[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4124-S4127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             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

 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.
  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.

                          ____________________