the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in part b of house report of 113-117. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 28 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mrs. black of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: i rise to support in support of my amendment to end the agreement between the usda and government of mexico. now this partnership began back in 2004, but it has greatly

expanded under the obama administration. it's an aggressive outreach program funded by the u.s. taxpayer dollars, which promotes snap enrollment in targeted communities by partnering with the mexican government officials to hold meetings, health fairs and coordinate other outreach initiatives designed to bring working-class families into public assistance and dependents programs. not only is this an ill conceived partnership with mexico, promoting a life of dependency, rat they are than upward mobility, there is no reason to believe that the obama administration isn't just using this partnership as a way to get illegal immigrants enrolled in the snap program. this current partnership is one of the most egregious examples of policies contributing to the 46% expansion in snap recipients

under the obama administration, and it must stop now. my amendment today is an opportunity for congress to be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars, our hard-working tax pair dollars and get the u.s. government out of the business of promoting dependents. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment to terminate this partnership with the mexican government. let's stop this blatant misuse of the taxpayer dollars so snap is there for those who have fallen on hard times and truly need assistance, not for exploittation by foreign governments. with that, mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: on behalf of the chairman of the agriculture committee, i would like to thank her for bringing this amendment that promotes participation in the snap program and urge our colleagues to

yield back to the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. any member seek time in opposition? if not, the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: this is so important that we are assured that our hard-working taxpayer dollars are used for those that are in the most in need as a safety net d not to be given as a handout. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in 113-117. house report

ms. kaptur: i rise to -- i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 29 printed in house report number 113-117, offered .y ms. kaptur of ohio the chair: the chair recognizes he gentlelady from ohio. mrs. capito: the amendment i'm offering today -- ms. kaptur: the amendment i'm offering today would offer a set-aside in the nutrition program. senior hunger is a growing problem. in our country. feeding america estimates nearly five million seniors, five million, one in 12 in 2011 were food insecure, double the number in 2001, with prices up and with

what's happening across this country, we know that that number is not the top, but probably the base and probably more. senior hunger is a growing problem and we know the costs of food are up. in fact, 6% of households with an elderly person are definitely food insecure, and we know that women over the age of 85 have a poverty rate of 13.8%. that means elderly women have the second highest poverty rate in the nation. this is a great country. no single senior citizen in our country should ever have to worry about food. i remember one senior center that i went to for a small little lunch and put these tiny sandwiches on the plate and cut them in half and i remember a senior woman, very frail, she took half a sandwich an ate it

and when no one else was looking she wrapped up the other half of the sandwich and put it in her purse. unless you really see it, you don't realize how painful it is for millions of seniors across our country. senior hunger has a health impact, because food insecurity mong the elderly causes more headaches, more disbuilt, more high blood pressure and extended hospital stays. food insecure elderly persons have been found to be two times more likely to report fair or poor health. ultimately, the health impact of hunger results in higher health care costs. in an effort to help address the serious problem of senior hunger, congress created the seniors farmers market nutrition program. it is a very popular and

effective program. it is so small, it doesn't even function in every congressional district in this country. but the program is a home run for seniors who need help and it's a home run for local producers. the program brings together needy seniors who purchase fresh and nutritious locally-grown fruits and vegetables, honey and herbs at farmers markets and roadside stands. in effect, seniors help farmers and farmers help seniors. farmers expand their customer base and seniors buy fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, fresh honey locally produced, which helps to combat many allergies that are growing across this country and herbs. the program helps local production because farmers sell locally at local pces with

direct marketing. there are similar programs for w.i.c. purchasers but the funding for the program has been declining. it is my hope as we go to conference we can look at the changes and increase mandatory funding for a unified program. ith holds the potential to serve the more needy seniors which will combat senior hunger. given the sequestration that is doing to meals and wheels, i hope we can work to support our seniors, the most vulnerable among us. i urge adoption of the amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves time. who claims time in opposition? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i have been given every indication that this amendment is acceptable to both sides and i urge my colleagues

to support it and i ask for a favorable vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 30 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 30 printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona and member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. schweikert: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. chairman, and i'm sure this is true for all of us in the body as we grind through the

amendments and look at them, we on occasion come across an amendment that you can see where it was well meaning. it may have had a good heart behind it. you en you dice it up, understand both something from a personal basis borders on the humorous side and structurally has some real problems. i stand up trying to remove language, the healthy food finance initiative. and look, we'll have some members who will say it's only $125 million. but understand that $125 million may be used to buy a grocery store, to subsidize certain healthy food products in areas where the program deems there is a shortage as such. with this amazing irony, ok, we want healthy foods. there are some areas that the products that may be available deem not to , we

be particularly nutritious that because in our commodity system, what is in our grocery stores? we subsidize commodities. and i go in and say, but my solution is, i'm going to create another subsidy to take care of the problem on the other side. at some point, you got to be willing to take a step back and see the iron in this. we are taking taxpayer money and through a network, you may find a private grocery store being financed by taxpayer money. you may be finding the system where certain foods and certain retailers being financed by taxpayer money just because it is designated as an area where these products don't exist. with that, i retain the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i rise in opposition. >> i rise in opposition to the schweikert amendment to strike the healthy foods initiative. ms. fudge: not only is it well meaning but it works and time that this congress does something that is proven to work. this removes bipartisan language that i championed during the house farm bill markup. the healthy foods initiative outlines a federal response to addressing the limited and inequitable access to healthy foods in low-income population. it does this through a manager would within usda that create quality jobs and would provide loans and grants to eligible food retailers. nearly 30 million people live in

low-income areas more than one mile from a supermarket which means they lack adequate access to fresh, healthy and affordable food. it comes as no surprise that these people are less likely to have a healthy diet. barriers to healthy food have worsened the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes in these communities. the healthy food financing initiative would combat the lack of healthy food retail through a private -- a public-private initiative that would allow for the leveraging of mills i don't know, sir of private capital -- mill i don't know, sir of private capital. it attracts grocery stores and renovate and expand existing stores so they can provide the healthy foods that communities want and need. this financing will help local businesses through loans and

packages that is not ready available. healthy food retail increases and stabilizes home values in nearby neighborhoods and generates local tax revenues, provides work force training and development and promotes additional spending in the local economy generated by the store and new jobs it creates. it has a multiplier effect. to know that this works, we need to look at pennsylvania. a similar program that began there in 2004 resulted in 88 projects being built or renovated in underserved urban and rural communities across the state. today, more than 5,000 jobs have been created and i know we all want to create jobs, and 400,000 people now have increased access to healthy foods. 30 million invested by the state has resulted in projects totalling more than $190 million. the pennsylvania program success

rate has been better than the grocery industry overall. federal, state and many city governments are enacting legislation and policies to attract healthy food retail. this is tremendous momentum around the country right now to bring grocery stores to places that need them. also a diverse group of nearly 100 stakeholders support this bill, including policy link, the food trust, the national grosser's association and newly rouse agricultural, civil rights support this bill. the senate supports this -- the senate has recognized the case for this and included this text in their bill. food access is a critical problem. the good news is we know what to do and can do it. defend this hffi and oppose the schweikert amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves.

the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: i reserve to close. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio has the right to close as a member of the committee. mr. schweikert: to the gentlelady from ohio, we agree, we have a horrible epidemic and crisis of what people consume. if you care about those things, then you would actually look at the farm bill overall and what we do in this country to distort what we consume. walk down your grocery store aisles and what you have seen, five more government policies. you make your own government, if there is a program that you believe is working at all, in pennsylvania, then you have demonstrated the states are capable of doing this. once again to take another $125 million of federal money, create another program that actually does things like buys a grocery store -- i mean actually

competes with the private business. . . with that, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. fudge: first, let me just say, and i thank the gentleman, certainly we can agree to disagree. but let's be honest, we're not buying grocery stores and it is not accurate to say to the american people that is what we are doing, mr. chairman. so let me make that clear. secondly, if we have something that works and we know that our people are in need, then i think that we should make it something that all of us can agree to do. now, every state is not in the same situation, every state doesn't have the same kind of vision that maybe the state of pennsylvania had. but there are a lot of things that the states can do that they don't do and that all states don't do. so we want to be sure that every american has the opportunity to have decent, healthy food. so i think that this is in fact

my od start, it was passed, bill was passed bipartisanly. i think it's good. and i think that for someone to just come up and just take pot shots at something that they don't even clearly understand is unfair to the american people. because if it was understood they would know that we are not buying grocery stores. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. ms. fudge: yes, i would be happy to yield. the chair: the gentlelady has 15 seconds remaining. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i would just say, members, you know your districts. some of you do have food deserts, whether you be in rural or urban areas. this is important. we want people to spend those food stamp dollars wisely. this gives them an opportunity to do so. this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is a commonsense, good health issue. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. burgess: we should defeat the swike earth amendment. i yield back -- swike earth amendment. i yield back. -- schweikert amendment. yield back. swikeswike i reserved my time -- mr. schweikert: i reserved my time. it may be a little unprecedented but i want to give my friend, dr. burgess, even though he's on the other side, 30 second of my time. mr. burgess: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. it seems strange for me to be lecturing you about a desert. but, mr. speaker, it is true, there are food deserts in both republican and democratic districts all over this country. people without access to fresh foods or healthy foods. look, i don't think it's right that people buy processed foods and soft drinks with food stamps but if they've got no other choice, what are they going to do? this initiative allows people to have the option to purchase healthy foods, get those micronutrients that they need to keep them healthy, let's keep them out of the doctor's office and out of the hospital.

i thank the gentleman for the recognition. i urge defeat of the schweikert amendment. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll try to be fast at this. and i want to also -- the gentlewoman from ohio actually, i want to be careful of my language because i did say purchase grocery stores. it's basically finance their acquisitions through loans and other mechanics. it's still, and it would be unfair to use the solyndra-type, but it is that mechanic of doing those loan mechanics and those things and the taxpayers do have money out and risk in that fashion. look, for many of us here, we see an amendment like this, we see the well-meaning nature of it. muchhe underlying cause of of this is the global policy we engage in and we have for 60, 70 years. and we seem to be, if you look at all the amendments, and

bill, i believe you will see layer after layer after layer where we're trying to fix sins that we created with our last attempt to fix a mistake. i appreciate we have a crisis in parts of our country, whether it be access to healthy foods, whether it be obesity. but 15 -- $125 million program that creates special grants, special purchases, special loans, this isn't the way you get there to fix that. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. fudge: a recorded vote, please. i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be

postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 31 will not be offered. so it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 32 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. teerny of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from massachusetts, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, right now fishermen in massachusetts in my district and across the country are facing dire circumstances. there's been a devastating cut to allowable catch where a number of crucial stocks, for instance, 78% cut in the gulf of

maine cod, 51% cut to georgia's bank cod. some of these fishermen have been forced to sell their boats and permits while others feel they'll soon be out of business. many of my massachusetts colleagues and i have been doing everything that we can to help these fishermen and their families. we've offered amendments to last year's disaster relief appropriations bill for those fishermen in massachusetts and several other states that were officially declared fishery disasters by the department of commerce but to no avail. i filed legislation to redirect the portion of the tariffs that the united states collects in imported fish so to provide urgently needed financial assistance for our fishermen but that matter has yet to come up. and a number russ working to responsibly reform the underlying statute that governs our nation's fisheries so it allows more flexible and fairer toward our fishermen but of course that is somewhere down the road. i don't think we can stop there. and that's why i, along with mr. markey, mr. lynch, mr. keating, mr. tim bishop, and ms. shea-porter, are offering this amendment today, to ensure

usda's emerg disaster loan program. we're essentially doing away with an inequity in the law that denies fishermen the ability to apply for the normal procedures for a loan under federal emergency standards. a similar provision was included in the senate-approved farm bill andly work to provide financial relief to our fishermen and reform the law, will alternative certainly continue in the weeks and months ahead. but in the meantime, this is a small and important step that's intended to help those in our local community who are struggling. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> claiming time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. i thank the chairman and i must oppose with respect the gentleman's amendment. the addition of fishing commercial operations which have traditionally not been recognized unnecessarily extend the limits of an already

oversubscribed lender. commercial fishermen in need of disaster assistance are already able to apply for loans from both farm credit and the small business administration. mr. chairman, with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. mr. chairman, we are basically trying to settle an inequity here where the loans that are available to the fishermen of course are at 3 pk or -- 3% or 4%, not the 2.25% that would make a substantial difference to them if they were there. and we're not giving them any preference over anybody else. they would just get the equitable right to apply for and seek those loans and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. tierney: as do i. mr. crawford: are you prepared to have any other speakers? mr. tierney: nope. mr. crawford: if the gentleman's prepared to close i'll follow and close. mr. tierney: close. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas has the right to close. he's on the committee. mr. tierney: i just reiterate what i said earlier. these people are in dire

straits. there's nothing we can do even though they've been declared eligible for disaster relief. this congress has yet to afford them any of that relief. the fleets are shrinking, they're going out of business, they have all sorts of debt and problems with their gear. and their property on that. they need the access to this low-interest loan, 2.25%. it gives them no more preference than anybody else on this and it makes it available too them, a much-needed supply. it passed the senate version and the senate version score showed there was no increase in the scoring on that. and i would hope that my colleagues would have some compassion for the fishing industry as they do for others in this country that are in this type of situation and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i thank the chairman and the gentleman from massachusetts. for his input on this. i continue to oppose the amendment. i certainly sympathize with those affected by disaster and given the current fiscal environment it just defies common sense to implement new, duplicative lending programs and, mr. chairman, with that i

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. tierney: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. costa: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b, amendment 33 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. costa of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. costa: thank you very much,

mr. speaker. it is oftentimes the poorest and some of the most unrepresented communities in the country that have impacts for historical reasons in part to public health. communities across the country, we all represent. i represent a number of those communities in california, in the san joaquin valley, that are experiencing enormous challenges as it relates to their water quality and contamination that has existed because of decades' past experiences in many cases with night rates in which, at the time it was not well understood, but today it is, that in fact it has tremendous impacts on our drinking water supply as it relates to our aquifers. the amendment that is proposed is intended to address this problem by creating a pilot

program for severely disadvantaged communities that would provide funds in this farm bill for the rural utilities service that would address this nitrate contamination for rural drinking water communities. those communities that we all represent that have 10,000 population or less. the valley, the san joaquin valley that congressman valadao and i represent, has almost four million people. it's almost 10% of california's population. 20% of those folks live below the poverty line. and they reflect a broad cross-range of folks, immigrants past, immigrants present, who have come here to live the american dream and work so hard. so many in our agriculture economy. while nitrates occur naturally at low levels, crop fertilizers

other animal husbandry practices create nitrates that in fact impact the elevation of the contamination within our drinking water sources, within our aquifers. in fact, california's central valley is especially vulnerable to that nitrate contamination. since it accounts for more than half of the agricultural production in california. it is the primary source -- the valley's aquifers are the primary source of drinking water for 90% of the residents. unfortunately in the past we didn't have strong controls and we didn't really understand the science. today we do. it is difficult to figure out who is responsible. but we need to fix the problem and clean the water supply for those residents. today, we have a better balance between public health and the

impact of agricultural practices. so this amendment, if adopted, would provide the opportunity to focus on assisting disadvantaged communities with improving their beveraging water that has been contaminated by nitrates. i would like to yield to my colleague. >> i rise in support of this amendment. groundwater provides beverageing water and only source of beveraging water for many rural communities. many do not have access to clean , safe supply of water and unable to access the funding or resources necessary to develop the stable water supply and improve the water infrastructure. while contamination can occur for many reasons, often types,

s directly responsible. cleanup costs are borne by the affected community. through my position on the house appropriations committee, i worked to ensure language was included in the house appropriations bill to require the department of agriculture provide a report regarding their programs and outreach efforts to disadvantaged communities that are impacted. every american should have clean drinking water and anything less is unacceptable. i yield back. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. costa. on behalf of chairman lucas, i want to extend my appreciation for the gentleman's work on this issue and if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw his amendment, i have been assured by the chairman that he is more than willing to work with you. mr. costa: yes, congressman crawford. d ore than willing to

yield to chairman lucas and ranking member peterson and we appreciate your willingness to work with us together on this effort. to ensure that we can deliver resources that are important to our small communities throughout the country that are impacted in this way. i withdraw the amendment and continue to work with you. the chair: without objection, the amendment has been withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in part bmp of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: i have amendment number 34 at the desk made in order. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in house eport 113-1137, offered by mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey and member

opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i rise to urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to h.r. 1947, the farm act of 2013. my amendment is very straightforward, in that it would strike section 6105 from the underlying bill. this is the section of the farm bill that re-authorizes the rural broadband access loan and loan guarantee program at r.u.s., rural utility services at usda at a cost of $25 million each fiscal year over the next five, subject to appropriations. mr. chairman, this program was first authorized by the 2002 farm bill with the goal of deploying broadband to rural and

seed areas. despite this goal, the rural broadband loan program has been riddled, riddled with numerous problems. in the 112th congress, i was a member of the energy and commerce subcommittee on communications and technology. during a hearing held in february of 2007, i first learned of problems within this program. usda inspector general testified on a variety of issues that r.u.s. that prevented it from being effective. she testified that in the 2005 o.i.g. audit of the program, 159 of the 240 communities associated with loans in 2004, 66% of the loans already had pre-existing broadband service in contravention of the statutory intention of these

unrtunately, mr. chairman, the problems were only exacerbated in the 2009 o.i.g. audit. of the 14 recommendations made in 2005, r.u.s. only took action on six of them. between 2005 and 2009, r.u.s. made loans to broadband providers serving 148 communities within 30 miles of urban areas with 200,000 or more residents. furthermore, r.u.s. approved 34 of 37 applications for providers with service lines already existing. mr. chairman, although there were reforms made in the 2008 farm bill that were finally enacted earlier this year, i am still very skeptical of the need for this program when it has consistently demonstrated its inability to achieve its

objective. and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> claiming time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate it, mr. chairman and to our chairman of the agriculture committee and to our staff, deeply appreciate all the work on this farm bill. proud to have been associated with it. and i will say to the gentleman om georgia who moments ago cited data about a decade ago and report from 2009 acknowledging the challenges with the program. gibgib a couple of developments that have -- mr. gibbs: a couple of developments, implementation that occurred several months ago that addressed the points that made in the i.g. report and also the fact that in the underlying language, we incorporated other clarification al with

that we're talking about in unserved areas. i would say to the gentleman, i appreciate him very much, but i want to tell you that this program is really important to districts like mine. the f.c.c. claims there is up to 19 million americans who do not have access to high-speed broadband and the place i represent, we have many communities that don't have access to high-speed broadband and a program such as this has been helpful and will be helpful going forward. i want to remind everyone that this is a loan program that is paid back with interest. and this expanding of broadband helps us not only with job creation, but health care and overall quality of life. and i know even in your own state this has been a program that has done some good and certainly needed reform and has happened. reform has come a

what i would say to the gentleman, i appreciate his concern for the taxpayer and i share that concern and believe that we have made significant progress with regard to transparency in the program and want to see us continue this program because we need to move forward and continue to just as we did with electricity for this country, to see all communities have access to high-speed broadband and with that, i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: at this time, i would like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i remind my good friend from new york the cylindra was a loan program, too, that was supposed to be paid back with interest. i offer this amendment because there is something better. there is something better and i appreciate the efforts taken by

the chairman of the agricultural committee for creating further transparency with the r.u.s., rural broadband loan program. however, despite these improvements, i'm skeptical of these programs. since its inception, congress has appropriated $130 million toward this program and i feel as that r.u.s. has consistently missed the mark. on the other hand, and this is the alternative, in 2011, the f.c.c., the federal communications commission under existing statutory authority fundamentally changed the nature of the universal service fund and they created the connect america fund with the same goal as this rural broadband loan program. the connect america fund is a different entity. and the f.c.c. announced last

month that $485 million of that fund which are rooted, mr. chairman, not in increased taxes but in user fees will be dedicated to unserved areas for broadband deployment. mr. chairman, i do believe that the f.c.c. is in a better position than the usda to implement telecommunications policy and over the life of the rural broadband program, usda has only confirmed my sin civil. and i reserve the balance. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. gibbs: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 3/4. mr. gibbs: i yield to my friend from virginia. mr. wittman: i have the privilege to travel back to the northern neck of virginia, an

hour a half from d.c. and not served by broadband. they are stuck with dialup and if you ever had to deal with that you know how frustrating that is. economic development, job creation, educational opportunities are tied to broadband access. granted there may be challenges with the rural utility service program, but they need that particular service. i want to make sure they get that. i oppose this amendment. i ups the gentleman's frustration with that, but the broadband loan program does provide funding for construction and improve our systems, require facilities and equipment that are needed to provide broadband to these communities. folks, this is absolutely critical. this amendment takes us away from that. i want to make sure reforms are put in place so the system works

not taking away that opportunity. mr. chairman, i yield the alance of my time. mr. gibbs: i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from new york is the only one that has time. he has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. gibbs: i yield to my friend from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i thought it is unfair that the majority party would be fighting this out without someone from the minority party jumping in in opposition to the proposal. mr. garamendi: i'm delighted the f.c.c. has had $400 million plus for this service. i'm happy that the department of agriculture continues with the program in which they have unique ability to reach out. the department of agriculture has the men, the women and the

organizational structure to provide direct access and direct service. perhaps, just perhaps, department of agriculture program together with the f.c.c. program might actually get the job done. very important. i yield back. and i thank my colleagues. >> i will yield in just a second. mr. gibbs: i yield 30 seconds to our ack ing chairman. mr. crawford: i have the opportunity to discuss this prior to debate with the the gentleman from georgia. and if you are still of the mind and would like to consider withdrawing your amendment, i would gladly yield the balance of my time. mr. gingrey: i respect the chair -- the chair: does the gentleman from arkansas. the gentleman from new york controls the time. mr. crawford: i would be happy to yield. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i believe that this is a

critically important to eliminate duplicate programs. oth programs, duplication is unnecessary with the changes. i believe that the rural broadband program will only become obsolete. we must act now to eliminate this program and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york has 30 seconds remaining. mr. gibbs: i appreciate the debate here, but i'll end where i began. i think there have been significant improvements that have been made over time. i appreciate both the chairman and ranking member allowing us to improve this program. this is a program that is going to help small companies so we can help build out broadband and good for job creation and health care delivery and education. i urge my colleagues to defeat

amendnt. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. . it is now in order to consider amendment 35 printed in part b of house report 113-117. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in part b of house report 113-117.

for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? mr. palazzo: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b of amendment number 36, in house report 113-117 offered by mr. palazzo of mississippi. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from mississippi and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. palazzo: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: mr. chairman, i rise today to discuss my amendment which ensures adequate funding for a valuable program already authorized within this farm bill. my amendment would simply provide the funding of the agriculture technology innovation partnership from the funds already available for that purpose. as a member of the science, space and technology committee we often discussed the significant role technological advancements play in maintaining u.s. competitiveness among global industries and growing our economy -- in growing our

economy. my amendment is simple. it adds absolutely no extra cost to this bill or to the taxpayer. it authorizes existing funds within the agricultural research program budget to support the program which has already been established by the usda. for those of you unfamiliar with the program, the agricultural technology innovation partnership, atip, is a partnership set up to harness the research and development capabilities in innovations -- and innovations of usda's research programs for technology-based economic development. adequate funding for the program will enable the integration of research from academic, government and industry institutes and help develop relationships with outside businesses and private investors. establishing these relationships will allow the agricultural industry to assist in guiding usda to conduct research most beneficial to the industry. as well as provide the agriculture industry quick access to new and innovative findings within the usda's research as it becomes available.

the program allows the advancement of transferring groundbreaking ideas and results from research labs into the commercial sector. which will maintain the growth of the industry as well as our economy. it is important for the u.s. to remain competitive in today's global agricultural marketplace and in order to do this, we must lead the way in research and innovation. i believe this amendment is a step to ensure that this tool is being fully utilized. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. crawford: claiming time in opposition, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. crawford: i thank the chairman. i yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would statutorily authorize a pilot program at $500,000. it's my understanding that usda is already doing this without statutory capability. i appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter but there's really no reason to legislate on an issue that the administration has the capability to do. and with that i'll reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from arkansas reserves his time. the gentleman from minnesota. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. palazzo: i'd be happy to yield two minutes to the ranking member. >> i thank the gentleman. i'm not sure i'll need two minutes. but this is basically an earmark. and all kinds of people want to put in bills to allocate their money to a.r. is, we don't have enough research money for wheat and whatever else. we can't be doing this because it's going against everything else that was agreed to. i thought you guys had decided we weren't going to have any earmarks, weren't going to do these kinds of things. mr. peterson: so i would hope at we would not support this amendment and i join the gentleman from arkansas in opposing it. i yield back. the chair: yield back to the gentleman from arkansas. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. palazzo: thank you, mr. chairman. drafting this amendment i saw

nowhere where it would be considered an earmark. i'm definitely opposed to earmarks in this congress. and it doesn't specify an entity in a certain state or a certain location. so i don't -- i definitely don't think, i mean, if you just want to tag something as an earmark to kill an amendment, you know, go about and explain why this amendment may be bad, but don't just sit there and say that this is an earmark just because everybody's going to run from it. i see no reason why it would be considered as such. but if the gentleman from arkansas will work with me in addressing this, to possibly pursue this in the final legislation, i would definitely consider withdrawing my amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i thank the gentleman from mississippi and i feel like the chairman would certainly be of mind to work with the gentleman from mississippi on this. if is he inclined to withdraw the amendment. mr. palazzo: i am, mr. chairman, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman withdrhi mr. palao: withdraw my

amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 37. printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. in 1794, george washington, our founding father wrote to his gardner that he should, quote, make the most of the hemp seed and sew it everywhere, end quote. he wasn't alone. thomas jefferson grew hemp, betsy ross even made the first american flag out of hemp fiber.

in fact, here's a flag right here that's made entirely from hemp. today u.s. retailers sell over $300 million worth of hemp-related goods. it's not just flags. hemp is found in over 25,000 product from lotions to soaps to protein bars to auto parts to fuel. yet somehow it's caught up in a completely unrelated drug war that prevents american farmers from growing this crop and forces us to import it from other countries. our institutions of higher education can't even grow or cultivate hemp for research purposes. mr. speaker, my bipartisan amendment, which i'm offering with my good friends, mr. thomas massie and earl blumenauer, is simple. it would allow colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for research purposes. our amendment would only apply in states where hemp cultivation is already legal, such as my home state of colorado. i recently had an exchange with the premier agriculture research university in my district, colorado state university, this is an area that they want to get

into but they feel that they're prohibited and their attorneys are telling them that unless we can make this change, they can't actually do research in what has great potential to be an important crop for colorado. mr. speaker, for -- let me be clear about something. because there's been some misleading information that's been put out there by the drug enforcement agency. hemp is not marijuana. i'm very disappointed to hear that the diarra's circulating misleading talking points to claim that somehow hemp could be used as marijuana. as the concentration levels specified in our amendment, it's physically impossible to use hemp as a drug. let me emphasize that. it's physically impossible to use hemp as a drug. voters in my home state of colorado and across the country have made it clear they believe industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity and not a drug. our colleges and universities are the best in the world. this is a modest step to simply allow them to research the potential benefits, downsides, strains to grow ofthltural comm

there's been technology in france that allows tracers to be put in that makes sure it doesn't get contaminated with anything that includes narcotics. there's lots of research that can be con done and this amendment is a very simple step to do. it i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman claims time in opposition. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman's interest in the auto issue but it's clear that the agriculture committee is not the committee of jurisdiction to be addressing these provisions. of the safe and drug-free schools and communities act. and while some may consider the growth of hemp to be an agricultural endeavor, i think that there are many who feel quite differently. i would therefore oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to seek a hearing on the issue within the appropriate committee and i point also that one of the concerns that we have long had is that even though the gentleman says hemp is not marijuana, i don't know if one can tell the difference when

's planted row by row out in the field and i know that's been a problem within my state, when the residue of the leftover hemp from world war ii became companions with the marijuana that was raised for a different purpose. so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. >> i was wondering if the gentleman would yield. mr. king: i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: the university of north dakota, one of their ag guys up there, came up with a waysway to supplies a fluorescent jean into hemp and north dakota is a state where it's legal. so now the hemp that grows is fluorescent and so you can clearly tell the difference between the hemp and the marijuana. so we have solved that problem. through research. the chair: does the gentleman yield back -- mr. king: reclaiming my time in amazement and reserving the balance, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: again, this is of course germane, it was ruled in order by the rules committee, e

committee of jurisdiction. i'd like to yield a minute to the co-sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. massie: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to talk about some of the legal products you can buy in the united states that are made with hemp. you can buy paper, clothes, rope, food, hundreds of products, even car panels are made out of hemp. but the great tragedy is that we cannot grow hemp in kentucky. we can't grow it anywhere in the united states. industrial hemp. so we have to import it. where do we import it from? it comes from china, it comes from canada, it comes from europe. there are many, many uses for hemp. there are 30 countries in this -- on this globe that can grow hemp. in fact, i believe every industrialized country in the world grows hemp. farmers in kentucky grew hemp during world war ii. it was grown in large quantities in my state of kentucky. canvas and rope made from hemp helped with the war effort. so this is not about drugs. this is not about a drugs bill.

this is about jobs. and for kentucky farmers, we need the opportunity, we need the opportunity to compete globally, in a global market, and we shouldn't be denied this outlet for another productive crop in kentucky. thank you and i yield back to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: and i'd also like to remark that the gentleman from colorado, it wasn't a surprise to me to see that colorado is the state that has legalized marijuana. so we also see the advocacy for this come from the same place. mr. polis: would the gentleman yield? mr. king: perhaps it's a coincidence but i'll give you two things to respond to and the other is the renchts to george washington and thomas jefferson nd betsy ross. we don't know what they might have participated in. two or three of those might have fit in a the category of an

ownership that i don't want to bring up today. i yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: colorado did legalize recreational use of marijuana. it also separately has legalized industrial hemp. so there are a number of states, more states that legalized industrial hemp, than have done anything with recreational use of marijuana or medicinal use of marijuana. all very different issues and states are taking them up as we speak. mr. king: reclaiming my time. the gentleman's amendment has only applied to states that have legalized it. that's true. nonetheless, i urge opposition to this amendment, mr. chairman, under the basis of this, that we haven't had a full hearing on this, we don't have a knowledge base behind it, we haveow our own understanding of it. mine is debate that i have seen that's gone on for years which is, when you plant hemp alongside marijuana, you can't tell the difference. and so it opens up the door for the recreational agriculture of the marijuana drug and for that reason alone i oppose it but i'd urge the gentleman to seek a

hearing on the appropriate committee and urge the defeat of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from iowa has two minutes remaining. mr. polis: ok. i yield one minute to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one. mr. barr: this amendment would allow us to take a first step carefully and mindfully. it would allow those in states like my home state of kentucky to grow industrial hemp for purposes of research, helping provide the information we need to consider future expansion of production. this demonstrates the reverge to provite the viability and

usefulness of this crop. i encourage and support the passage of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back to the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the leadership of my friend from -- ado and my friend from for moving this forward. nine states have removed barriers to industrial hemp growing altogether. these products are legal in the united states. some $300 million a year. but it has to be grown someplace else. it's outrageous that american famplers can't produce it but what this amendment does is to simply permit the research opportunities for college and universities to grow and

cultivate hemp for academic and agricultural research purposes. if this amendment passes and we're able to do this research in agricultural colleges and universities, we're not going to have stupid talking points coming from d.e.a. and won't have misleading statements made, people will understand why other countries have been able to figure this out and the united states will be able. nobody, regardless of your position on this, should be opposed to allowing our research colleges and universities to be able to do a deep dive to be able to find out -- the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i yield myself the balance of my time. i appreciate the arguments that come forward from members here and they do come from states that have voted and expressed their support for the -- let's say for the husbandry of hemp. and it has a long history and it's been a useful product.

but we have outlawed it for clear reasons and that is as i said that you can plant it alongside the recreational use marijuana and can't tell the difference and if we are going to legalize the, let me say, the farming and experimental agriculture with industrial hemp on our college campuses that wouldn't be the first place i would choose. i yield to the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i say to the gentleman, but again, the university of north dakota has spliced a gene into hemp and i will work with the gentleman to say, if we ever do anything with this, that we'll require that that be done, that if it's grown in the united states it has to have the gene spliced into it so it's fluorescent so you can clearly tell the difference between hemp and marijuana. i don't know anything about marijuana but i've been told that if you put hemp in with marijuana, it ruins it. i don't know if that's true or

not. but anyway, i think there's a way to solve this you know, 35% of our cars are made out of hemp. this is a big market. we should be doing this so let's work together, i'd like to bring you this information from north dakota, we can solve that problem. maybe move forward. mr. king: i might want to do a night field trip up there and see that. mr. peterson: we'll take you up there in january when it's 40 below. mr. king: this is a new piece of information for me, glow in the dark hemp, but i know that they have spliced in the gene from jelly fish into a monkey and it glows also in the dark so i'm confident the gentleman's science is accurate but whether we can keep those who raise recreational marijuana from splicing an identical gene into their, we have to deal with the g.m.o. recreational marijuana growers, in any case i oppose

this amendment and urge its defeat. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expire the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from -- mr. king: i ask for the recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment you were in 8 prinned in house report 113- 117. the chair: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will

control five minutes. mr. garamendi: to the disappointment of, i suppose, everybody here this isn't nearly as much fun as the last amendment. this is a simple amendment, it deals with a 1990 low -- law, the forest legacy act that allows the forest legacy act to be more efficient and effective. it would allow the states that would like to participate in the forest eggly act to also allow within that state qualified trust -- land trust, hold the easement. the benefit of this is it reduces the burden on the state government, the state government doesn't have to manage that easement, it would be managed by a qualified land trust and it also allows for greater leverage of the money that would be available for the -- from the forest legacy project from the state and federal government. it's a win all the way around this program has been successful in protecting forest lands around the nation. and it simply would provide this amendment this amendment simply

would provide an opportunity to do even more to protect our forest. these forests won't be held as national parks or wilderness. these are operating forests. these are forests that would be operating in good, modern forest practices providing wood and fiber into the community, and the jobs that go with it. my that, i will reserve remaining time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. -- i rise ini rise opposition to the amendment. while i appreciate and share the gentleman's desire to preserve forests in danger of conversion, that's very important to me, i chair the agriculture subcommittee on forestry, i don't believe this is the best way to do it.

i respectfully oppose the amendment. the forest legacy program has been successful to date, due to its unique structure of partnering with states to preserve forested land threatened by development. since its creation in the 1990 farm bill, the forest legacy program has been more than successful in fulfilling that purpose. the program has protected more than 2.2 million achers in 43 states and leveraged 739 million -- $379 million of nonfederal funding other the last several years. by opening the program to nongovernmental programs we're doing nothing to promote the program's purpose. for the last three years, usda has only been able to fund a quarter of the funding requests under this program. additionally, this change only has the effect of making the program more similar to other conservation programs. in the 2008 farm bill, we created the community forest program, with the purpose of

allowing gros such as land trust and -- land trusts and indian tribes to manage forest easements, this was done in part to allow nongovernment groups to participate in protecting public forests. while i'm certain the gentleman has the best of intentions, i don't agree we have a problem with this program that justifies opening it up for alteration. therefore i will oppose the amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alifornia. the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. garamendi: i yield a minute and a half to my colleague from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank my friend for yielding and i say to my friend from pennsylvania, absolutely, we believe the program is working well. we think it can work even better. we've got, you know, land trusts in my area of upstate new york

that are highly confident, in fact, i'll tell you they played a major role in preparing me for this farm bill. i'm thinking of terry out in washington county, peter patton om columbia coubletty, ned sullivan, andy bigging with the scenic hudson, becky torn thon, duchess land conservancy. these are folks that are passionate about finding the nexus where conservation plays a key role. mr. gibson: their insight to me helped me influence this farm bill. they're ready to step up and be more involved. that's going to help, as my friend from california says, it's going to help us use our money in a more efficient manner and reach out more in this program. i urge support of this amendment this only allows states the authority, you know, it really empowers states to make this decision. i think it's a good choice. let's do it. i yield back to my friend from

california. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired, the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, i would just note, my good friend from new york, i appreciate his passion on this, but the organization's -- organizations you named have opportunities under the community forest program. we have two rather unique programs, one that already, as of the last farm bill done in 2008, provides opportunity for nongovernmental groups to be able to participate in. and with that, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague from pennsylvania i thought was making a wonderful argument in support of this legislation. in that you talked about the success of the forest legacy program. and it has been imminently successful. and you also talked about the demands on the program and that's true.

many, many states want to implement this program. we also -- but you didn't mention the fact that many states don't have the resources to manage additional properties. to manage additional trusts. this would allow those states to make a decision, to -- it's a state decision, it's not a federal decision, not a decision by a private, non-profit qualified trust, this is a decision by the state to welcome into their program a private, nonprofit, qualified trust that does this kind of work that could then manage the trust without the state having to spend the money. the state maintains oversight and should something happen that the trust is unable to continue, it would then revert to the state. but this is a way of really expanding what apparently the three of us want to have happen. you mentioned another program that does exist, wonderful. those programs could work in unison with the federal

government participate, the state government participating and the private. but the problem is under the forest legacy program, the private, nonprofit, qualified trust can't participate in that program. so i'll -- i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, let me say again, i recognize there's two different programs, one program created in 2008 that nongovernmental programs can participate in. there's not capacity within the forest legacy program, mr. chairman, to add nongovernmental programs in. it is specifically designed for partnering with states to preserve forests and just as a reminder over the last three years, usda has only been able to fund a quarter of those requests at this point and by extending this would not serve a purpose. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. garamendi: thank you.

i wish we had time to sit down and talk about this. it's a shame that we're here on the floor at this moment really, i think, both of us in support of protecting our forests, of enhancing their ability to continue to produce jobs, the food, the fiber and the wood we need in our economy and in our society. we're not very far apart. if there's something here that needs to be worked out between the two programs i'm sure we could do it but this really gives us an opportunity to really do what i think all of us want and that is preserve our forest, keep them in operating production and allow the nonprofits to participate together with the states. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from pefrl. mr. thompson: i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed.

to pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in part b of house report 1113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: the gentleman from le, mr. polis and a member open owesed will control 10 minutes. mr. polis: in my district in cole, our trees in my district, primarilyly the pines have been plagued by pine beetle.

it has infected our trees. they are killed by a related fung gus. have entire mountainsides where trees are dead and now beginning to rot. it has transformed sadly the landscape of colorado. e reason for the rise of the beetle, we haven't had cold enough winters to kill off the larvae. so again what this is not comb preventing the spread of pine beetles, we have ability to do it in small areas but don't have a cost effective way to do it across large areas. once the trees have been killed, they represent a tremendous risk for forest fires when they are near power lines. what my amendment does it adds language and makes it easier to

access federal land. in the west, much of our land is owned by the federal government. and there has been difficulties on getting onto the federal land and being able to do mitigation where necessary and take down the trees near power lines, watersheds and populate fd areas. more active part of forest management. we would like to find uses for the pine beetle. we use it for bio mass and other purposes, but many of it is backcountry areas and on federal land. this amendment is simply an amendment that allows lease on lands and lands under the jurisdiction of the department of agriculture in an expedited way that we can engage in the necessary clearing and forest aintenance to prevent the pine

beetle kill from causing language. there is similar language in the senate bill. m hopeful we can work with mrs. noem from south dakota and others to achieve this goal, increasing access to federal lands for purposes of mitigating pine beetle damage. we continue to work on this issue. one of the top priorities from my district. and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's amendment may be withdrawn. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair understands that amendment number 40 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 41 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have an amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 41 printed in house report number 113-117 offered by mr. marineo of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: is this one of a series of duplicative programs. this program gives money to not-for-profit organizations that inform fleet operators and the public on the so-called

benefits of using bio diesel fuels rather than fossil fuels. mr. chairman, this program is another program of corporate welfare, taxpayer dollars not being used wisely. the american taxpayer should not be forced to foot the bill for a proposed program in an industry that would be nonexistent if it were not for government subsidies. the program incorrectly informs the public that bio diesel fuel is better than fossil fuels, oil or natural gas. i'm supportive of an all of the above strategy, but congress shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. these industries should stand on their own merit and the consumer decides what is the best product. we should not be wasting hard-earned taxpayer dollars to

groups that have a bias against fossil fuels. we should use this money to develop our natural resources and create jobs. my district is in the heart of the march sell asshale and i have seen the opportunities created by domestic energy. the unemployment rate is below the national average. i cannot support any program that favors one type of energy over another. i am not debating the merits of biofuels and i'm not against or opposed to bio fuels but there are over 20 energy programs in the farm bill alone. by continuing to funnel money to these programs, to not for profit organizations going towards salaries, we are preventing other new energy technologies from breaking ground. we are $17 trillion in debt and borrowing more and more money every day. let the taxpayer determine what

they prefer what source of energy to use, not the government using hard-working taxpayer dollars. this program is nothing but a government subsidy that is not profitable at all. and again, i'm not against the biofuel itself, i'm against using taxpayer monies going to not for profit organizations to promote this and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from south dakota rise? mrs. noem: i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment. what this amendment does, mr. speaker, it eliminates an extremely effective program. biodiesel is a clean burning product with feedstocks. the byproducts of biodiesel is protein meal that is used from y and it is a protein-rich

livestock feed. life stosk value increases and this program is a program to educate fleat operators and the public. the program plays a vital role in making sure in helping making sure it is a low carbon renewable replacement fuel. what this amendment does, it doesn't save any money but eliminates a program that is out there telling the story of what an all of the above energy supply that prioritizes american energy. we need to make sure that we are prioritizing the types of energy we can produce in thr country as well as petroleum. i'm a farmer and rancher and utilize petroleum products and i recognize the value of having a program that promotes the use of renewable uses that we can generate from other sources.

i will yield one minute to mr. king from iowa if he would like to speak as well. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady from south dakota for yielding to me and i wanted to come to the floor in opposition. i have seen what this research does and i have watched as we go from no industry to an industry that is utilizing the products that the gentlelady from south dakota has said from animal father and has cheapened up our energy supply and cleaned up our air and made us a better country bus of it. and this research that gets done, we should remember there isn't always a return on that research investment. that's why we do research in our universities, for example. with that research, we can find those things that make us more efficient. i remember when the research labs it was impossible to get energy out of the feed grains. we have exceeded that.

and to use these animal father has been -- fats has been changed. this is a piece that needs to be preserved and preserve the efficiency and the education. and i yield back to the gentlelady from south dakota. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mrs. noem: that is one of the things we don't talk about enough, it brings us cost savings in many other industries that we see reflected every day such as lower costs in energy, areas in livestock feeds. and i would like to yield a minute to mr. peterson. mr. peterson: i thank the gentlelady and i oppose this amendment. people need to relies that the diesel engine was invented by a german guy named diesel and didn't run on diesel fuel and the internal combustion ran on ethanol and had to re-engineer

to get them to run on gasoline and diesel fuel. it takes a different type of engine to run those types of fuel. one of the things you do with that type of a program, you help those manufacturers develop engines that can utilize the fuel. same thing with the karen begins. in brazil, they are burning 30% ethanol with cars made by general motors and cars geared to run on that fuel and get better mileage. and that's what we are trying to do with this program is help the industry be able to utilize these fuels that are creating jobs. this is a good program and i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady frling south dakota. mrs. noem: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i reserve. and if my colleague is ready to

close. the chair: the gentlelady from south dakota, a member of the committee has a right to close. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. marino: once again, i'm not against the use of biofuels and against the use of taxpayer dollars going to not for profit organizations to promote the use of biofuels. there is not one vehicle that is 100% that runs on biofuels at this point and it does save money if this program is eliminated, of hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars per year. and that money should go back into the taxpayer's pocket or at least pay the debt down. we should create jobs, like building the xl pipeline and developing natural gas exploration that we have an abundant supply of.

let's stop borrowing money to promote a product where we pick the winners and losers. as i said earlier, that's up to the consumer. they can choose which best product to use. but i oppose the fact that hard-working middle-class taxpayer dollars are going for advertising and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized for one minute. mrs. noem: i certainly appreciate the gentleman's concerns and all that he brought to this house today. i will reiterate. this is an extremely effective program and lets the consumers know they have a choice and the benefits of the fuel, let's them know they can have an impact on the efficiency levels they are able to enjoy and gives them another market to go to to lower their energy costs and lowers our livestock feed costs. what this program does is tell the consumer that there are

options that are renewable right here in the united states that we can grow, produce and put out there in the marketplace that will be something that is sustainable without the volatility without relying on the middle east for our needs. i will reiterate this program does not have a cost-for even though that was mentioned. if this amendment is adopted, and that is why i oppose it because of the effectiveness of the program and ask to oppose this amendment. mr. peterson: would the gentlelady yield? willie nelson's bus runs on b-100. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in art b of house report 113-117. it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcclintock: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 43 printed in house report 113-117, offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.

mr. mcclintock: this amendment addresses a very simple question. why are we spending millions of dollars advertising and promoting farmers markets? farmers market and local food promotion program spends $40 million on such trivialities as redecorating farmers market stalls and roadside stands to attract yuppie customers. in colorado, the funds from this program paid for a chef competition and bike tour. more than $120,000 in two grants under this program was spent for beer seminars in china. this program duplicates four other federal programs that also respect aspects of -- also represent aspects of farmers market and who knows how many state and local programs do the same. i would challenge the supports of the program to answer three questions. irst, why should a taxpayer in

latimer, iowa, pay for a farm for the lancaster, california, to advertise his produce? second, why should a shop keep for the lancaster who has to pay for his own advertising also pay for the local farmers' advertising as well? and third, and most important, how can any member look his or her constituents in the eye and tell them that a beer seminar in china was worth spending more of their earnings than they make in a year? we keep hearing how draconian is the sequester, how it's cutting deeply into vital public services. i dare say at least a dozen speeches on this floor this week were dedicated to the painful cutbacks caused by the sequester. we tell schoolchildren they can't tour the white house because we don't have the money due to the sequester. we tell our constituents they have to wait in insufferable

lines to see us in the house office buildings because we don't have the money due to the sequester. and yet, we seem to have plenty of money to fund travesties like those that are crammed into this farm bill. doesn't that bother anybody here? i believe that rooting out wasteful programs like this one is the principal reason voters entrusted republicans with majority control of the house. the house that's supposed to hold the purse strings of this government. i ask my colleagues if we're being true to our campaign promises we made to our constituents by continuing to fund such obscene wastes of their fun as this one. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? >> mr. speaker, to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this

amendmenan want to speak in favor of the farmers market promotion program. i have a very different perspective. while i appreciate my colleague's opposition or concerns raised about the sequester, i don't think those same concerns apply to what is a very good program. when i moved to maine about 40 years ago and started a small farm, growing and selling healthy foods, locally grown food, was a little bit out of the mainstream. we'd gone in a different direction. but i can tell you today wherever i go, whether i'm talking to a group of bankers or a group of school teachers or a group of school kids or their parents, people nod in strong support when i say, we need more locally grown, sustainable food. people want to know where they food comes from. they want to see farmers in their communities. they want to help the farmers make ends meet this amendment would take us backwards. it would further undo our weakened infrastructure of local food support.

the farmers market promotion program which is reformed in this bill to be the farmers market in local food promotion program helps communities support local food systems through direct marketing. they're not price guarantees, they're not income support this helps farmers understand the best practices for marketing their food. it helps them understand how to get the best price from the market in this growing opportunity that truly supports rural communities. it's not an either-or proposition. you don't have to have just locally grown food or nationally grown food. you can support regrowing our local food infrastructure, helping rural communities and also support conventionaling a allture. you can buy california lettuce and also buy in-season tomatoes from the farmers who live down your road and support your community. the truth is, i come from a state like maine, maine is like many states around the country. we have very, very few farmers

who will be able to take advantage of the biggest programs in this bill. the biggest programs that are worth billions of dollars. the revenue loss program, the price loss program, the stacked income protection plan. they don't apply to farmers in my state. they get very little support to help these growing opportunities in rural communities. that's ok with them. they're not asking for a price guarantee. they're asking for some parity. for usda programs to once and finally apply to them. they're not asking to be at a tremendous disadvantage because they are diversified and sustainable farmers. people who live and work in rural communs whose kids go to our school, who serve on local boards, who are part of the rural f that's all this program is asking for, a little parity a little bit of assistance in this billion-dollar program for big corporate farms. i cannot imagine how anyone could come to the floor and say,

i don't want to help the fiber and fabric of rural states like mine. programs like cultivating communities, which helped promote six local farm stands in low-income areas. this program helps people to support farm stands that accept snap benefit that do a tremendous amount to get more people eating healthy, local food and promoting them. as i said, it's a critical part of our local infrastructure. i can't imagine why anyone would go against that. and i'll pause there and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the squealt reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: i reserve. oh. i'm happy to allocate half a minute -- or a minute -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in opposition to this

amendment as well. while we desire to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse, i think we've reached a balance in the committee with the language here. this is a competitive grant process. it will improve direct producer to consumer opportunities, i think it's valuable for small farms and small communities. with that, i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to close. the the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i continue to reserve unless the gentleman -- mr. mcclintock: i'm ready to close. ms. pingree: i would just like to say one more time, this is a vital program, let me again reenforce the good words of my colleague and thank him for speaking on the other side of the aisle in support of this program. this helps communs through direct marketing. this helps roadside stands, farmers markets, c.s.a.,ing ary tourism, other direct producer

to consumer marketing opportunities. it's a competitive grant. it's not a boondoggle. it's not direct payments to a farmer. and once again, i just want to say, i come from the state of maine, which like many states is full of rural communities, rural communities who are seeing this renewed interest in buying food locally, a great way to expand this economy, to provide jobs to get more money into a rural economies, to make sure people are eating hellier food, getting to know their farmers in their communities, making better, healthier decisions. i strongly oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do so and i thank you very much for the time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. ms. pingree: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i began by asking supporters to answer three simple questions. why should a taxpayer in one community pay to advertise

produce far farm for the another community? i heard no answer. i asked why should a shop keep for the oncommuny who has to pay for his own advertising also pay for the local farmers' advertising as well? i heard no answer. and third, i asked how can any of us look our constituents in e eye and tell them that $120,000, more than our constituents, most of them, make in a year, is a worthwhile expenditure to hold a beer seminar in china and once again, i heard no answer. i forgive my democratic colleagues the error of their way, they never promised to be careful with the people's money. the republicans made that promise. and because of that promise, the republicans were entrusted with the majority of this house. allowing programs like this to continue on our watch dishonors

those promises and i appeal to my republican colleagues not to repeat the conduct that turned the nation's stomach the last time we held the majority. chai ld back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 pinted in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 44, plinted in house report 113-117, offered by mr.

gibson of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. gibson: this is a bipartisan amendment addressing language in the bill pertaining to olive oil. advanced by my good friends from california and georgia, you know, who are here today to defend and to advance the their olive growers, they are proud of them. i want to say how proud i am of their olive growers as well. and also to address fraud. and i want to also express my commitment to combating fraud as well. but regrettably, this underlying language misses the markful it's going to significantly drive up costs. it's going to cost hundreds, in fact, thousands of jobs across america including hundreds of jobs in my home state. i think it's important to focus in on what this underlying

language does. you know, we should face the facts that at least at the moment, 98% of the olive oil that we consume in america is o in fact, we've got many, we've got hundreds of jobs in new york state that deal with that but 98% of the olive oil imported. and the underlying language will quire 100% of that 98% to be chemical and taste tested at the port. now you have about 5% to 8% that's spot checked. we're talking about going to 100% and i don't think the united states government has the capacity to do that. and i certainly would fear if it ended up with that capacity to do that. look the way to deal with fraud is strike this language. we should look to the f.d.a. for standards. we did this in new york. we have standards in new york. the olive oil distributors are exrying with it. they were part of making it come about. but what we've done in this

underlying bill, i want to make sure it's very clear that this is going to drive up costs for all of our consumers, millions of dollars, according to the c.b.o., and we're going to end up crushing jobs. so with that, i want to reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does he gentleman from oregon rise? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. after three debates in support of my colleague from new york i find myself on the opposite side of ts we are in the process of developing a very viable american olive oil industry, one that has great potential. at the same time that industry faces a question from consumers about the quality of oil available boast domestically produced as well as internationally produced.

there have been numerous studies done that there is a lot of misrepresentation as to the quality and nature of olive oil. this bill, the farm bill, establishing the opportunity for the creation of a marketing order that would eventually provide the -- a farmer-oriented regulation of the quality and the type of olive oil that's going to be on the market. that would apply both the imported and the domestically produced olive oil. the cost of this need not be as high as my colleague from new york suggests. it is probable and most feasible that the olive oil that's imported would be checked as to its quality and consistency at the point of export, not, certainly not at the retail and probable not at the point of import. and this can be done. this is done in many, many products that are produced in america as well as imported.

quality controls. consumer awareness. this is a very important bill nascent mestic and olive oil industry. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. meeks: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise today to demonstrate my strong support for this amendment, led by my colleague from new york to strike the olive oil price increase. this amendment is needed to stop the unnecessary increase in olive oil pricing. the unfair marketing order being considered would place heavy restrictions on the importation of olive oil. the united states is the largest importer of oil, 95% of the amount of olive oil.

the order would result in tens of millions of dollars for costs in inspections per year and raising the price of olive oil and making it expensive. the inspection would occur where it is produced, not once when it enters the united states. this tax would undermine our trade relations. it is a nontariff trade barrier which will further complicate trade and export relations. just this week, the president has launched the partnership negotiations. this provision is against the spirit of the talks and trade with our largest trading partner. the european union free trade talks would be compromised resulting in a loss of u.s. greater exports and i strike the olive oil pricing. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i rise in

opposition of this. it would require that olive oil would be subject to the same labeling requirements. >> the same requirements for imported olive oil. americans need to know that the product they are buying. mr. scott: and as the gentleman from new york stated, it is spot checked right now, less than 5% of the 98% of the oil sold in this country is actually checked as to whether or not it is labeled accurately. porters have and im strong standards for the consumer. with that, i yield the remainder lamalfa.e to mr. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back hisime to the

oregon. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new york. mr. hanna: i rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to strike the new trade barrier on imported olive oil included in this farm bill. this would place a tax rate, which hurts restaurants, retailers and consumers. it will threaten good jobs in many communities including my own. 98% of the olive oil consumed in the united states is imported. only 2%, 2% is produced here. this new barrier would benefit a small segment of the olive oil producers in very few states at the expense of all other 50 states. c.b.o. pegged the new olive oil regulation as a private sector

mandate, an earmark, potentially costing businesses and consumers tens of millions of dollars. now is not the time to implement trade barriers with our allies as we begin new trade negotiations with the european union. this amendment protects small businesses, consumers and i urge support of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oregon. > i yield my time to the other the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. mr. lamalfa: i many must rise in opposition. olive oil was heavily used in my family and we purchased it locally in northern california by vendors. we got top quality oil. i think we need to have that same opportunity for everybody

across the country, and know that the advertising, the labeling of it is correct. much imported oil doesn't have to meet the same standard for labeling especially by the time it's shipped here. what we are looking for is not knocking out jobs or imported oil or any of that, but the truth in labeling that people would expect. when a label says extra virgin, what should be in that container should be extra virgin. by the time it gets here it is bad. maybe they would like to know that. this is not what we are after here causing problems for people who would like to market it, but the truth in advertiseing. shouldn't be anything to worry about if you are an importer. reasonable standards can be worked out. so let's move forward with blocking this amendment for today and instead allowing a

good labeling standard to be in place for american olive oil users, whether it's domestic or imported. so i appreciate the opportunity to speak on this and ask for people to deny this amendment today. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. >> how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from new york has one minute remaining and the gentleman from oregon has one minute remaining and has the right to close. mr. gibbs: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm. mr. grimm: i respect my colleagues from california and from georgia, but let's stop the nonsense and call it what it is. i have a district that consumes more greek and italian oil and it's not bad. the producers are the ones with

the problems. the people buying it, the distributors, the different restaurants their costs would go up. they know good oil and haven't had a problem. there is going to be a problem in every industry but this is nothing more than a million dollar earmark. i respect them sticking up for their states. olives like oranges, oranges are tested, but we don't test orange juice. grapes are tested but we don't test the wine. we do test olives, we shouldn't be testing olive oil. the only manufactured good tested as a commodity, that would be a mistake. even the c.b.o. says tens of millions of dollars and we can't afford that for our industry. this is a specialty earmark. i respect the intent, but it is bad policy and i ask everyone to oppose. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon.

>> i yield one minute to the other the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the last minute. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, this is a marketing order. the underlying law establishes a marketing order. a marketing order allows the producers to come together and decide how they're going to market their product, do it in a way that sets up standards for their product. this is common across virtually every aspect of american agriculture. this is nothing new. when you have a marketing order that involves imported as well as domestically produced, they are impacted by the equal fakeses. and -- qualifications. this is not new. including many of the products that were described a moment ago are controlled by a marketing order. we aren't exactly sure what kind of regulations and quality standards will be put in place.

but once in place, whether it's imported or domestically-produced oil, they have to abide by the same regulations. with regard to the cost, this isn't not new either. this happens in most of the commodities and products that are imported. we aren't talking about something radical. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek

recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 45 printed in house report number 113-117 offered by mrs. warlorski of indiana. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. warlorski and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the entlewoman from indiana. mrs. walorski: this amendment prevents the christmas tree from being implemented. they tried to implement this tax in 2011 when in response to the outcry from the american people, the tax was put on hold. i hear from families about their struggles. moms and dads, single parents who are struggling to make ends meet to pay their mortgage and still have enough left in their

budget to fill up the gas tank. americans are seeking commonsense solutions from washington to jump start the economy to provide more jobs and ensure that our children and grandchildren have the same opportunities that we enjoy in this great nation. and now as we focused on passing a comprehensive five-year farm bill, some of my colleagues are looking to revive this unnecessary tax. there is no justification to impose another tax on the american people. there is no justification to impose a tax on a commodity that symbolizes a historic christmas tradition. the administration has denied this is a tax. but i think most americans would agree when the federal government forces us to pay something, it's a tax. a tax imposed on every american family the next time they go to pick out a christmas tree. christmas tree growers opposed to this tax cannot opt out. this tax will be charged to the grower, passed onto the consumers, adding to the costs

put at the bottom of your receipt and increasing what you owe to the federal government. supporters of this tax will call it nominal and argue it is only 15 to 20 cents. with around 33 fresh-cut christmas trees sold in the u.s. each year, this little tax adds up to millions of dollars in tax revenues. our families save up for months to provide gifts for their families, donate to charities or purchase a flight home to spend the holidays with their loved ones. this isn't the time to raise taxes. the president and congress should focus on reducing government spending and finding commonsense solutions to lower taxes to find relief for americans. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make sure that our christmas trees remain a symbol and not a symbol of more government taxation. thank you and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman from oregon rise -- the gentlewoman from reserves the balance of her time. >> claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schrader: the gentlelady is misinformed as to what this christmas tree checkoff does. if we were to strip this out of e farm bill, millions, millions of americans would lose jobs. this is about protecting american agriculture. i did not see the gentlelady or any of her friends on the other side of the aisle get up and talk about the beef checkoff program or the dairy checkoff program or cotton checkoff program all of which promote american industry and american jobs and american research. the idea that this is a tax is

absolutely ludicrous with all due respect. they have come to us like the cattlemen did and the dairymen did to promote their industry. perhaps the gentlelady is unaware that the christmas tree is under siege. what is more american than christmas? the chinese are exporting to our country and importing fake chinese trees that's devastating the american industry right now. we can be a favor of chinese jobs or in favor of american cultural jobs. it's not new and has been done for years and years and ridiculous to assume with all due respect, the gentlelady's talking points talked about this christmas season. i don't think it's christmas season. it's in june. time to get updated and understand where this country is coming from. american agriculturers worked hard to stay competitive.

what states that are going to be affected? we have north carolina, we gotten see, got michigan, got washington, got oregon, pennsylvania, all 50 states produce christmas trees. now this industry needs to survive. this is an american industry producing christmas trees. i'm shocked to actually think that anyone is willing to take this off the agenda. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from indiana seeks recognition? rs. walorski: with all due mrs. walorski: this is a tax the american people themselves resoundingly said in 2011 said absolutely not. the american people put so much pressure on president obama he backed off and rescinded this and moved it into a different

time slot, which is what we're looking at today. with the people in many -- in my district, these are hardworking americans, double-income households, single moms with kids under 18, trying to raise their household, trying to pays their bills, pay their mortgage and put gas in their car. i think we have a government in washington that's out of control when it comes to taxation. we don't need another tax out of washington. we need help for american families. with that, i would again urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the rest of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: the mesh people didn't vote on this program for american christmas trees. if they had, i think they'd vote in favor of american agricultural jobs in rural america. rural america, i don't know if the gentlelady knows this, but with the unemployment rate in

rural america, it's easy, easily still in the double digits. this is an industry that these severe help in our time. if the american government can't them assess ng themselveses a fee that's supported by the industry to keep it alive and keep it producing american jobs, i don't know what our government is all about at the end of the day. this should be a straightforward, no vote on this amendment. as a matter of fact, this was so noncontroversial in the agriculture committee on which i serve that it passed unanimous en bloc. this was not a controversial issue. i guess i'd like to think we've moved forward out of election season, it's time to get real, time to put jobs on the table for americans, particularly in rural america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from indiana is recognized. mrs. walorski: i would like to add as i close that this is a time and i agree with the gentleman in one sense, this is a time for us to be talking here

about things like jobs and a struggling, sluggish economy and because of that, the hardworking people in my district, the last thing they expect to see, the last thing they want to see, and americans did resundayingly cry out in 2011 not to send another tax their way. this is a tax, when the federal government stoesz american, you must pay x, that's a tax. in my district it's hardworking hoosiers who said, no more taxes from this government. they are taxed enough, they don't want to be taxed in the christmas season. i urge my colleagues to stand in support for this amendment and yield back the remainedmoifer time. the chair: the gentleman from regon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: -- mr. schrader: this is not about taxation, it's about the promotion of an industry that we would like to support in america, christmas. what's more american than

christmas? i can't believe the opposition is seeking to attack christmas and christmas tree producerer -- producers. the recession isn't over. it's not over. over 70% of the folks in the christmas tree industry favor this bill. i would love to see my approval rate come up to 15% or 20%, these guys are at 70%, wanting to get something done. we owe it to them to back them. the producers across this country need our help. we did it for beef if dairy, for a number of other industries. i don't see why christmas trees should be discriminated against and we should be encouraging chinese jobs and chinese fake trees in our christmas tree pants. i think that's terrible and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman has yielded back. does the gentleman -- mr. schrader: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. mrs. walorski: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana will be postponed. it is new in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition in mr. courtney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 46, printed in house report 113-117. offered by mr. courtney of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney and a member opposed each will rove m

the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: this bipartisan amendment which i have introduced with my friend mr. ittman of virginia is budget neutral, it does not change any level of spending it adds shellfish farming to the specialty crops competitive block grant program. this is i think a reasonable addition given the histthroif block grants and research initiative program prior to 2004. again, i want to just emphasize at the outset, what we're talking about here is shellfish farming. we are not talking about fishing. shellfish farming is cultivated process from seed which many instances starts to offshore and proceeds to harvest in beds, again, just adjacent to a coast. again it goes back into antiquity in terms of the process and the farming

technique that surrounds shelffish farming. again, prior to 2004, the specialty crop programs were administered again through the usda to states, states had discretion to determine specialty crop programs which they wanted to fund. in some instances shellfish farming was included along with frutes and nuts and other forms of specialty crops. in 2004, congress reformed this program or changed the program and gave specific definitions which take away that discretion to states in terms of the block grants program. the block grants in many instances povide marketing assistance. shellfish farming, oysters, clams, mussels, is a growing industry. in fact, it is -- for people who have become exposed to it, it is considered a very high quality industry in terms of u.s. shellfish that actually provides opportunities for export growth around the world and what this amendment will do is really to give that, again, growing area

of aqua culture an opportunity to expand and grow. it affects the pacific coast, gulf coast an eastern coast. again, this is really just, again a cost neutral amendment to extend very important marketing assistance and research assistance to a part of american agriculture which clearly aqua culture is. again, this is cultivated growing of food, unlike fishing, and again, i think for the hardworking men and women who get up every single day just like dairy farmers or people who pick apples or other forms of specialty crops who pay taxes, they should be allowed to have access to this program, a competitive grant program, which they would have to demonstrate their eligibility for. again, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise in mr. lucas: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman i recognize myself for what time i might consume.

while i appreciate the interest of the gentleman advancing shellfish fishermen in their districts, i think the premise of their amendment is wrong. while other definitions of specialty crops may have included shell phish the definition under the competitiveness act was designed for fruit, vegetable, and horticulture producers. the program under this -- programs under this act were new so nothing that shell phish were previously eligible for had been taken away by them. being animals, shell phish have not been included in the -- shellfish have not been included in the program specifically designed for plant programs. while some minor aspects limited under -- may be generic enough that the addition of animal species wouldn't be overly problematic this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in a variety of plant protection laws and hee

pointed out to the amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of programs. therefore, as fond as i am of both authors and as appreciative as i am of the product that they're attempting to endeavor, i must respectfully request that we oppose the amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: thank you. again, i want to salute the work the chairman of the committee has done, it's been magnificent to see regular order in the congress. but the 2004 specialty crop law was amended in the last farm bill in 2008 to add horticulture so again, what was done in 2004 is hardly a sacred text. we have the ability to, again, with good reason and evidence, to amend this law. and again, i think given the history of it pre2004, this is

not an unreasonable change. to help make that point, i would now yield to my good friend from virginia, mr. whitmanfish -- for such time as he may consume -- mr. whitman for such time as he may consume. mr. wittman: this is an effort to modify the list of competitive products under the competitive act, making sure that those folks in rural coastal arias have the same opportunities as farmers on land. in those coastal areas, shellfish are an extraordinarily important part of the economy. modern practices take the watermen from wild harvests to farming shellfish products like onland farmers do. this makes sure they are coastal economies have the same access to resources under this program as those farmers on land do it really is just a situation of making sure we have parity there. this doesn't add a new check off

program, doesn't add new taxes, it purely puts in place access to those dollars, competitively, just like those farmers that farm other crops on land. again, this is extraordinarily important to coastal communities in those areas where those watermen are converting to being farmers on the water. it really is again about making sure we're fair in treating those farmers on the watt they are esame as we do the farms on the land. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back to the gentleman from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i recognize myself for whatever time remains. there's a difference, i think in the a way the act was created between animals and plants. i think this is an issue that certainly we need to address and look at. i don't know in context that it is put together here that this is an appropriate amendment. i would simply ask my colleagues in a respectful fashion to decline this amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. courtney: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause -- does the -- mr. courtney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. kind: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in house report 113-117,

offered by mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: i offer this bipartisan amendment with my friend and colleague representative petri from wisconsin that would call for further rere-forms in tightening up the crop insurance program. by the steps we take with this reform amendment we would save the taxpayers over $11 billion over the next 10 years. it's based on bipartisan legislation we offered earlier this year supported by representatives conyers, coopers, defazio, connolly, waxman and supported by a variety of outside groups. we're trying to maintain an element of risk in farming again in a fiscally responsible manner by tightening up pams that we feel have become too excessive with the shifting of commodity money into the crop insurance

category. we'd save over $11 billion over the next 10 grires doing the following. we call for a limit of federal crop insurance subsidies to $50,000 per farmer per year. currently there are no limit no, cap on the amount of taxpayer subsidies going to farm entities. last year alone over 26 entities received over $1 million in taxpayer premium subsidies alone. we think that's wrong and we're trying to correct that with this amendment. we extend the adjusted gross income limit to apply to crop insurance programs. the concept there is simple. if you're a farm entity with a gross profit of over a quarter million dollar, you really ought not still be receiving taxpayer subsidies. we are talking quarter of a million dollars of profit. it would promote efficiency by ending the 100% government subsidy and operating cost that the private insurance companies

privately enjoy today. we spent $1.3 billion to the insurance companies for their expenses and asking them to live with the $900 billion which is consistent with the obama administration is offering. this would also guarantee that the crop insurance companies do not pass along the riskiest policies back to the american taxpayer. it would lower the profit guaranteed to these private insurance companies from 14% to 12%. we don't offer that type of guarantee for any other business anywhere else in the country and yet now they are guaranteed a 14% profit. we are saying can you live with a 12% profit for savings within this program and promote transparency to help the taxpayer know where the money is going and who is benefiting from it. so we have greater disclosure of these programs and greater scrutiny. we think this is commonsense

reform and this is something that maintains the risk management tool of crop insurance. we aren't proposing eliminating it but proposing it to be market sensitive. and timely, one of the reasons we feel this is important current commodity prices there is great pressure on farmers to plant everywhere in highly erodeable land because if they experience a loss, their loss is covered. that is leading bad stewardship practice and with this reform we are trying to introduce this that's right now being brought back into production. i would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield

to the subcommittee chairman of primary jurisdiction, mr. conaway of texas, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: i rise in strong opposition to this attack on a very thwarted piece of the safety net that agriculture relies on. the first is, we are going to put the government back in the business of delivering crop insurance. we tried that and didn't work. and government employees don't act as responsible as the private sector does. i get response from these folks that is appropriate. the second, we go to the possibility of the days when we spent billions of dollars in unbudgeted disaster relief and that's the least efficient way to go about this and that is what this amendment does. it is bad for americans. it won't save money and will

cost us untold billions. i know that the environmental working group and other groups want to run our farmers and ranchers out of business. this amendment would help them accomplish this goal. if your aim is to stick the american taxpayer to pay for disaster bills this is your kind of amendment. if you want to give the extreme environmentalist groups a win in their effort to ruin farmers and ranchers, this goes right at it. this is a slap in the face for farmers and ranchers in west texas. this amendment is not good and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. mr. kind: if my colleague wants to include american commitment

american enterprise institute they have come out in support of this legislation. but we aren't taking the private insurance companies out but asking them to carry risk and reduce their guaranteed profit margin from 14% to 12%. i yield to my good friend from wisconsin, representative petery. mr. petri: the house considers the farm act of 2013 and it's important that we offer the proper support for farmers while ensuring these programs are responsible for the american taxpayer. the federal crop insurance program is the most extensive program supporting farm income and only farm support income that is not subject to some form of payment limitation or means tested. this amendment which incorporates the language works to reform the crop insurance

program. capping crop insurance subsidies at $50,000 per person per year does not prohibit farmers from purchasing crop insurance nor does it eliminate taxpayer support for the program. most farmers would not be affected by this cap at all. of ding to the g.a.o., 4% farmers would have been impacted by this cap on subsidy for insurance. 2001-2012 the total cost of premium subsidies jumped fourfold from $1.8 billion to $7.5 billion. they project higher costs in the future averaging $9.1 billion annually. the subsidy cap sbind combined with the means testing requirement will assist in preventing fraud, waste and abuse. this amendment also reforms

administrative and operating reimbursements that the government pays to private insurance companies by capping those payments at $900 million which is a moderate cap than what is being spent. it lowers the reimbursement to insurance companies to the president's target of 12% return from 14% return. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas, one minute. mr. crawford: farm policy is providing support when based on production. they are larger to increase sufficiency. limiting policies limits the ability of farms to grow and gain efficiencies and penalizing u.s. farmers and putting them at a disadvantage. adjusted grossffent than farm p

there are a number of expenses. farmers must service debt. given the cost of machinery and land can reach into the millions. rules penalize spouses who take off-farm jobs to make ends meet when farmers are struggling with their farm income. a means test creates uncertainty for growers by creating a ping pong effect. making it difficult or impossible for them to measure the future cash flow in order to make both short and long-term lending decisions. in short, an unreasonable means test will make it punitive for thousands of farmers and ranchers. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin recognized. mr. kind: mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro, a champion for family

farmers and nutrition in the farm bill. ms. delauro: i rise in strong support of this amendment because it aims to reform a broken crop insurance program. taxpayers foot an average of 60% of the premiums for bishyear, plus the reimbursement of the operating costs, 100% of those efforts. these are for-private companies that sell the plans including multinational corporations some of those who are in tax havens. what it does, it works to improve crop insurance. it limits their subsidized profits of companies that sell crop insurance. it does not harm the ability of the companies to sell these policies in any way and ensure that taxpayers do not continue to subsidize the administrative and operating expenses. it is a bipartisan amendment. it enjoys broad support from a number of groups across the

political spectrum. it caps the amount of crop insurance premium supports individual produce fierce receive. g.a.o. said it would cap it under 4%. crop insurance is the only farm support program subsidized by taxpayers and not subject to a payment limitation. this would bring this in line with other foreign programs and it would shine a little long overdue sunlight to the crop insurance program. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> the people i represent understand that food doesn't grow on grocery store shelves. it takes the hard work and risk of farmers to get that food to market. i believe all of those farmers are worth supporting. this will undermine the safety

net for those farmers. many people don't realize it but farm operations are made up of different farms. different farms of different sizes, ownership structures and different equipment and that makes our domestic portfolio strong. it is the big guys that act as these are all family farms in the best sense of the word and depend on each other. this amendment effectively ends the safety net for the large family farmer without whom our small family farms couldn't produce. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma reserve? mr. lucas: i reserve. mr. kind: balance of time? he chair: 2 3/4 minutes. mr. peterson: i would yield to

the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i appreciate your yielding also to me and i rise in opposition to the kind amendment. and i do so because i don't want to see agriculture distorted. as equipment has gotten larger and farms getting larger and when you tie it down to an a.i.g. pits neighbors gets neighbors. here's what i remember, back in the 1980's when we had a farm crisis and real disaster, i saw on the front page of the paper come out $26 billion in farm subsidy disaster money to deal with drought and the climate we had and the bad economic climate. we haven't had those calls. in 2011, we had a big flood. no call for disaster money. crop insurance is working. 86% of the crop is insured today. i recall it being 13% when i

the $26 billion bill. our opposition to the kind amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i wish to yield two minutes to the ranking member mr. peterson. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for yielding. you know, what this amendment is going to do is undermine the crop insurance system and take people out of the crop insurance system that we need to make it sound. now i just said here there is no other program that doesn't have a payment limit. let me tell you something, mr. kind, co-sponsor of the goodlatte-scott provision, which has no payment limit. district,000-cow dairy are going to get $600,000 from subsidies in the dairy program

and there is no payment limitation. so come on. you know. if you really believe in payment limits, why isn't it on the goodlatte-scott scheme? you know? i mean this amendment undermines everything that we have been trying to do in the agriculture committee. we had the biggest disaster last year, drought, that we ever had. we had no significant call for an ad hoc disaster for the first time i can remember since i have been here and the reason is that crop insurance worked. you know, agriculture is working. in my district, you know, we have 3% unemployment because agriculture is working. you know, the one part of the economy that's actually working and all these people that want to create jobs and create government programs, they want to take the one thing that's working in the country and screw it up.

and i'm not going to be part of it. so vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. . the chair: the gentleman has 2 3/4 minutes. mr. lucas: i yield myself one minute. the gentleman makes a valid point. when you look at the way crop insurance works, it shifts risk to the farmers and ranchingers. if you look at how these premiums and paints have gone over the last decade, not scrust the really tough weather last year, you'll find that in reality, 70% of the policies over the last 10 years have not returned one single penny. 70%. and if you look at how the

program has worked in the seven years prior to the onset of the drought of 2007, the federal government made money on federal crop insurance. i can't help the anomaly that the super drought was in the midwest but i can tell you, that's a pretty good track record. the ranking member is entirely right. t works. let's not mess up something that works. with that, i reserve the plans of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. r. peterson: i yield myself -- mr. kind: i yield myself such time as i may consume my average dairy herd size in wisconsin is 2,000 cows, i don't have the mega dairy farms. we'll have time to talk about the measure he's talking about

but we're not talking about eliminating the crop insurance program, it won't touch 96% of the producers out there but last time i checked we're running record budget deficits and there are areas in the farm program, especially in crop insurance, that we can go to for sensible, commonsense savings that's economically justifiable while maintaining risks within the program today. it's a little ironic that we have such defenders of this crop insurance program when last year alone, the typical insurance company received $1.46 in taxpayer subsidies for every dollar that went into the pockets of our farmers and five of the 10 biggest insurance companies offer theegs programs are foreign-owned entities and many of them are using tax havens on the taxpayer dime. how they can justify this program with a straight face is beyond me. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we agree, crop insurance is not broken. i stand here today to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that recently, secretary of ag tom vilsack sat in our ag committee hearing and said, crop insurance is not broken. crop insurance is one of the most successful programs we have in the midwest. we see that we're not doing offbudget disaster assistance. we see that farmers are willing to give up direct payments to have better risk management tools like crop insurance. mr. davis: let's get to the point too that bankers, our creditor, will not give loans to our farmers and keep our family farms in business without a strong risk management program like an effective crop insurance program that we have. i urge all of my colleagues to

oppose this amendment. we need to ensure that this risk management tool crop insurance stays as viable and as effective as it is and i stand here today and agree with secretary of agriculture tom vilsack and agree that crop insurance is not broken. please oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one and a half minutes. mr. kind: i would like to yield one minute to the gentlelady wisconsin ms. pingree. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: i appreciate the good pieces in bill, but there are a lot of cuts that are felt deeply, including the snap benefits cuts. i want to rise in support of this amendment because unlike the cuts to the snap benefits for low income family, this

amendment just asks the richest agricultural businesses in america to pay a little more and receive a little less. just this one portion of the amendment, the $250,000 cap for farmers that clear more than $250,000 a year, we have a lot of farmers in our state and a growing number of farmers in our state but very few clear more money than that. this mostly affects corporate farm, 96% of the farmers will never be affected by this amendment. but for a very few, this is a huge benefitism yield my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank my colleague for his time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i believe the chairman has the right to close. the chair: the chairman does have the right to close. mr. kind: let me close by saying, listen, i understand there's a lot of hard work in the committee in producing a farm bill but there are areas of cost savings we can justify to the american taxpayer without jeopardizing the risk management tool. crop insurance is ripe for that

type of reform. what we're sending out is very commonsense, economically justifiable, would save the tax i payer over $11 million over the next 10 years nesm average taxpayer knew how the crop insurance program is set up today they'd be aghast in horror. yost not right. we're trying to correct that right now while maintaining the safety net in a viable crop insurance program that can work. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman tees time has expire. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield myself whatever time i have to say to my colleagues, the system works, as my colleague also noted, it is critically important to farmers to ensure their financing and while ultimately like most provisions of the farm bill that raise the food and fiber, the consumers at the end of the chain benefit from the highest quality, most affordable price of food and fiber in the history of the world. please protect this important resource to production

agriculture. please continue to enable farmers to farl. vote no on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kind: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware seek recognition? mr. carney: i have an amendment that the at the desk. choi the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 48 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. carney of delaware. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 271, the gentleman from delaware, mr. cover nee, and a member oppose each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. carney: i rise in support of a bipartisan, straightforward amendment that i introduce with my colleague, congressman ray dell of florida -- rah dell of florida that -- radel of florida that will help maximize the amount used in crop insurance program. periodically, the usda renegotiates its agreement with private crop insurers for the delivery and administration of the federal crop insurance. these negotiations, known as standard reinsurance agreements, do not affect the premium subsidies paid to farmers and instead focus on the percent of gains or losses assumed by taxpayers. and the level of crop insurance administrative and operating costs paid by the federal government. the most recent negotiation was finalized in 2010 and yielded $6 billion in savings. of these savings, $4 billion was

used to reduce the federal deficit and thery maining $2 billion was put back in the farm programs to supplement conservation efforts and improve certain products provided through the federal crop insurance program. our amendment simply maintains by striking a provision in the bill that savings from any future standard be put back into the crop insurance program. this amendment continues to respect the importance of a robust farm safety net while maintaining usda's tools to reduce the deficit and strengthen conservation programs within the farm bill. our amendment is supported by taxpayer advocates as well as the environmental community who sare the same goal of ensuring that the federal crop insurance program works for farmers and taxpayers. i want to thank my colleague from florida for working with me on this amendment and i urge its

support. thank you for consideration. intlen from florida. the gentleman from florida is recognized. -- the chair: the gentleman from florida is reek nizzed. mr. radel: i believe american taxpayers should consider that their money is being diveyed up here in washington. this amendment, which i thank the gentleman from delaware for offering with me, allows savings to occur in a renegotiation of crop insurance agreements. i love the fact that we're working on both sides of the aisle. this is as bipartisan as you can get, mr. chairman. oftentimes on our side, as fiscal conservatives, we're accuse of -- accused of cut, cut, cut, but what this is about is safe, safe, safe. the members of the house should be encouraging this administration to save, save, save, when we can. this amendment allowers in usda to attempt to find savings when negotiating so let's not tie the hands of our negotiators.

as this current bill does. let's allow them to pursue savings on behalf of the hardworking american taxpayer work dage in and day out right now. all around the country, people are struggling to get by. so instead of requiring the maximum amount of taxpayer dollars to be spent on this government program, all we're asking is, let's just try to save some money with this. and that's what this amendment does system of a vote for this amendment is a vote to keep the taxpayer, the hardworking american taxpayer, in mind. what is fair for them when we set up this crop insurance pomcy. it's plain, it's simple. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman -- mr. carney: i would like to thank the gentleman from florida for his assistance on this amendment and ask my colleagues to think about what we've been trying to do since i came to

this house in 2011 which is to get a budget balance, to find savings wherever we can. this is an opportunity to use savings from the renegotiations of this these -- of these agreements for other things the usda might deem appropriate. i thank my colleague and yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: first off, the 40-something odd hearings we had in the last couple of years, at every single one of them, the producers said don't screw up crop insurance. crop insurance is the one risk management tool we know works, it's the one our bankers understand the best, don't screw it up. the 2008 farm bill cut $6 billion out of the crop insurance program and thoist hides of the folks that we have been talking about. a rerating process that usda went through and r.m.a. went through cut an additional $3 billion. the standard insurance agreement

renegotiation that congress had nothing to do with trimmed another $8 billion system of $17 billion has been reduced out of the crop insurance program since the last time we authorized this. nothing in the base bill stops the department of usda from finding savings in the crop insurance program. nothing. they are still able to do that. what we would like to happen with those save, though, is we'd like for congress to control those. we don't want the pet projects of the administration or the pet . ojects of the usda my colleagues throw around debt reduction, but that's not what happens. i understand the intent of this but there's nothing in the base bill that restricts the usda from finding those savings if they can find them. we want congress to control how the money gets spent and not the pet projects the administration does. i urge a no vote on this. i believe it was done in good faith. but it won't accomplish what they want. it simply further empowers the

executive branch and the administration to do what they will with these savingsings. so the savings will still be there, you'll still be able to find them. i urge a no vote on this and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from delaware. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. carney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment of the entleman the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 49 in house eport b 113-117. the clerk: amendment number 49

printed in house report offered by mr. radel of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from florida, mr. radel, and a member op -- opposed each will control five minutes. mr. radel: i have only been here a few months and i have witnessed shorthand just how we spend your money, the hard-working tax paying american. i was shocked to learn about something that is hidden very deep in this year's farm bill. --ually filed under miss and earing. sheep sh we have already spent $50 million, an industry that goes

back to the old testament. moses was sheep shearing. my amendment, right here, one-page, one sentence will stop another $50 million from being wasted. but let's take a look at what $50 million of your money has purchased you as a hard-working tax pay-go american. this funded a trip to australia, it's a play off of "revenge of the nerds." look, as much as i love that movie, the purpose of this trip was to get people to eat lamb and i'm sorry, i think we can find a better way to use our money here in the united states. in another grant, two beginner sheep shearers were given free

razors and s, sizzors. what we are talking about are startup costs. if you are a business owner and had $50 million what you could do with that kind of money. it was startup money and here again in washington what the american people of the united states of america are tired of us picking and choosing who will win and lose. it's not fair. you are struggling to make ends meet. we have democrats and republicans who are debating a social safety net in this country right now about how hungry children are and we are talking about $50 million to shave sheep. it would be laughable if it was not so sad. this could be your money that you could be saving up for your rent, your mortgage, next

vacation. this is as bipartisan as you can get. we are looking for places to save and show how we here in congress to be more efficient with your money, accountable and transparent with your money. you, who are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week. with that, mr. chair. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: i started to be down one path, but the disdain with which my good colleague from florida insulted the folks in this industry is unacceptable. i rise in opposition. i wish he would get his facts correct. the total appropriation, actually money spent since 1996 is $1 million. he has confused authorizations

propriations. if he checks his records, the $50 million he blasted out over and over was simply incorrect, that is not money as spent. sheep shearing is an important issue with respect to growing in the wool industry in this country. it is about jobs. sheep shearing is hard work and we are trying to make ways to have that happen. the agricultural marketing service is a board and composed of seven members, four active sheep growers and two folks out of the usda, it provides small grants projects to assist in the improvement of the sheep industry. throughout the farm bill, we have attempted to promote agriculture and jobs associated with it. sheep shearing may not be exotic and the folks from florida, it may be beneath them, the folks

of texas take a different view of that. the author of the amendment said it raises combs for shearers and that's how you do it. and the truth is shortage of properly trained wool harvesting professionals. this shortage is critical and one of the difficulties for producers who wish to participate. a major barrier is the initial cost of purchasing the equipment. the small grants to create these jobs needs our help and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. radel: mr. chair. we are defending sheep shearing. $50 million in appropriations, $1 million under government accounting with giant quotes around that. when we look at the industry, quote, unquote, best pes,

again those quotes dripping with sarcasm and could have been written by how old the industry is. they describe recommended got-handling practices. seven are from the industry itself, two from the federal government and using this money on social media. mr. chair, you know as well as i do, this is free, social media, the internet, this doesn't create a buzz, this is about lamb. i love lamb. sure, i will have dinner with lamb any night but i don't think the federal government needs to fund a p.r. campaign for one industry. again, this is why the american people are so frustrated with both democrats and republicans picking and choosing industries.

congress has wasted $50 million in appropriations since 1996 on this program. it is time this house elected to save taxpayers' dollars at a time when we have record deficits run away spendings. and i encourage my col -- colleagues to vote for this amendment and i reserve. mr. conaway: it's $1 million since 1996, not is exaggerating two minutes to the ranking member. mr. peterson: i rise in opposition to this amendment and i would reiterate what my good friend said and if we did not send $50 million but $1 million and i was part of putting this in the 2008 farm bill and the reason is we almost killed off the sheep and goat industry in this country with what we did

back in the 1990's. there was hdly anybody left in the industry and we gave it awa and we tried to do in the 2008 bill was give this industry a chance to get back on its feet and start producing lamb products and goat products in this country instead of importing them from some other place and that's what this is all about. you can make fun of it all you want but this is about american jobs and keeping the production here in the united states. so you know, let's be clear about what this size, it's $1 million. it's money that's well spent and we could could go into the demise of the sheep industry. a lot of it had to do what we did at the federal level to screw this industry up especially in montana and

wyoming places like that, but we don't have time to go into all of that. this is a modest effort to help the industry get back on its feet and make sure the jobs are in the u.s. mr. radel: only in washington, d.c. can someone call $1 million a modest amount. there's one thing that i live by that i hope i can serve the american people with and that is that the individual raindrop does not blame itself for the flood. mr. speaker, we are in a time of record deficits, a debt that hangs over to the point that it is a national security problem for our country. i encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment and slow the torrent of wasteful spending. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i reiterate my opposition and this is a good investment. and i would yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. radel: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 50, amendment number 50 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 50 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg and member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i would be tempted to ask if any of my colleagues had constituents call or write whether congress has lost its marbles. i won't do that. but i would point out the fact that the underlying billion bill

we are considering contains a provision a checkoff program. like many others, but this is a checkoff program for natural stone on behalf of the marble and granite industry. to those of my friends who are supporters of the checkoff program and again there are many checkoff programs, i would simply ask for you to take a close look at my amendment. proponents of this check off have argued that stone is a natural product, and yes, it is. but is it just like the other products covered in the checkoff program in the agriculture arena ? to anyone unfamiliar, here's a sampling of some of the other checkoff programs currently run y the usda, dairy, eggs, beef,

ueberries, pork, sourghum, watermelons, et cetera. the common denominator by the 20-some checkoff programs run by the usda are agricultural commodities. they all grow and can be raised. the statutory authority for this authority defines precisely what an agricultural commodity and rock, no matter how natural it is, is not one of them. mr. speaker, farmers in my district don't grow rocks and pushes e frost heaves them up in the fields. my amendment is more than fair and necessary to maintaining the integrity of the farm bill and not expanding as our chairman

earlier this evening expressed concern about expanding more farm bill programs in a -- in assorted prior amendments. there are no laws from this industry imposing a voluntary tax on their membership. if they are really insistent on having a government-run checkoff, they could have pursued a program under a more appropriate agency like the department of commerce or department of interior. i would hope my colleagues, mr. chairman, would agree that rocks have no place in a farm bill. and would join me in removing this provision from the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise to speak in opposition of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. .

>> this bill prvidse the same opportunity many other industries have been provided in the check off. mr. scott: i share a similar concern with the gentleman who has the amendment. the commerce or interior might have been an appropriate place to put this, other than they simply don't have the infrastructure to handle such a fleasm ininfrastructure is already there in the usta. there are other examples of products outside of agriculture that have been handled there, and it gives the industry an opportunity, the u.s. stone industry, the opportunity to come together with a voluntary payment to support a marketing program to help their industry. again, it is voluntary, a tax by definition is an involuntary payment to support the government, this is a voluntary payment to support an industry. with that, i reserve the remainder of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i would suggest it's not voluntary for all of those in the industry and i'm certain that not all of them in the industry are asking for this check off but again, understand there may not be the best infrastructure like the agriculture in the usda programs or a check off like this but again, i would ask the sponsor , when have we grown rock? do we seed rocks? when we look at the agriculture commodity as a term described and defined, it says the agriculture commodity means agricultural, horticultural, vorticulturl and livestock. the products of poultry and bee raise, the products of forestry. says go on but nowhere

rocks. again to expand the program in a farm bill issue, dealing with something we can't grow, i think establishing a wrong precedent. i ask for support for the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair reminds members to address the chair rather than other members of the body. with that, i recognize the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i've got great respect for the author of the amendment and he knows that but i do stand in opposition to the amendment. check off programs are very successful. mr. conaway: the industry itself votes on them and comes together to decide how they're used for promotion of the product. i respectfully disagree with my good colleague who he knows i respect but i have to oppose this. we handle this in the committee as -- and it passed in committee, gave it a good scrubbing there. i ask my colleagues to oppose

the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan mr. walberg: how much time? the chair: the gentleman has one minute, the gentleman from georgia has three and a half minutes. mr. walberg: i appreciate the respect and i understand that, and i appreciate the fact that the usda has a good record of dealing with check offs. i'm not necessarily opposed to all check offs but they ought to fit. and growing rocks, marble, granite, just does not fit in in the -- in the agricultural program. i i think that's apparent. i ask my colleagues, mr. chairman, to support this amendment again to keep the integrity of the farm bill in growing agriculture. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: again, i would be happy to put it in department of

commerce or interior but if the infrastructure is already there to put it in the usda. with that, i yield one minute to the gentleman from beam. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman. i have had several small businesses in alabama, marble businesses, granite businesses, stone businesses that have contacted me and told me that this discretionary permission to request a researched or ore promotion is very important to them. mr. bachus: they've been struggling the past several years since our -- what was almost a depression. and to do anything, i think, that would hinder their recovery, and they're small businesses. they hire, you know, i'm talking about businesses of 10 people, 30 people, 100 people. and this is predominantly a small business venture. and we all have them in our communities.

i would urge a no vote. although i do respect the gentleman from michigan and many of his endeavors. thank you. i yield pack. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: propane and oil heat function as check off programs under the department of commerce an department energy. their check off also doesn't include rock. i respectfully request that my colleagues in this body support this amendment that keeps free from those things that don't grow and are part of agriculture -- and aren't part of agriculture out of the farm bill. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, the industry has simply asked for a chance to participate at no cost to the taxpayer, voluntary program, to help promote their product. i as a conservative think that this is good for some of

small bussrs. i'm -- i respectfully ask that we oppose that amendment. with that said, i'm ready to close if the gentleman is. the chair: the gentleman has yielded back. does the gentleman from georgia yield back in mr. scott: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the knows have it. mr. walberg: i request a record vote. the chair: -- mr. walberg: i request a record vote. the chair: the -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, with great pleasure, pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 271, i offer the following amendments en bloc which i have placed at the desk.

the chair: chloric will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number one, consisting of amendments numbered 53, 59, 60, 62 through 97, and 103, prinned in part b of house report 113-117, offered by mr. lucas of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. chairman i yield

mr. lucas: i yield one minute to mr. barr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barr: i rise in support of an amendment to ensure certainty in advance notice of any changes to crop insurance eligibility for our family farmers. on december 18, 2012, the r.m.a. made a decision to alter the 2013 provisions of insurance for bar lee -- burley tobacco. starting this year, farms have to rotate land every two years to qualify for crop insurance coverage. farmers had made their preparations for spring planting at the of this untimely announcement and there was no public involvement or rule making involvement. many farmers had purchased fertilizer and signed leases under the impression that the land they were making preparations for would be covered under the previous requirements. had they been made aware of these changes that made many

ineligible for crop insurance coverage they would have made alternative plans. this would prevent the problem happening to any commodity moving forward. he amendment is very simple. mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. hairman. it would not overturn -- mr. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. this would give grow thers time they need to future changes in crop insurance requirements. it would require that any changes to current crop insurance policies be published and open for public comment at least 60 days before june 30 an at least 60 days before november 30 of the preceding year. these dates are the self-imposed deadlines, the risk management agency sets each year to announce changes to existing policies for the ensuing crop

season. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota geleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i -- i yield to the gentleman from texas, subcommittee chairman conaway, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: thank you for including this amendment in the en bloc section. i rise to introduce -- or to support an amendment that would require the secretary of state to submit a report on water sharing with mexico as defined by the 1944 water treaty this amendment has bipartisan support and i'd like to thank my colleague from texas for supporting this important legislation. this amendment addresses mexico's failure to uphold its water obligations to the united states by seeking to increase accountability in water management, by requiring the state department to provide

regular reports about the rio grant system. the rio grande system meets the water needs of families across south and we texas, this is the result of a treaty between texas and tissue between the u.s. an mexico. both the u.s. and mexico are required to jointly manage this autowater. mexico is required to provide 350,000 acre-feet of water each year over a five-year term. currently mexico has failed to meet the obligation as they owe half a million acre-feet to the united states. it's no secret that texas has suffered a terrible drought and there is no relief in sight. mexico needs to begin fulfilling its obligations. our farming and ranching communs depend on it. again, i appreciate the chairman for including it in the en bloc amendment and support passage of the en bloc amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma.

mr. lucas: if i can i in-- inquire of my colleague the ranking member, i don't have any additional -- mr. peterson if i could claim a minute of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. peterson: i'd like to inquire of the chairman, i support your efforts to keep this process moving but i'm hearing concerns on our side about the reach of amendments numbers 79 and 2. and some potential labor concerns. i'm not exactly sure what it is. i parently resources committee has got some forestry issues. so my question is, is the gentleman willing to work with us on this in this regard? i'm not even sure exactly what the concerns are. mr. lucas: will the gentleman yield? i would say to the ranking member, of course i will work with and cooperate with the ranking member and the minority. we have accomplished so much together in that spirit, i'd be

happy to continue on those particular issues of concern. mr. peterson: i'm not even sure what the concern is. mr. lucas: we'll figure it out. mr. peterson: i think we notified members that this is going on but nobody has shown up so are you prepared to yield back? mr. lucas: if you're -- mr. peterson: i yield back. mr. lucas: i offer the observation that this en bloc amendment will move us substantially toward completion. most assuredly i think we now, it's possible to meet our departure deadline tomorrow. thank goodness. and with that, i yield back the remainder of my time on this en bloc amendment issue. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from oklahoma and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in part b of house report of 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment printed in house report 113-117, offered by mr. benishek of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from michigan, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recknieses the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: i thank the chairman. as many of my constituents and colleagues know i'm a doctor and not a farmer and what they taught me in medical school when you don't understand something

you ask the experts. since becoming a member of congress, i began talking to farmers in my district when i learned more about agricultural issues. in fact, i realized how much farming and agricultural business contributed to my district and michigan's economy i asked to join the agriculture committee so i could better represent them. i began to hear about a regulation that some of the farmers in my district were concerned about. if you don't have farmers in your district, let me tell you something, they will make sure you know there is an issue. they began to talk to me more and more about a rule that had been proposed by the f.d.a. that would make farming fruits and vegetables known as specialty crops much more difficult in the near future. this rule better known as the standards for the growing, harvesting, packing and holding of produce for human consumption imposed by the f.d.a. as a result of the 2011 food safety

modernization act. before i go further, i want to make one thing crystal clear. i support access to clean and safe healthy food. this rule would have wide consequences. farmers left to comply with a new set of rules as demmed by the f.d.a. in cleaning and storing our equipment, tractors, .arvest tores and animals the same rules suggest that each farmer inspect each fruit or vegetable for bird ex crement and refuse to harvest it if they find any evidence. i don't know if you saw a cherry harvest ter and hand to inspect ch individual fruit for bird feces, most of our growers would go to a pick-it-yourself system or simply stop growing.

let's move on. the f.d.a. suggests continuous soil and water monitoring. that might not sound like a bad idea. some growers will have to completely redesign their irrigation systems to meet the new standards. i spent the last few years visiting with farmers and i know they want to provide clean, safe foods for the american public. they have met -- all the ones i met eat the foods that they grow. if the f.d.a. estimates that this rule will cost at a minimum $460 million to the industry, why not make sure we are doing this right. my amendment asks that the secretary delay implementation of any final regulations resulting from the food safety modernization act until an analysis of the rule can be completed. this analysis will focus on both the science behind and the economic impact of these

regulations. in particular this study will look at the differences in ag -- ag production. we take the time to study the proposed rules and the f.d.a. will see though changes may be in order. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i rise the time to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: the food safety modernization act was passed by the energy and commercial committee, which has jurisdiction as well as the f.d.a. and quite frankly does not have any jurisd this piece of legislation and quite frankly am disappointed that it made it through the rules committee. however, in january of 2011, the president signed a transa law that congress had passed in a partis manner ts. o impr

the legislation was supported by a broad coalition of consumer, public health and industry groups, groups including the grocery manufacturers association and the national restaurant association. when we crafted the final food safety bill, we struck a compromise, a compromise on the scope of the bill so that the vast majority of truly small farms and processers are excluded, including those that sell their food directly to the public through farmers markets and farm stands. in addition to which regional considerations were also taken into consideration. the integrity of that compromise has been maintained in the proposals released by the f.d.a. to date. i can speak to this compromise and the agreement we reached at the time because i helped to craft and negotiate the final language. the law also requires that the

f.d.a. take regional differences into account when crafting its proposed rules. let us be clear that legislation was needed. food-borne illness remains a threat to the public health. according to the centers for and these figures are far too high so we acted. we passed the first major improvement to the food safety laws in more than 70 years. under the guise of seeking a report, this amendment seeks to further slow down the implementation of the law, a law with the potential to improve the very health of our constituents by reducing their risk of becoming sick from food. yet no where in the text of the amendment or the intent of these reports do i see a mention of the public health or consumer

safety. all of the f.d.a.'s proposals to implement this critical law already goes through the official rulemaking process, meaning that the agency must consider the cost and the benefit of the rule and that every one of us and our constituents can weigh in and submit comments on the rules already. the amendment before us now simply intends to slow down the process of implementing the law. rather than working to delay implement takes we should encourage strong implementation. let us look what has happened since the bill was signed into law. there have been almost 20 multi state outbreaks positively linked to food products regulated by the f.d.s. one was those associated with cantaloupe. and the same outbreak killed 33 americans. the largest number of americans

lost to a single outbreak in a quarter of a century. right now there is a multi outbreak of hepatitis a that may have been caused by a contaminated product regulated by the f.d.a. 115 people in eight states have become ill. it continues to be supported by the majority of americans a recent poll showing more than 75% of americans show supporting the food safety law why so many respected organizations that work to improve the publicsumer federation of america, center for the science and the public interest, pew charitable trust, consumers unio oppth amendment. i urge my colleagues to heed their advice and oppose this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the entleman from michigan rise?

mr. lucas: the gentleman's amendment by requiring f.d.a. to have analysis prior to enforcement is a step in the right direction. i commend him and i support his amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: well, i would like to reclaim the remainder of my time. i appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and i certainly willing to work with you in the future on this issue, but we're just concerned that we aren't going to make food any safer and not going to help the jobs and the cost of our food because some of the rules are very difficult to comply with at the local level. the difficulty in keeping wildlife away from apple

orchards, for example, is very difficult and more costly than i think the gentlelady suspects. i would encourage everyone to vote yes on this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: i would say to my colleague, all of those arguments are debated and discussed during the time of the food safety modernization act. i worked with the members of the energy and commerce committee in which this jurisdiction resides. it doesn't reside in the jurisdiction of the farm bill. and the fact of the matter is is that we have had industry support of the legislation. i have a white paper, a summary, by the united fresh producers association issued in january 2011, which talks about the flexibility that exists for small farmers.

the issue is here about public health and public safety. and it is about -- we have just recently said, as i say -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 52 printed in part bmp of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 52 printed in house report number 113-117 offered by

mr. back us of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from alabama and member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. bachus: i bring a simple and very important amendment for consideration. several agencies of government have small business review panels. they are advisory in nature. and as our agencies go through the rulemaking process, they get input on how the regulations will affect small businesses. and this amendment really takes advantage of the regulatory flexibility act, which we signed into law by president clinton in 1996, which allows the agencies to form these panels.

gravesow of georgia, mr. and mr. matheson actually in the next week or two will be introducing language to really improve these small business panels. e s.b.a. advocacy office recently said that small businesses pay about 45% more in annual costs in complying with regulations. and they spoke very favorably of these panels. i have a letter, i would ask unanimous consent to introduce from the nfib urging strong support of this amendment. and with that, i will reserve my time and i yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under the

general leave. mr. bachus: i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: we are supporting your amendment. and i yield back. mr. bachus: i surrender the balance of my time. i do want to say as the chairman knows, the judiciary committee as well as the small business committee have been looking at the effect of regulations on small businesses and we have heard several hore stories and i welcome and applaud the agricultural committee and its leadership for being in support of this committee and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any member claim time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 54 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition in mr. whitfield: mr. chairman -- mr. wittman: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman and a member opposed will each control five minutes of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: the chesapeake bay watershed is home to more than 16 million people. it encompasses six states and the district of columbia, well over 1,000 local governments,

150 major tribute tears, 100,000 streams and rivers, and more than 11,600 miles of shoreline plus thousands of plant and animal species. in addition to generating billions of dollars in economic activity and recreational revenue, the bay provides tens of thousands of jobs in the commercial seafood and recreational fishing industries alone and is the site of multiple major ports and military bases. the bay draws millions of tourists each year. clean and healthy waters encourage pe boating, fish, swimming, activities that are of great intrinsic value to the surrounding states and our nation. the watershed is also home to many farmers and agricultural lands. virginia forestry and agriculture alone accounts for $79 billion in economic output and employs over 500,000

workers. farm verse a vested interest in the clean chesapeake bay. their commitment to the land and watt sers reflected by multigenerational stewardship of farms across the watershed. my amendment includes similar legislation that passed in a bipartisan way in the house of representatives in the 111th congress by a vote of 418-1. better accounting and more flexible management are essential to restoring the chesapeake bay. adaptive management provide performance-based measures to ensure federal dollars currently being spent on bay restoration activities produce results. both techniques will ensure that we're coordinating how restoration dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understand house individual projects fit into the bigger picture that way we're not duplicating effort, spending money we don't need or worse, working across -- at cross-purposes. cross cut budgeting, adaptive management and an independent

evaluator should be key components for the complex restoration activities of the chesapeake bay. i yield back my -- i yield to the chairman. mr. lucas: clearly the gentleman is working diligently to do good thing and therefore i would be supportive of his amendment. yield back. mr. wittman: i reserve my time. the chair: does any member claim time in opposition to the amendment? seeing none, does the gentleman yield back? mr. wittman: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 56 prinned in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the

gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. crawford: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 56 printed in house report 113-117, offered by mr. draw forth of arkansas. chip pure sunt to house resolution 271, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the 71 members rom both parties who joined in co-sponsoring the bill that is idept call to this amendment. that bill passed the house unanimously last year. the e.p.a. mandated spill prevention and countermeasure rules requires that oil storage capacities over 120,000 gallons this make costly infrastructure changes. this bill changes the standards and makes them more workers. we have 71 co-sponsors that agree with many me.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member claim time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from arkansas. mr. bachus: i'm pleased to yield to the chair of the ag committee such time as he may consume. mr. lucas: i thank the gentleman, outstanding work being done and i encourage all our members of the great body to vote for this amendment. mr. crawford: i urge a yes vote and yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 57 printed in part b of house report 113-117.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition in mr. crawford: i have an amendment that the at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 57, printed if house report 113-117, offered by mr. crawford of arkansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford -- crawford: i want to thank my colleague from nebraska for joining me in co-sponsoring this amendment. the e.p.a. violated the privacy rights of producers by releasing the privacy information of poultry producers to environmental group, this included names, adresses, phone numbers, g.p.s. coordinates of producer in 30 states. it was obtained by state and environmental quality agencies

and on tained by the environmental groups through foia requests. i yield to my friend from nebraska. mr. terry: i thank you, my friend from arkansas. it's too bad that the e in e.p.a. now means espionage because the e.p.a. rents airplanes and videotapes from ranchers andrs and feed lots in their daily activities without any reason to think they're violating any rule or regulation. so not only are they spying, but what is most concerning to those that have been videotaped by the e.p.a., is that the e.p.a. released the documents, we don't know how the environmental and animal rights groups found out they were doing this, because the farmers didn't know it was going on, but through a

request, the e.p.a. turned -- turned over all the documents about the farmers, ranchers, and feed lot owners with their personal, identifiable information, their names and addresses. and this has to stop. the people that have been victims of this videotaping and giving this information are really concerned. and so i thank the gentleman for his good amendment here and allowing me to join because this protects their privacy rights in the future. doesn't stop them from spying yet, that will be done in a different bill. but this at least protects their privacy and i really appreciate it and i yield back. the chair: -- mr. crawford: i thank the gentleman and appreciate his commitment to this. the crawford-terry bill would e.p.a. fromibit the disclosing the private will allow farm mers and

families to live without threats of harassment. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> not to oppose the measure to -- but to speak on behalf of the amendment. the issues that have been raised here by this amendment i think are valid. they are concerns that have been raised by cattle men and women across the country. obviously we all feel there ought to be a level playing field when it comes to the protection of the freedom of information act. mr. costa: on the other hand, cattlemen and cattlewomen every day are working hard to try to do their best to produce the safest and highest quality beef that americans do every day and it's the best in the world system of we think this amendment is a step in the right

direction and would like osupport the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. crawford: i thank the gentleman from california for his support. i yield to the distinguished chairman of the ag committee for such time as he may consume. mr. lucas: this is clearly an important issue, you jemen have made great headway on it. thank you for those efforts. i'm supportive of what you're endeavoring to do and i yield back. mr. crawford: with that, i urge a yes vote and yold back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. order to w in consider amendment number 58 printed in part b of house eport 113-117.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 58 printed in house report 113-117 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. president ronald reagan wubs said new york government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. so government programs once launched never disappear. actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. mr. chairman, it's hard to argue with the gipper. this amendment to h.r. 1947, the federal agriculture reform and risk management farrm act of

13 will bring accountability to our work here in the house of representatives. what it does is it sunsets discretionary programs in the bill upon the expiration of the five-year authorization period. now some people might think that is the normal thing to happen in the federal government. you authorize a program, once the authorization goes away, the program either gets reauthorized or it goes away. but that's -- that isn't what happens, mr. chairman. e purpose of this program is to force congress to justify the continued existence of these

programs through regular re-authorization efforts. mr. chairman, it forces us to do our jobs. if these programs and subsidies are left unchallenged, they will continue to consume taxpayer dollars forever without being approved explicitly by the members of congress. as our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we can't afford to put all these programs on auto pilot. this commonsense amendment would require congress to explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period and prevent the covert continuance of sometimes wasteful, ineffective, and duplicative programs.

ultimately, this amendment will prompt congress and the public to re-examine, thoughtfully, these programs when the farms -- farm bill's authorization expires. finally this amendment will send a strong message to stake holders, lobbyists, and special interests that many of these federal programs have an expiration date. let me hasten to add, this commonsense amendment would not eliminate or undermine the supplemental nutritional assistance program, snap, and would not apply to the farm bill's mandatory spending provisions. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to oppose the amendment before us. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins.

mr. costa: thank you, mr. chairman. before i state my opposition, i'd like to first thank chairman frank lucas for the hard work that he and his committee staff has done today and throughout this year and last year in trying to put together not one but two farm bills for the consideration of the house and for america's heartland and thank ranking member collin peterson and his staff for the hard work they have done as well. these are never easy but as both the chair and -- beth the chairman and ranking member like to remind us and i think it's an important underlying point, the farm bill that we re-authorize every four years is among the most bipartisan efforts that we ever do. and both the chair and ranking member and their staff are to be commended. as it relates to

we believe it uses a at-cleaver approach to the this bill and doesn't discriminate. and longer authorization periods and those that could use trimming and clearly we understand the author's intent. the whole purpose is to review programs under our jurisdiction to determine whether or not they should continue, whether they should be changed or whether they should be eliminated and once again to commend the chair and ranking member, we have done a very good job on that oversight on determining what areas ought to be trimmed, what committees -- what programs ought to be consolidated and which should be eliminated. our bill already does that and actually, as the chair has indicated and ranking member, terminates hundreds of programs and consolidates and it did --

the committee did the work in a thoughtful manner. we can't support the amendment that undoes the work that the ommittee has done. we oppose this and vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: let me add my thanks to the chairman also for his good work. i know that he has worked very, very hard on getting a bill to vote on and i commend him and the staff. and i was negligent for not saying that. i thank the gentleman from for his remarks and reminding me i should have done that. this amendment does not limit in any way the ability of congress to re-authorizize an expired

program. congress is congress and can pass any laws it wants in accordance with the constitution, of course. but this amendment would require congress to explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period. what we are trying to prevent the covert continueance of programs that have not been authorized. we should hold ourselves to a high standard here, mr. chairman. we shouldn't be funding programs that aren't authorized. it's just saying we should abide by the laws we pass. and that's what this does. we need to ensure that congress and the public will thoughtfully re-examine these programs and revive them where they need to be. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield to the chairman of the ag committee. mr. lucas: --

the chair: the gentlewoman's ime has expired. mr. costa: i reserve the right to close. the chair: gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. lucas: let me state the persuasive powers of the gentlelady are to be much respected and appreciated, occasionally even feared, while perhaps not even syllable of her amendments in the present form do i necessarily agree with, i'm supportive. i believe she is in the right vein and we will work together to accomplish the ultimate goal. and i express my appreciation to all my colleagues, the professional staff of the majority and minority. i noted to all of you that i felt like if we would work this

in regular order, if we would have discussion and amendments and great debate, we could achieve consensus. we have five more amendments to go tomorrow. we will conclude this experience time and i believe in a fashion that is appropriate for this august body, which means we will pass the bill. we shall see tomorrow. thank you all. this is the way the process is to work. mr. costa: i thank everyone and i yield back and i thank the chair and again all those involved in this process and hopefully tomorrow we can conclude our work. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in on order to consider amendment number 61 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn

.o meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman hold that request. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 1947 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house has had under consideration h.r. 1947 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the

entleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: madam speaker, i move we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. a.m. live coverage of the house here on c-span.

sarah wyatt who is editor and publisher of "agripulse." what are they seeking to achieve with the reauthorization of the farm bill? >> this covers a lot more than farming. it offers protection and risk management for the farmers across the united states but ,lso the nutrition programs conservation, research, rural development, credit. there is a large goal of getting a farm bill passed after they were not able to do so in 2012. >> how is the issue of the automatic spending cuts, and the sequestration handled this bill? >> the sequestration cuts are scored by the congressional budget office. both have gone but both have

gone beyond that. the house bill is 33 and cbo sixes adn additional days. that is why so many house members are excited. there are not too many pieces of legislation that offer the significant level of savings. >> we have seen debate on amendments to cut food aid programs. what is the end result here in the house, a what is that going to look like in terms of the s.n.a.amps or the p. program as it is now called? house bill goes much further. $.5 billion. point the debate is between folks who thinks that there is too much waste, and abuse and lack of

accountability in these programs. -- in the programs that are that large and those who think that cuts are-- that these 2high that they will rob million people from being eligible and 200,000 children. there is a very emotionally highly charged debate going on that you're going to see repeated over the next few hours and days in the house for as they look at the cuts from a variety of different angles. whether ordown to not there can be additional cuts. day,nk at the end of the this will all go to conference and there will be a resolution between the $4 billion in 20.5 billion dollars. >> what can you tell us about the other policy changes in this bill? >> there is a lot of reform.

they represent 5 billion dollars in spending. those payments are going to be reduced entirely. they have been made as a farm safety net measure regardless of whether or not congress planted -- if there was a specific crop landed in a field. they will be gone. there is changes in the risk management programs on -- on the commodity title we will see some new safety net things that are called the price loss coverage and the revenue loss coverage. the agricultural risk coverage and the adverse market payment in the senate bill. some new tools in the safety net toolbox for farmers will likely emerge as a result. they are also very contentious. not everyone agrees on how those should be advanced. the biggest challenge to the commodity titlessma

gibbs from ohio. he withdrew that amendment. >> what about after the amendment debate gets through? how do you see the final votes stacking up? when and what does that look like? moreere was a lot optimism. boehner has thrown his support behind. morehere is a lot political incentive for the members who might've been on the fence. i do not think they have quite enough votes to get this all passed on the house side. they will need some democratic report -- support. there were a few dozen democrats confident about the law in the final passage. >> is this wound up on the president's desk, would he sign it? >> we talked to bill bill sack

about that yesterday. about that yesterday. there is no sign or desire to farm in jobs bill passed. they are very willing to work as it craftse body different amendments. there is a senate version. >> thanks for the update. >> you are welcome. >> president obama was in berlin germanhere he met with chancellor angela merkel. at a joint press conference, they answered questions about syria, afghanistan, and the wonton mowbray detention center. this is -- the guantánamo and

detention center. this is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. give a very warm welcome to the president of the united states, barack obama. tos is his first visit germany. we have [inaudible] based on trust. our cooperation is based on ties of friendship that have

lasted for many decades between germany and the united states. very goodch a relationship because it is based on shared values. when the president addresses the crowd before the gate he will be a president who can do this in front of the gate that is open. the president has had to remind us all of the wall that needed to be torn down and the wall is down. this is what we owe but we also see that the world is changing. it is changing at a rapid pace. rapid changes have come to the fore and we want to tackle them together. looms most prominently on the agenda and i trust and the united states, there could be a

valu project. i am glad that we were able to conclude the negotiations. we will show our efforts behind this. we believe economies will benefit. it is supposed to be a win-win situation. we can work better together politically and economically. this is why this is an important trade agreement. we talked about questions on the internet and in the context of prism. we talked at great length about the new possibilities and also [inaudible] the internet is uncharted

territory and enables a free and liberal order to use it and abuse it and to bring a threat to all of us. to threaten our way of life and this is why we value cooperation with the united states on questions of security. -- although we do see the need for gathering information, there needs to be due diligence and proportionality. are having aracies feeling of security. and this is why an equitable .alance needs to be struck that is something that we agreed on to have a fee exchange of views on between our staff but also the staff of the home secretary. this is going to be an ongoing battle. we talked to a number of

foreign-policy issues. both of us engaged in afghanistan and a new process has been initiated their. we are a process that going to tackle together. we tackled the military challenges together and building insecurity forces afghanistan together. we will stand together with the are and solve problems that difficult. we also addressed it ran, we addressed the middle east situation as regards the peace process in the middle east. i think that the initiative of secretary carry offers an opportunity to revitalize peace talks. the region needs pace. the partners ought to take up the offer that is on the table. it is necessary to ring about negotiations and we will continue also to work on a rant,

on the nuclear program of iran that is also something we agreed on. we had very good talks and had open and candid talks. >> thank you. it is wonderful to be back in berlin. i've always appreciated the warmth with which i have been greeted by the german people. it is no different today although i am particularly impressed with the warmth of the weather here in berlin. i'm also very grateful for chancellor merkel's invitation 50 years after the visit of president kennedy. the chancellor and i are just back from the g8 summit. one of the latest meetings that we have had together. during my time in the white house i have had the privilege a hosting with angela on of issues.

last time she was at the white house i had the privilege of presenting her with the medal of freedom, our highest civilian honor that a president can the stove. oft speaks to the closeness our relationship. .he strength of our alliance here in germany sometimes that has been talk that the transatlantic alliance is fading in importance. that the united states turned its attention toward asia and the pacific. and in both conversations with chancellor merkel and earlier with your president, i reminded them that from our perspective, the relationship with europe remains the cornerstone of our freedom and our security; that europe is our partner in almost everything that we do; and that although the nature of the

challenges we face have changed, the strength of our relationships, the enduring bonds based on common values and common ideals very much remains. we began today talking about economic issues, following up on the discussions that we had at the g8 summit. overall, germany is our largest trading partner in the eu, so we've got a profound stake in each other?s success. we agreed that there?s more work to do. not only do we have to grow, but we also have to reform our economies structurally. and when you look within europe, obviously different countries are at different stages in that reform and restructuring process. we're going through our own need to reform, for example, our health care system, which is much more expensive than most of the developed world and largely accounts for our deficits and our debt.

the good news is, though, that we have gone through the worst recession in years and we are poised to come back stronger if we take advantage of these opportunities. one of the opportunities that we spoke about, obviously, was the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, or t- tip. the u.s.-eu relationship is already the largest in the world economically. thirteen million americans and europeans have jobs that are directly supported by mutual trade and investment. and the chancellor and i share the conviction that if we are successful in these negotiations, we can grow economies on both sides of the atlantic, create jobs, improve efficiency, improve productivity and our competitiveness around the world. and by doing so, we are also raising standards for free trade around the world that will not just benefit us but benefit everyone. when it comes to our security, thited stes and germany

are more than just nato allies. more american personnel are stationed in germany than any other country outside of the u.s. we are extraordinarily grateful for the hospitality of the german people. one of the last times i was in germany i had a chance to visit who facility where everyone was injured in thebattlefield comes through, and to see the dedication, but also the hospitality that germans are providing for our young men and women when they?ve been grievously injured i think is a strong symbol of how much this means to us. our men and women have been serving side-by-side in afghanistan. germany is the third-largest troop-contributing nation there. we?re both grateful for the sacrifices that our servicemen

and women and their families have made in this common effort. and because of those efforts, afghanistan now has the opportunity to secure itself and determine its own destiny. we welcome president karzai's announcement yesterday that afghan forces will soon take the lead for security across the country, which is an important milestone -- one that we established in our nato summit. even as we wind down the war responsibly and nato's combat mission in afghanistan comes to an end, we?re going to have to continue to invest in the shared capabilities and interoperability painstakingly built by the tremendous sacrifices of our troops. and i appreciate germany?s interest in making sure that even after our troops are no longer involved in combat operations that we can continue to see progress in afghanistan. and many of you noted that yesterday there was an announcement about the taliban opening an office for purpose of negotiations in qatar. i said yesterday, this is going

to be a difficult process. the parties there have been fighting for a very long time, even before 9/11, and we don?t expect that it will be easy, but we do think ultimately we?re going to need to see afghans talking to afghans about how they can move forward and end the cycle of violence there so that they can start actually building their country. we also discussed the other challenges in the region, including syria. we are united to see a negotiated political settlement to that conflict. we want to see a syria that is unified, democratic, and at peace. right now, we need to see an end to the bloodshed, and we have to make sure that chemical weapons are not used on the ground.

i thought we saw some progress at the g8 in reaffirming the need for a transitional governing process and a u.n. investigation of the potential use of chemical weapons there. i thanked the chancellor for germany's unwavering support of the search for peace between israelis and palestinians, and i briefed her on my secretary of state, john kerry's efforts to find common ground there. and finally, i want to thank chancellor merkel's not only generous invitation but also the humbling privilege that i'll have to address the people of berlin from pariser platz on the eastern side of the brandenburg gate -- the other side of the wall that once stood there, the wall that president reagan insisted be torn down. a quarter century since then has been one of extraordinary progress. we can witness this in the incredible vibrancy and prosperity of berlin. but one of the things i'll address today is the fact that given the extraordinary blessings that we enjoy as americans and as germans, we

have an obligation to make sure that walls around the world are torn down. and we can only accomplish that together. so i'm grateful for our alliance. i'm grateful for our friendship. and i'm looking forward for an opportunity to answer some questions. am i starting off? >> from the american press, julie pace of the associated press. >> mr. president, i wanted to follow up on your comments about the taliban talks. when you announced those talks yesterday, you praised afghan president hamid karzai as being courageous for being willing to take that step. yet, today, karzai says that he is suspending talks with the u.s. in response to the taliban negotiations. how is it possible for you and president karzai to be on such different pages about this key decision? and is karzai saying different things to you privately than he is publicly today? and, chancellor merkel, you mentioned that prism came up in

your discussions today with president obama. are you more reassured now about the scope of those programs following the discussions? and did president obama give you any reassurances that the programs don't violate german privacy rights? thank you. >> we had extensive conversations with president karzai both before and after the taliban opened the office in doha. as i think has been reported, there were some concerns about the manner in which the taliban opened it, some of the language that they used. we had anticipated that at the outset, there were going to be some areas of friction, to put it mildly, in getting this thing off the ground. that is not surprising.

as i said, they have been fighting for a very long time. there is enormous mistrust. not only have the taliban and the afghan government been fighting for a long time, they are fighting as we speak. we are in the middle of a war. and afghans are still being killed and, by the way, members of the international forces there are still being killed. and that is not abating as we speak. but what we also believe is that alongside the process in which we are training, equipping a afghan government that can be responsible for its own security even as we go through some,

frankly, difficult negotiations around what it would mean for the international community to have an ongoing training and advising presence after 2014, we still believe that you've got to have a parallel track to at least look at the prospect of some sort of political reconciliation. whether that bears fruit, whether it actually happens, or whether, post-2014, there's going to continue to be fighting, as there was before isaf forces got into afghanistan, that is a question that only the afghans can answer. but i think that president karzai himself recognizes the need for political reconciliation. the challenge is how do you get those things started while you're also at war. and my hope is, and expectation is, is that despite those challenges, the process will proceed. chancellor merkel, if you don?t mind, even though the question

was directed at you, i think it would appropriate for me to go ahead and talk about the nsa issue, which obviously caused controversy back home, but also here in europe. and then, obviously, chancellor merkel will have her own views on this. what i explained to chancellor merkel is, is that i came into office committed to protecting the american people, but also committed to our values and our ideals. and one of our highest ideals is civil liberties and privacy. and i was a critic of the previous administration for those occasions in which i felt they had violated our values, and i came in with a healthy skepticism about how our various programs were structured. but what i have been able to do is examine and scrub how our intelligence services are operating, and i'm confident

t this point, we have struck the appropriate balance. now, let me be very specific in terms of -- and this is what i described to chancellor merkel what these programs are that have caused so much controversy. essentially, one program allows us to take a phone number that has been discovered separately through some lead that is typical of what our intelligence services do -- but we get a phone number. and what we try to discover is, has anybody else been called from that phone. and we have both data that allows us to just check on phone numbers and nothing else -- no content, nobody is listening in

on a conversation at that point. it's just determining whether or not if, for example, we found a phone number in osama bin laden's compound after the raid, had he called anybody in new york or berlin or anyplace else. if, in fact, we discover that another call has been made, at that point, in order to listen to any phone call, we would have to then go to a judge and seek information through a process that is court-supervised. and this entire thing has been et up under the supervision of and this entire thing has been set up under the supervision of a federal court judge. when it comes to the internet and email, as chancellor merkel said, we're now in an internet age and we have to make sure that our administrative rules and our protections catch up with this new cyber world. what i can say to everybody in

germany and everybody around the world is this applies very narrowly to leads that we have obtained on issues related to terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. so there are a few narrow categories. we get very specific leads. and based on those leads, again, with court supervision and oversight, we are able then to access information. this is not a situation in which we are rifling through the ordinary emails of german citizens or american citizens or french citizens or anybody else. this is not a situation where we simply go into the internet and start searching any way that we want. this is a circumscribed, narrow ableirecd at us bein

to protect our people. and all of it is done under the oversight of the courts. and as a consequence, weve saved lives. we know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the united states, but, in some cases, threats here in germany. o lives have been saved. and the encroachment on privacy has been strictly limited by a court-approved process to relate to these particular categories. having said all that, what ive said in the united states is what i shared with chancellor merkel, and that is that we do ave to strike a balance and we

do have to be cautious about how our governments are operating when it comes to intelligence. and so this is a debate that i welcome. what were going to be doing when i get back home is trying to find ways to declassify further some of these programs without completely compromising their effectiveness, sharing that information with the public, and also our intelligence teams are directed o work very closely with our german intelligence counterparts so that they have clarity and assurance that theyre not being abused. but i think one of the things that separates us from some other governments is that we welcome these debates. thats what a democracy is about. and im confident that we can strike this right balance, keep our people safe, but also preserve our civil liberties

even in this internet age. >> for the german people, i can only say the following. its important, its necessary for us to debate these issues. people have concerns, precisely concerns that there may be some kind of blanket, across-the-board gathering of information. we talked about this. the questions that we have not yet perhaps satisfactorily addressed we will address later on. but there needs to be a balance; there needs to be proportionality, obviously, between upholding security and safety of our people and our country -- and there are quite a lot of instances where we were getting very important information from the united states, for example, the so-called sauerland group. and at the same time, obviously people want to use those new,

modern means of communication and technology and do so reely. and as we learn to live and deal responsibly with other new means of technology, we have to learn and deal responsibly with this one. and i think today was an important first step in the right direction, and i think it as brought us forward. >> madam chancellor, mr. president. first, a question addressed to you, mr. president. there were a number of hopes in the world that were in a way shattered as regards your legislative term -- for example, closing down of guantanamo, or scrapping the death penalty throughout the whole of the united states, in all of the states. and now, as regards asia, are you singling out germany because theres a big risk here? and, madam chancellor, the nobel

prize winner, obama is waging a drone war also via germany. and is he allowed to do that, according to german law? >> let me see if i understood your question properly. the first question was related to policies back home, related to guantanamo or the death penalty. and then you wanted to talk about drones, or did you just want to focus on the drone question? i just want to make sure that im responsive to your question. >> i guess i ought to answer on the drones. and guantanamo, that was a question i believe addressed to you. >> ok. well, it continues to be my policy that i want to close guantanamo. it has been more difficult than i had hoped, in part because theres been significant esistance from congress on this, and on some issues i need

congressional authorization. but about a month ago i gave a speech in which i said that i would redouble my efforts to do so. ecause 9/11 happened, and we now have been involved in one form or another in a war for over a decade. one war, i think, in afghanistan was necessary. one war i disagreed with strongly. but in either case there are dangers if we get on a perpetual war footing. the threat of terrorism remains real, and we have to be vigilant and we have to take steps to protect ourselves, consistent with our values and consistent with international law. but we also have to guard against being so driven by fear that we are not changing

abric of our society in ways that we dont intend and do not want for the future. i think closing guantanamo is an example of us getting out of that perpetual war mentality. some of the people at guantanamo are dangerous. some of them did bad things. but we cannot have a permanent outpost in which theyre being held even as were ending a war in afghanistan that triggered some of these -- the capture of some of these detainees in the first place. so im confident that we can continue to make progress on this front, although, youre right, it has not been as fast as i would have liked. one of the things you discover as a politician is that people dont always do exactly what you want. its shocking.

and then you have to keep on working at it. one thing with respect to drone policy -- in that speech that i gave i also addressed that ssue of the lethal targeting of identified terrorists. this also is a source of controversy. e have constrained it tightly, and as we defeat al qaeda, we have to, i think, very carefully examine how these technologies are used. i can say, though, that we do not use germany as a launching point for unmanned drones to go fter counter -- as part of our counterterrorism activities. and so i know that there have been some reports here in

germany that that might be the case. that is not. >> let me complement by saying hat the united states of america have bases here, they have soldiers here. they fulfill a very important function, particularly in the fight against terrorism. i think of ramstein, for example -- and also supplies to soldiers, but also caring for wounded soldiers. we as allies, as members of nato, stand shoulder-to-shoulder here. and we provide bases for activities, and our work is based, also, on shared values. as i said, we have exchanges on values. and i think it's good. i think it's the right thing to do for the united states of america to be present here with military bases in germany.

it's a normal thing within an alliance, and this is as it should be and as it will be, and ontinue to be. > thank you. mr. president, on syria, for the purposes of transparency, can you be specific about what military arms the united states will be providing to syrian rebels and about which groups will be receiving them? and on the same subject, president putin appeared resolute and isolated on syria at the g8. how can a political process succeed in bringing peace if russia continues to support assad, both militarily and politically? adam chancellor, if i may in german, the federal government has always argued along the ines that weapons, exports and deliveries of supplies would

always lead to an escalation because they could land in the hands of terrorists. dont you think that the situation is going to be exacerbated if america supplies it? perhaps you would also comment on mr. putin. thank you. >> well, first of all, jeff, i'm very impressed with your german. and i dont know if you had to practice, but you sounded great. chancellor merkel said you were just okay. i cannot and will not comment on specifics around our programs elated to the syrian opposition. what i can say is that we have had a steady, consistent policy, which is, we want a syria that is peaceful, non-sectarian, democratic, legitimate, tolerant. and that is our ovri

goal. we want to end the bloodshed. we want to make sure that chemical weapons are not used, and that chemical weapons do not fall into the hands of people who would be willing to use hem. nd so we've had a consistent view in our desired outcome in syria. it's also been our view that the best way to get there is hrough a political transition. and we said that a year ago; we said that two years ago.

president assad made a different decision and has brought chaos and bloodshed to his country and has been killing his own people. and it is our view that it is not possible for him to regain legitimacy after over 100,000 people have been killed and millions have been displaced inside the country. so the question now is just, as a practical matter -- and this is what i said to president putin -- as a practical matter, if, in fact, syria is to remain a unified country and the bloodshed is going to end, how do we do that? the only way to do that is through some sort of political transition process. and the good news out of the g8 meeting was -- is that you saw all the countries, including russia, reaffirming the communiqué coming out of the first geneva talks that said we need to create a transitional governing body with full powers. the second good thing that came out of the g8 discussions was that all of us, including russia, said we have to

investigate use of chemical weapons inside of syria, and all the parties including the government of bashar al-assad have to cooperate with that investigation. were confident that, in fact, the government has used chemical weapons. the russians are skeptical. we said, fine, lets have the united nations get in there but do a serious investigation of it -- because we dont want anybody using chemical weapons. now, the issue for us is how can we continue to support a political opposition and a military opposition that becomes more capable, becomes more unified, that isolates extremists who have incorporated themselves into the opposition forces inside of syria, so that if, in fact, and when we get a olitical transition, theres

somebody there who can take over and function in governing and lead to a better future for all syrians. thats a difficult process. its not one thats happening overnight. but all the assistance that we are providing both to the political and military opposition is designed for that purpose. ome of the stories that have been out there publicly have, i think, gotten a little over-cranked in terms of the idea that somehow the united states is preparing to go all in and participate in another war. what we want to do is end a war. but the only way its going to end is if, in fact, we have the kind of transition that i described.

and although, youre right, that at this point president putin believes that what would replace assad would be worse than assad himself, what i think will become more and more apparent over the coming weeks and months is that without a different government you cant bring peace and, in fact, youre going to see sectarian divisions get worse and worse, and start spilling over into the other parts of the region, and that would be good for nobody. >> on the issue of arms supplies, germany has very clear, strict rules on this, legal rules, according to which we are not allowed to supply arms into areas where there is civil strife. and that is not specifically

designed for the syrian uestion; it is a general rule. but that does not mean that we do not wish, and can play, a constructive role as regards the political processes -- for example, as regards humanitarian ssistance; as regards also the debate on which is the right way to go about this. how can we strengthen the opposition, those forces that work in the best interest of the people in syria, on the round? nd the situation is somewhat

vague as regards the members of the opposition and quite different. it is our task also, as we see it, that those who wish for a good future for syria who are not linked with terrorists get a chance to achieve full legitimacy -- because germany, too, is of the opinion that assad has certainly lost that legitimacy. the russian president, as i understand him, says not so clearly what i said just now, that the syrian president namely has lost his legitimacy. but we have found common language in the sense that we wish to work for a transition government. and the question also has to be asked, what is going to come after that? and that is a question we need to address, and we did so. and in the language of the communiqué of the g8 it says, we, all of us, reject terrorist forces in syria because they would, again, exacerbate the suffering of the people there. now we have to see to it that, step by step, all of these different strands are brought together because, unfortunately, as yet, there is no common u.n. position because russia so far was not on the side of the others. but we must leave no stone unturned in trying, as we did during the g8, to find a common basis on which we can also peak

with russia. and there are certain areas where we obviously differ, but our political responsibility is to, time and again, seek to bring this matter forward in the right direction. and since the situation -- if we look to jordan, if we look to other countries in the vicinity -- becomes more and more unstable, what with the flow of refugees and all, i think its worth every effort to try, all of us to try to do something, based on the language of the communiqué of yesterday, to do something in the interest of the people in syria. >> mr. president, in the past, there were some different points of view about the best way out of the global financial crisis. chancellor merkel stands for a policy of cutting back budgets to reach that of financial stability throughout the eurozone to win back trust of the markets. did you talk about this issue? and whats your position on that? and, madam chancellor, same question addressed to you -- has there been a discussion on the eurozone, and do you wish to abide by the policy, in view of the problems that the countries in the south have? >> maybe i will just start with something because your question

insinuates something that we dont want. we want prosperity. we want competitiveness. we want economic strength in order to bring about reduction of unemployment. we talked about this at some length. and i also said germany in the long run will only be able to live well if europe as a whole is doing well. so it would be a very wrong tack for our policy to take if we were pursuing a kind of policy where we weaken those countries into which we, after all, wish to export our goods. i think the world is changing, however, and europe is not competitive enough in all areas. and budget consolidation is one piece of the mosaic. structural reforms have to come into this. and the italian prime minister addressed this issue at some length during the g8. what does this mean for young people? what does it mean for jobs for

young people? but still the task is, if 90 ercent of growth globally is generated outside of europe, than we need to produce goods that are so competitive -- as competitive for other markets to actually buy them. and this is something that we need to undergo. we need to draw down red tape, bureaucracy. we need to be more open for research and development. we need to have structural reforms. we need to have, for example, affordable energy. if i look at the energy price development in the united states, all of this needs to be done. and part and parcel with that also is, particularly in a continent that is growing ever older, that we are able to reduce our budget deficits so that we dont leave at the expense of future generations. that is what this is all about. this is what i am fervently sking for and working for. europe can only help that is strong.

and so a future without europe is something that i cannot envisage for germany. t's two sides of one and the same coin. on the one hand, germany needs and wants to be competitive, and we also want others to be competitive and improve their competiveness. and we all belong together. this is why we showed solidarity time again, and this is, too, something that we addressed. >> well, as angela said, all of us want the same thing. e want to have an economy that is growing, where people, if they're willing to work hard, are able to succeed, and can find jobs that pay a living wage, and can retire with some dignity, and can send their children to good schools, and have health care that is affordable. nd we have to do all those hings in a way thats fiscally

prudent so that we're not mortgaging our future or burdening our children and our grandchildren. and i think all developing countries -- or all more developed countries have been going through some of the same challenges. and we just went through the worst recession in many years. the good news is, is that we've seen some progress. in the united states, we fixed our banks, which was the source initially, the trigger for some of these major problems. so we have a much stronger banking system now, with much tighter supervision. the housing market has begun to recover. we've now grown for close to four years -- three and a half years -- and weve created 7 million new jobs. but we still have some reforms that we have to do. we've got to improve the skills f our workforce.

we've got to improve our infrastructure. we have to continue to invest in esearch and development. in all countries around the world, you're seeing growing inequality, and so we have to find ways to make sure that ladders of opportunity exist for those at the bottom, and that profits and increased productivity all does not just benefit those at the top. and so what's true in the united states is also true in europe. europe has different sets of problems. part of the challenge of the eurozone is that you have countries at different stages and levels of productivity and are further or less far along on this path of restructuring and reform. so weve been discussing this -- this has been a four-year conversation that weve been having, and i dont think

theres a perfect recipe. all of us have to make sure that our budgets are not out of control. all of us have to undergo structural reforms to adapt to a new and highly competitive economy. whats true is, though, all of us also have to focus on growth, and we have to make sure that in pursuit of our longer-term policies, whether its fiscal consolidation or reforms of our overly rigid labor markets, or pension reforms, that we dont lose sight of our main goal, which is to make lives of people better. and if, for example, we start seeing youth unemployment go too high, then at some point weve got to modulate our approach to ensure that we dont just lose a generation who may never

recover in terms of their careers. and thats the struggle that i think all of us are going through. thats the discussion we had at the g8. thats a discussion that angela nd i had here today. im confident that germany will succeed in this process. im confident that chancellor merkel cares about maintaining the eurozone and the european project. and she, i think, is confident that the united states wants to do everything we can to get europe through this difficult atch so that it can be a force for growth and prosperity well into the future. thank you very much, everybody. >> danke schön. > danke schön.

>> peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons. and so as president i've strengthnd our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the number of america's nuclear weapons. we're on track to cut deployed nuclear war heads to their lowest level in america and russia to their lowest level since the 1950's.

but we have more work to do. i'm announcing additional steps forward. after a review i've ensured we can ensure the security of america and our allies and remain a deterrent while reducing our nuclear weapons by 1/3. i intend to seek negotiated cuts with russia to move beyond cold war postures. [applause] at the same time we'll work ith nato allies to seek bold reductions in tactical went innocence europe. and we can forge a new framework for peaceful power. reject the nuclearization that north korea and iran may be seeking. america will host a summit in 2016 to continue our efforts to

secure nuclear materials around the world and we will work to build support in the united states to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and call on all nations to begin negotiations. these are steps we can take to create a world of peace with justice. >> let us not be blind to our differences but let us also direct attention oh our common interest and the means by which those differences can be resolved. and if we cannot end now our differences at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. >> all free men wherever they may live are citizens of berlin and therefore as a freeman, i --. pride in the word

>> so he -- you see a much different president kennedy than in the first year then in 1963 you see a different one again who is preparing the ground for a real shot at his nuclear test ban treaty which was agreed to in the fall of 1963 while at the same time also building up defenses and seeking a way toward peace with this american university speech. 50th king back on the anniversary of j.f.k.'s speech part of american history t.v. every weekend on c-span 3. >> coming up next on c-span sociated press c.e.o. gary prue wit talks about the seizure of phone records.

. llowed by ben bernanke >> tomorrow on c-span 3 a look at the medicare program. they will hold a hearing on the annual trustees report. our live coverage begins at 9:30 eastern. later a senate hearing looks at the vetting process for granting security cleencheses to federal employees and in particular the contractor edward snowden. the source of leaks about surveillance programs. that's at 2:30 eastern on c-span 3 and c-span.org. >> it was essential to remove france from canada for the yilets as it became to have the portunity to achieve its

independence. and a few people led by franklin recognized the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago. the american achievement, people of two and a half million free people and half a million slaves, for them in toveget get the british to evict the french from their borders and then the french to help them evict the british torks manipulate the two greatest powers in the world was an aston shing achievement. >> saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern part of book t.v. this weekend on c-span 2. >> now associated press president and c.e.o. gary pruitt on the seize sure of phone records. he discusses first amendment protections for journalists and the affect of government

surveillance on how reporters operate. this is an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i'm a reporter for bloomberg news. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future while fostering a free press worldwide and at home. for more information about the national press club please www dot website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide like like to kell come our speaker today. our head table includes guest speaker and working journalists who are club members f. you

hear applause in audience i note that members of the general public are also attending so it is not lack of journalist i can objecttivity. i'd like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after our guest speech concludes we'll have a question and answer period. i'll ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. i'd ask to you stand briefly. from your right reporters without borders and vice chairwoman of the freedom of the press committee. breaking news reporter for u.s.a. today. jazz producer for al english. >> chairman of the press club's reedom of the press committee.

bureau chief for routers washington bureau. >> vice president and bureau chief for cbs news. a reporter with u.s.a. today, vice chairwoman of the freedom of the press club here. executive vice president for haguer sharp and the speakers committee member who organized today's event. thank you. >> founding director of the shine sign the center and a guest scholar. host of on the record with gretva van us the stran on fox. senior business editor at n.p.r. a member of the press board governors. managing editor with the sunlight foundation. [applause]

>> in may 2012 the associated ess reported on a c.i.a. operation to detonate a bomb on an airplane headed for the u.s. the justice department notifieded the secretly obtained phone records of some individual a.p. reporters as well as bureaus in new york, washington and connecticut and the house of representatives press gallery. some 20 phone lines assigned to the journalists were tracked. the justice department did not explain why the phone records were seized. our speaker today, the president and c.e.o. of the a.p. responded immediately. he wrote to attorney jenner rick holder calling this seizure a massive intrusion into the news gathering

activities of the a.p. he said the action interfeared with the a.p.'s rights to gather and report the news. he speaks as not only the head of one of the largest news gathering organizations but also as a first amendment lawyer. his career as a freedom of speech lawyer led to the position for the third largest newspaper company in the u.s. six years later he took a leadership position at "the sacramento bee," became publisher and embarked on a series of corporate leadership positions. he served as c.e.o. from 1996 until he became the head of the a.p. last year. the a.p. is a not for profit cooperative owned by member newspapers with 3700 employees in more than 300 locations worldwide. more than half the world's populations sees knews reported

by the a.n. on any given day. he probable thought his biggest challenge would be the transformation in digital markets. he says the seizure is having a chilling effect on news gathering itself and if journalists are restribblingted people will know only what the government wants them to know. please join me in giving a warm welcome to the c.e.o. of the sociated press, mr. gary pruitt. [applause] >> thank you angela. and i want to thank the national press club for inviting me today and i want to thank them for the really cool cup cakes they put together with all the logo through the years of a.p. i think it's really artfully done and deliciously done. for those of whow don't want

your cup cake, bring it to the a.p. table. i'm sorry for those of you watching online on c-span that you're not going to get those cup cakes. but before coming here today to speak, i thought it would be a good idea to get a sense of how the seizure of a.p.'s phone records by the u.s. department of justice was affecting our reporting. and what i learned from our journalists should alarm everyone in this room and i think should alarm everyone in the country. the actions of the d.o.j. against a.p. are already having an impact beyond the specifics of this particular case. some of our long time trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us even on stories that aren'table national security. and in some cases government

employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone and some are reluct tonight meet in person. in one instance our journalists couldn't get a >> i can tell you that this chilling effect does not just ap.n at it is happening in other news organizations as well. other journalistic told me that they have been intimidated -- that sources have been intimidated from speaking with them. the government may love this. beware the government that love secrecy too much. i want to provide you information on the ap seizure of phone records.