To eliminate certain working lands conservation programs.

AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now on S.
3240, and the motion to recommit with a second-degree amendment
numbered 2339 is now pending. Is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3240) to reauthorize agricultural programs
through 2017, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Reid (for Stabenow/Roberts) amendment No. 2389, of a
perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2390 (to amendment No. 2389), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, with instructions.
Reid amendment No. 2391, of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2392 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2391), to empower States with programmatic flexibility
and predictability to administer a supplemental nutrition
assistance block grant program under which, at the request of
a State agency, eligible households within the State may
receive an adequate, or more nutritious, diet.
Reid amendment No. 2393 (to amendment No. 2392), to phase
out the Federal Sugar Program.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 2393. I ask
for the yeas and nays on that motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Akaka
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blunt
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Chambliss
Cochran
Conrad
Crapo
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Hoeven
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--46

Alexander
Ayotte
Blumenthal
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Carper
Casey
Coats
Coburn
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Durbin
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch

[[Page S4125]]

Heller
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Reed
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Toomey
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Kirk
McCaskill
Rockefeller
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 2392, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote, and that the time
be controlled by Senator Stabenow and Senator Paul.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, our system of helping ensure that no one in
our country goes hungry is a noble one. We are now asking to spend $750
billion on food stamps. When we ask this, we need to remember that
recently a woman in Chicago faked the birth of triplets in order to
receive $21,000 in food stamps. We need to remember that millionaires,
including Larry Fick, who won $2 million, is still receiving food
stamps because he says he has no income. He has $2 million but no
income. Amanda Clayton won $1 million recently in the lottery and she
was aghast she lost a third of it to taxes. She now has two homes and
mortgage payments and doesn't know how can she make it without food
stamps. So we are paying millionaires food stamps. Thirty percent of
Polk County inmates are getting food stamps.
There has to be some reason. Should you be able to buy junk food on
food stamps? Should you get to go to McDonald's on food stamps? This is
out of control. It is not about helping those in need, it is about
being wise with taxpayer dollars and not giving people $20,000 a year
in food stamps. We need to give only to those who cannot work, those
who are infirm, those who are diseased and are not able-bodied. But we
are giving to millionaires, and we are paying for junk food and giving
to those who go to McDonald's, and it has to stop.
This program has doubled in the last 10 years. We do not have an
endless supply of money. I think Americans would be flabbergasted at
the amount of money and that some of these programs are duplicative.
People getting food stamps for a meal are also getting a free lunch at
school. Some of these programs are actually advertising for applicants.
In my hometown they advertise to try to promote people coming in and
getting the free lunch during the summertime.
It is not that we won't help people, it is that we need to be
conscious of how much money we have and that we help only those who
cannot help themselves. I would ask for some reason. The food stamp
program is exploding, and I recommend we vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I strongly oppose this
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote to table it.
I would agree with the Senator from Kentucky that nobody who wins the
lottery should get food assistance, and we outright ban it in this
bill. We outright ban a number of areas where there has been waste,
fraud, and abuse. This bill does more on accountability on food
assistance than we have seen in many years. But it also doesn't do what
this amendment does, which is block grant funding, cut it, send it back
to the States with no requirement it be used for people who truly need
it.
I can tell you, coming from Michigan, I have people who have never
before in their lives needed help with food assistance. They are
mortified; they have paid taxes their whole life and they have never
asked for help, but now that the plant has closed, they need some
temporary help. Those folks are, on average, getting help for 10 months
or less, and they deserve every dollar we can help them with.
I want to make sure that every single dollar goes where it should go.
Waste, fraud, and abuse we tackle. But for somebody in this great
country who has paid their taxes all their lives and worked all their
lives and now needs help to put food on the table for the balance of
the month, they need to know we are going to provide a little bit of
temporary help.
This amendment is outrageous and would go completely against the
commitment we as a country have made to help those who truly need it. I
urge we vote yes to table this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

YEAS--65

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--33

Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--2

Kirk
Warner

The motion was agreed to.

Vote Explanation

<bullet> Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was unable to vote on the motion
to table the Paul amendment No. 2182 this morning due to a family
commitment, but should I have been present, I would have voted yea on
the motion to table the amendment.
SNAP was effective in helping over 786,157 individuals in my own
Commonwealth of Virginia--including children and the elderly--have the
resources necessary to purchase healthy food this past year. I believe
that turning this program into a State block grant, as Senator Paul's
amendment would have done, would not allow this program to continue to
be as effective. SNAP is the bedrock of our national nutrition safety
net, serving as a first line of defense against hunger, and during this
last economic downturn has made sure that low-income families across
the Commonwealth and the country are helped in putting food on the
table each night.<bullet>
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. MR. President, I now ask unanimous consent the pending
motion to recommit be withdrawn; that amendment No. 2390 be withdrawn;
that the Stabenow-Roberts amendment, No. 2389, be agreed to; the bill,
as amended, be considered original text for the purpose of further
amendment; that the following four amendments be the first amendments
in order to the bill with no other first-degree amendments in order
until these amendments are disposed of: Coburn, No. 2353; Hagan, No.
2366; DeMint, No. 2385; McCaskill, No. 2222; that there be up to 60
minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees on each of these amendments; that upon the use or yielding
back of this time on all four amendments the

[[Page S4126]]

Senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order
listed; that there be no amendments or motions in order to the
amendments prior to the votes other than on motions to waive points of
order and motions to table; that upon disposition of these amendments,
I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I wonder if I might ask the leader a question through the
Chair. It would seem to me the process we are planning now is that the
leader is deciding what amendments we will vote on and what we will
not. I wonder if he would be open to the consideration of us sending up
40 amendments over the next 4 days and coming to an agreement on this,
because what we are playing now is a game of low priority amendments
versus high priority amendments in the name of saying we are doing
something rather than having an open amendment process, which is the
tradition of the Senate. My question to him is would he be amenable to
have a discussion on a much larger number of amendments so we don't
continue to get out of order? This is the first time I remember seeing
this list, and this is a very low priority amendment for many.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish my friend was near as exercised over
the year, 18 months, on getting on a bill. It takes us a week to get on
a bill because we have to file motions to invoke cloture every time we
proceed to a bill. We could save a lot of time if we could get on a
bill. One reason there used to be so much, as he said, tradition--
tradition has been spilled into the spillways--is that it was a rare
occasion you had to do anything to invoke cloture on a motion to
proceed. Now it is what we do every time because the Republicans demand
that.
In direct answer to the question, I have worked with Senator Roberts
and Senator Stabenow. We are trying to get some amendments up. They may
be low priority on his part, my friend from Oklahoma, but some people
think these are important amendments. The two we just finished, no one
can consider those low priority amendments, dealing with foodstamps and
with sugar. These are always big deals on this farm bill.
So I say to my friend, Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow are
trying to come up with a list. The Republicans are having some kind of
a steering meeting or whatever it is now. Maybe the Senator can go and
visit with them and try to help us get a list.
I am not going to talk out here about a number, but as we did on the
highway bill, we have done it on the FDA bill, come up with some
amendments. There is plenty of dead time around here, and we don't have
to spend a lot of time on the amendments themselves. Once we agree to
them, we keep on talking about them forever.
To answer the Senator's question, yes, I would be happy if we could
get, as we have been trying to get for a long time, an agreed-upon
group of amendments. I want to finish the farm bill. I think it is
extremely important to our country.
So, I say to my friend, I hope we can work something out. I have told
my friend, the junior Senator from Michigan and the chairman of this
committee, I would like something so we can enter into an agreement
today and start voting on some of these amendments tomorrow.
Ms. STABENOW. Would the leader be willing to yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. To emphasize what the leader
indicated earlier, isn't it true that while we are moving forward step
by step--before we get a larger universal agreement--as he has said,
the leader is open to work with me, Senator Roberts, and Members on
both sides of the aisle to get a larger list in the range in which the
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has talked about and certainly a
list which we would begin to move through?
But while we are doing that, rather than just biding time on the
floor, this gives Members an opportunity to debate on issues they care
deeply about and continue to move forward.
In fact, is it the leader's desire that we do this and that we are in
the process of putting together that larger universe of amendments?
Mr. REID. In response to my friend's question, the reason we had
these two votes this morning is while we are working on coming up with
a finite list of amendments, why sit around and twiddle our thumbs? At
least through this process, we have gotten two major amendments out of
the way. They are gone.
If my friend continues his objection, I am going to set up some more
votes this way. Listen, this is not my preference for doing these
bills. But I say to my friend, I would hope with the concern the
Senator has for the finances of this country and how he cares about our
country, care a little bit about these motions to proceed which are
such a waste of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I take the leader at his word. I will go
back to my caucus and explain that I object to this group of bills, but
I would also note we did get two amendments out of the way. The one
amendment on sugar that had the potential to pass wasn't the one we
chose.
So I come back to the point, never in the history of the Senate, with
the rate at which we see now, did we give up our rights to allow the
majority leader to decide what amendments will be voted on or offered.
In fact, for the last 3 days, we could have had a great open process of
having the floor open for amendments and moved 8 or 10 amendments a
day. I understand the conflict. I understand what he is trying to do,
and I understand the political ramifications of that.
I will go and seek the counsel and guidance of my caucus and return
and give the leader's message.
With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Before my friend leaves the floor, I also look back at the
days, as is recounted in Caro's book and as we have heard here, to the
days when the majority leader truly did some things. During the days of
Lyndon Johnson, we couldn't even have a vote on anything unless he gave
the nod. I don't have that power anymore. That has changed over the
years, but I would love to be able to have a bill brought to the floor.
If we were able to get rid of these senseless motions to proceed that I
have to file cloture on, we could spend a lot of time debating and
amending these bills, and that is what we need to get to.
Mr. COBURN. If the majority leader would yield, I think the leader
could eliminate motions to proceed very easily by saying that every
bill that comes to the floor will have an open and honest debate
determined by what colleagues and Members would like to debate, but we
have not seen that. That is not just the Democratic control of the
Senate; we have seen some with the Republican control of the Senate as
well.
We are not going to solve that problem now. I will take counsel with
my caucus, and I will get back to the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The majority leader.

Amendment No. 2406

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2406 to the
instructions, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes amendment
numbered 2406 to the instructions of the motion to recommit
S. 3240.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To eliminate certain working lands conservation programs)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. _____. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN WORKING LANDS CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS.

(a) Conservation Stewardship Program.--Subchapter B of
chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838d et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--Chapter 4 of
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) is repealed.

Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S4127]]

There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 2407 to Amendment No. 2406

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2407, a second-
degree amendment, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 2407 to amendment No. 2406.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To convert all mandatory spending to discretionary spending
subject to annual appropriations)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. 12____. FUNDING.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any
amendment made by this Act, each amount made available by
this Act or an amendment made by this Act that is funded
through direct spending (as defined in section 250(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985(2
U.S.C. 900(c))) shall be considered to be an authorization of
appropriations for that amount and purpose.

____________________