news corp. chairman and ceo rupert murdoch continued answering questions on the details into the phone-hacking scandal at the now-defunct tabloid paper, "news of the world." mr. murdoch also talks about the

future of the newspaper industry and the standards necessary for creating an ethical climate in the newsroom. here is a portion of his testimony. >> before you start, i am grateful it is correct in one of the exhibits. >> 27 and 29, and that is one of the points mr. murdoch was going to start off with. your member yesterday we are were talking about the day that he saw the headline when "the sun" -- that was the 30th of september, 2009. i understand that you were in new york on that day and therefore there could have been and was -- mr. cameron on that day.

so the exhibits have been revised now to bring those facts into line. may i be clear mr. murdoch on one thing you said yesterday in relation to a conversation you had with mr. gordon brown, which was either on the 30th of september, 2009 or shortly after. do you remember that conversation in your evidence about it? there has been, as it were, a real-time commentary by mr. brown and he strongly denies that there was any such conversation can, and indeed he says the only conversation he had with you to lace in relation to a lesser hero to the mother of a soldier killed in afghanistan. can i take it in stages? do you remember a conversation with mr. brown over that matter? over that matter, namely the letter he wrote to the mother of a british soldier killed in

afghanistan? >> i don't remember conversation with mr. brown, although at the time i think i spoke to the editor and i thought it was too hard on mr. brown, that he had taken the trouble to write to the mother, obviously the handwriting wasn't very good but it seemed to be very cruel because he had taken the trouble. but i don't think i wrote him personally to apologize. i may have. but as for the other conversation which he has denied, i said very clear figures under oath and i stand by every word of it. and i would just point out, you didn't touch on it yesterday but, in the materials you put to

me, questions, mr. mandelson, or lord mandelson he was then the most senior member of the cabinet, charged news international with having done a deal with cameron, and i think i pointed out in my answer as they do now for the record, that lord mandelson in his book, said he did this from mr. brown knowing it to be false. that is in his own autobiography that he reluctantly went out -- and i think that just reflects on mr. brown's state of mind at the time. >> according to a piece in "the guardian" on the 12th of november, 2009, the conversation i referred to between you and

mr. brown relating to this story about the letter to the mother of a soldier killed in afghanistan being reported in the financial times. it is not a huge points mr. murdoch but are you sure that conversation did not take place? >> no, i'm not sure but i certainly did not defend it. i might have apologized but i did not defend it. i remember my thoughts at the time about it, but whether i was spoke to mr. brown or anyone else about it, i don't know. >> yesterday mr. marbach, i put you various viewpoints of your editors from time to time, howard evidence you point, the charismatic authority,

mrs. burke's viewpoint as reported in the house of lords communications first report. mr. neal. >> pointed in full disclosure "the sun" king, one third of that perspective it by me that they may or may not have all been consistent. mr. david yellin, do you remember him? >> yes. in an interview he gave to the evening standard in 2010, there is this very small paragraph. did murdoch interfere in his editorship and this quayle from mr. yellin, a what they do is this, they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything rupert says but you don't admit to yourself that you are being influenced. most murdoch editors wake up in the mornings which other radio and hear the something is happened and say what would riverbank about this? is like a mantra inside of your

head, it's like a prison. you look at the world through his eyes. do you see the point mr. murdoch? >> i understand what you are saying. mr. jay, but i think it's nonsense and i think you should take it in the context of mr. yellin's very strange autobiography. that he said he was drunk all the time which we did not notice. 's me when you yesterday mr. murdoch, if you want to judge my thinking, look at "the sun." "the sun" would only know your thinking either because you directly told them about it or because the editors went on the sort of thought process we see coming through mr. yellin's piece. would you not agree? >> that is nonsense. but certainly, i don't flinch from my responsibilities.

and i certainly do take part in the policy decisions of "the sun." i think that is my job. >> said if you want to judge my thinking at "the sun," look at the editorials. is there anyway the editors could logically know your thinking either because you tell them or because they work it out? >> i was saying, think i was talking about the politicians. >> no, you are talking about the direct quayle on page 36 of the transcript, lines 15 to 16. if you want to judge my thinking look at "the sun." that is what you said. >> yes. >> i don't parallel every detail but generally speaking, the

issues that we get interested in, that we fight for you will find them and "the sun" and find that i would agree with most of them if not all. >> there are details which i don't agree with only recently. >> how will they work out what you're thinking this? are there any two possibilities? how can you tell? >> they talk to me or i call them are i don't call and say do this or do that. there are conversations pretty constantly. >> over time your editors would get to know you very well, because you are not shy about talking about "the sun." >> yes. or papers like the "new york post."

>> if you look at the process as to what happens with your advisers and confidants the position is exactly the same, they assess your thinking because they get to know you well and they talk to you about important issues, don't they? >> what do you mean by confidence? >> well people like mr. seltzer or mr. -- and we will come to him in a moment. >> they might know my thinking but they don't have to agree with it. we can have very vigorous discussions and i have to agree that they are right and i was wrong. >> i am sure your discussions were vigorous mr. murdoch. >> thank you. not really, but i accept your approach. >> it as regards to your

relations with politicians, has it occurred to you that they might know what you want or what you are thinking by exactly the same processes, either because you have discussions with them about your views or because they get to know you and work it out? >> i am a only in this country a lot less than 10% of my time, except for this last immediate period. and i think they know my philosophy, yes. >> fair enough. may i ask you about mr. go, he is the key politician. >> no, i wish he was.

anything other than to say he had a very distinguished career and i have made have -- might've made it occasionally for the times. i think he and his wife are distinguished journalists and they have come to dinner once in the past two or three years. that was with his wife. then on another occasion, when mr. joe pine was with me and he was to do a conference with mr. gove on education when he was -- long before he joined me when he was chancellor of the new york city school system. and their there might have been another one. i like to get a few people around the of interest in different fields, not just

politicians. but on education, i want to say very clearly, i want to take this opportunity, i, we feel passionate about it. we believe that it's an absolute disgrace the standard of public education here and in america. in america, 30% of children do not get through high school. they drop out three years early and are committed to the underclass forever. and there are different states that are trying to tackle this. but it's very difficult, not for lack of money but for lack of cooperation. i believe that there are a lot of issues here and sort of a society and the way it's going and our their civilization is

going. >> two or three or four recognized best education systems in the world, both britain and america have dropped into the mid-20s. i believe this is a crime against the younger generation, and we want to do something about that. we keep, keep, keep hammering at it. i am sorry to differ from the business of the inquiry but it's just an example, i mean it's not proper to sell papers of blood to try to get people involved in this issue. >> thank you mr. murdoch. may i move on now to the -- paragraph 3 of her witness statement clearly denies that you had any discussion with mr. cameron or mr. osborne about

the debate, is that right? >> yes. >> did you have any discussions with mr. jeremy hunt about this? >> i don't believe i have ever met him but i am not sure a couple of years ago but i don't know. >> do you know that he was in new york between the third of august and the fourth of september, 2009? did you meet with him on that occasion mr. murdoch? >> i don't think so. why would i? >> according to the register parliamentary interest you met representatives of the new score quote to discuss local media ventures. did he meet with you? >> i don't think so. i have no memory of it. >> have you had any telephone discussions with him? >> never.

>> has your son spoken to you about mr. hunt? >> no, he told me, when mr. cameron removed mr. cable from responsibilities and put in mr. hunt, but i don't believe he commented on it. we were shocked by both what mr. cameron said and the unethical means of which that was deleted from the story in the telegraph. they were clearly writing the paper for their own commercial interests. >> when your son told you about the replacement of dr. cable did he tell you words of this effect? we have got someone better now?

>> i don't think he use those words. i am sure he didn't use those words. i am communicating to you the gist of an idea. surely you are concerned. we have dr. -- but you did on the 23rd of december because it all came out. >> came out of the bbc, yes. >> must have crossed your mind mr. murdoch, dr. cable is being replaced by mr. hunt. what is mr. hunt like? >> i don't remember that. >> you must have done that. >> no. i must not have done anything. i explained to you yesterday, i never saw anything wrong and in what we were doing. it was a commonplace transaction a large one but a commonplace one. >> that wasn't the question mr. murdoch. >> why would i be worried about the politics of a?

>> you were worried about the politics because dr. cable had demonstrated on your hypothesis that there was a political dimension, moreover an anti-murdoch to mention that i i come out. >> yes, well we have seen all our competitors in the newspaper industry form a consortium very publicly and the public relations people to lobby against it to see if they could stop it. i think they felt that if we have the cash flow, and they said this very clearly, we would be a more formidable competitor to them. which of course is quite wrong. >> did your evidence mr. murdoch, when mr. hunt replace dr. cable you were quite

oblivious to whether mr. hunt would be on-site or off-site. >> no, we just -- we weren't on-site or off-site. we were going to pair up. [inaudible] >> did they explain to you that mr. hunt was very much on sight. for examples see what he put up on his web site, his cheerleader for news international. >> i did not know that. >> you did and? >> no. >> as the months rolled on an early part of 2011, you were presumably concerned weren't you?

>> not intentionally, but i don't remember my exact feelings than. but no, this was a very big move by our company, but i was a lot more concerned about the hacking scandal. >> we will come to that mr. murdoch, but here we had a multibillion bid. you were very keen to acquire the remaining publicly owned shares. you must have been concerned about that as a business person weren't you? >> we didn't have to have it. >> it was something you wanted. >> we did, indeed. we thought it was a good investment. >> did not your son review in general terms the progress as to how the bid was going off?

>> not on a daily or even a weekly basis, but yes. >> and was said along these lines? >> here are the likely timescales. it's going well for us. it's not going so well for us. was at that sort of conversation? what was that? >> i don't remember any conversation to be honest with you but i'm assuming he kept me up today to some extent. you know, i delegated the situation to him, left it to him and he had a lot on his plate. he did not report perhaps as often that we did talk, of course. >> mentioned mr. murdoch there is a coalition arranged against you who would be lobbying dr. cable.

were you aware that you had your own lobbyists who were as it were on the other side, lobbying the government? >> i know what you date you are talking about but no it was much more recently that i learned of the extent of mr. michelle's do you call that lobbying? certainly his seeking of information and the progress? >> that is something you have only discovered recently when the 163 pages of e-mails were disclosed. is that right mr. murdoch? >> it was a few months before that. >> now when you became acquainted with these 162 pages

were you surprised by the extent of mr. michel's activities? >> i didn't see anything wrong with these activities. was i surprised? that it had gone on so long and there were so many e-mails? yes. >> was that you're surprised that it should've should have happened much sooner? meaning we should have gotten the bid much sooner? >> no, i was just surprised at the success of our competitors lobbying, and of course they would never have succeeded if it hadn't coincided with the hacking scandal.

>> were you not surprised by the success of mr. michel lobbying with mr. hunt's department? >> i don't think there was success. they were to make very very big concessions for reasons which i cannot understand. >> were you not surprised by the degree of the apparent closeness between mr. michel and mr. hunt's office? >> no, and i don't want to say anything against mr. michel but i think they -- there could've been a little bit of exaggeration there. >> well maybe you weren't

surprised but you would or you might assume that mr. hunt's office would be outside in which case there would be nothing in the 163 pages which would cause you surprise. >> i have not read those 163 pages, i'm sorry. >> what about the answer to my question mr. murdoch? >> did i assume that mr. hunt was on our side? >> that's right. >> no, i assumed that any responsible minister would be responsible and deal with it in a completely unbiased way. i thought the doctor cable was an exception. >> we understands dr. cable, anti-murdoch, but surely turning

the other way around, mr. hunt pro-mode it. that must have been -- [inaudible] >> is it sure that the longer this went on the higher the price might have to be? >> no. the longer it went on the greedy are they got and there was big talk. that was their way of negotiating. it always is. >> is it your feeling mr. murdoch that were it not for, really the apogee of the hacking scandal, the millie dowler accusations --

[inaudible] >> well i don't know whether it would come down to the millie dowler misfortune but the hacking scandal, yes. i mean the hacking scandal was not a great national thing until the millie dowler disclosure, half of which and i'm not making any excuses for it at all, but half of which has been somewhat discerned but not for many weeks afterwards. we didn't have any inclination because the police had under lock and key the diary and still do. we still have had no access to it and we have been limited in our inquiries at all times by that. >> can i ask you this direct question mr. murdoch, that i

told you that mr. junta was in new york until the fourth of september, 2009. the meeting between your son and mr. cameron and the private club called that george was on the ninth of september, 2009. is there any connection between those two events? i should make it absolutely clear that it was the ninth of september that mr. cameron was told. >> the fourth of september -- >> what you're? >> 2009. >> mr. hunt had nothing to do with it, with the matter at that stage. mr. cameron wasn't even prime minister, sir. >> i'm not sure you are talking about the same matter.

i think you are returning to a different subject, i think you are. try again. >> may i come back to that? >> yes. >> may i move on now mr. murdoch to these two phone hackings. are you with me? >> yes. >> tell us in your witness statement at the end paragraph 169 and 170 -- page 03028. you learned of the arrest of

mr. goodman. >> i'm sorry, excuse me. in my witness statement, paragraph 160? >> 159. >> oh, yes. >> we are just getting our bearings here in the chronology. you say that you think, you believe that you learned about the arrest, which may have been -- when do you think that was? september of 2006? >> i think i've said here i saw my family in august. mr. hinton could reach me at any time, wherever i was. >> the top of paragraph 170,

page 03029, you say that you had been told probably by les hinton about the cooperation with the police. the evidence to the inquiry might be said to demonstrate that they were not cooperative with the police. >> i don't agree with that. if i may differ, we appointed a special law firm to look into this and to aid our corporation and when the police after the charge, not just the arrest but the charging of mr. goodman, they were closing the files. and i can't believe they would have done that if they were unhappy with our cooperation. >> that is not the evidence we have at all mr. murdoch. the evidence we have had appears

to demonstrate that the law firm you mentioned produced i think just one document which we know not to represent the position at all and one way or another international was being obstructed. did that not shock you? >> that shocks me and i was not aware of it and i have not heard of it until you just said it. >> news international still claims the privilege in relation to advice given by the law firm you mentioned. you know that, don't you? >> i am not aware that detail but i will take your word word for. >> it was the detail which emerged when he gave evidence before the committee on the 19th of july of last year. one law firm harbottle --

harbottle and lewis, bergrin copeland. do you know why that is? >> no, i don't know. you need to ask them why they gave them that advice. >> it was not quite the question mr. jay is asking. you appreciate this communication between a lawyer and his client are privileged. and the only way people can see what is said is if the client, not the lawyer, the client waives privilege and in the spirit of openness, your firm or your company, the company waives privilege in relation to the work that was done by a harbottle and lewis so harbottle and lewis were able to talk and spoke to the select committee and a deed to this inquiry about what they did for news

international and how they went about what they did. the other firm that was involved, copeland a specialist criminal law firm were apparently very heavily involved with respect to that firm. the company has not waived privilege. now they don't have to, but that is the position. >> i was not aware of that. but it doesn't alter the fact that the police said they were satisfied this was a rogue -- and they were closing their final. >> that might be one aspect of it that news international would have the means related to your son's evidence.

to what extent the council is prevalent in the organization. was it more prevalent? it was the within news international's power to ascertain that was that? >> i think the senior exec -- executives were all informed and we were all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there, and i do blame one or two people for that. perhaps they should not name them because for all i know they may be arrested yet. there is no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that, someone took charge of a cover-up which we were victim to and i regret.

you know, i am getting ahead of myself now perhaps or getting ahead of you when i say that we did take steps after the conviction and the resignation of mr. coulson and a new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on. he did i believe put in two or three new sort of steps or regulations if you like, but never reported back. there was more hacking, and we had been told, harbottle and lewis had been appointed and given the file. now it is argued that they were given a very specific brief, but i have got to say that i have

not gone through that whole file that they were given, but again, i have -- and i cannot understand the law firm reading that and not bringing in the chief executive of the company and saying, hey you have got some big problems. >> that goes back to the question about whether news international would contemplate letting you see what virgin copeland did in fact say. >> we were perhaps wrong about burton copeland that we were not wrong about harbottle and lewis. >> you mentioned the term cover of. >> i regret this but let's go through the chronology. >> mr. murdoch you use the term cover up. may i suggest to you throughout the story there is a consistent consistent --

would you please sit down? i would be grateful if you wouldn't do that again. without this story, this narrative, there is a consistent theme until april of 2011 of cover-up. cover-up in relation to the plead, cover-up by working copeland either by news international's instructions and then cover-up subsequently. where does this cover-up emanate mr. murdoch? >> i think from within "news of the world" and there were one or two very strong characters there, who i think have been

there many, many, many years, friends of the journalists or the person i am thinking of, a friend of the journalistjournalists, drinking pal. and a clever lawyer and paid them to go and see the reporter. this person for bait people to reports to mrs. brooks or two jacks. that is not to excuse it on our behalf at all. they take it extremely seriously. that situation had arisen. >> i will move forward to january, 2007 mr. bernard on

paragraph 172 of your statement. where you say after mr. goodman pleaded guilty i recall learning mr. coulson resigned and mr. hinson replaced him with mr. miler. do you see that? >> yes. >> were you not directly involved in the decision to appoint mr. miler to "news of the world"? >> i suppose he spoke to me but he certainly sent me an e-mail saying he had proposed this and did i agree, and i said yes. >> did you know mr. miler? >> yes, and he would not have been my choice, but mr. henson felt he was someone who never had any contact with "news of the world" and the personal allegiance was there. and that he could look at it.

and he could rely on him to report back to mr. henson. >> why would mr. myler -- >> i could think of some stronger people. >> is it your assessment that mr. myler was a weak individual and therefore the wrong man for this job? >> i would say that is a slight exaggeration. >> how would you put it up mr. murdoch in your own words? >> while i would hope that mr. mitre would do what he was commissions to do and certainly during the remaining seven or eight months of mr. hinton and's

regime he did not report back to him. maybe he didn't find anything out. he certainly didn't report that. >> did you make it clear to mr. hinton that mr. coulson needed to resign glenn mulcaire and goodman returned to business? >> no. i said mr. coulson came forward and said i knew nothing of this that it happened on my watch and i think i have got to go. i should go. >> did you have a conversation with mr. coulson about this issue? >> no. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hinton about mr. coulson leaving the company? >> why did he call me and tell

me this and felt that mr. coulson was doing the honorable thing. and we all agreed to the fact that somebody, we thought one person, had engaged in hacking and it was a very very serious matter. >> were you aware of any aspects of mr. coulson's settlement package? >> no. >> told told the select committee that mr. myler was appointed to find out quote what the hell was going on. >> yes. >> given that, what steps did you take to see whether mr. myler was discharging his brief?

>> nothing. i relied on mr. hinton. he had been with me for 50 years. >> told us that this was a very serious matter. he was capable of affecting the whole reputation of news international and the united kingdom and -- >> just wades mr. murdoch. was not this an issue which required your personal attention? >> in hindsight, because i said later, i said the buck stops with me so i have to agree with you. >> we have got to be clear mr. murdoch that in one sense

the buck always stops with the chairman of the holding company. that is axiomatic that it might not tell us a huge amount. i was talking more directly about why you, it given it was such an important issue, did not find out whether mr. myler agreed at that point? >> i don't know what else i was doing at the time but i trusted mr. hinton. i delegated that responsibility to mr. hinton. >> did you have discussions with mr. hinton about this? >> no. not at the time. >> some might say that this is consistent with a desire to cover-up rather than the desire to expose. >> and minds like yours, yes, perhaps. i am sorry, i take that back. excuse me.

>> i have a very thick skin mr. murdoch. >> to put the point slightly differently, it is very very clear mr. murdoch that among those vast commercial interest that you developed over your life, you have a particular interest in the print media. >> yes. >> and if i may say so, you have shown that interest is more than just a commercial interest. it's more than just an intellectual interest. it is an interest that is within your being if i may put it like that. i am only trying to summarize what i think you said to us. >> yes. >> therefore the question might be asked in this way. here was a newspaper that was

then your family, that you had built up to be the largest selling newspaper in the u.k.. i think that is what "news of the world" was. >> it lasted -- circulation, but yes. >> quite apart from the commercial side of it, you would really want to know as you yourself put it, what the hell was going on, because the news media was your -- printing was running through your veins i think somebody said about you. >> yes i am us are. >> wealth and that is the way that i might ask the question that mr. james is trying to ask

and indeed ask. this wasn't just a matter of commercial interest for you. this was the basis for your being so that is why i think you are being asked, but were you not really intensely concerned to know what was going on along with everything else? >> do you now i have to admit that some newspapers are closer to my heart than others, but i also have to say that i failed. >> well, that may be. >> i am very sorry about it. >> i recognize that, and i understand that you have made

that clear, not just to the inquiry and not just in your statement but a number of your public appearances discussing this matter. it doesn't actually quite answer the question, whether you really did try to understand what was going on or whether you felt well, i don't need to understand what's going on. it's over and let's just move on. that is the question. >> well i think when the police said we are satisfied this is a rogue reporter, we are we are closing our file, mr. hinton said that, probably if i had been in his place i would have to admit that i would have said i will close it too.

but in hindsight, hindsight is always very good and very easy. i can only say what i should have done. >> my point, the question i wanted to come to us this. this wasn't just a question of a reporter doing what the reporter did with the private detective. i wonder whether you would want to know, what was the atmosphere or the climate within your newspaper that had encouraged the reporter to think that this was a correct way to proceed, that this was justifiable quite apart from how we got away with it. that is a separate question.

actually the paper would he prepared to let this happen, would be prepared to go that extra illegal mile to get the story. so that is quite apart from whether this reporter goes to what's going on in the paper, not to the people. do you see what i mean? >> i think in newspapers, reporters do act very much on their own. they do protect their sources. they have disclosed their colleagues what they are doing. i think you had a really rogue reporter but when you came across the times and the night j.a.g. case -- the night j.a.g. case, that did not reflect the newsroom of the times and this might have reflected the newsroom and the "news of the

world," and i think i suggested that i am guilty of not having paid enough attention to "news of the world" probably throughout all of the time that we ran it. i was more interested in the excitement of building a new newspaper. i did other things and the challenges of the times, the "sunday times" and it was an omission by me, and all i can do is apologize to a lot of people, including all the innocent people at "news of the world" who lost their jobs. but as a result of that, -- >> the article in "the guardian"

in july 2009 mr. murdoch, can you recall whether that one is brought to your attention at the time? >> it was indeed but i think the same moment probably as the police told me that it was wrong. >> and your son told us that he had discussions with you after "the guardian" article was published and about the settlements. do you remember anything about that? >> yes, he probably did explain that but that was a year after and i didn't know anything about 2008 in the settlement. >> in 2009, you learn of the settlement. did that not surprise you? >> it did indeed surprise me.

>> wide? wide? >> the size of the. >> the size of it. >> oh, yes. i didn't know if we had really been hacked or what it was, but just the size. >> did you ask your son to this effect, why the hell did we pay them so much money? >> yes. >> and what was his answer? >> he said i was given a short time and give into boxes, which one do you pick? one relatively low or one infinitely bigger and he was advised to pick the low one. and that is what happened. he was inexperienced at the time and he had just been there a few months and the mr. myler came to

him and put it to him in a relatively short conversation. >> i understand that mr. murdoch. the two boxes, the lower box and the infinitely higher one, is it your evidence that your son was told to take the lower box or the infinitely higher one? >> to take the one that didn't involve the risk of an appeal of triple damages and god knows what else. >> for though much higher box was the one that would unsettle this case. there is a risk that there will be many more cases. >> no, but never tell that. >> are you sure? >> yes. >> anyone who puts faith and confidentiality agreements with the contingency is too naïve to

be true. >> so you knew that there is a was a confidentiality agreement associated with the tailor settlement, didn't you? >> i was told that. >> you might have assumed that was not worth the paper was written on. didn't you think about it? been no. i had a lot of things to think about. i am sorry, i didn't give it enough attention but that would not have changed anything. >> can we wait for that mr. murdoch that we will come to the real change with a msc the msc in july of 2011. >> i was going to come before that. >> just bear with me. these conversations with your son, was there any discussion about the need to avoid reputational risks to the company?

>> and not in those terms. anything that was unethical behavior involves reputational behavior. you don't have to stated in those words. >> the conversation with your son -- this guy was in effect blackmailing us. we have had to pay a lot of money with the hope of keeping inquired because if we didn't there was a real risk of massive reputational harm for our company. >> no, he did not say that. >> or anything like that? >> no. >> did you suspect by july 2009 but the one rogue reporter's defense was wearing bit thin?

>> no, because that article in "the guardian" was a very hostile article. put that aside, was instantly desired within 24 hours by the police. we chose to take the will -- the word of the police over the word of "the guardian." and you know, we have rested on that until i think the beginning of 2011 and then came forward. we realize there was a great danger and we gave the police the name of mr. edmunds. i am getting ahead of you. >> show we just take five minutes? >> thank you. >> all rise.

.. g officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: madam president, i have seen the good that the law called violence against women act has done in providing victim services in my state of iowa.

we all recognize the harm that flows from domestic violence. it's both on the victims and also the families of victims. i have supported reauthorization of the violence against women act each time that it has come up. violence against women reauthorization on each of thesizations has been highly bipartisan. we have passed consensus bills. we have not played politics with reauthorizing the law. that's until now. this time it seems to be different. i don't know why it should be. the majority turned this issue into a partisan issue. in the judiciary committee, the majority gave no notice that it would inject new matters into the violence against women act. when the committee held a

hearing on this issue, these ideas were not discussed. their need has not been demonstrated. we do not know exactly how they will work. it was clear that committee republicans would not be able to agree to this new added material and of course, a majority refused during negotiations when we asked that they be removed. republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the leahy bill. probably 80% to 85% of the substitute that we're offering is the same as the leahy bill. this includes whole titles of the bill. we could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize violence against women, but the majority intentionally decided not to change the bill.

they didn't want it to pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. now the media has reported that this was a deliberate strategy of the majority. a recent political article quoted a prominent democrat senator. the article said that he -- quote -- "wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the g.o.p. block it, then allow democrats to accuse republicans of waging a war against women, end of political quote. this is a cynical partisan game playing that americans are sick of. every town meeting, people say to me when are you going to get together, stop the partisanship? and this is especially the case on this bill. republicans aren't even blocking the bill. we have called for the bill to be brought up.

instead, the majority has taken six months to reauthorize this program that has expired last october. that says something about the priorities of the other party. for instance, last week, we wasted time on political votes. that seems to be the case in the senate most of this year. the senate can pass a bill to reauthorize violence against women by an overwhelming margin, but it seems like the other party doesn't want that to happen. when they say unfavorable things about republicans and women, they aren't being forthright. a few weeks ago, the democratic congressional campaign committee sent out a fundraising email. the email stated in part -- quote -- "now there are news reports that republicans in congress will oppose reauthorization -- reauthorizing the violence against women act."

enough is enough. the republican war on women must stop now. will you chip in three dollars by midnight tonight to hold republicans accountable for their war on women?" end of quote of that democrat missile. the majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or trying to get violence against women act reauthorization bill that would actually help these victims. my fellow senators, there is no war on women except the political one. it's a figment of imagination of democratic strategists who don't want to remember health care reform, unemployment or high gas prices. instead of talking about those issues, particularly high gas prices, they would rather make up a war against women. all evidence points to the other

side sure being more interested in raising money. the media has also reported that the bill is coming up now because of the democrats' desire to gin up a republican so-called war on women were derailed last week, i suppose by other issues. it should be clear at the outset that republicans are not blocking, have not blocked and never threatened to block the senate's consideration of this bill. the judiciary committee only reported the bill to the senate two months ago. it was march before the committee filed the usual committee report to the entire senate. democrats immediately came to the floor and urged the bill to come up right now. it was up to the majority leader to decide when the bill should be debated. he finally decided, not right after the bill was reported out

of committee or not right after the committee report was filed but to do it now. why not back then? as long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including our alternative bill and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, this should be a relatively short process. and as the previous speaker said, i hope we can get it done this very day. several other important points i want to establish. first, i hope a consensus version of women -- or violence against women will be reauthorized. if a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or anyone else will be affected if the bill does not pass because contrary to the statements made, there would be no cutbacks of services. violence against women act, the bill before us, is an authorization bill only, not an

appropriation bill. this bill does not allow the expenditure of one dime of money because that results through the appropriation process. appropriators can and will fund violence against women act programs, regardless of whether this bill is reauthorized. this is exactly what happened over the past year. we think that new issues have arisen since the last violence against women reauthorization. these issues should be addressed in a consensus reauthorization. that can happen. we should give guidance to the appropriators. that's what authorization committees like in this case the judiciary committee is all about. i support the appropriators continuing to fund violence against women act while we're trying to put together a

consensus bill. violence against women is being funded, despite the expiration of its previous authorization. no existing rights of anyone are affected if violence against women is not reauthorized. no existing rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than this partisan bill. i should say the majority's bill, not the partisan bill. second, the majority controls how bills move in the senate. as i said, the current violence against women reauthorization expired six months ago. if reauthorization was so important, i would think the majority party could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago. they didn't move a bill because no one's substantive rights or

funding are at stake. this is true even though the prior reauthorization is expired and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed. third, nothing like the majority's bill where it does not reflect consensus will become law. it's a political exercise. the other body, meaning the house of representatives, doesn't seem like it's going to pass it the way that the majority party here wants it to pass. if we want to pass a consensus violence against women reauthorization bill, we ought to start with the alternative that senator hutchison and i are going to present to the senate. fourth, the majority's bill as reported out of committee was and is fiscally irresponsible. according to the congressional budget office, the majority's bill would have added more than

$100 million in new direct spending. that will increase the deficit by that same amount. the reason is the immigration provisions that we said previously were nonstarters. these were some of the provisions that the majority refused to take out. those provisions are bad immigration policy. nonetheless, i'm glad that the majority has now found an offset for this spending. the republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does, in fact, the majority bill. there are many ways in which this substitute does that. under the substitute amendment, more money goes to victims, less to brats. it requires that 10% of the grantees be audited every year. this is to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually being used

for the purpose of the legislation to combat domestic violence. this is a very important point. the justice department inspector general conducted a review of 22 grantees under this law between 1998 and the year 2010, and of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements. the violations ranged from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner. and when this happens, money is not getting to the victims, and the taxpayers' money is being wasted. give some examples. in 2010, one grantee was found by the inspector general to have

questionable costs for 93% of the nearly 9 hoobts they received -- 9 hoobts they received are from the justice department. a 2009 audit found nearly $500,000 of a 680 thousand dollars grant was questionable. an inspector general audit from just this year found that this law's grant recipient in the virgin islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending. a grant to an indian tribe in idaho found $250,000 in improperly spent funds. this included, can you believe it, $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position. in michigan this year a woman at

a -- at the law's grant recipient used grant funds to purchase goods and services for personal use. we should make sure, then, that violence against women money goes to victims and not to waste like this. that hasn't been the case, obviously, under the current situation. so our republican substitute deals with this spending problem. the substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayers' funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. that will ensure that more money is available for victim services. money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no woman or other victims. in addition, the republican alternative limits the amount of violence against women funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to 7.5%.

that means that money that now is over the 7.5% suggested limit is going to bureaucrats and not to victims. and, of course, the underlying bill, the leahy bill, contains no such limit. if you want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead expended should be capped at the 7.5% level. the republican substitute amendment requires that 30% of the stop grants and grants for arrest policies and protective orders are targeted to sexual assault. the leahy-crapo bill sets aside only 20% instead of that 30% to fight sexual assault. the substitute that senator hutchinson and i offer hopefully this afternoon requires that

training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization. this ensures that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology. this will result in a more effective assistance to victims. the leahy-crapo bill contains no such requirement. the hutchinson-grassley substitute protects due process rights that the majority bill threatance. and i'll give you an instance. the majority bill said that college campuses must provide for -- quote -- "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution" -- end of quote of charges of violence or stalking. this would -- this would have codified a proposed rule of the department of education that would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a

criminal charge, one that if proved, rightly should have -- rightly should harm reputation. but if established on a barely more probable than not standard reputations can be ruined unfairly and very quickly. the substitute eliminates this provision. now the majority has changed their own bill's language. i thank them for that. i take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the original language. the substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating double jeopardy. the majority bill also would give indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil

jurisdiction over non-indians based on actions allegedly taking part -- or place in indian country. noting that the due process clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have minimum contact with the forum, the congressional research service has raised constitutional questions about this provision. the administration and supporters in this body pursue their policy agendas headlong without bothering to consider the constitution. the substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the constitution. we have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit provision in the judiciary committee bill, those provisions are. i strongly support funds to

reduce the backlog of testing rape kits, but that bill provides that only 40% of the rape kit -- rape kit money actually be used to reduce the backlog. the substitute requires that 70% of the funding would go for that purpose and get rid of the backlog sooner. it requires that 1% of the debbie smith act funds be used to create a national data base to track the rape kit backlog. it also mandates that 7% of the existing debbie smith act funds be used to pay for state and local audits of the backlog. debbie smith herself has endorsed these provisions. the majority bill has no such provisions, making sure that money that is claimed to reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is pro-victim. true reform in the violence

against women reauthorization should further that goal. combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes. the hutchinson-grassley substitute creates a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for federal conviction for forcible rape. the majority bill establishes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. that provision is only there because republicans offered it and we won that point in our committee. child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women. our alearn tiff -- alternative establishes a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age. i believe that the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher in light of the lenient sentences that many federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions.

but the substitute is at least a start. this is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography. the alternative also imposes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault. this crime involves can sexual assault -- involves sexual assault through the use of drugs or otherwise rendering the victim unconscious. the leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault. the status quo appears to be fine for the people that are going to vote for the underlying bill if the hutchinson-grassley amendment is not adopted. instead, the hutchinson-grassley amendment establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of the victim. it increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum crime

where it results in life-threatening bodily injury too or the permanent disfigurement of the victim. it increases from 10 to 15 years the maximum sentence for this crime when serious body bodily injury to the victim results. the leahy bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence and the victims thereof. the substitute grant administrative subpoena power to the u.s. marshals service is to help them discharge their duty of tracking and apprehending unregistered sex offenders. the the -- the leahy bill does nothing to locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders and the substitute cracks down on abuse of award of new visas for illegal aliens and the fraud against violence against women

self-petitioning process. the majority bill does not include any reforms of these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in the program. one of the senators who recently came to the floor complained that there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the violence against women act. but in the past, there were no deliberate efforts to create partisan divisions. we always proceeded in the past on consensus fashion. domestic violence is an important issue, serious problem. we all recognize that. in the past, we put victims ahead of politics in addressing it. when the other side says this should not be about politics and partisanship, why, heavens, we obviously agree. it's the majority that has now decided that they want to score political points above assisting victims. they want to portray a phony war

on women because this is an an election year. they're raising campaign money by trying to exploit this issue. and i demonstrated that in one of the emails that we come across -- come to our attention. there could have been a consensus bill before us today as in the past. there is controversial now because that's what the majority seems to want. we look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance to offer an vote on our substitute amendment. that amendment contains much that is in agreement with the leahy bill. the substitute also is much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to proarkt victims of domestic violence. m. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, madam president. when my wife, fran ni, and i decided that i should run for senate, we were greatly influenced by the example set by

senator paul wellstone and his wife, sheila. the wellstones' example served as a constant reminder of what public service is all about. it's about helping others. it's about giving a voice to those who otherwise might go unheard. it's about making the law more just and more fair, peurbl for those who -- especially for those who need its protections the most. frannie and i have a personal responsibility to carry on the wellstones legacy. we all do. and you know what? i think that paul and sheila would be proud of what we're doing here today. we are on the verge of reauthorizing the violence against women act. paul and sheila were extraordinary people, an unlikely couple.

sheila was born in kentucky to southern baptist parents. paul was born here in washington, the son of russian jewish immigrants. but love and fate, they work in mysterious ways, and they brought paul and sheila together. sheila's family moved to washington where she and paul became high school sweethearts. paul went to north carolina for college, and sheila went back to kentucky. but a freshman year apart was more than they could bear. sheila moved to north carolina to be with paul. they got married, a year later they were proud parents. they eventually would have two more children. the wellstones were a big, happy family. after paul earned his ph.d. in political science, the wellstones moved to minnesota where paul had a successful teaching career at carleton college. sheila, meanwhile, worked two jobs. she was a full-time mother and a part-time library aide. a happy life in minnesota would

have been enough for most people, but not for paul and sheila. their compassion knew no limits. they wanted to make the world a better place for others, and they set out to do just that. paul ran for public office. he and sheila worked as a team during paul's senate campaign, as they did in all aspects of their lives. paul's opponent outspent him by a large margin, but what paul and sheila lacked in resources, they made up for in grass roots support. a tireless work ethic and a nonparalleled commitment to the people of minnesota, also quite a bit of charm. improbable as it must have been seemed at the outset, paul won and was elected to the united states senate in 1990. the wellstones went to washington, the city where they first fell in love.

at the time sheila wasn't really a public figure, at least she didn't view herself as such. in fact, sheila was a bit shy, and she avoided public speaking when she could. but sheila started spending time at women's shelters in minnesota and elsewhere, listening to painful stories about domestic violence and assault. she realized there are a lot of women across the country who needed a voice, who needed someone to speak up for them. sheila set out to become that person. here's what she said -- and i quote -- "i have chosen to focus on domestic violence because i find it appalling that a woman's home can be the most dangerous, the most violent and tph-bgt, the most -- in fact, the most deadly place for her. and if she is a mother, it is dangerous for her children. it's time that we tell the

secret. it's time that we all come together to work toward ending the violence." unquote. sheila matched her words with actions. she became a champion for survivors of domestic violence in minnesota and throughout the country. each year she hosted an event in the capitol to raise awareness about that issue. that annual event continues to this day. and like i said, sheila and paul were a team. so sheila worked very closely with paul to champion the violence against women act, a landmark federal law that affirmed our nation's commitment to women's safety. signed into law in 1994, vawa increased the number of beds in shelters that were available to women who needed refuge. it provided critical support to law enforcement officers and

prosecutors so they could respond more effectively to incidents of domestic violence. they funded support services and crisis centers for victims. and perhaps most importantly vawa sent a message: domestic violence no longer will be tolerated in america. since vawa was enacted, incidents of domestic violence have been reduced significantly. vawa has improved lives. it has saved lives. it is part of the wellstones' proud legacy. vawa is part of this institution's legacy, too. when it comes to violence against women, members of the senate always have been able to come together. vawa has been reauthorized twice. both times it had unanimous support in the senate -- unanimous support. the vawa reauthorization bill

that we're considering today is in keeping with vawa's bipartisan tradition. its 61 sponsors come from across the country and from across the aisle, and i am grateful to senators leahy and crapo for their leadership on this bill. the vawa reauthorization act renews our national commitment to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault, a heinous crime that remains all-too common in america, even while domestic violence is becoming less common. the vawa reauthorization act addresses the alarming rates of violence against women in indian country, by giving tribes jurisdiction to prosecute acts of domestic violence in their communities. and vat with a reauthorization act -- and the vawa reauthorization act cuts red tape and spending by consolidating grant programs and improving accountabilit accounty

mairves. this is a good bill. i am also proud to have worked on two provisions. i will like to thank chairman leahy foirnviting me to do so and for including those provisions in the final bill. first, the vawa reauthorization bill includes the provision from the justice for survivors of sexual assault act, one of the first bills i wrote after being sworn into the senate. survivors of sexual assault never again will suffer the indignity of pain for for reining sick medical exams. vawa provides state and local governments with funding to administer these exams which also are known as rape kits and are used to collect evidence in sexual assault cases. the problem is that under current law, grant recipients can charge the survivor for the upfront cost of administering

the exam, leaving the surrifer to seek reimbursement later. too often survivors aren't reimbursed. they get lost in the maze of paperwork aor are left high and dry when funds run out. can you imagine if we required crime victims to pay for the police to gather evidence, like fingerprints or d.n.a. from a crime scene? of course not. and we shouldn't require is sick r. victims of -- and we shouldn't require victims you have sexual assault to pay for rape kits. this is common sense. i am grateful to senator charles grassley you the judiciary committee's ranking member, for his ongoing support for this bill. he was an original cosponsor when i introduced it in 2009, and when i reintroduced it last year. survivors of sexual violence have endured enough already. they should not have to pay for rape kits. and they won't have to once this

bill becomes law. the vawa reauthorization bill also includes the housing rights for victims of domestic and sexual violence act, legislation that i introduced with senators collins and mikulski last fall. this bill will help women stay in their homes when they are most vulnerable, when they need a roof over their heads the most. the link between violence and homelessness is undeniable. by one account, nearly 40% of women who have experienced domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives. nearly 40%. once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes even more vulnerable to physical or sexual abuse. in my state, nearly one in three homeless women is fleeing domestic violence, and half of those women have children with

them. that's not the world that sheila wellstone envisioned. nobody should have to choose between safety and shelter. while the link between violence and homelessness is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. we need shelters and transitional housing programs for women who are fleeing danger. and the vawa reauthorization bill provides continued support for those programs. but there also are things we can do to prevent women from becoming homeless in the first place. my housing rights legislation will make it unlawful to evict from federally subsidized housing a woman just because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence,

sexual assault, or stalking. this bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the plirks to enforce a protective order because she was afraid she would be evicted from her home if she did so. i am grateful to the many wonderful organizations that have worked with me on this bill. they include women's victims advocacy groups like the minnesota coalition against sexual assault and the minnesota domestic abuse project. they include tenant advocacy groups like the national low-income housing coalition. they include legal aid societies like mid-minnesota legal assistance, and they include leaders of the housing industry, too. in fact, i recently received a letter from the national association of realtors, the institute for real estate management, and other housing

industry representatives expressing their support for this bill. they wrote that they -- quote -- "believe that preserving housing for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual asawcialghts and stalking is critically important." i could not agree more. that's exactly what this bill does. madam president, sheila wellstone isn't with us today. sheila and paul and their daughter marsha were tragically taken from us too soon, but sheila's example is with us. her legacy is with us, and her words are with us and i'd like to close with those. here's what sheila said.

"we really have to look at the values that guide us. we have to work toward an ethic that respects every individual, to be physically and emotionally safe. no one, regardless of age, color, gender, background, any other factor deserves to be physically or emotionally unsa unsafe. in a justic just society, we plo act together to ensure that each individual is safe from harm. in a just society, i think we have to say this over and over and over: we are not going to tolerate the violence." madam president, the vawa reauthorization bill is another step toward a more just society, as sheila described it. and i look forward to it and i look forward to it

[cheering] you are still here. [laughter] that's good. i couldn't remember where we landed on that.

now the senate agriculture committee meets to mark up the 2012 farm bill. the last legislation was passed in 2008 and is set to expire this year. the bill replaces the direct payment program for major crops with a revenue guarantee and reduces conservation and food assistance spending. this portion of the meeting is about 90 minutes. >> good morning. we welcome everyone this morning. i would call the meeting to order. the agriculture committee. this committee is unique. our hearing room doesn't have a

raised dais. instead we sit around a table, not unlike the table that american families and farmers sit around every day after a long day of work. the work we do around the table was hard. farm bills are never easy, and a farm bill like this, especially when we are making serious needed reforms while also cutting the deficit by 23 billion isn't easy, and i'm very appreciative of all of the hard work of everyone sitting around this table. we have examined every program in the farm bill. we have reformed, streamline and consolidate it to get perhaps the most significant reform and agricultural policy in any farm bill in recent memory. we've listened to farmers, we've strengthened crop insurance and made that the centerpiece of risk management. we have a risk-management tool

that supplement insurance fell will work for farmers and save money. some of our members want the individual system, someone to the county system, so we are giving farmers flexibility to decide what is best for their farm and the risks that the face. we have the tightest payment on it ever come and i want to thank senator grassley for his tireless work on this issue. we now have one simplified limit on in come, $750,000. we will give farmers the assistance they need and will be based on what is actually planted. in other words, the era of direct payment is over. we are working to strike a balance among the different regions and commodities. we will now have a permanent base line for livestock disaster assistance, and i want to say a special thank you to senator baucus for his advocacy and hard

work on that issue. in short, we've put together a bipartisan farm bill puts focused on far worse and it gives them simplicity, flexibility and real accountability. we are continuing to work that gets done every single day because of the conservation title we are reducing complexity and focusing programs to better support farmers and landowners to protect the land and water and wildlife. we are increasing flexibility and transparency to make sure every dollar does the most good. we are continuing the nation's commitment to those most in need. everywhere a guinn michigan i hear from people who never before in their lives imagined they would need help putting food on the table for their family. we need every dollar going to those people who need it and not to waste fraud or abuse. we are expanding export

opportunities investing in critical agricultural research and supporting innovative bioenergy and manufacturing companies who are creating jobs across the country. we recognize the diversity of american agriculture with the renewed commitment the specialty crops and organic farms as well as support for the farmers' markets and food houses. we streamlined the world development title and we ended 16 authorizations that either have never received funding were duplicative of other efforts so that we could extend and simplify the loans that have proven effective for of a job creators and local infrastructure projects the we know are important in the communities the we represent. this farm bill as we all know is a jobs bill coming and you can see it on every title and every page. 16 million people work in this country because of agriculture.

i would call that a jobs bill. america is the leader in agricultural exports and that success is not only critically important for the economy in the 16 million people whose jobs rely on agriculture but also of the national security. that's why we are so committed to getting this done this year and this market is the first step in that process. i want to thank all of our wonderful staff who have worked so hard to get us to this point. i want to thank the department of our agriculture for their hard work as we've gone through the process and i want to thank every single member of the committee who've brought very important ideas to the table and work very hard in good faith to get us to today's markup. finally i want to thank my great partner, senator roberts for all of the hours of hard work that we have done together to write a farm bill that makes sense for

farmers, ranchers, rural communities and american taxpayers and consumers. this has been a long winding road and i appreciate the partnership. i would like to recognize senator roberts. the food and job act of 2012 thank you for your comments and i returned the compliment. this legislation represents the final product of the hearings and discussions as we work to write a new building the most difficult budget climate in the nation's history. i'm proud to say that we've put together a bipartisan bill that strengthens and preserves the safety net for the farmers and ranchers and truly it was an

effort and a bipartisan way. still, i want to underscore the chairwoman has said. we are still providing 27.4 of deficit reduction under the mark drafted. i don't know about the other committee. we did this previously with the super kennedy, and now we're doing it again. and so, in terms of deficit reduction, i think we are standing up to our responsibility. let me repeat, the committee has drafted a bill that voluntarily provides 24.7 billion in deficit reduction. we have eliminated, as you've indicated, madam chair, commodity programs, rolled into one while saving approximately 15 billion from the safety net programs without really disturbing the safety net. 23 conservation programs are streamlined into 13 saving nearly 6.4 billion. 4 billion is saved in the nutrition title.

15 program authorizations are eliminated in the world development eliminating over 1 billion of authorized spending over ten years. two programs are combined, and another two are eliminated. 1.2 billion of mandatory is transferred to discretionary and the energy title. the programs are eliminated in the forestry title reducing the authorizations by at least 20 million. over 60 authorizations are eliminated from the research title, reducing authorization by at least 770 million over five years. madame chair that is 27.4 billion or if you are writing in the press 25 billion mandatory savings. at least 1.8 billion in the reduced discretionary authorizations, and at least 96 programs are offered positions eliminated. that's the speech i think we are going to probably have to give on the floor of the senate and when we get the bill to the floor to improved the critics that this is a reform bill.

no other committee in the house or the senate has voluntarily undertaken programmatic funding reforms at this level in this budget climate. this is not only a reform bill. it's one that strengthens and preserves the farmers management, the conservation, research and a rural community programs. we have strengthened and preserved the crop insurance program that is the number one priority of virtually every producer that testifies before number one, without question any region that we went to come every hearing that we have had, the crop insurance on behalf of the farmers and ranchers in the lending community, that's been number one. we've streamlined our commodity programs while reducing the complexity of the producer. we've updated which support is based on the property patterns. that is the point that i really want to discuss in recent days it seems there's been a little confusion here in the capitol region. it seems something we should

write the safety net programs and allocate by commodity groups or organizations. if all you did is listen to these groups would think we were robbing peter to pay paul. i understand that the elimination of direct payment is a big deal to many commodities to welcome all i originally authorized that program back in 1996. one of the biggest beneficiaries of the program has been weak especially in kansas. the taxpayers have been clear on the climate why should congress defended program based on planning established over 25 years ago? yes, the elimination of direct payments means the end of many payments in kansas and other wheat producing areas but that doesn't mean that the producers will no longer have a farm safety net. quite the contrary, they would have a strong risk management program that would be -- would just be for different crops. why i say that? because when they were established 25 years ago, kansas

planted 2.8 million acres of corn, 4.2, 1.6 acres of soybeans, 12.1 million of wheat. in the most recent three-year period however, the reality period in which we live kansas farmers and other states very similarly planted 4.6 of corn, sorghum, 4 million of soybeans and 8.8 million acres of wheat. that's 4.9 sorghum and 4.2 million of corn and soybeans. these have occurred because farmers made those decisions. not washington. the producers planned for the domestic market vietnamese is shifting among the commodities because the farmers are finding differently throughout the states on the committee. it is not shifting because we are picking winners and losers. i'm very proud of the legislation. we worked hard to put together

not the best possible bill but the best bill possible under difficult circumstances. we've performed the duty to taxpayers by cutting deficit spending while the same time strengthening and preserving the program so important to agriculture and rural america. we've done it again, madam chair, in a bipartisan fashion. thank you for bringing us to the point today and let's pass this form bill. >> thank you very much for your comments. now we want to hear from the members and as we do with a market we will recognize everything in the order of seniority, alternating colin to be there. senator leahy. >> thank you, madame chair. and also, the ranking member roberts. you and i discussed this many times late last night. i was able to go home and go to bed. you stayed up working and i think of the fact you worked

together and i looked down at the end of the room at the pictures painted of senator lugar and myself. we each chaired the committee at different times and we were ranking members at different times and we got the farm bills so you worked together in a bipartisan fashion. it was great working with senator lugar on that and senator roberts and you. it's the only way it works. you don't get a perfect bill, but you get a bill that could pass, you get a bipartisan bill and that's the way the senate used to be and should be. we sat down and the mark includes an important dairy reform proposal that i believe would help our producers and consumers.

the dairy reform proposal helps and consumers can get off the dangerous roller-coastered of price swings. i think it's the key to the consideration of the farm bill and i know farmers in vermont and washington as closely. i hope that we can find a bipartisan compromise to create a new margin protection program and allow our farmers to have a proactive efforts to in their farm programs. with the long way towards easing stabilization program. like corn and wheat, soybeans, sugar, cotton, the other problems the very problem has worked hard. you've made great improvements over the development and conservation titles. both of you have worked painstakingly for the confusing

alphabet soup of programs and authorizations and we continue to work with you on the easement program. i think we have to work now to slow the loss of farmland in this country. farmland is part of our national security. it isn't sustainable. over 1 million acres of farmland each year. it's the only federal program available for the farmland protection more funding to the agricultural land easement. as the author of the organic food production act i'm extremely pleased the bill continues to make strong improvements for organic agriculture as well as local foods. very pleased to madame chair, u.s. agreed to my amendment because the program much needed authority to effectively protect and enforce organic integrity albeit consumers confidence in the brand. the mark we are considering today also has support for the

antihunger programs such as supplemental nutrition assistance programs, emergency food assistance program, not just important in vermont. it is every part of the country and i will continue to work with the bush to view to make it a reality and i want to applaud the work by both of the chair and the ranking member to prove that national quality of food aid and on and on and i will put the rest of the in the record but this is the culture of forestry at the both of you have recognized all three of them and i applaud you for it. it's not an easy job. >> thank you very much. senator leahy, we appreciate your relationship as the champion helping us get this right as well as organic and nutrition and other areas as

well. now, someone else who has been a terrific leader, senator lugar, we would love to hear from you. >> thank you very much, madame chairman and ranking member roberts. before i begin i would like to thank the staff and the legislative council and the congressional budget office for their assistance during this process. i appreciate the work of the committee staff in particular. however, with a major revision to the commodities title being offered only late last night and no score being made available after this morning, i'm concerned members of the committee haven't been given the appropriate opportunities to review the proposed over the manager's amendment. but as the previous chairman and ranking member as you pointed out, senator leahy generously mentioned i recognize the very great challenge of writing the bill that meets the needs of policy reforms and fiscal responsibility. as a former i also recognize the

need for policy certainty. farmers have enough official luncheon meeting markets and whether the uncertainty so the congress shouldn't make it more difficult by an offering the political wind passes. i commend the chair and ranking member for including in the draft bill several similar policy proposals that i have as my economic farm sustainability of hunter act last year such as strengthening of the shuttle crop insurance programs, elimination of direct payments and countercyclical payments revenue loss option for producers to assist only in times of need, not every year and the reduction and the size of the conservation reserve program for the productive acres are used to produce and consolidation of several working land programs and consolidation of conservation easement programs. i note however that while the committee draft offers savings in the area of $25 billion, much

more should be done to. mike refresh act would save $40 billion making a substantial contribution to reducing our nation's unstable fiscal situation. while i'm pleased to see the committee adopts some of the provisions, i look forward to working with the committee markup and on the senate floor, and with my partner, congressman in the house agricultural committee to realize further taxpayer savings. notably, the committee marked become marked the waist and ensured the fiscal situation of our food and nutrition programs which account for more than 75% of annual form bill spending. by closing loopholes in the food stamp program then grant eligibility to some who are not truly needy we can still meet legitimate hunter and nutrition needs and fulfill our budget to the obligations. the refreshed act demonstrate a

substantial savings are possible as we found little programs and the committee draft provided virtually no funding for energy. energy is an important growth area for the jobs and the income of the families, farms and small businesses. at the same time, rural americans are rightly proud of their improving america's national security situation by reducing the need for foreign oil. ..

>> inc. you very much for all of your ideas and thoughtfulness and hard work to help us to get to this point. and turning to senator conrad, i know he will speak to us. we do have good news on the energy front. i want to take a moment with senator conrad to say what i said in the senate budget committee about the fact that we are very sorry to see you retire. you have been an extraordinary budget chair. nobody knows more about agriculture than you do. in terms of economics and numbers and how to make it work. it is a great pleasure to work with you. we are going to continue.

we are very grateful for all your of your leadership over the years. senator conrad. >> thank you very much for your extraordinary effort on this bill. you have been fully engaged, fully committed, and very effective. all of us oh you a debt of gratitude. i don't think i have seen anyone dig in as completely as you did at a very difficult time, with a special committee looming. he seized the reins of responsibility, and all of us are in your debt. i also want to thank our ranking member senator roberts, who, surprise to me, has done some pretty good work on this as well. [laughter] >> okay, it really has been good work. and i enjoy his sense of humor, as i hope he enjoys mine. [laughter] look, this bill is a win for

taxpayers, clearly. this is a win for performers. this is a win for farm and ranch families all across the country. this is a win for the economy of america. this is important business period on policy has many critics. one of the things that is amazing to me in my 26 years, is how often ill-informed some of the critics are. we hear all of the time that the farm bill and if it's only a few wealthy farmers and ranchers. all of us who sit around the table and participate in the work of this committee know that that is not true. the vast majority of the funding in this bill goes to nutrition programs that are primarily directed to benefit children. and it goes into every corner of america. in fact, only 6% of farm bill spending, less than two tenths

of 1% of overall federal spending, goes to fund programs. i think, somehow, that gets lost in the national discussion. between natural disasters and price situation, farming is a risky business. safety net programs are absolutely critical to producing the most abundant, safest, least expensive source of food in the world, and helping our producers compete in world markets where our major competitors are providing four times as much support to their producers as we provide to ours. our european friends are providing four times as much support to their producers as we are providing to our is good that is a critical fact that the people of the united states need to know. it is not just the europeans that are competitive competitors, we have to give our

farmers a fair fighting chance. i believe the 2008 farm bill, which many of us around the table have had a role in, enhanced the farm safety net and expanded conservation, bioenergy production, it contributed to the strong economic performance of the american agriculture and otherwise slow economy, and it was fully paid for it. fully paid for. i want to especially think senator chambliss for what he provided in writing that farm bill. it made a big difference across our country. as we build on the successes and contribute to deficit reduction, north dakota farmers tell me that direct payments cannot be defended. farm programs need to be simplified. crop insurance should be strengthened and complemented with new programs that are easier to administer and easier to comply with.

in particular, while crop insurance works well in most circumstances, it has to guess that we all recognize. first, it does not work well in a period of declining prices, especially when they are rapidly declining. second, crop insurance does not protect against repeated years else of shallow losses. over an extended period of time, those shallow losses can mean very big problems for our farm and ranch families. in response, we have pushed for a shallow lost revenue program that will fill these two gaps while saving taxpayer dollars. i am pleased the chairwoman is including some elements of those proposals in her bill, by providing for farm level revenue assistance programs. in the past two decades, we have been able to improve and strengthen it. i very much appreciate the chairwoman's commitment that we'll be able to continue and do

better. in conclusion, i am pleased that senator lugar and i were able to offer an amendment that you have adopted, as i understand it, to provide funding for the energy title. that too is a win for our economy and a win for the environment and a win for national security. our amendment, which has support from a strong majority of the committee, will add a critical dimension. in conclusion, madam chairwoman, i just want to again thank you for your very extraordinary leadership. it is so important to the country, to the congress, to this committee. we appreciate it. i also want to thank my colleagues, senator baucus, who has been a rock. helping to stick up for our part of the country. i really deeply appreciate senator baucus, how you have provided leadership over and over again on issues cripples who are part of the country.

and to senator hogan as well. a new member of the committee and a colleague of mine from my home state. i deeply appreciate the new energy against brought to this committee and sticking up for our state. >> thank you very much. we actually will have to offer the energy amendment, but we will have to offer that today. let me turn now to senator chambliss. he has had tremendous leadership over the years and so many ways. i know we still have some more work to do together, but i'm looking forward to doing that and very much appreciate your chair -- you're championing your bill in the south and in georgia. thank you very much. >> let me just start out by thinking senator conrad for his

kind comments. three of committees that have had the privilege of working very closely with him. senator conrad, when he was in the senate and i was in the house, it made no difference. we both have the interest of the american farmer at heart. your leadership, your commitment to american agriculture is going to be missed. we will miss you and some other ways. some ways, i might not miss you. [laughter] >> but seriously, you have been a true champion of american agriculture. you and i have had the privilege of working on any number of issues together. we have consistently been strong advocates for agriculture, and i thank you for your leadership and your friendship. madam chair, today, we hear

today to reauthorize the farm bill. as a former chairman and ranking member, i understand how difficult it is to combine all diverse interests into legislation that meets the needs of all members around this table. this bill before us is no exception. i do want to say to the chairwoman and ranking member, you have been diligent and you have worked hard, you have been opened, and you have been willing to have a dialogue even when we could not agree. you have listened to our concerns. this committee continues its stellar reputation, of being the most bipartisan committee in the united states senate. under your leadership, that has been strengthened. to you and the ranking member, who is my dear friend, as he and i conferred over the years. he is my shotgun rider, my wing man.

thank you both for your great work that you have done. i think we can all agree that the farm bill needs to provide an effective safety net that farmers and ranchers can rely on in times of need. agriculture producers face a combination of challenges, such as unpredictable weather, variable input costs, and market volatility. they combine lost in any given year. the 2008 farm bill has been providing a strong safety net program for producers over the last four years. i believe it is excessive legislation that must honor the same commitment we made four years ago to our ranchers and producers. at the same time, i believe the agriculture sector can contribute its fair share to deficit reduction, and the bill provides significant readings and mandatory spending programs. however, all sectors of this bill must contribute its fair share, and the key is to do this in an equitable and fair manner as we have always done.

i participate in the writing of for farm bill's is a member of congress, none of which have been easy. each bill heads had its unique challenges and opportunities. balancing the needs and interests of all agriculture requires patience, fairness, and a willingness to work with all members of this committee. it is very important we recognize the unique differences between the geographical regions and the commodities grown in those regions. as the international markets become more complex worldwide, we must be mindful that a one-size-fits-all program will not work for the u.s. agriculture with reasons -- regions more diverse than ever before. we need to recognize this diversity by providing producers with different options to confront the regional differences that define our country. washington does not always know best. right now, the bill before us fails this test. it is neither equitable warfare,

and attempts to redistribute resources from what one region to another. after deducting a fair share for deficit reduction, certain commodities receive more resources than others, and crops such as peanuts and rice are left without any safety net whatsoever. we have read report content reports and analyses indicating the lopsidedness in the bill. among the biggest losers in the budget baseline are rice, cotton and peanuts. we should not convince ourselves that this will not cause enormous negative consequences for many regions of the country. put simply, by making the bill more conducive, for certain crops at the expense of the many, this bill lacks balance. some will say that cleaning ships are responsible for changes in the bill and the baseline, and that is in part true. but it does not equate an injury that would be inflicted on particular regions of the country, nor does it tell the whole story.

by squeezing all crops into programs specially designed for one or two crops, this bill will force many growers, particularly in our region, to switch to those crops in order to have an effective they do not. isn't this planning distortion caused by policy that we ought to avoid? but there's another egregious problem with this bill. the safety net will not be there when farmers truly need it. whether on a far more narrow basis, a narrow band of 10% will not help farmers should prices collapse. under this bill, a farmer has an 11% deductible with the next 10% of losses covered. however, many farmers might be totally exposed to a plunging prices that hit the proposed loan rates. these proposed loan rates are set so low that if prices reach that point, the farmer is going to be out of business.

crop insurance can cover the production side of the wrist if you can afford to buy at higher coverage. but it does not cover consecutive years -- year-to-year prices. even a 10% revenue been the bill provides, has problems. the revenue guarantee is based on the previous five years price and production which may not be sufficient to provide an effective safety net. this is wrong. for this and my concerns over the process that led us here, are not likely to support this bill. in spite of this, i do what that's pretty recognize the chair and ranking member for providing a new bill. i have always been committed to try to find solutions to the wto brazil case. i offered legislation in 2005 and again in 2008 that made significant changes in the cotton and export programs to bring us into compliance with international commitments. along with senator cochran, we

eliminated the step to program and produced the cotton countercyclical program unilateral weekend in good faith. we find ourselves significantly reforming the kind of safety net with the stats program. the program in this bill is a significant departure from what is available to other covered commodities, and hopefully, will resolve the wto dispute once and for all. i hope that our brazilian friends will engage in a real and meaningful way to put this issue behind us. the farm bill infamous attempts to shoehorn all producers into a one-size-fits-all policy. i do not believe this is equitable to my producers. i regret the commodity title does not recognize this priority. let us remember that at the end of the day, the reason we are here, is to represent the hard-working men and women who

work the land each and every day to provide the highest quality agriculture food and products in the world. i believe we have the opportunity to write a bill that can be equal to their commitment in providing the food, feed, and fiber, that allows us to be the greatest nation on earth. right now, it appears that what this committee lacks is a willingness to do so. but i do look forward to the forthcoming debate, and thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. let me just reiterate what we have talked about privately. this is the first step of a long process. we will continue to work with you to improve and address the concerns that you have. let me turn to senator backus. thank you for your work as chairman of the finance committee. in this committee, i want to say that we would not have this program without your advocacy. we wouldn't have significant improvement in the farm level. i've learned more about montana. i think i could tell the committee about how montana has

a bigger -- bigger counties in michigan, i now understand that. and the kinds of differences. in all seriousness, it is part of the challenges. i appreciate your advocacy. nobody fights harder for montana. we appreciate your leadership. >> thank you. if possible, i would like to return the complements that the other senators on 10 senators have given to you. they have complemented you so well. as my associate, you have worked so hard to get us here. the numerous telephone calls received from you. i deeply appreciate the calls. the calls i've are made to you -- i hope you appreciate as we try to work all this out. you are always there. i don't know anyone who works harder than you. and it's more receptive than

you. you have been just terrific in putting this bill together. there were times when i was not sure we were going to make it. but you hung in there. we were determined. i., for one, can speak for every member of this committee and say how much we appreciate it. the same with the senator from kansas. i am not sure if i was surprised or not surprised how hard she worked. i was basically not surprised because you know the subject so well. you have a good sense of humor and try to do what is right. senator, i want to tell you how much i appreciate your work. there are many others in the committee. meetings of georgia, trying to work out the cotton issues. with respect to wto.

i hope we can work together to find a way to make that work. i also want to thank the senator of north dakota. i especially want to thank him. he gave a great statement. a statement i want to associate myself with. he pointed out a lot of myths in the country about agriculture. as the senator pointed out, the money goes to the christian program, it doesn't go to farmers and commodities. a lot of americans don't know that. especially people in the east. they just assume that the farmers are padding their pockets, which is totally untrue. he pointed out that this is a reform bill, we are saving $25 billion. i agree with the senator from kansas. that is a statement we can't make too often when we get to the floor. it is so important that people here that i know that.

when we worked before in another era, we saved close to $23 billion, but now we are saving $25 billion. i want to take a much i appreciate that. i don't want to prolong this part of my statements, but just to say, in reference to our state, agriculture is the number one industry. it is the most important industry by far. in my state. one out of five jobs is agriculture in montana. one out of five. it is a bedrock of our state's economy. as you alluded to, madam chairwoman, montana is a little bit different from other states. we have huge counties, as you said. are we farmers have no option. they have to plant wheat.

they can't plant corn in montana. they cannot plan soybeans in montana. soybeans, for example, if in montana -- those options are available to farmers in other states, but they are not available to my state. we have to make sure that the farm bill makes sense. we all want a safety net that makes sense. not too much, but try to find the right balance between everything for all states. and so painful for you working out away -- i am so thankful to you for working away that -- thank you for making a solution that is good for our part of the country. we want to come up with a

solution, and we want to work with you to help get there. this is the first step. there will be other steps along the way. we will keep making improvements as in the case with cotton and other commodities. whether it is floods or buyers order lost land ordered livestock that -- it just helps. i get a lot of compliments at home that this program has helped. farmers and ranchers are philosophical about life. they can't predict the market very well, can't predict the weather very well. they are still optimistic. they get out there and they want to farm and ranch. they don't want to take advantage of other people. they are always taken advantage of. with this bill, i think it

strikes the right tone. america together, means a lot to me, that you have found a pretty good solution. i will keep working with you as we are proceeding. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for those words. i want to turn to senator johanns. on this committee, we have always said that we have the former chairman and former ranking members. we are fortunate to have a secretary secretary of agriculture. let me just note at this point that when senator johanns was secretary of agriculture, he talked about reforming conservation. we have taken a number of your ideas. he really gave us a basis for thinking, and for moving ahead. i think we have a terrific conservation title, and you have -- you get a lot of credit for giving us the ability to get started. i want to particularly thank you for that. >> madam chair, thank you very much for that. i appreciate you.

you have seen some of those ideas. what more can i say in appreciation to you and to the ranking member? you have both done a great job. i will offer an inside that writing the farm bill is a lot different from writing the farm bill in the office of the usda. but the great thing about this committee is there is such deep experience. you know, you look at this committee, virtually everybody here has great agriculture background. be it the chair or ranking member. it has been very helpful in fleshing out my ideas as i thought about this package. i am in the camp of saying let's move forward. i'm going to support your efforts today because i do believe it is a great first step. we need to move this process

along. a couple of props i would offer. the agriculture economy is expressing a remarkable few years. it is really stronger than it has ever been in some aspects. in some aspects, historically strong. in recent years, many producers have seen the opportunity to be people or provide clothing or fuel in parts of the world that they probably would have never imagined that they would provide those items for. as a result of that, we have seen farm income reached a record $98 billion. with very little debt to asset ratios. it was asked are you concerned about what happened in the 80s in terms of today? sure, we always have that concern. but farmers tend to their business. they have kept their debt reasonable and lowell. and they have really tended to

the business that they run. we, at the same time, recognize our farmers and ranchers, that our budget situation is more daunting than ever. with her country's national debt over $15 trillion, the federal government is now borrowing about 42 cents of every dollar. this farm bill, though, like no other committee that i am aware of, has taken on the responsibility of providing deficit reduction. and as u.s. and the ranking member have pointed out, this farm bill saves at least $24.7 billion. you can only imagine if other committees would accept the same responsibility. the biggest step we would take in dealing with these deficit issues. in this package, like every piece of legislation, there are

probably some things i like and probably some things i don't like. that definitely is true. i am not a fan of target price is and reference prices. people might ask what is that. i will share a story with you. i was secretary of agriculture when hurricane katrina struck. a devastating impact. part of the impact of hurricane katrina was that for a period of time, the shipping lanes down the river were blocked. we all knew that that was temporary. we all knew that work was going to start as soon as the wind stopped blowing, to move the items that had been on the ships and get that shipping lane opened up. in a very brief period of time, the price of corn dropped from about $2 a bushel to a dollar 60 a bushel. what happened? perfectly legitimately,

everybody locked in their loan deficiency payment -- $4 billion went out the door at the usda almost overnight. we knew that was a very temporary time, and prices, in fact, came back to that 2-dollar level. it is hard to imagine these days when we have such high prices for matt. what am i saying? i am just saying that when he said targets -- when you set targets, you are sending into the marketplace a direction as to how to utilize that target. at the end of the day, the loan deficiency payment was paid out. the farmer continued to own the commodity, and at the end of the day, really suffered no loss, except in rather unusual circumstances. what i have heard, and i think what members of this committee have heard is that the crop insurance plan offers the best opportunity to go to a more market oriented farm bill.

i just want to wrap up today by applauding you and the ranking member and the many members of this committee for recognizing that. i just think it is a significant step in the right direction for farm policy. and i applaud your efforts. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. now, the senator from nebraska. senator, before i call calling you, i want to say it has been terrific working with you. bringing your leadership and having been former governor as well as senator, and so many other public service positions that you have had, you have been a strong advocate for nebraska. it has been wonderful working with you coming into the senate. we have always appreciated your efforts, and we are going to miss you. >> well, thank you very much,

madam chairwoman. it is sort of like hearing a eulogy. i appreciate your kind thoughts, and i want to associate myself with all the very glowing and truthful comments about working with you. i have never known in a committee structure a chairperson who reaches out as you have in this effort. it is why we are where we are. obviously, there isn't such a thing as a perfect bill, but if we could achieve perfection, i know you would have that as your target. and i would like to say thank you for it being tireless in this effort. i know about all the telephone calls we have had and the staff meetings and i want to thank you and the staff. it is unfortunate that the ranking member is not here, because -- i know he's from the

state of kansas -- but i just want to remind him that before kansas and nebraska became states, kansas was part of it nebraska territory. [laughter] >> you can repeat that again when he comes back. >> the course. the hard work has really been important. as he put the title of the bill together, agriculture reform and food and jobs bill act, it is clearly apt that the word jobs is in the title. agriculture and nebraska is responsible for one of every three jobs. agriculture is the backbone of nebraska's economy. it drives the economy. it supports the communities. provides what we call the basis for the good life that we all enjoy. with any bill, as i mentioned, it is a start. an excellent start. i believe it strikes the right balance between taking the

needed steps in today's fiscal climate to cut spending as has been indicated while maintaining a strong and important safety net to ensure a stable, supply of food, feed, fuel, and fiber. in a time of partisan gridlock, it is good to see the bipartisanship that you and ranking member robert's have been able to maintain and also as you work so strongly for the safety net. while making a significant contribution to debt reduction. in this committee, we have produced a bill, as noted, the cuts a least $23 billion more from our culture programs that represents 2% of the nation's budget in the 23 plus billion reduction represents 2% of the cuts proposed in the deficit legislation. this was what congress worked on my server couldn't pass because

of partisanship. we put together a bipartisan we put together a bipartisan end of others across the government followed this example and make similar cuts, we would be able to achieve the goal that we all have, the goal of reducing the deficit and getting it under control. as i have said in the past, this bill will permit people in agriculture to establish their own risk management tools, rather than having to rely on the goodwill of the government to bail them out at times but they have faced a downturn in their agricultural efforts. while the u.s. agriculture has been one of the right spots in our economy throughout the downturn, farming and ranching are still, as noted, inherently risky undertakings from volatile markets to the whims of mother nature. i am also pleased with the components of the agriculture risk coverage.

while crop insurance should be the focal point of the safety net, i am glad the committee recognized the need to provide producers with the tools to mitigate the risks inherent in the commodity markets. with efforts to lower commodity prices like inputs are likely to remain high. beyond the provisions, and by the committee has recognized the unique roles, conservation, and rule development playing in rural communities come in the benefits they provide the nation as a whole. i applaud the committee for such a strong conservation title that recognizes the importance and important roles of creating partnerships with local stakeholders to gain more buy-in from farmers, horsemen, and conservations alike. by working together, these groups will be able to ensure the productivity of our nation's soil, preserve the quantity and quality of our nations would

water, protect wildlife and conservations alike. while the marquis unable to find money for the rural development title, i am so whether the committee recognizes the importance of the programs by reauthorizing many of them. and improving upon them from the 2008 farm bill. especially, the program referred to as the rural micro entrepreneur assistance program. rural development provides businesses -- small businesses which make up 90% of small businesses. the financed startup costs and provides backing for young and beginning farmers to enter production, agriculture and replace retiring farmers and ranchers. while we were unable to find the necessary money, i hope to work with both chairwoman and the ranking ranking member to ensure that there is some level of support made available as we work towards moving the bill to the floor and eventual senate passage. once again, i think the chair

and ranking member robert. since he is here, i noted in the beginning of my remarks that while you are from kansas, before kansas became a state, you were part of the nebraska territory. another ranking member appreciates me reminding him that facts are facts. >> if the senator will yield for a moment. that is true. now, you are part of the big ten, and you are an old longer a member of the great plains of society. >> and we welcome you to the big ten. [laughter] >> let me just say welcome to senator bozeman -- senator bozeman, a new member of the committee. the first farm bill in the senate. it's interesting. i have always said that michigan had more diverse crops than the other states, but senator bozeman said that i have to pay attention to writing. he is a strong advocate.

we are grateful for your hard work. >> thank you, madam chair. we do appreciate, and i want to echo what is being said about your hard work and ranking members hard work. also, your patience. senator baucus alluded and many others -- the phone calls and e-mails and the groundings on the floor, things like that. again, we do appreciate you and the ranking member for putting up with us. and also for trying to address our needs. the other thing i think we have to recognize is your staff in and the ranking member staff, everyone has bags under their eyes -- we really appreciate all your hard work. agriculture has a variety of different risks. writing a farm bill that serves as a safety net for all crops and regions is no easy task. yet, the responsibility is with us. we must ensure that the united states continues to have the biggest and most reliable and

affordable supply of food for the world. our nation is at a crossroads. we are in desperate need of fiscal discipline and restraint. i am pleased that the farm bill includes important reforms, reducing spending and the lemonades duplicate government programs to ensure that we get the most of every dollar that we invest in agriculture. the title contains important improvements that will benefit america's forest industry. the improvements to the usda bio-based markets program and the managers package, will allow forest products to be included in the program. the current usda biomarkets program favors foreign products over our american forest products, which puts american workers at a disadvantage. i'm happy with the progress of this issue, and i appreciate the effort to promote and purchase our renewable homegrown products.

crop insurance also contains some important improvements and provisions. supplemental coverage options, and you'll plugs will help many producers who may have otherwise been left unprotected by the elimination and the countercyclical program. at the same time, this is not a perfect bill. i have serious concerns about the commodity title and the impact it will have on southern producers and the planning decisions that they will have to make. i also have concerns about missed opportunities in the terms of eliminating waste, abuse him a in the nutrition title. the commodity title, as it is currently written, will have a devastating impact on southern agriculture. which relies heavily on irrigation and benefits less from crop insurance. furthermore, the new revenue plan is designed to augment crop insurance, so this new program leaves gaping holes in the southern safety net.

with the reference price, the revenue plan might not be strong enough for our farmers to get operating modes. for example, most estimates find that rights come as you mentioned earlier, would lose more than 70% of this. far more than their share. however, this is not about one crop. one side is simply does not fit all. we have other crops in a similar situation. i'm very concerned that his proposals -- this proposal is capped to have high commodity prices. it is attractive when prices are high, but i'm not sure that there's there's anything in this plan that protects producers from the multiyear price decline and a one-size-fits-all program with no choice of provision that could leave many producers vulnerable in a very tough situation. throughout its process, i have said that anything that goes too far in any direction can violate the core principles of the effort, i am afraid that is,

maybe title does this in its current form. as others have alluded to. it is my opinion that we could have done more to limit a waste and abuse in the nutrition title. we should have fully closed the loophole which artificially inflates benefits for snap recipients. there are the things we can do to save money without reducing benefits and reinvesting other critical nutrition areas and deficit reduction. just because there is in full agreement doesn't mean that our farmers stop needing a safety net. in spite of their differences, at this point in time, i'm still very optimistic. the thing that i think we all agree around the table about is, we very definitely need to pass a farm bill as quickly as we can. i know that with your leadership

and the chairman and the ranking member, and all the members of this committee working together to give their fair share and give back what they need, we can build the consensus necessary to usher a farm bill through and see if signed into law this year. we can do this, i think, while preserving safety nets, making reforms, and achieving deficit reduction. i am confident that we can craft a bill that we are all proud of, and i look forward to continuing to work with the chair and ranking member and all the members of the committee who have seen it through. >> thank you very much. as i indicated before, we are looking forward to working with you. this is the first step in the process. senator casey, thank you for your leadership and your work on nutrition, effectively crops, and conservation, because of you, the chesapeake bay of regional partnership is a part of this. we are grateful for all of your hard work.

>> manager, thank you very much. i'm grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this -- this effort to bring forth a farm bill. also, i have a longer statement for the record, but i want to thank you for working with me in my office so closely, as you have with others. and also to the ranking member senator roberts. it is a significant example of bipartisanship at a time when we don't see nearly enough. i will just make three or four quick comments. first of all, the deficit reduction that is set forth in this in this legislation is substantial. that should be noted. i know it will be somewhere between 23 and $24 billion. second, the job creation potential of this legislation is tremendous. i think whenever we are talking about farm bill and art bull market economy, we have to be focused on job creation. there a lot of significant

strategies on job creation. also, in the context of making cuts that are smart, and also making sure that we are aware that there are a lot of people suffering. a lot of vulnerable people that suffer in this economy, especially those who don't have enough to eat, and i am concerned about how we do that. and also making sure that we are protecting the most honorable. finally, the one sector of this legislation just happens to be the biggest sector of the pennsylvania agriculture economy. and that is dairy farming. we worked very hard to do everything we can to protect the dairy farm families who have suffered through something similar to the great depression in the last five or so years. another is more work to be done. in the interest of time, i will

stop there. madam chair, thank you for your leadership on this. >> thank you very much. turning to senator grassley, i just want to thank you for your knowledge and advocacy on agriculture over the years. and your tenacity. we have special performances bill because of your tenacity and your commitment and we want to thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, madam chairman, for your cooperation on that issue. it is the most cooperation i have had in the 10 or 15 years that i have spent on this issue. to make sure that the biggest farmers are not being subsidized by the federal taxpayers to get even bigger. it is nothing wrong with getting bigger. but when the taxpayers subsidize it, i think that is bad. thank you for helping this and helping us improve that situation. i also appreciate, madam

chairman, the work the u.n. ranking member roberts have put into this farm bill. while we still have a ways to go through this long process, we are surely getting started at the right time and in the right direction. the farm bill is never an easy process. certainly, it isn't any easier on the budget. we are dealing with a broad range of issues that are important from conservation to nutrition. it is important to begin to build on this year. many of the members of this committee have come together and supported what many farmers say is the most important piece of the farmer's safety net. crop insurance. we have worked for 30 years to make it an effective risk management tool. of course, it is very advantageous that farmers have crop insurance, because not only is that good foreign policy, but that is good public policy. there has been a lot of debate

about the programs this committee is going to create to replace direct payments. i still have some reservations about title i revenue programs, and its potential interaction with crop insurance, but i understand the reality that there is a fairly broad support for revenue programs. i commend the chair and ranking member in providing a high level of defensibility to the chairman's mark. i think excepting my proposal for the 50,000-dollar payment cap on commodity programs is crucial to ensure that we all can go to the senate floor and defend this bill, particularly, in these tight budget situations. and i'm pleased that we have closed the loophole and actively engaged my amendment, which was accepted, that will help ensure farm payments going to farm -- farmers and not doctors, lawyers

and celebrities. there's no justification to allow non-farmers to receive payments. that is particularly true in this current budget climate. the payment limit reform in the chairman's mark is something this committee should be very proud of. i am not going to ask for a vote or even offer an amendment today on another crusade of mine on the packer ban the issue. for too long, large meatpackers have had an unfair advantage in the market place. at some point, congress has to address the fact that independent reduces are entitled to a level playing field. one big step congress can take to solve competition problems is beginning packer ownership of livestock. you can imagine, can't you, how demoralizing it is to the average beef producer, were many any livestock producer, for that

matter, when there is a ceo of a major meatpacking plant a few years ago that says, do you want to know why we owned livestock? we own livestock because when prices are high, we kill our own. when prices are low, we buy from the farmer. that seems to be not only morally wrong, and ethically wrong, but it seems to border on violation of fair competition. banning packer ownership of livestock will help us ensure our livestock producers are able to compete in the marketplace. thank you, madam chairman, and i look forward to moving and effective indefensible farm bill out of this committee and hopefully into the world very soon. >> thank you very much again. we have come as i indicated, significant reform because of your leadership. we thank you very much. senator bennet, we welcome your comments. let me first say, as the subcommittee chair on

conservation, we are very proud of what has been done in conservation. you have been a strong advocate with tremendous leadership. they are and in so many other areas. also in helping us as we work through the growth industry for you. you have made it clear for what needs to happen for colorado, and we are going to continue to work with you and appreciate all of your advocacy on that as well. >> thank you for that, madam chair. i want to say thank you to you in the ranking member in a different way. over the last 18 months, i have done over 20 farm bill listening sessions in colorado. when people ask me in these places what is wrong with the you people, why can't you work together? i have the opportunity to point to the bipartisan work in this committee is an example of how we should be approaching our work all across the united states senate. particularly, with respect to

the deficit reduction that has been in this bill. this committee has shown extraordinary leadership and it would not have happened without you or the ranking member. thank you for setting an example for the rest of the congress. i also want to thank your staff very much. both the chairwoman and the ranking committee. they have worked with me in my office on several important provisions, including a the bill we are going to take up. among these are important colorado priorities. as you mentioned, the revamped conservation title. water quantities are being destroyed, something very important to us. also is the inclusion of important provisions that strengthen conservation easements. i hope to work with the chair and ranking member today on additional provisions that will help us voluntarily conserve private lands across the country and in my state. i'd also like to thank the committee for reauthorizing the poorest stewardship contracting

authority. it allows our land management agencies to implement hyperbole management and restoration products that are critical to colorado. this is an important tool for initiatives to restore and maintain forests, ecosystems and provide local employment. colorado currently has more stewardship contracts under way than any other state, with 34 projects totaling almost 12,000 acres. finally, i want to give special thanks to the chairwoman's staff -- chairwoman stabenow. the dairy story has been a tremendous success story. over the next years, we are in possession in colorado to double our dairy operation. this comes from her producers and manufacturers responding to market opportunities overseas. in fact, madam chair, this is happening all over the country. i am holding a recent article from "the wall street journal" that highlights how we are

providing china with milk. i'd like to say that to the record. >> without objection. >> the products may be going overseas, but the jobs are created in our rural communities. while i don't plan to offer my amendment for in insurance program, i strongly support this growth oriented approach to risk management for derry. i know we have regional differences here, and i respect that. but i hope to continue to work with you and others on the committee throughout this final process to advance the dairy policy to reflect the industry's growing commitment to export opportunities. thank you, again, to the chair and ranking member for all of your work getting us to this point. i look forward to working with you as we head toward the floor. >> thank you very much, and we do intend to continue to work

with you as we were to strike the right balance. that really is what the farm bill is about. we are going to continue to work with you. let me turn to senator thune. i want to thank you so many ways. the foundation what we are calling agriculture risk coverage programs, you have been a terminus leader on them. as well as an advocate around energy and conservation in a number of different areas. with your effort and senator brown putting forward what was a very thoughtful concept for us has really let us to the program that we have. we thank you very much for that. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you ranking member roberts. first of all common to both of you for your hard work and for the members of your staff who really have worked tirelessly for the past few weeks and months to bring us to where we are today. i do appreciate your persistence in trying to get this thing moving and in listening and trying to accommodate the

concerns that members from all over different parts of the country had, representing different types of commodities. this is no easy feat. congratulations to you and senator roberts to getting bashed for getting us to this point and hopefully getting a bill to the floor where we can act on it and get something going. this farm bill does dramatically reform existing farm policy by eliminating and consolidating both commodity and conservation title programs, and replacing some with new programs. although most sectors of production agriculture are currently prosperous, we all know that risks are always going to be there. the crop and livestock prices and production can drop overnight. rms are told -- the farmers have told us that crop insurance is their primary cone i thank you for preserving and improving the crop insurance prisions in this bill.

change is nevereasy, espcially when it comes to chging commodity title programs. if wcould see the future and look a cple of yea into it, we would see other programs that wo are ving tay i think that would be more coe, that is a luxury that we don't have. shifting away from countercyclical payments and direct payments and illuminating share an acre, i believe those are good policy changes, and in the bill it shows that farmers and ranchers are more than willing to do more than their fair share when it comes to the issue of deficit reduction. as the chairwoman mentioned, two of my colleagues on this committee, senator brown, senator lugar, senator durbin, introduced the program which the congressional budget office saves overt $23 billion over five years. this has been built from the ground work laid out by the arm program, including the elimination of share an acre and countercyclical payments.

i do accept the producer one-time choice option between a single county level trigger and a farm level trigger with different payment levels. i believe this is a reasonable compromise, provides much more simplicity and the bees are able to be understood and better than what we often than the 2008 bill. with limited resources, i believe that the programs will be much less costly to administer. i also believe the streamlining and consolidation of programs will still provide effective tools for farmers and ranchers to apply needed and sound stewardship practices to preserve their farm and ranch lands. i'm especially pleased that the grassland conversion language that were added by the chairwoman's remark from an amendment that i offered. the language does not prohibit a farmer from converting sought or grassland. it applies rules that prohibit guild substitution for four years. which means that farmers who do convert sought or grassland must

append on the production capability of the land to earn a profit. i also offered an amendment that would allow commercial use of harvest from crp as a result of midterm management requirements. currently, policy requires the farmer must be paid to remove from certain crp practices, and it means that a producer cannot use that hey, in most cases, it must be burned, which really makes no sense when areas of the country are suffering for droughts and shortage of seed. a benchmarked makes much more sense to allow commercial use of the hague. and to have the producer's rental payment reduced. i have been assured that the current language will adequately address this issue, so i will withdraw that amendment, but we'll be watching carefully to make sure that we do not have unnecessary destruction occurring at taxpayer expense.