portion size, nutritional content, and last year because of the special interest in the potato lobby worked out language between the senate and the house to make white potatoes a nutritional item. and we asked you in our legislation the language saying we expected you to amend the rules to include white potatoes. we asked for a report from you if you chose not to amend the rules. i think the secretary read the report and we never got a chance to hear your view point after

the committee did their work. it was in the full committee. what are your views on this issue? >> well, congressman, i think it is important to point out that we approach the institute of medicine to ask for advice on how to structure a system that will provide assistance at a women, infant and children. they took the job seriously and said we should focus on food were products that would that were healthy and not normally used by women, infant and children. the issue with potatoes and the average american consumes 90 pounds of potatoes a year, it is like 88.7 pounds of potatoes. so the institute believed it

would be appropriate to focus on vegetables that were not consumed at the same level of quantity and wanted us to focus on green, orange and red vegetables which we have done in the wic program. the report says we have nothing against potatoes but this is a supplemental program and that is why they are not included and we focus on more alternatives that are not purchased by women for their children. it is based on institute of medicine. we asked them, however, to accelerate their review and if there is additional information or new information that is coming to light, we will take

that into the consideration, but this is a focus on what is going to supplement what people are purchasing. >> and back to the lunch program and feeding programs, could we use the appropriate technology you talked about, streamlining the management of the rural efforts office and combining them through electronics? is there a way, if we will not change the micro-requirements can we begin a bar code system so things that the chairman are talking about with the severs -- they are overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to do and the limited amount of money. can't we use smart technology to

make sure all the records are electronically? >> we are very happy to work with technology advances to modernize the programs. it is an issue of resources. we think we should help schools produce themselves to produce schools onsight which is why we have the school equipment grant program and nearly $2 million has been given to the schools. we launched the community eligibility program and 33 school districts, 22, 000 schools and many school children because of the high level of poverty rather than forcing them to go through the process of who is free, everyone is considered and deemed to be part of the

free and reduced lunch population so it saves the school district the administrative cost and ensures everyone who should be participating in the program does. that maybe an opportunity to look at that process and determine whether or not that would be an easy way to ways to administer. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, let me ask you about the snap program. in your budget request, you propose $147 billion in food champions. i am told there is 47 million

p p p p participants per month. whether you call it recruitment or not, there are people out there in the government aggressively getting people to sign up. and where in your budget request do you have money for quote educate on the program. >> mr. chairman, we provide several hundred millions of dollars to states through the education and training part of the budget that provides them resources to do several things. one is to make sure those who are eligible are aware of the existence and work with us to create the 8% of people without

dependents to access work opportunities if they are available of jobs. one of the great opportunities the farm bill presents for states and us to connect that abled-body people able to work. i think it will result in a decline in the number of people participating right now and we anticipate decline because of the improving economy. >> the farm bill is plain that no money shall be used for the purpose of soliciting, advertising and recruiting for supplemental nutrition assistance program. and you call it education. but i think the intend of the bill, for all practical purposes, is prohibition. >> i think you are correct. there is a prohibition toward

using resources to hire people who would go out out and be paid based on the number of people who signed up for the program. i think it is important to point out states administer this program. and decisions being made in terms of how to recruit are being made at the state level >> the united states department of agriculture has the capability to tell the states what they can and can't do. >> we do. but part of the problem is there are some folks when they get into a position in state government where nay are happy to have a program but don't want to use it. so we found a number of states where the participation in snap

was inadequate. i think the key here is as long as the qualifications are what they are i would hope in a perfect world everyone who is qualified for the program using and participating in it. no one wants people that are not qualified to participate in the program. that should not happen to the point about integrity and mistakes. >> and for good real, this item in the budget, $104.7 billion out of $144. 80% of your budget is going roughly for the food stamp program. >> let me put this in a slightly different light. i think it is important to understand, first of all, 92% of the people receiving these program are senior citizens,

people with disabilities, children or those in the workforce who are struggling. so it is helping a substantiate number of people playing by the rules. this is part of the effort to stabilize agriculture economy because if people buy more in the grocery store they do indeed buy more. records show this snap program helps reduce the poverty rate and the severity of poverty folks face. i think it is successful. the best way to reduce the number is doing a better job of linking people who are able b bodied who can and should work and we will do a better job >> the vote has been called but

we have minutes before we have to go. >> quick question, really following up on your comments. the budget request includes $30 million to provide a demonstration to provide food to poor children during the summer months when they are not benefiting from school programs and there were encouraging results from a current pilot at a cost of $60 per child per month using existing wic or snap ebt programs. the budget proposes to continue the demonstrations or go state-wide in smaller states. i know it would be very helpful in new york. can you tell me what you learn from the existing program and what you hope to achieve in the 2015 budget proposal. >> 20 million young ones on free and reduced lunches and during

the summer month the feeding program reaches 3 million. there is a significant delta. we want to figure out ways to improve the nutritional options for them. this program focused on a hundred thousand young ones and provides $60 a month to buy additional food. it helps reduce food insecurity by 33% which is fairly significant. we would like to be able to ramp this up. we think we can get the same benefits even if the overall amount of the benefit on the month is slightly less than $60. but we would like to expand it and see what it would look like on a state-wide. >> i totally supportive of this

program. hard to believe 20 million receiving free lunch to 3 million. the first program i ran working for the state was hiring the unemployed to use government subsidies to cook using the government subsidies and we had wonderful services in the winter and summer food program. >> again, we appaologize for th vote but it is out of our control. we will take a recess for 20 minutes.

>> this is my last time to be here with you. i guess i want to make a couple observations. going back to the clinton and

bush administration i heard from farmers they felt the department was supporting them. that that was there advocatiadvn wash for the farmers. i will have to say i hear every time i meet with farmers and talk to them one-on-one is that there is a huge change. they don't think the department is on their side. when you look at the department of labor coming out with a rule so that farm kids can't help their parents on the farm the first response is in support of the department of labor rather than the farm and farm families. the department, you have a lot of livestock producers out there, the department talks

about meatless monday and the message that sends that you are against them and thought with them. and when they inidated with regulations from epa whether it be under the clean water act, particularly with the clean air act and dust, we don't hear anything in opposition from the department to support the farmers themselves and their positions. renewable fuel standards coming out and i would like to know what advise -- advice -- the department has because it is going to be devastating to people in rural iowa and

throughout the midwest as far as agriculture. leaving here it is very disappointing to see the change and attitude at the department toward the farmers themselves. this is something near and dear to my heart coming from the big town of alexander with 165 people living in the suburbs on the farm outside of town. but there is a huge change. i hear it every day. and i don't know if you want to respond. we have a lunch that is i have the green tie on, but i don't know, if you have response, but it is very discouraging to me. >> well, congressman, i am

surprised by your comments. i think they merit a response. with the department of labor reference, this department suggested it wasn't the appropriate approach and an opportunity to better educate people about public and farm safety and we work with the labor department to get that rule pulled and create an alternative approach. >> wasn't your first response support? >> no, we said there was a better way to do that and we are working with penn state to develop a curriculum that will make it easier, and you can talk to robert johnson and others in

the room when that was proposed. i was critical of meatless monday and immediately so. it was pulled immediately. wasn't something i sanctioned. and livestock is at record-levels in this. we are at record levels of trade and farm income. in terms of the epa, we are working with the waters of the united states to make sure they fullly understand and appreciate exactly what will and will not happen based on what they are looking at. we encouraged the epa to talk with farmers and planned meeting between the two. the dust rule doesn't exist and you know it. as far as the rfs is concerned, we are working with the epa so

they understand the current situation relative to gas. when the rfs was established, it was based on the assumption there would be increased gas use by americans but that hasn't been the case. we are focused on making sure there are continued operations to expand ethanol exports and continued capacity to have higher blends. i have talked to the governor in my home state about encourage more e-85 tanks. i found it interesting congress restricted that but we'll figure out a way to continue to help opportunities for higher blends.

>> i know what i know and it is disheartening to see the change in relationship. there is a feeling absolutely out in the in the country in the department sides more with the epa and takes orders from above and isn't advocating for farmers >> that is just not true. >> perception can be reality, but that is the reality of the situation. thank you very much. i will have to excuse myself. >> thank you very much and welcome mr. secretary. let me thank you, first, for your work to preserve the integrity of the wic program. i would like to applaud the

government in connecticut, new york, road island, montana, oregon and pennsylvania for making up the difference and understanding how important it is. on this issue, and i want to move to another one, in light of the education comments, it is interesting to note that fsa, these are new releases from them, usda reminds producer of approaching deadline as the disaster deadline approaches. farmers are remined that enrollment reminder for payment and other fsa programs. if we can be getting notices out for all of these efforts we sure

ought to get notice out to the farmers about dealing with their participating in the food stamp program. let me move to another area, mr. secretary, and that is gofer e are -- again, thank you for coming by and talking about all of this, but why is the department so intent on moving forward with the poultry modernization rule and given the reality associated with this? the house of based inspection model projects twice found to have no food safety benefits. i will just -- this is over 15

years usda's pilot programs in chicken and turkey processing plants and the project has been assessed twices and both times they failed to convince any investigator of any food safety benefits. and they commented no data collected over the 15 year run that demonstrates any reduction in food born pathogens. studies suggest a reduction when more offline testing is done. no provision in the plant from m mandating the test two pathogens most commonly associated with raw poultry. there were limitations in the

data found on the report on chicken plants, and no report on the pilot program at turkey plants. fsis said they plan to address some of the limitations as they work to complete there final rule. the question is shouldn't the usda be addressing the limitations so we understand the implications better on food safety and such before we move forward with the rule? and i said nothing about worker safety or other areas that come into play. that is a first question on this effort. the gao states that without complete disclosure, the public, including stakeholders don't have accurate information to provide comment or provide them with a clearer understanding of the impacts of the rule.

shouldn't we be more transparent before we work on the rule. >> thank you for the question. i guess i have a different view on the rule you outlined. i read it yesterday and i know we had a 13 year history with the 25 plants you mentioned. there has been a review of data concerning the 25 plants and i believe the professionals are c confidant in saying there has been an increase in compliance with safety standards and equal to or less than the general standardss and equal to or fewer worker safety issues in those

plants based on the data. this is a program that is voluntary and would have requirements. line speeds would averaged 131 birds per minute. there is a different between line speed and inspection and processing as it related to worker safety. the process of worker safety is a function of equipment, facility layout, the number of lines, the flock conditions, the number of employees involved, and the rule would provide that if there are compliance problems and process problems that we would be a able to shutdown the process down. it would require new microbio logical testing and record keeping that doesn't exist now. it would make prompt reporting of injuries, training, early

detection, routine surveillancs, a complaint procedure would be setup, they would have opportunities to report unsafe conditions. i think on balance we believe this will save and prevent 5200 illnesss and here. we think the poultry system hasn't been modernized in 50 years. it was established in 1950 and said it like 1950 was so long ago. that was the year i was born. it was a while ago. -- 63 years -- and we have made an effort to listen and i think when the final rule is proposed that would reflect in proposes.

>> isn't it true the poultry companies will decide their own performance standards and we are providing guidance? and the interesting piece is if we find fecal material and all of other unbelievable c contaminents that is it dipped in chemicals and then we deal with those chemicals. there is no training program for inspectors. we will have more time to talk about this because i am running

out of time. the reports are clear of seeing no health benefits from this and the further understanding we are putting p putting ourselves in danger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary, for being here. you talked about the discreationary spending has been cut half a billion and i want to commend through for that. i think working with chairman rogers and leadership here we have been successful. but do you have numbers on what the mandatory spending has done in that same period? >> we can get you those numbers, congressman. on what mandatory spending has i am sure that it likely has increased, although, with the

recent changes in the farm bill we are expecting mandatory funding to go down. >> my figures tell me the mandatory spending has done up about the same rate as the discreationary figures have gone down so the net cost is about the same. is that consistent to the information you have? >> give me a second so i can answer the question accurately. you might have? >> can you give me just a second? i want to make sure i answer your question accurately. >> well, what i -- actually, there has been an increase in mandatories of about $31 billion. >> so we are cutting on the

discretionary side, but the mandatory is going up. >> well, i have some control on the discreationary, but the mandatory is mandatory. >> and i don't think anything better highlights that we need to work together to reduce the mandatory spending because that is what is going to break the country. i have been reading dietary guidelines that have been published, and they say that they want us to focus on an ecologically responsible diet. what is is an ecologically

responsible diet? >> i think it is important to put this in the proper context. we take a look at dietary guidelines and we have a series of experts who come in and make a set of recommendations to hhs and the usda. and historically dating back to the bush administration, a series of factors were looked at in terms of individual decision making relative to diet and food system issues that impacted and effected the availability of food. so it is, i think, appropriate to take a look in an overview and context area a variety ofthi things that could impact the availability of food. if you say it is helpful to assume fruits and vegetables, that assumes they will be able. but the question is are we going

to have as many fruits and vegetables to us when a state like california that produces 50% of those items is impacted by a drought they have seen worst than a hundred years. so there is a contact in terms of what can we recommend and what impacts are based on what we recommend. >> i don't know if that answered by question. would you submit that question as to what the definition of an ecological responsible diet? >> i am not sure that is what they will ultimately decide. i don't think that is the question the dietary guidelines will decide. they will make set about what a diet should look like in order for people to be healthy and as they develop those recommendations they are going to take a look at a broad array

of things in terms of what the context of those dietary guidelines are. i don't know if they will tell us or if we have to decide but they will tell us what a balanced diet should look like. >> the former farm bill was explicit. is 11016 said you would issue guidelines on cat fishing within eight months and we don't have the guidelines. when can we expect them? >> we will have them in 2014. >> march of 2014 or december of 2014. >> well, sometime between march and december because it has to go through a process. we are in the process of finalizing these rules. we have gotten and received them from congress, and we requested

a more definitive definition of what cat fish constitutes and i thought that was simple i didn't know there were 39 different kinds. it wasn't clear what congress intended in terms of whether the inspection should be narrow or broad. now you give us specific instructions and that is helpful. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. recommendations that you want. that is very helpful to us in >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and secretary. i think many of us in congress are interested in the department's developments in the new regulation with the farm bill defining the term active personal management as used in the active engagement of farming

determinations in 2015 under the farm bill. and many of the farmers in my district believe there is a misconception of what a farmer is and does on a day to day bases. one of my farmers actually said and i will quote most farmers would prefer driving a tractor than doing all of the tasks they face. unfortunately most farmers spend time working with the fertili fertilizeer guy, meeting with the banker, working on leases, finding the labor or doing the paperwork. and most of us wish we could get back on the tractor. clearly farming isn't just driving a tractor. but as the department moves forward it is important to carefully consider the size,

cropping mix of the regional locations of the farm in developing this new definition. i believe that the conference report provides great guidelines for your consideration and i hope every effort is made to make certain throughout the process there is no disruption to families. i would like to get your thoughts on that because the southeastern agriculture has a broad portfolio and many farms have multiple crops and farming throughout the country most farm families have a lot of off farm income. the second part of my question is when do you expect to issue proposed regulations on the

active engaged interpretation on the equally important issues you will have to tackle including the implementing of the disaster programs and when will we have a sense of what that is and how much input will the department allow for for deuces to talk about how they feel about the active engaged definition. >> congressman, we expect and anticipate to have a proposed rule by the end of this year, 2014 on the issue of actively engaged. and i say proposed to talk about

the part of your question concerning input because that would give people an opportunity to weigh in on what we propose. i think it is fair to say we recognize the diversity of american agriculture and celebrate it. we know there are small operations, midsized and large. and it depends on where you farm and what you farm in terms of the size and scope and what is involved in the management. congress gives us a narrow lane on what it is to define actively engaged. we are not supposed to participate in family operations. i think there was and is a concern on the part of many, an appropriate concern, that there are circumstances where folks who are not actually farming and not actually engaged in the

management of a farming operation, but who have inves d invesced -- invested -- in a farming way and participated in a minimal way of decision making are able to qualify for benefits and i think it is appropriate to look at that and i suspect that is going to be the primary focus. i don't think your family farmers needs to be concerned because of the restriction that is contained into the law that you all passed. >> okay. we will be looking forward to that. let me change gears and talk about the bow based forest products. my district's rural economy has a strong forest product industry and i am excited given the changes enacted in the bill it is clear the products are

eligible to participate in the bio-based labor program. there was a quote mature market limitation placed on wood products. now companies will be submitting for the program, will the usda move forward to process them despite the mature that is outside of the statute. >> we would anticipate action on that in the latter part of 2014 in terms of our ability to incorpora incorporate those changes in the bio base labeling program. >> i think my time has expired. >> chairman, with your permission, 30 seconds of response. we are very sensitive to the challenges you have alluded to in terms of the forest industry

and that is why we are having a wood conference that will encourage the usda to take use of wood more frequently in building project for a variety of reasons making the case it is climate-friendly. and new structure and designs, we think it can be as strong as steel and concrete in some cases. >> i am glad that you referenced the fresh potato leaving out in the wic program. i would think that would be a consistent policy at farmers markets and grocery markets. but wic vouchers can't use white potatoes at a grocery store, but

can at farmers market. i have a letter dated march 13, 2014 that i signed with 65 other members of had house including two people on the panel that expressed continued disappointment with this unnecessary exclusion. i would like to submit a copy of that for the record. and switching gears, your budget highlights rural opportunities and speaks about the number of communities and businesses that have been end by usda programs. we were glad the rural development has been able to help but i think the credit should lay to congress over the usda. if we had enacted your proposal, far fewer businesses and families would have been help. take the water for example, $304

million, a 52% reduction from the levels congress appropriated. you proposed $340 million in 2014. how does that reduction where there is wide bipartisan support help rural communities? >> congressman, i think it is important to point out we are dealing in the context of this budget in terms of sequester and budget reduction and overall caps that we have to live within. 50% of the discretionary part of the budget is in wic, fire suppression, rental assistance and food safety. 50% of the budge. when sequester comes or budget caps come, it is difficult, if

not impossible, to apply reductions in that 50% category. very difficult. those items are increases in many cases. that is certainly true of fire suppression and the wic program. so the other 50% of the budget shares disproportionately. the grant program was designed to buy down the interest rates and they are low right now. there is not quite the need there once was. and there is a need to focus on particular sized facilities. so we are faced with difficult challenges and difficult choices. and that is the reason why that is what it is.

>> and i want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman for the cuts of the 502 direct loan program and self-help housing program. i spent a few days out in lamont, california with families building their own homes with the help of the low interest loans. it is obviously an amazing program because people take the time, families get together, build a community and a home, and when you see a community get together like that and work together on each other's home and gain talent, pride, and ownership and pride in their efforts and learn new skills, it is beneficial program and this program took the same hit. they saw a cut from $900 million down to $360 million. so over a 50% cut and i am

wondering what the rationale was for cutting them. >> in terms of the direct loan program, we are not cutting that in terms of budget authority, we are actually increasing it. but the cost of borrowing, the subsidy rate went from 2% to 7%. so the reality is more money buys less. it isn't we want to buy less, but it is a fact of the market place. and congress, secondly, a number of years changed the way it funded rental assistance. in the past you funded the projects as they came on board and fully funded in the year they were created. over the course of the 15 years, you have changed so every year we have additional units coming into the budget that are expiring under the first

contract that might be a ten year or five year contract and now is single. so we have 11,000 addition rental units we have to finance so that creates more need for focus on the families needing assistance. so if you want to not have a cap, fine. if you want to look at other aspects of the budget and reduce fire suppression and put 45 million homes at risk okay. if you want to reduce wic and the 8.7 women, infant and children who benefit from that program fine. when interest rates go up and borrowers income is down, it is more costly to fund the programs. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. secretary for being with us here this morning

for the great work that you do in handling diverse and not always easy questions. i have plenty. i think my first question is very simple. i want to talk about the farm bill implementation. i will use the maine bill as an example. we are hearing from the farmers who are nervous about when the funding is going to be released and what changes they should expect. so i was concerned, and this is a newspaper headline from maine that says the delay threatens farm program for maine seniors. the usda hasn't yet provided a timeline for implementing the senior farmer market funding program. seniors and farmings are

receiving mixed messages on rather the funds will be released at all. we have to wait until we see what is required of the state agencies to operate and our 2014 grant amount is unknown so the farm share is delayed. this is especially harmful because this is the time of the year when farmers are planning for their upcoming growing seasons and need to know how many seniors are sign up. maine can't allow their farmers to apply for the farm. we have a billion people in the state but last year 17,000 maine seniors bought food from 188 farmers who are in the dark. do you think the usda can get the money out the door help maine farmers plan and guarantee we will have the door? >> we are waiting on the funds

from onb and we expect to have them in the next couple weeks. >> great. so i can tell people there is a likelihood it will be operating? >> yes. >> okay. that was easy. i have concerns and i appreciate the answers you about the poultry world. i do think there is going to be a negative impact because of the poultry slaughter rule. i think it will have a negative impact on food safety, worker safety, animal welfare and according to osha statistics poultry workers suffer injuries and illness at a rate of more than twice than average and since the rate is increasing to

175 birds per minute i think it is likely to say that will continue. they are allowing them to police themselv themselves. according to the usda economic research service, per capita meat consumption is declining, but demand for meet in a grass-fed location is growing by 20% and small producers are struggling to meet the demand of consumers siaying lack of acces to processing plants. farmers have to travel several hours to reach a slaughter house that has the capability to slaughter animals. the demand is there and the usda need to do more on this side to

connect consumers and livestock. outreach and technical assistance to small processing plants, can you provide me what with total budget was for this activity? >> we are getting you that number if i can say what that resource buys. we are focused on the 90% of the 6400 plants we consider to be small. we have a small plant help desk that has a hotline that folks can call with any questions. they are training materials and a small plant news letter that goes out and we provide direct help to state agencies in terms of working condition. i also point out that this administration has been encourageing mobile slaughter units to address the issue of distance between processing

facilities and we stand part of know your farmer initiative to engage in that. and encouraging folks to take advantage of the interstate meat roll that allows for an opportunity for state assisted review. there is a multitude of steps we are taking. let me see if i can get you the specific number. >> i will give you one more piece of information and you can follow-up with the information. i submitted a title called the local food, farms and jobs act. we called for an advisory group to help develop guidelines on food safety, process, controls and pathogen prevention at small processing plants. and the previous report is now

eight years old so i am suggesting could you explore moving these piece forwarded to investigate local food systems and could you use other resource founding to move forward on an advisory group or update of that report >> those are fair questions and we should take them into serious consideration. you know, i think it is important to note that we have been engage and involved in terms in market development in a very significant way. our view is that in order to help the smaller or midsized producers we have to create more market opportunity which is why we expanding farmers markets and food hubs >> and i do appreciate all of

the work with know your food, know your farm. i would say this market is growing fast inspite of what anybody has done. >> thank you, mr. secretary, let me thank you first for coming to nebraska and speaking and laying down a vision for agriculture and being a good ambassador for our message. i have three points. the first one being i appreciate with you talking about 40,000 new farmers come into the system through the efforts of the farm bill and i worked on some components of that. i want to research to the point

that mr. bishop raced about payment limitations and closing loopholes. i offer ad bill that put stricter lim limitations in place. the conference committee took it out and disstorted the process. i thought it was a good reform measure, but we lost it. the residue of what is left gives you the authority to define actively engaged. now, this type of thing gives a black eye to agriculture overall

with these legal loopholes. we are at a time of declining budget and the need to be aware of the impact our programs have in terms of bunnedget and perception, we have to do a robust job of going through there process and ensuring deserving farmers are receiving payment. 10% ouch of farmers receive 70% of the payments. and we might be undermining what we are doing on the other side of the program, which is so important, of trying to bring new people into agriculture. the second issue is regarding adverse wage rates. and this might be out of your

purview. but in nebraska it is $39.41 cent and i have two people trying to do this but they are being pushed out of market because the wage is $12.89 and now the department of labor. and we have the rate going up and pushing small farmers who are trying to be successful and using diverse means of farming production. the other is will this be the year we see the competitive

funding for drought litigation research? first of all, i made a mistake in responding to congressman's bishop's question. i should have had you respond. i think that is the nub. i think congress gave us a n narrow range of operation. options to look at because of the fairly broad definition of family farming. fair enough. you have raised concerns about situations where that -- the rules have been stretched and creatively utilized, and i think our task is to take a look at what makes sense and what doesn't in the real world and basically provide credibility and legitimacy to whatever support system we have. this support system is important for farmers, as you know, and we can talk about how many -- what

percent get what percent, but i think it's important for all of us to explain to our friends in urban and suburban america that support systems are used to design the risk of farming. farming is a difficult and risky business from a financial perspective because you have no impact on mother nature and no impact on some foreign country creating market havoc. we have reduced the risk and we keep people in the farming business. we obviously want a program that people believe in so we will work very hard to try to do the right thing in this area of actively engaged. >> all of this is said in the spirit of being a very strong supporter of farm payment system and the ups and downs of the vagaries in the market and to give farmers the control they used to have but when you've gotten to the size of graduating from that need of public support or you're working around it, it's a concern.

>> i'm not disagreeing. should i respond? >> if you could respond. >> you know, my response, and it's an honest one to the adverse wage rate issue, is to fix the system and that would help, i think, comprehensive immigration reform and new opportunities for usda to be engaged in that process in establishing wage levels would be the solution for the concerns that you've raised in the long term, and on drought mitigation, we are support being the drought mitigation people that do good work in terms of the monitor in nebraska. we will continue to focus on ways we can provide additional resources. we announced a $30 million competitive grant program on water that is involved to folks. we'll continue to be very engaged in this space. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. secretary for coming to the committee today. i represent kansas. obviously a big farm producing state, a lot of wheat farmers, a lot of livestock.

so your role in looking out for kansas farmers and consumers and everyone across the state is very important to me as i'm sure all the members of the committee in terms of their states as well and across the whole country. i have a question following up on the farm bill compromise that ultimately passed the house and senate. i know you were involved in helping ensure that we have a long-term bill that creates certainty for farmers, predictability, that responds to the needs of crop insurance and other programs. there's a lot of things to like about the bill. things not bill in terms of reductions in different parts of the bill. this committee has long-standing support for farmers and for people who are hungry and in need. we worked to end sure we get people in the community and take care of the family farmer. 1% of the reductions of the food

stamp program ended up 7 and abf reductions came out of commodity programs. some people thought that was lopsided and i was one of those folks but that is what ultimately came out as a compromise and was looked at as the balance and people are looking for the parties to work together and that was it apparently. yet now we see that compromise may not come to fruition. as the article this week and says when congress passed the farm bill earlier this year it expected 8.6 billion by tightening the loophole in the food stamp program but it's not going to happen. so what was already ma already t cited compromise isn't even going to happen and i think what most people in the country wants to end sure is if you click for food stamps to get food stamps and if you don't qualify, you don't qualify. there was an effort by congress to fix and many people supported

it. i guess my question for you would be where you aware that it was going forward at those savingthat thosesavings wouldn'y materialize on the program? and what can you do as secretary to ensure finding savings in the program actually occur? >> first i didn't consider or think about what individual state, governors and state legislatures would do with the farm bill passage. i was focused on getting the bill passed and trying to find a compromise into place that was the major stumbling block. so no idea. there was no indication one way or another. frankly as a former governor and former state senator i. respect the role of both state legislatures and governors to make decisions about their resources and with a belief to be in the best interest of their folks. now i have always said when there was a discussion about this issue i have always said there isn't a right way from the

perspective to reduce the staff members both in terms of numbers of people and in terms of dollars to try to find ways we can better link the job opportunities being created in the states and folks that are on this map looking at to keep the body of working. one of the exciting opportunities this bill prevents is the ability to dig down to do a better job of creating that link. it's hard for me to understand why the state workforce development offices are into doing a better job of communicating with service offices because they know what the jobs are and who does not beneficiaries are. therthere are two be a way we cn better connect those two things and if we do we are going to see significant reductions in the number of people needing snap and at th the cost of the progr. >> i think there is broad bipartisan programs that would confirm the opportunity to go to work is certainly the best way to bring people out of poverty or out of programs that are

helping the people but my question gets back to this compromise in his lopsided is going to be achieved and so what part of the $8.6 billion democrats and republicans supported as thsupport it as the work together to find a solution that's now half of that is no longer going to happen do you know what portion of that will occur? >> they are still my decision affected not only in the 17 states that made a decision so i think it is determined exactly what the savings is going to be. our focus again is going to be into areas we do control at the usda. one is working on the pilots and the other the chair brought up

and 133,000 investigations qualified 42,000 trying to take advantage and we are serious about that. 1200 businesses that were taken advantage of the program are no longer involved and we are serious about it. the additional resources we are asking for will allow us to do more of that and i think the farm bill discussion of redefining what entities are able to participate in the program and the depth of their offerings in the store they have to do a better job of offering more of the basic food groups while also making substantially reduce the amount of misuse of the program so those are two critical ways i think we will re- control the ability to reduce the amount without disqualifying people that would otherwise be qualified for the program. >> i certainly appreciate those efforts. i think the intent of the bill is to ensure you have to qualify to receive them and close that

loophole and democrats and republicans both supported that and i would hope he would do all you can follow any it in the administration of the program. >> a couple members of the subcommittee have mentioned above farm bill and everybody is happy that follows agriculture and is a staple involved one way or another and further trek to leave or indirectly. do you have the challenge now to implement this farm bill but do you see from your standpoint is the party program that need to be implemented first? >> the first is going to be the disaster assistance. these folks have struggled through two difficult years. the disaster assistance expire and therefore we were not in a position to provide the assistance and we know that it's putting a great strain on the operators so we will prior to

april 15 rollout of the disaster programs allowing people to apply for resources and for assistance. that will be followed by a the series of efforts throughout 2014 in terms of the safety net programs and insurance changes and the development programs that we have access to. i think you'll see a significant amount of activity in 2014. what i have done is i have instructed our team to look at each title to prioritize specifically what needs to be done. first, second, third, fourth and fifth we have a group that oversees and looks at all of the titles it has prioritized me will be engaged in outreach education during the months between now and fall in the safety net programs to make sure farmers know precisely what the

programs are going to look like and what the options are, what decisions they have to make and the information they need to make those decisions. we are in the process of determining which grant universities will provide the resources into the educational training resources in the $3 million allocated for that purpose. so you're going to see quite a bit of activity. >> you talk about the new standard for the snack food of that preserve flexibility for ur studies like fundraisers and bake sales. but that also include things like when a mother wants to bring cupcakes for a birthday party that would include that? >> we aren't going to stop them from bringing cupcakes. >> the usda recently proposed a rule requiring schools to establish the local school wellness policy and states the policy must also address standards for other foods and

beverages available on campus. these would include policies such as the classroom parties or school celebrations that involve food. there seems to be a little bit of a conflict with this time-honored tradition. maybe the usda isn't setting the standard regarding that but it seems to be mandating that schools do set a policy. is that what the intent is? >> it's been in existence for some time and this was a continuation of that program and i think primarily what we were attempting to do and announced was to suggest that and focus on the marketing of certain food products to students during the school day the theory being if we are trying to change the mix of what is in the machine or the à la cart line we don't want to send an inconsistent message by allowing the marketing of the other products during the school day so we were attempting to provide consistency in terms of

the message. we want snacks to be easy the easy choice but we don't want to necessarily restrict the ability in the afterschool hours. we don't want them to take down the scoreboard that is advertising a particular type of soft drink at this point in time but we would like them to be conscious of the need to be consistent. >> if i understand you right if a school in some way it interprets this debate that a mom or dad can't bring the cupcake that has no bearing whatsoever. >> it is merely the vending machines for schools operate and the à la cart wines that are available for school meals to make sure there's a consistent t message and a nutrition. >> i think there is a lot of confusing -- there are a lot of mothers out there that bring in chocolate cupcakes to their 2-year-old's birthday and the federal government or usda

would've told them they can't do that so i'm glad to hear that is a signal that they are fine with doing that and the usda has no problem with trying to tell them to intervene whatsoever. >> as a constant consumer of cupcakes i can tell you that is not the intent. >> thank you mr. secretary. at this time you have had enough to deter. the farm bill historically has been looked at as a safety net for both farmers and for farming and nutrition. and quite honestly, that this was the renting of that historic and bipartisan safety net and i will tell you why in this

regard. the farming community was in the farm bill. when you talk about the cut and direct payments, then what occurred was an increase in the crop insurance opportunities and then second it was instituted in something called the shallow loss protection to deal with commodities. now, so there are places in the farm bill where they can go to make sure that safety net is and rented with regard to the food stamp beneficiary. they have nowhere else to go. when you cut 1.7 million people and say we are going to cut the food stamp benefit by $90 a month, they can't deal with the shallow loss. they are not dealing with the crop insurance. so this is a false construct in this farm bill. i will do this for the record

mr. secretary because i want to ask something else. this has to do with the crop insurance program and i've seen the articles come out of that about cheating and skirting, etc.. i believe we ought to apply those in a hard look at the crop insurance program and if i may lay out the questions and get them to you do you expect of the reform and i applaud you for the reform do you expect them to reduce the enrollment in the program or the companies that offer crop insurance policies? who receives crop insurance premium subsidy is? what percentage of crop insurance premium subsidies went to the largest 1% of the business? can you talk about the projection for the cost of crop insurance in 2014 based on the weather and agriculture? are we in fact going to reduce enrollment and payment and

particularly food gets these subsidies? and we both know that 26 individuals that get a dedicatet $1 million in the premium subsidy are protected from us and the taxpayers knowing who they are so i will get the questions to you and i would love to have your response as soon as possible. let me go back to the rule if i can for a second. it was brought to my attention in one of your comments about the last time we did inspections but the fact of the matter is that each inspection hasn't changed. but no hemp pilot and beef occurred because there was no industry takers to deal with the pilot. ipilots. in the area of performance

standards on the microbiological standards, microbial standards, i'm sorry. it is now voluntary for the producer. why can't we move to required standards on the microbial testing instead of voluntary? one question i want to deal with and i've alaska the second one because my time is going to run out and i'm conscious of that come about recently the center for the study and the cspi and the science and the public interest -- why do they refuse to consider the resistant salmonella as adults the same way as we do with e. coli 105787

and you have a 25 million per year program to create an innovation center to study antibiotic resistance. i would like at some point if you can for the record because there isn't time enough to let us know about the petition put together into the questions they asked if we can get an answer to those questions. >> i think to a certain extent the questions are in a sense one in the same in this respect. there is a difference between the jurisdiction and capacity relative to peace and e. coli and poultry and salmonella and it is based on the case law in which we attempted to do what you're asking us to do in the adults renzi and we were basically told by the court of t didn't have the authority or the jurisdiction to do that so as a

result we have to -- we have been looking at ways that we can improve efforts at reducing salmonella. we have initiated a performance standards that are enhanced. we are proposing to enhance oversampling to intensify the testing and potentially posed facilities that have inadequate results from this test. and as you pointed out we are trying to have an innovation and institute that focuses on this issue. they will come up with their own standards that may or may not coincide with your performance standards. >> we have performance standards in which we essentially say there are certain levels of --

the reality is the biology of the food production is that there are certain levels that can't be avoided and have to be built within other ways. we have been very aggressive on e. coli because the belief we have the jurisdictional power to do that. we have been able t to, for example, expand the number. we have been focused on all of those things. i think a lot of it has to do with how the courts have perceived a jurisdiction edit ththe jurisdiction editthe reso. >> have you asked for the authority? ask us for the authority. >> we have attempted to exercise the authority and the courts have basically told us we can't do it. >> ask us for the authority. i'm serious. the supreme court just wrote, you know, dealt with leadbetter etc.. we turned that around in the congress. we have legislation that can deal with these issues.

ask for the authority. thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, just to maybe return to the points that my good colleague from connecticut raised, the point of the dialogue is there was a compromise that was struck in the bill that would reduce the programs for farmers by 7% and reduce the program by 1%. some people thought that was lopsided. the point i am trying to make to drive that home is at least the 1% out of the program that is merely and agreed to point that people that don't qualify are getting food stamps should be fixed and that was the agreement. we will leave that the way it is and i would also say that, you know, supporting farmers into supporting the agricultural community is a long-standing tradition of the congress and of this country. and without a healthy and vibrant agricultural community

and to vibrant farmers, there is no food and grocer in the grocer people to buy order for the sheer ease to purchase. and so, i think we need to be mindful that 7% reduction i think it would be hard to find other portions of the budgets in any committee that have been reduced in that significance. something they have been noble and being willing to give up payments we don't know what the future brings in terms of the economy going forward and it could be tough. we've all been through tough times. we need to ensure we have a vibrant agricultural community. i have a couple follow-up and related questions to that topic. i want to ask a little bit about the lesser prairie chicken and the partial ability to use crop insurance. farmers deal with a lot of regulations and a lot of

bureaucracy mandates and things that drive up the cost of doing business that make food more expensive in the grocery store and makes it harder on the in te country to have an affordable food supply and have a farming community that is successful and produces affordable food. one particular area that is troubling a lot of farmers is the fish and wildlife service on the endangered species on or before march 31. as you know this will impact a large portion of western and southern kansas and i'm concerned about the impact it may have on farmers in particular those that participate in the crp. has your department and coordinating with the service on the determination and is there anything we can do to burden and expense that may occur and bolts of folks in the world after march 31 still be able to take up those contracts?

>> we have been discussing with the fish and wildlife issues relating to not just the lesser prairie chicken that other potentially in danger to species that could be listed in fact i think there are seven that we are working with the department of interior on. one thing that we are attempting to do is create what we refer to as regulatory certainty. the reality is the biggest concern a lot of producers have his once they've taken certain steps can pay an issuer that's all they would be asked to do so we have instituted a program where we use our conservation resources and to develop conservation practices and in exchange for embracing those practices and using our cost share program's producers are guaranteed a certain level of certainty that if and when a particular species is listed

that they will have to do no further actions relative to that listing. this has been particularly effective and we are currently doing this with six other endangered species so we will continue to focus on ways in which we can provide assistance and help hopefully to avoid the listing if that occurs and if the department makes a decision for it to be listed to assist in the cost share of any steps they need to take hi them in order to protect themselves from that testing. we will do everything we can to educate the agency about the impact and try to do everything we can if and when it is listed. >> what about the program in terms of the folks that are enrolled after march 31 will they still be able to take up the contracts? >> i don't know the answer to that question if you can get back to me.

>> another issue on the crop insurance my understanding the way that it works is you can have an eerie david program or vomit irrigated program. the department looking towards the partially irrigated system because we have some that are not irritating because of production programs so they are not qualify in that they are not really a try and program either. there's a small group of farmers that have individual written agreements providing the type of protection. part of the problem has been it's been difficult to get the data that would allow us to have an overarching policy that would be sound as a legitimate insurance product but with the experience that we are having in the individual instruments we hope to be able to get to a point and obviously when and if we get the adequate foundation we will look at that. there's alsthere is also withinm

bill an opportunity to take a look at the irrigated and vomit irrigated policies. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to shift to an issue. i'm a returning peace corps volunteer and certainly interested in the food for peace program. i've seen a shift in the world's ability to deal with food delivery. what we essentially have is a feeding program to help impoverished areas but it's been very awkward because we brought all the food from the united states on the carriers all the way to these foreign countries. the new effort is to try as we are domestically trying to empower the nationals to develop their own ability to have a

viable agrarian economy. i recently got back with some members in the strongest companies in latin america. the biggest in the second most populated and strategically necessary for the world of security because it's position in the horn of africa. ethiopia is a huge agrarian country with a lot of programs including peace corps. what shocked me is we are still needing all sources of the federal aid $300 million to that one country because. now you mentioned in your opening statement that you're asking authorities to use up to 55% of the total account to increase the flexibility of emergency aid for complex prices specifically within the regional purchases and cash vouchers and

transfers. the budget justification stated that it would allow them to reach up to 2 million more people and challenging emergency situations as we have seen with an internal and external displacement in this area and sudan. and i'm just wondering if you can clarify for us how these increases in flexibility of the funds that allowed you to reach more people. >> it's pretty simple, congressman ed is less expensive when you do it in the country and yothat countryand you can ga lot quicker under the current system it can take anywhere from ten to 14 additional weeks to get relief to people that are in need immediately so we can substantially reduce the time and at the cost of the 25% which would allow us to buy more food and get that food to people. >> is that triggered with the ability to -- ethiopia is

struggling to be able to have better yields and obviously they are in the coffee business now and starbucks has done a great job of helping them build their infrastructure to have a national coffee market, coffee exchange. so are we working with these countries that we distributed so that they can build capacity? >> there are two aspects one is in the food for peace program there's roughly $270 million that's used for additional development to sort of maturity agriculture that exists in the country and on the part of the service essentially is helping to train tens of thousands of producers in africa and in developing countries to be better farmers. we don't see this as a competitive situation we see this as complementing american agriculture the reason being that if you strengthen

agriculture in developing countries you create larger middle classes that are interested in purchasing high-value added products that we produce in this country and create market opportunities as well. so it is an appropriate way to use resources. >> we had some resistance obviously by the commodity groups and the unions and so on. have you been able to work your way through? >> we have attempted to be less dramatic than we were last year which was transferring to the u.susaid. we continue to try to engage our union frenzy and shipping friends and producers to make sure that they know they are still going to be a substantial amount of quantity that is purchased in america that's produced in america and shifted by americans and that is organizing labor folks to load

it and provide it. so our hope is that we approach this a little bit more effectively this year than last year. >> i supported it on the one condition that he would stay in charge of it. what happens, and that is in another appropriations committee. that money gets into that 115 counts, and it is all consumed by the other competitors in that count. and we lose the ability to direct this money for the purpose so i applaud your efforts to maintain the control over it. >> i will assure this job today. >> let me first go back to mr. fortenberry. our discussion about being actively engaged i just wanted to add i voted against the

amendment because there is a difference between being actively engaged in that issue and a payment whe the payment we patients. those are two separate issues and i think the committee was more thoughtful and better informed and recognizing the different regions of the country is like in the southeast they have different needs with regard to the amount and i think it was a specific amount of the payment limitations that was the problem because of the southeast they have multiple crops and that's definitely impacts the lower payment limitations. i think last year. one of the initiatives taken with the strikeforce initiative. the strikeforce initiative that was introduced in 2010 is one of the tools that usda is using to

combat poverty about connecting to local and state governments and community organizationgovern the products to private economic development. i would like to put on the radar screen ten, 20, 30 concepts such as been put out in connection with an overall attack on poverty to assure that 10% of the resources can be utilized on the communities that have had 20% sustained poverty over a 30 year perco using that as a metric for trying to allocate resources but there are several in my district that have been targeted to the strike force initiative. on the approach by the departments to reach out to communities who haven't benefited fully from the

programs. can you give us an update where the program stands today and the accomplishments so far and your vision for the future? >> thank you very much for asking the question because i think it is an area that is often not talked about and is discussed in this country. unfortunately we see the high policy in america high here than it is in any other parts of the country. and it directly impacts children in a very serious way. the strikeforce is now operating in 700 counties in 20 states and tribal areas. as a result of the strikeforce we have seen increased participation in the loan programs and increased participation of the conservation programs. we have seen more housing opportunities created and we have seen significant investments in thinvestmentin t. we have also seen a market increase in the number of summer feeding opportunities that exist in the rural areas.

there is a great deal of work to do. we've gone from a slightly different direction as it relates to the 102030 program. we have what we refer to as the 2016 program which is 20% of the development resources that would be invested in areas where there is a census tract of 20% poverty or greater and we want to reach that goal by 2016. as of today we are in the neighborhood of 18.5% or so of our resources being invested in those areas and i'm confident that we will get t the 2020 by e 2016. we will look at additional challenges. this issue of rural poverty as part of a larger concern that i have with if i could have 30 seconds mr. chairman, three major factors about america one,

the highest poverty rate in 25 years. number two, despite the fact we have had job growth in the last four years, a little of it has actually been seen in the rural areas. we are just holding our own. for the first time in history we actually saw the reduced numbers of people living in the overall areas and part of it has to do with what's happening in agriculture and the disappearing agriculture had an increased number of larger operations and the emergence of small operations and we have to figure out a dish always we can provide market opportunities for those folks in the middle back to the question on the local and regional food systems that is one strategy for doing that. we have to look at creative ways to use conservation and development resources into the local regional system to create opportunities in order to keep our kids in those areas to reverse some of those trends. >> let me ask one of the related

question. can you give us some idea when we can expect the directors? >> congressmen i don't know the answer to that question specifically that we will get you an answer by the end of the day. >> thank you very much mr. chair and again you put in a long morning and afternoon with us and i will not drag this out much longer but i do come for a love of my colleagues asked many of the things i wanted to talk about so i appreciate him bringing so many things up. i'm sure this is another one of your favorite topics. it is around gm. we have the action at the federal level that recently became the second state in the country to pass the law requiring the label agenda and the modified ingredients in food

passed by the democratic legislature and republican governors of this is on and thif those issues of concern in the state and consumers that want to know what's in the food they are feeding their families and they are concerned that the contamination of the crops particularly given the increased opportunities around certified organic products and the ability to sell them. can you give me a quick update on the working group dedicated to tackling the issues of the farmers growing genetically modified crops coexisting with traditional and organic farmers and i will throw in to questions and you can throw it all together. is there funding for the budget and has the department and hearing the concerns of those farmers and consumers? >> is a balanced group supported of those that were producers and that our organic producers and

academic and professionals involved in all aspects. they were a couple of key areas and recommendations. one has to do with the need for us to take a look at the crop insurance programs to determine whether or not we can do a better job at providing opportunities for the producers and organic producers. the result of that has been the elimination of the surcharge on organic products and number two to number of products available over 350 policies that were sold and number three better pricing of organic crop insurance. it may be the result of a contract and not of a market in the same way that basic commodities are sedated to make an adjustment of how we might be able to compensate folks for the damage.

that's one thing. there was deep concern about the importance of keeping and maintaining the quality of the ability to generate should there be an event or incident. in the capacity to do a better job of maintaining the testing and examining the banks to make sure that we contain adequate supplies and that they haven't been impacted in any way. number three, working on ways we can provide better information concerning the stewardship responsibilities in terms of knowing what your neighbor is planning and knowing how what you may do may impact potentially your neighbor and of the value, the high-value added opportunity that it promotes and provides. number three or number four, there was an effort to increase

the recent budget and to make sure that the conservation resources were being made more available. so there's been a concerted effort and 212 continue t 21 too focus on these issues. the labeling issue is a challenging one because historically it's been either nutrition or because of the known hazard. it's fair to say this isn't about nutrition. it isn't about any kind of safety hazard. this is about the consumers rights to now and i think the date is a 20th century debate there are ways we can potentially use the mentioning of barcodes that could be something like a barcod bar codt would allow folks with smart phones the ability to have reading devices that would allow

folks to have all of the information they need and want without creating a label that might send a wrong message about the safety of the product. we are engaged with the discussions as to how we might be able to promote such a concept and idea so we are trying to be informative and i think it would be difficult to end up with 50 different standards that's going to create some serious challenges in the marketplace with what labels look like and i'm sure there's going to be litigation for quite some time so i'm trying to figure out is there a third way to do this and i think the technology may be the answer. >> i'm sure that we will get a chance to pursue this for the record. >> we are glad to have you up here today as well as mr. jan

thank you for being here as well. we look forward to following up on some of these things that we discussed today and all the best to you and the subcommittees adjourned. [inaudible conversations] it is more than $22 billion. the budget includes funding for food safety, forest service, research and conservation, crop

insurance and the nutrition programs for women, infants and children. earlier this month the supreme court heard oral arguments. it is a case testing the limits on the courts ban against executing the intellectually disabled. the issue rests on who the states define intellectual disability when using the iq

tests. florida uses a cutoff of 70. the court will decide if they ie cutoff is unconstitutional. in the 2002 the supreme court ruled executing those who were mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment. the court decided to leave it to the states to determine the criteria for meeting the standard. this argument is about a half an hour. >> versus florida. mr. waxman? >> mr. chief justice may i please the court we hold the constitution barthatthe constitg persons with mental retardation that is persons with significantly subaverage intellectual function can print with deficits and adaptive behavior with an onset before the age of 18.

because of the area of measurement that is inherent on the tests it is universally accepted as persons with a obtained scores of 71 to 75 km n and often do have mental retardation when those are met. the measurement -- the line has to be drawn somewhere and we did say he would leave it up to the states to determine the standards for this issue. so what is the rule that we announced today? seventy is not okay but 75 would be? how would you announce the rule? >> witney first take some issue with all due respect on the characterization. what the court said is not that wwe would leave it to the states to establish the standards for the condition of the mental

retardation you said we leave it to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction that we announce. above althe rule that we advocad the only one presented in the case just this. if a state conditions the opportunity to demonstrate mental retardation on the other tamed iq test scores, it cannot ignore the measurement error that is inherent on the feature statistical feature of the test instrument in the bill. >> but we didn't base our decision on the study of what the american psychiatric association and other medical associations consider to be mental retardation. we based it on what was that

general rule of the states. and a large number of states have adopted 70 as the criterion. what do the american people think is the level of mental retardation that should make it impossible to impose the death penalty. we didn't look for the answer to that question. we look to the state stayed. what has changed in what the states do, and i think -- >> justice scalia, i would like to respond with four points and i hope desperately that i will remember them. first of all, what the court said was number one is made clear aif madeclear as it is ren alabama in grand versus florida that while the consensus or perceived consensus among the state is important, the test is

this conclusion about what the eighth amendment does or does not allow in making that determination page 318 of the court's opinion. the court after reciting footnote three but virtually identical definitions of mental retardation and footnotes number five pointing up 70 to 75 is the established cutoff for the mental retardation the court said the following. clinical definitions of mental retardation require because of their impairments mentally retarded persons by retardation that is by the clinical definition have diminished capacities to understand and recite all of the other disabilities that made the imposition of the death penalty for persons with that clinical

condition unconstitutional. now as to what the state did, the court did refer to the 18 state statutes. not a single one of those statutes and not a single decision of any court or any state applied the standard deviations without reference. the only statute that was addressed in 2002 was arizona that it is personally provided must be taken into account in evaluating the obtained -- >> and established by whom? >> it was established by the creators of the test. it's not something th the clinicians trained for that is

decided by the american psychiatric association. it is inherent in the test and all clinicians are told about professional associations make it clear because it is simply a statistical fact that must take into account the test score is the result of the test score that is a test ban that account. >> what purpose do they establish -- is it for the purpose of determining who is so incapable of controlling his actions that he shouldn't be subject to the death penalty is that what they are looking for when they establish 70 to 75? >> what they are looking for -- intelligence tests supply and were not created for the definition of clinical definition of mental retardati

retardation. it's to determine a proxy for true intellectual function and therefore a true test score. >> i'm talking about why do they take -- b -- beatific 70 and noy pick between 70 to 75. i assume it is for people that would profit from medical treatment. isn't that if? >> there are many reasons why a person's iq that is a persons intelligence intellectual functioning may be important medical psychological development and as a component of the clinical condition and medical retardation the eighth amendment. now what -- >> can you clarify one thing, that is not liberty to 7075.

that is of course the -- >> the statistical concept of the measurement applies to all forms of testing. >> so it has nothing to do with the death penalty. >> i am sure when other committees announced the principle based on the experimental observation he also recognized -- >> may i come back to something similar that was started out with? in your view does the constitution permit a state to establish any cut off of 76, can we do that? >> i think it can be caused the standard definition that is intellectual functioning is two or more below.

>> let me just explain because if a state is using and obtained test score or a as a proxy for e intellectual functioning it has to take into account the measurement and therefore the state of mississippi and oklahoma that in fact established a cut off of 75 in our view is constitutional as the court announced the class of individuals. >> when you say the standard of measure you're talking about a degree of confidence, right? and then you need to have a 95% degree of confidence. do i have the numbers wrong? >> on a task that is more than 100, 70 is standard below the

means. if there's the standard error of measurement and it isn't sufficient, this is the -- >> i'm just trying to figure out what it means. >> someone for example in an idea test score of 71 as mr. paul received heavy 95% probability that the score would be between 70 cents -- >> where does the 95% come from? why are you picking 95%? why isn't it a 90%? >> why did the organizations pick 95%? it has been standard which is 95% for decades and the court recognized that consensus, the universal consensus on its opinion that has the burden of persuasion on the issue of iq and what is the standard?

>> it varies from state to sta state. does it permit a state to assign to the defendant the burden of persuasion on the iq? candidate@-- can they assign that to the defendant and what is the defendant's proof they have to meet? >> the short answer is yes so that you see where i'm going that we vv that is entirely constitutional for the state to assign the burden of proving mental retardation on the defendant and in so far as the definition recognized by the court is a three-part conjunctive test. as a consequence it added to

every component of burden may constitutionally be placed on the defendant. the burden with respect to number one is the burden of proving significantly sub average intellectual functioning of which the true score is a probable piece of evidence. >> why can't the state -- you told me the state can establish the cutoff if you told me the state can i find the burden to the defendant. in the case of someone that scores of 75 is it not the case that there is roughly no more than a 2.5% chance of that persons real iq is 70 so how does that square away any word enough proof that might be in the standard roof that might be assigned on that point, that's what i don't understand about the argument.