in a city, you are often in a rent controlled apartment or an apartment where heating is included. imagine as a young person living contractgton, your and said he'd and electricity included. heat and electricity included. so if you're in a low-income family, you do not pay a heating bill every month. . it is included in your rent. policymakerss and decided, well, just beside -- just because you're a hard- working person that is not have a heating bill you paid uniquely, you're still eligible to receive food stamps under the efficiencies. because the way we try to make government more efficient, if you are a low income, hard- working family, and you qualify for assistance under one federal program, we do not make you fill out the paperwork again. we do not make you say -- you need to prove you are earning $20,000 a year again. they just say -- you qualify, you are at the par party level, and we think you and your

children deserve the support that we can provide. so under this program, if you are in an apartment building where your heat included, and you are low income, you may receive food stamps. now, if you illuminate this program by saying it is a loophole, you are just taking hungry families off the rolls of food stamps, and that is not with the food stamp program is about. it is not about making sure people cannot get assistance that needed. what this amendment will do is it will restore the cuts. right now, in new york, three hundred thousand families are going to receive less food and they will receive $90 less a month. own lives what $90 a month pays for. that is a whole week of groceries. if you are a single mom with two kids, working $40 -- 40 hours a week on our minimum wage, you are earning $3000 below the poverty line during so imagine what that feels like to have $90 less a month to just feed your kids. that is who is going to be cut.

50% of food stamps recipients in this country are children. a good number of food stamp recipients in this country our seniors. a good number of food stamp recipients are veterans. you would not know this, but a good number of food stamp recipients are active-duty military members. so any type of amendment that cuts the program because you think it is a loophole -- please investigate the substance of that program. it is -- this program applies to people who live in apartment buildings who are hard-working, low-income families, who do not have to reapply to get food stamps as they are already suffering and in need. thank you. i will withdraw the imminent. may, please., if i >> yes. >> thank you. i just want to offer my support for the amendment it and the sentiments expressed by senator from new york. as i express and other comments, the benefit of snap to

something people, not just in massachusetts but around the nation is quite evident here it -- quite evident during where we are contemplating cuts of the significance, we need to fully appreciate the consequences. the suggestion that the so- called light he loophole was something that needs to be fixed because it might be the genesis of some abuses not the case in massachusetts. what is in massachusetts, it is a creative means by those who were charged with a solemn responsibility making these public benefits available to those in greatest need use it to greatest efficiency. it allows us to serve more people who have need if this amendment -- this memo would allow us to do that. failure to do that means that we are once again putting those who in evenire straits more significant circumstances. so i support the senator from new york. >> senator jill brandt. >> thank you.

i will be withdrawing this amendment. >> thank you very much. let me just say on this a minute, because i do feel compelled as we have word for it hard to make sure that the benefit structure is not changed and that we are supporting nutritional programs in this country, the good news is this does not sever the connection between the two programs. it sets a threshold rather than one dollar of $10 in order to be able to have it. but it is very important we keep that connection and not eliminate or create more paperwork for those who have both heating assistant needs and food assistant needs. are there other amendments? >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to call on my amendment to restrict categorical eligibility in the stamp program. >> you may proceed. >> medicare, i have a rather unique experience here because,

of course, as secretary of agriculture, i managed this program. i left the usda in the fall of 2007 to run for the senate seat that i am in today. at that time, there were 27 million people that were on the snap program. today, that number has grown to 47 alien. when i was secretary of agriculture, i propose limiting categorical eligibility to certain cash benefits, but congress did not adopt it. now that i am in congress, i want to try this again, hopefully with a different result. thise emphasize -- amendment does nothing, absolutely nothing, to restrict benefits to those who are eligible to receive the snap program. i administered the food stamp program as it was called back then, and i strongly support

making sure those who are benefits of the program. i did then, i do now. but right now, some states are exploiting categorical eligibility to allow many people who weren't otherwise eligible to get the snap benefits. chair, don'tmadam believe my words on this. cbo estimates that it would save over $11 billion if we simply ensured that those people on snap are actually eligible for the benefits. let me state again -- cbo says it would save $11 billion if we just save those who are eligible for snap should get it. but nobody else. so madam chair, i just think this is a commonsense amendment. whyust kind of strikes me

one should adopt this amendment because it is in full compliance with the law. i would ask for a recorded vote on the amendment. >> further discussion on the imminent. >> medicare, i know this is well-intentioned, and i have a huge amount of respect. dealing with these programs at the state level and nationally, but what the amendment will do is a practical matter is that it changes the categorical eligibility for these supplemental nutrition for those program receiving assistance of those defined in the regulations of the assistance for needy families program. have the attentional of displacing approximately 1.8

million who are currently eligible as program participants. it could affect school meals or 228,000 children. , i verye reasons reluctantly oppose the amendment. >> thank you very much. yes, thankerts >> you, madam chairman. i appreciate my friends in nebraska. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting be amended. today, states have the option of using categorical eligibility or automatic eligibility. allegedly help streamline the states administer vision of snap by allowing households to qualify

without evaluating household assets or gross income. an 42 states are exploiting unintended loophole of informational brochures, informational one 800 numbers to maximize the snap and roman and the corresponding increase in federal food benefits. some could actually say that these dates are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible snapper does this into the program, again without it are you waiting -- without evaluating household income. the memo would save over $11 billion over 10 years. this represents a cut to some of the benefits, but this amount represents the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were it not for the state gaming the system. the states should not be encouraged or permitted to game the federal nutritional

programs if there is anything unfair about this minute. it is that states have chosen to really milk the taxpayer for snap benefits. and controversial issue. thank the senator for his courage to identify the program integrity, which really leads to all of the recipient and the taxpayer. we want to help those who truly need it, and we want to be fair to the taxpayer as well. so i would encourage my colleagues to support the senator's amendment. >> center gala brand. -- senator gala brand. horrible: eligibility is not about closing a loophole. we put those reforms in place as part of welfare reforms during a 1990's. to send more money to the states to make sure they can handle these issues. the reason why it was created in that structure was for

efficiency. and for members of congress who are presently saying there is too much government wastes, too much government involvement, too much government protocol -- you are arguing the exact opposite right now. you are arguing that you want more paperwork, more people sitting at my, more people filling out forms, when the whole purpose of these efficiencies in the 1990's was just to get resources to the families that need it. if you are on a welfare program, you are designated and at risk family, it means you're hard- working people who just don't earn enough money to provide for your kids. or you are a senior who worked your whole life, served our country even, gave every sacrifice under the sun, and just don't have enough money to get by. our programs do not cover everything as needed. more than half the people on social security today are below the poverty line. we're talking by keeping seniors out of starving party. -- starving poverty.

we're talking about rewarding veterans. we're going to make sure food is on the table. i know we are eager to cut spending everywhere we can come up with this is not the place to balance our budget. we are a country that is not want people to go hungry. i urge you not to support this amendment. >> thank you. let me just indicate my strong opposition as well. this amendment has been defeated multiple times on the floor of the senate, and on a partisan considerationng last year. it would eliminate an option used by over 40 states. so i would urge a no vote. is there anyone further wishing to? -- those in favor say aye those opposed name. the names have it. -- the nays have it. opinions of the nutrition title. >> thank you, madam chairman.

this will be number four. this has to do with the snap education program, which is voluntary and requires a state resource matches well. any discussion about the snap program this morning centers around cuts to the program and who at that might impact. this is not impact any beneficiary. this is basically the program that is used to educate people. if you look at where those dollars go today, you've got some serious inequities in the way that the money is disturbing it. in fact, it seems a little unfair that 54% of these resources are going to four states. snap enrollees than california. and it is only receiving 1.3% of these funds, where california gets 31.4%. it is not seem like it would

take that much more to educate people in california than it does in the state of texas. this is not in the program, which some of the previous proposals have attended to do, but instead ensures resources are spent more equitably. what it does is it provides for a five dollar per person number that would be allowed for an enrolled enrolled individual to be used for education. that is indexed annually for inflation. again, i think this is a fairly common sense thing that does not impact people who are beneficiaries of this. by the way, this score is that a $2 billion savings. so if we are looking for areas to find savings in the farm bill, and i think with the sequester, as has been pointed out for my colleague from nebraska, the savings proposed are significantly less because of the school

sequester. we are down $20 billion. without to be a look find some areas in each of the areas of the farm bill budget where we can achieve some significant savings. $4 billion of the number in snap, and that is a 10 year number, that we find in savings. snap will spend over that 10 years $760 billion. so we are talking about one point -- about .5% of the snap budget we were able to find in savings. this adds a couple billion dollars to the savings that we could get out of the snap row graham, simply by coming up with a more equitable way of disturbing these education and obesity prevention grant dollars. again, we have got to four states that more than half of the funding. equitable use of funds. my minutes emily restructures these grants of the states can receive five dollars per

enrolled individual. this way, all recipients of snap benefits have equal access to nutrition information and prevention of obesity resources that help them make healthy choices when they're shopping on a budget. $2 billion we can get in savings, i would say madam chair, and again, in a way that i think makes sense, is logical, and allows us to continue to do what we need to do to educate people and of a more equitable way. out ask for a recorded vote on this amendment. s. senator johann >> timeshare sure, thank you. and i wanted to thank the senator from south dakota for bringing us up. this is another app that a -- another example of the inequities in the snap program. this is an opportunity through this amended to fix it. four states get 50% of the benefit of this. i cannot imagine that there was ever a thought by any member

that literally this program would be designed in such a way that would be on the floor of the senate, saying to 46 states -- you will be treated unequally, and thing 24 states that she will get a better deal here. i cannot imagine that was the case. this one is important. if you vote to support us a minute, i can almost guarantee you, and lets you are a member of those four states, you are voting to benefit your state and the program dollars that will come as a result of this amendment to your state. this is a commonsense amendment. it is not directed at beneficiaries. it is a fairway of allocating very precious dollars in a fairway to all 50 states and stead of allocating 50% of the money to just four states. >> senator gillibrand."

>> i strongly oppose this. the 2 billion cut in the program is a mistake. at the end of the day, we are spending $100 billion a year on obesity and $500 billion a year on cardiovascular disease. we have a growing targeted obesity problem in this country. when our kids go to school obese, one of the challenges as off than they did not sleep, they have sleep apnea, they score lower on math and reading because of lack of sleep or because of lack of self-esteem because they are fun of. there are so many problems with what happens to children when they are obese. so take away the money from education with that flat out cut -- again, you could be investing in childhood obesity prevention because if you are an obese child, the likelihood of you becoming a bestowed -- an obese adult is high. the second reason i close this cut -- what you are saying is, you are in favor of state rights

until you do not think the states are doing a good enough job applying for money. because honestly, just because some states think this is unimportant program and apply for the money and utilize the money and get out to the schools does not mean you shouldn't defend states that do not think it is important. 11 of the reasons why texas only gets 1.3% of the money is a because texas chooses not to apply for this money. chooses not to utilize this money. it is a choice of the texas governor, is the choice of the texas government. if they do not believe this is important to prevent, that is their choice, which i strongly disagree with. it is a long-term savings measure for costs. so i think rewarding states that are doing a good job in obesity -- putting the program overall is the wrong approach. >> senator roberts. we all, i think understand that we have an

obesity problem in the united states. and i understand the federal anernment is wanting to play increasing role in regard to school breakfast and lunch programs to a certain amount of calories. the not think i would see day when the government would decide how may calories we would consume. -- i think problems we all ought to focus on that, but in a way that makes sense. we are saying that with four states receiving 54%, said he 54%said 50%, i think it is of the funding. what about states rights, and the children that suffer from obesity in the 33 date agencies that receive less than 1% of the total funding? i think with the senator is trying to do is simply rip lacey current index -- simply

trying to replace the current index for inflation. this spreads out more evenly rather than the four states. i would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i appreciate the remarks by the senator from new york, however, i think we have a role problem in the country with obesity, including mine. >> any other discussions? --senator share -- medicare >> senator thune. >> you can save $2 billion here in a way that is not cut benefits to anybody. issues that we need to educate the american people about. obesity being one of them. but with respect to individual states making application for this funding, this does not prevent texas -- i mean, texas could apply say 12, up to five

dollars. if texas does not want to apply for their five dollars per individual enrollee, than they do not have to. that is still an option for them. but what it does do is input they cap, her enrollee cap, of five dollars, which is to be a fair index for inflation, a fairly reasonable amount, and find a way to save $2 billion, an additional $2 billion in this farm bill that we could pass on at savings to the american taxpayer without impacting the benefit series, the people who depend on this program, which is pointed out in previous discussion on previous discussions. a lot of folks across the country do need the help from this program. this is an administrative record it is not cut benefits anybody out there who gets these programs. it simply reports is the way in which states use dollars to educate people about some these various programs that are available. how you getxplain

your $2 billion for the savings? >> that is a cbo score. >> but where is that billion dollars coming from? where the going now that it will no longer be going? that is going to states are probably getting funding today for education purposes. >> so it will come out of education programs currently being used today. >> it will come out of administrative programs that do not impact -- they are not benefit the go directly to benefit series. that is correct. -- beneficiaries. >> i would urge a no vote $2 billiondoes take away from important education efforts related to obesity. but i also want to just remind everyone -- the most recent child nutrition reauthorization, actually the snap education formula, was changed so that more resources could be given across a larger number of states. that transition is taking place right now. we expect that to begin to change under the new formula

that would put into place under child nutrition there's no for their -- no further discussion, i will go to a vote. the clerk will call the roll. senator cochran, senator , senator roberts, senator chambliss, senator senator senator hoven, johanns, senator grassley, --ator thune, senator leahy >> senator leahy votes no by proxy. most know bys an proxy. senator brown votes no by proxy.

senator bennett, senator finland -- senator --nelly, senator high camp >> votes no by proxy. cowan, chairwoman stabenow. >> no. the clerk will tally the vote. 12., total nays >> are there further amended to the nutrition title? senator roberts. , i have ahairwoman bill that encompasses many of the mms that have already been considered, and some that are

about to be considered, so this is a comprehensive amendment with regards to what i call foodstamp reform. i'm going to introduce this, i will read it very weekly and withdraw it here and and see if it could be considered here on the floor. in that respect, perhaps the senator from new york could check her blood pressure little bit and we can move on down the road. this amendment cosponsored by senators thune and johanns would rein in the largest furniture, we're talking talking about snap, of course it weakening's -- restore integrity to this program while providing benefits to those truly in need, save over $31 billion. i know that figure may have found some of the committee, but i think it is accurate. first, it eliminates the lie he loophole. let me be clear -- and eliminating the loophole does not affect the snap eligibility

40 but using snap. for decreases the snap those who do not qualify for the allowances. well so illuminate a loophole -- we have ari talk about that. in an ongoing effort to strip mine the government programs, we should also try to eliminate the snap employment training program, the snap nutritional education grant program, combine the programs called by both programs. it also a in sleep practice and giving millions of dollars in rewards for basically doing a job. finally, the amendment terminates the ongoing stimulus enacted by the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly snap food benefits.

let's not forget that snap is exempted from across the board cuts known as sequestration. i will withdraw the amendment and look forward to working with the midi to improve the program's integrity. thank the indulgence of mine collies. >> thank you. .enator gillibrand what thank senator roberts. >> for purposes of a time check, because we're coming up to the 1:00 hour, where there are conference lunches, and i'm not sure how many amendments we have left. if we might get some sense we could complete everything before lunch, or we will have to come back after here it i wonder if we might just get a check on how many amendments are left to be offered at this point, after .enator thune's amendment

we have others on the nutrition title? all right. and then i'm not sure if we have any on the crop insurance titles. >> commodity title. >> is there more than one, senator soon? >> two. >> two, ok. let's move forward. at this point, senator thune. >> thank you, madam chair. this amendment deals with able- bodied adults without dependence. eligible forntly every three years. to consider receiving benefits, they have got to demonstrate a desire to work by entering the workforce part-time. volunteering in their communities. these requirements are waived in areas with high unemployment, but the waivers are being awarded at an alarming weight using overly broad regulatory authority. changing these requirements is t affe eligibility of

amount, the disabled or families to receive snap benefits for an extended period. this amendment ensures that able bodies without dependent waivers are you living in areas with above 10% unemployment or other areas that are identified by those labors is a have insufficient jobs. by stating these definitions and legislation, we save dollars. the cbo has not scored this yet. ensuring that limited sound dollars are preserved for those who are truly in need. -- so madameare, chair, i want to reiterate what i said earlier -- changing this requirement does not affect eligibility of teenagers, the disabled, or families to receive snap benefits for an extended period of time. it also has waivers that are available to individuals living in areas with on implement above 10%. or other areas that are identified by the bureau of labor statistics to have insufficient jobs. what it does is for this

category of people who receive snap benefits, anchorage's them to get back into the workforce, tubers is late and job training, or even volunteer. -- encourages them to get back start joborkforce, training or even volunteer. snapis a 10-year number, is a $760 billion program. much of that is attributable to the increase -- or the increase can be attributable to the struggling economy. however, since early 20 10, the unemployment rate has been steadily dropping from a high of 10% to the rate we are today of about 7.5% over the same period. part of that discrepancy can be attributed to an abawd's snapr system to stay on

benefits without working or participating in snap training. my amenities a modest step toward tightening the abawd waiver strategies, have a greater incentive to find work and alternately get off of the snap rober. -- snap program. that is the exhibition of the m&a, madam chair. i would encourage my alleys to support it. >> any further discussion on the amendment? it is not been scored yet, the correct? >> that is correct. >> i would urge a no vote. any further discussion, if not, all those in favor say aye, those opposed nay. the nays have it. any other limits on the nutrition title? senator roberts. and onee 2, 1 on liheap on employment training. i'm not going to offer the committee to exit at the process of the farm bill, but i will be

speaking about them in my efforts on the floor. thank you. >> thank you very much much. any other nutrition title amendments? if not, the nutrition title is) we will move to title i, the commodity. -- madamf chairman chairman, thank you. i was at the immigration markup, and i'm glad to be back. i want to reopen energy title for a minute to come and i appreciate your willingness to allow me to do that. >> you do have support to do, see may proceed. >> very good. if we want to recruit a new generation of farmers and ranchers, we want to bolster our economy in a rural america. with the -- what this memo does is it strengthens the farm bill in four areas -- research, rural developer, conservation, and energy, all key in this bill. just one example in the rural development area -- there is the usda backlog of applications in 2012 that is paralyzing a lot of our it to me in these.

this amendment backlog of projects over five years, and will go a long way toward getting those projects hundred i can go through each area if there are questions, but i think , it still important keeps $24 billion in savings over the last farm bill. >> to every much. is there former -- is there further discussion? >> manager, i would like to speak in favor of this amendment. in addition to senator klobuchar's comments, this amendment is helpful to rural land owners on water management and water protection, watershed issues, that will really help them in terms of flood protection. so much of that is geared toward our urban areas. this will help protect our farmers and ranchers and others in rural areas in terms of some of the flood prevention, flood protection that we are undertaking in our part of the country and throughout the

hundred. thank you very much. medicare, i would ask for a voice vote. >> all those in favor say i, those opposed nay your the amount is adopted. thank you very much. we are back now to commodity title, title one. senator thune, did you have an amendment? >> i do. this is number five, for those of you who are following. , is this does, madam chair the adverse market payment program does not exist in current law. it is an iteration of the target price that is currently in the foreign-policy. -- farm policy. the chair market conclude that the program for all commodity crops, right subpoena, please target prices are now called reference rices, are the same for all commodity crops am a same of the worthy 2008 farm

bill, but it's not increase pnet target prices from the 2008 farm bill levels. , and him, the rice price the pnet reference price is $523 and $.77. -- peanut reference price is $523.77. only the rice yields are allowed to be updated. rice has been under planted for the past five years. -- ithe amendment does just leaves rice and he nets -- peanuts in the am program and remove the other crops. policy that we removed -- nearly all crops take a position that they do not --s producers and growers what they want in

many cases. this, by the way, according to 890 $7 million- over 10 years, but almost $1 billion saving by sibley backing out from the target price program, included in the base bill, crops other than rice and peanuts. again, very straightforward. it's a that's almost $1 billion over 10 years. >> any further discussion on the thune amendment? senator cochran. christ madam chairman, i am constrained to oppose the amendment. we have worked hard to reach copper mines on the commodity programs. this would be a disruptive influence in the process- of the commodity programs that are committed -- presented to the committee for its consideration today, so i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> to every much. senator roberts. rsonhank you, madam chair

and thanks to senator thune for it introducing this a minute. time and again, some of us have and the wto.ces this entire farm bill, everybody knows, our giving of a direct payment, which are considered in a green box for a new adverse market payment program, a new subsidy program, that is best and then amp box -- amber box and going right as i speak. the price of rice and peanuts -- that is a big red flag for me and my producers. why should the two commodities dictate that all others have had to head target prices when we don't want them? just leave wheat and corn and soybeandbodylse

alone. we don't want to open up ourselves cells for retaliation. let me remind the committee in the house bill, the target rise of weeks was $5.50. it is to be six dollars. this is going to be a situation where farmers will form for the government. it accommodates rice and peanuts. i know that. we have worked for a hard to accommodates rice and peanuts. there is a feeling that if they want a target price -- fine. put it in the bill. but it is not prudent to take that same risk with other commodities when we already know the pitfalls. -- it a $897 million would save $897 million. i urge a yes vote. >> i would urge a no vote here

we have already accepted the manager's amendment, a change that will create a rolling average for all of the commodities outside of rice and peanuts that saves $400 million in the mark. i believe that focuses in a more market oriented way on this provision. i appreciate the concerns, but i do think we have a balance that really strikes the right set of issues and brings it together. i would urge a no vote from colleagues. senator bozeman. >> i would just echo that. i think everybody has worked hard to produce a farm bill. the house is not going to accept this. again, i think this is the kind of stuff that is going to get us another extension wrist is a five-year farm bill which is so important for all of us. >> thinners and. i would like to respond to that. -- senator thune.

>> i like to respond to that. what i'm simply saying here is, and neither programs that would benefit my state, all i am saying is that this is the old way of doing business. we need to move to a new way of doing business, and this farm bill ought to be about reform and savings. this minute, which does not do anything to affect southern crops, it is not attacking the southern crops, it is simply saying that those crops in our region of the country don't want this program. we want reform, and we can save $1 billion by doing this. i agree that the house is going to have probably fixed target prices. i appreciate with the chair has done in trying to at least create a rolling average. i think that is improvement. i credit the managers for including that in your, but it is still maintaining a system that really is something that we ought to be moving away from. toi just had to respond

that particular comment. i yield. >> thank you. senator chambliss. >> just quickly, this is a d approach that we've taken in this bill versus the billows up back in december. while i appreciate what everything, all these farmers had to do -- they did not have to into this. they have the choice. if they want to go on a purely crop insurance as a safety net, so be it. they can do it. they ought to be able to do it. i may have some farmers in my state that want to opt to do that. but as we discussed last year, the insurance provision does not work of a safety net for rice and peanuts. my farmers are most likely to , but ifhe amp program farmers and some other part of the country do not want to go to that program, they do not have to. i think that is a smart choice on the part of the chair and the raking members.

>> to every much. senator johanns. >> thank you, madam chair. only speak in favor of the thune amendment. i had an opportunity as secretary of our culture to spend many hours with the brazilians. they are the individuals who brought the cotton case. they made it very clear to me that their case was not about cotton. it was about the entire approach to foreign policy that thatnit -- to farm policy the united states had feared we are exasperating the situation with rice and peanuts and applying it to other commodities, corn, wheat, and soybean. i cannot agree more with senator roberts. and wheatans and corn out of this. i think there's going to be a wto challenge to this.

i think if history is any guide, it almost always is with the wto, that challenge will be successful. we are already paying brazil every year tens of millions of dollars because of the defeat of the cotton litigation that they had. i think this is just begging for additional litigation. so i speak in favor of the thune amendment. i think it is absolutely the right approach. >> thank you. we want to make sure -- i do want to indicate we are within sight of completing be built. i'm going to ask everyone to hang in there with us for another few minutes, and we will be at a point to have a final vote. senator roberts. >> i understand that we want to get a fair and balanced bill. i understand that units and rice peanuts andty -- rice had difficulty with the bill last year. i understand the chairwoman and

myself worked hard on that, and we did not cross the finish line. you have now. in getting rice and peanuts, a field that is was possible way to treat them as long as they are under the budget. that is a philosophy that has been present for some time. but then you extend that with regards to target prices, and let's just call it what it is -- a government subsidy. for a certain target price. then you say him away to minute, we do not want to interfere with the market, we want to make it more market oriented, and i'm going to be one of the person to introduce is the five- year rolling average. the thought occurs to me that the reason we have a five-year rolling average is because it -- why would we extend a program that we don't want at a level that were not required that provides income protection. so that we can say everyone is covered with target prices when we do not want it. it is like a sore thumb a minute.

i will do the five-year rolling average so we can get to the markets oriented, but i have a lot of mixed emotions about it. let's not kid ourselves -- we know that they were the house is going with higher target prices. that really gets down to the basic issue that when people after a third-year murder out say this is a six dollar target price, what do you think they're going to do? they're going to go ahead and sign up. i do not land them for that. i might distinguish friend collect that from georgia -- they do not have to sign up. well, they're going to. i cannot determine who is on the conference or that vote is going to be, but that is where we are headed. thinlyink that this veiled disguise imminent to go back -- that is why i call it a rearview mirror policy of going back to target prices, we might as well back the loan rates in the same kind of argument that we've had before. i've said too much.

no i haven't, really, but i'm going to not say anymore. >> thank you. senator brown. >> i'm going to oppose the amendment because i want a five- year bill. i think some of the concerns have been addressed, but i just want to thank senator thune. i associate myself with many of his comments. he and i have worked together on this for some time. i think we are much of the way there. i hope we can figure out how to move forward. >> thank you very much pretty -- much. any other discussion? all those in favor say aye among those opposed nay. the nave have it. are there further administer the commodity? senator johanns. >> i call on johanns amendment number three. my hope is, madam chair, if we continue to work on this, we will get a better farm bill out of our efforts here.

a minute what this would do it they would restore target prices for rice and peanuts to the levels in the 2008 farm bill. this amendment would reduce the reference price for peanuts and rice to the last farm bill price level. it saves $1.5 billion. i spoke in my opening comments about my concern that about half of the savings that we're claiming here is really an illusion. they are not a saving that all. we need to find some savings. when we should be decreasing the likelihood of payments, this bill actually increases target prices that trigger payments for these two commodities. therefore, payments will be more likely, not less likely. one of those target prices increases by over 25%. that is remarkable in this day and age. the others from

the taxpayer to the producer every year for the past decade. farmers responsibly manage risks every sale they. they take into account the commodity they plan and target -- plant and harvest. congress should not be in the business of raising target prices for commodities. this is truly a 1980's style farm policy. i fundamentally disagree with it. madam chair, i offer this amendment. quite further discussion on the johanns amendment. if not, i would ask for a no vote on this amendment. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed nay. the nave have it. -- the nays have it. further commodities, title one. senator johanns.

that ive an amendment would like to offer, and it is a study request. amendment number eight. it is a second-degree amendment. madam chair, i pull back. on that amendment. i want to think about that for a second. >> all right. senator thune. grace madam chair, i an amendment i want to bring up. i will withdraw. i think the for the better place for this. i just want to mention again the way the crops are treated in the farm bill. in the history of farm programs, bases and yields have always been updated concurrently. and updating rice yields without updating basis with set on undesirable policy president. that is what we do with regard to rice here.

in doing so, it is almost $1 billion in additional spending of the bill. so as we look for ways to find savings in this bill, strikes me at least that i have already put forth several amendments that have savings associated with them. this is yet another one that would save you almost $1 billion, and all it does is requires that the right space updated. which is something that has been updated,ice base is which is something that has been done over time with regards to farm crops. i'm not going to require a vote today on it, but i want to put on people's radar screens because as we go to the floor and we are looking for additional areas of reform, we are looking for additional ways to save money, this to me is another example of something that we should be allowing to happen, particularly based upon a president that has been set -- precedent that has been said

in the past. >> senator boozman. >> if the senator had offered it, i would like to have a secondary amendment that would insert weeks, or to come -- insert wheat, oats, grain, barley in every place that rice appears. >> we can discuss that more. senator roberts. you plant cotton in kansas, so maybe not rice, some men who would be exempt from the sanders amendment. i think the real problem with this amendment is the fact that for the first time in agriculture committee would allow commodity increase tohout requiring an update the market amendment. would get a sense of that organism do you think i'm not sure. that we would save $900 million demonstrates there be almost $1 billion worth of payments going

to farmers at no longer plant rice. i do not know what that is about peer with the exception that we have and require an update for the right space is only because they're getting a higher target rice than the yield update two. so i agree with the senators amendment. i know he is going to withdraw, but elisa wanted to speak in favor of it. >> thank you. you wish tonns, do introduce any amendments? >> ui. as i indicated, i have an amendment on the ark program just simply calling for a study with -- for a study. we have had a conversation with your staff about this. i think it is something we can work through as this bill moves forward. so i'm not going to offer the amendment today. i only want to highlight it to indicate that i think it is important. i think it is something that we should do, and i will be talking to you more in the future about it. >> i look forward to working with you on it. are there further amendment on the commodity title? seeing none, the commodity title

is closed. other mm it's on the cross insurance title, title 11? title isne, that closed. we have come to the conclusion of the farm bill discussion. let me thank everyone for working very hard as usual in a bipartisan basis. we may have differences, but they are around policy. we come together all supporting agricultural and the 16 million people that work in this very important industry. -- i believe we have agreed we can do this by voice vote, senator cochran, so there's no objection to that, all those in favor of the -- >> meta-chairwoman, i think this is important to vote for the committee. i know you want to pass this by voice vote. i respectively ask for a recorded vote. >> senator cochran, senator --onnell,

>> senator mcconnell photo by proxy. >> senator roberts, senator jim was, senator boozman, senator hoeven, senator johanns, senator , senator senator thune leahy -- >> aye by proxy. i by proxy. , senatorr baucus ,rown, senator klobuchar senator bennett, senator ,illibrand, senator donnelly senator kelly. >> the chair will -- the clerk

will report the boat. >> chairwoman stabenow. >> aye. five nos., >> and committee print is ordered recorded. make is authorized to technical conforming changes consistent with the actions of the committee today. thank you to everyone for their hard work. this committee meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> congress will be in session this week before going on a memorial day break. both chambers are in monday. the house gavels and at noon eastern. members will turn to legislative business at 2:00 to consider bills and the secession of the role. later in the week, a bill deciding to feed construction of the keystone xl outlined by

declaring that a presidential permit is not required. and legislation that will tie interest rates on student loans to 10 year treasury notes with cap sipping on the type of loan. the senate is in next week. the measure is affected to cost $955 billion. it aims to revamp direct aid to farmers and proposes cuts in spending by about $18 billion. on monday, a vote is get up for five: 34 judicial nominations. you can watch live coverage on the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2. next, life, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." after that "newsmakers" with maryland congressman chris van hollen. .hen, it immigration bill ♪ @cspanwj

phil by describing and 30 seconds third wife i'm going to make the attempt. -- >> i'm going to make the attempt. take that remaining thing, cut it into 10 pieces, sorry winky one. if you go to the size of my fan appeared if you get to this process tends estimated to the size of the atom. times, what is left of our universe? we have no instruments to measure that. people like me have been working on a piece of mathematics called superstring theory to answer that question. >> i try. >> my wife is often asked by people who find out i am a physicist, what is your husband actually do you go -- do? she said, he makes up stuff for a living. i prefer to tell my story -- most of him know what do. a novelist takes words and sakes characters and tell

stories. we do the same thing, but we make mathematics tell our stories. if we are good at what we do, our stories correspond with something in nature. so that little clip you saw a few moments ago was my attempt to boil down to a 32nd soundbite mode describing what it is that i and people in my community do. >> more with national medal of jamese recipient s. gates, jr. >> this morning on "washington journal," jennifer benner he looks at the political news of the week and its effect on the immigration reform. julian sanchez of the cato institute talks about the use of surveillance cameras. the justice department for the seizure of the press phone records and privacy issues. the service limits action

bhagwati discusses sexual assault and programs designed to change behaviors and attitudes. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning. it is a foggy sunday on capitol hill. congress is back in session this week with immigration and the irs short to be hot topics. this morning on "washington " we want to focus on the backlog of complaints at the office of the current affairs. 6000 claims have been pending for more than 125 days. the department of veterans affairs is committed