back burner, and let us retool it and rework it. I believe that's what the Americans want us to do.

It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. One thing that's abundantly clear is people do not want the insurance companies telling the hospitals and the docs how to conduct medicine. But they sure as heck don't want government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and all of the hundreds of new agencies and the IRS agents coming in and telling the doctor how to conduct medicine. The cost of this--there is not one credible report that says this will bring down costs.

And I keep hearing this hollow cry from Democrats, suddenly with 15 million people unemployed, that they are concerned about jobs. I haven't met in the First District of Georgia or anywhere else I have traveled in the country one business person who says this is a great bill.

And I want to say this about 26-year-old children: As a father of four, and I have three kids under 26 years old, they are old enough to take care of themselves. They don't need the nanny state coming in. I have raised them to be responsible. At the age of 21, I expect them to go out and get their health care. You know, the average age in Vietnam I think was 19 years old. World War II, probably the same. And we have soldiers in harm's way all over the world who can take care of themselves. But we are saying but come home to mommy and daddy, we will take care of you until you are 26 years old.

And let me say this, Mr. Chairman. If you talk to the Nation's Governors, Democrat and Republican, one of the biggest drains on their

expenses right now, on their budget, is Medicaid. Yet this bill increases the Medicaid rolls by 16 million people without funding it. If we want to break our States, we need to keep this bill. If we want to help them, we need to repeal it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We keep hearing from the Democrats that we're here and that we're not doing a jobs bill.

Why are we doing this bill? Why are we doing this bill now? It's because you guys did not pass a budget. We are on FY11, as you know, because you did not take care of your business. We are reaching back, trying to finish up what you guys should have done by October 1 of last year.

By the way, this does create jobs, because the small businesses do not want government-mandated health care; and the folks back home don't want bureaucrats coming in between the doctor-patient relationship, which is what ObamaCare does. Now, we know the nanny state wants full control from cradle to grave, but folks back home don't want it. That's what November was about.

So what we're trying to do is finish up the unfinished business of the Pelosi House from last year so that we can move forward on the coming year, FY12. We will continue to have this debate, but we are trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship, not create a doctor- bureaucrat-patient relationship, which ObamaCare does.

I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, in 2004, the WTO, the World Trade Organization, found the United States guilty of illegal subsidies to American cotton farmers. It's been a long process, but Brazil is a very important ally of ours. We get along fine. They are very important to us strategically in our own hemisphere, so we want to get along with Brazil. And because of that, we worked out this settlement which kept Brazil from putting retaliatory tariffs on us. That saved us money.

If we did not agree to this--which Mr. Kind has pointed out--$147 million, we would have to pay $829 million. This is less, and it only is in effect until the farm bill is passed. In the 2012 farm bill, we'll deal with that.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds. I just want to point out that I understand and hear what the folks are saying, but we are in a situation where we have an existing farm bill. If we do not do this, it is going to cost American taxpayers $682 million. That was the WTO agreement.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Ag Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. Farr.

I would remind the gentleman from Oregon we are going to reauthorize the farm bill next year, which is what this is all about.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, who will explain why this saves $682 million and complies with WTO laws.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to this amendment. And I do so as a proud RSC member and somebody who fought hard to get us to $100 billion in this cut, who has pledged to work for more cuts in fiscal year 2012. I support the Goodlatte balanced-budget amendment and the spending cap.

But I have got to say to my conservative friends, when you cut across the board, who do you think is going to be in charge of where these cuts come from? The EPA Director, who is putting in the clean air and all the greenhouse emissions stuff. Do you think she is going to cut that out of her budget? What about the Department of Justice? You think they are going to take this out of the lawsuit money to Arizona? What about the EPA that came up with a law that dairy farmers had to have an emergency response plan if they spilled milk because it was considered an oil? What about the immigration department? Do you think they are going to back off their priorities, or do you think they are going to implement RSC priorities?

You and I have some disagreements with the administration, so I don't see why it helps us to empower them to make the decisions on where this 5 percent will come from. Because I can say if I was them, I know what I would cut, and it would not be the priorities that you would have.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to say to my friend from Athens, Georgia, where you do not have beaches, you know that the local share, once the Corps of Engineers does a cost-benefit analysis, which it always does, there is a requirement the State and the local government kick in. The State gives a pretty good amount of money. But the reason why they may be more motivated from a economic basis is they directly benefit from the economic impact.

I do agree with you the Federal Government should not be worried about the economic impact, but where the Federal Government is most concerned is in flood control. As you and I know, the more sand you have in between you and the high tide when the hurricane comes, the more protected you are going to be.

And as long as we have FEMA that writes checks after disasters and a National Flood Insurance Program, there is a good reason that the Federal Government is involved with beach renourishment.

It has nothing to do with recreation, really less to do with economics, but a heck of a lot to do with flood protection. And that is why the Federal Government is involved in it. So to my friend from Athens, you are welcome to come down to Tybee Island anytime you want to despite this irresponsible amendment of yours. But I am going to oppose it, and welcome you to come. Bring your own suntan oil.

I'm sitting here hearing what a wonderful organization the U.N. is, and I can't help but wonder: Where in the heck were they during Rwanda? Where were they? I would love to yield the floor to anybody out there.

You know, that was the most miserable failure and genocide that the world has seen in modern times. Where was the U.N.? And we all know they were absolutely nowhere. There were 800,000 people killed, slaughtered, an absolute genocide; and it went from, I think, April until July 6, 800,000 people killed with machetes on the street, and the U.N. spent the whole 3, 4 months debating the definition of genocide.

The U.N. is not there when you need them. The U.N. spends lots of time condemning Israel, lots of time on anti-United States jabs. They aren't being helpful so far that I can see on Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, or anywhere else in the Middle East where the pot seems to be boiling over. But I just remember so vividly genocide in Rwanda and the U.N. not being there.

I would suggest to people, you know, we all want to read books. Read the book ``Hotel Rwanda.'' Read the book, ``We Regret to Inform You, But Tonight They Are Coming for Our Children,'' about the genocide in Rwanda. There are lots of books, and it's well documented on how absolutely worthless the U.N. was.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say about this and to my friend from Oregon is, I believe we should put farm subsidies on the table. And that's why in this bill we have included cuts to very popular agriculture red state, if you will, programs, rural development, the Farm Service Agencies, and the NRCS. All kinds of conservation programs are cut in this. However, there are a number of traditional farm programs that we are going to let the ag authorizing committee deal with, because that's where they need to be dealt with.

So I want to say this. While I oppose the gentleman's amendment, I don't oppose you seeking a reduction to the subsidies. But we believe that this has to be dealt with in the farm bill. And I look forward to working with you and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on that when it comes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to make three points real quickly.

Number one, we have shown in this bill that we understand our mandate is to reduce spending. We are going to take on ag subsidies.

Number two, we have already shown that in this bill with cuts to rural development, Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

And, finally, we talk about next year? This is last year we are debating. We are debating the year in which planting decisions have already made.

This is last year's budget we're still working on. That's why we can't do this in the midseason.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I have one more speaker, and we will close with him.

I just want to say that the ag section of this bill cuts $5.2 billion. Three to four of those billions comes straight from production agriculture, not from school nutrition and other socially sensitive programs.

I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Will the gentleman yield?

When the gentleman is ready to yield, I want to say we support the amendment.

Well, I have to ask my friend from New York if sheep are carnivorous. Do they bite human beings? That's my question. I understand that they can be carnivorous.

So there's not a feed subsidy for them. I just want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, because I understand there was an incident. We do support the amendment.