you said, you talked about the reforms and reforms have amounted to $6 billionio out of $16 billion coming out of food stamps. so say that you're right. we have $6 billion, where is the other $10 billion cut coming from? it's coming from the people who will no longer have food on their tables after this bill is passed. i yield back. >> yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes himself, strike the last word. and recognized myself for five minutes. in a perfect world, perhaps, this farm bill would look differently. many of you know from my earlier comments about the commodity title that i thought that the direct payment program was the most economically sound least market distorting and least wto violating provision of the commodity title, but alas, it was something that was no longer defendable in the body and changes had to be made and we

are dramatically, dramatically changing the commodity title in that regard. now we come to the nutrition side of the equation. many of the same reasons that i'm sensitive about foreign policy, i'm also very sensitive about the nutrition policy. many of you heard me point out they represent a district that was the subject of mr. steinbeck's book back in the 1930s where the conditions, of course, by economic policy conditions both ag and otherwise went com plealy awry and what my parents and grandparents' generation went through. many of the descendants of what had been my neighbors at the time are your constituents in other places and i got out of college in the 1980s just in time to watch bad energy and ag policy once again, crater the economy of my district and of my region. so i'm very sensitive about

trying to address good ag policy, but we have jurisdiction in this committee, good commodity title policy and good nutrition policy. i sincerely believe the language we have in front of us now, those individuals who buy income and buy asset who will qualify for the benefits you automatically receive in many occasions with the categoric eligibility circumstance will have to -- who once they qualify under the regular process will receive the help they need. that is my intention. it's not my intention to be part of an effort to make anyone who qualifies suffer, but by the same token we are trying to achieve savings here and we are trying to compel reforms here that touch all areas of this comprehensive farm bill. >> i think that the nutrition

title achieves that, and i say very respectfully to my friends who have the strongest of emotions, the strongest of passions, i hope you are wrong. but i believe this is the direction you must go in order to restore confidence in these programs to our fellow citizens across this whole country. i sincerely believe that, so with that i ask my colleagues to oppose amendment number 21 and yield back the balance of my time and ask if there are any other requests for recognition, seeing none we'll now proceed to vote on amendment number 21 by mr. mcgovern. all those in favor of amendment number 21 signify so by saying aye. >> all those in opposition to amendment 21 signify so by

saying no. >> no! >> by my tin ear i believe the nos have it. mr. gentleman ask for a recorded vote? >> a recorded vote is ordered. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. goodlat? >> no. >> mr. goodlat, no. mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. johnson, no. >> mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. >> mr. nagbower. mr. conaway? >> no. >> mr. conaway no. >> mr. fortenberry? >> no. >> mr. thompson, no. mr. rooney, mr. rooney no. >> mr. stutsman, no. >> mr. gibbs? >> no. >> mr. gibbs no. mr. austin scott? >> no. >> mr. austin scott, no. >> mr. tipton? mr. tipton, no. >> mr. sutherland, no. >> mr. crawford, no.

>> mr. crawford, no. [ inaudible ] mr. gibson? >> mr. gibson, no. >> mr. hol green, no. >> mr. hol green no. >> mr. schilling? >> no. >> mr. ribbel? no. mr. peterson, mr. peterson, no. >> mr. holden? no. >> mr. holden, no. >> mr. mcintyre? >> no. >> mr. bosswell, yes. >> mr. bosswell, yes. >> mr. baca. >> yes. >> mr. baca, yes. mr. cardoza. >> yes. >> mr. cardoza, yes. >> mr. david scott, yes.

>> mr. david scott, yes. mr. kwaar, yes. >> mr. costa? >> yes. >> mr. costa, yes. mr. wallace? >> yes. >> mr. wallace, yes. mr. schrader? >> no. >> mr. schrader no. >> mr. kissel? >> yes. >> mr. kissel, yes. >> mr. owens? >> mr. owens no. mrs. pingry? >> yes. >> mr. pingry, yes. >> mr. courtney? >> yes. >> mr. courtney, yes. >> miss fudge? >> yes. >> miss fudge, yes. >> mr. sublime. >> yes. >> mr. sublime, yes. >> miss sewell? >> yes. >> miss sewell, yes. >> mr. nagbower? >> no. >> mr. nagbower, no. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> makes sense.

>> mr. chairman, the vote is 15 yeas to 31 nays. [ inaudible ] >> mr. chairman i have an amendment that i would offer to withdraw. that would be wonderful. the chair is recognized for both. mr. chairman, i've heard from many food pantries throughout the district that are concerned about the possibility of regulations both at the usda and the food and drug administration which could impose new cost on the ability of food pantries to operate. food pantries are often very small operations in churches and other non-profits and local communities given the incredibly tight budgets and these organizations operate under and they do not have the ability to absorb unnecessary regulatory

cost. my amendment would require any agency issuing regulations that affect food pantries that consider the costs these regulations would have on these local entities who are trying to serve their communities while trying to make ends meet for the purposes of -- i don't know if you want me to distribute it or not, but that is number 90 and mr. chairman, what i -- what i would like if the chair is willing and the ranking member is willing is to work together with me on language moving forward to try to address this issue. we have a situation where the federal government is coming in to communities and increasing the cost of communities that serve 200, 300, sometimes more people than that and every dollar they have to spend on regulatory compliance is one less dollar they can spend buying food from food bank which is they distribute to people who

are most in need. so i'm not aware of any reason yet federal government needs to move in here. most communities and states have public health departments and i'm not aware of any particular food safety issues that relate to local churches or other organizations that distribute food in pantries that would necessitate their having a need for the heavy hand of the usda or the food and drug administration coming in and imposing regulations on them. so i would ask if the chairman would support our efforts to make sure that we do what we can in this bill to minimize this impact on these very worthwhile organizations that help some of our neediest people. >> i would be pleased to work with the gentleman from virginia. and so acknowledges the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, i have another amendment, number 43 that i also intend to withdraw.

i have unanimous consent to withdraw amendment number 90. >> mr. chairman, amendment number 43 also relates to food banks. for the past couple of years food banks across the nation have experienced a frustrating problem, despite the underlying farm bill giving secretary vilsack, the secretary has delayed making these commodity purchases. in fact, for this year the secretary just made the second commodity purchase and we're half way through the year. these purchases take time so it could mean the food is not even hitting the shelf of food banks until the end of this year. this is not an effective use of the money that congress has provided under past bills and in the underlying bill. this mandatory money is meant to help food banks with with the current secretary's immediate minh station of the food bank is impeding the effectiveness of

the food bank to continue providing current levels of food assistance to the food pantries that i just referred to run by non-profit organizations and religious organizations and others who distribute food to those in need and many food banks face the prospect of empty shelve shelves. my amendment is to maximum continuity of commodity purchases is followed by the secretary of agriculture. i think this is a common sense solution to ensure that the usda issa being ratley administering a very important program the emergency food assistance program. mr. chairman, because of some scoring problems with the amendment from cbo i was not able to reconcile before the mark-up began and i'm going to withdraw the amendment and i will request that you and the ranking member work with me to address this issue moving forward. >> i will look at those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. i withdraw amendment number 43.

>> amendment number 43 is withdrawn. is there a request for recognition for amendment on -- that was 43. it's been withdrawn. mr. schrader? with drawn. mr. schrader, what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek to be recognized? >> to strike the last word, mr. chair. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> about amendment 88 that i would like my colleagues to consider, if we're really interested in adopting some middle ground on the snap program going forward, i think this gives us an opportunity to come to a solid bipartisan agreement. the ag committee's commitment to deficit reduction i think is unparalleled compared to any other committee in the united states congress. we've stepped up as a bipartisan group with the chair and ranking member, particularly leading the way it offer $23 billion worth of reductions in the ag budget. i think that's a huge commitment

and one that's proportional to the budget or part of the budget that we represent before congress. going more than that i think becomes unfair. i think it becomes more than a little unfair. some of the testimony you've heard today, some passionate about the people in need. that resonates with me. i feel that there's an opportunity here for us to go back to the bipartisan agreement that the ranking member and committee chair agreed to back last year when they made recommendations to the supercommittee to go to a $4 billion reduction, potential reduction as has been pointed out today, in the snap program. it was a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that was remarkable considering the tenor of the congress this last year. the senate has already passed this agreement in large part, approved a $4.5 billion reduction to the program, overwhelmingly bipartisan,

64-35. 16 republicans, 48 democrats. i think we should encourage this bipartisanship. that's what this ag committee i heard earlier today is supposedly all about. this bill cuts nearly $12 billion more. i think that's a little unfair given the context. and if this thing ever does pass, i hope we go to conference and can change that. we're talking about children, we're talking about low-income family, as has been pointed out, neem are not part of the -- people that are not part of the problem getting us into this to begin with. my amendment simply removes the house title that we've put in, title 4, and replaces it with title 4 in the senate bill. should be an easy bipartisan vote. frankly, if we want the fastbrm bill to pass, not go back to 1939 or whatever it is, i think this is a good bipartisan agreement we can get behind and show this congress we can walk our talk in the ag committee. i urge its adoption and yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any member seeking

recognition on amendment number 88? >> yes, mr. chair. i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> yes. i arise to support the amendment from the gentleman from oregon. while i did vote for the last amendment by mr. mcgovern, i would urge the colleagues in this committee to remember that there was an agreement last december of $23 billion cut in the farm bill. to do our part to deal with getting our nation's fiscal house in order. that $23 billion in cuts involving the program crops, involving the conservation props, and including the nutrition programs, while some may -- of us may have disliked certain parts of it was generally a bipartisan agreement to try to get a bipartisan bill at the end of last year. that didn't come together. but that also conformed with the budget cuts that were approved under the budget committee, as

well, i believe. and we've had a passionate and i think useful debate this afternoon as it relates to the snap program, the nutritional programs that we clearly all acknowledge are an important part of america's safety net. the proposal that the gentleman from oregon has conforms with that initial agreement that i think was out there and reflect the senate mcththat is out of t senate. and this that sense i rj my colleagues to support this -- i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the fact is that we have personal experiences about dealing with those who are less fortunate in our society, those in our congressional districts. i remember very clearly when i was at fresno state being in big brothers and big sisters, an important program across the

country. i had a little brother, phillipiansy. he was 15 years of age. while my family situation was pretty good, we were middle class, doing okay, it was a real snapshot at a very early age in my life at 21 to see what it was like for kids who would go without food when their food stamps ran out at the end of the month. i would spend about five or six hours a week with phillip. and i remember very clearly the third, fourth month that i was his mentor for a period of two years how 15-year-old kids are really hungry. but he was enormously hungry this particular time period. and i said, phillip, you know -- i would always take him for hamburgers -- i said, you seem really hungry. he looked at his shoelaces and said -- i bought him a pair of wonderful adidas shoes that he almost lived in. he says, well, jim, he says, we ran out of our food stamps two days ago. all i had was the school lunch

program. a 15-year-old kid gets pretty hungry at the end of the month. so we're all i think guided by the goodness in all of us. and i would urge us to support the gentleman from oregon's amendment in the light of a bipartisan agreement that i thought we had struck last december. and i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any other members seeking recognition? seeing none, the chairman moves to strike the last word and recognizes himself for five minutes. i would simply note to my colleagues, i understand this is a very straightforward amendment. if you adopt this, i step away from the $16 billion in reforms. and you step to $4 billion in reforms. it's very straightforward. i think my colleagues are very sincere. they're trying to -- to go from $16 billion to $4 billion. i have to oppose that, and i

would ask my colleagues to oppose that. and yield back. seeing no other requests, all those in favor of amendment number 88 by mr. schrader, signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed signify by saying no. the nos appear to have it. the gentleman requests a recorded vote. the clerk will call the role o amendment 88. >> mr. good last? >> no. >> no. mr. johnson? mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. >> no. >> no. mr. conaway? >> no. >> no. mr. effofortenberry? >> no. >> mrs. schmidt? >> no. >> mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. around? >> no. >> mr. stutsman?

>> no. >> mr. gibbs? >> no. mr. austin scott? >> no. >> mr. austin scott, no. mr. tipton. mr. tipton, no. mr. sutherland? >> no. >> mr. crawford? >> no. >> mr. crawford, no. mrs. robey, no. >> no. >> mr. hewels camp? >> no. >> no. >> mrs. elmers? >> no. >> mr. gibson? >> yes. >> mr. gibson, yes. mr. holchren? >> no. >> mrs. hertzler? >> no. >> mr. schilling? >> no. >> mr. ripple. >> no. >> mr. ripple, no. mrs. nill? >> no. >> mr. peterson? >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden? >> no. >> mr. holden, no.

mr. mcintyre? >> yes. >> mr. mcintyre, yes. mr. bozwell? yes. mr. baca? >> yes. >> mr. cardoza? >> yes. >> mr. cardoza, yes. david scott? >> yes. >> mr. david scott, yes. >> yes. >> mr. costa? >> mr. costa, yes. mr. walls? >> yes. >> mr. walls, yes. mr. shader? >> yes. >> mr. schrader, yes. >> mr. kissel? >> yes. >> mr. owens? >> yes. >> mrs. pingree? >> yes. >> mr. courtney? >> yes. >> mr. welch? >> yes. >> mrs. fudge? [ inaudible ]

>> no. mrs. sewell? [ inaudible ] mr. mcgovern? >> no. >> mr. mcgovern, no. mr. johnson? mrs. fudge? mr. sewell? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 15 yeas, 28 nays. >> since we have most -- i would suggest that we've made tremendous progress working through the schedule. let's stand in recess until 4:30.

after starting work at 10:00 eastern this morning, the agriculture markup is in a break. some members can go to the house floor for votes. including a vote on repealing

the 2010 health care law. the members spent much of the day yesterday debating the bill and completed debate a short time ago. you can see that vote on the repeal on our companion network, c-span, expected at about 3:30 eastern. and we'll be back here live when members of the committee return for more work on the farm bill. expected back at 4:30 eastern and continuing late into the evening. until then, a hearing held earlier today on capitol hill. the house judiciary subcommittee looked into recent national security and intelligence leaks revealing the obama administration's role and clandestine operation against al qaeda. the expanded use of drones by the u.s., and the use of cyber-attacks against iran. witnesses included george w. bush's homeland security adviser and attorney steve lattuck who challenged the bush administration's use of tribunals at guantanamo. the justice department has named

two attorneys to investigate the leaks. >> within the last few months, the american people and rest of the world have become privy to an astonishing number of revelations concerning the secret operations of our armed forces and national intelligence agencies. we have learned that a pakistani doctor cooperated with u.s. forces in conducting dna tests to help locate osama bin laden. we have learned that the president of the united states personally decides the human targets of drone strikes in other countries by looking at mug shots and brief biographies of targets, and that we have been told resembled the high school yearbook layout. we have learned that the united states in cooperation with its ally israel sabotaged the iranian nuclear campaign with the sucksnet virus. we have learned that obama expanded the assault even after the virus accidently made its way into the internet in 2010. we have learned that the united

states sabotaged iranian computers with the flame virus. we have learned that the cia takedown of an al qaeda plot to blow up the u.s.-bound airliner involved in international sting operation with the double agent tricking terrorists and the handing over of prized possession. a bomb reportedly designed to slip through airport security. we have also learned that the double agent belonged to another ally, saudi arabia. we didn't learn of the secret programs and doibls through spies or other countries' diplomats or even from the wikileaks scandal. we learned of these secrets from the pages of "the new york times" and other newspapers. the editors of "the new york times" and other newspapers have publicly claimed many times that they see themselves as having a duty to inform. during the bush administration, "the new york times" and other newspapers savaged president bush and the intelligence community for its tactics in the war on terror. how time have changed. here is a sample of the

headlines that accompanied these latest national security leaks. obama order sped-up waves of cyber-attacks against iran, "the new york times." secret kill list proves a test of obama's principles and will, "new york times". st stucksnet was the work of israeli officials, "washington post." these are not the critical headlines that pursued bush administration officials. not only has the administration not complained about these articles, but official make a planner, operator, and commander of s.e.a.l. team six who killed osama bin laden available to a hollywood director and screenwriter working on a movie about this successful raid. according to pentagon and cia records obtained by judicial watch who got the information through foyer requests. the four leaders of the

intelligence committees have condemned these leaks. senator feinstein said that she was deeply disturbed by these leaks and wants an investigation, and she's right. the attorney general has deployed two u.s. attorneys two report to him to investigate the leaks and to determine whether anyone from the administration should be prosecuted. today we'll have a look at the law, discuss the options available for investigating these disclosures to the press. these leaks threaten our national security, our relations with foreign governments, and continued candor from embassy officials and foreign sources. they already have had profound consequences. the doctor who cooperated with us was sentenced to 30 years in prison by pakistani authorities. intelligence sources have told us that the saudi arabian double agent was exposed because of news reports. as long as there have been governments, there have been information protected by