span!morning c- >> there were earlier problems with it. the senator wants to work out some sort of accommodation, i'm willing to work with him. >> senator roberts. >> i would like to ask senator johansson question. your experience and your secretary -- i know you have kept close watch on this since that time -- are you aware of any study by the usda -- although there may be a new way to implement this -- that has shown that there has been any measurable impact on consumers , from therican labeling process, and in addition, with regards to food safety, i think that is a multi- committee concerned that everybody has. has there ever been a study to not think this will include everything that senator chandler said -- chambliss said -- i do not mean to be sarcastic -- are you aware of any study that actually shows that cool accomplishing what a lot of people wanted it to do? >> senator roberts, i'm not aware of such a study. having said that, there is a big body of studies out there, and i would hate to say that there are because i will walk out of this hearing and somebody will him me half a dozen. having said that, the interesting thing about country of origin labeling, this issue has spanned republican and democrat administrations. you have secretaries who have been democrats who have struggled with this, and secretaries who are republican. it is impossible to define this, at least under the guidance we have given. what it ends up being is a trade restriction. americans have shown tremendous flexibility in buying all kinds of products from all over the world here at i guess, that is obvious -- the world. i guess that is obvious. at the end of the day, what we have to do is try to figure out how to deal with this without getting hammered again with another wto case that cost us a lot of money. .here's got to be a better way i think we are headed for trouble. i've met with the canadians. they are great people to work with. tremendous allies. they've been very clear in saying, we are going to enforce our rights, just like we would. i think we've got to somehow come to grips with this or we are going to regret the result. >> i think the senator. -- thank the senator. i do not know how many other members were here when the canadian ambassador came to that, and i'm not saying he promised retaliation, but he thatit very firm retaliation could end up being about $1 billion. i think the deadline is in may. i think we ought to be awfully careful with this. hopefully we can work together and come up with something that doesn't put a cold hand on a hot stove. >> thank you very much for it obviously this is an issue -- very much. obviously this is an issue that is worthy of much more discussion. this is something we will continue to discuss and work together on to try to make sure that whatever is done works. that is really the bottom line. are there any other amendments to title 12? with respect to cash sales of agricultural products to cuba, it is essentially in 2005, the department of treasury issued a rule under the office of foreign assets control, essentially ining that cash payment agricultural products to cuba would have to be made prior to to cuba.ent that in effect means all trade to cuba was halted because there ofa potential problem private seizure of u.s. products while they are still important in cuba. this issue clearly is politically charged. if you look only at the trade issue, not the politics, which in my judgment was right, certainly by america's farmers and ranchers, we should change that ruling to that cash sales can be made. that is cash can be made prior to a title transfer, transfer being when the ship arrives, and in this case, cuba. virtually every other country -- canada has come up with this -- large sales to cuba. canada doesn't. -- does it. united states doesn't because of presidential politics in this country. amendment would correct a problem that needs to be allessed and cut through the political stuff that gets in the way here. i will not push this amendment at this time, but this is a no- brainer. it makes sense to me if we want our farmers and ranchers to sell our products, in this case to the country of cuba, there's a change to be made. i might say, madam chairwoman, i've been to cuba couple of times, certainly with my good friend and colleague from kansas, and we met with el presidente, senator roberts and i. >> be preferred to be called commandante. [laughter] >> another time i visited with cuba, i met with the head of their agriculture, the minister and his name was pedro alvarez. montana farmers were selling peas and i forget what other products we were setting up with, and he said, sure, we will do -- do a deal here. it got montana farmers by surprise. .e put the deal together three months later, whistle lentils and peas to cuba. towe sold lentils and peas cuba. then this rule came into effect. it stopped all-cash sales to cuba. it makes no sense. i hope we can figure out a solution that does make sense. .> thank you, senator baucus i want to echo your strong sentiment about this. senator brown and i had an opportunity to go to cuba with the delegation a couple weeks ago. i had a chance to see some of what they were doing with their agriculture, and there is no question that we should be addressing this. i will never forget meeting last year with louisiana rice growers, and we were trying to figure out commodities. we said, what you need? they said open the market to cuba, that's all we need. that has stuck with me ever since. >> senator roberts. >> madam chairperson, woman, ra --n, debra, chairman deborah it is true the senator from montana and i went to cuba, and i think we talked with the commandant ie at about four clok in the afternoon and it lasted until about 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. we learned about the world according to castro. we've been working on this for some time. isnow that most of the focus on markets in the united states, but the focus ought to be with regard to cuba as well, and you can use our agriculture production and our agriculture wherewithal as a tool not only for peas but also for stability, and also for countries quite frankly to recognize that when they go through very tough times, we can be a reliable supplier. turn around, and they become dependent on us, and that means certainly a better discussion with regards to human rights and with regards to the very things that people who post this amendment would -- oppose this amendment would like to see. sort of reverse kind of thing. i think we had the same thing with the russian embargo. i urge the senator from montana to continue this on the floor, if you can. , for the want to just committee, do a time check. there will be a vote around noon. if we are to move through, i know we could spend a lot of time on this important discussion on cuba. wanted everybody a time check. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank senator baucus for his leadership. i think this is an important issue. it is a common sense no-brainer, as you said. guyways go back -- the that used to talk about this all the time when he was in the house was tom osborne -- he said when he was a young coach, he figured out if you ran the same play or times in a row and it didn't work, you needed to switch policy. the policy we've had in the past has not worked in cuba. i think this is part of rethinking that. again, it's a no-brainer. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. senator roberts. >> i recall the roberts amendment number nine. in the interest of time, i would hope we could have a voice vote on it. this amendment similar to legislation that the agricultural committee passed last summer. reducing regulatory burdens act. states are now being required by the epa to permit pesticide applications under the clean water act. this duplication is diverting limited state resources from performing critical functions to gathering more paperwork. the additional paperwork and permitting process that states and applicators must undertake provides no additional environmental protection. that's right, zip, zero, additional environmental review. let me make it clear that this amendment is not alter pesticide regulation. furthermore, the agriculture committee has always had jurisdiction over pesticide use. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to protect human health and put an end to this to put it in costly -- duplicate it in costly regulation. but me remind everybody that pesticide regulations are related under the fiffa. it is against the law to apply pesticides in a manner that does not comply with the label. this amendment does with all of our constituents are telling us to do, which is to protect human health and eliminate duplicative and unnecessary regulatory acts. >> senator roberts, actress point, i would ask that you not proceed -- at this point, i would ask that you not proceed and we continue to work on this. fifra in thee "farmville". we have set up a policy, as we did last -- in the farm bill. letave set up a policy to out amendment that are not remain to the farm bill. i am very much in agreement with the concerns you've raised in we address this last year in terms of reporting a bill out of committee. i would ask at this point that you would not ask for a vote and continue to work with us. >> i will be happy to agree with the chairwoman. i will point out again that this committee only to find that there were concerns on the senate floor where we had holds on the bill. we never got to a vote. we never got consideration. in the meantime, states now have two regulatory processes, one under the clean water act and one under fifra, more paperwork, and pesticide applicators are now in a position or they are vulnerable to lawsuits -- where they are vulnerable to lawsuits. ,> madam chairman -- chairwoman i want to support the senator from kansas. there should be a clean separation between the clean water act. >> manager woman, do you know whether in fact that this legislation, this bill is in the house? i think it is. >> it may be. i believe they did that last year in the house. i'm not clear as to whether it is in the market the moment. >> it was my understanding that they intended to make it part of the house bill. that would make it subject to conferencing. raps we could get it done that way. -- perhaps we could get it done that way. >> are there any other amendments to the miscellaneous title? if not, title 12 is closed. we will now move to title ii which is content -- conservation. any amendment? thank you. i had an amendment -- that's in the next -- i will thank you now anyway. [laughter] on ant in a provision under secretary for trade. i lost track, but i want to say thank you for that. i think that is a very important amendment. i appreciate it. >> thank you very much. any others? , madam chair. i want to thank you and the ranking member for your great work. we should've done this two years ago, but i'm glad to be back here again with some hope for our farmers and ranchers in colorado who continue to suffer through generational drought. i've worked hard with the committee staff on the conservation title of this bill. i want to say thank you for all of your efforts. i would like to be recognized to call it that amendment, number two, a package of -- of some common sense changes to the conservation easement program. this amendment addresses an issue we've heard throughout colorado and other states, nebraska and kansas, where we've heard from private landowners and preservation groups, like the colorado at home and agricultural -- cattlemen agricultural land trust, i have concerns over conservation easements, namely the scenario where a landowner wants to volunteer -- voluntarily volunteer some of their land for easement. the law limits her ability to do that. this law would give the secretary of the under special circumstances to waive the nonfederal match requirements for high-priority easements. to target important easements in important places where they otherwise would not occur. ask that their letter be included in the record. the ranchland trust of kansas as well. in addition, the moment removes the requirement that no less than 40% of the funding for the agricultural conservation easement program used for agricultural easements. i notice portion of the amendment is crucially important to senator cochran. i want to thank you staff for their help with this amendment. the cbo has confirmed the amendment does not score. >> manager -- madam chair? this amendment proposes to remove the 40% funding allocation for land easements within the agricultural conservation easement program. we reviewed the amendment, and we recommend it be agreed to. i support it. >> might i ask for a boy scout on the amendment? -- a voice vote on the amendment? >> i want to thank your long effort for advocating for a great conservation title. i want to thank you and senator cochran for working to improve the easement program. i would suggest that we move forward and vote, unless there are any other comments. those in favor say i. those opposed, nate. the amendment doed senator hoeven? >> i would like to present amendment number six. what it does, in the manager's package, there is a provision for the first time ever that would tie conservation compliance programs in crop insurance -- and crop insurance together. since 1985, conservation compliance has been tied to the farm program. that's already in place. it has been since 1985. the slit added a whole new mandate on our -- this would add up the whole new mandate on our farmers which would say, even if you do not participate in the farm to graham or -- program, if you purchase crop insurance, which we want all of our farmers to do because it expands the pool and further diversifies the risk, you are going to be required to undertake the conservation tim when farmers and ranchers across this great country are having to deal with more and more regulation and compliance that not only creates difficulty for them, but increases cost for consumers, we are adding yet another layer of compliance. and regulatory burden and cost. i understand it, and i give the chairman great credit for working to try to simplify the provision that has been added in the manager's package -- i give you great credit for trying to come up with something that you ,eel is workable and usable user-friendly, if you will, but i would summit you that is probably how a lot of regulation start. we start off with just a little bit of a regulation here, and a whole new area, we will make it easy for you. how many regulations have started out that way? what is the situation in this country today with regulatory burden? i do not talk to any farmer and rancher that doesn't tell me how heavy the regulatory burden already is. frankly, i do not talk to anybody in any industry that doesn't tell me that the federal government continues to pass laws and add regulations to the point where we are making it very hard to do business. here we go, we're going to add a whole new area of regulation for our farmers and ranchers. you try toagain make it as simple and streamlined as possible, but it creates a whole new area where our farmers are going to have to undertake the regulatory compliance and burden has they have in so many other areas before. this amenity i'm offering is simple. it says says, no, we are not going to add -- amendment i am offering a simple. it says, no, we are not going to have this regulatory burden. if you participate in the crop insurance for graham, he will not be required to provide all the conservation compliance as well. >> thank you. any other comments on this amendment? i would just -- yes. >> this was my amendment on the floor last year. it reverts us back to the policy that was in place several years ago. we are getting more and more emphasis crop insurance. i do not disagree with that philosophy. farmers should comply with conservation if they are going to get assistance from the federal government. the amendment that i have proposed, last year, that was passed, that is not included in the bill, has the support of everybody from the national wildlife federation to the farm bureau. there is just a wide divergence of farm groups that are totally in support. i understand what my friend is saying, but folks are going to go to the office, they're going to take one trip, and they will take one more box. i simply haven't had the issue about howmy farmers much more difficult this provision will add to their operations. >> thank you very much. senator roberts? calm -- appreciate my the comments from my friend and colleague from georgia and the hard work of the chairwoman who had the industry to try to make a bad situation better. i have never supported the complaints. the battle cry for observation compliance, as stated by the seemsr from georgia, intrinsically to assume that toservation applies commodity programs with elimination of direct payments. that is just not true. we have conservation compliance that is attached to the arc program, the new farm revenue program, included in title one of the bill. conservation compliance is also attached to the marketing loan program. even cotton, which is not eligible, will have to comply with these requirements. to duplicate the same requirements and crop insurance is wasteful. it weighs taxpayer dollars at a time when we are working to find greater efficiencies in everything we do. and crop insurance system is ill suited for this type of compliance requirements. most farmers i talked to are required to have crop insurance in order to get an operating room for their farm every year. conservation compliance status is in question -- they minute -- they may not be able to purchase crop insurance. the inability to purchase crop insurance, given the times we are in, the third year of a drought, put their entire operation at risk. at the end of the day, these producers could be found to the imperfect hump line with the requirements, but a delay in the audit or any type of question about their sta could literally ruin their livelihood. we've made great strides in recent years and trying to improve crop insurance by tying conservation compliance, even as anompromise, would be enormous setback for our producers. i respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. >> thank you. senator hoven, let me indicate i appreciate particularly the challenges in north dakota. i have to oppose the amendment. this really would strike what is a historic agreement between the commodity and conservation organizations. i would ask for a no vote. all those in favor. all those opposed. >> no. >> the no's have it. it is not adopted. are there for the tournaments? >> i would ask that next we go to hoeven amendment number five. this is very simple. what i am trying to do is actually reduce the regulatory burden for our farmers and ranchers in a way that i think is very common sense and very simple. i think the problem we make so often -- it is not just in the egg or culture, but across the board -- we make it so difficult to do business that we actually end up not just penalize in the person, but the consumer. and about when you go into the .ank to get a home mortgage all the documentation you get. really, ask her self, who sits and reads through the rights -- yourself, who sits and reads through the documents and small print, versusall having simple, straightforward rules and regulations that are common sense so that they can be applied in a way that is understandable by the regulator and benefit consumers and not be such an incredible burden on our business people. that is the simple principle i bring it to amendment merck five. all it does is, under the farm program, you have to comply with all the conservation requirements. looks like we it will have to do that with crop insurance to. ok. can we at least have to make sure it is simple and understandable so that the farmers that are out there, trying to comply with all of this are able to do so? nrcs and fsae can go back, an unlimited number often these maps as to what their plan is supposed to be is changed, some are qualified, some are not, and they can be penalized for whatever number of years this look-back period by fsa is. it makes it very difficult and complex. it also puts farmers in the position where they do not know what the risk is. they could oh $1 million. they have no way to know for sure. all this provision does is it says, you can look back three years. even the irs gives us a five- year limitation on look back. this says, have a finite number of years a back so at least the farmer knows what the limitations are on his risk as he is trying to comply with these programs. it is that simple. it says to look back. period goes tok 5 years. [video clip] and>> i understand appreciate the dilemma your farmers are facing. i am concerned this amendment is written broadly and would have unintended consequences, potentially, but i want to work with you on this. we are monitoring the backlog nrcs, and they are making progress. there is more they need to do. if we work together, i think we can move together in a way that addresses what i know your concerns are. at this point, given where we are, and the importance of coming together with all the organizations, i would ask that we not support this amendment at this time. those in favor? those opposed? >> i'm going to try again. >> if i may, i'm going to try again. these go to hoeven amendment number one. amendmentgo to hoeven number one. >> i will see if i can get it can to point where we simple by something. i'm not sure we will. ok,ays, ok, -- this says, we will try to crop insurance now -- tie you to crop insurance now. you got an unlimited. period foreed compliance. inht now, it is very typical this takes the acres of the specific wetland that is found in noncompliance, multiplied by the average land grant for the counting question, for each year in question, as determined by the national agricultural service. multiplied by the number of years they are deemed not in compliance. it is just an effort to simplify the formula bayer ifnd not in compliance -- they are found not in compliance. this has no cost via cbo. , i appreciatetor what you are trying to do. i think the agreement with all the organizations moving forward on crop insurance does do an excellent job of simplifying and addressing the concerns you've raised. i think there is a broader discussion that we need to have around simplification and addressing how the traditional tie with conservation compliance works with the commodities. at this point, we do not know the ramifications. i'm concerned about what discuss -- this does to the agreement. i would ask for a no vote at this time. all those in favor? those opposed? the nays have it. any other amendments on the conservation title? >> to think so? >> senator height cap -- heitkamp? >> i'm speaking today for the these. -- the bees. [laughter] i'm supporting an amendment that ofld try to bring the focus pollinators into our conservation program. as you know, north dakota is the number one beekeeping state in the nation. this unique industry benefits not only my state but it provides economic opportunity and value added to agriculture am especially specialty crops, all across the country. we have had some struggles in the bee world. habitat is critically important. this amendment simply says, let's put some emphasis on that ist of our industry that so important not only to the honey producers, but also to every specialty crop in america. >> senator gillibrand? >> i would like to comment. honeybees are essential for agriculture. they are in crisis right now because relations are literally dying. more than $20 billion of annual harvests rely on public -- for nation by honeybees. there is no single cause of colony collapse disorder, but proper honeybee nutrition is a factor that is very important. this amendment is designed to promote good conservation practices that maximize benefits for honeybees. the pollinator amendment protection of honeybee populations as part of the conservation plan. our health has been effectively used in the past and are more cost-effective -- is more effective. for any state that has any crudes and vegetables, you know howessential making sure our honeybee situation -- population survives. there is no other man-made tool for the pollination process. as stewards of our grassland, farming communities, i urge support of this amendment. >> thank you very much. seeing no further discussion, -- >> madam chair, i wanted to point out. we reviewed the amendment and we think is a good amendment. support it. >> i do as well. i would encourage a yes vote. all those in favor? those opposed? the amendment is adopted. any other amendments to the conservation title? >> madam chairwoman, on behalf of senator lacy, -- leahy, i asked to put forward amendment number one. this movement is simple. there is currently a separate payment limit for certified organic farmers and farmers transitioning to organic who want to use the environmental wallet the incentive program. this is supported by the farm wildlifehe national federation, and the american farmland trust. i think everybody here can agree that all farmers the opportunity to access the natural resource conservation services program and technical assistance. simply put, this amendment creates equal opportunity for transitioning an existing or connect farm to access payment and harmonizes the existing. in doing so, not only does the amendment create a quality, but it also achieves administrative efficiencies for nrcs. , i hope you will support the straightforward amendment that creates administrative efficiencies and parity for our organic farmers unde. i would ask for your support for this amendment. >> thank you very much. i appreciate this amendment. at this point, i would ask that we not support is going forward. we've agreed to a set of payment limits of which this is a part of it. it was originally proposed by the organic community when it was put into place. it really goes to the larger question on payment limits that we already agreed to in the bill. at this point, i cannot support the amendment. >> madam, with that, i would withdraw the amendment. i would like to thank all the staff involved with this. i will engage with senator leahy. >> thank you for bringing it forward. senator hoeven? tridentine -- try again. [laughter] >> yes, thank you madame chairwoman. to continue on the theme, i will try to simple by the mets. as part of your compliance, the farmer is required -- this is amendment number two -- it is in regard to wetland certification maps. when a farmer does his compliance program, he has to have a wetlands certification map that he has to sign off and nrcs and fsa.h there are different qualifications for making sure that your ma approved. nrcs may say, yes, that's a wetland, or no. it was a wetland, and now it is not. as weather conditions change, the wetland certification can be changed, which makes it challenging for our farmers. again, we are trying to come up with rules to simple five the certification -- to simplify the certification process. nrcs came out to our state and was working on several proposals to simplify the certification process for these maps. that is this amendment and the next one i will offer. that if yousays had a wetland to when needed on mapp -- deliniated on a between december 1990 and nrcsber of 1996, and certified the map, then you can rely on it. because there is some question now. armors thought they had maps -- farmers that they had maps, but different local offices were doing their own thing. it was inconsistency across the country. if you had a map for that time, you can rely on that. the time is 1990-1996. it would save a lot of farmers a lot of heartache. i will ask for roll call call vote on this one. the senator from georgia who i respect very much suggested that i was having a little trouble getting the ayes and nays on the same timeline. on this one, i would ask for a roll call. >> manager? -- madam chair? >> this amendment would clarify an administrative issue that has generated confusion in terms of determining what is wetland compliance and what is not. i support the amendment, and urged the approval of it. >> thank you very much could senato -- much. senator, i understand what you are saying, hooking up the flooding in north to kota. i think you raised a set of issues that we need to have some further work on in nrcs. i oppose doing this on a piecemeal basis, but i commit to work with you on this because i think there are a number of issues on how this works that we should take a look at, make sure we do not have unintended consequences, but also address what are some real challenges for your farmers and for others. . oppose this at this point i would ask for a no vote. is an important discussion. i want to work with you on all these different issues and how they come together and are administered. senator? >> madame chair, i appreciate that. hope you will work with me on a number of these amendments which have not passed. on this amendment, i do ask for a roll call vote. [roll call] >> on that boat, there are 10 ayes and 10 nos. >> the amendment fails. >> madam chairwoman, we are getting closer. [laughter] it's moving the right way. >> i've got a feeling the end of this markup, you will be the one the gold star for effort. thank you. in all seriousness, i want to work with you on what i know arson challenging administrative issues. i think if you, talk to farmers on the ground, and ranchers, they want some help with the regulatory burden. i think i've made the point, i -- i hope we can do something to help them. >> are there any other amendments to the conservation title? seeing none, the conservation title is closed. we will now proceed to title iii, the trade title. do we have any amendment to the trade title? trade title ise closed. title x, the horticulture title. do we have any amendments? senator gillibrand? >> this is basically a simple, get rid of the red tape for apple producers. it is a no cost, commonsense amendment that will help apple farmers in the northeast that export apples to canada. the amendment a sickly eliminates a redundant -- a sickly eliminates a redundant federal program while expediting the exporting of apples. apple growers in new york and michigan pay up to $300 higher to export for each inspection. this onerous regulations based on a provision that dates back to 1933. elimination of the required inspection would immediately offer savings to growers of approximately $300 or truck load. additionally, removing this regulation will allow apple growers to distribute the product on their own schedule without working around aussie after-hours inspection procedures, providing them opportunities to streamline operations. canada constitutes the second country receiving u.s. apples. in 2011, total u.s. apple exports were valued at $987.1 million. it states apple growers like a large role in the economic develop of our region. this exception will allow them to -- to continue their contribution to america's agricultural prowess and economic recovery. this is a no-cost amendment. it saves farmers money. i asked for voice vote? vote. for a voice >> let me just say that the new boat has changed after the caucus lunches at 12:30. if it is possible to move through and get a final vote, i want to put everybody on notice that we will need a quorum of the committee to do a final vote. now we are on the gillibrand amendment. >> > i wanted to voice my suppot for this amendment. this amendment will save administrative burden and several hundreds of thousands of dollars for apple growers. senator from new york and chair, but i support this amendment. senator donnelly? >> as a senator who is very close to the state of michigan and to the whole region of apple growers, i would like to lend my support to this as well. >> madame chair? this amendment would eliminate ivee costly duplicate o inspection programs for apples being exported to canada. it was created to ensure that apples and pears were of sufficient quality. this amendment is no longer needed because of advances that have been made. it would create unnecessary expense and delay for producers and shippers if it is not agreed to. >> thank you very much. anyone else on the amendment? if not, all those in favor? those opposed? the amendment is adopted. thank you. do we have further amendment to title 10, the horticulture title? -- ot, on behalf of senator bennett who had to leave, we do have one .ther amendment this is bennett amendment number four that i would ask the called up -- be called up. this relates to promotion programs. it would give organic producers the opportunity to promote your products. on a promotion programs has been a valuable tool for producers. these programs are driven by farmers helping bring industries together to support common goals in research and promotion. the organic farming sector is very important. it is a growing sector. this amendment supports this growth by allowing the industry to engage in research and promotion that benefits the industry and encourages continued economic growth. of the ask for support bennett amendment number four. all those in favor? those opposed? the amendment is adopted. senator bennett, you can back into the room after i did that for you. your amendment has passed. thank you very much. do we have further amendment to the oracle to title -- horticulture title? ,e will move not to title seven the research extension and related matters title. do we have any amendments? seven isne, title closed. title five, the credit title. do we have amendments for the credit title? >> chairwoman, i would ask unanimous consent to replace the original amendment number four with the following amendment? >> please proceed with your description of your amendment. >> this a moment authorizes lending him all farm service agency credit programs to farmers and ranchers producing for local and regional food markets. to develops the fsa unit prices or other alternative forms of valuation to this locate went into these operations and to do special outreach to these attention of our -- borrowers. there was some concern that the original commitment extended fsa eligibility lending to mid tier and other local and regional market outlook. this replacement exit clear that it only applies to full- time family farmers. to be clear, the fsa eligibility is not expanded. studies have proved that local and regional food markets, networks, can stabilize community architect create permanent jobs. in addition to creating jobs, local and regional food markets and networks can improve health outcomes i creating greater out -- greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables. before i conclude, i would also like to thank senator brown, his staff for his leadership in supporting regional farmers. this provision was included in the local farm come of food, and jobs act. hopefully we can see this provision included in the bill today. chairwoman, i would ask for a voice vote in support of this amendment. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the modifications and support the amendment with the modification. are there any other? theor the record, indication is that the amendment is going to be agreed to with the chairwoman support. i think there are some -- chairwoman's support. i think there are some questions as to whether a new valuation is necessary for local produce good i do not know that the record contains any evidence that that is true. this a moment would create a new loan officer training program. there is no real description of what that involves and how much it is going to cost. for the record, i would like to be recorded as opposed to the amendment. >> thank you very much. any other discussion on the amendment? all those in favor? those opposed? the ayes have it. are there any other amendments to the credit title? none, the credit title is closed. we will now move to title vi, the rule development title. >> i would like to call up brown amendment number one. thatamendment locally identified economic development priorities right usa -- usda world of element. -- rural development. too often that agency is top- d withoutstovepipe making any changes to existing programs. this amendment would direct a pro -- a portion of certain development funds topping communities create longer-term strategies for economic growth, rather than back owning budgets. instead of fund the one-time purchase of a fire truck, rural development should help communities generate economic andvity necessary to grow one day finance their own firetrucks. this amendment does not make changes to existing rural development programs. it doesn't cost a dime. it's about reviving usda rural development with flex ability to make smart investments, have a larger impact. i asked for a voice vote. >> madame chairman? this amendment expands a section of the rural development title that fulfills the goal of using limited grant dollars to fund projects that will have significant and pack in a region-- impact in a that could benefit a large number of people. i'm prepared to recommend that we support senator brown's amendment. >> thank you very much great i support it as well. are there any other comments? all those in favor? those opposed? commitment is adopted. are there any other rural development title commitments at this time? the rurale, development title is closed. we will move to title it, before street -- the forestry title. any amendment to the fore street title -- forestry title? seeing none, the title is closed. title ix, the energy title. seeing no amendments, the energy title is closed. title iv, the nutrition title? if there are no amendments to the nutrition title, senator brown? >> i would like to call up ron amendment number two, authored gillibrand, cowan, and leahy. from crop insurance to snap, this bill provides a safety net for american farmers and american families. since this bill cuts for billing dollars from snap funding, and iser nutrition programs, it even more critical for a large number of mostly working families, at a time when more than 2 million ohioans within households that struggle to put food on the table, and you're struggling with unemployment, and those who have jobs, many have seen wages decline. talking of cutting nutrition programs is the wrong way to go at this time in our country. our amendment would restore the $194 million funding gap in the funding for three key nutrition programs in the bill we are considering today. and on the floor of the senate last year had moved in the right direction on this. i asked to restore this funding and asked for support of the amendment. thank you very much. do we have other discussion? thank you, madam chair. i offer my support for senator brown's amendment. as a cosponsor and someone deeply concerned and appreciative about the importance of these benefits to so many in our nation, i think this is an important amendment. in massachusetts, there are over 800,000 food insecure individuals, including 235,000 children. while we are recovering from recession, many americans remain out of work with unemployment still high. programs like snap are essential. long-term unemployment is still at record highs. over 37% of unemployed individuals are out of work, have been out of work for six months or longer. to talk about cutting food nutrition programs to these citizens and residents of the nation at this difficult time is inappropriate, respectfully, and i join with senators brown, gillibrand to restore the funding for these programs for those who are in the greatest need. theserstand the value of programs, having been in the family with me. i urge adoption. >> i would also support senator brown's amendment. i have spent a lot of time traveling around the state, meeting with different community leaders, and i've met with a number of people who run food banks today. they have said because of this tough economy, not only has the number of people who have come to their food bank increased, largely driven by families with children, but they've also said because the economy has been hit so hard, the amount of food they are actually being given in terms of donations is the client. far greater need, less resources than previous, and a need that is not being met, even when we see unemployment numbers go down, the need for food assistance has not. that has a lot to do with the type of recovery we've seen in the type of recovery we have not seen in the economy. too many families are working to hours,rs -- too few jobs with lower. -- with lower pay. i think we should restore all caps to this program. again, when we make our judgments about how to balance our budget, how to cut spending, tightening our belts around the waist of our children is not a shared american priority. we should decline to cut spending in these programs. i support the amendment. >> i appreciate the efforts you have made on holding the line in the last farm bill that the senate passed. i know what people in the hospital to do. i'm not going to ask for a vote on this, either voice or recorded vote, but i want to echo something that senator gillibrand said. i've been to food banks and probably 20 different places in ohio over the past five years. what's happened is that people who used to contribute food to food banks are now coming there to get food. serious public-health problem. it is a a serious problem for individual families. i'm hopeful that we can work together to find a way to restore these cuts. for billing dollars is enough. i'm not going to ask for a vote on this. i'm hopeful that senators cowan amendmentrand and my can reach broad consensus in this committee and on the floor. >> senator chambliss? >> let me just say that i am in sympathy with senator brown and others who have spoken in favor of restoring this, but i also empathize with the chair and trying to find the money that we've been dictated to find. the food banks in my state are busier than ever. the guy that runs the atlanta food bank, he is a hero to me, the job they do there is amazing. let me just say that i do not know how we deal with this, but i look forward to working with you so we get back to the floor. if there is anyway to try to figure this out, i agree. maybe we cannot get it all back, but whatever we can do, i think we should give it a good shot. , senator.ou a cruciate your comments. i do think this is a critical area. -- i appreciate your comments. i do think this is a critical area. am supportive of what you are proposing to do and i'm very optimistic that we can address this, because it needs to be addressed. thank you very much. are there other amendments in title iv? >> i would like to offer amendment number two. first i want to explain how this bill works. abouthas been a debate whether the programs that are liheap as a way to demonstrate that the family is in need of food assistance is somehow a loophole or somehow providing assistance to families who do not need it. that is absolutely untrue. is if youis works live in the city -- for a lot of people who represent rural states, they may not know what lks like -- if you live in a city, you are often in a rent controlled apartment or an apartment where heating is included. imagine as a young person living contractgton, your and said he'd and electricity included. heat and electricity included. so if you're in a low-income family, you do not pay a heating bill every month. . it is included in your rent. policymakerss and decided, well, just beside -- just because you're a hard- working person that is not have a heating bill you paid uniquely, you're still eligible to receive food stamps under the efficiencies. because the way we try to make government more efficient, if you are a low income, hard- working family, and you qualify for assistance under one federal program, we do not make you fill out the paperwork again. we do not make you say -- you need to prove you are earning $20,000 a year again. they just say -- you qualify, you are at the par party level