tapes during the cuban missile crisis. he was his own man, he was the one that was making his own mind. the joint chiefs were at arms length. they wanted to bomb, invade, and he would not do it. >> [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> after several years of wrangling, the house has passed a five-year farm bill. now it is up to the senate and that will be happening this week. join us on newsmakers is senator debbie stabenow. she is chairman of the agriculture committee. our panelists are alan bjerga of bloomberg news, and ed o'keefe of "the washington post." mr. bjerga, you may start the questioning. >> thank you. >> senator, you seem poised to see the passage of a piece of work for several years, a new

five-year farm bill. there was a rejection of the house last year. a lot of negotiations back and forth and it seems like with each of these bills that gets passed, there is a bigger chorus of people who say that farm subsidies are too generous. or this time you've faced a lot of criticism on the food stamp program. is this the last farm bill you see being passed this way? is the split in the house last ear a foretaste of farm bill to come? >> we all have a stake in having affordable, safe food. we in america are blessed that there's a group of people that are willing to get up every day and fight the weather. nobody else in their business has to worry if their business will be wiped out by drought. we have a joint stake, both families, farmers, and consumers in having in agricultural food supply policy.

and that's what this is. i am proud that this is a farm bill for the future and not the past. e have been talking about that we shouldn't be giving farm subsidies to farmers when prices are high. you should not get a check because you plant something. in this farm bill, that is gone. instead, farmers will get a bill for crop insurance instead of a check. or they are going to get help only when there's a weather disaster or a market disaster. if they have a disaster, they will be able to get help like any other insurance. it will cover 65 to 75% of their loss. t they'll cover the rest of it. most of the time, farmers will be paying thousands of dollars in crop insurance and get nothing in an individual year. this is different. the other thing i am proud of as someone who represents a state who grows a lot of fruits and vegetables, we have a

rigorous effort on research supporting growers. we are putting four times more money in farmers markets than ever before. this is the strongest effort for organic, which is part of the future. we have communities where there are lots of small farmers and they want to band together and sell locally to restaurants or schools or hospitals, we have created local food hubs. there are many things in here that have changed the paradox. we support local agriculture in a way that supports risk management but does it in a way that is good for taxpayers and good for families. but let's move to these other opportunities where small farms, other kinds of things that will allow us to promote the healthy fruits and vegetables that we all need to be eating and all of the other farmers in the country.

there are so many different ings packed in this 159-page piece of legislation. we want to ask you about a few of them. we want to ask you about the supplemental nutrition assistance program, mostly known as food stamps. can you explain to viewers how exactly these cuts are being made? it is one of the leading things coming out of this bill, you are making $8 billion in cuts to food stamps. how is it being done? and how are people going to be affected? >> let me say that i would be willing to tackle waste, fraud and abuse. any misuse in the system will be tightened up. this is a tight system already, very low error rate on anything in that i am willing to do. i'm not willing to change eligibility or hurt people who need food help. i have a lot of people in

michigan who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, paid taxes all their lives and are mortified that they need any kind of help. it's temporary help. the average person going on food assistance is for 10 months or less, and there's no way in the world i would do anything that would hurt them. the house passed policies that would have literally eliminated millions of people from getting help. people just like the people in michigan. i said no to that. there is an area where for ell-meaning purposes we have states wanting to get more food assistance, where they have stretched some things. heat assistance tied to food assistance. a few states have allowed people without a utility bill to be able to get credit for having a utility bill. and that bumps up the amount of money they get. they have been giving people

one dollar in help a year. which means they get heating assistance and they've done it. they have been able to get extra help, even when they do not have a utility bill. i want to give these people extra help. i wish we could've done more in the farm bill to increase that help. it is not possible given the house of representatives. we only made one change in the whole thing. we did not do anything that the house of representatives had passed. we said if you have $20 or more in heating help a year, nothing changes for you. you automatically get this heating deduction. if you have less than $20 a year that you are receiving, you have to produce the utility bill to get a credit. i know there are people who are enters who do not have the

ability to show that they have utilities built into their rent. the secretary of agriculture has made a commitment to a very aggressive outreach program, which we will do to help people be able to show and verify that they have their heat as part of their rent. i cannot look at somebody with a straight face and say it is ok for somebody to get a utility credit if they do not have a utility bill. that is the change we made. when we did the dairy reform, one of the great things that we did, the usda can now buy milk for programs for children and the needy and for food banks. we have increased the money to food banks and have said if you buy fresh fruits and vegetables with your food assistance money, we will give you double the value of the food assistance. we want people to be able to

buy healthy food for their family. that is some of what we have done to support our families. >> you agree with the estimates? those changes and the low heating assistance program would affect 800,000 to 900,000 households roughly? >> they have said that's the maximum. and if we are able to address renters, i expect it to be less. >> people have spent days diving into this legislation. looking for all sorts of red flags. they did not find many red flags. they are concerned about one thing. there is a provision that would require the disclosure of lawmakers and other officials who received farm subsidies, and at the last second apparently that was removed from the bill. do you have any sense of why? >> it was not removed from the bill. it was not in the senate bill. it was in the house bill. the decision was made that we already have financial disclosure forms as to where we get our incomes.

this is done through other committees and ethics committees and rules committees. this is beyond our jurisdiction. we indicated that if there is anything to be done there, that should be done over there. i support that. but we already have to disclose where our income comes from. as do cabinet officials and anyone being nominated. >> just to clarify real quick, on your disclosures currently, do you have to disclose that you receive farm subsidies? >> you have to report your income and where it comes from. >> the detail would be very different. between what has been reported in farm subsidies versus what's on the disclosure forms. it would be on the financial disclosure form. we have gone through these forms. if you have a question about where your income is six think. it's not particularly succinct. you have very specific information. it seems to be a stepping back from transparency.

i like to follow this up further. >> let me to stop you and say that was not in the house version. it's certainly something i would support doing more on, but it was not something that was done in this bill. >> sure, sure, understood. but atlantis seemingly a larger issue here -- but there is seemingly a larger issue here. you hear this echoed in other debates. voices inside agriculture versus voices outside agriculture. having farm subsidies reported by a farmer is not popular with farmers. no one likes having their income put into a database. but it is taxpayer money. the house and senate had lower subsidy caps than what came out in the final agreement. when you look at some of these issues that go on financially, especially when farm income is at a record, you have watchdog

groups saying, why are these subsidies going to these people and why can't we track these taxpayer dollars, how do you respond to that? >> i'm glad to respond. people do not know that we are not doing subsidies anymore. we only are doing insurance which we share the cost in and we are doing help in disaster or if there is a market loss. a price loss. and you get zero help, unless there's a loss. > there are target prices. >> but if you do not -- corn prices are high right now. if corn prices don't dip, you get zero. if you do not have a weather isaster, you get zero. we have said no more million

millionaire farmers. if you are a millionaire you don't qualify. we passed for the first time ever and overall cap on the commodity title, even though you do not get help unless there is a loss. the amendment was an overall cap on both what you can receive under target prices or loans. it was $125,000 total. underneath that, he caps each area separately. we kept the overall cap, which is the first time ever we have capped loans or anything else. in terms of the overall cap, we left flexibility. if you want a higher loan, you get lower payment limits. if you want higher payment limits, you get lower loans.

i understand all of this is very complicated. the people who should look at this are looking at it through the old lens. what i am saying to people is this is a new day. this is not a bait and switch shuffle. we are fundamentally saying we are not paying farmers just because they grow corn or wheat and rice and so on. you have to buy insurance or you are covered up to a certain point. if you have a loss that is a $500,000 loss under a commodity title, the most you could receive is $125,000. you cannot get a dollar unless you have a loss. i am happy to talk to anyone on this. it is a different day. i am not saying this is perfect. every farm bill there are

things that i personally would write differently. it is 12 different bills hooked together. between the commodities title for the first time we have a conservation title spending more than a commodities title. we are fundamentally shifting to investments in land and water protection, supporting farmers through insurance and supporting people who have not had a lot of support like fruit and vegetable growers and organics. >> there is nothing that everyone will agree with. one of the last-minute battles was over meat labels. we have a regime in the united states where meat needs to be labeled by country of origin. this is a sensitive issue with canada and mexico. they fought before the w.t.o.

they've won. the u.s. has responded. a lot of meatpackers would like to see a relief on these labels so they do not have this string enter requirement. -- stringent requirement. there was a push to get it changed. the language was not changed. they will continue to fight this and it will continue to be fought. there is going to be more w.t.o. action. how do you see this progressing in the months and years ahead? >> we have a first time ever permanent livestock disaster assistance program in this bill, which was the number one priority of all these groups. we then have gone on to have rigorous support for exports, they're important, and specific things for livestock and conservation. so there is a most significant investment in support of the livestock community. you're right. at the last minute, they

decided once they got the permanent livestock disaster assistance, they switched to something else that was in neither bill, neither bill. we eliminated labeling for meat. there was not support by a majority of democrats or republicans to eliminate the labeling for meat. we worked with them to try to find some way to address this in a compromise. they took a hard position of all or nothing, they wanted to eliminate it or nothing. we said that we would prefer to leave it to the w.t.o. the u.s. is appealing. there's a 50/50 chance that they will win. if the u.s. loses, that label ill be gone or changed anyway. if they win, we will have to address it. from a consumer standpoint, these people do not want to label something that is grown or processed in the united tates.

we have a united states label and they are fighting that we have no label whatsoever. there was not support for that. republicans or democrats. it's not within the jurisdiction of the farm bill. we would have been happy to work in some way with them to solve the problem. it was very disappointing. to see a group of people decide, after we had met their top priority, they decided to do what i thought was an ncredible overreach. they were not successful. there was not support. >> let me take you back to this question of the future of the farm bill. you've wombinged on this for three years. >> this is my fourth farm bill. >> exactly. fourth version of it, at least, right? >> it's actually fourth in the sense that i did one in the

house and three in the senate. >> in this age of austerity and taking the time to read the bill, your legislation will get assed in three days. maybe you're one of the only people who have read the whole thing. having spent years doing this, it is two years overdue and it deals with such a huge part of the american economy, what are your impressions of the process? this is regular order. it took you three years. >> it did take three years. i wish it hadn't taken us three years. the first time we passed the farm bill in the second, they didn't take it up. the second time they took it up and it failed. then they divided it up and there were all kinds of things that went on. i cannot control that. the reality is that the

fundamental things in this bill are very close to what we passed in the senate. our senators are very comfortable with this. it's within the framework. the conservation title is almost exactly the same. fruits add vegetables, energy title, research title, world development title, crop insurance. probably the biggest difference is that we melded the commodity title, part of the house and part of the senate. this is very close to what we passed in the senate. people feel comfortable with it. let me also stress something that i think is very important to me and we're very proud of. in this age of deficits, we are the only committee in a bipartisan basis that has cut our own area of jurisdiction. everybody else says, why don't you cut them over there? ever since we had a super committee processed, every committee was asked to come up with savings. chairman lucas and i and our ranking members decided we were going to do that and that formed the framework. we came up with $23 billion in saflingse is what we ended up

with. so we stayed within the framework of what we came up with. we proposed savings. the committee fell apart. we took that. we wrote a farm bill. we wrote another farm bill, and we're at the end of a process where we are the only part of the federal government to produce savings in our own areas, jurisdiction, and we eliminated about 100 different programs for authorization that longer cative or no made sense. i would challenge my colleagues. if they did what we did we would have a balanced budget. >> you have a innate -- a unique perspective because you are chairman of the committee. your own state has a major metropolitan area and smaller cities and vast rural areas. istening to the state of the union address, when you're looking at rural america,

places outside the beltway, how do you see that playing with the general population? there is concern of democrats of keeping their majority. you have your own colleague who's up for re-election. how do you expect america will respond to this message in the coming months? >> this is on point. the reality is today that since the turnaround has begun, very few people are feeling the benefit of it. they have not had the opportunity to be able to work within the new economy. get the job training they need, have the jobs that they need. most people are either holding on to stay in the middle class or they slid out of the middle class. they feel it is not fair that they're not having an equal opportunity to move ahead like we have always seen. we will not have a middle class

if the numbers continue that we see today. the 400 wealthiest families in our country have the same amount of money as 150 million americans. i do not begrudge people doing well and being wealthy. we're not going to have a middle class or an economy unless those 150 million people have the same kind of fair shot to make it. many of them are in rural america. in michigan, many that are struggling to be able to make it, including farmers and are truggling to make it right now. small farms. so the challenge of our time is to do everything possible to give people the opportunity to be in the middle class, be successful, benefit from this strong economy and know, frankly, that if you work 40

hours a week, you're not going to be in poverty. >> we have time for one more question. >> your colleagues met with treasury secretary. what did he tell you and what is the plan? >> we will be in a situation where we will not be able to pay our bills. shame on us if that is the case. we need to make sure that the bills will be paid. everybody is responsible in their own family for doing that. we need to do that as a country. to me it's pretty simple. the constitution requires us to do it and we need to pay our bills. >> no negotiating? >> you don't negotiate paying the bills. wheck negotiate a lot of things. i've gun negotiating for three years on agriculture and food policy. when it comes to pay the bills, it is our responsibility pay the bills. we do not negotiate about paying the bills. >> very quickly, back to the farm bill.

for those who are not as involved in it as you, what is the cost to the american axpayer. e are looking overall at about -- it's $900-some billion overall that includes our help for needy families. and the majority of that goes to those who find themselves in a difficult position. or maybe our seniors, people with disabilities, our veterans, disabled veterans coming home. and then the balance of that is the largest investment we make in land and water conservation as a country. the support for agriculture in the form of help when there's a disaster or a loss. and then finally in jobs. we have not talked about today the new effort around bio-energy. there's something called bio-based manufacturing, where we're bringing together

manufacturing and agriculture to use agricultural products to offset chemicals in manufacturing. we have all kinds of new opportunities to create jobs in this bill and re-invest in research, in bio-based manufacturing and in other opportunities that will grow the economy. >> that is $900 billion over five years? >> over 10 years. >> how much is that saving? from previous>> the overall savings is $23 billion. farm bills? that includes the sequestration cuts. we have already put in place about $6 billion in sequestration cut and it was added to that in this bill to make it about $23 billion. >> could you support cuts to the size of the agriculture department? >> well, we're doing that. the department of agriculture actually, because we've seen agriculture research cut through the appropriations

process, because of sequestration, i think they're pretty much close to the top of being cut more percentage-wise than any other area of the federal government. i don't know the exact umber. percentage-wise, they've been really cut. if you want to have a safe food supply, supporting our farmers is a very big part of that. we are very blessed. 16 million people work because of agriculture. it's the largest trade surplus that we have. we are feeding the world. selling to the world. creating jobs through exports. we want them to do well. if they do well, then america does well. >> we will be watching the senate this coming week as it takes up the farm bill. is the debbiestabenow

chair of the committee. >> we'll be right back with our to reporters. >> we are back with our panel. what did you learn today? >> i learned that she is very prepared to defend against any attacks of this bill. that is not a big surprise. she is been talking about this for three years. certainly knows chapter and verse. the challenge for her is by negotiating with the republicans and coming up with an agreement, she may be defending some things that were not the ideas of her own chair and her own chamber. she seems to be doing an able job of that. she gets awfully into the weeds and the challenge is to pull her out of this, because she has been living and breathing this. america wants to know about this farm bill. she's been talking to farmers and ranchers the past three years. >> she probably has better exposure and understanding of the troubles inside the

republican party than most democrats. this bill deals with all sorts of issues that are facing the g.o.p. you have spending, entitlement programs, really fundamental concerns of the republican party. she has had to live through it over the last few years. what the house did over the summer as they divided the farm bill for the first time in 30 years, she had to stomach that and risk of this process collapsing. she was able to find a way to work through it. if you talk to frank lucas, the house agriculture committee chairman, they had a good understanding that if they kept their heads down, if they all understood what might be coming their way, they might somehow be able to prevail. they had a good series of points to make with her colleagues. there are jobs attached to

this. $23 billion worth of cuts, depending on who you ask. in this age where you're looking for this kind of thing, that's a good selling point. and they had to get it done. you think about spending and job creation and productivity. she is a great witness to the problems of republicans. >> ed o'keefe, what's the relationship between senator stabenow and congressman lucas? oklahoma, michigan, members of congress can be awfully parochial at times, and those two states don't necessarily have a lot in common. >> they both earned their seniority through an important committee. by all indications and seeing them both publicly and talking to their staffs, they got along well. they understand they had to get this done. there were some conflicts on certain things. you probably have a better understanding than most people. they understood they had a job to do and had to find a way to balance farmers and the

agriculture circle with the needs and challenges facing the party colleagues. they have done good work. people may be unhappy about it, but they did get it done. it is a significant amount of money. nobody is happy, by design. that's how legislation is supposed to be. >> i think it is interesting that this farm bill passed the senate twice overwhelmingly and it will probably do well this week. president obama said he will sign it into law. if you look at the house of representatives, they have had several votes since the shutdown where speaker boehner has been more willing to do things that will get democratic support and let some republicans fall by the wayside in order to get things done. we will see if that repeats itself. chairman lucas was someone who was in a real bind last july. he's been in the house for 20 years. he is trying to work across the aisle with senator stabenow and here he is with problems in his

own caucus. that seems to have lightened up. they are allowed to work with her to get things done. that is a little dynamic to watch. especially in the house and to a certain extent in the senate moving forward. >> alan, what did you not get to ask her? >> i would have been interested about her opinion on immigration. that is going to be a big issue. it is a big interest in the agricultural community. s as well as the manufacturing and tech. if this coalition is forming, this farm bill coalition, it renews a sense of ipartisanship. it will be interesting to see how frank lucas and debbie stabenow can work together in the future. >> that's one point. the other we should be mindful of is the michigan senate race is a sleeper race, where eleven is retiring. republicans think they might have a good opportunity to hold

on to. if that happens, that's a problem for democrats because they'd like to confine the competitive races to no more than six or seven. if they have to start defending seats like michigan, colorado, the majority of the senate could be at stake for democrats. it's not hers to lose, but she certainly has insights into it and something is afoot in michigan that suggests that that might be in play. >> how involved was she in this negotiation? >> some think the white house was not involved enough. during the bush white house, you had set farm bill plans, active lobbyingthis was much more beside the on the hill. scenes. the usda at the very end was over dairy policy. a very passionate dispute over the new dairy program. the house and democrats and republicans were very much at a loggerhead about this. there was no resolution. they brought in the chief

economist from the usda. they started looking at what the usda could do. that key moment was a light touch. they came to a resolution on a very difficult issue. the question now is implementation. >> ed o'keefe of "the washington post." alan with bloomberg news. thank you for being on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] myself as much time as i [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] this is about 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, this has been a long and seemingly epic journey that the house agriculture committee has been upon. mr. peterson, myself, our colleagues literally three years

-- actually four when you consider the beginning hearings under then chairman peterson, to start this process. we have all discussed the details. we'll discuss the details more in greater length in just a moment on this final conference report that reflects the net result of both the senate and house work. but i would say this, whatever your feelings might be about the policy issues involved within the bill, understand this formal conference that's now come to a conclusion, soon i hope to be tified by the body, reflects at the committee level, at the floor level in the house, and i think in the conference level how legislation should be put together. many people criticize us and this body as dysfunctional.

but if they look at all of the amendments we considered every time we took the farm bill up in the committee, all of the debate, all of the discussion, if they consider the amazing amount of amendments we considered on the floor of the united states house and all the debate and discussion and votes, if they take note of how long and how much effort the principals and the conferees put in to putting this conference report together, they would understand that this bill, while everyone may not agree with every line, every word, every policy in it, this bill reflects , unlike almost any that have been done for years, how it should be done. good men and women of different opinion working to get to a final product. i hope this reflects a change in how we'll do our business here across the board. but i'm proud of what we have

done and i'm proud of how we have done t i'm proud of the reforms and savings. i'm proud of my ranking member and all my colleagues who have been involved. reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson:thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson:today as the chairman said after nearly four years of work the house is finally considering the 2014 farm bill conference report. it's been a challenging and frustrating process. i think everybody will agree. but through it the ag committee persevered and we do what we have always done, work together. the report before us today represents a compromise. i know this is rare in washington, but that's what needed to actually get something done around this place. i didn't get everything i wanted. the chairman didn't get everything he wanted. that's how the compromise works. for example, there's been a lot of discussion about dairy, but

we are moving away from the olet dairy program to a new program that -- from the old dairy program to a new program that is much more sensible, that has market signals in it to deal with overproduction. the only question i have is whether they are going to be strong enough. we'll find out as we go through the process. in the body title i'm still disappointed we didn't go to 500 acres t would have been the smart thing to dofment but wasn't to be. at the end of the day i believe my reservations are outweighed by the need to provide a long-term certainty for agriculture and nutrition programs and the many positive improvements and reforms included in the final bill. among other thention the conference report will protect and improve the crop insurance system, probable lith most important safety net, continues sugar polcy, streamlines conservation programs so that we can continue to preserve our natural resources, provides disaster assistance for livestock producers, applies

conservation protections to crop insurance, and recognizes the growing consumer demand for fresh fruits, vegetables, local foods, and organics. in closing i want to thank the chairman for his work and congrat him for -- congratulate him for getting to us work with us to get to final conclusion here. also for his members and our members for the -- their support in hanging in there to get to this point. i also want to thank the agriculture committee staff who have been working so hard over these last years night and day through all these different situations we have been in. and i would like to submit their names for the record, if that is ok. again, mr. speaker, this process has gone on too long. we need to conclude it today. i urge my colleagues to support the conference report. yield back. reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minute. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank

chairman lucas and ranking member peterson for all their hard work on this very difficult bill. i admire their tenacity and i admire their passion on issues dealing with agriculture. there are some good things in this bill, to be sure. but there are some things that i simply cannot accept. i think as we discuss this farm bill that we should remind ourselves of a few simple facts. facts like this, hunger exists in the united states of america. not a single congressional district in this country is hunger free. our food banks, our food pantries, the people on the frontlines in the fight against hunger simply cannot do any more. they are stretched to the limits. one final fact, this bill will make hunger worse in america not better. if this bill passes, thousands and thousands of low-income americans will see their already meager food benefits shrink, for what? why? to meet some arbitrary deficit reduction goal? to pay the cost of the give aways and crop insurance program

to pay for the sweetheart deals for the sushi rice growers and peanut farmers and god knows who else? i know many of my colleagues would just like this whole farm bill issue to go away. they want to pass a bill and forget about and move on to something else. but, mr. speaker, the people who will hurt by this bill aren't going away. they can't forget about it and move on to something else because they'll suffer. they will have to do -- they'll have to make do with less food tomorrow than they have today. i have heard all the arguments trying to justify this $8.6 billion cut in snap. well, it's just a loophole or it could have been a lot worse. or the states should pick up the slack, or local governments or churches or food banks or the tooth fairy. those arguments are easy to make from the comfort of our own warm homes and full bellies, but they ring hollow to an elderly person who will have to take their medicine on an empty stomach, or child who will have to skip breakfast before going to scoo.

i think it's wrong and cannot support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. r. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield to one of my outstanding subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. crawford: i want to thank chairman lucas and ranking member peterson for putting in so much hard work and dedication getting where we are today. and i echo ranking member's sentiments to the staff. thank you very much for everything that you have done. after more than three years of being involved in a farm bill process, i'm proud to support a final product that not only greatly benefits producers but deploys investments and jobs to rural america. despite our sharp regional differences we prevailed in crafting commodity programs that promote regional fairness by providing a strong safety net that protects all producers from market risk. we can finally provide relief to our cattlemen t. rural development funding will be critical. while conservation and forestry

programs will preserve our natural resources for years to come. although i'm pleased with the farm bill today i'm disappointed we left important issues on the table like fixing country of origin labeling for the meat industry. we could have gone further on relieving regulations on small farmers. even though i believe we could have done more, i'm proud of the conservative reforms we have made in stood stamp program by elimb -- food stamp program by eliminating waste. the agriculture committee accomplished tough goal by consolidating tozzes of programs. appreciate the patience of all our produces through this process. i strongly urge a yes vote on this report and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does -- the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. costa: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this conference committee report. there are a lot of reasons why, first i'd like to commend the

chairman and the ranking members of both the house and the senate ag committees and my fellow conferees and the staff for all the hard work that went into reaching this agreement. while this is not a perfect bill, there never is, this agreement is a result of more than four years' of bipartisan negotiations. two marathon committee meeting markups, multiple floor debates. this bill almost reminds me of the movie "groundhog day" because it seems to come back and back again. for my home state of california, the leading agriculture state in the nation, this farm bill is a dramatic investment in many of the specialty crops for research, market production, and the development programs which benefit our vegetable and fruit producers of which we produce over half the nation's supply. these programs not only help my constituents produce the safest and most nutritious fruits and vegetables that we eat throughout the nation, but also throughout the world. just as important for my

district are the disaster relief programs that help farmers, ranchers, and dairymen and producers through these difficult times. many may not be aware but california's facing the driest, driest year on record which jeopardizes both food production and jobs in my district. this bill contains programs to provide help when disaster strikes, from drilling wells to direct assistance to growers or katelemen who have been hurt by this devastating drought. while i support conference committee report, i am disappointed they did not take the opportunity to resolve the meat labeling issue that threatens our beef and poultry producers and our important trading partners, canada and mexico, or deemed critical and are dealing with us and the world trade organization. i'm currently drafted legislation on a bipartisan basis to try to fix this labeling issue once and for all. this debate, though, has dragged on for way too long. let's give farmers and ranchers and dairy producers the certainty that they deserve through our five-year farm bill.

now is the time to get this farm bill done by passing this >> earlier we spoke for a few minutes about the week ahead in congress, which includes senate work on the farm bill. >> the house just wrapped up two days of their conference over the eastern shore of maryland. it seems that two key issues have come out of that. one dealing with the debt limit ammed the other immigration. first on the debt limit. how do republican leaders plan to address that when they come back next week and the weeks ahead? >> well, i think they were trying to get the house rank and file members on whether they would allow a clean debt limit extension in february, or whenever they choose to stage the vote, or whether they're oing to attach pre-conditions.

the indications are there is not least some sentiment to tying an increase in the debt ceiling to repealing part of the health care law that deals with payments to help insurance mitigate the risk of pricing policies. it's a typical thing called risk corridors and it's become the g.o.p.'s next big target in obamacare. so whether they actually decide to make this linkage is still to be decided. but there's some strong sentiment at least in the republican caucus for doing it. >> as they were wrapping up that meeting, you tweeted about that, saying they decided to tie the debt limit to the obamacare provision. is that just another sort of way to try to slow down the implementation of obamacare, or is this a serious proposal? >> well, i think they sensed that there could be some political currency in portraying this as a subs deto big insurance companies -- dubsdy to big insurance companies. they have to sell policies to

much under the law now, and they can wind up with an unhealthy pool of customers and pay more claims than they forecast. so this is kind of a way for the government to at least trorle have their back and would cover half or more of the excess cost. whether that is being prudent after you sort of retool the entire health system, or whether it's a giveaway, depends on the political framing, of course. >> on to the immigration issue. i understand that speaker boehner issued a one-pager with some key principles on immigration. what are we hearing about those principles? >> well, this is big, because this is the furthest that the house majority has gone in addressing the issue. and he sort of downplayed these principles as kind of talking points. but there was some resemblance in some areas to the deal that was struck in the senate by the gang of eight. however, the house has rejected doing the comprehensive bill like the senate last year. they want to do a more piecemeal approach. they want to address visas,

employment verification, they want to address legal status of people brought to the country when they were children, so the called dreamers, and the important thing is, they would give some legal status, short of citizenship, to the approximately 11 million undocumented imgrant in the country. >> but anything in terms of legislation is still at least weeks, if not a couple of months off, correct? >> yes. i think this is just political calculations and survivorship. a lot of members are very, very uncomfortable with taking a vote, because they're afraid they would be primary'd. how do you come date those concerns when you're a leadership? you can't keep delaying and putting it off until the primaries are done, because they don't happen all at once. maybe we see things on border security, letting agriculture workers go back and forth and keep their legal status, something that everyone can sort of agree on. i'm not sure they're going to go as far as dealing with legal status of undocumented people this year.

>> well, before the republican retreat, the house did pass the farm bill. it's the senate's turn in the coming week. what's it look like for passage in the senate? >> well, the supporters are expecting a strong show of support on a procedural monday afternoon, and that would set up a vote to clear the whole thing, the five-year package, huge, huge piece of legislation, sometime tuesday afternoon. this could be the last big bipartisan legislative deal this year, unless something unexpected happens on taxes or unless they do immigration. i think it deals with so many different provisions, and it's been the subject of three years of negotiations. when you have something that generally everyone agrees on, deals with agriculture, dairy, conservation, attrition, crop insurance, agriculture research, people are going to likely not kick up a big fuss. anyway, they can't amend it because it's a conference agreement, so i think it's going to be cleared. >> once the farm bill clears,

what's in store not only in the senate, but in the house, in terms of major pieces of legislation? what do you see? >> for next week, we sort of just got the speaker's schedule. one of the things they're doing in the short run is a couple of public lands and hunting and fishing bills. i don't know if that qualifies as major, although people especially in the western states care and people who hunt and fish do. one of these by bob latta of ohio, a republican, would expand access to bureau of land management and forest service lands for hunting and recreational fishing and shooting. sounds innocuous, but it's got some interesting language. it would bar enforcement of individual firearm regulations and army corps of engineer water resource projects, for example. they're going to meet in house rules on monday to decide how they're going to debate this and whether they will allow amendments and from that we'll see whether it's going to be a huge floor fight or something

less than that. >> adriel bettelheim. follow him at cqrollcall.com. thank you for the preview of next week. >> glad to be with you. >> a clorse look now at the house and senate, gaveling back in on monday, the house reconvenes at noon for speeches. two suspension bills will be considered, including one that would require colleges to give veterans in-state tuition regardless of their place of residence. other legislation scheduled this week, a bill that eases federal restrictions on hunters and fishermen. and the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern on monday. senators will consider the five-year farm bill that passed in the house earlier this week. a vote to limit debate is expected at 5:30. if it meets the 60-vote requirement, a vote on final passage could occur on tuesday. as always, you can watch the house live on c-span, the enate live on c-span2.

>> from the archaeological data we found in research, what we've been able to stab is that general mcgowan was here on the property based on the artifacts we found in the huts and camps here. lee brought his army in northern virginia, retreated to the south, came into orange county and then eventually went into winter quarters here in orange county, with montpelier being the western-most extent of those winter quarters for his entire army. it's said based on statistics from casualties that five out of every six casualties, five occurred in camp from disease, from poor nutrition, just from groups, these camps, where you had 100 to 120 men -- i'm sorry, 300 to 350 men living in close proximity to each other. and if one person got sick, that sickness is going to

spread quite quickly. >> life and death at the 1864 confederate army winter quarters on the grounds of james madison's montpelier later today at 7:00. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> our sunday roundtable focusing on executive orders, something that the president talked about in his tuesday state of the union address. joining us for our conversation is roger, who is with the cato institute. thanks for being with us. >> you're welcome. >> and simon lazarus, who is with the constitutional accountability center. thanks for being with us. this is how the christian science monitor poses the question. as the president taps powers to bypass a gridlocked congress, is that dangerous overreach or effective governing? how do you answer that? >> i expect that it's both. to my mind, however, it is very much overreach. to be sure the president has a certain discretion with respect

to his authority to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, but he is pressing that discretion right to the limit. and we're talking here not so much about executive orders, because most of what he's done, especially lately, hasn't been through executive order, but it's been through rules and regulations, through his agencies and in that capacity, he has, in the case of the affordable care act, obamacare, for example, been on a tear to essentially rewrite the law in many respects. it is as if congress issued a statute that said this is advisory, now you fill in the blanks. and that's what's got so many people upset today. >> article ii, section one of the constitution states the following quosh the executive power shall be velfted in a president of the united states of america." then the 10th amendment, the powers not delegated by the united states in the

constitution nor prohibited by the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." >> well, and then there is another part of article ii, which i think has come to be the -- interpreted by the courts and the public generally as the main basis for defining what the executive power is, and that, as roger referred to, is the so-called take care clause, which says that the president shall take care to see that the laws are faithfully enforced. and what that has come to show is the president is supposed to take care, which means use reasonable judgment in determining how to execute the laws. he is to be faithful to all the laws, not just to a particular provision, and make sure that they all work together well, and that includes the constitution. and this is a rather full definition of what the

president's authority is, and president obama, everything that he's done so far that i can think of and certainly the targets of criticism, are well within that job description. >> let me ask you about this also from the christian science monitor. in a comparison of the president and his predecessors on the power of the pen, the use of the executive orders, no surprise that franklin d. roosevelt had the most. he served the longest, 3,522. currently the president has had 167. we did get a clearer sense that this is going to increase in the next three years of his administration. george bush at 291 in his eight years in thehouse. bill clinton had 364 in four years in the white house. george herbert walker bush had 166. ronald reagan had 381 during his eight years, and jimmy carter had 320 in his four years in office. >> he appears to be -- obama appears to be on track to be issuing the average number of

executive orders. but the numbers don't tell everything. if executive orders are issued well within the authority and scope of the executive power, there's nothing wrong with them. if you have far fewer orders issued, but they're beyond the scope of power, then that's a concern. perhaps it would be useful to put this in a larger context. and if i have a minute, i'd be glad to do that. we all learned in high school civics of the three branches of government, the congress writes the laws, and congress's powers are renewsroom rate and limited, there are only certain areas in which they're authorized to legislate. the other powers are not remune rated, so it leaves open the question, waste the scope of the judicial power or executive power? traditionally we have in this country allowed the president to have fairly wide scope in foreign affairs, but in

domestic affairs, his power is primarily to see that the laws be faithfully executed. interestingly, the left today has essentially reversed that, they want to hamstring the president strongly in foreign affairs but leave him wide open in domestic affairs, at least if their person is in office. now, that all changed. we lived under that of limited government for about 150 years, but it changed during the new deal, and that's where the problem that's before us right now began. it began with the courts allowing the congress to regulate in vast areas, and as a result, you had the creation through a series of supreme court opinions of the modern executive state, where most of our laws of written today. the congress passes a law and then these agencies, and there are well over 300 today in washington, write the rules and regulations, essentially legislate, and that's where so much of our law gets done

today. so what obama is doing is turning to his agencies, h.h.s., the i.r.s. and so on and so forth, and giving them instructions as to how he wants this broad statute to be carried out. and he is doing it in ways that raise very serious questions about whether he is in fact re-writing the law. but the source of the problem ultimately is the vast amount of legislation that has been coming out of the congress since the new deal, and especially after the great society in the 1960's. that's the root of the problem we're talking about here this morning. >> i want to follow up on that point in just a moment and ask you about the type of executive orders that this president has signed, maybe a comparison to his predecessors. but here's what barack obama said during his state of the union address, as he spoke to a joint session of congress -- >> what i offer tonight is a set of concrete practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of

opportunity into the middle class. some are prior congressional action, and i'm eager to work with all of you. but america does not stand still, and neither will i. so wherever and whenever i can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more american families, that's what i'm going to do. >> from last tuesday night, the state of the union address. what the president said, and to follow up on the type of executive orders that this president has signed, what's your as he appropriately pointed out, executive orders or own a part of what the resident does. theactions of administration has taken which have drawn most of the iron of his allies on the right have andally been regulations