person. chairman. it is true the senator and die from montana went to cuba and i think we talked until about 4:00 and lasted until about 3:00 in the morning and we learned about the world according to castro. that we have spent working on this for some time and i know most of the focus is on markets it ought to be in regards to cuba as well and you can use, if that's the proper term the agriculture production and whereas all as a tool not only for peace but stability and also for countries to recognize when they go through tough times

we can be a reliable supplier but then it becomes dependent on us that is a better discussion with human rights with the very things so it is a reverse kind of thing and we have the same issue with the embargo i urge the senator of montana to continue this. >> i also want to do a time jack there is a vote around noon and if we are to move through macon have more of a discussion but to give everybody a time check. >> i want to sing senator baucus for his leadership and it is an important issue and common sense no-brainer.

i always go back and as a young coach if he ran 40 times in a row then you need to switch policy and the policy we have had in the past is not cuba and this is part of rethinking fat and again is a no-brainer. >> travel like to call up next in the interest of time i hope we could have a voice vote. this amendment is similar to legislation passed hrh72 reducing regulatory burden act and states are required by the epa to prevent certain and pesticide applications under the clean water act thises is diverting limited state

resources with critical functions to gather more paper work. it states the process they must take and provides no additional environmental protection. zip. zero additional environmental review but me make clear this does not alter pesticide regulation. for the radical culture committee has always had jurisdiction over pesticide use and asked colleagues to join me to protect human health and put an end to this costly regulation. let me remind every betty pesticide applications are already regulated under the application is subject to the terms printed on the label and it is against a lot to apply pesticides in a manner that does not comply with the label. this amendment does little

constituents tell us to do to protect human health and removed duplicative actions. >> did this point* i ask that you do not proceed in we continued to work on this with the floor it is you're not -- not germane in the context of the farm bill. we have set up a policy as we did last time and we would not consider things that were not germane in the context of the provisions of the farm bill is not germane because it is not in the bill. i am in agreement with the concerns that you have raised we addressed this last year with the bill out of committee but i would ask it this point* if you don't ask for a vote but continue to work with us. >> i would be happy to agree with the chairwoman. i will point* out again this past commit only to find

there were concerns on the senate floor where we have holes in the bill we never got to a vote for consideration in the meantime states now have to regulatory processes went under the clean water act, a pesticide applicators, more paperwork, and now applicators are more vulnerable to lawsuits it is not a good way to do this. we have to get this done. i withdraw the amendment. >> by one to support the senator this should be a clean separation from the clean water act and i hope. >> do you know, whether in fact, this legislation is in the house? >> it may be. i believe last year. i am not sure.

>> it is my understanding is it the intent to be part of the house bill then it will be sent to conference. >> are there any other amendments to the miscellaneous title? if not title xii is closed. and we now move to title to. senator johanns. >> i had an amendment, that is in the next one that i will thank you know any way you put in a provision -- a provision that thank you for that. i think that is an important amendment and i appreciated. thank you. >> any other? >> madam chair and i also wanted thank you in the eat worwe should haveur

gotten this done two years ago but i am glad to be back here with no for farmers and ranchers in colorado who have suffered through generational drought. i were charged with the committee on the conservation title and a one to say thank-you for all of your efforts and would like to be recognized of two packages of common-sense change for the easement program this addresses the initiative we have heard throughout colorado and other states and kansas from private landowners and preservation groups and they have concerns of the current financial requirements for some important conservation easements with the scenario the landowner was to voluntarily with the land to help finance and this amendment would give the secretary discretion under

special circumstances to waive the of requirements for high priority easements and give flexibility as an important place where they might not occur within nebraska land trust to support this fiasco letter be included in the record and in addition it removes the requirement no less than 40 percent of funding be used for agricultural land easements in of this portion is critically important to you senator cochran know what to think kim and his staff for the help with this amendment. the cbo has confirmed the amendment does not score. >> madam chair this amendment as the distinguished senator points out to remove the 40% allocation for land easements within the easement prog and they

recommend they be agreed to. >> thank you very much i want juice sank the senator for your efforts as is chair to have the conservation title to improve the easement programs i suggest we move forward to go to all those in favor say aye. those opposed? the amendment is adopted. >> valid like to present amendment number six. what it does is in the managers package there is a provision to ty conservation compliance programs and crop insurance together. since 1985 conservation

compliance has been tied to the farm program. that is already in place and has been since 1985 but this would add a whole new mandate on farmers even if you don't participate in the farm program if you purchase crop insurance which we want all farmers to do you will be required to take the conservation compliance as well. sows a time when farmers and ranchers have to do with more and more regulation and compliance that not only creates difficulty for them the increased cost for the consumer where we add yet another layer of compliance and regulatory burden and cost.

i give the chairman great credit for working to simplify the provisions that has been added in the managers package i give you great credit to come up with something that you feel s workable and usable or user-friendly but that is how lot of regulations star. just a little bit here then a whole new area then we make it easy for you and how many regulations have started out that way? what is the situation with the regulatory burden? i don't talk to any farmer or rancher who doesn't tell me how heavy the burden or rate -- readiness had a talk to anybody who doesn't tell me the federal government continues to pass laws and that regulations to the point* we make it very, very

hard for businesses. here we go we have a whole new area of regulation for farmers and ranchers. i get you try to make as simple and streamlined as possible but it creates a whole new area for our farmers that have to undertake the regulatory compliance and burden as they have been so many other areas before so this amendment just says we will not add this new compliance requirement that now if you participate in a crop insurance program you'll be required with a conservation compliance as well. >> any other comments? >> this was my amendment on the floor last year that

reverts back to the policy in place several years ago and we're getting more and more emphasis on the crop insurance i don't disagree with that philosophy but farmers should comply with conservation if they are going to get systems from the federal government. of -- assistance from the federal government when i passed last year not included in the bill has a score from the national wildlife federation to the farm bureau and there is a wide divergence that is totally in support so i understand what my friend is saying that they will go to the office with one tripp and check one more blocks. i simply have not had the issue raised by my farmers how much more difficult willd t.

>>. >> i can appreciate the hard '' to try to make a bad situation better but i have never supported conservation of crop insurance. the battle cry as adamantly stated it is assumed that it is applied and eliminated where the elimination of direct payments. we have conservation of plants and said conservation compliance is attached to the loan program so even caught and passed to do these requirements to duplicate qtheserements

is wasteful of governm resources and dollars one may try to find greater efficiency in everything we do the crop insurance program is ill suited for this than most farmers that i talk to are required to have crop insurance to get the operating loan for their farm every year and status is in question then they may not be able to purchase crop insurance for the year the inability given the times we are in to put the entire operation times if they cannot put the crop in the ground. at the end of the day they could be found to be in perfect compliance with requirements betted delay in the audit about their status has ruined their livelihood. we make great strides to improve crop insurance i

would urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. >> i appreciate very much as the challenges from north dakota. but i have to oppose the amendment it is a historic agreement between the conservation organization and i would ask for the no vote. all those in favor say aye? opposed? >> no. >> then knows have it. it is not adopted are there any other amendments? >> i would ask next we go to amendment number five this is a simple amendment and what i'm trying to do is

reduce the regulatory burden for farmers and ranchers in a way that is very common sense and simple but not just to the agriculture but across the board remake is so difficult to do business not just penalizing the business person but the consumer be going to the bank to get a home mortgage who sits and reads through you get a 10 page booklet of documents and small print for says having a simple straightforward rules and regulations that are common sense to be applied in a way that is understandable by the regulator and benefit consumers and not be a

burden on our business people. that is a simple principle amendment number five under the farm program you have to comply with all conservation requirements. going for me have to do that with crop insurance. can mealies make sure it is simple and understandable so the farmers that are out there to comply are able to do so? right now it can go back as for what those plans are supposed to be summer qualified in summer not they could be penalized that from access a is.

i don't know the rest. -- wrestle this provision just says you can look back three years. the irs is a five-year limitation. this says to have the finite numbers to know the of limitations as they try to comply. it goes to is a three year period. >> by industry and the dilemma your farmers are facing and i heard from people in michigan this amendment is written and broadly and it would have unintended consequences but i went to work with you on this and monitoring that backlog but we could move

this forward but at this point* given where we are and the importance of coming together with all the organizations i would ask that we don't support this amendment at this time. of those in favor say aye. >> those opposed? >> the nose haven't. >> i will also try to simplify please go to the amendment number one. each of these is the effort to simplify to see if i can get it to the point* where reduce simplify and i am sure we will. this says we will do crop insurance now, unlimited and

look back period for compliance can we at least simplify what the penalty system is? right now it is very complicated in terms of the penalty applied and this replaces the current repayment structure for a farmer found to be in wetland conservation compliance by taking the acres of these specific wetland multiplied by the average land for the county in a question for each year in question as determined by the national tag service multiplied by the number of years there not in compliance. just an effort to simplify the formula is found not in compliance. this has no cost. >> thank you but again is senator hoeven i appreciate you are trying to do but i

think the agreement moving forward with crop insurance does do an excellent job to simplify to address the concerns as it is a broader discussion around simplification with the traditional tie with conservation compliance with the commodity title but at this point* we don't know the ramifications and i am concerned what this does to a the agreement of the organizations that are supporting this policy so i ask for the no vote at this time. those in favor say aye. then nose have it. are there any other amendment of the conservation title? >> i and speaking that we propose an amendment today

that would keep in mind the importance of pollinators and habitats for polirs to try to bring staff focus into the conservation program. north daka is the number oninthe nation and this unique industry benefits not only my state but provide economic opportunity and value added to agriculture especially specialty crops. we have had some struggles in the the world and the habitat is critically important. this amendment does not but let's put some emphasis on that part of the industry that is so important to the honey producers but also every specialty crop in america. >> senator gillibrand. >> like to commonsense i am a co-sponsor and honeybees are essentials for a riculture and they are in

g. more than $20 billion of annual harvest rely and pollination from honeybees and the commonly collapsed it from 2005 could cause 50 percent job loss than there is no single cause of proper honeybee nutrition is a factor that is very important and it could grow practices that maximize benefits for the pollinator an amendment that encourages the protection of the habitat as part of the plan and the amendment allows of of what and sweet clover to be planted that have been used in the past and are more cost-effective way to give a proper habitat and a nutrition. any fruits are vegetable garden you know, how the central to make sure the

honeybee population survives is no technical or man-made replacement to the pollination process so as stewards of the environment and of the grasslands and farming communities, i urge support of this amendment. >> thank you very much. after further discussion. >> madam chair we reviewed the amanda and we think it is a good amendmenand i support it. >> i do as well and may encourage you to go. all those in favor say aye. the amendment is adopted. thank you very much. any of their amendments to the conservation title? >> conservation -- i asked a recognized of the amendment of which i am a co-sponsor. it is about equity and fairness and there is traneight a separate payment limits for organic farmers

or those to use the environmental quality program for organic initiative it is supported by the american farm bureau federation and the national sustainable coalition the national wildlife federation and the american farmland trust for everyone here can agree of farmers need equal opportunity to access the national resource program and technical assistance. the seven mccready, opportunity for transitioning and farmers to harmonize the existing payment that is many times larger than the organic initiative. it creates a quality but also achieves administrative efficiencies as they only have one moment. madam chair help you support this amendment for parity for organic farmers and i ask that you and the ranking

member i ask for your support of this amendment. >> i appreciate this amendment. at this point* i would ask we not support this going forward rehab agreed to a set part of nt limits originally proposed by the organic community when put into place. it goes to the larger question of payment limits we have already agreed to in the bill and at this point* cannot support the amendment. >> madam chairman i withdraw the amendment and i will continue to work together and save you all the staff to having gauged and around this amendment. >> thank you for bringing in a foreword. senator hoeven try again. [laughter] >> thank you madame chairwoman. now i will try to simplify the maps as part of your compliance the farmers are

required this is number two in regard to wetland acidification maps. when a farmer does his compliance program he has to have the weber and certification map that he has to sign off and certify within approval to have a sign off. there are different qualifications for he left

he came out to our state working on several proposals two's simplify these certifications and process of these maps. with this amendment and the next one i will offer. he left before we got finished with this simply says if you had a wetland delineated on the map between november 1990 and december 1996, and it is certified that was a valid map then you can rely on it. . .

in terms of determining what is wetland compliant than what is them. i support the amendment and urged the approval of it. >> thank you very much, senator hoeven. i do understand north dakota when they look at finance circumstances your farmers operate in, i think you've raised a set of issues that we need to have further work on which nrcs.

i oppose to this that the specific policy issues, but i commit to work with you because there's a number of issues that we should look at and make sure we don't have unintended consequences, but also address real challenges for your farmers and others. i opposed this at this point. i believe this is an important discussion and want to work with you on all these different issues and how they come together and are administered. senator hoeven. >> my chair, i appreciate this very much and i will work with you on amendment and i do us her rollcall. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

>> the amendment fails. >> we are getting closer. fastmac >> i have a feeling of each one of the goldstar. i want to work on you with some challenging issues. >> i think if you look at the rangers, they want help with the regulatory burden and i think i've made the point here i hope we can do something

>> thank you very much. are there any other amendments to the conservation title? seeing none, the conservation title is close. we now turn to title iii of the trade title. any amendments to the trade title? seeing none. the trade title is closed. title x, the horticulture title, do we have any amendments? senator gillibrand. >> this is basically a simple get rid of the red tape for apple producers. it's a no-cost commonsense amendment though helped opera farmers in vermont, massachusetts and michigan that ask for apple to canada. the amendment basically eliminates a federal cover program with the export of

american apples. currently apple growers in places like new york and michigan pay up to $300 prior to each inspection. the other speculation is based in a provision that dates back to 1933. the elimination of the required inspection to growers of approximately $300 per truckload. but in the regulation would allow apple growers to distribute their product number of scheduled without work or possibly after-hours inspection procedures prevent them an opportunity to save money and streamline operations. canada constitutes a second-largest to see the apple. $987.1 million with united states up occurs a large children develop into the security by region and the exemption will allow to continue their contribution to american agriculture policy economic recovery. and it saves are ask for a boy so, one of chairwoman.

the noon so has been changed until after the caucus lunch at 2:30. if it is possible to mature and get a though, i want to put everyone on notice we need a quorum of the committee to do a final though. now we are on the gillibrand amendment. >> i want to speak up and voice my support for this amendment and it's important to the apple growers in not only senator gillibrand date, senator leahy and others. the amendment will save administrative burden and several hundred thousand dollars for apple growers and i yield to the chair for support this amendment. >> as a senator who is very, very close to the state of michigan and the whole region of opera chorus of the two that may support as well. >> madam chair. this amendment would eliminate

some coliseum duplicative inspection programs for apple is being exported to canada. it was created to ensure that apples and pears for export were of sufficient quality. this amendment is no longer needed because of advances made that would create unnecessary expense and delay for producers and shippers if it's not agree to. >> thank you very much. anyone else on the amendment? if not, all those in favor say aye. the amendment is adopted. thank you. further amendments to title x, the horticulture title? if not, only half of senator bennett who had to leave, we do have one other amendment.

number four i would ask the called up and this relates to promotion programs that would give producers the opportunity to promote their products. we all know promotion programs and producers ranging from beefing berry, mashers to blueberries. these are driven by farmers helping her and industry together to support, goals and research on promotion. the organic sector is as a growing sector. this amendment supports this growth by allowing the industry to engage in research and promotion that benefits the industry and encourages continued economic growth. i would ask for support of the bennett amendment number four. others in a very say aye. those opposed, nay.

the amendment is adopted. senator bennet, you came back into the room after he did that for you, so you're amendment passed. thank you very much. do we have further amendments to the horticulture title? if not, the title is closed and we would move now to title seven, the research extension and related matters title. do we have any amendments? seeing none. title vii is closed. title v, the credit title. do we have amendment to the credit title? the >> chairwomen stop it now, ask unanimous consent to replace amendment number four with the following amendment. >> please precede it with your description of your amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. this is all foreign service to

farmers and ranchers produce a local regional food markets. it also asks the fcc to develop other alternative forms of valuation to facilitate planning to operations and a special outreach to these potential virus. there is some concern the amendment extended fsa eligibility lending to other local and regional market outlets as replacement amendment makes it clear to me place a full-time family farmers. to be clear, at the sales abilities unexpanded. studies prove local and regional food markets -- networks can stabilize markets and create permanent jobs. in addition to jobs, local regional market networks can improve health outcomes by creating greater access to fresh recent vegetables. our local and regional pharmacies are support to strengthen our communities, create jobs and improve outcomes. i'd also like to thank senator brown and his staff are supporting our local and

regional farmers in the provision was included in the farm food in job site. i to think of are his leadership and hopefully we can see the provision in the bill today. i would ask for support of the amendment. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the modifications you included. are there any other? >> for the record, the indication isn't the amendment is going to be agreed to with the chairman supporter. i think they were serious questions surrounding whether a new system is necessary with the valuation of local produce. i don't know that the record contains any evidence that that's true. this amendment would create a new loan officer training program. there's no real description of what that involves and how much it's going to cost. so for the record, i'd like to

be recorded as opposed to the amendment. >> thank you very much. any other discussion? seeing none. all those in favor say trant three, those opposed, nay. the ayes have it. are there any other amendments to the credit title? seeing none. the credit title is closed. we will now move to title vi, the world development title. senator brown. >> are they to collect amendment number one. this mixture of locally development priorities drive usc developments we know how world development kinds of things and i stay with partnerships, usda, local businesses. too often the agency's top down and stowed height without changes to existing programs. this amendment would direct a portion of development funds towards helping communities create longer-term strategies

for economic growth rather than backfilling budgets. for example common set of the one-time purchase of a fire truck, world developer should help communities generate economic activity necessary to grow one they finance their own trucks. this amendment doesn't make change to existing development programs that doesn't cost a dime. this providing usda world develop and to make large investments have a larger impact. i ask for a voice vote in support of my colleagues. >> madam chairman, this expends the rural development title that fulfills the goal of using limited grant dollars to fund projects that have significant impact in a region that could benefit a large number of people and i'm prepared to recommend we support senator brown's amendment. >> thank you very much. are there any other comments? if not, all this and they very

say aye, those opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. are there any other rural development title amendments at this time? seeing none. the world development title is closed. we move now to tidily, the forestry title. any amendments to the forestry title? train to the forestry title is closed. title ix, the energy title. the energy title is closed. title iv, the nutrition title. if there are no amendments to the nutrition title, senator brown. >> a day to collect on amendment number two with senator collins, senators gillibrand, harkin and

leahy. adam chair, from crop insurance does not come to this provides safety net for american farmers, american families and for no $4 billion from snap fun name, the temporary emergency feeding program and other programs of adequate levels is more critical for a large number of mostly working families at a time and within 2 million ohioans have 50 million americans struggle to put food on the table, and many struggle unemployment. those who have jobs has seen their wages decline, so cutting nutrition programs is the wrong way to go. our amendment would restore the $194 million funding gap for three key nutrition programs in the bill we are considering today. this committee on the floor of the senate last year had moved in the right direction. i asked to restore the funding and ask for support of the

amendment. >> thank you very much. do we have other discussion -- >> bronner chair? >> i offer my support for the amendment as a cosponsor and someone deeply can learn an appreciative about the importance of these benefits to so many in our nation this is an important amend it. in massachusetts there's over 800,000 food insecure individuals including 235,000 children and while we recover from the recession, many remain out of work with unemployment still high, programs like snape are essential. long-term unemployment is at record highs in over 37% of unemployed individuals are out of work for six months or longer. to talk about cutting food nutrition programs to the citizens and residents of the nation at this difficult time is inappropriate respectfully and i joined the senator brown, leahy

and gillibrand to restore the spending to these programs to those who are in the greatest need and as someone who is a set his family has been in a moment of need, your support for this amendment. thank you. >> senator gillibrand. >> are they to support senator brown's amendment. i've spent a lot of time traveling around the state come in many with different community leaders and i've met with a number of people who run food banks today. they said because of the tough economy, not only has the number of people who have come to their food aid increased, virtually trip and a of children, but also because the economy was hit so hard, d- who they are given in terms of donation has declined. so far greater need, less resources than previous and a need that is not being met when we se unemployment numbers go

down, the need for food assistance has not had that has a lot to do with the type of recovery we've seen and have it seen in the economy. too many families are working to few hours. they are working jobs at lower pay and the real need in our communities is very high for basic food and nutrition. we should restore all cuts to the program in again, we make judgments how to balance our budget and cut spending, tightening around the least of our children is not a shared american priority. we should decline to cut spending in this programs. i support the amendment. >> madam chair, i appreciate the efforts you've made him holding the line in the last bill the senate passed. i know what people want to do. i'm not going to ask for a vote on this, but i want to echo something senator gillibrand

said as i've gone to sleep names in the state. what is happening is people that used to contribute food to food banks are now coming there to get food and this is a serious, serious public health problem for individual families. i'm hopeful we can work together to find a way to restore the skies. $4 billion is enough i'm not quite u.s. for a vote now, but i'm hopeful senator cowan and gillibrand and harkin and leahy sent mine can reach broad, broad consensus in this committee and on the floor. >> senator chambliss. >> thank you, madam chair. let me say i am in sympathy with senator brown here and others has spoken in favor, but i also empathize with the chair in trying to find the money we have

been dictated to find. the food banks in my state are busier than ever and the guy who runs the atlanta code pink is a hero to me in the job they do there is just amazing. let me just say i don't know how we deal with this, but i look forward to working with you is to get back to the floor if there's anyway to figure this out, i agree. whatever we can do we have to give a good shot. >> i appreciate your comments because i do think this is a critical area. senator brown on our colleagues, and very supportive of what you are proposing to do and i'm very optimistic that we can address this. because it needs to be addressed. thank you very much. are there other amendments in title iv? >> s., like to offer gillibrand

amendment two. first i want to explain how the pill works. there has been a debate about whether the programs offered as a way to demonstrate that a family is in need of food assistance is somehow i though pull or is somehow providing assistance to families who do not need assistance. that's absolutely untrue. the way this works is if you live in a city in for a lot of people who represent rural states, and they may not know what this looks like. if you live in a city company are often a rent controlled apartment for an apartment where heating is included. imagine as a young person living in washington often you ruppel with a heat and electricity included. if you're a low-income family living in an apartment where she does include it, you don't pay heating bill of fremont. it is included in your rant.

legislators and policymakers decide because you are hard-working person of modest means that does not heating bill you pay uniquely, you are still eligible to receive food stamps under the efficiency is because the way we make government more efficient if you are a low-income hard-working family to qualify under one federal program, we don't make you for the paperwork again. we don't make you say you need to prove your earning $20,000 a year. they just say you qualify. you at the poverty level in you and your children deserve the support we provide. under this program if you are in an apartment building very heat is included in your low income, you may receive food stamps. if you eliminate the program by saying it's a loophole, you're just taking hungry families off the road of food stamps and that is now at the food stamp program is about. it's not about making sure people can't get assistance they

needed. the cement that will restore the cuts. right now in new york, 300,000 families will receive less food and all receive $90 plus a month. imagine in your own $90 a month pays for. basaltic of groceries. if you're working 40 hours a week a minimum-wage company or an $3000 below the poverty line. imagine what that feels like to have $90 plus a month to just feed your kids. that is who is going to be cut. 50% of recipients in this country are children. a good number of recipients in this country are seniors. a good number of food stamp recipients are veteran said he would not know this, but a good number of food stamp recipients are active-duty military members. any type of amendment because the programs because you think it is a loophole, please investigate the substance of the

program. this program applies to people who live in apartment buildings are hard-working, what families who do not reapply to get food stamps because they are at a suffering need. if there's other people want to speak, i will withdraw. >> chairwoman, if i may, please. i just want to offer my support for the amendment and sentiments expressed by the senator from new york as a expressed in comments. the benefit to so many people, not just massachusetts, but around the nation is quite evident and where we are contemplating cuts of this significance, we need to fully appreciate the consequences. suggestion the so-called leahy the ponies to be fixed because it might be the genesis concert and not the case in

massachusetts. but it is secreted means by which those charged with assault responsibility of making public assets available usage of the greatest efficiency and it allows us to serve our people who have made if this amendment would allow us to continue to do that. failure to do that means we are once again putting those who are already in dire straits and more significant circumstances. so i support the senator from new york. >> senator gillibrand. >> i hope he was trying this amendment to bring this discussion to the floor. >> when they say i do feel compelled as we've worked very hard to make sure the benefit structure is not changed and we are supporting nutrition programs. the good news is this does not sever the connection between the programs. it's a safe threshold rather than 1 dol of

be able to have it. it is important to keep that connection and not eliminate or create more paperwork for those that have both assistance needs and food assistance needs. are there other amendments? senator johanns. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to call up my amendment to restrict categorical eligibility and the cowan program. >> you may proceed. >> madam chair, i have unique experience because the secretary of agriculture, i manage this program. i left usta in the fall of 2007 to run for the senate seat that i am in today. at that time there were 27 million people on the program here today that number has gone up to 47 million.

another secretary of agriculture, i propose limiting eligibility to certain cash benefits, but congress did not adopt it. now that i'm a congress, i want to try this hopefully with a different result. let me emphasize, this amendment does nothing to restrict benefits to those eligible to receive the program. i administered the food stamp program as it was called back then and i strongly supported those who are hungry get the benefits of the program. i did that, i do now. right now, some states are exploiting categorical eligibility to allow many people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible to get this benefits. that chair, don't believe my words on this.

cbo estimates would save over $11 billion if we simply ensured that those people are eligible for the benefits. many state that again. cbo says it would save 11 million if they say those are eligible should get it. but nobody else. so madam chair, i think this is a commonsense amendment. it just strikes me, way when she would talk this amendment because it's in full compliance with the law? i would ask for a recorded vote of the amendment. >> per the discussion on the amendment. senator cochran. >> madam chair, i have a huge amount of respect for the senator from nebraska and his experience in his programs at the state level and nationally.

but what the amendment will do as a part of undersea changes the categorical eligibility for the supplemental nutrition assistance program and limits it to those individuals receiving assistance as defined in the regulations of the temporary assistance for needy families program. it has the potential of displacing approximately 1.8 million who are currently eligible ice program participants. that could affect school meals for 280,000 children and could also hamper the ability of states to efficiently administer the program. for these reasons, i very would like to play oppose the

amendment. >> thank you very much. senator roberts. >> thank you on a chairwoman. i appreciate my friend for nebraska bringing this to the senate. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment. today the states have the option of using categorical eligibility or automatic eligibility. it also streamlines the state administration by allowing household to be certified to benefit without, let emphasize, without household assets or gross income. 42 states are exploiting an unintended loophole that provided informational brochures, informational one a hundred numbers to maximize staff involvement in the corresponding increase in the federal food benefits.

some could say the state fair gaming the system to bring otherwise participants into the program, again without evaluating household assets or gross income. the amendment as the senator has indicated would save 11 elliott over 10 years. to be clear, this represents a cut to the benefit, but this amount represents the benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were not for the states came in the system. states should not be encouraged to permit the nutrition programs if there's anything unfair, it is that states have chosen to knock the taxpayer for s.n.a.p. benefits. it's a tough issue, controversial issue, but i think the senator for his courage to identify the issue of program integrity, which should really lead to other recipients and taxpayers who want hope those who need it and we want to be

fair to the taxpayer as well. i encourage my colleagues to support the sanders amendment. >> senator gillibrand. >> are they to disagree with my colleagues and support the statement of senator cochran who is right. categorical eligibility is not closing a loophole. with a dozen places welfare reforms during the 1990s to send their money to make sure they can handle issues. recently create programs was for efficient the and for members of congress constantly saying there's too much government ways, involvement, protocol, you argue the exact opposite right now. you want more paperwork, more people in line and filling out forms for the whole purpose of these efficiencies in the 1990s is to give resources who need it. if you're a designated an

at-risk family, and means you are hard-working people who just don't earn enough money to provide for your kids. or if you're a senior who works her whole life, serves our country, and just don't have enough money to get by. folks think our program cover everything that is needed. by then half the people on social security today are below the poverty line. we talk about keeping seniors out of starving poverty. we talk about reporting veterans have given their lives if they need food on the table, we make sure it's there. i know we are so eager to cut spending everywhere we can, but this is not the place to balance our budget. we are immoral country that does not want people to go congaree and i urge you not to support this amendment. >> the major syndicate my strong opposition as well.

this has been defeated in a bipartisan basis including last year and it would eliminate an option used by 40 states. i would urge a no vote. if there's anyone further wishing -- all those in favor say trent three, those opposed nay. the nays habit. are there further amendments to the nutrition title? senator thune. >> the first amendment, this would be thune number four. this has to do with the s.n.a.p. education programs, which requires the improved budget implementation plan. the discussion about the program this morning is senator on cuts to the program in who that might impact. this doesn't impact any beneficiary. this is basically the program is

to educate people. if you look over those dollars dollars go to bed, you've got some serious inequities in the way the money is distributed. in fact, it seems a little on thayer the 54% of resources go to for states. just as a case in point, texas has more enrollees in california is on the receiving 1.3% for california gets 31.4. it doesn't seem it would take that much more to educate people in california than it does in the state of texas. this is another program, which previous proposals have attempted to do, but ensures resources or summer equitably. basically what it does is provide a $5 per person number that would be allowed for parental and individual user

education. that is indexed annually for inflation. again, this is a fairly commonsense thing that doesn't impact people who are beneficiaries of this. by the way, this score is a $2 billion saving. if we look at areas to find savings in the farm bill and the sequester is pointed out but my colleague for nebraska, the savings proposed by the cbo are significantly last they were down under $20 billion. it strikes me we had to find areas in each of the areas of the farm bill budget or we can achieve significant savings. $4 billion as the number and that is a tenured member refighting savings. s.n.a.p. will spend $760 billion. so we are talking about 1.5 --

0.5% we are able to find savings. this sets a couple billion dollars if they could get of the program simply by coming up with a more equitable way of distributing these education in obesity grant dollars. again, for states get more than half of the funding. it's inequitable use of funds that should be spent equally among participants. my amendment restructures grants to states receive $5 peripheral individual for inflation. in this way, all recipients have equal access to nutrition, education resources than a copy choices on a budget. $2 billion in savings i would say in a way that i think make sense, is logical and allows us to do what we need to do to educate people about the programs in a more equitable

way. protests were recorded recorded vote on this amendment. >> senator johanns. >> madam chair, thank you. let me thank the senator from south dakota for bringing this out. this is another example of the inequities in the s.n.a.p. program. this is an opportunity to fix it. for states get 50% of the benefit of this. i can't imagine there is the very thought by any number that literally this program would be designed in such a way would be on the floor saying to 46 states, you'll be treated unequally in new get a better deal here. i just can't imagine i was the case. this one is important. i can almost guarantee you unless you are a member of those

four states, you are voting to benefit your state in the program dollars that will come as a result to your state. it is not directed at beneficiaries and is a fair way of allocating precious dollars in a fair way to all 50 states instead of allocating 50% of the money to four states. >> senator gillibrand. >> i strongly oppose this amendment. first of all, the strata has $2 billion is a mistake because at the end of the day was spent $100 billion a year on a pc in $500 million on cardiovascular heart disease. unfortunately, with a growing childhood obesity problem in this country when our kids go to school a piece, one the challenges has been sleep apnea,

score lower in math and reading because of lack of sleep or lack of self-esteem because they made fun of. there's so many problems that happens to children when they are obese. taking away money for education is again you should invest in obesity prevention is to configure an obese child, the likelihood of being an obese adult is high. we want to cut costs or prevention so we don't have to spend a hundred billion dollars on programs for obese adults. what you are saying is in favor of state rates until you don't states to a good enough job applying for money because honestly just because some states think it's an important program and apply for the money and utilize the money in it to their schools doesn't mean you should defend states adopted its import. one of the reasons texas only gets 1.2% is not because texas does not huge needs. it chooses not to utilize this

money. it's a choice of the texas governor. it's a choice of the texas government. if they don't believe it's important to prevent, that is their choice, which i strongly disagree with. it's a long-term savings measure for costs. i think rewarding states that are doing a good job is the wrong approach and cutting the program overall is the wrong approach. >> senator roberts. >> well, i think we all understand we have an obesity problem in the united states and i understand the federal government is wanting to play an increasing role of women in regards to school part is, school lunch programs a certain amount of calories. i didn't think the federal government would be deciding how many calories we would consume.

the obesity problem site name ballot to focus on not in a way that makes sense. with four states receiving 54% have a somebody said 50%, but he think of 54% of the fung what about the state's rights and the children who suffer from obesity to receive less than 1% of the total funding? with the senator is trying to do is simply replace the current indexed block grants with the per capita payment of $5 per household indexed for inflation. this spreads out more evenly rather than the four states. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i appreciate the remarks by the senator from new york, however i think we have a real problem in

the country with obesity, including mine. >> any other discussion? senator thune. >> remember, we are looking for ways to save money in the program we're marking. you can save $2 billion here and await it doesn't cut benefits to anybody. i agree we have issues to educate the american people about, obesity being one of them. with respect to states make an application, this doesn't prevent texas. texas could apply up to $5. if texas does on a play for $5, they don't have to. that's still an option. prohibits a peripheral a cup which seems to be in x for inflation, fairly reasonable amount of binary to save $2 billion in this farm bill that we can pass on his savings to the american taxpayer without

impacting the beneficiaries of the people who depend on this program, which is pointed out on previous amendments by the senator from new york. folks across the country need help from the program. this is an administrative cost. anybody who gets benefits of these programs today. it simply reapportion is the way in which states these dollars to educate people about these various programs available. >> with the senator go to a question? can you explain how you get the savings? >> that is the cbo score. >> wires that $2 billion coming from? or is it going now that it will no longer be going? >> it's against states getting funny today for education purposes. >> zero, and education programs? spin that could come out of administrative programs that are

not benefits to beneficiaries. that's correct. >> i would urge a no vote because it does in fact take $2 billion of it from the port and education efforts related to obesity. i also want to remind up on the most recent reauthorization, the snap education formula was changed so more resources could be given across a larger number of state taking place right now i'm expect that to be changed under the new formula and chatted attrition. booker truffaut. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

[roll call] >> that nays having a majority, it is not adopted. are there further amendments to the nutrition title? senator roberts. >> madam chairwoman, i have a bail that encompasses the amendments considered in some of that to be considered, so this is a comprehensive amendment with regards to what i call foodstamp reform. i'm going to introduce this, read it quickly and withdraw it and see if it could be considered on the floor. in that respect, perhaps the senator from new york could check her broad pressure a little bit family can move on down the road.

this amendment cosponsored by senator thune and johanns would rein in the expenditure. we talk about s.n.a.p. of course. we can restore of providing benefits to those truly in need to save over $31 billion. i think it's accurate. first, the amendment eliminates the lady who pull. let me be clear, eliminating the loop does not affect s.n.a.p. eligibility. only decreases those who would not qualify for the higher benefit allowances. we also tie the categorical eligibility admitting a loophole that states exploit by informational brochures and informational numbers regardie talked about in an ongoing effort to streamline the government programs we should

also try to ruminate duplicative s.n.a.p. program, nutritional education program, combined the costa rica and do not represent good benefits. the amendment ends the practice of giving $40 million in awards every year to state agencies were doing their job. finally terminate the ongoing stimulus enactedb he american recovering reinvestment act provided funding to increase monthly benefits. let's not forget s.n.a.p. sequestration. i look forward to record at the committee to improve the program's integrity and i think the intelligence of my colleagues. >> the madness is drawn. senator gillibrand. >> a want to thank senator roberts for working hard with the committee.

>> dining chair, yes. this is the amendment number nine. >> for purposes of a time check of the night because we are coming up to the 1:00 hour for thisuus lunches and i'm not sure how many amendments we have left. if we might get some sense, we could complete everything before lunch or will have to come back after. i wonder if we might get a check on how many amendments are left to be offered at this point after senator thune's amendment. i'm not sure if we have any on the crop insurance titles. >> commodity title. >> is there more than one, senator thune? >> was no forward at this point undernutrition. >> thank you, madam chair.

this deals with what is referred to as able-bodied adults without dependents who are currently eligible for s.n.a.p. benefits. to continue receiving benefits, they have to demonstrate a desire to enter the workforce part-time, participating job training or work programs are volunteering in their communities. these requirements are weak in areas with high unemployment, the waivers are awarded is an overly broad regulatory authority. changing requirements is not affect eligibility. teenagers, disable their families receive s.n.a.p. benefits for an extended period. this amendment assures able-bodied adult without waivers are still available to individuals in areas with above 10% unemployment identified by labor statistics to have insufficient jobs. by sitting definitions, we save

dollars in the cbo is not scored this except to say what ensured limited s.n.a.p. dollars reserve for those truly in need. man in chair, this is a fairly commonsense thing. changing these requirements does not affect eligibility of teenagers, disabled or families to receive benefits for an extended. time and has waivers available to individuals in areas that unemployment about 10% rather areas identified by the bureau of labor statistics to have insufficient jobs. but it does is for this category of people who received anaphase encourages them to get back into the workforce, participating job training or volunteer for something permissible in meeting the requirement. one of the things i want to quickly point out is this is a tenure number, tenure program.

760000000000.77% based on that. much of that is attributable to the increase to the struggling economy. since early 2010, and a playwright has been steadily dropping from a high of 10% of the day we are today at 7.5%. it's not participation has increased 7 million people and part of the discrepancy can be attributed to a persistent encourages able-bodied adults to say without working or participating job training. i am and it takes a tightening the categories in able-bodied adults have a greater incentive to find work and ultimately get off of the s.n.a.p. program. that's the explanation, madam chair and i would encourage my colleagues to support it.

>> any further discussion on the amendment? is my understanding it's not the court yet. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i urge a no vote. if not, all those in favor say stream free, those opposed nay. any other amendments on nutrition title? senator roberts. >> i have to. one on employment training. i'm not going to offer them in committee to expedite the process of the farm bill, but i will be speaking about them in my efforts on the floor. thank you. >> any other nutrition title amendments? if not, the nutrition title is close. boomer to title i, the commodity -- >> as you know is that immigration markup and i'm glad to be back. i wanted to reopen the energy title and i appreciate her willingness to allow me to do

that. >> you may proceed. >> very good. if we recruited new generation of farmers and ranchers, we want to bolster our economy in rural america. this strengthens the farm bill in four areas. research, development, conservation of energy, all key in this bill. one example is the usda backlog of applications in 2012 is paralyzing a lot of our communities. this amendment funds to backlog of projects over five years chemical along way towards getting projects done. i can go through each area if their questions, but it is important to bolster those areas of the farm bill and keeps $24 billion in savings over the last farm bill. >> thank you rematch. senator hoeven. >> i'd like to speak to some of

senator klobuchar's amendments. this is also very helpful in terms of working with our farmers and rural land owners on water management and water protection watershed issues that really help in terms of flood protection. so much is geared towards urban areas. this will help protect our farmers and ranchers and others in rural areas in terms of some of the flood prevention, flood protection we undertake in our part of the country and throughout the country. >> thank you very much. i would urge a yes vote on this amendment. others in favor say aye ko. the amendment is adopted. thank you very much. went back to the commodity title, title one. senator thune.

>> this is thune number five for those of you who are following. but this does, madam chair is first market payment program does not exist in current law. it's an iteration of the countercyclical program in the current foreign policy. that share include program for all commodity crops, now called reference price is the same for all commodity crops as they were in the 2008 farmville for substantial increases prices from the 2008 farmville levels. under camp, the price is $13.30 per hundred weight in the peanut is $523.77 and. also under the provisions in the chairman's smart come up in a piece of fields are about to be updated and only rice fields are allowed to be updated.

bright spaces are kept at different levels because rice is under planted for the past five years. what the amendment is very straightforward, very simple, ms. rice and tenet for the program of this the other crops. a target price countercyclical program in my view is a setback for some about data policy that we removed it mashers senate passed hornbill. nearly all producers other than race and peanuts have taken a position that they do not support target price countercyclical program and this is simply giving producers the growers what they want in many cases in this by the way saved according to the cbo at $897 million over 10 years at almost a billion dollars in savings but ably backing out for the target price program included in the base bill, crops other than rice and peanuts. so i can come is very straight forward

>> aurther discussion on the thune amendment? >> on a president. >> senator cochran. >> i am constrained. this would be a disruptive influence in the process of commodity programs presented to the committee for consideration. i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> thank you very much. senator rappers. >> thank you, madam chairperson and thanks to senator thune for introducing this amendment. time and again, some of us have expressed interned with target prices and that the pto. everybody knows we are giving up a truck payment, which were considered in a green box, okay?

.. let me remind the committee in the house bill the target price for wheat is $5.50 it used to be $6. we used to have 12 million acres to wheat it's gone down to eight other crops. it's going to be a situation where farmers who farm for the government accommodate price in

peanut. i know, that. we work hard to accommodate price in peanuts. there's a feeling that a price of peanuts want the target price fine. put it in the bill. it's not prudent to take the same risk with other commodity when we know the pitfall. it would save 8 u 97 million that can be youd for whatever the committee would find. >> i would urge a no vote on the amendment. we have already accepted the amendment a change that will create a rolling average for all of the commodities outside of rice and peanuts it saves $9 00 million in the mark. i believe focuses and more market oriented way on this provision. i appreciate the concerns raised. i think we have a balanced are that strikes the right set of

issues and bring it is together. i would urge a no vote from colleagues. >> i would just echo that everybody worked hard to produce a farm bill. the house is not going to accept this. again, thing is a kind of stuff that is going to get us another extension versus is a fife-year farm bill which is important for us. >> thank you very much. >> for the discussion. >> if i can respond to that, i don't think this is any way derails or makes problematic passage of the farm bill. i mean, what what i'm simply saying these are crops -- programs that benefit my state. all i'm saying it's old way of doing business. we need to move to a new way of doing business and this farm bill ought to be about reform and savings. this amendment, which doesn't do anything to affect southern crops, it's not attacking the southern crops.

it's simple saying the crops in our region of the country don't want the program. we want reform and can say a billion dollars by doing this. i agree that the house is going to have target prices probably fixed target prices. i appreciate what the chair has done in trying to create an average. i think that's an improvement. i credit the managers for including that in here. but it's still maintains a system that is something that we ought to be moving away from. and so i had to respond to that particular comment. >> thank you, senator chambliss. >> just quickly. it's a balanced approach we have taken in this bill versus a bill that was up in december, and while i appreciate what they are saying, all the farmers have to do, they don't have to opt in to this. they have the choice. if they want to go on a purely crop insurance as a safety net

so be it. they can do it. they ought to be able to do it. as we discuss last year, the crop insurance provision doesn't work as a safety net for rice and peanuts. and my farmers are likely to accept the program farmers in some other part of the country they don't have to. i think that's a smart choice on the part of the chair and the ranking members on the way to approach this. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. let me speak in favor of the amendment. i had an opportunity as secretary of agriculture to spend many hours with the brazilians. they are the individuals who brought cotton. they made it very, very clear to me that their case was not about cotton. it was about the entireapproach

to farm policy that the united states had. we're exacerbating the situation. with rice and peanut and applying it to other commodities, corn, wheat and soy beans. i can agree more with senator roberts. take soybean and corn and weed out of it. if history is a guide, it almost always is with a wt orb, the challenge will be successful. we're already paying brazil every year tens of millions of dollars of because of the defeat of the cotton lit gas that they have. i think it's begging for additional litigation. i speak in favor of the amendment. i think it's a right approach. >> thank you. we want to make sure this is important discussion.

i want to indicate we're very much within sight of completing the bill. i'm going ask everyone to hang in there with us for another few minutes. we will, i believe, at the point to have a final vote. senator roberts. >> as i understand we want to get a fair and balance bill. as i understand they had a lot of difficulty that passed the senate last year. as i understand the chairwoman and myself worked hard on that. we didn't cross the finish line. if you have now. rice and pee newts they feel that is a responsible way to treat them as long as they are under the budget. that's a philosophy that's been present for some time. you extend that with with regard to target price. let's call it what it is, it's a government subsidize for a certain target price.

you say, wait a minute, we don't want to interfere with the market. we want to make it more market oriented. the thought occurs to me the reason we have a five-year rolling arch it will never take place. why on earth would we be extending a target price program we don't want at the level that will never provide any income protection. why? cover so we can say that everybody is covered with target prices. when in fact we don't want it. it's sort of like a sore thumb amendment. ly do the five-year rolling average so we will be market oriented. i have at love mixed emotions about it. let's not kid ourselves we know with the house is going with the higher price. it gets to down the basic issue when people say here is a $6 target price. what do you think they'll do? out of protection they'll sign up. now i don't blame them for that.

my colleague and friend from georgia strong to sign up. with a $5 or $6 you're going. that's what is going to happen in conference. i can't determine who is on the conference or what the vote will be. that is where we're headed. i think it's a thinly -- israelied disguised amendment to go back. that's why i call it a rear view mirror policy of going back to target price. we might as well back loan rates and same kind of argument we had. i've said too much. i haven't really. i'm going to not say anymore. >> thank you. senator browne. >> thank you. i'm going oppose the amendment. i want a five-year bill. i think some of the concerns have been addressed in management. i want to thank senator and associate myself with many of his comments. ohio producers, as we do say in south dakota want a market oriented safety net. we have worked together on this for some time. i think we are much of the way

there. i hope we can figure out how to move forward. >> thank you very much. any other discuss on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say nay. the nay have it. further amendment? >> i call on jo han amendment number 3. deals with target prices. my hope is, if we continue to work on this we'll get a better farm bill out of our efforts here. basically what the amendment would do is restore target prices for rice and peanut to the level in the 2008 farm bill. this amendment would reduce the refer price for peanuts and rice to the last farm bill price level. it saves $1.5 billion. i spoke in my opening comments about my concern that about half

of the savings were clinged here were an allusion. they are not at savings at all. we need to find some savings. when we should be decreasing the likelihood of payment, this bill actually increases target prices that trigger payment for the two commodity. therefore payments will be more likely not less likely. one of the target prices increases by over 25%. that's remarkable in this day in age. the'res already so high that it's triggered payments from the taxpayer to the producer every year for the past decade. farmers responsibly manage risk every single day. they take in to account the marketplace for each commodity they plant and harvest. agricultural commodity programs should be market-driven. congress should not be in the business of rise raising target

prices. itst a 19 80s form policy. i disagree with it. i offer this amendment. >> further discussion on the amendment? if not, i would ask for a no-vote on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the nay's have it. are there further amendment to the commodity programs tight i? if not -- senator. >> i have an amendment that i would like to offer. it's a study request. it's jo han's amendment number 8. it's a second degree amendment. miami chair. i pull back on the amendment. i want to think about that for a second.

allall right. >> i have an amendment here i want to bring up. i will withdrawal it. i think the floor is probably a better place for this. i want to mention, again, in the way the crops are treated in the farm bill. in the history of farm programs bases and yields have been updated concurrently. and updating rice yields without updating basis would -- that's what we do with regard to rice here. and in doing so, it's almost a billion dollars in additional spending in the bill. as we look for ways to find savings in this bill, it strikes me that i put forward several amendments that have savings associated with them. it's yet another one that will save you almost a billion dollars. all it does is requires the rice base be updated. again, which is something than done all the time as a matter of

precedent with regard to farm program crops. i'm not going require vote here today on it. i want to put on people's radar screen because as we go to the floor looking for additional areas of row form. we are looking for additional ways to save money. this, to me, is another example of something that we shouldn't be allowing to happen based upon the precedent what has been said in the past. >> thank you. if you're not offering -- senator. >> i would say if the senator had offered it, i would like to have had a secondary amendment that would insert wheat, grain, oat, or so soring. we will discuss that more as we go to the floor. and senator roberts?

maybe we would be exempt. i think the real problem with the amendment is the fact i know agriculture committee would allow commodity increase their base yield without requiring an jut date -- update. the senator's would fix that. the fact that the amendment would save $900 demonstrates no longer plant rice. i don't know what that's about. we have require an update for the rice base increase. we are getting a higher target rice for the yield update too. i agree with the senator's amendment. i was going to withdrawal it. i want to speak in favor of it. >> thank you. do you wish to introduce an amendments?

woe had conversation with your staff about this. i think it's something we can work through z this bill moves forward. i'm not going offer the amendment today. i only want to highlight it to indicate i think it's an important study. i think t something we should do and i'll be talking to you more in fact future about it. thank you. are there further amendments on the commodity tight? seeing none. the commodity title is closed. further amendment on the insurance title i i? seeing none, that title is closed. we have come to the conclusion of the farm bill discussion. let me thank you for working hard as usual. in a bipartisan basis. we may have differences but they're around policy. become together all supporting agricultural and the 16 million

people that work in the very, very important industry. and we do have a i believe we have agreed we can do it by -- i spoke to the senator if there's no objection to that. all of those in favor of the -- i think this is a important vote for the committee. i ask for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] that's fifteen aye. five no. >> the majority of the committee having voted in the affirmative. the committee is ordered reported. without objection staff is authorized to make technical conforming changes consistent with the action of the committee today. thanks to everyone for their hard work.

tomorrow the house agricultural committee work on the own version of the farm bill. our live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 and c-span.org. they reflect the philosophical, economic and political situation of that culture at the time. the building does that. it's an eloquent building. it reflects the movement forward a session. it reflects the use of slave labor. it reflects the social fur mile of the post civil war era.

the building was designed to be senator chambliss met call and instead of it doing the set -- rising above the roof line. you remember the construction was stopped during the civil war and the state after the war was not able to afford to build the foundations for that massive stone tower. what we see now on the outside of the building is a pressed metal dome. on the inside of the building from the lobby we look up in to what we think is the dome. we in fact t architecture illusion that two domes inside the ormingal dome because the exterior of the building and the interior floor plan are not the -- look like the uall.

capitol tome. out inside it's smaller and different. on monday the former assistant secretary of state for east asia said relations with north korea might be heading toward a new phase. after weeks of threats from the regime. speaking at the korea economic substitute of america, he said north korean leaders are not likely to use the nuclear weapons. the remarking were u.s., south korea, and north korea. it's an hour and fifteen minutes.

>> let me introduce a great pleasure to introduce one of my good friends who is with the albright group. but actually he's better known as the president of korean society or acting secretary of state for -- pacific . >> they keep promoting me. [laughter] [inaudible] >> i promote you too. >> i know. >> well. did you know him -- [inaudible conversations] >> okay. anyway i'm very glad to have this top expert on korea. and also, let's give him a big hand first. [applause] [applause] and a couple of my colleagues

who are with us -- with me is -- [inaudible] actually the president of the largest newspaper in korea. [inaudible] now publishers publication. >> how can i -- [inaudible] [applause] >> and one of my best friends who used to be the president of the news -- [inaudible] upi or associated press here. he chose associated press. but only a few weeks ago he was a president of -- [inaudible] he sort of resigned. but -- [inaudible] [laughter] [applause] >> i want to a little bit about the comment as to why we have

to, you know, create this kind of -- [inaudible] create american -- [inaudible] as i told you before. we, woo you used to work for the newspapers in washington and washington correspondent, went back and saw a lot of youngsters who -- [inaudible] korean-american alliance who sort of came out on the street to demonstrate and -- [inaudible] we got together and decided to do something. we a nebraska much a press club. and the president of the first presidency right there. he used to be a chief of associate and press in seoul who

was reelected so we sort of journalists got together to organize this kind of [inaudible] so that we would try to be of some help in enhancing the two people's [inaudible] as well as promoting the aid of -- [inaudible] united states and korea. that's why we're here. to talk about the future of great american friendship as well as better unking in -- i have the pleasure of inviting half korea -- [inaudible] present the case on an e irntlez >> wrujth rptz why perspective for korean corporation.

[inaudible conversations] the microphone is yours. >> thank you, david. thank you to you for being here. and a special thanks to the club for your initiative and making this a wonderful event possible. and for all of the great work that you have done over the years on behalf of the u.s.-korea relationship. many of those demonstrators refer to a few moments ago were camped outside the embassy i was a part of a few years ago. i know, what you speak personally. and considerable volume and i also know well the great work you have done to improve the situation between our two countries to the point where we have the incredible relationship we have today. also a word of thanks to ke irk. i'm a fan of what you do, and appreciate the great work you have done in making this event possible today and thanks to both organizations for your

timeliness if you will, in selecting today to do this. needless to say, we are living in fascinating times in new york asia and on the korean peninsula in particular. we have been through a difficult and occasionally frightening few weeks dealing with north korea. but we have also been through a greatly managed visit by the president who is an personal friend of mine. and it was obvious during her visit here that she has lot of friends and sport -- supporters in the united. i'm supposed to talk about the perspective for u.s. korea cooperation and dealing with north korea. i'm nervous because during my day as tip mat i was on the receiving end of the top question. i can show you my scars later on. i think it's a friendlier gathering today. i feel comforted by that.

since i no longer work for the government, i can say what i any. freedom is a wonderful thing. [laughter] it's already been said that the president's i visit tremendously successful. that's not just washington's spin. i manage to talk to a number of friend and current administration, and they were raving about the outcome of that visit. so clearly some very, very good things happened. which was a establishment of the chemistry between the two leader. anyone familiar with it between any two country now how important it is to get the chemistry right between the two leader. there's no question in my mind that the chemistry between president obama and the president is there. it will help the two countries really move forward on a whole range of issues in the coming months and the coming years.

i think there was a significant comfort level, if that's the right word in terms of the president's about to fill the relationship of trust and try to jump start dialogue between south and north. and that's something that i think president obama and his administration feel very comfortable with. and so she had an opportunity to speak with congress. she had an opportunity, obviously, to speak to the president and the entire senior leadership of the new administration about the game plan going forward. i think people are supportive

that. i think there's an understanding why the president desires to try to reingauge the north at the minimum to reduce tension on the peninsula. also to true toy move the relationship with north korea in a different contradiction than moving in the last few years. and as i suggested a moment ago, there was also an unking how committed she was during her campaign to following this course of action and i think washington is willing to see what can be done to help her in this respect. there's also an understanding in washington of a very basic fact that is all too often forgotten when we're talking about korea. the name of the peninsula is the korean peanut anyone will. it makes sense for koreans to take the lead and see what can be done to move the relationship in a better direction. and sin there is a tremendous level of trust and confidence on the part of washington in our south korean allies and

president herself. ting helped solidify, if you will, washington's support for the notion of korea going first to deal with the north. the previous korean president also a good friend, had a good relationship with president obama had also sought to put south korea in the lead. unfortunately korea had a different idea. and rejected his orture strongly. they didn't move in a positive direction during that time. i think the bulk of respondent lies. i think never the less it's important try again for no other reason to keep it -- north korea and remind everybody where the -- lies if any party is going bring the relationship to a halt. it's going to move things in a negative direction.

let's make sure it's north korea and not south korea. the reason to keep the heat on him. we also ought to manage our expectations, i think in dealing with north korea. looking around the room, there are many veteran of the process of dealing with north korea directly or indirectly. we know how often we have been disappointed in the past. it is after all north korea we are dealing with. and destroying our expectations or disappointing us in in profound ways is what they seem to do for a living. we also need to be very frank with you to keep in mind there there are limits to what north and south korea can do together. we saw that during the administration. north korea of not willing to engage the south korea on the terms that south korea had laid out north korea was not willing to engage south korea in dealing with fundamental security issues such as nuclear weapons and missiles.

the north korean z has a rule prefer to talk to the united about the issues believing as they do, that if they can make progress with the united states whether it's on nuclear weapons on missile issues that somehow the united states will drag south korea and along at the end of the day. so talks are possible between south and north. we'll see how north korea reacts. north tends to look at south as provider of assistance. a provider agricultural support, fertilizer, food, and occasionally over the years even cash. as we have seen from the suspension of work at the case descrail complex inside north korea inside the border across from south korea, that project is on ice. and the fact the north koreans have withdrawn their workers

from it raises some interesting questions about whether north korea is any longer interested in the income stream roughly about 90 million u.s. dollars a year that that project used to generate for them. the north, as a result of removing their workers is now not going to get that 90s plus million a year. which mean that some 53,000 north creern workers working there plus the two or 300,000 family members of theirs were dependent on the income they were getting and the other benefits. such as food and electricity and clothing and heat et. cetera. and -- [inaudible] those benefits will not be accruing to the north korea anymore. that raises another very interesting question. the north creerns as a result of the project probably have 53,000 north creern citizens who are not very happy they are no

longer employed and and all the family members raises an interesting question about whether north korea is going to be able to keep those people happy. not that north korea worries too much about keeping the people happy. there are interesting indicators if we're asking about why the project no longer moving forward. there are some interesting indicators that suggest the north korean were concerned about the potential pollution, if you will, spiritual and political pollution that the project of producing inside north korea. and that was one of the reasons that some element in north korea were prepared to forgo the income because they saw that the downside of allowing that project to go forward was to allow this political and spiritual and intellectual pollution to spread to other

parts. i mentioned in the opening few moment. we have been through a difficult patch in dealing with north korea. i don't have to remind you of some outrageous rhetoric and threat we have heard in the recent months. there are interesting signs we have moved to a new stage of the crisis. the rhetoric, the threat of imminent nuclear hole cast throughout the pacific. we are not hearing it right now. suggesting we're moving to new phase. i would only remind if you look back over the history over the effort to deal with north korea we have seen an interesting path develop over the years going back to the '80s and '90s actually. a path involving opening phase of provocation and tension. followed by a period of negotiation. followed by an agreement in which north koreas directly or indirectly receive some rewards or benefits. followed by quite.

folded by a break down in the agreement. so when could ask at the point are we moving in to the next phase of the cycle again or something else going on? there may be some other reasons they have decided to turn down the rhetoric. anybody who knows and has been to north korea. i have been there a number of times knows there's an annual rachel that takes place in april and may every year. north korea soldiers leave the barracks and go to the fields to engage in weeding and planting and agricultural work. and without that labor out in the field, the north koreas would not be able to eat at all later on this year. so it's a critical component with the north korean economy getting the soldiers back to the

field. if they reason out front line and north korea ratcheting up tensions. those soldiers are not doing that duty but they're doing military duty. another reason for the toning down of the rhetoric and the ramping down of the temperature might be that it's difficult for north korea with the limited resources to continue the operational tempo of the military. to continue those exercises. to continue flying those airplanes. to respond to what we're doing for a less than think period of time. it's possible that the north koreas were compelled to calm things down. it was getting difficult keep the planes moving in the air and keep tanks and other things running around. to show us they were ready to take us on in a military confrontation. nevertheless, despite the fact that the temperature seems to be a bit lower on the peninsula right now.

we cannot rule out the possibility of another north korea provocation. to be frank. i hope when i speak about provocation the north koreas suns that south korea steady a very different place from south korea a few years ago. there is no doubt in my mind, and probably no doubt in the mind of south korea citizen that the next conventional military provocation that north korea engages in will be met with a military response by south korea. i hope north korea understands that. i also hope that north korea appreciates the importance of the recent agreement concluded between washington and seoul. in which the two governments have agreed on how to respond together to the next military provocation by north korea. very important agreement that was achieved, and the implications of that are profound in terms of there being a joint effort to respond whatever the north koreas do

next. my own guest, this is just my own guses. if north korea doesn't engage in the future provocative paver we are more likely to see it in a missile test. they have made it clear they intend to move forward very quickly in missile and nuclear weapons development. i think it's more a matter of when not if in terms of a nuclear and missile test. if a test occurs of a nuclear weapon or a missile, i think we will find, as we have in recent weeks with we will find washington and seoul on the same page together with soak owe -- tokyo, i suspect. it raises an important question of the role of china in this. it's something it didn't come up earlier. i want to make up can l of points along the lines. that is that china's role going forward i think it's still open to some question. there's no doubt that there have been some critical things set of

north korea by chinese officials indirect. it was clear the chinese officials were talking about. we have seen a number of chinese academic including some who are well connected and chinese communist party circle say some things that are critical of north korea. a have candidating for a major shift. a policy of almost open-ended support and tolerance for north korea's outrageous behavior. but i would are caution you, this is one take away, i hope you will leave the room with. please feel free -- i hope you would not overinterpret the changes we're seeing in china's posture on north korea. it's not clear that china's core leadership is prepared to fundamentally change the relationship with the dprk of north korea. it's far from clear that the

long standing pillars of china's north korea policy. i think many of you are familiar with these. china's desire to maintain north korea as a buffer keeping south korea and the u.s. troops far away. there are long standing party and back to the past id logical ties between knot korea and china. china has long felt a lot more comfortable with the notion of a divided korean peninsula. and frankly, there are some in beijing. i met with some that they like the idea as north korea existing as a burr under the saddle. any how many are tied down because it exists. it's probably good news to some people. so is china about to go 180

degree on the north korea policy? i suspect not. is china probably going to be somewhat more helpful in including on the implement takes of sanction? i expect so. i'm not expecting a fundamental turn about. the key element in the coordination going forward since the fanal here is how to understand china's position on north korea. and how to influence it in ways that are more conducive to the direction we would like to see china move in. and how to convince china's leadership as system chinese dismook and experts have been convinced that north korea is no longer a net strategic asset of china. it's a net strategic liability. they are increasing number of chinese who agree with the statement. i'm not sure that the large number of the chinese policy

standing committee agree with that. another central task is how to deal with the disturbing emerging new reality that we face in terms of north korea's growing nuclear and missile capability. i think a lot of you are familiar with the detail here. just in a word, north cairo made it clear it's not going give up the nuclear weapons. they knead clear that it is determined to expand those capabilities. and the not too distant future. most american experts who study the subject agree that north korea will have the ability to deliver nuclear warheads on virtually every major population center in east asia. including every u.s. military base in the western and central pacific. and ultimately will be able to strike the western united states with those capabilityies and the

view of some experts in four, five, or six years time. i don't need to remind you that north korea in the recent statements threatened to do exactly that. north korea has said it will use nuke rare we'lls in japan, the united states. some experts believe that north korea may already be able to deliver nuclear warheads on areas of just east of north korea. japan, u.s.-base in japan. south korea. it will may already be able to deliver them to target in the area. using some of the medium range ballistic missile. there are some disagreement within the american intelligence community on this. i side with those who believe that north korea may have already developed a true capability to do that. as allies, age key question that rides for the united states how are we going deal with this

emerging threat? the threat that we will face not only in the next few month but next several years. a threat of a larger and more dangerous nuclear and korean missile program as well as the proliferation threat that north korea has posed and will continue to pose. let me wrap up by saying that the u.s. current u.s. policy toward north korea has been carefully coordinated with our south korean and japanese allies is based on a number of elements including strength. greatly economic sanction on north korea. increasing the pressure on north korea not only through sanctions but increased military exercise and increase the scope of our military exercise. airnt missile deployment in the region. we talk about that already a little bit. measures being taken against north korea banking system.

all of those taken together may cause north korea to return to negotiation and may convince north korea that the best option is beginning one again to implement the commitment to rid itself of nuclear weapons. but maybe again maybe those things will not be effective in doing so. if that's the case they don't agree to give up the nuclear weapon program. it's serious in the rhetoric we are have been hearing for the last three or four years. it's dpermed to become a de facto nuclear weapon state. what is to be done?

it's a question than will be with us. it's a question we better begin answering in the immediate future. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible] and i do really appreciate what you have presented to us. [inaudible] it's a great honor, and to be here with you. [inaudible] [inaudible]

we met in seoul. he was an ambassador. [inaudible] and we got together on the island and we -- [inaudible] [laughter] i do not remember the score. [laughter] yeah. and he told me just before that he was -- very, very -- [inaudible] [laughter] i prepared some short comment for your e convene. okay. i won't -- [inaudible]

as you -- [inaudible] the south korea and north korea policy over -- [inaudible] south cairo and united states have a followup of -- [inaudible] putting to work -- [inaudible] pointed out. there was a cycle of north korea provocation. negotiations, and -- [inaudible] for south korea and the united states it was very -- [inaudible] to which they used the dialogue and the pressure selectively in the approach. [inaudible] all the nuclear weapons and

capability of north korea of a new korea -- [inaudible] new negotiation. the -- [inaudible] administration maintained. and on the policy on north korea is effectively but the -- [inaudible] knot korea has -- [inaudible] [inaudible] for four years the north --

[inaudible] a more -- u.s. currency was a big tsh [inaudible] defense secretary came to seoul in order to see and -- [inaudible] hosted a joint symposium on north korea and northeast asia. and a mark in the -- [inaudible] a process -- [inaudible] [inaudible] one of the biggest in the -- [inaudible] history. [inaudible] i think it's -- [inaudible]

we could recruit but the -- [inaudible] make north korea to -- [inaudible] we cannot give up. it's really time for creative and more effective north korea policy. first of all, i think south cairo and the u.s. should conduct a -- [inaudible] and of a north korea policy. [inaudible] nuclear -- but south korea and the united -- [inaudible] north korea policy has continuity and the consistency. we have to amend them -- [inaudible]

we cannot keep -- the war of the -- [inaudible] nuclear wop. it's not the answer. [inaudible] come up with a few suggestions. but i think it's paving the way for the new. -- [inaudible] negotiations of -- [inaudible] sanction and the press on north korea should not be continued. it is important to seek -- [inaudible] to put pressure on if to feel the pinch.

[inaudible] it's important. they are not considered -- [inaudible] china's condition during the first nuclear crisis on the peninsula in 1990s. now we cannot get any -- [inaudible] to get all of china's -- [inaudible] we must create a condition on the -- [inaudible] north korea cannot keep changing their course of their will. -- [inaudible] rather waiting on the north korea changes. -- [inaudible] >> thank you. [applause]

the panel to -- [inaudible] now it goes to the president and -- [inaudible] weekly and publications. >> thank you. before beginning my presentation. let me just clarify one thing about myself. i'm not the publisher of the -- [inaudible] i'm merely in charge of a small company. [laughter] which publishers, as he said, weekly . [inaudible] >> okay. ged. whatever. a promotion? >> i seem to be promoting everybody here. >> go ahead. >> i'm not a policy expert, but

as a journalist i want to share some of my thoughts on dealing with north korea. and especially on our north korea policy over south korea and the united, of course. i want to discuss about -- [inaudible] we had dealing with north korea. the first confusion i want to point out is the wrong expectations. the problem of north korea could be solved through dialogue and agreements. it was not the case as we know. north korea has repealed or

nullified has allowed to nullified several key agreement with south korea and the united. including in the list are the tourism business tsh [inaudible] grant? 1991 and the joint -- [inaudible] decoration of the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. in 1992. and the basic agreement in 1992. even the treaty that was signed and in 1953. these agreements were part of it and really [inaudible] now should we reopen dialogue with north korea with a new hope

of sorting the nuclear problem. can you suppose any new agreements this time will really be kept on what -- [inaudible] believe the new agreement will not be nullified again by north korea. now north korea asserts to draw a peace treaty with the united. it's north korea i.t. that undermines the intimate sei of such an assertion. because of the record of breaking agreements. my saying that dialogue is usually -- [inaudible] i'm not saying that. we should be aware that dialogue serves only for limited objective for a limited time such objective as just engaging north korea through a dialogue.

while continuing dial and sustaining a -- [inaudible] situation for awhile. now the second confusion i want to point is about the regime and the people. the real case of north korea regime is merely an autocratic -- [inaudible] standing on people's sacrifice. so north korea regime and the people have fundamental conflict of interest. they are -- [inaudible] with each other. let me skip comparing north korea with china and vietnam. the extension of freedom and the improvement of -- [inaudible] north korea people are hardly expectable. at least under the current regime of the kim family. we have to think deeply whether helping north korea actually means assisting the row sheem

that is 0 prezzing the people -- or pressing the people. or how can the people 0 press the regime? good times with north korea. in other words actually prolongs the miss renner and hardship of north korean people. in the past -- some thought south korea governments and politicians were confused about this, i think. even now in south korea, there are many leftish intellectual and liberal politicians who almost never mention about and pay attention to the misery of north korean people while keeping asserting the necessity of assistance to and reconciliation with north korea regime.

.. >> with peaceful coexistence

in other words, it shall not divide between the south and the north. and in another respect it is also bad because it is the miserable hardship of the people. regarding peace as the first priority in reality does regarding the importance and urgency of reunification. assistance to north korea may be needed with certain objectives but maintaining the regime should not be the objective. in my view, the objectives have policy of some previous

south korea administration or sustaining the north with a peaceful coexistence. now i am wrapping up my presentation. our final goal should be reunification with the system of free democracy and market economy. the government of the unified nation should be chosen by the people. we should achieve reunification peacefully through talks and three in a fight elections. but to accomplish the final goal, we should try north korea as normalization with reforms and democratization

that allows the elections. the means can be precision and pressure. of course, the pursuit should be rational consistent, and very importantly acceptable to china. we should persuade north korea and china realize the insecurities comes not from the military forces of south dray and united states but from the political and economic misery of the people within north korea.

so how to put pressure on north korea? i think virtually almost all of the aid to north korea should be stopped unless they choose a similar course as china and vietnam did. especially when it can be used for military purposes should be strictly an accord. jain that is the most available resources for precision and pressure. then how to get china's cooperation for this? that is another question of international cooperation as it pertains to the united states and korea. thank you. [applause] >> any additional comments

before getting questions from the floor? >> i would like to hear about the relations. and the development of the south korea relations they think they're could take into account with japan but speeto and china's growing influence in the region but the development have been effective. hardy thinks south korea should handle the japan issue and the threat? >> delicately. [laughter] seriously.

i don't want to spend too much time but it is an important question and addressed to the earlier panel and i did not have an opportunity to commend gordon flight for the excellent job he he did to answer the question very similar to yours or dealing with the concern very similar. i have worked on u.s.-japan relations longer than i have worked with u.s. korea relations if that is possible and i just finished writing an article which courted flaking his earlier presentation wonderfully summarized although he has not read it as among the points that i make in the article that if you're looking at overall stability of the korean peninsula and our responsibility to the republic of korea to prevent north korea from taking a vantage of the situation to engage in provocation, it is

physically impossible to defend the republic of korea without japan and a practical and fundamental sense. the bases may have, the assets, then need me for ports and other facilities you could not prosecute effectively of war on the korean peninsula without the use of those facilities many are dedicated specifically for the defense of korea. if you look at it the other way as a threat that north korea proposes to japan it is hard to imagine to do a effective job to defend our allies so for that reason that will come out and a few weeks and i will be happy to distribute i argue that now more than ever both sides of tokyo and japan need to step

back and take a rest to realize the implications of the downturn of relations and also ask themselves the fundamental question who benefits from a downturn in relations between seoul and tokyo? p'yongyang benefits and to some extent, beijing and to say this is interesting the two major allies cannot seem to get along and beijing a drop of wrong conclusion. i go into other issues but fundamentally the arguments are the ones i have made the also the ones that gordon flake made earlier. there is a logical and important connection between south korea's interest in japan's interest in terms to maintain peace and stability was two major trading countries and two major allies and market economies, democracy i.

the things in this similarity column outnumber the other column quite frankly. there is a powerful logic to try to move beyond these issues. one cannot forget it history but one can try to manage the legacy that history has left us with and no more than ever is the time to do that. >> i would like to pick the questions from lower? >> mr. revere made an excellent point* with the emergence and rise of the

elements but i do agree with his passion for the chinese policy of north korea. the emergence of these groups that seems to me is the long term work in progress because what jimmy do about this with self carry it and the united states, so my question is are there any things that you could think of that would serve us in terms of traffic the hour diplomacy

would strengthen its giant -- china should change its approach. said even some more adherents but perhaps we're currently not giving enough evidence. but my piece developed more fully but the question is for mr. kim, you offered a strikingly fresh and

different but how widespread is that so is viewed that you laid down in the curia and is said to be used? increasingly being held by opinion leaders? and my other question is given that you set our experience to negotiate with north korea has been frustrating why we do expect in this context the pressure and persuasion would be any more successful? >>. >> it seems the utilization from anywhere in the world would result in the instant dismemberment of the kim

regime. but these weapons are special usage why doesn't u.s. arm those to stand up and announce the utilization of these weapons makes them an end to present certain to castrate what -- weapons. my daughter. >> yap. bad as you know, going into the background a few years ago intervened quite forcibly with the author and perhaps does the railroad by closing to the elements to create the environment of which this would be possible

but to talk about why that has fallen apart when in their strongly moving forward on the question of joint development of the russian party this is something they want from korea as well with north korea and labor this is a framework is from all sides that is why it is the political situation. >> good question. i have a question and it seems interesting from two different perspectives

commentators say we have to return to china but there is a no response in terms of what is china trying to do? i was struck how little is written about this chinese dispute or effort to deal with snort scoria to the point* that you as americans , even a few chinese who has written critically about north korea is not accurate because most of these people we know we talked to them and they say we don't have any impact. we just take advantage of an opportunity to right to but they don't speak for anything that we can specifically designate.

>> i want to know and korea who is analyzing and to make recommendations based on reality and any other questions from the feather -- any questions? >> great questions. larry, your point* about china is well taken. as background i have then talking to the chinese on and off about the korean peninsula since the late '70s and early '80s quite frankly. when i was stationed there and since many intense conversations with the chinese fed is arguing for

the use of nuclear weapons and never on the planet and probably reduce them under certain sectors stances as make china a nervous for recent north korean nuclear attacks took place within easy striking distance of the border that is something that did the sit well with beijing and the chinese people. they were very but the attacked on it may have

shaken up the leadership because they saw a real prospect that we might be moving toward another pence a love for a and there has been no consultation fryer chew or during to on nerve to many chinese. your specific question about how to move the chinese in a better direction is important. some things that we're doing are already moving them and in perhaps a more hopeful direction but keep in mind every new military deployments that we make, anti-ballistic missile systems and technology intended to do with the north korean threat, every major new movement by u.s. aircraft carrier battle group whether on the east side or the west side of the peninsula has implications for china's own security.

of these weapons systems and exercises and deployments may be intensive but if you sit in beijing and your pla planner you have to regard all movements and systems as potentially available for use against yourself. and my attorneys friends complain about what we're doing anza but that has gotten attention. there of things we can do a and that is the unofficial and some i but until the future it is discussed what did -- does a reunified peninsula look like does it pose a threat to china? what sort of relationship doesn't have to the united states with the role of u.s.

forces on every unified korean peninsula is there reason to have a significant military presence in the future if north korea goes away these are subjects that the discussion of which could increase china's comfort level with the notion of a reunified korean peninsula. i will stop there. the number three is use of nuclear weapons, they used by north korea would result in there being known north korea. we have said this in various forums. when i was in government i was in meetings this has been communicated very clearly including by implication when i accompanied him it was very common what the positive

scenario for the dialogue but also the negative but the north koreans in my view do not intend to use those weapons. for offensive purposes. these weapons are useful to get our attention and bring as to the table and perhaps others in meant to intimidate with the asymmetric tool for somebody who could use only the weapons and the quiver and the question that i have is the miscalculation factor. during the recent ramping up you have the north koreans move to do their new intermediate range ballistic missiles that may have the

ability to strike as far as glom and could be nuclear capable to launching positions on the east coast of the korean peninsula. if things had continued to heat up in this moment of tension and the north koreans had some house signaled they were not capable and launch preparations but would be have done? there is the possibility of miscalculation and i also mentioned concerned about proliferation. number three is not the potential proliferators it has the track record by its own admission to proliferate technologies that is another concern. too quick words on russia, the russian oil pipeline idea cass' pipeline idea is a great concept. the concept of north korea adopting chinese reforms is

a great concept but neither has gone anywhere. you have to ask yourself why not? the chinese have been talking to the north koreans about implementing chinese style economic reforms and subleased 1982m stationed in beijing in my chinese colleagues speak to me about these things. but they would spell the death of the regime? that is why nobody move forward because they had no confidence but the throat -- the flow of operation and the security resulting to implement these reforms. i will stop here. >> mr. kim and mr. park?

who is handling the affairs and issues? >> is big. >> but this is the of the question but i am not quite prepared to answer because basically i think the analysis would be done by south korean tournaments i think but it was such am not

sure how it is done properly but it should be done by government officials and policy experts of south korea when. >> can i mention a couple of things keep in mind one of the first telephone calls when she became president is where they spoke in colloquial chinese to each other and i have dealt with many korean diplomats who i think have a good sense of what is going on. >> is a true? >> i think so. her next trip will be china. [laughter] i cannot answer that question. >> let me respond to the

second question first. the main issues china not south korea or the united states in gauging directly with north korea. but when i suggested but to a desert pressure to move ahead to become a normal country. this is not just directly engaging dialogue, this is not a repetition of that. the reason why a turning it is useful is as i said, it is the country that has the

most resources that can move north korea. that is why but but they would think that such a view >> regarding the

international corporation, i believe i will have to enjoy the international cooperation and i think rory van thanh teeeight says the goal and add this senator hearing, i am rasher he did. >> but to a soras a and it is very important but why he focuses but at that time

airforce was focused on the outside. but the effort comes out which is held outside the mother also strikes. volume not sure if this is the proper competitive but anyway what i think is there should be a joint effort