>> joining us on "newsmakers" is the chair of the committee. thank you for being with us. >> yes, sir. joining us here with the questioning, contributing editor of the national journal, thank you for joining us. senator stabenow, let me begin with you. you have indicated this is not your father's farm bill. what is in this legislation and what is the difference? >> this is very different. i am so proud to be partnering in this effort with senator pat roberts. this really is a partnership with us. what we have done, rather than protecting programs with what are the principles, what are the goals, production agriculture,

conservation, energy and so on, and we have taken a look at everything in the farm bill. we have made some important decisions about reform. we're not going to pay farmers anymore when they're not having a good year or four things they do not grow -- crops they do not grow. we want it to this and the marketplace. not the government telling folks what to plan and what the press ought to be, but the marketplace. we will be right in there with insurance. with other support when there is a disaster. because of price or marketplace, we do not want anybody losing the farm because of a few days of bad weather. from a taxpayer standpoint, we want to take a close look at everything. our efforts, which have eliminated about 100 different programs, authorization, streamlining conservation so

that we stretch every dollar, dealing with fraud and abuse, nutrition, changing to a web- based system has netted out the ability for us to offer $23 billion in reductions. we are the only committee that has come together in a bipartisan basis to offer real deficit reduction. if every committee had done that back in the fall when we were all asked to do it, if we would have a major deficit reduction report -- major deficit reduction proposal. strongutting together a safety net for agriculture. we do not have a strong, healthy food supply. abundant food supply. we stand together with our farmers and ranchers. that is what we are doing, but we're doing it in a more accountable way. a way that makes common sense. that is more usable.

it is streamlined. we are cutting subsidies that, frankly, are -- over due to be cut. >> senator roberts, is the political environment different this year than previous farm bills? >> i think so. our budget situation, caused by the deficit and the debt, everybody knows we have to pay back. i want to reiterate what she said and i want to thank her by leading. was bipartisan. when is the word back come? why can't you all work together. we worked in a bipartisan way on this committee. we brought this to the floor. we think we can get this done. whittle downing to the amendments. the chairwoman and i will be meeting on monday and opened up

for amendments from members. to answer your question, finally, yes. it has changed dramatically because of the budget. it has also changed dramatically because the current bill expires on september 30. you do not want the farmers asking their lenders for another loan or credit from the farm credit system without known with the farm bill is going to be. you do not want to extend the current farm bill because that was back to direct payments which is back to acres from 25 years ago. this bill is based on planted acres. that is one of the big differences. and then, as the chairwoman indicated, we look at these programs. there were four. now there is one, basically two. there is a revenue program. that was the number one issue in

all of the hearings. the number one issue was all the regulations. we like to make some progress along those as well. sometimes, you have to take advantage of this situation where you need to move on a farm bill. you also need to do your part in regards to deficit reduction. let me say this again, with the chairman said. we are the first authorizing committee in the house or senate, who voluntarily, nobody else does this because of the sequester, although we do have one hanging out there, that we came forward and we have 23 -- i think it is 23.6 on the latest cbo count. i think maybe people think we ought to have more or less, we have come together. we have made our deficit reduction right out of the box. the super committee could not do

it. the agricultural committee did. >> thank you. i would like to talk to senator stabenow about the food provisions in the bill. a 70% of the funding goes to nutritional programs rather than farm programs. senator, there are some anti hunger advocates that are angry that you're going to cut $4 billion over 10 years out of the food stamp program. there are others who want a big cuts. there are others who are asking of this bill will do anything to fight obesity. could you respond to those questions please? >> sure. important questions. let me say, first, that i star from a position -- in michigan, we have one of the five people who only need to ask for that help for about 10 months. during this recession, we have

been hit harder than any other state in the country. they never thought before in their entire lives that they would need to ask for help. there are mortified. but they have to have helped to keep food on the table. i watched every dollar that is available to actually go to them. the people who really needed. we have made the decision that it needs to be there. just a crop insurance is there for disaster for the farmer. the need to be there for disaster for a family. but we do not want $1 to be abused or wasted or to have fraud. we've had two incidences' -- incidences where people who won the lottery at have been getting food. we deal with retail trafficking. people who are using their card

to get cash to buy drugs and get other things. we go after one other thing. we're not affecting people who need help. we have had a policy that some states have, in my judgment, have used beyond legislative intent. we are tightening that up. i appreciate that there are others who would prefer that we did not have any savings. a kentucky the approach -- approach we take is accountability and make sure where they're through families. but we are increasing funding to a food bank. we are making more fresh fruits and vegetables available through the farmers market.

we continue to strengthen more opportunities for local farmers. local efforts around fresh fruits and vegetables. we are making great strides as it relates to local food systems. supporting those efforts in schools for healthy food. i want to make sure that every dollar is kept exactly where it should be and we do not have people, frankly, ripping off the system. that is the approach we take. >> let me turn it to jim abrams. >> one of the other major issues is the regional divided. saying that your ability, the revenue justice not work for them. can you talk a little bit about their concerns and the efforts you are making? perhaps why your bill satisfies?

>> it is in the eyes of the beholder. from the first, i think the chairman and i indicated to all the commodity groups that this is a different year. this is the year that we have to change. the same thing was true in 1996. there's a lot of opposition to it and that protected the time from the south. that changed once they learn to appreciate the direct payments. this is the situation where we tried to indicate to the people that we will do everything we possibly can, given the circumstances that we have. people obviously do feel that certain crops are not treated fairly or, to be more accurate, it just does not work as well as we hoped it could work out. both of the chairwoman and of

myself and my staff's have worked very hard with the senators. we have tried to come up with answers for them in regards to better insurance. the arts program that the chairman has come up with, to try to extend that period all sorts of different things and we have talked about. it still happens. one of the good things is we have done our work. we have a 16-5 of vote. we promised the folks that we will continue to work with them. we will continue to work with our southern colleagues. i'm sure there will have many amendments. we will be talking with them. and then there's the opportunity. this is not over by any means.

never is. it is a changing product. we do not want to disadvantaged anybody or any crop. we will continue to work with these folks. >> yes. the southerners and some other farm groups are saying that the problem with this bill is it does not give farmers a protection against a decrease in farm prices over several years. could you address that issue? >> number one, i am not expecting global demand to change that much. you never know about that. as you know, we've talked to farmers and they say, well, these prices are not going to change. they're going to drop. that is probably true over long period of time. we just heard going by the dictates of the witches their

bankers and lenders say please, do something about all of the regulatory overkill we have to deal with in terms of price down the road. we do have a revenue program. think of those were talking about that want things the way they are today. they're not going to change. i am sorry. that is not the case we are facing with the budget deficit. this is a more modern day approach to have the risk management effort be the main protection for farmers and then on top of that, a very modest revenue program that is priced over a five-year period now, is that a target price? no. the farmers are farming for the

government again. then get into a wto swamp. cotton made the decision to go from the commodity program. that was a big step forward. for the south, i think that is a big telling situation. >> did you want to follow-up? >> i did. i am sorry. i did not mean to interrupt you. i was going to follow up and _ a couple of things. one is that change is hard. we do have a different kind of economic reports and analysis of people can disagree about them. we have had two. one came out from the university of missouri. which looked at what we have done for cotton and what we have

done through the agricultural risk coverage program for all the commodities. we cannot pretty even in fact, we do better than all the rest of the commodities. within a fair range and how it would work. on the price and, we have heard a lot of concerns. we believe the economist who has indicated, looking at the price issue, and what we use in a five-year average to look at it. folks are most concerned, in his analysis would actually do better and be more protected. i know there are some differences as to whether or not -- people can always disagree with economists. i guess i would say we have put in place, it is fair to say.

it is fair for every commodity. some commodities did better than others. we move to a system where we try to be fair for everyone. we know that we need to continue to work with folks to do a better job. we know the house has some different ideas. we note that, in the end, we will come together and address these concerns. but reform is hard. this is reform. it will always be the distance. i think the taxpayer for farmers. for deficit reductions. for many reasons. bacon support farmers when there are lawsuits and at the same time save taxpayer dollars when there is not a loss.

as he said, we want to make sure it is fair and works for everybody. that is part of what we are working on. the new bill will create more crop insurance opportunities. it will do more for the country as a whole. >> let me follow up on crop insurance. we will reduce that percentage to cap the amount the farmer can get or do some kind of means testing. can you address these amendments? and why it is important for farmers to get to this level of

subsidy? >> first of all, this is insurance. we're eliminating 4 subsidies. eliminating them. we are saving, within the commodity title, $15+ billion in cuts. we're moving to a system where farmers get a federal discount so we can help them purchase their insurance. they're not getting money in their pockets. it is a partnership. they're getting help to buy insurance. they will only receive the help of the have a loss. this is not a subsidy. this will help them buy coverage. they have skin in the game. this is an out-of-pocket money

for the farmer as well. i think this is exactly where taxpayers would want us to go. there is no payoff to cover the loss. i hope we will stay true to what we heard from farmers all over the country during our process of putting together the farm bill. up for willing to give different subsidies not tied to a loss. if we would support them, to make sure they are covered if there is a loss. to me, that is a fair deal. >> about 10 minutes remain. this bill needs to pass by the end of september. the house still needs to do its work. what is your biggest concern about what you're putting forth on the consent -- on the senate side of the aisle and whether there may be a political divide? >> the house is the house. we will wait to see what they come up with.

what worries me the most? that we will get bogged down. perhaps, the senate will revert back to the majority leader, with all due respect, eliminating the number of amendments on our side and saying, wait a minute, we're not getting the opportunity to offer the amendments we want. then we go back and are spinning our wheels. and of the chairwoman is working extremely hard on her side and i am on our side as well. a lot of numbers to see if we cannot get these numbers to a reasonable amount. what is reasonable in some person's mind might not be the same in other people's minds. maybe they ought to make that separate amendment at some other time. we are working through that. and then on the floor, people offer amendments, so, we vote.

i think we can get it done in the senate. in the house, that as a whole different situation. they seem to be approaching the policy a bit differently. that is certainly their right. we will urge them to pass the bill. then we'll go to congress and work up the difference. >> senator roberts, since it is the southerners who are not so happy with the bill and most of the southern senators are republican, there is talk that they might form a coalition with the fiscal conservatives to try to stop of the bill or slow it down. since you are working on this process of trying to reach agreement on amendments, how do feel that this process is working within your own caucus? >> i don't think of what to talk about and some kind of an axis or whenever, some kind of partnership, is the case. i have talked to individual members. over and over again. i don't see that happening.

there may be some members who might object to the bill that might be extra in u.s., non germane. we're trying to get those folks as well. i do not see that happening. >> senator, a question for you. >> ok. i wanted to jump in on that one point as well just to say, i think that was going to happen, it would happen on the motion to proceed. i want to say thank you to the 90 people of senators who move to vote for this bill. people who work in their region but now we're operating in good faith. they are operating in good faith. they care about their state. they know we're going to get their, so i appreciate that very much. i think the place you would see that is on the motion to proceed.

the folks are talking deeply about agriculture. the care about producers. they want to get a bill. -- day care about producers. -- they care about producers. they want to get a bill. i think there are a lot of folks working to get us where we want to go. >> just a few weeks ago,, people were saying there is no way in a presidential year that there is a much partner -- partisanship, there is no way you get a farm bill through congress. now, listening to both of you, there seems to be a lot more optimism involved. did you talk about has there been any change? was going on there? >> well, i understand all the pundits.

at the truth of the matter is that when folks want to work together, and senator roberts and i both care very much about what is represented in this bill in terms of real people. farmers, ranchers, kids in school, efforts to protect our land for hundreds of fishermen and the water quality. you know, if all of the things that are involved in this. the people want to work together. we can. that is what i am proudest of. we put the partisan hat at him the door. there are regional differences, differences in ideas. that is ok. that is called a democracy. that is called governing in the united states. that is why we all came to this country. i hope we will work with each other. when you listen. you gain trust. and then you try to get it done. i am very proud that our

committee has been willing to do that. and that people in the senate are trusting us enough to move forward. that we will be fair. i addressed chairman lucas and the house and ranking chairman petersen. wu tried to get deficit reduction done, it is really made a difference here. i have great confidence in them. we are focused on getting it done. all the other stuff can go all around us as far as i'm concerned. we want to get this thing done and i think, frankly, people deserve it. >> i know we only have a short time. the agricultural committee, historically, has been the least partisan committee in the prompt -- in the congress. we know it is because of a very special mission. we have 9 billion people coming.

and yet we are a forgotten miracle. people are beginning to understand that. on the committee, we know that. we really pushed hard hat with a great deal of passion for what we are doing. i think other people and the senate and in the house are looking to a bill where they can agree on things and stop this business, like you are talking about, of all the negativeism that is coming out of washington. maybe the farm bill can be something more people come together. i certainly hope so. also, outstanding leadership on the part of the chairwoman. >> let me focus on that point is you're talking about what is happening with the senate bill. but when you say this is a non- partisan bill, while house republicans move ahead on the timeline to get this done by the end of december, early fall? >> if i could just jump in

here, we do not know. there are all kinds of ifs and buts. i can tell you this. there are people who have a job because of agriculture policy, whether it is in the field or food-processing or other parts, building machinery and a great new technology in the tractor and so on. 16 million people. that is a big deal. one out of four are in michigan. i think we get this moving, they get it done in the senate. i'm confident they will. there'll be enough of a push to get it done. >> final question. >> i would like to follow up with senator robert spirit you were chairman of the committee. this time you're on the senate side and it is very unusual, but the senate is pushing the house. how do you think the house members feel about taking direction from the senate?

>> i think you're talking to frank lucas and the ranking chairman. they might have a little bit of a tougher situation over there in the house. john boehner used to be on the at committee. i can talk to him about it all day long. he understands what is at stake. they know we probably have a better chance in the senate. in that particular time, goodness knows we do not want to get into that situation. this is a different time. i think the majority the people understand that. i think it will meet its. i think the stakes are too high. >> we have less than one minute left. you get the last word. >> well, i this one to thank

again our whole committee. he has a priority to address. he would give this opportunity on the floor. time is precious with much to do. he has been willing to make this a priority. i want to thank him as well. >> joining us from michigan today, the ranking republican senator pat roberts from kansas. thank you for being with us here. jim abrams of the associated press. appreciate you being with us on this sunday. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you can watch this "newsmakers" interview later today at 6:00 eastern here on c- span. >> they are often referred to as >> they are often referred to as the conscious