Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, of which I'm a cosponsor. It's been the practice of this House for decades to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion except in rare cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. This is typically done by attaching language to appropriation bills that go through this House. Unfortunately, we don't always have regular order.

Appropriation bills this year are likely to see a minibus or an omnibus or a vehicle that might not lend itself to attachment of this language. So I think it is prudent what the House is doing today to ensure that this language goes into legislation to make sure that federal funds are not used for abortion services and to carry on the will of this body. For that, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all three free trade agreements that will be on the floor today.

In an era where we have a near-constant supply of Federal bailouts and stimulus packages and Federal spending, it is refreshing that Congress is doing today what it should be doing, and that is creating an environment in a bipartisan way under which businesses can create jobs and the economy can flourish. It's the appropriate role of Congress to take these kinds of steps, to simply create an environment and then step out of the way and let businesses create these jobs.

Arizona alone had more than $15 billion worth of merchandise exports in 2010. More than half was exported to countries with which we have free trade agreements. These three free trade agreements today will only expand the opportunities for that to increase. These arrangements will allow the private sector to create thousands of new jobs and strengthen the economy in the long term.

Again, that is the appropriate role for government, to create an environment where the private sector can create jobs. That's what free trade agreements do. That's why I'm pleased to support these agreements today.

Madam Speaker, what happens at the United Nations this week will have a profound and lasting effect on the prospects for peace in the Middle East. If the Palestinian Authority succeeds in obtaining U.N. recognition for a Palestinian state, it will only delay genuine efforts at a negotiated settlement.

Israel has, for many years, cooperated in good faith with Palestinian and international efforts to mediate peace and work toward a two-state solution. It has made many concessions, some of which were not always in Israel's best interest. The Palestinians, unsatisfied with these efforts at the negotiating table, are seeking an end-run around Israel in an attempt to gain statehood by means of the United Nations.

Watching this spectacle unfold, I was reminded of the time I spent in Namibia in the late eighties and early nineties, where the U.N. General Assembly had arbitrarily designated one of the political parties the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. That had the effect of delaying the negotiating process that ultimately led to Namibia's independence. The same designation was awarded several decades ago to the PLO, and it had a similar effect.

The U.S. Government should use all the tools at its disposal, fiscal and otherwise, to ensure that that same outcome is avoided here.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

I didn't plan on speaking, but I couldn't help after hearing the comments, and I would gladly yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady if she wants to explain further.

I have never heard this used as a measurement before, as a positive measurement, the number of jobs per megawatt for solar power.

Now, I'm from Arizona. I like solar power. It's great. But since when are we using, as a positive, the number of jobs it takes to create a megawatt? Will it be seen as a positive in the future if it takes more jobs to create a megawatt? Is that a good thing for the economy? Is that a jobs program of some type? I mean, it just baffles me sometimes at the arguments that are made as to why we should keep programs like this going and keep spending.

I would be glad to yield time to the gentlelady if she wants to explain that further.

I thank the gentlelady, but that is precisely the opposite of the number of jobs per megawatt. If nuclear creates more energy for fewer jobs and less cost, that's the direction we should go because it's nonpolluting as well. But this notion that we have to keep this going because it just creates jobs and jobs per megawatt, it just baffles me.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. We're borrowing 41 cents on every dollar. We ought to save money where we can.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that all mail sent by Members, committees, and leadership offices be on the official letterhead of the sending office. This amendment would not prevent Members from sending mass mailings or the so-called ``499s.''

The specific intent of the amendment is to prohibit the use of the four-color glossy mailers that Members occasionally send and that are paid for at taxpayer expense. They are virtually indistinguishable at times from campaign mailers. If I were to hold up an example of franked mail sent out at taxpayer expense with a little tiny disclaimer there saying ``paid for at taxpayer expense''--four-color glossy with a big touched-up photo of the Member standing there, typically--you would not be able to tell the difference, unless you looked very, very closely, between that and campaign mailers that are sent out and paid for at the campaign expense.

I think that in this era, particularly given the budget constraints that we're under, for Members of Congress to be sending out what is essentially campaign mail at taxpayer expense should be forbidden. We shouldn't be able to do that.

We have certain rules that even prohibit the mailing of these mailers within 90 days of an election. So we recognize as a body, as an institution, that these are essentially instruments of a campaign; yet we allow it before 90 days. I would say that we are already drawing a line. That line is simply drawn in the wrong place. We should prohibit these four-color glossy mailers from being sent out at taxpayer expense.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I thank the gentleman.

I would simply say in response that the gentleman says that we shouldn't be in the business of telling Members what they can mail and when they can mail it. We already are in that business. We do that. We already have a line drawn, 90 days before an election, and we say you can't mail these four-color glossy brochures after 90 days because it would be seen and perceived as electioneering. But what about 91 days before an election?

We have an office here that tells the Members what words they can use to describe a Medicare benefit or some bill that has been passed. If you use it in one way, they say that's disallowed. We shouldn't be in that business. That's the business we shouldn't be in. And we wouldn't be in that business if we just said, hey, don't do electioneering at taxpayer expense.

We all know, believe me, when you see those four-color glossies, you know that's a campaign mailer at taxpayer expense. So we're not fooling anybody by saying we have rules that prohibit it, and let's just stick to the rules of the House.

We do have lines that are drawn; they're just drawn in the wrong place. And I can tell you nothing feeds the cynicism around the country about us, Members of Congress, than to get one of those mailers and see the tiny print there, ``Paid for at taxpayer expense.'' We shouldn't be in that business.

During the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process the newspaper Roll Call noted that: The House Chief Administrative Officer asked appropriators to raise the Members' Representational Allowances, or MRA, which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, travel and supplies, by $90 million, citing increases due to the election year cycle.

Now, why would an election year cycle be any more expensive than any other? It's because Members all rush to get these glossy mailers out before the 90-day deadline. And we send the 499s. We send 499, you know why? Because anything over 500 is prohibited, so Members will send 499 of them. It's electioneering. We know it. We're not fooling anybody.

We ought to draw the line back a bit so we don't feed this cynicism around the country that says that incumbents have advantages that challengers or others running in these races every 2 years don't. And that's the truth.

Speaking here as an incumbent, we have enough advantages, believe me. We can get on television whenever we want. We can stand here at the pulpit late at night, or otherwise, and offer amendments. We can get our mug on television all we want to. We shouldn't have the advantage of sending out four-color glossy mailers at taxpayer expense. That's what this amendment is about, and I urge adoption of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Members from purchasing online advertisements that link to a Web site that is maintained by their MRA.

This appropriations bill will fund the legislative branch through much of the next election cycle. We all know, as I said before, incumbents tend to have a natural advantage over challengers in elections; 98 percent of incumbents are typically reelected. It is largely due to the benefits that we currently have. We shouldn't try to make those better than they are naturally.

Members are allowed to use funds in order to design and obtain an official Web site through house.gov. That is perfectly appropriate, and I am glad we are able to do that. We all have our Web sites that we maintain using our funds, and people should be able to contact their Members of Congress, and that is the easiest way to contact us at this point.

Members are also allowed to maintain various profiles on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and ones that will be created in the future. Aside from the salaries and expenses of a Member's staff and computers, maintaining a social networking profile doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers.

However, some Members have been using official funds to pay for ads that link either to their official Web site or to one of their social networking profiles. I would submit that while it may serve our purposes, by its very nature, purchasing advertising provides a Member an opportunity for promotion that facilitates greater name identification. Is not broadening name recognition and identification a classic responsibility of a Member's campaign activities?

If there is even a chance that taxpayer money on online ads could be viewed by Members as promoting themselves for campaign purposes, we should not allow it. Especially now that we are in this budget crisis, we shouldn't be allowing Members to use their MRA or taxpayer money to purchase advertising to drive people to their official sites or their social networking sites.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would say in response that we already have lines that we have drawn. We don't allow Members simply to advertise out on the Internet like a campaign would. That's paid for by campaign activities, not by taxpayer dollars. Yet this is something that has grown and evolved just over the past couple of years, the ability to buy advertisements that drive people to your Web site. This isn't something that we could have foreseen 10 years ago. It has just evolved. We need to bring our regulations in line with current technology.

I would submit that buying online advertising to basically increase your name identification should be beyond what our official money should be used for. There are plenty of ways that Members can announce town halls, service academy nominations, seminars, or any other event that they need to host without buying online advertising with taxpayer dollars. That's what this amendment is about.

The gentleman before brought up a point: Why don't we just take this kind of thing to the Franking Commission or to the administration of the House and say let's change the rules rather than doing it here?

I can tell you why. Typically, there is a partisan environment against spending or against this or against that where you have some kind of debate. But in this case, Republicans and Democrats work together to protect incumbents because we are all incumbents here. Unless you can let the public know what is going on in a forum like this which you don't get when you just go to the Franking Commission, you don't get change.

I can tell you that sending out four-color glossy brochures, as I mentioned in the last amendment, or buying online advertising to direct people to your official site does not pass the smell test or the laugh test outside the Beltway in terms of what taxpayer money should be spent on.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate. Members on both sides of the aisle stand and claim moral superiority when it comes to the debt that we've accumulated. There is plenty of blame to go around.

When Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate and when there was a Republican in the White House, we behaved badly, from No Child Left Behind to prescription drug benefits, bloated farm bills, swollen highway bills, bridges to nowhere, pork strewn everywhere. Let's be honest, we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current President took the wheel.

So here we are today, Mr. Speaker. It matters little who drove what shift. What matters is that we, both parties, are teetering on the fiscal cliff, getting ready to drag the country into the abyss.

Fortunately, the 2006 midterm elections sent many of us on a detour on the road to Damascus, and we are here today with a cut, cap, and balance plan that will put us back on sure financial footing. If the other side of the aisle has a plan that does not entail more of the same behavior that got us here, we should consider that plan. To date, we have seen no such plan.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this cut, cap, and balance legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 573, I mistakenly voted nay instead of yea. It had been my intention to support final passage of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. While I am aware that a vote may not be changed after a rollcall vote has been closed, I would like the Record to reflect this error and to reiterate my support for H.R. 2018.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I know there are a lot of people that are offering amendments, so I will try to move very quickly here.

This amendment would simply prohibit funds from going to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. There is ARPA-Defense, there is ARPA other stuff, there is ARPA-E. This is what we are trying to do is prohibit funding from going to ARPA-E, or energy.

ARPA-E is currently set to receive about $100 million in this appropriation bill. The most compelling argument given to defund ARPA-E is found on its own Web site, which states that it was established ``to focus on creative, out-of-the-box transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk, but where success would provide dramatic benefits.'' It is this kind of, I guess, out-of-the-box thinking that has gotten us into this deficit that we're running, about $1.6 trillion.

We are broke. We are borrowing 41 cents on every dollar that we spend, yet still we find within our budget reason to find $100 million to fund energy research in private companies that others won't fund because it's too risky.

Now, we're not talking about products for defense for which there is no commercial application; we're talking about private sector research that could reap a windfall for some private company, and has in a number of other areas. But yet we believe that it's prudent to borrow-- because we're borrowing everything here--borrow money from the taxpayer to pick and choose favored companies to receive this research money.

It's not right. We ought to defund it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just hoping that this amendment doesn't rise to the level of being the most ridiculous amendment that the gentleman from Washington has ever seen.

They usually do.

But I would just say again here, we're not talking about things in national security or in defense for which there is no commercial application, for which companies that invest in this kind of research would not reap a windfall, the reason for which the profit motive incentivizes companies to invest in these things. Why in the world does government have to be the investor of last resort in what are, quote, transformational energy research for which the industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk? I mean, if it's that high risk, believe me, we shouldn't be taking it.

If venture capital out there won't do it, we shouldn't be doing it either with money that we're borrowing from venture capitalists and others who have a little better idea than we do. When we go out and support corn ethanol for 30 years, for crying out loud, or some of these other things and we keep doing it and saying, Yeah, it's going to come around one of these days and this is just a promising new area of research, come on. We're $14 trillion in debt. We have negotiations going on right now over at the White House or somewhere else trying to figure a way to raise the debt ceiling to spend more.

Isn't it time that we review programs like this, where we are trying to replace what is not happening in the private sector or trying to outguess the private sector?

And I just tell you, if we can't cut here, I don't know where we're going to cut, I really don't. The gentleman made the point that we are down to 2006 levels. Great. We ought to go further than that. I mean, 2006, we act as if that was a Great Depression year, ``Grapes of Wrath'' music playing or something. It wasn't exactly that. We have seen ramping up year after year after year in some of these programs. We are spending more than we ever have.

So I would urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

This amendment would prohibit funds from going to the Fossil Energy Research and Development program.

The Fossil Energy Research and Development program is set to receive nearly $500 million through this appropriation bill. The committee report recommends that no less than $25 million be used to continue research in certain areas. But we shouldn't have any money going to subsidize Big Oil.

I reserve the balance of my time.

You know, with an energy resource as old as fossil energy, we're talking fossil fuels, we're talking Big Oil. We always hear from the other side of the aisle, Quit subsidizing Big Oil. And here we are directly saying we're going to give them research.

You know, some of the companies that directly receive grants under the plan I think are companies like Chevron or others to develop energy in the gulf or whatever else. Why in the world are we subsidizing that? We are hearing that they have profits, billions and billions of dollars just in the quarter, not just the year, and yet here we are subsidizing them again to more efficiently use fossil energy?

Now, fossil energy has been around a long time. It's not exactly a notion that no research goes into it. And it's going to be around for a lot longer still. Why in the world is the Federal Government saying we need to subsidize these companies who are conducting research on use and efficiency for fossil energy?

If we can't cut here, again, where can we cut? If we're going to stand up for Big Oil when it comes to spending money here, then where can we cut? I'm just flabbergasted when I come down to the floor and look at what we're funding and subsidizing here. But yet I hear the rhetoric about how we need to make sure that they're paying taxes and whatever else. I think they should. I think we ought to get rid of the corporate subsidies, all of these kinds of corporate subsidies. But why in the world are we developing programs to spend billions of dollars overall, millions in this case, to help these for-profit companies that we blast in one breath and then subsidize with the next? Where does it end, Mr. Chairman? If we can't cut here, where can we cut?

Again, this is fossil energy. It's been around a long time. It will be around a long time. We don't need to subsidize it.

And remember, every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we have borrowed from people across the country, from taxpayers, from investors, from venture capitalists, from others who would invest it far more wisely than we would here. The best allocation of capital resources is through the free market, not by government fiat or subsidy. We've learned that over time, but yet we persist in doing this time after time after time.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair.

This amendment would strike additional flood-related coverage provided in the underlying bill for business interruption and cost-of- living expenses. Specifically, this amendment would prohibit FEMA from offering individuals up to $5,000 for living expenses and up to $20,000 for interruption of business expenses.

I understand that the committee worked to ensure that the inclusion of this additional coverage would be provided at fully actuarial rates, but let me remind this body that Congress does not have a great track record when it comes to pricing risks. One has to look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to see an example of that, or just look at this program, itself.

The National Flood Insurance Program is about $18 billion in the red. Let me say that again. We have a Federal flood insurance program that currently owes the Treasury Department nearly $18 billion, so we shouldn't take at face value the notion that any new coverage that's offered is priced at fully actuarial rates.

This expansion of coverage will only increase taxpayer liability, which is the last thing that this Congress ought to do with a program so severely in debt and with a country so severely in debt. Instead, we should be passing legislation to narrow the scope of the NFIP, not to expand it.

Simply put, any reform to the NFIP should be moving toward privatization, and I am sure this belief is shared by a number of my colleagues. Voting against this amendment is a vote to expand the current National Flood Insurance Program. Again, a vote against this amendment is a vote to expand the current flood insurance program, a program that is currently $18 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury.

My understanding is that private market participants are hesitant to offer this type of coverage because it is not profitable for them to do so. I'm not sure I've ever seen an instance where government involvement in the market incentivized the private sector to compete. In fact, according to testimony from Taxpayers for Common Sense:

``We have learned from Federal flood insurance itself that the best way to stifle a private market is to have the Federal Government provide the same product.'' That simply makes sense.

When you have a Federal Government borrowing 41 cents on the dollar, the last thing we need to do is expand an insurance program that is already $18 billion in the red. Again, voting for this amendment isn't to cut this program--I wish it were--but it is simply to not allow the program to expand further.

FEMA estimated that had this same policy been enacted in 2005 before Katrina and Rita hit, combined losses from additional expenses and business interruption would have been about $600 million in net losses. If you consider the increase in policies since 2005, they estimated if we had another 2005-like year, this additional coverage would result in $850 million in net losses just for 2011. We can't afford to do that, Mr. Chairman.

If there is no private market for this type of coverage, we ought to understand why there is no private market, and having government enter the marketplace will only ensure there is no private market for it. We shouldn't be comforted by the notion that we will hear, I am sure, that the premiums will be priced at fully actuarial rates. That's saying that there's no private market out there, government has to be involved, but we have priced it as if the private sector were involved. Anybody who believes that, I have a bridge somewhere to sell you. Government entrance into this type of marketplace is simply not right. We shouldn't be doing it. And to my colleagues who think that we have a debt problem today, think what problem we will have if we have another year like 2005.

According to FEMA's only projections, it could result in $850 million in net losses. So I would urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 1.

I thank the Chair.

This amendment would reduce the operations and maintenance defense- wide account by $250 million, the same amount appropriated by section 8122 of the bill. Section 8122 appropriates another $250 million in FY12 for the Secretary of Defense to use for the Office of Economic Adjustment, or to transfer to the Secretary of Education to make grants to public schools located on military bases for construction, renovation and repairs.

I will just summarize what's happening here. We have some schools that are on military bases. Now, some of the schools on military bases are run by the Department of Defense. That's not what we're speaking about here. The schools that we're talking about here, LEAs, Local Education Agencies, run them. In the FY11 budget, we appropriated $250 million of defense money--this is in the Defense bill--to go to schools that are the responsibility of Local Education Agencies.

Now, some of these schools are in disrepair. They're in bad shape. Nobody's questioning that. Education budgets are tight everywhere around the country. Ask your own States. Ask your local school districts. But we cannot continue to divert money from the Department of Defense simply because that's where money is and few people question it. I'm sure the gentleman will stand up here and say, hey, these schools are in bad shape; they're on military bases; we've got to fix them, and the Local Education Agencies have said these schools are in disrepair. But why are we taking money that should be going to the military, to the troops, to other purposes, and diverting it to local education or local schools that are the responsibility of Local Education Agencies?

I have here one of the contracts for one of these schools that is being discussed here. It says: The permittee or his designee shall, at his own cost and expense, protect, preserve, maintain, repair and keep in good order and condition these schools.

This is a Local Education Agency, not the Department of Defense. That shouldn't be the responsibility of the Department of Defense, and we're bleeding off $250 million.

I'm sure the gentleman will stand up and say this is needed, this isn't going to be a continual thing, we've just got to bring these schools up to repair. They'll say that the Department of Defense has said that these schools are in disrepair. They are. Nobody is questioning that. The question is: Where should this money come from? And if we have this kind of money to throw around for defense, then we ought to be cutting more defense funding.

This funding, if there's a problem, it should go through the Local Education Agencies, or convince the Federal Department of Education through Impact Aid to send money to these schools, but not the Department of Defense. That has been the practice, unfortunately, around here for quite a while now.

We say, all right, what account can we take money from, for earmarks or whatever else, that few people will question? It's defense spending. We take that off for education or research or whatever else, and pretty soon we're diverting a lot of money that should go to the troops to other purposes.

Like I said, nobody's questioning that these schools are in bad repair. Newsweek ran an article on June 27 that said 39 percent of the schools run by the public systems on Army installations fell in the failing or poor category. I don't question that. Nobody does. What's at question here is another $250 million.

As I said, we appropriated in the FY11 budget $250 million. So apparently this is going to become a standard practice now? And then you start to get the prospect of Members of Congress starting to submit their local bases, saying, hey, the schools there are bad, and we get into the old earmarking game by letter, or phone marking, or whatever else, because it will be the spoils system all over again as to who gets the defense money to actually fix these schools. So this would simply say this money, $250 million that has been requested for this purpose, shall not be spent.

The gentleman may stand up and say, hey, this is generally taken from the Department of Defense, or from the operations and maintenance, and so that's not specific enough. Believe me, the Secretary of Defense, if they have the choice to fund the troops or the schools, will fund the troops because the schools are under the responsibility of the local education agency. The Department of Defense may submit a list and say these schools are in disrepair, but it's not the responsibility of the Department of Defense to fund these schools.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I should mention the gentleman from Washington mentioned that the Secretary of Defense said we have got to do something about these schools. I should note that this was not in the Defense request. If he thought something ought to be done, you would think that they would have put it in their request. They didn't. It wasn't in the authorization bill. There is a Department of Education program, a competitive program for this already. If we think that it should have more money, then it should.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 2.

This amendment is straightforward. It will simply reduce the amount appropriated to the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund by roughly $3.5 billion. We often hear in this body the Constitution grants the Congress the power of the purse, that the President's budget is not sacrosanct, and that Members should be able to guide Federal spending. I agree with that.

So I was quite surprised that the committee included in this bill an appropriation of $5 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operation Transfer Fund, but provided virtually no guidance on how it should be spent beyond requiring that any obligations be, quote, pursuant to the global war on terrorism. That's roughly 4 percent of the overall cost of the war spending portion of this bill.

I understand the funding could provide the Department of Defense with a little more flexibility as it moves ahead with operations in Afghanistan, while simultaneously withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. I am sympathetic to the need to properly fund the war in a way that requires us to budget for it.

But this $5 billion with very few strings attached could also be used for just about anything, including, as a bargaining chip, for negotiations with the Senate, according to the CQ Today article, which ran on June 14.

I would submit that it's an expensive bargaining chip, and it's a very risky gamble, in my view. The President recently announced his intent to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which I think he will make the case for in the months ahead. And the Department of Defense has some flexibility as we move ahead in the months ahead.

So I think it's fair to reduce the amount appropriated in this fund to roughly $1.5 billion. That amounts to 1 percent of the war-related costs of the bill instead of 4 percent. Oversees Contingency Operations Transfer Funds have been requested in the past by the Department of Defense. I understand that. I think we all understand that, to give the Department of Defense some flexibility.

What I am saying here is, $5 billion is a little too much flexibility here. Let's

regain our prerogative here to direct this money, to have the power of the purse and simply not allow that amount, $5 billion. That would simply reduce it to $1.5 billion.

According to CQ Today, the Army requested about $2 billion for transportation expenses in Afghanistan. The House panel said that funding need was overstated because the Army was assuming all supplies are flown into that country, when only about 20 percent arrive by air.

I commend the committee for carefully drilling down on the requests submitted by the services and identifying places where funding is unjustified and unneeded. However, instead of pulling back all the money in what could become a slush fund, we should do better. We should take steps to simply make sure that money that doesn't have to be spent is not spent.

That's what this amendment does. I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.

The amendment would reduce each of the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts by 1 percent, or roughly $730 million below the currently appropriated $73 billion provided in this measure.

Amendments of this sort have been offered to other Defense-related measures recently, though they have attempted to cut amounts far greater than what I am proposing. During one of these debates, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee made the point that ``if you are going to reduce the defense budget, there ought to be a good reason.'' I agree. And I submit that both the severity of the fiscal situation we face and the consequences of inaction are compelling reasons to reduce the defense budget along with everything else.

The Appropriations Committee started a positive trend when, during the consideration of appropriations for fiscal year 2011, it reduced the RDT&E accounts below the levels that have been funded in recent years.

I applaud the committee for taking a serious look at these and other accounts and for acting accordingly, but I think we need to do better. We're going to have to get used to cutting defense budgets here if we're going to get our fiscal situation in order.

The defense budget accounts for roughly half of the discretionary spending that is considered during the regular appropriations process during the year. According to the Domenici-Rivlin Commission ``Restoring America's Future,'' RDT&E budgets have increased from $49.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $80.2 billion in fiscal year 2010.

So you are seeing an amount of about 80 percent higher now than they were in just 2001. That is a 63 percent increase. I'm getting my math wrong here. That report also suggested reducing the RDT&E budget would ``impose greater discipline in research investments.''

In addition, Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center argues in an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine that the RDT&E budget should be reduced, saying that ``it would be safe to cut it, too, by 19 percent between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2018. Such a reduction would yield $87 billion in savings while keeping the United States' level of military R&D far above any other country.''

I'm not attempting to or suggesting that we make cuts that deep in these accounts with this amendment. I recognize that they have already taken a sizeable hit in fiscal year 11. I also know that my colleagues will come to the floor and tout the values of these accounts. They'll talk about and highlight important successes we've achieved with weapons and other systems that wouldn't have been possible without these accounts. I recognize that.

But if we're all going to have to get used to voting for cuts in defense, cutting 1 percent of the $73 billion made available to RDT&E is far from Draconian and will not preclude any such future successes.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman mentioned that this defense budget is cut $7 billion below?

That's below the President's request, not below the budget----

I just appreciate that this is not the most ridiculous amendment. I'm glad that threshold was reached.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, as I'm certain my colleagues are aware by now, in 2002 Brazil filed a complaint with the WTO accusing the U.S. of trade-distorting cotton subsidies that were inconsistent with our international trade obligations. The WTO sided with Brazil; and after years of debate, a WTO arbitration panel authorized Brazil to engage in retaliatory trade sanctions against the U.S. for more than $800 million.

Instead of effectively reforming our programs, however, the administration agreed to pay $147.3 million annually in technical assistance to Brazilian cotton farmers every year until the issues of trade compliance in our cotton programs are resolved in the next farm bill's passage or a mutually agreed upon solution is reached. There is little chance that we're going to have reauthorization this year of the farm bill. I would suggest that it's probably not likely that we will do so next year either.

So here we are again. We've talked about this before: spending money, 147 million taxpayer dollars to the Brazilians, so that we can continue to subsidize our own cotton farmers. We simply shouldn't do that.

Now some will say, hey, if we do this, it will spark a trade war, if we get rid of this payment to Brazil. In my view, we dealt with that effectively in the Appropriations Committee. I offered an amendment saying if you want to pay the Brazilians off to not have them retaliate for our trade protections, then let's do that out of the money we're giving to our own cotton farmers. So take out of direct payments $147 million and pay that. That amendment was adopted in the Appropriations Committee.

Well, guess what? A point of order was raised here and that amendment was stricken, so we couldn't do that. So all this concern--people say they're concerned about the taxpayer, well, we protected the taxpayer there by saying let's take the money out of the fund that we already pay our own farmers and pay off the Brazilians. That was rejected here. And so here we are again.

We have an amendment that will be voted on later, the Kind amendment, which will simply strike that payment. I plan to vote for that amendment; I hope we do that. But another way of approaching that as well is to simply go at our own cotton subsidies to ensure that we're not distorting the market by doing this program in the first place.

Now the Ag Committee will say, that's our expertise, let us deal with that; we'll deal with that in a new farm bill. Well, they dealt with that in the old farm bill, and many of us stood here and warned and said this is trade distorting; the WTO is going to rule against us and we're going to end up with retaliatory trade sanctions.

Well, the Ag Committee went ahead and did it anyway. It didn't fix the problem. They will say, well, we tried, we tried. But it's not the direct payments that are the problem. It's the countercyclical, it's the other programs that we have. And until that is dealt with, we're going to have these trade sanctions.

So when the Ag Committee stands up and says let us deal with that, I would remind people we have let them deal with that, and they haven't dealt with it. And so we have to go about it in another way.

I would simply say we cannot continue to subsidize our own ag interests this way, in particular this cotton program, when we know it's out of step with our international trade obligations.

So you can go about it in two ways. You can go ahead and say, hey, we're going to not pay Brazil this amount, this protection money--or whatever you want to call it, this tribute--and then that will force us to deal with our own cotton subsidies; or we can deal with the cotton subsidies ourselves with this amendment and simply say we aren't going to do these trade-distorting cotton subsidies anymore. Then there won't be a need to pay Brazil off.

So that's what this amendment does. I would urge adoption of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I recognize the appropriations process isn't the best way to legislate, it really isn't, and this is a clumsy way. This only applies to this act, and you have to do it in strange ways. I understand that.

But we are told that we ought to rely on the expertise of the Ag Committee. Well, the expertise of the Ag Committee is what got us into this problem in the first place. It is what got us into the problem of having to pay Brazil in order to continue to subsidize our own farmers. That is what we are dealing with here.

I recognize this is clumsy. I recognize this is uncomfortable. But we have got to do this some way, and we can't rely on just waiting until the next farm bill is passed. It may not be this year, or likely won't be. It won't be next year, or likely won't yet. So we could be doing this for years. So I recognize it is clumsy, I apologize for that, but we have to do something at some point.

I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for his work in this area for a long time over the years to try to end these out-of-step programs that we have in the agricultural field. Let me just correct something that was said before. It was said that we're in this position because of Brazil, because of the practices that they're doing. No. It's because our own agricultural policy--in this case, our cotton subsidies--is trade distorting. Nobody can stand up in this body or on this floor and make a case otherwise. Nobody can stand up with a straight face and say that our cotton program that we have is not trade distorting. That's why we're in this problem. That's why Brazil was able to take this case to the WTO, and the WTO ruled in their favor--because we have trade distorting farm policies. That's what we need to fix. That's the intent of this amendment.

There was an amendment last night by Congressman Kind that will be voted on later today. I may not and likely will not call for a rollcall on this one so that people can focus on that one. The Kind amendment limits payments to Brazil. If we do that, then we can force a change in our own policy, and we can force that issue better than perhaps any other amendment right now. So that's what I would encourage people to vote for, is the Kind amendment, when it comes to a rollcall later. If you do not believe that it's proper to be sending money to Brazil to address our own trade distorting cotton policy, then vote for the Kind amendment later today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

This is a rather straightforward amendment. I should say, before I start, that an identical amendment to this was approved when we voted on H.R. 1 earlier this year by a vote of 261-158.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Okay. Then, reclaiming my time, I will be very brief.

The ethanol industry, as we all know, receives a trifecta of government support. Its use is mandated by law. It is protected by a prohibitive import tariff on imported ethanol; and it receives billions in subsidies, effectively paying them to follow the law.

Everyone knows that ethanol subsidies are going to go away. Thirty years is enough. I mean, even Al Gore and others who supported them in the beginning said, no, that was a mistake, and we're going the other direction now. So ethanol supports--or direct subsidies or the import tariffs--are going to go.

The industry is asking, How can we keep these subsidies going? The effort now is to pay for infrastructure, so the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, has indicated that he wants the USDA to determine how it can potentially use programs to promote the distribution and storage--blender pumps--and how to put money into infrastructure. As we all know, once you start putting money into infrastructure, then you say, well, we've already put some money in, and we've got to continue to do it, so those subsidies will continue and continue and continue.

We cannot continue to do this, Madam Chair. We cannot continue to fund this, particularly when we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. I would urge the adoption of the amendment, and I am glad that the chairman supports it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman and thank him for his articulate remarks on this.

I failed to mention the breadth of support for this amendment in the outside community. Let me just read some of these names.

I thank the gentleman.

Suffice it to say, there's a long list of organizations supporting this. Everyone on the right from Americans for Limited Government, Americans for Prosperity; on the left, Freedom Action, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace; then everyone in the middle, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Milk Producers Council, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Meat Association, National Turkey Federation, National Wildlife Federation, and on and on and on.

This is a great amendment and I urge its adoption.

This amendment is supported by the following organizations:

Action Aid USA; American Frozen Food Institute; American

Meat Institute; Americans for Limited Government; Americans

for Prosperity; California Dairies, Inc.; Clean Air Task

Force; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Environmental

Working Group; Friends of the Earth; Freedom Action;

Greenpeace USA; Grocery Manufacturers Association; Milk

Producers Council; National Chicken Council; National Council

of Chain Restaurants; National Meat Association; National

Restaurant Association; National Turkey Federation; National

Wildlife Federation; Oxfam America; Southeast Milk, Inc.;

Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, much attention has been paid to making significant cuts in Federal spending. The first step in addressing the massive public debt that has accumulated, I would submit, is that all areas of spending need to be on the table. This includes spending on farm subsidies. We've already talked a lot about this today.

Over the last 15 years, almost three-quarters of farm payments have gone to just 10 percent of producers. The bottom 80 percent of recipients account for slightly more than a tenth of that money. Under current law, recipients are entitled to receive farm subsidies so long as their adjusted gross income, or AGI, is less than $500,000 in nonfarm AGI and $750,000 in farm AGI.

Thus, you can have an adjusted gross income of slightly less than $1.25 million and still ask taxpayers to foot the bill for your Federal agriculture payment. Let me say that again. You can have an adjusted gross income of $1.25 million, adjusted gross income, and still go to the trough here and ask the taxpayers for farm subsidy payments. I would ask anyone, how can they explain why a family earning more than $1 million a year needs to receive a check from the government?

This amendment would lower that income limit to be eligible to receive farm payments from $1.25 million to $250,000 in adjusted gross income. I think a farmer has done well if they clear $250,000. I think it's wonderful if they do that. They should try to take a day off from their hard work if they do. But don't come back to the Federal Government and say, we need more farm subsidy payments. Let's have some sanity in this program here.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, administered by the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, the MAP program uses funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to aid the development, expansion and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. It does so by forming partnerships with nonprofit trade organizations and cooperatives, nonprofit State regional trade groups, small businesses and others to market our products overseas.

In a perfect world, if there is a lot of money hanging around to do something, this might be a good thing to do to help these small companies market their products overseas. I would argue that is really not the proper role and function of government, but people could argue when times are good, let's do that. But we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. Every dollar that we spend on this kind of thing is borrowed. And we are borrowing money to subsidize companies, small and large, to market their products overseas.

A while ago, The New York Times shined some light on this program. They spotlighted the ridiculousness of a fashion show in India put on with taxpayer money in partnership with the cotton industry's Cotton Council International. Here we are subsidizing a fashion show in India in partnership with the Cotton Council International.

The article notes that ``over the last decade, the program has provided nearly $2 billion in taxpayer money to agricultural trade associations and farmer cooperatives. These promotions are as varied as a manual for pet owners in Japan and a class at a Mexican culinary school to teach aspiring chefs how to cook rice for Mexican customers.'' Come on. We are spending money that we are borrowing for this kind of activity.

You will hear arguments for every dollar we spend in this, it yields $20 in returned income or whatever else. You always hear that when you hear about government spending that people want to protect. But let me say, when we are running debt and deficits like we are today, we shouldn't be running programs like this. We ought to save money where we can.

Time magazine also noted here that a lot of the money goes to large farmer-owned cooperatives. It will be portrayed it is just helping small businesses, that there have been reforms to make sure it doesn't go to corporations like McDonald's or whatever else.

But this article noted that corporations like Sunkist, Welch's and Blue Diamond, which grows and sells almonds, combined these three companies had over $2 billion in sales in 2009. These aren't small companies, yet we are subsidizing them. We are subsidizing the promotion of their products overseas. I am glad they are exporting. I hope they continue to export. But they don't need to do it with taxpayer money.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kind amendment. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for offering this.

You know, we've heard here that we need this program to make us trade compliant. Many of us warned when we did the last farm bill that if we did this level of subsidies that it would run afoul of our trade agreements. Yet we plowed ahead and did it anyway. And then April of last year is when our farm programs, which on their best day are out of step with reality, moved into the realm of the absurd when we hatched a program to actually fund an institute in Brazil to fund the cotton industry there to start subsidizing the Brazilians so that we could continue to subsidize our own farmers. Is that not absurd? Why are we continuing to do this?

It was raised before that we've got to do this to make us trade compliant now where tariffs might be imposed. That is true, but I offered an amendment in the committee earlier on that would have taken money from the direct payments that we currently pay to cotton farmers and paid off the Brazilians with that money rather than raid the Treasury and raid the taxpayers once again. And guess what? That passed in committee but was stricken when it came to the floor.

So when you hear all this rhetoric about, hey, we want to be trade compliant, we could have done that. We could have simply allowed that amendment to stick in the bill, and then this would have been trade compliant. But the Brazilians would have been paid off not with new taxpayer money but with the money that is making us non-trade compliant in the first place.

So don't believe what you're hearing about, we just want to be trade compliant; that's what this is about. We offered an alternative to that, and it was rejected. And so here we are asking the taxpayers to once again this year, $147 million to the Brazilians to make us trade compliant. We've got to stop this.

Nobody really believes that we're going to do a farm bill this year. Nobody really believes we're going to do one next year. And so we're going to be doing this year after year after year, so that means that we're going to continue to do this unless we stop it. I can tell you if we pass the Kind amendment tonight, we will be back and we'll reform our cotton subsidies in a way that will make us trade compliant. We'll go back and accept the Flake amendment that passed in the Appropriations Committee that perhaps took the money from the cotton program.

We don't need to continue to ask the taxpayers to pay off the Brazilians so that we can continue out-of-step subsidies to our own farmers. That's what this amendment is about. I commend the gentleman for offering it.

And I would yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I just want to make a point that everybody needs to take a haircut here if we are going to get this debt and deficit under control. We shouldn't ask the taxpayers once again to pay off the Brazilians so we can continue out-of-step subsidies to our own farmers.

We have a cotton industry in Arizona. They may take a hit because of this, but everybody has to take a haircut. Everybody has to contribute here to getting this deficit and this debt under control. And if we can't start with a program like this, I don't know where we'll start.

After this amendment, I plan to offer an amendment that will go after the programs that actually make us nontrade compliant. I will be glad to give up on that amendment, not offer it at all, if this amendment is allowed to pass. But if it is called for the ``noes,'' then I plan to offer the amendment after this.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of the Kucinich resolution. I had hoped to be able to support the Boehner resolution. I share the Speaker's concern that a precipitous withdrawal called for by the Kucinich resolution sends a less than optimal signal to our NATO allies.

Yet, while we are on the subject of signals, I am far more concerned about the puzzling, confusing, mystifying signal that we send by passing a resolution that affirms that the President has not fulfilled his constitutional or statutory obligations, yet offers no remedy, only a mild rebuke, followed by a questionnaire.

Madam Speaker, I was here in 2001 when we authorized the use of force to enter Afghanistan. There was just one dissenting vote. When a genuine threat to our national security is perceived, it has been the longstanding practice of Congress to support the administration in its actions. The greater threat today, in my view, is the perpetual acquiescence of this body, in situations such as we face today in Libya, where we tolerate the use of military force when the threat to our national security is less obvious.

I move to strike the last word.

Both gentlemen speaking here are right. This requirement, the executive order, does not mandate the use of PLAs. However, some agencies have taken it and interpreted it as such that it should mandate it.

Let me give you one example here. On October 15, 2010, just a few months ago, the Army Corps of Engineers issued PIL 211-1 to all Army Corps contracting offices providing implementing guidance for the use of PLAs on Army Corps construction contracts. The following are major PIL elements.

Here it is, requires the project delivery team, PDT, to consider the use of the PLA on a project-by-project basis by conducting a PLA labor market survey during acquisition planning.

Yes. But then it goes further so there was a complaint because some people didn't want that in. The complaint came back and the Army Corps came back and said that they should receive additional consideration if they do use a PLA and that should be strictly forbidden.

And so there is--there is a problem here. We do have a problem here with the agencies interpreting this in a way that would require the use of the PLA or give added weight to the use of a PLA.

Now, when the gentleman says this amendment is not required because it's not prescriptive, the current law without the executive order is the same thing.

They can consider the use of a PLA. Nothing prohibits that now. So all the Executive order is doing is giving some agencies reason to maybe mandate the use of a PLA. And that's why we're trying to strike the Executive order. The scenario that the gentleman from Washington describes where nobody is requiring or mandating anything, that exists without the Executive order. So that's what we're trying to do here is remove that Executive order that gives added weight to PLAs.

Now, in Arizona, for example, 90-some percent of workers there are not union workers. They don't want a PLA. And if you have a project that gives added weight to PLAs, that disenfranchises a lot of people in Arizona, more than 90 percent of the population. So we just can't do that. We shouldn't do that. And so the gentleman's amendment should be accepted.

We did a similar one. It was accepted in the Appropriations Committee with regard to the MilCon budget, the MilCon appropriation bill. And so that will come to the floor with this amendment already in it.

I would suggest to the gentleman from Washington and others who oppose this that we're simply trying to get back to a time where PLAs can be considered but they aren't construed as being necessary or mandated by the agencies.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

It might be. And without the Executive order, they can consider that. Nothing prohibits that. But the problem is that the Executive order has led to a situation where some agencies interpret that as requiring a PLA, and that's what we're trying to get away from.

And so the amendment is a good one. I would urge its adoption, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward.

This will be consistent with another appropriation bill that is coming to the floor with this already in, already having been accepted by the Appropriations Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

This amendment would simply include sense of Congress language in the bill that would express that Congress supports extending the current deployment of National Guard troops on the border through the rest of the fiscal year.

As many are aware, in October of last year about 1,200 National Guard troops were deployed along the southwestern border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the presence of National Guard troops is helping to bridge the gap until we train enough border agents to patrol the rest of the border as authorized by Congress.

To be more specific, the Governor of Arizona recently indicated that under this deployment, the Arizona National Guard has been involved in approximately 19,000 observations, 10,000 apprehension assists, 235 drug seizure assists involving about 18 tons of marijuana.

However, unless action is taken, this deployment will end at the end of next month when troops will be coming off the border; they will be coming off the border likely before that as well.

In Arizona, those in the Yuma sector will tell you that the presence of National Guard troops has been instrumental in us achieving actually operational control, which means that if an illegal alien crosses the border in the Yuma sector, you have a reasonable expectation of catching him or her.

So we need that there to maintain operational control, and we also need that presence in the Tucson sector where we have something far from operational control. It would be a step backwards in the Tucson sector which continues to deal with human smuggling and drug smuggling.

Whether we like it or not, the southwestern border is not secure. In February of this year, the GAO testified that ``the Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control--873, 44 percent, of nearly 2,000 southwest border miles by the end of fiscal year 2010.''

So we have a long ways to go, and we certainly need these National Guard troops there. It is not the time to do that. When you talk particularly with the local ranchers, farmers and residents along the border who regularly come in contact with groups coming across the border, many times armed and many times carrying drugs, they certainly support the stay of the National Guard. When I talk to the ranchers, they have particular praise for the actions of the National Guard there. They've done a good job. So, until we can have operational control of more of the border, we've got to ensure that these National Guard troops stay.

My understanding is that the President now supports keeping them there if we can find the resources to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It simply seeks to repeal the authorization for the National Drug Intelligence Center which was included in the 1993 Defense Appropriations Act.

The NDIC is an entity that has received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over the years. This is despite steady criticism that it has been ineffective at accomplishing its mission. This is a mission that has been described as duplicative and ought to be realigned elsewhere.

The Wall Street Journal noted on January 31, ``Conservatives have argued the center is a waste of taxpayer money, and critics argue it has never fulfilled its promise to provide high-quality analysis of drug networks.''

I have come to this floor many times, seeking to eliminate funding or to otherwise close the NDIC. However, reducing funding or ending funding for the NDIC has been far from a solo mission. Earlier this year, we voted in the CR debate to end funding for the NDIC.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, President Bush proposed the termination of the NDIC in budget requests for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

In 2006, a spokesman for the Department of Justice asserted that the resources of the NDIC should be ``realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives.''

Even the current administration's Deputy Attorney General James Cole said that many of the center's functions can be performed elsewhere, as reported in ``CQ Today'' on February 14 of this year.

As I mentioned, during consideration of H.R. 1, 262 Members of this body voiced their opposition to the NDIC when they voted in favor of an amendment that I offered to strike funding in its entirety for fiscal year 2011. Yet the NDIC still received more than $34 million in fiscal year 2011, and stands to receive more in fiscal year 2012 unless we do something to stop it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me just say that two successive administrations, one Republican, one Democrat, have either called for eliminating or severely reducing the funding that goes to the NDIC because, as we have heard before, the programs are duplicative, wasteful. And there is no doubt that some good work goes on there. Nobody is disputing that. But there is also good work that goes on at the ONDCP or the DEA or other drug enforcement agencies or other agencies that have that as part of their portfolio.

That's the problem here. For years and years, we have been funding programs just because a particular powerful Member of this body or somebody sought an earmark or several earmarks or earmarks over a series of years to fund particular institutions or programs. That's what we have here. That's the legacy we are left with here. And we are simply trying to say enough is enough. We have got to save money somewhere. And if we can't do it with a program like this, where can we do it? When are we going to get serious about this debt and deficit that we have?

So that's what we're doing here. The reason we're doing it on this is because we're seeking to strike authorization. As we know, if we don't have authorization for a program, it's more difficult for that program to be funded. Believe me, we will be back in the appropriations process to go after this funding as well, but we thought we ought to go here. This was ruled in order. It is germane to the bill. And that's why we are here.

Let me just stress again, we have to get serious about this fiscal situation we are in. If we can't get serious about a program like this that's been called duplicative and wasteful, and two successive administrations, one Republican, one Democratic, have urged to either eliminate or severely reduce funding for, and yet Congress keeps coming back and providing far more money than the administration even wants for this because they know there are other programs, other agencies, other institutions that are doing this same work, if we can't save money here, I don't know where we're going to save it, Mr. Chairman.

So I would urge adoption of the amendment. Let's do something here for the taxpayer and something for our defense and intelligence and our antidrug efforts by making sure that programs that are not effective end and that funding be placed elsewhere.

I yield back the balance of my time.