$6,400 more under the ryan republican tea party budget. $6,400 more, while tax cuts will continue to go to people making over $1 million a year. big tax cuts going there. maybe as much as $400,000. so, yeah. we agree that middle income tax cuts are important. where's we disagree is where the -- on the issue of fairness. >> -- paid for from just what speaker boehner is calling the slush fund? >> it may about slush fund to him but it's viable to women. it's survival to women and that just goes to show what you a luxury he thinks it is to have good health for women. we do not agree. >> democrats support by republicans [ inaudible ] authorization, hispanic res and [ inaudible ]. >> we're hoping we can get the

bill done. we'll see what the senate passes today, and i think if there's bipartisan support for the senate version, that speaks to why shouldn't we -- why would we want to support a bill that says we don't have violence against women, except certain women, it's okay? no. we want the bill to look very much like the senate bill. >> madam speaker -- >> yes. >> [ inaudible ]. >> this week there was an instance of mad cow disease found in your home state. do you think it's desirable or necessary to test all cattle as they do in japan? >> i don't know. i think that with the -- we had some initial conversations about the extent of this. i think it's pretty contained,

but, again, i haven't had a full briefing on it, and i'll give you some thoughts on it when i get a better briefing as to what it is, but so far, the report i had from my state, california, is that it's pretty contained. but we'll see. again, you take us to a place where there is a government role that is appropriate, and one of the things when people say, how come you all can't come to agreement on things? well, because we have a difference of opinion about what the role, the public role is. and clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public transportation, public education, public health, medicare, medicaid, social security. you've heard me say that before, and if there is no public role, or enforcement of regulations in that regard, it's very lard har come to common ground to say you

want none. we can't agree with that. but that's what they call common ground. so we'll take a look at the particulars there, but i don't -- i don't really know enough about anything beyond the statement i made to you. yes, ma'am? >> cyber security, [ inaudible ] said that the privacy changes that the white house wants are a non-starter with internet companies, quite often cyber attacks. we're wondering what you think of the bill and whether you are going to vote for it or you share the white house's concerns? >> well, i don't -- again, with all due respect to each of you when you make a contention that somebody said whatever, i'd have to see what his statement was on the subject. but i do know this, because i spent many years on the intelligence committee. the threat of a cyber attack is a real one to our country. the response to it has to have balance, security and freedom. the bill that is before us

obviously has, there are some concerns among our members and certainly with the white house about some of the privacy provisions. issues that also relate to liability, immunity for some of these bcompanies, but we do hav to have a bill and recognize the publish-private partnership in it. any real attempt to deal with cyber security, though, must also address this critical infrastructure aspects of this, and that's the utilities and the rest. that is not the jurisdiction of the intelligence committee. it is the jurisdiction of the homeland security committee. in their deliberations, in their subcommittee, they put forth a bill that did address the critical infrastructure in subcommittee and in a bipartisan way. when it went up to full committee, the republican leadership stripped the critical infrastructure aspect of provisions out of the bill. very dangerous. you might want to ask them why.

you may want to ask them why that knowing how important the critical infrastructure provisions were, knowing they had bipartisan support and having the republicans vote against their own amendments, their own amendments, because they got orders from headquarters they did not want the regulation of the ulgtiliti necessary to truly protect us from a cyber attack. so the white house has expressed some concerns. we're reviewing those an looking at the impact of the -- the amendments has tha have been made in order. i'm not satisfied that they go-- that they approved enough of them. i do salute the chairman of the committee, mr. rogers, and the ranking member, mr. rukersberger, the republican and democratic leadership of the committee for trying to work together -- >> we're leaving the last couple minutes of this to go back live to the senate agriculture committee, which is marking up the farm bill that would cut subsidies to farmers and replace

them with stronger crop insurance. speaking right now, senatklobuc >> number two in spring wheat, corn and spring wheat, three in hogs and soybean and four in corn. i'm going to be in trouble for saying we're number two in corn and i just want to clarify the record that we are number four in corn. i spent the last year traveling across our state to talk about this farm bill and how important it is to our state. no matter what i go i'm reminded of the important role that agriculture plays in our state's economy. you could say that agriculture is the ultimate made in minnesota industry, but it is also made in michigan. it's made in kansas. it's made in iowa. this is really about our country. i mean, when you look at states like minnesota, unemployment only at 5.8%. much as we want it to get even better, a lot of that has to do with our rural economy that stayed strong through the

downturn and the inner relationship between that rural economy and many of our companies that are in the twin cities and throughout. the other piece of this that is so significant we've seen in some markets like a 20% increase in agriculture exports. so it is really the way that we want to see for the rest of the country, an agriculture, it's leading the way. that's why there is so much at stake in the 2012 farm bill, and that's why it is so important for us to craft a strong and effective bill that gets the job done for america's farmers and a rural economy. now, it is no secret we are operating within a tough budget climate. but that doesn't make the goal of maintaining a strong farm safety net or a safe nutritious and abundant domestic food supply any less critical. this year we have been clarnged with doing more with fewer resources, eliminated direct payments and further focused farm payments on our family farmers. also worked to eliminate fraud and waste throughout the farm bill to ensure that these

programs are efficient and targeted. while i think that our farmers in the agriculture community understand that there have been and will be some tough choices, i am strongly opposed to proposals that would basically take the rug ow from under rural america. drastic cuts that would actually hurt not only the rural economy but our country's economy as a whole. the last thing we want to see is our country dependent on foreign food in the same way that we have way too many years been dependent on foreign oil. i believe we need to build on the success of the last farm bill while continuing to improve and strengthen certain provisions. the bipartisan mark we are considering today strengthens anden continues many of the programs that farmers rely on across this country. this includes a strong farm safety net and for many producers in minnesota, this means crop insurance. in the mark i work to strength the crop insurance program and make it for accessible to underserved commodities and

specialty crops. the mark also includes a continuation of the costs-free sugar program and protects the conservation programs. minnesota producers used to keep our soil healthy and water clean. specifically i worked to ensure that local communities like the red river valley reach been have the tools that they need to address conservation challenges stemming from flooding. the mark also preserves the essential nutrition programs that millions of families and children rely on every day and we take steps to ensure that our dairy farmers have the protections they need in today's volatile market. again, i want to thank chairwoman stam n.o.benow and r member roberts for putting forward this mark. i look forward to strengthening this bill further. on monday i filed and amendment bringing farmers into the program increasing subsidy to purchase crop insurance coverage. because i believe the people who

grow our food deserve to know that their livelihoods can't be sucked away in the blink of an eye either by market failures or international disasters. i also filed an amendment with senators joe hancebaucus and hoven to allow beginning farmers to use crp acres for grazing without a penalty. i believe this goes a long way in building the next generation of farmers and we need to help our farmers in the midwest helping reduce our dependents on oil cartels in the mideast. that's why i strongly support funding for the energy title to help provide incentives for home-grown energy production. this is a vital industry and many states supporting thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic growth. we immediate to be sure our energy innovators have a center and stability to develop the next generation of home-grown energy. finally, i believe we need to do more to invest in the future of american agriculture through provisions for the beginning farmers and ranchers program and in promoting new public-private

research opportunities. every single american has a direct stake in the success of our farms and food business. through the food we eat, the water we drink, the fuel we put in our cars and the air we breathe, each an every one of us in this country is connected to the land. while i know this bill isn't perfect and there are areas where i'm sure we're going to work together, i know we've all heard from farmers and ranchers in our states about the importance of passing a five-year farm bill that gives our producers in rural communities a center thrtainty need to grow and prosper. i believe this is one of the reasons we've seen so much stability in the rural economy in a time of great upheaval in our economy. there's been certainty, a five-year window. the bill ten years ago was similar to the bill five years ago. while this bill contains significant cuts, the basic model is similar to what it's been. all of that provides consistency for investment and the rural

economy. this is not just about rural america. look at those export numbers. look at what it's meant to our country, and look at what it means to our country every day to have our strong own domestic food supply. that is what this is about. i'm looking forward to working with chairwoman stabenow and ranking member roberts and all of my colleagues on the committee to craft a successful 2012 farm bill that strengthens this vital sector of the american economy. thank you very much. >> okay. we'll start.

we'll briefly adjourn the hearing. thank you.

we're waiting for the agriculture committee to continue their markup of the farm bill. some of the senators have returned including the top republican on the committee, pat roberts. as we wait, we're going to hear from a reporter who's covering the hearing talking about what's happening with the bill. chuck abbott is on capitol hill covering the farm bill for reuters. what are a few 6 changes in the bill?

>> well, excuse me, most notably, the proposal being put, given to the committee by chairman stabenow supporting a new farm support system. since the 1930s farm support has been based on governments attempts to prop up market prices. and with the, within the last six or seven years we've run a very high market price. record high prices, and there's a -- the belief that a new system would about better choice, and this new system would be an assurance-like program which would protect farmer revenue against low prices and the effect of bad yields, or bad weather. so that it's a more comprehensive approach to farm supports than has been used since farm subsidies began. that's the big thing in what's calmed the commodity title.

in the conservation portion of the bill, less land set aside for long-term -- for long periods of time, and more attention will be paid on what is called working lands. the land that produces crops, and the idea is that there would be more of a focus of lower cost supports that encourages farmers to practice soil, water and wildlife conservation, as part of producing crops. >> sounds like a major change. how are groups reactsing to it? what kind of lobbying is happening? >> well, if you know the markup was delayed a day because some of the group, particularly southern producers, rice and peanuts, were unhappy with what was in the bill. the approach that chairwoman stabenow is taking to what is called a shallow laws revenue protection program is most

popular in the midwest, which means it appeals to corn and soybean growers the most. it has some support from wheel gr wheat growers. less popular in the south where growers say, crop insurance has not been a good deal for them. so creating another program similar to crop insurance may have it's drawbacks. rice growers particularly were upset because there is very little in the bill offered for them back in the fall during this super committee process. they -- the leaders of the house and senate agriculture committees tried balancing this all off, saying, okay, some crops a higher guaranteed price for their product, and give other crops, you know, the chance to use this revenue program. but the higher target prices were taken out of the bill that was being presented to the committee. >> the bill is some 900 pages

long. >> right. >> can you give us an idea of the scope of the bill? how many people does it impact? >> oh, well, one could say that it impacts everybody in the eve united states because it affects food production. that's a simple and rather large way of defining it. it effects people people's environmental protections. there's also a nutrition section which is food stamps, now is called the supplemental nutrition assistance program. that affectings around one in seven or one in eight americans right now because of the high unemployment rate. if it's called engineering, it must be attempts to develop

bioenergy particularly this case would be second generation. biofuels they come up with biomass crops that could be another way for farmers to make money aside from traditional food crops. the bill has more than a dozen titles. research projects, there's food international food aid programs. there's export promotion programs. there's programs to encourage farmers overseas to grow more food themselves so they don't have to rely on, you know, international aid when they run short on food. it is -- it is an incredibly expansive bill. >> chuck abbott is a commodities coronet for reuters on capitol hill covering the farm bill. thank you. >> you're welcome.

>> so our culture committee chairman has returned to the markup. we're waiting for her to gavel it back into session. some news reports say there could be as many as 100 amendments to the farm bill.

>> we're going to proceed to the guide looips according to what we have agreed and shared with your members and staffs last week. i would also note the presence of a quorum. i should ask, do we have any member who did not make an opening statement? i think everyone hered a the opportunity. do we have someone? is senator conklin here? any member that wants to make an opening statement once we arrived. it's now in order to consider the substitute amendment. we all have the substitute on your desks along with the complete score which we received early this morning.

and without objection the amount is considered read and once adopted will be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment without objection. so ordered. i'm happy that we've been able to work with members on both sides of the aisle to incorporate a very significant number of your amendments into the package. this is truly a bipartisan package as members have talked about this morning. i would urge my colleagues to agree to adopt it so that we can move forward with the mark. senator roberts, did you have any comments? >> no, ma'am. i just want to thank you very much. >> thank you. thanks very much. is anyone seeking recognition? >> madam chair, i was not going to be in support of the amendment for the reasons that you and i have talked about. but there's one other thing i did not realize because we didn't get to see the amendment until very early this morning and i didn't know until the comments were made earlier about

the inclusion in the manager's amendment of the change many the definition of actively engaged in farming. this is a huge change that's going to impact every single farm in america because it's going to change who does qualify and who doesn't. i think that's a huge mistake. that's just another reason why unfortunately i can't support the amendment. >> this was one of the amendments filed before the deadline and we had a walk through. your concern will be noted. appreciate it. anyone have comments right now on the managers package essentially substitute that we have? if not, all those in favor would

say aye, those opposed nay. the ayes have it in opinion of the chair. the reflect will reflect senator chambliss and bozeman -- and senator conklin's approximaty will be noted as a no vote. thank you very much. at this point, we're going to proceed with the titles in the order that we release to staff. we'll start with what is called the miscellaneous title. title 12, title is the of the allegation reform job and foods act includes critical programs

to keep our food supplies safe including efforts to fight bovine tb and ferrell swine. it supports our workforce development. our veterans who have bravely faced our nation now want to get involved in farming. we'll have more support to do that as well as support for underserved farmers. we are at a point now where this title is open to amendment. is there anyone that seeks recognition. >> i would ask that my amendment number 17 be distributed. >> amendment number 17. >> while it's being distributed the amendment to the h 2 a program for allegation workers. i highlight this and i won't ask for a vote on it today. i withdraw the amendment, but i think it's of critical importance that we discuss this issue within the discussion of

the farm bill because everyone is having the same problem. the only guest worker program out there is the h 2 a program which is very cumbersome. most of our farmers don't want to go through the hassle. times have changed and changed in a dramatic way. whether you're farming specialty crops or running an agriculture business, you need to be able to depend on a quality supply of legal workers at your farm or at your ag place of business. we have crafted over a period of time what's called the harvest act.

basically it makes it more workable. more farmer friendly. it says a farmer can bring in labor from outside the country for ten months. they then have to go back for two months. they don't have to be here for ten months. most farmers bring in workers for 90 days, 120 days whatever their particular need is. then the workers have to go back. this allows them to stay in longer. the reason for doing that is that today dairy folks have a very difficult problem using h 2 a. it doesn't work for them. while this doesn't do everything our landscape operators want to see done, it would allow those farms and those businesses to take advantage of this and through management of bringing folks in, they'd be able to have th