they produce more milk. they're very efficient at producing more milk. so therefore it seems to me that this isn't a concept that those who oppose supply management oppose in terms of their own utilization of the concept because they have adopted it in a number of areas throughout the country. they just oppose it in this legislation. it seems to me that while this isn't perfect and it is a work in progress, we nonetheless need to move on and i want to support the essence of this work realizing we all believe strongly in making sure that good nutrition milk and milk products are made available for the diets of americans across this country and the dairymen in this country and this industry can be as competitive as it possibly can be, and i think the underlying language does that. i thank the gentleman and the

ranking member. >> gentleman yields back. i promised my good friend from indiana that i would acknowledge him and then of course ranking member of the subcommittee, chair, ask the gentleman from indiana for what purpose he seeks recognition. >> move to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to be previous. a couple things i would like to share. i grew up on a dairy farm until i was 13 years old. we lived on a 700-cow dairy and i know the difficulty that is dairymen face because you have so many moving parts and commodity prices and with milk prices, and i have got several concerns. as much as i dislike supply management, i dislike the price support program and the milk program. i am glad to see that there is consensus that three of these programs are going to be eliminated. i do have some concern right now

with the rates, and as mr. gibson mentioned, i am not sure what this does to the dairies in indiana. i have dairies that are bigger and the smaller dairies are growing, and so i have some concern and would like to continue working with mr. goodlatte on the margin insurance rates because i think it is the right direction. as i said, i dislike the supply management program, but at the same time the underlying bill does make it a voluntary program, and i think that does -- that appeals to me because every operation is different. some operations are larger and have access to commodities. others are maybe smaller and don't have access to commodities as readily available to them as they would like to have. i am not sure exactly what the

margin insurance rates and the differences would do to the farms in indiana, and so i am going to oppose the amendment at this time, but i do believe that it is in the right direction and believe that we do have to find the right balance between the large farms, the growing farms, the small farmers, every particular dairyman out there has great challenges, and i definitely appreciate the intent of the amendment, but i am going to oppose the amendment at this time because with the drought conditions that we currently face, commodity prices and the volatility that we see in the market, i don't know what this particular amendment would do to the situation that we're currently in, so i thank you, thank the chairman for letting me speak for a couple of

minutes. i will yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from iowa for the briefest. recognized for five minutes. >> first off, will you as chair guide us as with you go from title to title? you will. second, i support -- first off, i have great respect for mr. goodlatte and my good friend here to my right. we have talked about this a lot. i chaired the last committee in the last farm bill, and i learned a lot about this whole dairy thing, the production, the processing and the marketing and the volatility. i think we need to give this proposal that the chairman and recommended proposed give it a chance. we watch it closely. we work together in this

committee, and let's see if we can't get this settled and on the right track. i oppose the amendment re rubbing tantly because of my friendship with my friends, but i think from what we have heard we ought to do the right thing and that is to oppose the amendment and support the plan. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. seeing no additional questions, the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from virginia. amendment number 85, all of those in favor signify by ieg aye. >> aye. >> all opposed by saying no. >> no. >> it would appear the nos have it. a gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll on amendment 85 by mr. goodlatte. >> mr. goodlatte. >> aye. >> mr. goodlatte aye. >> mr. johnson. >> no. >> mr. johnson, no. mr. king. >> aye. >> mr. king aye.

>> aye. >> mr. nogobeyer aye. >> mr. conaway no. >> mr. forthen bury. >> yes. >> mr. fortenbur ayes. mrs. schmidt, yes. mr. thompson, mr. thompson aye. mr. roony. >> aye. >> mr. rooney aye. >> mr. stutzman, no. mr. gibbs, mr. gibbs aye. mr. scott, austin scott. mr. austin scott no. mr. tipton. >> aye. >> mr. sutherland. >> aye. >> mr. sutherland aye. mr. crawford. mr. crawford no. mrs. roby. mrs. roby no. mr. healscamp, aye.

mrs. elmers. >> mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. gibson no. >> mr. holtgren aye. mr. hartzlel, no. mr. schilling. >> mr. schilling no. mr. ribble. >> aye. >> mr. ribble aye. >> mr. peterson. >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden. >> no. >> mr. holden no. mr. mcentire. >> no. >> mr. mcentire now. >> mr. boswell. >> mr. boswell no. >> mr. cardoza. >> no. >> david scott. >> aye. >> mr. david scott aye.

mr. kwai ar no. mr. costa, no. mr. walls. >> no. >> mr. walls no. mr. schrader. >> no. >> mr. schrader no. mr. kissell, no. >> mr. owens. >> mr. owens no. mrs. ping rey, no. >> mr. courtney. >> no. >> mr. courtney no. mr. welch. >> no. >> mr. welch, no. mrs. budge. >> aye. >> mr. siblon. >> no. >> ms. sewell. >> no. >> mr. mcgovern. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no.

>> mr. chairman, the vote is 17 yays to 29 nays. >> the amendment number 85 fails. are there any other amendments to title one, the commodity title? >> yes. i have an amendment. >> number 54. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for amendment number 54. you will restrain for a moment until we circulate the amendment.

>> gentlemen from california may proceed whenever he is ready. >> thank you very much. i urge the committee to support this simple amendment. my amendment respects the important role children play on family farms, but it also urjz the united states to follow the widely accepted international labor standard for children. my amendment simply adds and i state simply adds a sense of congress language to the bill

urging the united states to follow the standard age requirement for child labor that have been ratified by the united nations international labor organization. the association of farm workers opportunity program estimates that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 children working in the farming industry. some of these children are the age of 12 years of age. children who work on farms or fields spent the average of 30 hours, i state 30 hours a week working, even during the times of the year when they should be in school. so these children actually should be in school but are working on the farms which most of them don't end up graduating from high school so a lot of the dropout rates are there. it is estimated the department of labor that these children earn about $1,000 per year. we all know what happens when the department of labor tried to introduce regulations that limit the work of children can do on

farms. i have no desire to revisit that debate in this amendment. i fully respect the role of the family farms play in passing on valuable values and agricultural skills to our young generation. i have no intention of undermining this important values, but i do hope that congress can make a simple statement and believe that the widely accepted age requirement usually considered to be 16 years of age should be followed when it comes to jobs that require hours and hours of difficult manual labor. i hope we can make a strong statement in support of this health and the well-being of children and farm laborers. i urge my colleagues to support this sense of congress amendment and with that if the chair is willing to work with me, i am willing to drop the amendment as well. >> would the gentleman yield to me. >> i yield to the chair. >> i appreciate the gentleman from california's efforts on these issues.

i know he is very concerned about this. i know this affects the most important part of our society, our young people. i would absolutely be pleased to work with you in these efforts and discuss what the potentials are, and with that would thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment and yield back to him for a motion. >> with that i will withdraw my amendment and will work with the chair as well. >> absolutely. we will work together. gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. are there any other amendments to title i, the commodity title, the gentleman from california, mr. costa is recognized, cardoza, sorry. >> portuguese, gentleman from california. >> wonderful portuguese. >> which amendment. >> 59. >> i am from california, but i am not portuguese. >> i guess we all can't be lucky. number 59, would the clerk distribute those?

>> while the amendment is being distributed would the gentleman like to proceed with his explanation. >> that would be fine. thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment provides a third option for dairy producers to choose when participating in the margin insurance program created under this bill. in order to address a situation with inequitable feed cost variations between dairy producers in different states. i am sure it is the goal of everyone on this committee to create a dairy policy in which producers in all regions can be successful and to provide equitable risk management protection. this is a market base plan that uses a feed cost calculation that is the average of the cost of corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa hay in the top ten meal producing states in lieu of the

national average for feed cost calculation. as i mentioned, this is a third option that dairy farmers could choose, not a replacement for the language proposed in the manager's package. this third national dairy farmer safety net option would be equally available and equally beneficial to all producers in every state should they choose exercise the option of opting into the program. my amendment in fact reinforces the concept it is time to move from a price-based dairy producer safety net to one based on margin protection insurance. however, this amendment recognizes that feed costs not only can but do vary significantly from state to state, sometimes as much as 25%. as you know, feed costs are incurred on the farm where the feed is fed, not where the feed is produced. my amendment would result in a dairy farmer safety net that works faster to ease a producer margin squeeze while placing the additional premium cost on the producer should they select this

average cost option. my amendment would protect the taxpayer and help lower the federal deficit by reducing federal dollars spent on margin insurance where feed costs are higher. it is in the best interests of national dairy policy to have producers from all states be provided risk management products that work for their regions. my amendment aims simply to provide an additional option that is cost neutral and would address discrepancies in feed costs between states. i urge the committee to adopt this amendment. >> gentleman yields back his time. does the ranking member seek recognition? >> chairman. >> strike the last word, recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, while i have some sympathy with our good friends in california regarding their feed situation, it is a bigger problem that california has than just the feed problem. you know, they have their own

order in california. they have quota on half their milk. they operate -- they take advantage of the federal system where it benefits them and then they have their own system where that benefits them. it has worked well for them. not as well now as it did five years ago or ten years ago, but the fact of the matter is the way their order operates, they have a lower price on manufacturing milk in their order and this have actually lured a lot of cheese plants from minnesota and wisconsin to california because of lower manufacturing price that they have developed through their order even though when they get an over supply they dump into the price support system at 990, and they have supported this by having a higher fluid price, so

they actually jack up the fluid price and lower the manufacturing price, so they get themselves in a bind on this and so the solution is to lower the feed costs when really the problem is to some extent or to a large extent been created by their own state order. a better solution long-term would be for california to come into the federal order system, to operate under the same rules as all the rest of us do. i think we would have a better situation around the country if we do that. i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. what purpose does the gentleman from california mr. costa seek recking on in i guess. >> move to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment from my colleague, our colleague, the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza. i think developing a regional

price as it relates to the consideration of feed prices given the complexity and the diversity of milk production throughout the country is appropriate. clearly we have seen just in the last week with the devastating impacts of the drought in the midwest where some report that as much as a third of america's corn crop will be lost, we're going to see spikes in the impacts of corn prices that are going to in fact want only dairy but poultry and other feeder stock. this attempts to take that into account. while ranking member peterson is correct, it might be preferable for california to consider entering into the federal order, it is something that many of us who represent california have had a continuing dialog with california producers and processors. like other elements in all

things being dairy, we cannot get consensus in it. again, i speak to this as a third generation dairy family. so while this amendment is not perfect, i think it does take into account the regional costs that are involved in feed prices that are going to continue to deal with this, and i would urge the support of the gentleman's amendment. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair now moves to strike the last word and recognize himself for five minutes. i thank the gentleman for his amendment, and i understand the reasoning behind it. i know these suggestions are at least some very similar have been debate and had rejected by dairy producer organizations in the past. without benefit of further consultation with affected constituencies, particularly as it relates to modifications and how it would be made in the last few days, i am very reluctant to

support the gentleman's amendment at this time and i must reluctantly oppose the amendment. with that i yield back my time. anyone else seeking recognition? seeing none, we will proceed to vote on amendment number 59 by the gentleman from california, mr. costa -- cardoza. yes, it will be a as long as day. be patient with me. all of those in favor signify by saying aye>> aye. >> all those opposed signify by saying no. >> the nos appear to have it. the nos do have it. amendment number 59 is defeated. any additional amendments to title i, the commodity title. >> mr. chairman. >> we'll swing back and forth. gentleman from nebraska. >> amendment at the desk, number 94. >> clerk will distribute that.

>> if the gentleman from nebraska wishes to proceed, we're along on the distribution. >> first let me express my appreciation to you and the ranking member for all of your hard work on this complex piece of legislation. i recognize that the complex

bill like this takes a great deal of time and collaborative effort and particularly with members who represent such diverse districts. clearly agriculture remains one of the few bright spots in the american economy and critical we craft farm policy that builds on the strengths since this farm bill may set the course for the next five years i think we have to get it right. there is much to commend in this bill. i am concerned that it falls short when it comes to reforming the payment limitation system. without a doubt ag payments are lopsided. according to u.s. da data, 62% of farms in the united states did not collect subsidy payments. however, based upon the usda's agriculture resource management survey the largest 12.4% of farms in terms of gross receipts received more than 62% of all government payments in 2009. such a skewed system may not be sustainable in the long run. it can lead to the escalation of land prices and accelerates the concentration of land and

resources into fewer and fewer hands which is not healthy for rural america. our vibrant system of food production depends upon multiple producers taking risks, innovating and protecting resources. continuation of the current system supports greater concentration and fewer opportunities for younger and beginning farmers. i think we need a thoughtful and balanced approach here. mr. chairman, i have appreciated your willingness to listen to my concerns about needing stricter payment limits and actively engaged rules and i recognize this is not a simple issue to resolve. it involves distinct regional and commodity specific interests and the consensus is difficult to reach. i believe this amendment would help farm payments reach their intended recipients. it will lower actual payment limits, curb abuse, close loopholes and create a more fair and equitable payment system. however, at this time i would like to withdraw the amendment with the hope that the issue can be addressed as the process moves forward. we can debate the specifics but i believe it is important to

strengthen our resolve in this regard in future deliberations. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman yields back. the chair strikes the last word for five minutes simply to note i appreciate the gentleman's efforts on these issues. i know they're important to you and your constituents and they are subjects that we have great importance on the floor and ultimately in conference committee. i would also acknowledge to my colleague from nebraska this subject matter brings about as much joy to my life as dairy policy does. with that i accept your action and we are now open to any other amendments on title i. >> mr. chairman, ask for recognition, mcentire. >> the gentleman from north carolina seeks recognition for an amendment. >> yes, sir, amendment number 14, if the clear would please pass that out. >> it will be distributed. the gentleman will be recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment when he is prepared.

>> mr. chairman, i will be glad to proceed while they're passing it out if it would help save time. chairman and ranking member peterson, thank you for your opportunity to speak. i have an amendment i want to bring to our intention because it addresses an unintended consequence of the previous farm bill n 2008 i and many members of this committee sought to address the problem of producer information being used for undesirable purposes. this committee recognized that remember faers deserved to have their information protected and not used in harmful or damaging ways and we crafted 1619 that would prevent the usda from sharing farming information to groups that aimed to use this to call into question or agricultural system and try to embarrass individual farmers. we put an end to that possibility five years ago and my amendment seeks to preserve the necessary prohibitions on information sharing while improving the policy to allow usda to support local commodity marketing and promotional organizations in their efforts to grow markets for farm

products at home and abroad. the unintended consequence, however, is that this policy has created and i am parted a new and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for state-based commodity group that is serve the best interests of the farmers. specifically, my amendment would allow usda to share farm production information with registered 501 c 5 non-profit entities that implement state authorized agricultural promotion programs which are approved by producer referendum. under this proposal the usda would only be able to share production information with groups that already secured the permission of farmers to operate on their behalf. why? because groups like the north carolina sweet potato commission has done incredible work to market sweet potato producers and their efforts in our state and even overseas and countries like the united kingdom and germany. we're pleased that our executive director, for instance, sue johnson lank done has been able to do this and expand the sweet potato industry by nearly 118%

in the past decade alone because she has been able to have this type of cooperation and coordination with producers. she has to rely on information provided to her by the fsa. mr. chairman, i realize that you and the ranking member have some concerns about the possibility of other unintended consequences of this amendment, soil be glad to withdraw it, but i would like to withdraw it with an understanding with both you and the ranking member that while this information can be done technically through a memorandum of understanding, because that process is a very costly endeavor for some of our marketing groups that help our farmers, we want to make sure that such memorandums or understanding will be done in a way that are hassle free, that are standardized and streamlined, and what i would like to be able to do is ask that there be language in the committee report just to give certainty to state-based commodity groups such as the north carolina sweet potato commission and others that the

usda will continue to have the ability to enter into mous with 501 c 5 non-profit commodity organizations so they can implement commodity promotion programs, and with that understanding, mr. chairman, i would be glad to withdraw the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield before he with draws. >> yes, sir. >> the chair wishes to acknowledge i think you're on another topic that has to have more consideration but it is a valid concern. i would like to my ranking member and he agrees with that analysis, so you have our commitment. thank you. >> thank you. with that i will be glad to withdraw the amendment. >> gentleman withdraws amendment number 14. >> thank you, sir. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any other amendments in title i? gentlemen? gentleman from iowa and then we'll recognize the gentleman from -- >> i will be glad to yield back and forth. >> let's go back and forth. >> chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 23. goodla23