probably think is an urban state has vast poor areas and prosperous areas that are rural. we have in northwest ohio pretty prosperous farmers. in other areas we don't, that look more like senator cochran's state perhaps than what you might expect in ohio. here's roughly what this would do. $100 million to address the wastewater backlog. many of you have dealt with the issue in small communities. $25 million for value-added producer grants, and $25 million for the rural microentrepreneur assistance program. these are all programs that most of us on this committee have supported. i would ask the committee to agree to this because i think it really will make major inroads into what we can do in rural america. >> senator roberts. >> thank you, madam chair. >> one more thing. it will be budget neutral. that's the whole point. it would only be money left over

that's not spoken for that would go into a place we haven't done as well in the past. we've all said before we'd like to do rural development better than we have. i apologize. thank you, madam chair. >> senator, if i could make a suggestion, we have had a little bit of a blood pressure of what's mandatory and what isn't. more especially, in several of the programs. more especially in ag research than other titles. i am wondering under the circumstances if you would agree to work with the chairwoman and myself on this specific issue and your suggestion, and we're looking it over right now. and work with us and see if we can't maybe address this on the floor. >> absolutely. i'm very open to adjusting all of these priorities that i know my colleagues all share in both parties. absolutely.

thank you. >> i think this is -- certainly this is something that i support, but i would appreciate if we could do this on the floor and have a better sense of it. senator conrad? >> i'd ask you to inquire of the senator, is this mandatory money? >> this would be, yes. >> well, the concern i'd have is, we just provided the entire offset for the energy title, $800 million mandatory money that was out of what was left. and what i don't know, is there this additional sum still remaining? you know, we -- we had a funding mechanism for energy that we altered in deference to senator chambliss so that all the mandatory funding came in the balance that we had remaining. and so i just don't want to have

us find ourselves in a situation we spent the money twice. and that would be a concern i have because i don't have an up-to-date run. perhaps our economist does or other staff members do. but i do think we have to guard against creating an expectation that we've spent more money than we really have available. >> madam chair. >> if i might just indicate in terms of we're looking at the numbers right now. we do know that we've hit our $23 billion commitment and slightly over, but we don't know how much over. and so i think it's reasonable for us to have a chance to take a look at this, make sure. we made a commitment on $23 billion in deficit reduction. we need to make sure we've hit that point. and at the same time, i think you raise really important issue. senator brown? >> thank you, madam chair. i concur with your comments, senator roberts and senator conrad. in a sense, this is second in line. the energy, the energy dollars. we were told by staff that with

no absolute specificity, there was about $1 billion as of last night scored extra above the $23 billion. the first 800 roughly goes to energy title. that's fine. i'm not disputing that. this would go after that. if there's $120 million, if there's $20 million left, whatever, we would go after that and then do this. >> senator conrad? >> one other point that i think we all have to remind ourselves of is this. with respect to rural development mandatory money, our appropriators often take that money and chimp it. changes in mandatory programs. and so we provide money that we never get. so i do think we want to keep that in mind what our friends in the appropriations do, especially in rural development funding. not that there's anything wrong with what you appropriators do. not that there's anything wrong

with that. >> senator conrad -- or senator cochran, if you'd like. >> i'm not sure if we're amplifying, but what i was going to say is, you know, you need to take note of the fact that there's money in here for microentrepreneurs, and i was going to ask if that was geographically based or what. it seems to us that we're getting a little bit and some of the others are getting a whole lot more, and they're called macroentrepreneurships in black and white, but it doesn't say the regions are different. as a practical matter, i would bet that you most of the rei microentrepreneurs, there are more in mississippi than nebraska. >> there are, madam chair, six of us on this committee that are on appropriations including some

very powerful members. while all of them more powerful than i, since the last appropriations. and we have -- and i'm on that subcommittee. and senator cochran's influence, and we all -- microenterprise and others -- will be looking out for rural interests on that appropriations committee. >> thank you very much. senator roberts. >> madam chairman, the chairman has spoken. so nothing much else, you know, needs to be said. but i'll say it anyway. in my opening statement, i said we were over $24 billion. and i was pretty proud of that. very close to $25 billion. now, we made some adjustments that we think are proper under the issue of fairness. i understand that there are a lot of folks who don't think that that is the case, but we -- and i'm not at all casting any aspersions in their direction. but if i'm saying we're over $24 billion and now we're over $23 billion and we don't know exactly where but at least we're

$23 billion, i want to make sure we do not go below the $23 billion which was offered to the super committee sometime ago. so i think under the banner of caution and the remarks by the distinguished chairman, that we'd better -- and the senator from north dakota -- you know, let's take a look at this. and let's work on it. but let's, you know, wait until the floor. >> debbie? >> senator stone. >> madam chairwoman, yeah, back here in the corner. i agree with that, and i don't think there's anything wrong with us being north of $23 billion in savings. and i don't think we ought to just think we've got to spend it down to get to $23 billion. the score we have right now or the score we got this morning at $24.7 billion, i think speaks well for this committee that we went above what was actually sort of expected in terms of what we are going to save. and so i appreciate the effort to find ways in which to allocate resources, but i also

think that it's really important particularly as we head to the floor that we have a good strong mark and that we not compromise that or put it in jeopardy by doing, you know, adding amendments here until we find out what final scores are actually could take us in the opposite direction. i think right now a very big priority for this committee needs to be contributing to the deficit reduction that we all know is so important for the country. >> thank you. senator roberts. >> madam chairman, pardon me, chairwoman, this is only the second time i've done that. i apologize. at any rate, senator lugar's not here, but i know our sugar policy is important to him. and i know he will continue to work on the floor on that particular program. >> thank you very much. all right. we have closed all of our titles. so we are at a point now for final vote. and with the majority of the committee present, the question now occurs on reporting the committee print to the full

senate as amended. all those in favor indicate by saying aye. >> aye. >> senator chambliss has asked for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll. >> senator roberts. >> aye. >> senator lugar. >> no objection. >> senator cochran. >> no. >> senator mcconnell. >> no by proxy. >> senator chambliss. >> no. >> senator johanns. >> aye. >> senator bozeman. >> no. >> senator grassley. >> aye. >> just in time. >> senator? >> aye.

>> senator hovan. >> aye. >> senator leahy. >> aye by proxy. >> senator harkin? >> aye by proxy. >> senator conrad. >> aye. >> senator baucus. >> aye. >> senator nelson. >> aye. >> senator brown. >> aye. >> senator casey. >> aye by proxy. >> senator klobuchar. >> aye. >> senator bennett. >> aye. >> senator gillibrand. >> no. >> chairwoman stabenow. >> aye. >> the total tally of senators present is 12 ayes, four nos. >> a majority of the committee being present and having voted in the affirmative, the committee print is ordered and

reported to the senate as amended. i want to -- >> madam chair? >> -- without objection, let me just say the committee counsel is authorized to make technical and conforming changes consistent with the actions of the committee. and i want to thank everyone again for perfect work. >> madam chair? >> yes. >> i think there were five nos. >> yes. >> would the clerk repeat the final tally? >> sure. the total tally -- >> four present. one by proxy. >> i'm sorry. thank you, madam chair. >> let me just say in conclusion, again, this is a very historic day to have not only the major reforms we have but over $23 billion in deficit reduction. i don't know another committee that's worked together in a bipartisan basis to provide something that works for our ranchers, our farmers, consumers, taxpayers, those all across america and at the same

time provides the kind of deficit reduction that we have. so we're addressing the needs of american agriculture. and don't forget, it's 16 million jobs. so thank you very, very much for all of your support and helping getting to this point. the meeting's adjourned.

and senators and senate staffers of the agriculture committee making their way out of committee room in one of the senate office buildings. the agriculture committee has finished its work on the farm bill today. it would end direct cash payments to farmers, saving $50 billion over the next decade. most of that me program to pay farmers if crop and commodity prices fall below a certain level. politico reports that senate majority leader harry reid has signaled he is ready to devote senate floor time to the bill. now that it is out of committee. also on capitol hill today, house speaker john boehner spoke to reporters. he criticized president obama's two-day trip to universities to talk about student loan interest rates. speaker boehner called the president's trip, quote, a political stunt, end quote.

and accused the president for campaigning on the taxpayers' dime. inchsz morning, everyone. >> morning. >> families and small businesses that ran our country are still struggling in this economy, and many are continuing to ask, where are the jobs? the clear difference in the focus of the two parties right now, republicans focused on jobs and the economy, passing nearly 30 bills blocked by the senate. the president and his party have a different focus, and it's about politics and not about the american people. last month a democrat leader in the senate explained to the press how his party planned to exploit the violence against women act for political gain. and as politico reported, senate

democrats wanted the manufacturer to refuse republicans to waging a war against women and provide fodder for a campaign ad. but the white house, it seems, is also entirely devoted to this type of petty politics. this week the president traveled across the country on taxpayers' dime at a cost of $179,000 an hour, insisting that congress fix a problem that we were already working on. frankly, i think this is beneath the dignity of the white house. democrats and republicans knew that this was going to take effect. democrats and republicans fully expected this would be taken care of. and for the president to make a campaign issue out of this and then to travel to three battleground states and go to

three large college campuses on taxpayers' money to try to make this a political issue is pathetic. and his campaign ought to be reimbursing the treasury for the cost of this trip. our country's facing some major economic and fiscal challenges. yet here's the president wasting time on a fake fight to try to gain his own re-election. these are the types of political stunts and frankly they aren't worth and worthy of his office. this is the biggest job in the world. and i've never seen the president make it smaller. the president keeps attempting to invent these fake fights because he doesn't have a record of success or a positive agenda for our country. it's as simple as this. the emperor has no clothes. they can't talk about their record on jobs because their policies have made the economy worse. they can't talk about their record on spending because the

president's policies have added $5 trillion to the national debt. and they can't talk about their record on gas prices because gas prices have more than doubled on the president's watch. republicans have listened to the american people. we've got a better plan. our plan to help american job creators continues to be our focus. we've got over 30 bills that are awaiting action in the united states senate. this week we'll pass four more bills to stop cyber terrorism. we're also moved to conference this week on a highway bill that includes the keystone pipeline, a common-sense measure that would keep us from sending north american energy to china and create thousands -- tens of thousands of jobs here in our country. republicans have taken on the tough issues that face our country. and we've offered solutions to solve them. and i would urge the president and some democrat leadership to show some courage and to join

us. questions. >> mr. speaker. representatives ted deutsche and jim mcgovern have introduced constitutional amendments are for natural persons only, not corporations. do you agree with that? do you support amending the constitution in that way? >> amending the constitution is a serious matter. and i'm not sure what they're attempting to get at. but i'll take a look at it when i see it. >> dr. boehner, cbs news. >> nancy pelosi said a couple minutes ago that using this preventative health fund is going to hurt women's health. i want to hear your sense on that. do you believe that this doesn't affect any sort of issue with women's health? >> well, we've already taken $4 billion out of this funds. it was used to help pay for the payroll tax credit. many democrats voted for it. the president signed it into law. so i think they've made clear the precedent is there that they

don't believe that this money is essential to their program. that's why it's being made for here. >> mr. speaker -- >> have you spoken to anyone associated with the romney campaign? >> it's been a while. i've made it a habit to not talk to the candidates or their campaigns during this process. >> there's no coordination, though, with your recent attacks refuting the president that it's almost like you're doing rym's bidding for the group. >> i'm doing my own. >> mr. speaker. >> last week's acting director of omb sent a letter to appropriators saying it's basically the top line agreed to and the president would veto. >> blah, blah, blah. so? >> that's your official response? >> mr. speaker -- >> all right. calm down. calm down. i'll call on you. relax. >> thank you. dr. john lapook, cbs news. over a year ago the preserving

act as to life-saving medication act was first introduced. it was one of three nonpartisan bills with the idea of giving the fda more teeth to try to handle the drug shortage crisis, a crisis that involves children not being able to have access to medications that could save their lives. my question to you is after one year, it still hasn't -- none of these three bills have been brought to the floor. my question is, mr. speaker, why is it that legislation that everybody agrees is desperately needed is taking so long to pass? >> well, the congress is working on this. the senate is getting ready to move a bill. the energy and commerce committee is getting ready to mark up a bill in early may. there's a bipartisan proposal they've been working on that would help the fda and the drug companies to meet these shortages. but i would also ask, where's the administration been? where's the president of the united states been? where's his proposal? why hasn't he talked about this,

something that's critically important to our country, as opposed to creating all these fake issues, that he's running around the country dealing with? >> when we spoke to legislators, they told us to talk to you about leadership. >> i respect -- i respect the committee process. i respect the committee process. and the committees have their work to do to investigate this. and i'm confident that the energy and commerce committee in a bipartisan way will deal with this issue. >> aren't you able to speed it up? >> when it comes time to -- i know in answer to ryan's question, you weren't that impressed with what the president is saying. but when it comes time to deal with stopgap in the fall, are you going to do with the bca levels, the budget control act, or maybe try and go lower, maybe as low as the ryan budget. >> my goal is to prove appropriation bills through the house and hopefully work with our senate colleagues to move appropriation bills on their own.

i worked last year to try and rebuild the appropriations process. it's one of the essential responsibilities of the congress to spend the american people's money wisely. i think we do that best when we move individual bills. and i'm going to continue to work with our senate colleagues to work on movement of these bills. when we get to september, we'll have a discussion then about how many bills have become law. what isn't finished? and what else needs to be done? >> mr. speaker, for a moment, you criticized the president on these campaign trips here. yet -- >> well, you said it right, campaign trips. >> on these trips, whatever -- >> it doesn't even pass the straight-face test. are you kidding me? >> but the sheriff in your home county, richard jones, threatened to build, in the clinton administration, on multiple occasions when he came to that county. what's the equivalencequivalenc? were those not campaign trips? what's the reason? >> presidents have the ability

to use air force one and all the tools of the fellow government to do official business. and when you look at almost all of the presidents, they find official business to do along with their campaigning. but this one does not pass the straight-face test. you know it and i know it. so it's time for the obama campaign to pony up and reimburse the treasury. >> mr. speaker, hthe white hous issued a veto on the security act yesterday. >> my belief is the government ought to control the internet, government ought to set standards and government ought to take care of everything that's needed for cybersecurity. they are in a camp all by themselves because whether it's private industry, whether it's other parts of the government, understand that we can't have the government in charge of our internet. and that the bills that we're

moving this week are common-sense steps that will allow people to communicate with each other, to work together, to build the walls that are necessary in order to prevent cyber terrorism from occurring. there are more steps that are going to have to be taken beyond these. but this is a fundamentally different approach than what the white house and some want to do in terms of creating this monster here in washington to control what we're going to see or not see on the internet. >> mr. speaker -- >> mr. speaker, getting back to student loans, there seems to be bipart san agreement to not see rates rise but over how to pay for it, $6 billion. given that both sides agree on most of the tax cuts being renewed, $1 trillion, isn't this just political posturing on both sides at this point? >> listen, let's remember something. democrats put this cliff into law. they're the ones that put into

law the doubling of student loan interest rates to occur this july. and why they did it, i don't know. but the fact is is students are already struggling with the cost of college. we do not want to see these interest rates go up. and there was never any thought these interest rates would go up. last one. >> mr. speaker -- [ inaudible ]. >> who? okay. >> can you imagine a type of immigration bill that would be in the house [ inaudible ]. >> well, there's always hope. i did talk to senator rubio about his idea and gave me some particulars about how this would work. i found that of interest. but the problem with this issue is that we're operating in a

very hostile political environment. and to deal with a very difficult issue like this, i think it would be difficult, at best. but again, let me ask this question. the president of the united states runs around the country doing speeches. he's done a couple speeches over the last 15 months about immigration. as a matter of fact, over the last three years, he's done a number of speeches about immigration. where's the president's immigration plan? where does the president stand on this issue? instead of campaigning all the time, maybe he ought to come back to washington and go to work. >> mr. speaker, on the secret service -- >> on secret service -- yesterday the supreme court considered whether arizona has the authority to enforce a state immigration law enacted in 2010

or if the federal government has exclusive authority when it comes to immigration. you can hear that oral argument on our companion network, c-span, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. where's the national public radio table? you guys are still here. that's good. i couldn't remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend on c-span, the 98th annual white house correspondents dinner. president obama and late-night talk show host jimmy kimmel headline. an audience of celebrities, white house and the press corps. coverage starts with red carpet arrivals live at 6:30 and watch the entire dinner only on c-span. you can also sync up your experience at c-span's dinner hub. find the celebrity guest list, highlights of past dinners plus

blogs and social media posts at c-span.org/whcd. the white house correspondents dinner' at 6:30 eastern sunday on c-span. just a moment ago the senate agriculture committee approved the 2012 farm bill. the bill would end direct cash payments to farmers saving $50 billion over the next decade. most of that money would be put into a new insurance program to pay farmers if crop and commodity prices fall beneath a certain level. it would also consolidate nutrition programs. here's the start of the meeting starting with an opening statement from chairman debbie stabenow. >> now, this committee is unique. our hearing room doesn't have a raised dais. instead we sit around a table, not unlike the tables that american families, american farmers sit