>> think you for making those points. i would mention that by actually returning to the lower number, we may forgo the flexibility to help the very organizations who would have promised not only reaching the 50% matching grant will be even a 25% matching grant level. it's my understanding and there are negotiations going on to ensure that there is proper sensitivity and flexibility for organizations that may not be able to achieve that type of threshold, but we don't want to upset the attempts to harmonize this and standardized process. is that fair mr. chairman? >> i agree with that. it's important but i agree with the gentleman and encourage my colleagues to support this. if you follow what you are going to see this program has been pretty darn successful and i think we can make it more so. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california seeks recognition -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i stand in support of this legislation and i want to thank

the gentleman from nebraska for offering it. if we really want to be competitive in terms of the future we have to make sure that we build a future farmers and he's absolutely right. when you look at the age 55 to 57 years of age is the average farmer if we don't begin to have young farmers and begin to train them we are not going to be competitive with other entities and if we are not competitive which means then that other countries are going to be doubled to provide the products our farmers aren't going to be able to do and what this also does is create jobs and opportunities for many individuals to get into the training and will be able to develop their farms so it presents a lot of other opportunities that are there. it's a good amendment if you're looking to the future building future farmers of america to raise the nec the gentleman yields back to read the gentleman from georgia seeks recognition. >> i share the passion for

keeping young people on the farms. i just ask that the best way to keep well qualified people on the farms that don't know how to carry forward is to get rid of the federal-state tax and i yield my time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. seeing no other request for time, the committee will now vote on amendment number 97 as unanimous consent. all of those in favor of amendment number 97 signify by saying aye. all those opposed, signify by saying no pity the speed to do have it. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do indeed have it and demand is adopted. are there additional amendments on title vii? the gentleman -- let me get a look at all has their -- i want to go back to this side. the gentleman from california seeks recognition. >> thank you. amendment number 53. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 53 and the

gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment and began when he is prepared. >> thank you. i want to thank my friends and colleagues to andrew was supporting this issue and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which authorizes the new grants for the hispanic serving institutes and his bennett serving agricultural colleges and universities that benefit every student and every faculty member, every closet by the employees so everybody gains from it. the first of the programs is authority million dollar competitive grant program. grant funding will help train young hispanic farm workers and agriculture related bills that job requiring skills and technologies specifically these grants help provide young people with the skills and technologies associated with agriculture, food science, food safety and environmental science. the second program of this amendment will authorize a

scholarship program for hispanic youths from families and we in the agriculture. the scholarships will be targeted for helping young people but interested in pursuing their careers and agricultural science and related industries. we all know their important role of the population plays in the nation's electrical to work force. from the year 2000 to 2010 and hispanics that added 43% growth rate the largest of any population in the united states the purchasing power was 1 trillion in 2010 and it's expected to reach 1.3 trillion in 2014. and according to the peace research center hispanics account for three-quarters of the growth of the nation's labor work force in 2010 to 2020. the simple truth is that the nation is dependent on hispanic work force. if we do not begin to make the proper investment in agricultural work force, the whole country will suffer. these programs are of course it benefit to students come states like california, texas, where hispanics make up over 30

prisoner of the undergraduate students. they also benefit places like the greatest percentage of the hispanic populations. young farmers in states like virginia demint florida, new york, texas, colorado and in mexico and arizona, nevada, virginia, north carolina, georgia will see a portion benefits from the newly authorized educational program. i may have left out some of the states but texas is in there and hopefully i mentioned that as well. we know the population in america is aging according to 70% of all farmers over the age of 55. by investing in young people that already know the agriculture and giving them the skills and education they need we can help build our next generation of farmers in america i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and invest in the future of the agricultural here in america. i yield back. >> he yields back. i would simply no to that i

believe the gentleman is making great effort here. we may have a little perfecting work to do on the language of the gentleman has -- is on the right track. seeing an additional request for the recognition the gentleman from texas to the estimates before mr. chairman. strike the last word? >> this appears to be a new program, and i believe we have it in the house rules you can't start a program that cuts another program of equal size or greater and the points made our great and i agree 110% we need to prioritize. some of the gentleman had other programs to cut however many millions of dollars this is rather than adding this on top of the already money that is getting spent i would be much more receptive to it because i just don't think we can continue to add new programs without

saying a senate seat let you can't find another program somewhere else it's less important in this, then what you are arguing is this is the least important thing we ought to be doing in the federal government and if that is the case then we really shouldn't do it so if this is valuable, and it looks like this, that we ought to be able to find other programs that are not as valuable as this, maybe good programs but not having the impact that this one does to cut so i would recommend a no vote on this simply because we really can't continue to add new programs on top of the existing and would be much more fiscally responsible if we would find the dollars somewhere else and trim debt and substitute. so i respectfully disagree. i don't disagree on the point of what you are trying to do it's just the fiscal issues and we have in the house rules and to prevent policy when you have to kill something else. with that on a yield dhaka.

>> the gentleman from texas. >> i was going to yield to the gentleman of california and asked if he did have a way to pay for this because under the baseline provisions of the bill, we don't have money to pay for it. i think that's where the chairman indicated we would try to find some kind of language to work together and hopefully come up with the means to pay for this. >> but you don't have any at this point. estimate unless you have one for me. >> i don't have one in my back pocket. >> i thought you might have had one. sorry. >> mr. kuran? >> the gentleman yields back. first we have to go to the gentleman from texas. >> can i struck the last word? >> thank you very much. mr. chairman would like to work with you and i think this is something we have to address and if i can address for example the

last ten years we could buy 4.3 million atingua are the fastest growth in the united states, 65% of it were hispanics and african-americans. it's about 90% of the holder growth we had and the african-americans. i think this is something that we can sit down with you and work with you and perfect this i think it would be something that is worth supporting. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to an estimate of a refrain from bringing these issues to the kennedy although i am troubled by the lines that are being crossed here. one of them is the effort not to expand programs that the gentleman from texas spoke about and a mother is my concern of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause in the constitution, and as i read this

and the experience we have in the programs like this that means there would be people excluded in these programs by the definition of a program proposed by the gentleman from california, and i am well aware and i think that the committee needs to be well aware that there has been litigation brought forward because in some cases i think existing and others alleged discrimination against black farmers, a hispanic for riss, native american farmers and women farmers. we start carving people out by categories and giving them special protected status here under the statute i think it violates the principal of equal protection clause, and i would suggest also that of all of the billions of dollars in the discrimination taken place by the usda i might add made a number around $5.4 billion altogether, they haven't discovered a single perpetrator of discrimination. so i think the charge is greater

to find a discriminator that exists or existed within the usda. i think it's incumbent upon us to find equal protection for americans and if people are being discriminated against, we should fix that. and i don't know that it exists to the extent that it has been alleged by injury concerned about the political movement in this country that the fear on the part of republicans to make any comment that has to do with some sensitive issue and to go along with programs that may or may not have merit. but i would like to see the equal protection part and i look around this room and i think there's an opportunity to come to the congress and i think there's an opportunity to get involved in farming. i look around my neighbors and where was the special program for the swedes or irish that's just been about 15 miles of me. if they didn't -- to get started farming and guess it was hard. if you can show me people are being discriminated against want to help you fix that but i don't think on the other side we get where we need to go as a nation if we set up special projects

for people that are defined by race or ethnicity. i think we need to go back to martin luther king's directive which is content of character and equal opportunity. that's where i stand on this mr. tran. i didn't want to have this subject come up. i withheld some things from this committee that i think was politically appropriate to do in the necessity of moving this bill to the floor but just stepped into that pool so i would yield. as to make everybody benefits so it's not segregated just to one segment of the community so everybody that is going to the institution. it's just the qualifications for funding that has to be 25% more hispanic institutes to be identified. any student in all students benefits that go to the institution regardless of whether they're brown, black, asian, american, whoever. >> reclaiming my time then for clarity purposes, i think i've heard you say that this is for

hispanics serving institutions rather than hispanics in hollywood keeled. >> hispanic serving institutes. >> which means they have been identified and classified of the population of having 25% more hispanics attending the institution. but just because they have 25% or more, that means everybody benefits regardless of who goes to the institution. so if they want to have a program that means everybody that is going to that institution benefits. >> reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentleman from california making his point. i think my point still stands. i know sometimes we get an amendment here. we haven't had a chance to dig into it deeply, but you believe what you believe and i believe what i believe, and my comments stand on the record and hopefully we have an opportunity to take this subject forward and i would yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the gentleman from kansas

seeks recognition for the broad purpose. >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the clarification given in the last exchange if i might inquire the response or of the amendment that if i read the language directly it is a criteria for the hispanic students only, but the entities of the hispanic institutions the youth must qualify the congressman from iowa indicated his concern that in my reading that incorrectly in the language of the amendment? >> everybody benefits. >> everybody benefits.

reclaiming my time, i guess i don't understand that. you have to be hispanic youth to qualify for this particular scholarship program, but you can only attend an institution of hispanics serve an institution a couple of concerns in the congressman has noted those already. secondary concern would be as well and in my state of kansas i don't know if there is any institution that would qualify. i presume that if they meet of the hispanic definition and the bill they would be required to lead the state of kansas and the university elsewhere. and again, there is some confusion about that, but i share the same concerns with my congressman from iowa and peeled back my time. >> the gentleman yields the

remainder of his time. is there any other request for recognition on this amendment? cno their request for recognition that we will proceed to vote on amendment number 53. all those in favor of amendment number 53 will signify by saying iraq. all of those opposed will signify by saying no. >> it would appear that the noes headrick. >> the gentleman asks for roll call. the clerk will call the roll on amendment number 53. >> mr. goodlatte? no. mr. johnson wax

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is --

>> the gentlelady has an amendment to offer. >> amendment number 48. >> the clerk will distribute amendment 48 and we recognize for five minutes. >> this is a year our tent and a real sticky issue, but it's one that needs to be brought up. the amendment i am offering is the first of two but are the related amendments will offer today. the amendment contains some of the top recommendations from but 2011 national bedbug summit of rising denney for the research of efficacy testing to ensure that products claiming to control bedbugs actually work and giving local health departments additional authority to justify the treatment of medved infestation. the bed bug population in the united states is increased in 1990's and almost every environment susceptible to the infestation. this is adversely affecting the health of americans. mr. chairman, i am one of the top -- i represent one of the top cities in the united states

we rank anywhere from number one to number three with bed bug infestation. currently philadelphia is number one. we are number two, new york is number three. it is rampant throughout many of the cities in my own state of ohio. bed bugs are enormously difficult to eradicate because the most commonly used product the epa decided we shouldn't be using a few years ago so the product that are altar that do work are extraordinarily expensive. there is no silver bullet. these products we have to use have to be used over and over again. since the resurgence has surfaced, little research has been done in the last 50 years to find alternate successful uses to eradicate dead bugs. the language of the rise is ongoing federal bedbug research funding to more aggressively review the research about a test on which a little research has been done in the last 50 years. unlike many other in which the u.s. department of our

agriculture conducts research, bedbugs are in all 50 states and virtually every corner of every state, and i might add to my colleagues if you go to a hotel, stripping the bed top to bottom and make sure there are no bedbugs and at. research seems especially relevant and timely in the wake of the ohio state university research that shows that a consumer product are completely ineffective in trying to eradicate this. like it or not gdp isn't going to come back. we have to do something else. this amendment doesn't look to create additional programs but rather is added to an existing program and it costs nothing. but again it will force the usda to look at this research. mr. chairman, thank you for your time on this and i would ask all of my colleagues to say yes to this amendment. again, if there is no cost we

just ask the usda to put this as a part of their project list. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman seeks to strike the last word. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i support this amendment as the ranking member and i must admit i didn't think much about bedbugs until yesterday when a friend of mine in the pesticide industry called me and told me what a problem that really is true of the country and when he and ms. schmidt told me philadelphia is the number one problem the country and i spent about ten flights a year in a hotel in philadelphia -- [laughter] >> the gentleman some good up. he yields back. anyone else seeking recognition on the topic seeing no other request for recognition, let's proceed with a vote on amendment number 48 from the gentlelady from ohio. all those in favor of amendment

number 48, signify by saying aye. all those opposed, signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. this p.a. to do indeed have it and hopefully we will have the bedbugs on the run. demint net 48 is accepted. to have additional amendments in title vii? >> mr. chairman. >> i'm going to go back to you back and forth the best i can. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for what purpose? >> an amendment at the desk mr. chair. >> amendment number 63. >> will the clerk distribute amendment 63 the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and me began his explanation when ready. >> i would like to recognize the effort and the ranking member put into improving the titles both in the research area and the block programs in particular as i think everyone in this room

of the u.s. copper production and as you know part of our farm bill matter-of-fact less than two tenths of 1% goes to special crops and research. my amendment is pretty simple. it just builds on the chairman or ranking member have done boosting the special crop research and the block grants by small $10 million a year. just trying to get a little more level playing field the future of american agriculture really relies on their research and development. we are not going to go through argentina, china, all these places in the long term we need to improve the crops through the competitiveness overseas and with that i guess i would yield back mr. chair. >> the gentleman yields back.

>> the gentleman in california? >> thank you mr. chairman. i support mr. schrader's deferred on this. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you i move to strike the last word. we indicate my support from the gentleman's motion to read one of the best things that we did in the bill is to expand the support for the specialty crops. as the gentleman said, 50% of the value, and it is a situation where we don't ask for subsidies. we asked for research innovation coming and we try to promote exports for america. i would encourage the committee to support the amendment and asked for ayes votes. spec the gentleman yields back. the janelle man from texas seeks recognition. >> you are recognized for five

minutes. >> i move to strike the last word. >> thank you mr. chairman. again, i need to object or let you know i'm going to oppose this amendment simply on fiscal grounds. and mr. schrader i have to challenge you a little bit. 10 million is a lot in west texas. i don't know how you phrased it but it caught my attention it's still a lot of money and over the five-year service to your coming someplace else and replacing those dollars the would be a different argument but to simply add ten with 50 million on top is in my view not the right way to go. >> i would compare that in the investment we are making on the crop insurance that put almost $11 billion in there. this is again a minuscule amount of money in my neck of the woods, too but compared to what we are spending in this bill on the new subsidization for some of our friends in need in the midwest in your area, too we are asking a small 1% of that

$11 million. >> i understand. reclaiming my time that is money that came out of the title in which we are spending significantly less money the 14 almost 15 billion that is spent. so, i understand the issue. every other crop took a cut. but if you offset for it that is up for discussion. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. cost seeks recognition. >> i ask consent to strike the last word. >> i would urge all of my colleagues to pause for a moment and think about this. as our colleague, the gentleman from california indicated in 2008 this was a very i think important although not a big investment in terms of the entirety of the 2008 farm bill

and guess this is a substantive amount of money my friend from texas. but the gentleman from oregon i think when we all think about you can't compare it to the other cuts that have been taken in the program and that's one perspective but let's think about it this way. to use the former terminology you don't want to eat your seed corn. they've done what is best for the entire 20 of the century, and now into the 21st century and that is the reason that we are competitive in agriculture around the world is because of the smart investments that we made in research that's why american agriculture notwithstanding higher costs can still compete. it's why we can trade in

agricultural products around the world and make money and why it helps our balance of payments. .. throughout the nation, so think about it that way. think about you know, the whole notion of out a type of investment that we want to

continue. these are difficult times and we have to make cuts. everybody at colleges that but i think when you talk about the cutting-edge for americans, agriculture to remain competitive in the 21st century, it's always going to be that we do it better than anyone else does. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> i appreciate those comments and i don't disagree with many of them. if you look at the cdo score though for the research tightly increased at a half a billion dollars over this timeframe and so we are plowing more money back into research. i don't know where this pro-grandpa's in pecking order with the rest of those increases but we do increase research and development in this part. >> let me suggest this, and sometimes i can read votes and i don't know how persuasive i can be but we don't want to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, right-click smart investments for a smaller percentage in terms of the total value of what

we ultimately get back and what agriculture does so well around the country is what? value-added. the value-added happens because on this we make smart investments and its unique public private partnership because it's just not our land grant universities and usda, but is all the research done by all the various companies around the country that ad their own private research dollars to that public mix. so, i yield the balance of my time and i urge that we support the amendment or figure out a better way to work on this during the conference committee. >> the gentleman yields back. i believe the jamman from pennsylvania seeks recognition. >> strike the last word. i and the ranking member reluctantly have to oppose this amendment. in part because crops are very important in the commonwealth of pennsylvania as well as oregon and california but someone

earlier in the debate mentioned we had a fragile coalition that we have forged here to move this bill out of committee and try to get it to the house floor and get it to the conference and impart disagreements we really cannot make this increased investment at this time and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i share the perspective of the ranking member and the gentleman from pennsylvania. we made significant resource increases in supporting the crops. my colleagues are entirely right. this is a very important endeavor but we made that commitment and we have so many other funding challenges and i respectfully must oppose the amendment too. i yield back. >> i yield back my time. >> anyone else seeking recognition on amendment 63? seeing no additional request for recognition, we will now vote. all those in favor of amendment 63 signify by saying aye. although supposed to amendment number 63 will signify by saying

no. the no's have it. the clerk will report a role on amendment number 63. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] mr. chairman, no. 26 yeas -- excuse me. 19 yeas, 26 nays. >> it amendment number 63 is not adopted. is there an additional amendment

offered? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentlelady seeks recognition. >> the amendment number is number 82. >> 82. could the gentlelady enter into a discussion with the chairman for just a moment before we proceed with the reading? >> absolutely. >> gentlelady, it has come to my attention that after reviewing the amendment it appears to me that it would be more appropriate to place in title xii then in title vii. i would suggest to the good lady that she withhold her amendment at this point in time in the markup and that we consider it in title xii. >> i will do that mr. chairman. hopefully you will look favorably upon it at that time. >> you do understand the process. thank you very much. are there additional amendments to title vii? are there additional amendments to title vii?

seeing no additional amendments, title vii is closed. by unanimous consent i request that we dispense with the reading of title viii, the title dealing with forestry and title viii now be open for amendment. are there amendments? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from pennsylvania seeks recognition. >> i have an been amendment at the desk, amendment number 17. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 17 in the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment when he is ready. >> thank you chairman. this amendment would restore u.s. forest services categorical exclusion authority for a significant number of everyday activities. category exclusion allows the service to define certain actions that have been found by the agency to experience an additional environmental review and does not have a significant impact on the environment and

therefore do not require prepper station -- prepper station of a time and resource consuming review such as an environmental assessment or impact study. last year legislation fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations was passed and signed into law. a repeal the apartment approval for specific for a service project to require more middle assessments and impact statements. these changes receive the support from both sides of the aisle and the obama administration. however a lot of that specify repeal for more basic activities that have no effect on the environment because of the time it was thought to be nonsensical that a court would require an appeal for something as minor as repairing a power line. consequently this past march the u.s. district court issued an injunction and all categorical exclusions within the national forest including for the most minor day-to-day activities to public notice, comment and administrative appeals process is.

the effect of this decision is to prohibit the four services of guilty to categorically exclude typical everyday operations that have no significant environmental impact including trail maintenance, phone and power lines, replanting, treeplanting following a wildfire, the practical effects of the -- severely limiting services while forcing unnecessary bureaucratic delays. under the ruling this decision will have their days and up to 145 days for all these noncontroversial everyday activities. according to this for service there more more are more than 60 projects currently being negatively affected by this judicial oversight. no other land management agency including the national park service the national park service or dom has to go through this lengthy and unnecessary process with its basic functions and activities. my amendment assemble. it will broaden last year's categorical exclusion capabilities to include most noncontroversial for service activities on national forest lands and pull the service back in line with the agencies.

this e-memory reduces unnecessary processes and delays and will help the four service use their budgets and staff the resources for more useful essential endeavors and i would encourage my colleagues on this committee to support this commonsense amendment. and i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. does anyone seek recognition? the chairman from oregon. >> to strike the last word. i just want to lend my support to the gentleman from pennsylvania spill. 's bill. it's a good bill. it makes sense. it's one of those common sense that everybody in the agency would understand and you don't have to have her rule for so i would urge this committee to adopt it. >> does the chairman yields back? the chairman yields back. does anyone else seek time? for what purpose does the gentleman -- recognized for five minutes. >> i will be very brief. i'm very pleased to support this amendment. is a commonsense common sense approach that mayors which --

not wish what -- much that was done. we don't manage our resources well so we need to move our policies in a completely different direction in this bill does it. i'm happy to support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do so it and without i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. anyone else secret mission? for what purpose? >> i would strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i commend the gentleman from pennsylvania fair very good amendment and i support supported. >> the chairman yields that are good as anyone else seek recognition? seeing on the motion is adopted on the amendment. number 13. 17. all those in favor say aye. although supposed, say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. does anyone else seek recognition for amendments to

the title? >> mr. chairman? >> you are recognized. for what purpose? >> mr. chairman i have to amendments at the desk. i could talk about both of them however i want to withdraw one. i could to both a one-time. >> why do you give us the amendment numbers? >> amendment number 80 and 81. >> the gentlelady will pass them out and explain her amendment's. >> i will discuss the one i will withdraw first in this amendment authorizes 200 million annually for the national forest critical area response to deal with insect infestations and usda. essentially this address addresses funding resources necessary to fight the pine beetle epidemic going on in a lot of the western states and particularly south dakota. this does have authority and was passed into the senate bill so it just supports what is happening there. it does not appropriate funds. it is on track with a bipartisan effort from the pine beetle -- in the senate so i would like to bring that to everyone's

attention and hopefully it will get good consideration throughout the conference process. moving on -- >> does the gentlelady ask unanimous consent? >> i ask unanimous and consent that it be with john. >> without objection the amended is what john. >> moving onto amendment 80, i appreciate the chairman and the ranking member for including the important provisions in the draft bill that would help mitigate a lot of the devastating infestation of pine beetles on national forest lands across this country. very timely, because the pine beetle leads to an abundance of dead and dying trees which connect for fuel for wildfire and we see a lot of that impact across the country right now. especially in dry conditions we certainly need to take care of these problems. my amendment would amend this bill in one particular area that has been useful for the four service in dealing with the pine beetle as an extreme fire hazard in hotspots. this amendment expands the categorical exclusions available for these rapid response areas

from 1000 acres to 10,000 acres. we have to ensure that the forest service has all the tools at their disposal to not only fight to but the prevents devastating fires and insect infestations that are putting our force in the wildlife communities that depend upon them at unnecessary risk. so with that, i would ask for the support of the committee on this one the coast of the fast that -- fact that this will allow before a service to have the tools they need to address the pine beetles and get ahead of him and finally start winning this battle that we are losing our western forest service lands to. with that i will yield that. >> does anyone seek recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i move to strike the last word. i just want to weigh in and voice my support for this amendment. obviously invasive species are a serious threat to our forests and specifically to healthy forests that are productive.

so expanding the categorical exclusion from 1,210,000 acres for use in mind beetle mitigation really is a very appropriate functional improvement and i thank the gentlelady for this amendment and encourage a yes vote. and i yield back. see the chairman yields back. does anyone else secret commissioned? >> i approve to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to associate my remarks with those of ms.-- i think it's a good move for something that is certainly devastating to the western united states as we are seeing a number fires throughout the west and the implications in terms of not only property and life and in particular in my state as well. our opportunities to be able to address that and to be able to successfully address that i think are critically important to us and i encourage a yes vote as well. >> the chairman yields that. the ranking member seeks recognition.

>> to strike the last word. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> we put this bill in the base bill. i just want people to know that the forest service specifically says that 10,000 acres is simply unmanageable. and they requested 1000. i have no idea why. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield. >> in some of the area such as what we are facing in the black hills, if we have a categorical x. illusion that adds to the 1000-acre level we certainly cannot get ahead of the beatles and log far enough ahead of them before they can fly further than that thousand acres. the 10,000 acres, workable for these categorical exclusions because it allows us for the first time to work in a large enough area where we can actually beat them at their own game and get the dead and dying timber out of the way to prevent the forest fire potential that

is there and protect the lives of the growing trees we still do have so in the black hills in particular we have a lot of potential to win this battle that was lost in several of the other western states and still keep our forest and i would disagree with the forest service that it would be unworkable. we have a strong and thriving timber industry in the black hills and this is -- they are working with us and we are getting cooperation with local communities to protect the people that live there but then also, but also address the needs that they have. certainly the forest service can use less acres if they would like to. this just gives them the flexibility to go to those 10,000 acres if they would like. >> i thank the gentlelady and i take her at her word and you have convinced me so for whatever it's worth, anybody worried about this, i will support the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else secret recognition? if not the motion is on the amendment to adopt amendment number?

number eight t.. all those in favor say aye. although suppose say nay. the ayes habit. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. does anyone else have an amendment? the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. before he do i have to recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. chairman i reserve a point of order. >> the gentleman reserves the point of order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to follow up on the line of discussion that is gone on here. america's forests are dead and dying. they are a real endangered species here, folks. if we don't fix them soon, colorado, wyoming, new mexico, california, oregon you name it we are all going to burn up and go way. the infestation that is out

there and drink with the unchecked litigation that is preventing us from getting into the forest and doing what we need to be doing to make forests healthy once again. a new management protocol is needed so i've been working with congressman walden, the democrat from oregon and others to come up with a pilot plant that hopefully would not only help my state but a lot of your states going forward. this amendment creates a oregon railroad lands that under blm control transfers to the national four service where it should have been all along. roughly half of that land he set aside in a trust run by oregon's state standards to avoid a lot of the litigation that we are seeing that is coming on to federal lands. the other half would be set aside or old-growth. frankly, the way it would be divided, the lands authority of harvestable going to go into the trust and those that did never been in touch with going to the

old-growth. certainly the pacific northwest and a lot of are timber discussions. the trust land would still be an federal ownership, just to be clear. a balance board appointed by the governor. support -- protect areas and more importantly provide a revenue source to our starving rural committees and also build a reserve fund for them. there is no mandate on the revenue level. i'm not trying to do improper forest management of this. i'm talking our counties and all of yours counties to, this is done properly can build up the reserves and support themselves when times are not so great in the woods. since the harvest and not harvested areas and a lot of our states are inter-dispersed there's a land exchange mechanism in here that allows folks on either side of that divide to exchange lands for landscape-based management which seems to be the way to go these days. the plans will be managed by the

national four service and the northwest forest plan in our case and i just went out -- this is kind of unique issue in some respects in my state but i do think it's translatable to everybody else here. 100 years ago the federal government takes it off the private tax rolls and makes it tough for a small counties and rural communities to exist. we are a timber producing area and we are not going to get google to move into these areas i don't care what folks say. you only have to go back right now this trust concept has a lot of power and is being reviewed and also in our natural resource, and i urge the committee to adopt it and i yield back, sir. >> the gentleman from virginia presses for a point of order? >> yeah, unfortunately mr. chairman, i like the gentleman's approach. we need more of that. i have been out to similar projects that we -- were

undertaken a decade ago in northern california and the self-reliance that he called for is very good. unfortunately by taking land out of another committee's jurisdiction and putting it it into this committee's jurisdiction which i also love doing it was subject the farm bill to the jurisdiction of that other committee. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would in a moment. >> go ahead. i will yield. >> i'm concerned about that but it may be make two points. number one is if you look at section 8204, page 432 of this bill, stewardship and result contracting project authority. we take control of this. section 347 of the department of interior and related agencies appropriations act amended by striking 213 and put into 17. we have party reached in my good friend from virginia. i don't think this is egregious and what we are doing in this

bill the second is we are moving it out of blm's jurisdiction which is the province is this committee. we are supposed to be in charge of the forest service and how it manages our public forest lands so since we have already done it in section 8204 i see no conflict here and ask for the point of order to be taken back, please. >> again i like what the gentleman's undertaking and he would withdraw the amendment, i and others on the committee i'm sure would want to work with him to see if we could find a way to accomplish the goal or move it as far along as we can, given the unfortunately limited jurisdiction of this committee when it comes to certain lands and certain forest policies. and the difference between what is and the underlying base bill and the amendment, the amendment violates the rules of the committee. so as a result i need to make a point of order that the amendment contains language relating to a subject matter

within rule 10 jurisdiction of another committee adding such language to the bill would violate rule 10. >> i challenge that point of order mr. chairman. >> does anyone else need a point of order? the chairs prepared to rule. the amendment doesn't back add subject matter within the jurisdiction of another committee therefore this is in violation and a point of order is upheld. >> i challenge the chairs ruling, please. >> so, is there a motion at the table? >> mr. chairman? i move to table the challenge of the ruling of the chair. >> the motion is on -- the vote is on the motion to table the appeal. all those in favor say aye company. all opposed, say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is -- the motion to --

[inaudible] >> mr. chairman? >> yes. for what purpose? >> to strike the last word. actually just to make a statement regarding but i thought was a brilliant -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like ari much -- i appreciate as a member of the subcommittee of forestry, you have got your finger on the problem and so much of what we do here is we are solutions looking for problems. you have put your finger on the problem. i would just like -- going of the gentleman from virginia bench and his willingness to work and i would encourage us to follow through with that commitment and take your ideas that i think are spot on and well articulated, that we could actually move forward and take care and conserve into what we need to do for our forests, so i just commend you and i associate myself with your comments and i

yield back. >> the chairman yields that. are there other amendments? the. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. i was hoping we would be able to have it in order. it is an amendment that i associate myself with. it's about innovation. innovation. innovation and tempering, without production and we know we have that need. that is something as the subcommittee we have been united in working on so i'm certainly committed to working with you and look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to make sure we do a better job at having healthy forests unhealthy rural community so i yield back or goes the gentleman yields back. are there other amendments to this title? are there other amendments to title vii?

seeing none, we will consider title vii clothes. i'm sorry, pardon me, title title viii. although we could practice and do it again. title viii is now closed. in order to consider title ix, ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the explanation of title ix. is there objection? hearing none, -- >> mr. chair? >> who seeks recognition? >> mr. chair? >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> in the interest of time mr. chair is there any possibility that we might make these two minutes or so? >> the chair would entertain -- of. [laughter] the chair would entertain unanimous consent. >> mr. chairman? reserving my right to object.

>> the chairman asks and sent -- the person that is offering the amendment will have three minutes and back and forth for two minutes. two minutes on everything? are their objections? >> mr. chairman? reserving my right to object and to adjust the subject. i thank the chairman. i would be open to that unanimous consent request if we go title by title. and then i object. >> title by title? speak a unanimous consent request to shorten it debate time on a title by title basis rather than sweeping to the end of the bill. i would be open to that unanimous consent request requested by the chairman title by title. >> alright. there is an objection or unanimous consent request. is there unanimous consent request on this title? title ix? >> i do so request. >> is there objection to going

to a two-minute clock for titlee ix? seeing none, we have unanimous consent to go to two minutes on further amendments on title ix. that said, are there amendments to title ix? the gentleman from iowa, mr. boswell. >> thank you mr. chairman. i understand -- i think this is amendment 67. i think. >> the gentleman will comment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this comes as no surprise that middle america, the heartland as they call it has been working hard for some time to make us energy efficient energy-efficient and a lot of effort has been put forth into it but we have to strengthen our programs. so this is why i am offering the bill that i am. it will provide mandatory funding and discretionary

funding levels for programs to provide us with a more secure, sustainable and prosperous future. the real energy for america program -- to develop renewable energy and more energy efficient. more than 1500 projects in our state since 2003 and 160 in the district. this program is help constituents in every state especially those, my friends from minnesota south dakota illinois nebraska kansas ohio zero and others without mandatory funding levels these programs are more than likely left out in the cold eye the appropriations committee. i would like to thank my friends representative holder and 12, and others who championed these programs and i know the chairman understands and shares my concerns for investing in rural america. my priorities for to protect the

large budget challenge together. mr. chairman, i would be willing to consider withdrawing this amendment if we could work on this together as we go forward. >> the chair would -- >> our u.k. -- okay with working on a? >> the ranking member would be delighted to work with the gentleman on his amendment. >> i accept that were delighted and i thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent -- >> can i ask what amendment number that is? >> i think it is 67. >> 86. >> six. >> 86, okay. >> do we have a the bid for 90? the chairman ask unanimous consent? >> i do. yes sir, i do. >> the amendment is withdrawn. in the abundance -- abundance of

caution i would entertain unanimous consent to dispense with a rating of the description of title ix. i believe it will be in the record twice but it will be advice from counsel. are there other amendments to title ix? >> mr. chairman? >> for what purpose? >> i have an amendment at the desk. number 79. >> you are recognized for two minutes. >> i don't know of that is necessary. i'm going to be withdrawing the amendment, but i would like to speak for just a couple of minutes about it. the cement would allow the program to be used for -- and this is also about consumers having access to a product and consumer choice. currently consumers don't have the ability to choose the amount of ethanol they put in that car whether that is 0% or 15% and that should be up to the consumer at the pump. i would like to talk about the benefits that blender pumps have offered to the use of ethanol and american grown fuel sources

here in this country but then i would like to withdraw the amendment and ask unanimous consent to do so as well. >> has the gentlelady completed her -- are you asking essentially to withdraw the amendment? >> mr. chairman i asked it direct the last word. strike the last word. >> the gentleman -- >> iges want to say that i think we should be funding these blender pumps. we have got a problem with the ethanol industry in the biggest problem is we can't get access to the marketplace. if we had lender pumps we wouldn't need any other program but we have got to get into the process and the convenience stores and oil companies don't want to put these in.

and it's something that i think needs to be done. i commend the gentlelady and i yield the rest of my time. >> i thank the gentleman and i too agree with the gentlelady. i know the concerns on this but i am one to get the wind blowing. this is one leg -- which let the barca get to that point to let people make the choice and i understand the concerns on it. we moved away from the blenders credit on that and now what we want to do is try and catch up and get some parity. those critics who say this industry should stand on its own, that is disingenuous. we help every industry and there are some and i'm not saying i criticize those. i'm glad we are protecting the shipping lanes to move oil. i have got folks understand the concern. they grow corn and they raise hogs and they are invested in the local ethanol plant. there's a complication there but

i think the market if we had access to it consumers it would make a difference so i agree with the gentlelady and i know the concerns and i hear them from the industry. i appreciate the chairman who has always been a staunch supporter of getting them this into the marketplace and diabetic. >> the chairman yields back. the ranking member yields that are god anyone else for recognition of this issue? if not, the gentlelady has withdrawn the request for unanimous consent. the amendment is withdrawn. are there other amendments on title ix? >> mr. chairman? >> let's go to mr. sutherland for his. for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> mr. chair i have an amendment, number 108 at the desk. excuse me, 109. >> the gentleman is recognized and he will pass out the amendment unless the gentleman is intending to withdraw? >> i think i'm going to get there but if i might, the sutherland amendment would

include lumbar within the u.s. department of agriculture's bio-based marketing program. many of the forest products, including lumber, have been excluded time and time again and the usda, by the usda in the bio-based marketing program, employing nearly 1 million americans. this amendment will clarify lumber as they would product under the biomass program. i understand, and i want to say how pleased i am that my subcommittee chairman thompson has language in here in the underlying bill and i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for incorporating that lumber was excluded. however i do believe the chairman and the ranking member would work with us to make sure it not just that lumber but other categories exclusions would be in our final report

language to say, we agree to that and if so, i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. >> the chairman will entertain your request to attempt to expand this issue and accept your unanimous consent request to withdraw your a amendment. are there any objections to the unanimous consent request? hearing none, the amendment is withdrawn. are there any other and minutes to the energy title? though ye -- south dakota. >> i have amendment number 20 at the best. >> the gentlelady is recognized to explain her amendment. >> mr. chairman nye scans scams gets into offer amendment amber 20. >> without objection. >> my amendment would amend the energy title and add an additional factor for the secretary to consider the project areas. the intent is to give usda the flexibility to protect the cap

funding that has been invested and to ensure these existing projects are given proper support. the worst thing we could do to a project consent of that is then part of the decaf program is to pull the funding from it before it's had a chance to establish itself. the section of the law would like to amend sets of factors that the secretary shall consider but no one factor mandates certain actions by the secretary. this amendment does not alter that fact and it doesn't mandate a particular result. so the future of the developing energy crop industry is heavily dependent on the support of our farmers and after only one year of fee cap hunting success stories are quickly spreading throughout the country from farm to farm in both education and enthusiasm for energy crop is rapidly growing. existing projects, less-developed funding and hit critical mass of acres of farming committees who will be the biomass industry as a waste of resources. that is not the result that we want. biomass is a critical tool to the u.s. meeting our goals of

energy security. this can only be done with their strongest assets, our farmers. so with that, this amendment is certainly necessary to give usda the tools that they need to ensure the success of our farmers, gets consistent funding to projects that are just getting off the ground and the intent of the decaf program will be matched through the adoption of this amendment and i urge your support and with that i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. other seeking recognition to speak on the amendment? anyone else? the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> i move to strike the last word. i don't know, but this fee cap program was my idea way back when. and it got all screwed up by the lumber people. they ripped it off for $700 million the whole thing

kind of fell apart because of it. and i don't know, apparently they are not doing a good job of -- administering what is left of it. i am not sure. so, it says that the reeking beading project areas are causing confusion for farmers and facilities. i don't have a lot of confidence because of the way the whole thing has been run in the first place. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> you're correct. current regulations dictate the assessment of other projects to ensure crop diversity and this does have the ill-advised effective laying the plug on existing projects that could be performing very well that are not yet but sure enough to stand in their own two feet so you are right it does give watered down and diverted into different areas before and pulls the support away from project. this would ensure that projects

are chosen considered by the secretary. they have are to receive funding and to continue that investment until they get on their feet. >> well, that is good if that is what happens but the idea back from the start of this was we were going to have five years and we were going to have people grow this switchgrass and algae and whatever else that people thought they could make fuel out of and we were to find out if it actually worked in the real world. nothing happened. we didn't learn anything. we just spent $700 million on transporting lumber that was already being done before and we didn't accomplish a thing on it. maybe they are going to get their act together, but i guess i am just complaining. >> would the gentleman yield back crack. >> i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back with a the endorsement.

>> i would ask the young lady, and what is the actual cost that could be implemented here? >> there is no actual cost to the program. this is just giving the secretary another factor to look at when they're considering dedicating funds to a project. >> but it's a continuation of funding that has been done already? >> it's a continuation of funding that has been allocated to the program. >> that is an area that has not proven to be effective in the past? >> i would savor single part of government should be assessed on its merits and this is a result. >> if we want to be fiscally responsible but this is one area we should consider as well? >> based on the people who look at the results. >> thank you. >> does the chairman yield back? does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? the vote dennis on the amendment from mr. crawford. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, same sign.

hearing none, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. other amendments on this title. anybody else on title ix? seeing none, title ix is closed and we now move to title x. ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the explanation of title x. is there objection? entertain unanimous consent to limit debate to two minutes per person. seeing no objection we will go to a two-minute clock on title x and with that recognize mr. welch for what purpose? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> this is an organic checkoff amendment. mr. chairman, checkoff programs as you know a allow farmers and producers to pool their money

and a valuable tool for arboriculture and budget constrained environment. more than 18 commodity groups have promotion orders today, incredible edible egg and white meat and many more. the programs lied -- let farmers and handlers pooled their money. in 2002 congress exempted organic products from professional checkoff programs but there was a small technicality that fail to attempt all organic farmers processors and hampers. the exemption requires organic products be 100% organic and the threshold is actually higher than the arc and and a concert but haitian law. my amendment seeks to affix the 2002 fresh told and exempt certified organic products from conventional checkoff programs but allows the secretary to authorize an organic checkoff program to allow organic

commodities to research and promote their own products much like conventional products. this would not have a significant impact on the conventional checkoff programs. it would result in about a 1.8 to 3.6 reduction which would instead then go direct me towards activities. organic is getting to be a bigger deal in american agriculture and ranked above the top five commodity groups with a production deo 2.3 billion. organic stands only behind corn and soybeans and wheat and cotton. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. is there an additional recognition request? the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. >> moved to strike the last word and mr. chairman i opposed the amendment for these reasons. the commodity checkoff programs are designed to provide a mechanism where producers of individual products come together to support promotion of

their product. producers petition the secretary of agriculture chief create these programs and only after following the democratic process wherein producers freely and fairly vote for a referendum on these products. the promotion activities are designed to -- thereby ensuring the advantages given to an individual producer or branded products. the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont would be exempt from the research promotion program assessment. and the benefits derived from the production of self-help initiative would still be gained by those selling that specific product so it's a slippery slope. these checkoff programs are important to the various commodities and not just the organics. i would argue that we should not be exempting an organic product from -- other than ones that are 100% so with that i oppose the

amendment and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. i believe the gentleman from wisconsin seeks recognition. >> i am happy to support this amendment and i disagree with my colleague from texas. there is already an organic exemption under the current law so we have knowledge in the past farm bill there are distinct differences between conventional organic products. this a memo does not create a new checkoff but it dices the current exemption to make it more workable but most importantly requires that operations can exempt their organic reductions from checkoff productions. the organic farming in my district and in wisconsin is a rapidly growing part of the agricultural industry. i appreciate mr. welch bringing this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to support it and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i believe the gentleman from

minnesota seeks -- >> i support the gentleman's point on the checkouts and these are important programs. i'm trying to figure out how we administer these two and an interesting one came from the na constituent. the granite folks want to check off and i said i'm certainly willing to expand our jurisdiction. why is and the interior dealing with that? the interior doesn't have the capacity to administer checkoff programs. there are a lot of trade groups who want to administer the checkoff program to get their rocks out there and i'm not quite sure how we do it. i support this on how we streamline this process and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from illinois seeks recognition. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to associate myself with the gentleman's comments from wisconsin. this existing program does make sense and i will support it. >> the gentleman yields back.

is there additional request for recognition? >> mr. chairman? >> the ranking member seeks recognition. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i've been a big supporter of organic agriculture including for the first time having a place on the committee when i took over. we are getting information back on the department that says that this amendment says the compliance verification is impossible and it's not all certified organic production and marketed as organic. the amendment will cause administrative costs to skyrocket and the current organic certification system is incapable of providing data provision to implement the amendment. we are trying to find somebody from the department that could say this and you are shaking your head you don't have anybody

here or are you saying i am wrong? so this is what we have heard, and i am concerned about it. if this is true, and the other thing we are doing is we are going to make an exception here on this checkoff that is not done any other place and as i understand it the other commodity groups are going to come unglued if we do this. so there are problems. somebody can answer them -- >> would the gentleman yield? the other commodity programs will not calm unglued, unglued because this will affect them by one to 3%. it may have an affect but it is certainly a long way from coming unglued. they are going to have to adjust in order to do this. we are confident that this can

be done. other checkoff programs have worked and there is nothing that is completely without some impact. >> is the gentleman would yield that. there is no other checkoff program that does not cover 100% of the whole situation. that is what they are concerned about. you are going to set a precedent at 95% and that's going to undermine all these other checkouts. >> if the gentleman would yield. there is an issue but here is the problem. if you are organic and the standards are so extreme, like 100%, then you are being denied the opportunity to legitimately be organic, and that is a responsibility we have in order to address milk. 100% requirement is breached when there are some vitamins that are added, even though under this certification standard for what is truly organic, those farmers are in compliance. so it's kind of a double-edged sword here and what we are looking we are looking to do is

essentially have is the opportunity and the organic folks to do a checkoff program much like other commodities have. now we are obviously interested as farmers are to make this a streamlined as possible. >> the gentleman's time has expired and i believe the gentlelady from maine seeks recognition. >> thank you is your chairman and i would like to strike the last word. >> the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to associate myself with the gentleman's amendment and the remarks of mr. ribble and others who have supported us. certainly in my state for growing markets for organics have made it possible for more family farms to stay in business so i think this would be a great benefit to continue that growth and continue our ability to expand farming in this country and increase those markets. i'm happy to yield back the balance of my time to mr. welch if he needs any more time.

>> i thank the gentlelady and i hope you can bring this to a vote. >> will the gentlelady yield? do you have time left? >> yes, i will. >> i would like to make a suggestion. you know, i want to help and i am not trying to screw things up here but we just have a lot of questions from the department and we haven't been able to get to the bottom of this. this is in the senate will as a study, so it's in play and if the gentleman would consider withdrawing and letting us work, get the department in here, nail them down about what it is that the problem might need to make this thing work and try to figure out if we can sort it out, and then we can potentially put it on the floor or in conference. but you know, let's make sure we have got -- i would like to support you but

if we vote now i would probably have to vote no because i have a lot of questions that haven't been answered. >> the ranking member -- you are the ranking member. >> that and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee. >> it's a reasonable request. i very much would like to have the committee have a chance to vote and even if we pass this make the same assurance see that we would continue to do work on it. mr. chairman i yield to the chairman. >> would the gentleman yield? the ranking member i think is entirely right and in the spirit of of developing good policy, i would suggest that his guidance should be followed. the study access on the senate side. withdraw today and keep it alive in that fashion and form.

let's work out the issues among ourselves and we will have something viable. if we are compelled to vote this evening and the issue is not successful, then it's very difficult to resurrect it on down the road. >> in view of the advice of the chairman and the ranking member, i have an idea. [laughter] and my idea is to take unanimous consent to withdraw this motion. on the assurance that the chairman and ranking member will work with me to get this done. speak you are a statesman by any definition. unanimous consent is requested was drop a minute. seeing no opposition, the amendment is withdrawn. i thank the gentleman. the gentleman yields back. are there additional amendments in title x? the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and i

will try to make this as brief as possible. this amendment again discusses bed bugs. >> the gentlelady's amendment is number? >> 35. >> the gentlelady is recognized for an explanation. >> this goes after in effect products in the market to her predicate bed bed bugs and in some cases can cause a public health risk in doing so. maya mamet requires the manufacture of minimum risk pesticides also known as 25e pesticide currently exempt from epa regulations that are labeled for the control of bed bug another pass and to actually submit efficacy data proving they do what they say they are supposed to do. the epa's and the process of adopting efficacy requirements for pesticides but did not include the minimal risk pesticides in the proposed policy. ..

designation is a public health significance tasked by including it in the definition an action that will help local health departments compel or

require infestation's to be treated. i strongly support this language in my district and i have two cases people use rubbing alcohol on a couch and bed and lit a match and you know what happened. the problem is that in some cases public health departments are telling them alcohol will eradicate bedbugs and we know that is in the case so i urge the adoption of this amendment. >> with the gentlelady yield to me? the congressman spread on the case i would suggest to my colleagues let's accept this amendment and yelled back to the gentlelady. >> the gentlelady yields back. the other request for recognition on this topic? seeing on we will proceed to a vote. this is amendment number 35. all those in favor of amendment number 35 signify by saying iraq. all those opposed sigma pi by saying no.

seeing both the ayes appear to have it committee do indeed have it and amendment number 35 is adopted. are there additional amendments in title x coming back to the side of the room the gentlelady from alabama seeks recognition. >> thank you mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 27 and the gentleman is recognized for two minutes and begin her explanation when she's ready. >> this is a simple amendment that will allow the usda to conduct a study on specialty production by small holders, women and minority and socially disadvantaged farmers. the purpose of the report is to identify deutsch alleges that farmers face trying to increase their production capacity adding value to the crops they produce and finding appropriate avenues to market where they grow before it spoils in the field. this report would also examine all the tools the usda has in place to help them improve their production practices and work together to advocate the

production and give access to larger retail food service markets for these farmers. in december i attended a ground-breaking ceremony for the black delta group and vegetable marketing innovation center just out of selma alabama in my district will prejudice owned and operated of the alabama agricultural land grand alliance and the land grant institutions in the state of alabama it takes numerous stakeholders in order to get it off the ground including the usda, the federation of southern cooperatives, the state of alabama and support by retailers like wal-mart and wholefoods which agreed to provide these specialty crops from the socially disadvantaged farmers. this is a great start to increasing fruit and vegetable production. however there is still incredible challenges to getting enough production from such farmers and to sustain their business. some crops are doing well like peas and greens.

however the water mahlon crop to retailers such as wal-mart and whole foods is about half of what was expected. many farmers in my area rely on mother nature for much-needed irrigation system. some of these growers would be able to implement their techniques with some stakeholders some require the usda to identify all the resources both public and private that farmers can use to improve their operations and better provide for themselves and their families. it would serve as an important role model as well as a road map for all stakeholders to use to foster even more local and regional food and vegetable production. the senate approved on a bipartisan basis a similar provision, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help support socially disadvantaged across the country.

>> with the gentlelady yield? i appreciate the desire to ensure all and vegetables have the opportunity to contribute to the world's safest and abundant food supply i support your efforts and requesting this report to identify the challenges we face i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back to the gentlelady. >> thank you. the gentlelady yields back. are there any other requests for recognition? seeing on we will now proceed to vote on the amendment number 27 by the gentle lady from alabama. all those in favor of amendment number 27, cigna phone by saying aye. all those opposed, signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it.. the ayes do indeed have it.. amendment number 27 is adopted. are there additional amendments to title ten? the gentleman from nebraska who seeks recognition. thank you mr. chairman i have amendment at the desk number 93.

>> the clerk will distribute amendment number 93. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes and may begin his explanation when he's ready. >> i'm pleased to offer this amendment intended to strengthen the of food production program. this is a straightforward amendment that has two components to the first includes a list of three priorities when grant requests are considered. these priorities in the senate bill emphasize under served come manatees, small and mid-size farms and ranches and local and regional food systems. second, the amendment raises the cap on administrative expenses from three to 5% from the current cap is 7.5% in the senate-passed bill it is 10%. i just want to make sure the usda had the capacity to properly administer the program if we are actually going to fund it to lead to a local food producers are not only farmers and livestock producers, but they are business people, agricultural and entrepreneurship will bring

about the fertilization, and local and state and federal policies should recognize their efforts and its strategy for local economic recovery. i can go on and on but i understand that you may actually be in favor of this coming and if that is so, it would be another indication of your great leadership. >> what the gentleman yield? >> i appreciate gentleman's interest in local food promotion and i know he's always been an advocate for these programs and yes, i am inclined to accept his amendment is good work. with that i yield back. the gentleman yields back. any other request for recognition? seeing none we will proceed to vote on amendment number 93 by the gentleman from nebraska. all of those in favor of amendment number 93 signify by saying aye to read all those opposed, signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do indeed have it.. amendment number 93 is adopted.

are there additional amendments to title ten? >> the gentleman from indiana. as amihai have an amendment at the desk. number 87. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 87. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment and proceed when he's ready. >> i will be quick. my amendment is to ensure full due process under section 1005 which the national authorities such as investigation enforcement, this amendment adds one thing that will guarantee the presumption of innocence by allowing 30 days to appeal any decision by the secretary under this to the u.s. district court that requires that any suspension under the section doesn't take effect until the judicial review is complete. currently the ed ministry of procedure at already doubles and agency to postpone the effective

date of the final action pending the judicial review. in order to ensure the agency doesn't go beyond the valley and legally issued organic certification this amendment would require judicial review to make sure the agency gets it absolutely right. this will avoid any penalty in the affected party as the chance to report these agencies' decisions. with that mr. chairman i will yield back. >> the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> becerra strikes the last word and yields himself to minutes. i support the gentleman's efforts and i yield back cno request for recognition, seeing no other request we will now proceed to vote on amendment number 87 people of those in favor of amendment 87 by the gentleman from indiana signify by saying all inactive at all of those opposed by saying no.

the ayes appeared to have it. the ayes do indeed have it. are there additional amendments to title ten? the gentleman from california seeks recognition. >> thanks very much mr. sherman and of course you are making great progress and we are all appreciative. >> i would like unanimous consent to amendment 108. >> the clerk will distribute that and you are recognized for two minutes. >> unanimous consent to strike the last word. spec the gentleman is recognized for two minutes to this back thank you. this measure deals with a growing industry within the segment of american agriculture and that is organic farming. in 2008, we've really kind of focused on what we knew. this goes back to my earlier comment about innovation and technology and always being at the cutting edge.

clearly i think the -- it's no longer being in leche but i think it's as we make progress with our advanced research organic farming is playing more and more of a role. this measure would allow the organics certification for the producers and handlers seeking to market an organic market and the communities throughout the district of the various forms that do take place in which people go on thursday nights and byproducts and produce and they are also gathering opportunities in communities throughout the congressional districts, and these marketeers of organic fruits and vegetables products are continuing to expand. in california we already have a certification process and i

suspect many of the states have a certification process. however, the fact is this provides an opportunity for $750 for producers and for handlers to be certified that nationwide standard. that's the amendment. it's very simple. it's to build on what we've done in the past and i would ask for the vote. >> i would yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. estimates before mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman pete i'm going to respect fully oppose the extension of the program another $22 million we really don't need to spend. there is no compulsory conversion from the standard production to organic production. it's a decision that producers make on their own.

usda said they make no claims that organically produced food is safer and more nitrogen should defeat -- nutritious. iacp a that gives me a good housekeeping seal of approval for the folks in texas it is a state based license but it gives me an advantage. cpa pay 100% of the cost of that licensor said to have the taxpayers pay addition to higher prices for organic food which they choose to buy the 750 dollar front-end cost share to me makes no sense particularly where we are and somebody said the organics program has grown and grown petraeus degette has. estimate we only have two minutes. >> we also provide in this bill and additional $80 million for the organic agricultural research and provide initial 5 million new funds for organic market data initiative and spend another 5 million for the modernization technology to the

national organic program, so there is new money for the organics this is 22 million we really don't need to spend. we ought to be supporting production agriculture whether it is organic or straight up production agriculture. the farms the need 750 to get into the organic production they really don't need -- they are not producers and feeding their family doing that. i would argue this is money better will not spend as we have done under the base, and i would yield whatever time i've got left. >> just to see that you obviously deserve a good housekeeping seal of approval and i hope he would give to all those organic producers. >> he should be paid for 100% of the regulation and the trend in the to 755 of my view is a poor use of $22 million i yield back. >> i would assume would like to start the last word and be

recognized? >> the gentleman from texas certainly isn't equating the organic farmers of the world with a black hat pta and lawyers of the world. we do very little for the organic farmers but we don't know nearly enough research in the area we should let think this is a worthy program. the only thing this amendment does is strikes fiscal year 2008 insert fiscal year 2013. i think this was a wildly successful program. we eliminated the organics subcommittee for the quarter culture that i think does great work on the last farm bill and i think the former chairman pierson for doing that work. and i think this is a valid area that helps small -- we always talk about small business people in this institution and we praise and through honor on small business people. i've got to tell you these are 5 acres farmers and 10 acres farmers, and this is the small assistance to try to help them

into a business that is tough to get into and tough to stay in. if we want to do more to help small business people succeed in this country, we should do five times more to help these businesses, and instead we are trying to eliminate the one thing we did it save wrongheaded move and i would like to see us renew the program. islamic the gentleman yields back. >> the chair recognizes himself to strike the last word and recognizes himself for two minutes. i appreciate where my friends are coming from and i appreciate the observation of my neighbor and texas being a public official i won't tell you what kind of seal the put on me and oklahoma. it is a different story in itself but under the organics rules producers and handlers may choose of their own free will and to convert to the processing those that go through the process ultimately i believe benefit from substantial premiums from the products.

as we've seen in other areas of the farm bill such as the direct payments that were very popular are going away because they got used to a outliving their useful life. i think this is one of those amendments i have to respect fully the pos as a watch things happen throughout the farm bill and i yield back the balance of my time. cno the request for recognition we will proceed to vote on amendment number 108. all those in favor of amendment amendment 108 will signify by saying aye. all those opposed will signify by saying nay. islamic it would appear that once again the noes have it. it appears the noes have it. >> the gentleman from california would request a recorded roll call vote on amendment number 108. the clerk will call the roll.

>> [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

>> [roll call] devotees 17 yays got 27 nays. >> the amendment number 108 is not adopted. are there additional amendments to title time? the gentleman from wisconsin seeks recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk number 56. spec the court will distribute amendment number 56 and the gentleman is recognized and may begin his explanation when he is prepared. >> thank you mr. chairman. my amendment is very short and is a single word. under the block grant program the secretary of the agriculture has required to issue guidance for the purpose of making grants to the states for multi

projects. the grants include topics for food safety, plants and disease, crop spending projects and other areas. i come from wisconsin and we are the largest cranberry producing state in the united states. a specialty crops i would like to add the word research under the grand ploch program. it seems we don't offer the research as one of the options and so my amendment is intended to fix that. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the remainder of my time. >> if not the chair will recognize himself for two minutes and i want to commend the gentleman from wisconsin the specialty crop block grant program has proven to be a very

effective tool enhancing the competitiveness of the specialty crops i commend the gentleman amendment to include multistate research projects as eligible for the grant funding. we all know the importance of and benefits to the research especially as it relates to specialty crops. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment. there are no further requests to speak on the amendment. the chair will offer a vote. all those in favor of the amendment offered by number 56 signify by saying aye. those opposed? the amendment is agreed to. are there other amendments under title ten? of the amendments under title ten, going once, going twice in. title ten is close to. we have amendments under title 11.

>> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for the motion. >> we ask unanimous consent to suspend the reading. >> is their objection to the request? dispensed to the reading of title 11. hearing none -- the unanimous consent request is agreed to. is there unanimous consent request regarding time limits? >> mr. chairman? >> you said to limit the dates to two minutes per person. >> is their objection? hearing none the debate will be limited to two minutes. the gentlewoman from ohio. the purpose of the gentlewoman from north carolina. estimate i have an amendment number 11. >> the clerk will report the title of the amendment and distribute the amendment. spec i would like to proceed. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> this is an amendment for the study of business interruption insurance for the poultry

producers i would like to thank congressman crawford for his strong support on this and his partnership. this amendment has been endorsed by the national farm bureau federation, the national chicken council and the national turkey federation. we know that the high price for feed and decreased demand for poultry products brought on by the economic downturn of the last five years as a difficult environment for the poultry industry. this has led unfortunately to bankruptcy for several poultry integrators. the challenge for the poultry growers as they are being penalized at no fault of their own because when an integrator goes under the present and that integrator are often left with no market for the chickens are turkeys that they are raising. the bankruptcy integrator brought on by no fault of the producer, but there is no product of the federal level that exists to meet this need. this amendment would commission a study of the usda to do three things, provide policy makers with an assessment of the private market offering business interruption insurance come second, determine the statutory

authority would be needed to implement a business interruption policy for growers and third, determine the feasibility and cost of such a policy. the proposal involves zero additional costs, usda would be directed under the proposal to complete the study from the resources already provided from the research and development. since there is no cost and since we do have bipartisan support for this mr. chairman i would move the adoption of this amendment. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to offer a low-cost amendment with my colleague mr. mcintyre of north carolina and mr. crawford of arkansas. all three of us represent a district that right from the effect of our poultry growers and we would like nothing more than to see this industry grow and for it to create more jobs in the state nationwide. in my district in north carolina, we have felt the effect of an integrated filing of bankruptcy and other growers

that have contracted with fattah integrator being left with no market for the chickens or turkeys they were raising. most recently the bankruptcy incorporated located in my district resulted in hundreds of producers having their contract voided and constituents asking me what i do to help them when in contact and being treated there is no easy way to move forward, and in a worst-case scenario some producers are unable to find new contracts and are left with large debt from the mortgages on their chicken houses and equipment. the worst-case scenario is exactly what happened to my coming to many of my growers in my district there were no new contracts we had and they were stuck holding the bag. currently no product of the federal level exist to meet the needs of the private sector providing better coverage throughout the country. i'm in support of this amendment

and as it would commission a no cost study of the usda to provide him so that the private market offering for business interruption insurance. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. spry thank the chairman and move to strike the last word. i want to thank the gentleman for introducing this have for the gentleman's words on this she is exactly right. i've got a constituent at farms and rush toward minnesota. the large organic operation grows about 30 different fruits and vegetables each year and there's no insurance product to cover this. bigger distributing as far away as chicago creating 75 jobs and if everything is working we need a viable crop insurance for these books provision place in the market by the chair and ranking member would do that. we need to make sure it works for enough to make it worthwhile including the liability but with the uninsured farmers and will increase the number of covered farms this improves the risk pool for everyone.

i would encourage the support for this amendment and yelled back. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from arkansas. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. islamic i would like to associate myself with comments of mr. mcintyre line a co-sponsor, and i would like to urge support yield back. >> thank the gentleman. and the other member seek recognition on the amendment? i will recognize myself for two minutes. chairman's position is that while he appreciates the impact that the disruption can have on the business and while he does support getting our authority to the seat of the issue he does have some concerns. first he says business disruption insurance is already widely available across the country for this does is to ensure against losses from fire lightning windstorm, vandalism and theft. the federal government is involved in federal crop insurance because dhaka states

have been craft productions generally affect large swaths of countryside making it very difficult for insurance companies to diversify against the risk and in this case business disruption is generally a more isolated event the insurance industry already ensures without federal support light by preference would be to work with the industry to develop the products independent of federal assistance and then finally he says to that and i would support studying the idea of providing the coverage to the producers but it would be my hope that industry would provide the coverage with no need for implementing the policy. the temperature man has a district with lots of poultry and he supports the amendment, too. without further ado, call for a vote. all those in favor of the amendment respond by saying aye. those opposed? the amendment is carried. are there further amendments to title 11?

amendment number 58. the clerk will distribute. we recognize for two minutes to explain the amendment. >> my amendment does two things to ensure the private sector supplemental crop insurance policy and the companies that offer them are not adversely impacted by the implementation of the revenue lost coverage or the supplemental coverage option as the programs provided a grew worse with an additional option to meet the risk management needs. this is an issue that brought to the attention of the chairman, mr. pearson and others in my mother's a lot of support for encouraging the growth of private sector and the supplemental market. as i said mr. chairman, there's a lot of support for the supplemental coverage of the growers to the programs i do not diminish or scale back the program. it simply provides them with an additional option of the purchase to private sector products. this should be welcomed and will

not satisfy all grow worse crop insurance needs. the new programs pay claims based on the county level losses making them less effective for producers whose losses differ from their county revenue or yield. bye contrast, some other private sector products are available to provide field level coverage. under this proposal the fisa would pay for a portion of the premium of a private sector supplement the product of the growers elected one in lieu of either or else see. the cost of the reinsurance or administrative operating fees that are paid to approve insurance providers in the federal crop insurance program. that means that these private sector options would be cheaper and should bring down the cost of the program. we are working to determine the correct score initially cbo

projected a minimum cost for this amendment based on the believe that will not entice the kroger's to participate that would not have been otherwise so. in practice the programs have been in high participation rate since they are free or heavily subsidized so the growers may select even if it is not the best coverage and getting a private sector option shouldn't result in dirty money purchase of pence it should bring on balance the cost down for these programs. i shall also knows that we have built in strict eligibility standards for private sector companies that wish to participate and oversight responsibilities for the rma. this means the companies that experience with supplemental coverage and are financially sound can participate mr. chairman i ever seemed like two minutes are up by your tapping, so i would conclude by asking support for the innovative program.

spec amendment number 58. are there further discussions on the amendment? >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you mr. germain. i respectfully rise in opposition to my colleagues. i apologize but this program is -- that he is proposing has certain aspects that make it look like gannett year marked, and these companies already get an indirect subsidy they present through the existing field service that has built on federal crop insurance and the vouchers that they would get under this direct payment which we have done away with has fallen under a pretty dark cloud

given the general dislike for the payments, so i believe the product which is based on the mathematics the one that i am told is a directly qualified with this is much more like gambling than it is insurance. i will argue against expanding the crop insurance to include this product. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the chair moves to strike the last word and recognizes himself for two minutes and with the gentleman yield to an inquiry about the ultimate intention on this amendment today? it's my understanding that you are willing to work with us out as we go forward but we will try to figure out a way forward because it's not an earmark there are three or four companies that do this and we

think that there needs to be an expansion but it may not be perfected yet, so if the chairman is willing to do that i am willing to let other members have an opportunity to weigh in and my intention was to see to your wishes to work to you. >> reclaiming my time i appreciate the commitment to do that to pursue this effort. with that -- >> the gentleman which rolls his amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. are there other additional amendments? >> the gentleman from north carolina strikes the last word and recognized for two minutes. >> number six regarding the farm insurance policy which i will be glad to see gone while that is distributed. >> the gentleman may address his amendment when he is prepared. estimate the congressional budget office has confirmed this

proposal for the whole farm insurance policy would come at zero additional cost to the federal government especially the crop growers would be for the first time provided the opportunity to purchase whole farm insurance and the tomato farm bill. this would allow growers of many different types of produce such as roads untouchables to produce one insurance product for their entire farm production instead of purchasing multiple insurance products for each of the crops that they grow. this will lower the cost and increase efficiency and specialty crop insurance production by allowing producers a no hassle option for insuring against risk. mr. chairman you want me to suspend? >> what someone with a rather small elbow flip the light switch on the back of the room? >> thank you. >> reclaiming time at about 123 mark. this story is the same throughout of their parts of the country coming and when we looked at the opportunity for being able to have a whole crop

insurance we need a viable crop insurance product for the mid skilled reverse operations that doesn't exist today. my proposal would make sure that we would increase the liability limit from 1 million in the mark to 1.5 million of the senate has passed increasing would limit to the a number of farmers and increase the number of covered farmers and increase the risk pool. the product will lower the public cost no more than by individual policies for each crop grown. this is and any additional federal spending involved because the farmers already insuring the crops would open a bit of revenue for crop insurance protection. it lowers risk to the injured pool and limits the paperwork to mitigate the risk to their operations. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone seek recognition on

the subject? the chair strikes the last word and recognizes himself for two minutes. i appreciate the gentleman's interest here. i have reservations about the amendment. the intent of the provision included in the bill was to require them to carry out the research and develop to determine the delivery of the whole crop insurance product easy and feasible. some believe it benefits all special crop producers language included in the base of the bill allows r&d to occur assuming a 1 million-dollar liabilities limitation. this amendment before it even determined, before it is even determined if this type of policy is feasible would rate the liability limit to 500,000. i know some crop growers are nervous about getting the cart in front of the horse on this and many markets are small and sensitive to the supply response. they fear this would actually invite overproduction and potentially saturate the market and the concern has been expressed directly to me by the

groups in the industry the would be served by the product. the better approach is to see if it can work and let them conduct the studies if they determine that it's feasible and appropriate then we have discussions about increasing liability limitations. consequently, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. anyone else seeking recognition? seeing on, let's proceed to a vote on amendment number six. all those in favor of amendment number six, signify by saying aye. all those opposed, signify by saying no to the gentleman calls for the recorded vote. the clerk will call the recorded vote on amendment number six. >> [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

devotees 19 yays, 25 nays. >> amendment 26 is not agreed to. are there additional amendments in title xi? >> i have amendment number 60. >> amendment number 60 the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment and he may begin when he's ready. >> i want to that long this amendment authorizes a study how we can better provide risk management alternatives to produce effective food, safety alternatives to producers affected by food safety recalls which are not under their control as we know food safety recalls occur such as the recent recall for spinach commitment as the catalog, strawberries,

apples, consumers stop purchasing the production halt not taking notice of the farm experiencing the food safety issue as a result many producers that have completely safe products suffer significant financial losses due to the recall that they didn't cost. this amendment produces and the feasibility of the crop insurance product that would cover producers losses after these kind of defense. this amendment has zero crops and bipartisan support. for these reasons i ask that we encourage the committee to adopt this amendment. >> with the gentleman yield? i think the gentleman has a good proposal and i would encourage the gentleman to move forward and a yield to the gentleman. any other ann curry? seeking none we will proceed to vote all of those in favor of amendment 60 will signify by saying aye. all of those opposed will signify by saying no.

the ayes appear to have it the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do indeed have it. and f-16 is adopted. are there additional amendments in title xi? >> the gentleman from vermont seeks recognition. >> thank you for a much mr. chairman. the amendment at the desk, number 83. the clerk will distribute amendment 83. the gentleman is recognized and may begin when he's ready. >> thank you. the organic farmers pay a high premium for the crop insurance there nevertheless the conventional prices even though the market price for organic is higher if the conventional farmers are hit with the same weather damage both end up being paid the exact same amount despite the fact the losses were organic from the conventional. this amendment would basically direct the federal crop

insurance corporation to offer organic farmer's price elections for insurance that reflect the value of the crops and therefore cover the actual loss within the scope of the program. we have organic forms in every state. this would be helpful in making insurance to what insurance is intended to do and have it actually reflect with the loss is as opposed to having it be tied to another product in the loss of the product that has been damaged. on a yield back. i'd suggest we move forward with the vote and yelled back to him. that's another good idea. is there are there any additional recognition for comment on this amendment? we will proceed to vote.

all in favor of amendment 83 signify by saying aye. all opposed, signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do indeed have it. amendment 83 is adopted. are there additional amendments on tidily 11? the gentleman from minnesota is seeking recognition. >> and amendment number 55 at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute amendment 55. the gentleman is recognized and may proceed with his explanation when he's ready. >> if 134 million in savings, 200 million as better. in may, we introduced the protect our prairies' act which would -- it is a common sense approach to produce a crop insurance for the land the would save taxpayers money, all preserve critical habitat for other game species and supporting the nation's industry that depends on the land. the bill introduced would save

taxpayers nearly $200 million. during one of the things here by doing this, we can save some good money. a broad diversity of organizations support the protect the prairie act for example the national society, the catholic rural life conference and national rifle association. some live guns and greens all behind this one. [laughter] we think that is a good combination and there are 60 other groups. i want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for accepting the bulk of this into the mark they accepted this for the prairie pothole region. my concern and asked to try to have this discussion to see if we can expand it is we shouldn't have one set of rules for farmers and landowners in certain states and circumstances in other states be different. basic equity fairness issue it to ourselves in the position having to explain why based on the entirely arbitrary line the fought in or out of the protection. finally, nationwide provisions of this would save 66 million.

our goal is to put half of that once the beginning farmer and rancher the decision proven effective and the other half, 33 million towards the deficit reduction. given the importance of the craft to hunting industries to the ranching economy and the need to support the farmers and ranchers, i support this, and i hope that the gentleman from south dakota move to strike the last word and with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does the good lady from south dakota wish to explain this? >> i do wish to strike the last word. some of the lady is recognized. >> i appreciate them for the support of the bill and provision and in the heart of it was the german's mark. this amendment would be expanded nationwide giving us greater taxpayer savings which we could then utilize to put more resources into the beginning a program and put more money towards deficit reduction. we obviously do have a lot of associations and a lot of groups that are supporting this coming and i hope everyone on the

committee will as well and with that i would yield back riss benefit gentlelady altbach anyone else seeking recognition plaques the gentleman from texas seeks recognition. as an agreement to strike the last word. >> mr. chairman i couldn't be more against this. the expansion of the federal regulation and the conduct has great confidence in the farmers in texas to be quite capable of taking care of their own properties, and so, stretching a concern i legitimate concern. in my view it is just wrongheaded. taken by the fact the states, the governors have been in effect the last five years so far have chosen not to impose this particular option. so, while i am in guns, gods and greens as well i couldn't be more approach to this amendment because the impact it has on texas.

seems the rest of the kennedy is busy to reduce regulations and burdens on the farmers this amendment simply adds more regulations and burdens and it unfairly targets the new beginning farmers more likely to buy or brick land that sits under the definition. i wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the language in the bill, but compromise with my good friend from minnesota because it was an important issue in the pothole region. for me in oklahoma my friends in texas this is a private property issue. we are discouraging producers from planting on lands. we are punishing farmers through the crop insurance, but even worse when the prices for commodities are skyrocketing and making it more expensive it seems ludicrous to limit or discourage the land which we plan. if you want to discourage the farmers if you want more regulations and bird and especially the new and beginning farmers come and vote for the amendment. if you want less regulation,

then vote no. with that, i would ask the amendment offered would be illustrated. i believe it is at the desk. it's been a glut of that amendment is being distributed, i will recognize myself for two minutes to explain the amendment to 14 it says after the priority area in search except for the states of oklahoma and texas. [laughter] i agreed to let my friends in the northern plains take care of the problem. i didn't know they were going to provide their affection to me. [laughter] while the oakies and texans let's just say we like a good strong fences and we need a fence. >> mr. chairman? >> would you yield? >> i would yield to my good friend.

>> we certainly to the consideration i feel strongly about this, but i am certainly willing to take what has been given in the market because that is the german's desire and with the gentleman's consent, i would withdraw the amendment. >> i will but i do wish to clarify a couple issues. this is just treating the land differently that will produce a different amount of grain. it is the production value that will be different the first few years this amendment to identify that and clarify that but i certainly will do that as well and thank the chairman for his work in helping us protect the region. >> thank you. with that i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> with no objection the unanimous consent is granted and i would think my friends for their consideration. they made a very wide choice

today. [laughter] with matt, i withdraw rather additional amendments to title 11? the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have amendment 31 of the best. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 31. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes to explain his amendment and may proceed when he's ready. >> this bipartisan amendment i appreciate my colleagues supporting this. we have been talking a lot throughout the course of the farm bill about the safety net. this is about a safety net for a study for the industry. this amendment would call for a new cost study using existing funds and research development supported by the national chicken council and the national turkey federation and the poultry industry is always in

danger of catastrophic losses through disease and would look at possible programs would provide our people some types of safety nets in terms of insurance to get to the possibilities. estimate once again the gentleman is fortunate to be dealing with a heavy german. i believe the gentleman is on the right track. i would suggest we would pass the amendment and yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else seeking recognition we will now proceed to vote on amendment number 55 all of those in favor, sorry, not amendment 55. amendment number 31. yes i almost did. amendment number 31 all of those of favor of amendment 31 signify by saying aye. all those votes signify by saying no.

are there additional amendments for title xi are there additional amendments? si no additional amendments tidily 11 is now closed. title xii by unanimous consent, i request see no objection to that, seeing an odd objection to that so ordered we now are open for amendments in title xii. >> i have an amendment, mendicant number seven regarding regional economic infrastructure development commissions. >> amendment number seven. >> we would proceed on a two-minute rule on the title.

>> mr. chairman, can i reserve order? and if the gentleman reserves a point of order. >> with the gentleman from north carolina proceed with the explanation of the amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. having grown up in the largest county of north carolina, robertson county, i am aware as many of you are the problems facing the economic development and job development and citizens of their rural areas often have great difficulty in assessing the financing and capital but are also available in the ordinary as. we know that our development commissions coordinate efforts from the round of working with local chambers of commerce and businesses and financial institutions to help create job opportunities and recognizes this already and has to great

success stories the northern plains and the delta regional authority to recall was already the offer is in the chairman's mark. this amendment before you not authorized the commission from the american southwest and the northern border. this committee has a previous record and president supporting these commissions and it is my strong belief as i know from these other parts of the country that they not be left behind the passed the test in the farm bill and i encourage us not to exclude these other areas have a need in the country and offer the amendment mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields but his time, does the gentleman from texas insisted on his point of order. >> axson language to the bill would violate the said rule.

>> of the chair is prepared to rule. the amendment does an effective a subject matter within the jurisdiction of another committee. therefore it is a violation and point of order is upheld. islamic i would like to challenge the ruling on that and we already had two commissions. >> i would simply like to challenge that and as much as the committee itself has already authorized the commissions in the gerrans's mark i think we are being disingenuous with ourselves as the two conditions and not the other three. i think it is a blatant of fairness to the other commissions to the other parts of the country that serve and represent in the committee has done and the senate has done at so why this year recently exclude the commissions and not recognize the other two? ..

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote] mr. chairman chairman the vote is 25 ayes 25 nays.

>> additional amendments in 11. yes ma'am, the general lady is recognized. >> i have an amendment at desk it's number nine, i believe. [inaudible conversations] repeat what she said. >> i have an amendment at desk. number nine. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 9. yes, mr. chairman, reserve a point of order. >> gentleman reserves a point of order. >> lady may proceed with the explanation of the amendment. >> thank you, i offer this amendment to withdraw due to the inability to withdrawal. i felt strongly the discussion needed to happen in the due to

the impact on the rural water system. infrastructure project retunely funned oral the rural development department at l department of al churl. congressman regulatory and paperwork burden placed on the community water system. unfortunately, current requirements are doing the exact opposite. 13 of my fellow colleagues on the coittee from both aids of the aisle are -- the unnecessary calls by report act of 2011. i like many have heard from constituents about the negative impacts at annual mailing of consumer confidence report known as ccr on water infrastructure. they are several pages long and contain confusing data. they are required to be mailed through every system regardless if the water system has any voicelations. and in the interest of time since we have cut down, i just could say in the district one rule utility serves that 2,000

customers cost this year over $2 400. the city of birmingham and my colleague representative district. their estimate is 84,000 per year of printing and water mailing. these water structures could use these for investments into the system and keep cost down for the customers. it's unfortunate we can't vote on the amendment today. chairman, i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak on the issue and we are glad we issue able to vote on the today. >> seeing no objection the unanimous is okay. it's withdrawn. >> vacay indicate the appoint of order. see nothing objection. are there additional amendments to title 12? the gentleman from oregon seeks recognition for an amendment. >> thank you.

got a pretty straight ward amendment . >> number? >> excuse me, what is the number? 64, sir. clerk will be distribute amendment number 64, the gentleman is recognize for two minutes. >> this amendment authorizes wildlife services to stride twos to cracker shells for farmers. bird and wildlife. a nonlethal approach. to store less than 20 pounds of the device for the requirement they be kept in a special storage container called a magazine. over the past thirty years, the population in my corner of the world has recovered tremendously caused me a huge problem on the weed and seed fields as frankly is a threatening bankrupt a lot of my farmers. got a little testimonial here from one of my fellows. up in the saint paul area.

we have field down to nothing. then the weed start to come with a they take over and the grass seeds never recovers. talk about these come through, wipe it out. they come by again in droves. take out 120 achers in a few hours. like someone is lighting a match to a dprie field. rather than have l government exeases -- it's no prohibiting farmers for what they've been doing for generation it's time to get the government out of the regulation, make it easy for for farmers to do something they've been dong for a long time and keep the geese off the property. appropriately in a nonlethal way. i yield back my time. >> seek recognition. >> recognized for two minutes. >> i sympathize with the gentleman's problem, and i know

that geese and other birds eat a lot of stuff. but i want you to know that we have used these and within two days or three days, the birds don't pay any attention to them. so, i mean, . >> your birds are a lot smarter. >> my birds go away. >> i guarantee you, they get used to these things. we don't find them effective at all. the wildlife service they have limited budget. there's not room in them especially i ones that don't work. besides that the committee probably has jurisdiction over this. as opposed to us. we certainly don't 79 to bring them into the conference committee. so, you know, you might be better to hire the hunters on the committee to move to different parts of the field and confuse them, you know. >> chairman, yield. i respect the experience. you have to a personal

experience and i understand that. i can tell you from my farm bureau wroa in oregon. this is devastating problem. >> i . >> we actually do have success. >> if i may, just real quick sir. >> they go out and use the shotguns. they're not supposed to hit the birds. indian that. i understand that. she's shells keep them a better part of the day. >> they come back. >> my time. i have to tell you, we have done this, and honest to god within a few days, they pay no attention to it. but you can get them permits, you know, and you can farmer can go and shoot the birds. that's the most effective thing you can do. [laughter] the biggest -- the biggest problem with that is under the rules, you can't pick them up. so you to let them lay there and rot. you know, as opposed to eat them or whatever. so, you know, i understand the

problem. but i don't think this is going to fix it, and the wildlife services don't have money to be doing this. i just -- i think we should kill this or withdraw it or something. >> shoot it. >> gentleman's time is expired. the chair strikes last word and recognizes himself for two minutes. the ranking member on the variety of issues. this pulls into the other committee's jurisdiction. it will cause tremendous grief. i would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if my good friend feels it's important move toward with the vote, we should turn this down. probably should have raised a point of order at appropriate time at the introduction, but it's late in the evening sometimes those things happen. but with that, i would suggest to my good friend, if you feel compelled to press the motion, thennic we have to press a motion . >> mr. chairman, i can read

this well. i would suggest we withdraw it. i will work with you to come up with a better. . >> a great statesman coming on a anonymous consent to withdraw the amendment. accept without objection. and amendment number 64 is withdrawn. gentleman from . >> number 45. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 45. the gentleman is recognize to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is we call the protect interstate commerce amendment. it's legislation they worked on for perhaps over a year. what it does is recognize that we have states that are crossing the line on the commerce clause of the constitution or founding fathers in the wisdom understood that we couldn't have states

that were regulating products that were transferred and transported into in interstate commerce but yet we have states doing that today by regulating the means of production. so what this amendment does is, it prohibits the states from regulates the means of production of a commonly traded ag product and it does address a number of commodities that will be familiar with here in the committee. my attention was brought to it when we had the california issue. the gentleman from california endeavored to regulate the means of production of ethanol that come into california. then we saw in california and in ohio, regulation on the means of production of eggs from layer hens. then we see an effort to regular rate pork and prohibit the gestation crates in the state it creates a patchwork quilt that

design to control interstate commerce when it's a violation of the commerce clause of the constitution has been litigated successfulfully favor with the constitution with regard to california. not so far with eggs and pork production and what's next, it will be i think the balance the poultry. the turkeys, go on to be beef already effected by this, and if we wait for five years to mark up another farm bill, it's going to be too late. we will have seen the means of production regulates by individuals states causing that other states to have to comply. i happen to represent the number one egg produces state and i'd like to see them be able to produce the eggs in an effective way while they are managing the animals. they have the best involved in producer do. they know what's best for the livestock. the states don't often, it's agenda referendum that comes from the state and it becomes a political initiative within the

state people go to the polls they don't understand the broader issues than maybe the senate will when it get to that side. so, you know, i suggest that we put this marker down here in the committee. we do know about the ag issues and the competition between the states can be a fair open exe addition by we cannot -- there will be litigated comot i did by commodity pane i think always through the court system there will be success but there's no reason to pay out the trial lawyer for the issue. what it does is clarifies and establishes the commerce clause of the constitution by prohibiting the means of production. so i would say this, that if california wants to regulate the eggs that come into the state, fine, you can specify that i be egg shape they have a yolk, they have a middle. if you want to specify pork is pork and such go ahead and do that. don't be tell the states

producing the product that is approved how to produce that product and that's what the amendment is. it is far reaching. it is broad but it's distinctly constitution that and what does defines the commerce clause in statute and makes it clear to the states so that each of the states can produce a product we have federally approved anyway and i found no opposition among this among the egg producer in any way. i think it's something that the committee should adopt and i urge adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. >> point of order, mr. chairman ? point of order, mr. chairman. >> would the gentleman state the point of order. >> yes, what reserve appoint of order here. it seems to have jury dictional issue. obviously it's the good represent from iowa indicate a

far reaching bill the judiciary committee jurisdiction to take up at the time. >> gentleman would suspend from. verifying with counsel to what i believe is the rules we operate under. you have to announce your notice your point of order at the moment that the amendment is introduced, and that moment was missed. >> purchase, if i may, just yield for a second, sir. >> absolutely. >> we had the same discussion a moment ago on the bill that i accepted years in the ranking members thoughtful counsel that the jurisdiction might have been exceeded. hope you extend the same courtesy at this junction would

seem fair and appropriate that the committee . >> gentleman has a valid point. but under the rules, not by intention or design but we are where we are. >> mr. chairman? gentleman concluded his explanation. gentleman strikes -- the last part. two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i have to tell you conflicted on this. because in spirit, i agree with mr. king. we have a terrible situation create by the voters of california. with the egg situation there. now that i'm a retiring member, i can say that i don't always agree with the voters. they made a awful mistake with the eggs and poultry situation. from that, you're correct. the reality is that we have a

terrible situation that your amendment while -- while intended will cause tremendous problems with the bill. and i think what the chairman ought to do here and i'm concerned about giving the chairman advice in public, but i think we ought to withdraw this amendment, and figure how to work with it because i truly believe that you have some good points here. but this has got to be a no for us in california. we're trying to survive with stlais have been descraifted by well thought out public policy in the state. and i'd ask for you all to understand we're trying to cope with the very bad situation farmers and ranchers, hog -- we have to figure how to deal with this issue collectively and thoughtfully because people don't grow up on farms anymore. less than 1.5% of americans have

any connection directly 0 agricultural. the committee is educated about what happens on the farm that night average american these days. it didn't used to be the case. but it is today. and it is a real problem about how we're going proceed on the issues. and so i would ask that we not move forward on this because we have a severe problem in california. but it's going to be a prominent member of other states and i'd ask for your understand on this. >> gentleman yield. >> gentleman moves to strike the last word is recognize for two minutes. >> iom retiring, i don't mind telling the voters of california what i think of their laws and -- [laughter] >> and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it may need some fine tuning moving forward. i think it would be a strong message coming out of the

committee to make it clear that we do not believe in bulkization of commerce in this country and that some of the laws that are being passed and that are [inaudible] are very problematic and we should send a strong message we don't think that is where these decisions should be made. they should be made here in the united states congress. we have clear constitution to regulate interstate commence. i think the gentleman's amendment is connected to the point. >> would the gentleman yield for question. >> yes. >> the member is a judiciary committee. would it not do what he said and create a problem for the bills that moves forward? >> i don't know that would or not. but i would say that chairman and the ranking members others are perfectly capable of limiting the scope of the product. i think it's a the intent of the

amendment. it there are defecting i hope we repair thement rather than back washington are away from what i think is a important issue. >> i very much support in the judiciary committee if it shows up over there. would the gentleman yield? >> would the gentleman yield to me? >> i'd be happy to yield. >> i thank the gentleman from virginia. i'm sympathetic to his point. i think that in in the effort to moving in the aggressive way this evening that perhaps unintentionally things were handledded differently on the two amendments it's unfortunate. under the rules i'm not capable of backing up and changing that. i would hope mr. king thinks very carefully about the jurisdiction their issues. i hate to become ensnared. ultimately i can't tell him what to do. i'm not sure his mother used to tell him what to do.

[laughter] but i do appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. he makes a valid point. with that i yield back. >> i yield back. >> with that does anyone seek recognition on the actual amendment? seeing no . >> mr. chairman, move to strike the last word. >> gentleman moves to strike the last world. recognize for two minutes. >> i can see where it's going. i would like to point out in the spirit of commodity many of us in the western states face a different dynamic than many do out east here. we have what they call an initiative and referendum process. and as eluded to it's not the wisest. it is a democratic process. those that are interested in real democracy getting people to rise up against agencies and poll tilingses and the golfy things that our government or we do here it's not although bad. but it is a problem in some

cases. this is one of the cases where it's a problem. problem in my state, problem in california, colorado, problem in a lot of other places. i would ask that this amendment go down to defeat it's not necessary, it doesn't get the spirit of the particular farm bill in any way or form. again, just in the hopes there be some respect and understands we face out west like we understand your crop insurance thing. the shallow loss deal, try to help you out here, we like to see a little bit of quid pro quo. we're asking for a fair shake. >> gentleman yields back. >> i like to . >> recognized for two minutes. >> i'm not sure i totally understand what this does, but, you know, i think in terms of the jurisdiction issue, you know, we do something similar regarding marketing orders, you know, so if this is limited to

agricultural, i'm not sure we're going have a jurisdiction issue. so i think that's a different situation, and i have am very concerned about, you know, i know you have problems in california, and some of these other states. it is driving us crazy because these things come to our states. you know, and they're trying to pass them, you know, in our states. and we don't want them. you know, we, you know, when i was in -- when we were at the having hearings you remember your people came into the hearing and were complaining about the regulations they want the federal government to pay for it because they were being put upon by the own government. well, you know, i told them, i said, well those people in los angeles and san francisco want that. they can pay for it. the rest shouldn't have to pay for it. so, you know, i'm sympathetic if we can somehow -- i don't know

if this works or not if we can stop that, you know, i mean you have your problems in california. i don't know if it's going to make any worse. it keeps us from getting screwed over from what you guys are doing. [laughter] anyway. i yield to the . >> well, i just -- i'm trying to be sympathetic from the colleague from the west coast. i wouldn't mind explaining how to protect the rest of the united states jams them up and some meaningful way so i can help you understand it. it looks u to scare me it helps to protect the rest of the country from that. i don't know how it negatively impacts california. i be happy to yield or ask my own time if someone explain it to me. >> mr. chairman, if i -- to respond to the question. your state isn't going do anything that the state country want to do. california can't make your state do something. because an idea spreads even if

it's a bad idea i suggest there are a lot ever bad ideas spread in politics these days. i don't agree with it and it didn't come from my state. it's a whole different matter. the reality is that you all states control your situations. my state will probably say that we're trying to figure out a solution, and as we do that, if we come up with a solution that has bigger cages and you put small cages in nevada right across the border our state can't prohibit it. it's a problem for us in trying to deal with the issue. it puts a lot of folks out of business and causes dislocation. >> if i could, just that's the heart of the problem. i mean, the heart of the issue. and here you're asking we somehow protect california from itself and to the detriment of the rest of us, and i'm trying to get there but i just don't see the rational. >> i yield back.

>> mr. chairman, i believe time expired but i think the gentleman mr. kiss l asked for recognition like to strike the last word. move to strike the last world. >> i yield my time to mr. shader. >> thank you. i guess if the jurisdictional issue doesn't -- here's any concern you guys, chairman you work hard on the bill. and i'm deathly afraid at the end of the day there are those in leadership, on both sides of the aisle who want to kill this. this particular amendment is leadership a great avenue to come in here and pluck the thing out and kill the farm bill at end of the day. i'd like to think we're better than that. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman? >> gentleman from texas, seeks recognition. >> seek to strike the last word. >> recognized for two minutes. >> i yield to virginia.