aye? those opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. thank you very much. do we have any other amendments to this title. >> we've been working with senator chambliss's staff. we have revised language that it appears to satisfy the members who had concerns. i can have this photocopied and circulated if you would like and we can come back to it. >> if you can do it quickly or the option is to read it. is it simple that we could read it to the committee and if no one needs to go further than that at this point we would have an understanding. >> section ten. the secretary considers the purchasing of commodities by the ccc or under section 32 in addition to other appropriate considerations the secretary may consider the needs of the states and the demands placed on emergency feeding organizations. and that meets the needs of -- >> any discussion on the modification, if not -- senator

johanns. >> was that on nutrition? >> yes. >> this is on the tfap program. >> this is on the nutrition amendment and i would ask that we accept to the casey amendment number five and thanks you for working together to work this out. so we have the modification. is there any objection? if not we'll just accept the amendment. senator joha in. ns. i think they're still talking about that issue, if t i'm not mistaken. >> i think -- your staff just agreed to this language? >> i don't think so. i think they're still working on it. >> okay. then we'll delay it. >> we'll put it aside and come back to it. >> thank you very much. not other than the -- if there are no further amendments, we will hold the title open for the one amendment that is being worked on.

if that can be worked out and we will proceed to title 11, crop insurance. and let me just say at the beginning, we have every hearing, every meeting we have had with farmers we have heard loudly and clearly that crop insurance is the post important tool for risk management and i'm very proud of the fact that this bill strengthens and improves coverage for all commodities. underserved crops like fruits and vegetables as well without making budget cuts to crop insurance title. i want to thank senator roberts for his ongoing leadership and advocacy for this area. did you want to say a few words as well? because i think we're presenting something that we've all worked on that is really a benefit and improvement to farmers across the country. >> madam chairwoman, i think

you've said it all. particular remember working very hard with senator carey of nebraska, several years ago and with senator luger. when we did strengthen crop insurance we've taken a pretty big hit. so what we sought out is not to really plus up, but to strengthen and improve crop insurance. and with what you have stated is absolutely correct. at our hearings, they said the most important thing in behalf of producers and the ag lenders was indeed crop insurance. the only admonition is anyone who wants to offer an amendment to harm this agreed upon product will be taken to dodge city, kansas and hung by the neck until they are dead.

>> is there any -- are there any amendments to this title? if not, we will close this title and thank every one very very much. >> madam chair, could we return to nutrition? >> yes. we can return to nutrition. do we have a modified amendment? >> we do. and it's as senator gillibrand pointed out as we've signed off on it so we're good to go. >> thank you very much. do we have any other discussion on the amendment as modified. the amendment is adopted. thank you very much. we have now closed the nutrition title. as an incentive to every one, let me just say we have one title left. we will have a vote at 3:25 and there's no reason we can't be done before that. as we move to of course what is a very very important title for our farmers and managers across the country, farmers

particularly, title 1. we have worked very very hard as we have mafd to a risk-based system. we have made a number of reforms and what we have done in cooperation with crop insurance and the new agricultural risk program to address differences in regions, the dairy program which is also very important within this program, the dairy production margin protection program and the dairy market stabilization program address regional differences for the first time, including flexibility for each dairy and putting risk management back into the hands of producers. this title really focuses on its growth, oriented, export oriented sensitive to market conditions. we have a number of things that we've worked on for years, including the no-cost sugar program that we are extending as

well as what we have talked about before in livestock as it relates to assistance as well. we know we are continuing to work to get the right balance. we feel like we have come a long, long way in the right direction. we'll continue to work with members on this very important title and i'm confident that we can come together as we come to the floor. so the commodity title is in front of us. do we have an amendment? senator bacchus. >> thank you, madam chairwoman, i'd like to submit as amendment number 8 -- 12 just a modifying provision to 8, it's a typo. i think we all agree it makes sense to put them together. i'd like to ask consent that senators conrad hoeven and harken be added as cosponsors.

>> i'll be brief to compliment you very much working with us and have found the beginning of a solution to the plain states, including iowa. without getting into too much detail, essentially, the mark has been modified by the chairman's mark and that further modified by our amendment. and that effect of all of this is we're going to, we have a shallow loss program based on actual -- where it is a revenue program requiring a loss of more than 10% based on past revenue. it's also unlike direct payments, it's based on actual planning. producer must make a one-time election, and as modified, then qualify the loss of 65% is

applied to the payment. for county it's up to 80%. maintained at 15% differential. which is important to a lot of members of this committee. and i might say that the modifying amendment strikes the ten-year straight average and replaces it with a five-year olympic average. and it also, that effect of the -- my amendment of modifying is to take out the share program which was in for one year, 2012, that's a very brief explanation of the net effect of the mark, the chairman's mark, and my amendment. but that's what it is. and i urge your support. and i again thank you all, especially madam chairwoman, and

senator roberts. you've helped very much senator roberts with all the needs we've had, discussions we've had. and staff. we don't thank our staff enough. i mean, sitting behind me is alexis tailor. alexis works very hard. that's an understatement. she she's such a trooper. although she's not a montana farmer. >> where is she from? >> she's an iowa farmer. >> a real one? >> and a real farmer. >> and she's also an iraq vet. this lady is smart and she's tough and she's dedicated to service. and the staff works all night, didn't get to sleep until 5:30 this morning and i turned to her and said why don't you get some sleep, alexis? and she's really as responsible

for putting this together as much as anything. >> and she says sir, when it's all finished, it's over. so i want to thank you alexis for all you've done. >> thank you very much. i also want to say we have a whole group of sleepy people behind us who were very involved in that and i want to take the director of our staff and the person who gets the gold star in all of this is joe schultz who has worked so hard, skourd every single part of this bill to be able to find resources that come together to be do what we need to be able to do senator roberts and senator conrad. >> let me just say that i really like going back to the simplicity of using the five-year olympic average price for both the individual and the county level. i am very encouraged. i think that this amendment will allow payment rates for both the individual and the county

coverage. i do also appreciate the chance to work with you, senator baucus and conrad and senator hoeven as well who played a very important role. ike and joel and tara have been nominated for bronze stars or the purple heart. >> that's right. >> and i think jonathan and joe are nominated for silver stars, i guess that's just the majority, the minority, i don't know. but i want to echo what the senator from montana has indicated. these people have been going now for three four days in a row, weeks in a row with very little sleep and as many different changes as we have made because members make changes, and many times they are necessary, tand sometimes they're not. but they stayed with it. and they worked over time to the degree that has been amazing. i don't think many members

really understand, in trying to get back and forth to other members and keep people posted. i know there's been a lot of concern raised here about the lack of information or the lack of a score or the hack of language. that's always the case with any bill that you deal with. the problem really stems from the fact that our staff and your staff would reach out to our respective members. and their staff would work terribly hard to inform their member. that's a hard thing to do. it's a hard thing to even find a member, let alone talk to the member and let them understand a detailed amendment that deals with agriculture program policy. but they have done that and that's why this is going as well as it's going. and i thank all members of the staff, more especially the people that i mentioned and thank you senator baucus. >> senator conrad? first of all i waptd to thank senator baucus for the critical

role he played in this, and senator hoeven my colleague. we really did function as a team. and it mattered a lot to our part of the country. so we appreciate madam chair, your willingness to listen and your willingness to respond. and to the ranking member as well and certainly to your staffs. i would be remiss after all of these years not thanking jim miller who has played such a key role in these farm bills and went to usda and was the number three person there and i convinced him to come back and help us with this farm bill. i think all of us have benefitted by his institutional memory and knowledge. jim miller is really an exceptional heperson in every w. and my legislative director who was here working with your

staff. and we appreciate the economist staying and getting a resolution. so that this morning instead of my coming to work and being really grumpy, we can have smiles on our faces. >> thank you very much. any other comments? >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i want to asuppress my appreciation to senator conrad, senator baucus. i think it's very form that we have a fair level option and that it's a fair farm level official. and that's what we provide here is that the producer can select the kind level option or the farm level option and that was vietly important, certainly in our part of the country, but i think to have that option there for all producers is truly responsive to their needs and ensures that in a year where

they have a loss, then they have help. and in a year where they don't, then they don't need help so they don't have help. so i think it was -- it's well structured, it's very important to providing the kind of farm bill that we want with the kind of safety net protection and help for our producers that we want. so i thank them. and i also thank both you and the ranking member, again, for your help and support with it. >> any other comments? yes? senator nelson. >> yes. madam chair and ranking member, i support this effort, the baucus amendment, appreciate their working on this to find a solution that would move us forward. some of us preferred the original language, but we're prepared to work with this one and move forward. it's a resolution that made

sense, simplification is always desirable. so i want to thank those who have worked so hard to achieve this and to thank once again madam chair and ranking member roberts for your willingness to permit some time to go by in order to achieve this outcome. it was important to get it. and we've gotten it and now let's move forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other comments on the amendment? >> madam chair, i very much support the amendment and i'm glad that they've got their needs worked out. as senator hoeven said, fairness is important and i think that the result of the bill as we have now is that we've picked winners and losers and again i've been supportive of getting people the things that they've

needed done but we go along way to satisfy all of the commodity needs. so i think the reality of that is it's going to make it more difficult as we go on the floor, as we deal with the house and as i've said earlier, all along, the most important thing is that we need to get a farm bill done. so again, i hope we can work as we go forward. so that the end of the day, that we have all of the commodity prices where they really are dealt with fairly. and have what they need to go forward with. >> thank you. let me just say that we know there's more work to do to work with you. and let me also say that we certainly, by proceeding with the stacks program and some other areas, we've made steps. we've made steps, not as far as we node to and we're going to continue to work with you, but we have done a number of things to try to address issues and i

think this is the toughest part of the particular title that we're working with, and we pledge to continue to work with you. any other comments on the amendment? if not, all those in favor say aye. >> chairman? >> yes. this may be the appropriate point, if i may be associated with the senator from arkansas, with his remarks. i still think we have some work to do before we develop a consensus in the committee to move forward with language that would amount to a new farm support bill that can be approved by a majority of the members of this committee. maybe the votes are here to approve it now, but on the floor of the senate, i think we're going to have to take advantage of opportunities to offer amendments that may have a chance of strengthening the bill, particularly as it relates

to southern interests, specifically cotton, rice and peanuts i think deserve more of a break than they're getting in this bill as it goes forward in this committee. and i regret that it does, around i hope that we'll have an opportunity to confer with specific changes and i will await the opportunity to do that. but in the meantime, i can't support the bill. >> i appreciate that. i do want to just indicate that, because we have worked very very hard on a number of things and i know there's more to do, but we do have the sacks program for cotton here. we do have within the new agriculture risk coverage program, a specific reference, points prices for rice and peanuts, and we have put in place new crop insurance options. we know that they're not fully developed.

that's one of the challenges is that we sl some crops where crop insurance is not fully developed in a way that is most effective. which is part of the challenge, i think, and the transition. but i do the record that there have been a number of step made, and we will continue to work with you because we realize that we're not there yet. so thank you very much. any other comments regarding the amendment? if not, all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, nay. the amendment is adopted. and we will -- is there another amendment? senator chambliss? >> i've actually got several amendments, but i think in lieu of offering the amendments, i've -- if i could just comment on them, it could save us from voting on them -- >> yes. >> and we can move on. i've made several comments today about the fact that peanuts were

not traded fairly, that rice was not traded fairly. and senators cochran and bozeman have been eloquent in talking about that also. one of my amendments deals with the issue of payment limits. a i understand it, under the -- the limit lies at $50,000. we've had our experts, our economists at the university of georgia look at this, and with the changes being made the way the mark is written with respect to peanuts, i doubt they'll ever be a -- a peanut farmer that's going to qualify up to the level of $50,000 even. peanuts are a high cost commodity and produce relative to other crops. capital requirement to produce the crop in terms of machinery. you have to have a special digger to dig them and harvester

to harvest them, unlike what you can do with changing heads on soybeans and corn. we've experienced wide swings in crop prices because we're not a traded commodity. and we've had wide swings in crop prices which can lead to large payments during low commodity price years under the current program. and given the concentration of buyers of peanuts and the semi perish ability of peanuts where we don't have the ability to store peanuts on the farm as do corn and -- and wheat, they are a perishable crop. they can be stored for a period of time, but they have to be stored in cold storage units. all of these issues come into play with respect to the issue of payment limit. also with respect to the issue of why this particular provision

in the mark with respect to peanuts does not work. we've had a movement away from peanuts and toward corn and soybeans the last couple of years for an obvious reason. and that's the high price of corn and soybeans. that means that this year where we're looking at a 25% increase in the potential planning, the planning intentions for peanuts in georgia alone, plus south carolina and mississippi are going to expand their planting of peanuts this year, you're going to see a switch back. and my point is there is always this up and down cyclical nature from the growing of peanuts that's different from other crops. the national center for peanut competiti competitiveness keeps a record of a number of farms that stretch all the way from new mexico to virginia. they've done an exhaustive study

of the provision in title 1. they found that none of the represented peanut farms would be helped with the current mark proposal that's in the mark. and further, the proposed program didn't provide any safety net to any of those representative farms, and they track them every year under the current program. so we asked them, said, okay, what is it going to take to provide that safety net. and the wone consensus that economists at the university of georgia as well as the national competitiveness center came up with was to have price protection versus revenue protection. and the price protection that we have now with the counter-cyclical program works. our proposal that we asked the chair and the ranking member to look at and that we could

support is slight lly dprift th current counter-cyclical, but not by much. but it does work. when you have a commodity that is traded, it makes a huge difference. i'm a bit of a red herring from the standpoints of that nobody else basically grows peanuts outside of the southeast. and as we move toward the mark on the floor, i hope that the issue of rice and peanuts will be given greater consideration. rice has some of the similar issues that we have. for example, it's hard to drown out rice because it grows in water. and therefore, crop insurance with rice works in an entirely different way from the way it works on insuring corn or even cotton and peanuts for that matter. we have a huge issue with respect to irrigated and non-irrigated peanuts. senator cochran and conrad and i

talked about there yesterday, that somehow there seems to be a fungibility of a lot of our crops under the crop insurance program that means it doesn't always work just right. and we need to avoid that. we don't need present that opportunity. so i would just say to the chair that i appreciate the consideration that you've given us, you have had an open dialogue with us with respect to rice and to peanuts. and maybe as we go toward getting to the floor, we can still come up with something. but i think i know what the house is going to do. if they take a bill at all, it's going to be more in the direction of what we have proposed to the chair and the ranking member with respect to peanuts and the rice. and with that said, madam chair, i won't offer those amendments, but it is a serious issue where

if we enacted the current proposal on both peanuts and rice, those two crops are going to take a huge hit in the years that we need to have a safety net. there just simply it no safety net for either one of them. thank you. >> well, thank you very much for those comments. and absolutely look forward to working with you as we go to the floor. we should get our staffs together, look at the studies that you have been citing. and we'll continue to work. so thank you very much. senator brown? >> thank you. before we conclude, i'd like to ask for a brief amendment, ask unanimous consent to revisit the development title for a moment. >> without objection, we would reopen rural development for one moment. please proceed. >> thank you. i have a substitute to amendment number 8 i'd like to put before the committee that we'll hand out. and this is pretty simple, but it's not insignificant.

our -- my understanding is that originally last night the score was about a billion dollars savings -- a billion dollars extra unaccounted for above the $23 billion cuts, say, that we know we had to do in this committee. my amendment simply -- i'd like to suggest that any funding saved above that $23 billion target be directed to rural development, and i would just briefly like to go over what that means. and we think it's in the vicinity of $150 million. and again, it's only authorizing, of course, because that's what this committee does. you know, the farm bill, we all back home i think say the farm bill's an agriculture -- a farm bill, it's a nutrition bill, a conservation bill, and it's a rural and other energy bill. it's a rural development bill. we never do enough for rural development. my state which most of you probably think is an urban state has vast poor areas and prosperous areas that are rural. we have in northwest ohio

prosperous farmers. other areas, appalachia we don't sell in areas that look more like senator cochran's state perhaps than what you might expect in ohio. here's roughly what this would do. it would put $100 million to address the wastewater backlog. many of you have the combined sewage overflow issue many of you have dealt with in small communities. $29 million for value-added producer grants, and $25 million for the rural microentrepreneurship assistance program. so these are all programs that most of us on this committee have supported. i would ask the committee to -- to agree to this because i think it really will make major in-roads into what we can do in rural america. >> senator roberts? >> thank you, madam chairwoman -- >> one more minute. it will be budget neutral. that's the whole point. it would only be money not spoken for that could go into a place we haven't done as well in the past. we said that before we'd like to do rural development better than