AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012
(Senate - June 20, 2012)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        

[Pages S4334-S4359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3240, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2345

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2345.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Manchin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2345.

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require national dietary guidelines for pregnant women and 
                children from birth until the age of 2)

       On page 361, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 4208. DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS.

       Section 301(a) of the National Nutrition Monitoring and 
     Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Pregnant women and young children.--Not later than 
     the 2020 report and in each report thereafter, the 
     Secretaries shall include national nutritional and dietary 
     information and guidelines for pregnant women and children 
     from birth until the age of 2.''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided, 1 minute for each side.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I do not believe there is opposition to 
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, 
commonsense amendment that will address a very urgent need in this 
country: helping our children develop healthy eating habits at a very 
young age.
  I wish to thank my cosponsor, Senator Kelly Ayotte from New 
Hampshire, for working with me on this amendment. All this does is 
require the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department 
of Agriculture to develop, implement, and promote national dietary 
guidelines for pregnant women and for children up to 2. It is the only 
segment we have not done. If you are 2 years of age or older, we do it. 
We try to tell you how to stay healthy, what you should eat, what you 
should feed your child. This basically fills in the gap for woman from 
when they become pregnant until 2 years of age.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield back all time. It is my 
understanding that we can proceed with a voice vote on this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, all time is 
yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2345) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 2382

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2382.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2382.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S4335]]

(Purpose: To require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to provide 
crop insurance for organic crops under similar terms and conditions to 
                crop insurance provided for other crops)

       On page 970, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 11019. CROP INSURANCE FOR ORGANIC CROPS.

       (a) In General.--Section 508(c)(6) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)(6)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(D) Organic crops.--
       ``(i) In general.--As soon as possible, but not later than 
     the 2015 reinsurance year, the Corporation shall offer 
     producers of organic crops price elections for all organic 
     crops produced in compliance with standards issued by the 
     Department of Agriculture under the national organic program 
     established under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) that reflect the actual retail or 
     wholesale prices, as appropriate, received by producers for 
     organic crops, as determined by the Secretary using all 
     relevant sources of information.
       ``(ii) Annual report.--The Corporation shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate an annual report on progress made in developing and 
     improving Federal crop insurance for organic crops, 
     including--

       ``(I) the numbers and varieties of organic crops insured;
       ``(II) the progress of implementing the price elections 
     required under this subparagraph, including the rate at which 
     additional price elections are adopted for organic crops;
       ``(III) the development of new insurance approaches 
     relevant to organic producers; and
       ``(IV) any recommendations the Corporation considers 
     appropriate to improve Federal crop insurance coverage for 
     organic crops.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 522(c) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(c)) (as amended by section 
     11018) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (10); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (20) as 
     paragraphs (10) through (19), respectively.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 2 minutes of 
debate equal divided on the amendment.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, this bill is about holding USDA 
accountable. Organic farmers, when they get crop insurance, pay a 5-
percent premium upfront. The whole concept was that on the back end 
they would be compensated at the value of their organic crop should 
they need to utilize their insurance. However, to establish the price 
of the organic crop, USDA has to do a study. We instructed them to do 
this study 4 years ago, and they have been dragging their feet. They 
have done four crops out of the many dozens.
  Our organic farmers are left in the most untenable position of paying 
the premiums upfront but not getting the fair organic prices on the 
back end. This amendment says to get the studies done, which you were 
told to do 4 years ago, so the equation is fair to our farmers.
  I am pleased that Senator Olympia Snowe is a cosponsor.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, just for the information of the 
Senate, Senator DeMint's amendment was next, but we have not seen him 
on the floor yet. So we moved to this amendment. As soon as he arrives, 
we will return to the DeMint amendment.
  It is my understanding that we can proceed to a voice vote in the 
meantime.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Ms. STABENOW. I yield back all time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

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

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2382) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 2273

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to bring up amendment No. 2273.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2273.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To eliminate the authority of the Secretary to increase the 
 amount of grants provided to eligible entities relating to providing 
    access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas)

       Beginning on page 765, strike line 9 and all that follows 
     through page 766, line 16, and insert the following:
       ``(B) Maximum.--The amount of any grant made under this 
     section shall not exceed 50 percent of the development costs 
     of the project for which the grant is provided.
       ``(C) Grant rate.--The Secretary shall establish the grant 
     rate for each project in accordance with regulations issued 
     by the Secretary that shall provide for a graduated scale of 
     grant rates that establish higher rates for projects in 
     communities that have--
       ``(i) remote locations;
       ``(ii) low community populations;
       ``(iii) low income levels; and
       ``(iv) developed the applications of the communities with 
     the participation of combinations of stakeholders, 
     including--

       ``(I) State, local, and tribal governments;
       ``(II) nonprofit institutions;
       ``(III) institutions of higher education;
       ``(IV) private entities; and
       ``(V) philanthropic organizations.'';

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, the farm bill adds a new grant component 
to the existing rural utility service broadband loans and loan 
guarantee program. My amendment would eliminate the authority of the 
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to increase the taxpayer 
share of these broadband grants beyond 50 percent.
  Please keep in mind that these are not direct loans, these are grants 
that require no payback. It is important that recipients have some skin 
in the game so that they make good decisions. My amendment allows the 
50-percent threshold cost sharing but does not allow the Secretary to 
waive that and make that a 75-percent share by the taxpayer.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this moment of fiscal sanity 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment. 
It has a similar impact to one yesterday we defeated by this Senator. 
It basically goes to the question of whether we are going to allow 
investment in rural communities--the hardest hit communities, the 
farthest apart communities--and whether they will have access to 
broadband. It really goes to small businesses, in small towns and 
villages, and whether they are going to have access to sell their 
products to consumers around the globe. We are in a global economy.
  In the 1930s and 1940s, we did rural electrification to make sure the 
farmer

[[Page S4336]]

at the end of the road was connected with electricity. This is the same 
kind of thing, but it is the Internet. It is broadband. We want to make 
sure everybody is connected, even those in the remote, rural areas.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  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 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2273) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2289

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2289.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2289.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To reduce funding for the market access program and to 
prohibit the use of funds for reality television shows, wine tastings, 
               animal spa products, and cat or dog food)

       On page 293, strike lines 16 through 19, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3102. FUNDING FOR MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       Section 211(c) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5641(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after ``2005,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and $160,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2017'' after ``2012,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Prohibition on use of funds for certain activities.--
     None of the funds made available to carry out this subsection 
     shall be used for--
       ``(A) wine tastings;
       ``(B) animal spa products;
       ``(C) reality television shows; or
       ``(D) cat or dog food.''.

  Mr. COBURN. This is an amendment that falls in line with the 
recommendation of the administration as well as every outside group 
that has ever looked at this program.
  The Department of Agriculture has five access to marketing programs. 
This is just one of them. The administration recommended a 20-percent 
reduction. We have put forward an amendment to reduce it by 20 percent. 
We spend $2 billion over the next 10 years on market access. American 
contribution of total world agricultural products is on the decline in 
spite of these programs, and the waste in these programs--if we look at 
where the money is spent--is unbelievable.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to oppose my colleague's 
amendment.
  The reality for us is that American agricultural exports is one of 
the few places where we have a trade surplus right now, and we want to 
continue that. The current program the Senator is speaking about is all 
about exports. It is all about jobs. For every $1 invested in this 
particular market access program, $35 is generated back into economic 
activity. I think that is a pretty good investment.
  We know it is a very important part of the future not only for our 
traditional production agricultural parts of the country but for 
smaller value-added food products which really is in exports, and this 
supports that.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I assume by the chairman's response that 
she supports the $20 million that went into a reality TV show in India 
to purchase cotton other than ``made in the United States.'' That is 
where $20 million of it went. That is what is wrong with this program.
  I am not objecting to the fact that we ought to have market access 
programs. But when we are wasting $20 million on something that has no 
connection whatsoever with American agricultural products, we ought to 
reduce or eliminate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me say again--and I am not familiar 
with this. I know we are trying to redevelop an American denim 
industry. I had a chance to actually visit a denim factory in Texas. We 
are trying to support our cotton industry. I am not familiar with this, 
but I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--69

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2289) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2293

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up the pending amendment No. 2293.

[[Page S4337]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2293.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

             (Purpose: To limit subsidies for millionaires)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION FOR CONSERVATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 1001D(b)(2)(A) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 
     U.S.C. 1308 3a(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Limits.--'' and all that follows through 
     ``clause (ii),'' and inserting ``Limits.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law,''; and
       (2) by striking clause (ii).

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reducing our national debt--which now 
exceeds $15.8 trillion--is the most critical issue facing our nation. 
Our country simply cannot survive if we continue down this 
unsustainable course. Every area of the Federal budget should be 
examined to determine, which programs should be priorities.
  Federal conservation programs are a good place to start. These 
programs pay farmers and ranchers to either implement conservation 
measures on their farms, ``working lands'', or to idle their land for 
conservation purposes, and ``land retirement''.
  Oftentimes, the financial assistance offered by these programs 
incentivizes what is already in the best financial interests of 
farmers. Natural, market-based incentives already exist to achieve the 
efficiency and conservation purposes of these programs without taxpayer 
dollars. Not only that, but these programs also pay farmers and 
companies that have adjusted gross incomes, AGI, of $1 million or more.
  Special rules allow the USDA to waive income limitations for certain 
programs, which it does on a regular basis. The result is millions paid 
to otherwise ineligible millionaires each year.
  In fact, over the past 2 years, USDA waived the $1 million AGI cap 
for the programs discussed below and paid a total of $89,032,263 to 
individuals or entities with an AGI of $1 million or more. Allowing 
federal conservation programs to make payments to those with an 
adjusted gross income, AGI, of $1 million or more is simply not a 
priority for taxpayers.
  This amendment would prevent USDA from paying millionaires by 
eliminating the ability to issue waivers that exempt program 
participants who have an AGI of $1 million or more from adhering to the 
program's payment limit rules.
  In total, over a 2-year period, USDA waived program requirements and 
awarded over $84 million to individuals and entities with an AGI of $1 
million or more.
  In 2009, the USDA waived program requirements and paid two 
millionaires a total of $10,234,520, which consisted mainly of a $10 
million payment to an investment company in California for restoring 
wetlands to protect the Riparian Brush Rabbit.
  In 2010, the Wetland Reserve Program, WRP, program paid eight 
individuals with an AGI of $1 million over $74 million. These included 
almost $22 million to a ranch in Florida. The company that owns the 
ranch describes itself as a ``privately held, family-owned company with 
agricultural, commercial real estate, and asset management 
operations.'' That company also states that it owns a number of 
commercial real estate properties in New Jersey and Florida. The 
company also claims holdings that include multi-tenant office 
buildings, parking lots, a for-profit educational institution, 
restaurants, and retail property.
  In 2010, USDA also paid over $31 million to another ranch in Florida. 
The payment was part of an $89 million purchase by USDA of an easement 
that places deed restrictions on the use of the land along 26,000 acres 
of the Fisheating Creek Watershed, partially located on the ranch. USDA 
claimed that the easement purchase would provide support for the 
crested caracara, Florida panther, and the red-cockaded woodpecker.
  Recently, the owners of the ranch listed 2,600 acres for sale for 
$18.2 million. The property is described as a working ranch with 
``tremendous recreation and hunting attributes.'' The local newspaper 
has also reported that same ranch was slated for a new 12,000 unit 
planned community.
  Other entities and individuals with an AGI of $1 million or more that 
received WRP payments in 2010 include:
  $7.92 million to a company in Texas for ``restoration and protection 
of critical and unique wetlands'' on a property known as East Nest Lake 
and Osceola Plantation; $5.8 million to a farm in North Carolina to 
promote a ``habitat for migratory birds and wetland dependent 
wildlife;'' $5.4 million to a ranch in Florida for land with ``high 
potential to significantly improve waterfowl and wading bird habitat'' 
$900,853 to an individual in Kansas to ``protect and [for] restoring . 
. . valuable wetland resources . . . for migratory birds and other 
wildlife;'' $227,203 to a company in New Hampshire for ``wetland 
restoration;'' and $80,000 to two individuals in Mississippi to 
``restore, protect and enhance wetlands.''
  In 2010, USDA waived the $1 million AGI requirement and paid a ranch 
holding company over $2.7 million through Grassland Reserve Program, 
GRP, for ``protection of critical and unique grasslands.''
  Last year, USDA paid four millionaires a total of $592,097 through 
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, $299,847 of which 
was aimed at protecting the Sage Grouse by a ranch in California; 
$50,000 went to a farm. That farm is owned by the W.C. Bradley Company, 
which is best known for producing Char-Broil outdoor grills and Zebco 
fishing supplies; remaining amounts of $35,250 and $210,000 went to two 
family trusts.
  The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program paid $737,000 to three 
millionaire recipients, with the majority of the funds $449,662 going 
to protect the Sage Grouse by a family trust in California. A farm in 
Georgia also received $100,000 through WHIP for ``promotion of at-risk 
species habitat conservation.'' The remaining $187,540 went to a 
company in New Jersey.
  Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, FRPP paid $630,000 to a 
company in 2009 to protect Raspberry Farms in Hampton Falls, New 
Hampshire. Raspberry Farms formerly operated as a ``popular pick-your-
own berries and retail farm stand'' in the 1980s and early 1990s.
  The former farm was scheduled to be developed for housing, but 
instead, NRCS, in partnership with local entities, paid a total of $1.6 
million to ensure the land will never be developed.
  In 2010 USDA paid four individuals and entities with an AGI of $1 
million or more a total of $75,540.
  Again, this is a very straightforward amendment. Last year the 
Department of Agriculture paid $10 million to two different 
individuals, who had an adjusted gross income of over $1 million, 
through a waiver granted by the Department of Agriculture. Both of 
these were ineligible, but we give the Department of Agriculture the 
right to waive that. This amendment would restrict that right for a 
waiver for people making more than $1 million a year in terms of 
conservation payments.
  There is nothing wrong with conservation programs, but most often 
these payments are paid in addition to what people are going to do 
anyway. So what the Department of Agriculture has done is given well 
over $180 million to millionaires through our conservation payment on 
programs they would have otherwise done themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would indicate that the conservation 
program is a very strong, effective program, but I am not objecting, 
nor is the ranking member, to moving forward with the vote. I believe 
the Member wishes to have a record rollcall, is that correct? So we 
would yield back time and ask for a record rollcall vote.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

[[Page S4338]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2293) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2453

  Ms. STABENOW. I call up my amendment 2453 and ask unanimous consent 
to add Senator Snowe as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2453.

  Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

          (Purpose: To provide assistance for certain losses)

       On page 1006, between lines 21 and 22, insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) Additional availability.--
       ``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after October 1, 
     2013, the Secretary shall make assistance available to 
     producers of an otherwise eligible crop described in 
     subsection (a)(2) that suffered losses--
       ``(i) to a 2012 annual fruit crop grown on a bush or tree; 
     and
       ``(ii) in a county covered by a declaration by the 
     Secretary of a natural disaster for production losses due to 
     a freeze or frost.
       ``(B) Assistance.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under subparagraph (A) in an amount equivalent to 
     assistance available under paragraph (1), less any fees not 
     previously paid under paragraph (2).''.

  Ms. STABENOW. This amendment simply addresses what has happened with 
severe and devastating freezes across the country for those who have 
food crops and don't have access to crop insurance. This Farm Bill 
makes great strides in expanding crop insurance for fruit and vegetable 
growers in the United States. However, these new programs will not be 
available to producers who suffered substantial--and in some cases 
complete--losses this year. This amendment would simply allow those in 
the States that are affected to buy into a program we have, called the 
Non-Insured Disaster Program, that allows them to get some kind of help 
for the freezes.
  This provides them the same coverage they will have in the years 
going forward--this is the same kind of extension for 2012 losses that 
is available for livestock producers. 29 States in every part of the 
country have reported major crop losses for 2012 due to frost or 
freeze. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so these farmers 
aren't losing their business because of bad weather.
  I believe we can move forward with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2453) was agreed to.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2454

  Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 2454, my amendment together with 
Senator Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit assistance to North Korea under title II of the 
  Food for Peace Act unless the President issues a national interest 
                                waiver)

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3015. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR NORTH KOREA.

       (a) In General.--No amounts may be obligated or expended to 
     provide assistance under title II of the Food for Peace Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) to the Democratic People's Republic 
     of Korea.
       (b) National Interest Waiver.--The President may waive 
     subsection (a) if the President determines and certifies to 
     the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Agriculture and Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives that the waiver is in the national interest 
     of the United States.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Kerry-Lugar amendment is a side-by-side 
amendment, frankly, which will counter the amendment of the Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  We all join in abhorring the conduct of the Government of North 
Korea. Nobody contests that. The question here is whether we want to 
have a complete prohibition on any humanitarian assistance, without the 
possibility of a Presidential waiver in the event that the President, 
as a matter of national policy, as a matter of our humanitarian policy, 
decides that something has changed in North Korea or there is behavior 
that has been altered by North Korea, as in Burma. If we don't have a 
Presidential waiver, the Kyl amendment permanently locks in--until 
there is other congressional action--a complete prohibition on any 
humanitarian assistance to the people--not the government but the 
people, the children and families of North Korea.
  Ronald Reagan said very clearly that ``a hungry child knows no 
politics.'' I believe we ought to uphold that principle and have the 
Presidential waiver in this particular case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I oppose the Kerry amendment and hope it will be defeated 
and that my amendment will be adopted.
  Senator Kerry has appropriately characterized the amendment as being 
food aid to North Korea. However, it is not just about abhorring North 
Korea's bad behavior but also the administration's bad behavior. On 
four separate occasions, the State Department assured Members of this 
Senate that food aid would not be used as a condition to negotiations 
with the North Koreans; that under no circumstances would the United 
States provide any incentives or rewards, is the way they put it, to 
North Korea. In each case, we inquired, and we specifically talked 
about the food aid. Four times they said no, it wouldn't be done. Two 
weeks before the negotiations were to begin this spring, all of a 
sudden, $240 million in food aid was put on the table, and only because 
the North Koreans launched their so-called satellite long-range missile 
were those negotiations canceled.
  So a national security interest that can simply be provided by the 
President based on his views----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Does not solve the problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is much to counter that, but we do 
not have the time to do it. But I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  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?

[[Page S4339]]

  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2454) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2354

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk, 
No. 2354. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2354.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit assistance to North Korea under title II of the 
                          Food for Peace Act)

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3015. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR NORTH KOREA.

       No amounts may be obligated or expended to provide 
     assistance under title II of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1721 et seq.) to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what I said before was, on four separate 
occasions over just a couple of months, the administration had assured 
Members of the Senate that it would not use food aid as an enticement 
to the North Koreans to come to the negotiating table.
  Here are direct quotations from the State Department, comments such 
as ``had no intention of rewarding them for their actions that their 
government has already agreed to take.'' Reaffirmed, ``There are no 
financial incentives for North Korea to meet the precepts or engage in 
talks.''
  Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, ``To be clear, the 
Administration will not provide any financial incentives to Pyongyang. 
. . .'' et cetera, on the negotiations. And further that ``any 
engagement with North Korea will not be used as a mechanism to funnel 
financial or other rewards to Pyongyang.''
  We also heard media reports and asked them about them. They said no:

       These media reports are not accurate. U.S. policy toward 
     North Korea has not changed. We have no intention of 
     rewarding North Korea--

  And so on. And a mere 3 weeks later, we do exactly the opposite. That 
is why a waiver for the President to say otherwise does not do any good 
and why I urge support----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. For my resolution which simply prevents the administration 
from providing food aid to North Korea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is an important distinction here. If 
you are going to provide humanitarian assistance in some circumstance, 
and the administration made good on its promise to do that, it is hard 
to separate it from the events as they are going forward that you do 
not control. No matter who is President, the Senate should not tie the 
hands of any President with respect to this policy.
  Ronald Reagan said it best when he said very clearly that ``a hungry 
child knows no politics.'' That was Ronald Reagan's policy. That is the 
policy of churches all across our country. The fact is that if the Kyl 
amendment were to pass, you will have tied the hands of any President 
on a sensitive national security issue where the President deserves 
that kind of flexibility.
  Without a national interest waiver, you lock into place a prohibition 
in North Korea. What happens if suddenly you had a change, as in Burma? 
You would be locked in and unable to respond to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. You would take away the option of the President. In the 
case of Burma or other places, the President has shown the flexibility. 
The President ought to have the flexibility here. I hope we will not 
have a total prohibition on humanitarian assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2354) was rejected.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2295

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 
2295.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Udall], for himself, Mr. 
     Thune, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2295.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
                    designation of treatment areas)

       On page 866, line 21, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$200,000,000''.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment 
with my colleague Senator Thune from South Dakota.
  This is a commonsense amendment that would increase resources to land 
managers to address insect and disease epidemics spreading across our 
forests, while maintaining the farm bill's more than $23 billion in 
mandatory savings, and that is important.
  This bark beetle epidemic, which is in many States, has left 
dangerous dead and dying stands of trees that worsen the threat from 
forest fires. This is particularly evident to Coloradans because, 
today, we have an 86-

[[Page S4340]]

square-mile fire, and more than 1,600 brave firefighters are 
challenging this blaze, which is already the most destructive fire in 
Colorado's history. We don't expect to fully defeat this fire or bring 
it to ground for several weeks.
  The Forest Service has set a goal of doubling the number of acres 
treated to address beetle kill and prevent forest fires. This amendment 
would help them reach that goal. If we don't pass the amendment, they 
will not have the wherewithal and resources to do so.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am not going to speak in opposition, 
but I do ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  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 77, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--22

     Ayotte
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2295) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 2313

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2313.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2313.

  The amendment is as follows:

             (Purpose: To repeal the forest legacy program)

       Beginning on page 862, strike line 15 and all that follows 
     through page 863, line 2, and insert the following:

     SEC. 8103. FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2A(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101a(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (5).
       (2) Section 19(b)(2) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2113(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (D).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, with 
the Senator from Utah recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to repeal the Forest 
Legacy Program. This is a program designed to protect lands in the 
United States. It is important to remember that the Federal Government 
is already a massive landowner. It has abundant programs already in 
place to conserve that land, to protect it. The Federal Government owns 
about two-thirds of the land in my own State. It owns nearly 30 percent 
of the land mass within the territorial boundaries of the United 
States. We do a lot to conserve that land. But when we use this money--
money estimated to amount to about $200 million a year in 
authorization, about $1 billion over a 5-year period--we are using that 
money to take land out of use. We are using that money to pay people 
not to use their land for anything. Whenever we look for areas in which 
we can save money, one area is to not pay people not to use their land.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Lee amendment to 
repeal the Forest Legacy Program, and urge all Senators to do the same. 
For more than two decades, this program has led to the conservation of 
over 2.2 million acres of working forest lands in 49 states. The 
National Association of Forest Owners estimates that U.S. forests 
support more than 2.9 million jobs and contribute $115 billion towards 
the gross domestic product.
  Better still, the Forest Legacy Program does not use taxpayer dollars 
for Federal funds, but instead relies on a very small percentage of oil 
drilling receipts. The benefits of this program far outweigh any cost 
to the taxpayer, a claim that cannot be made by many other Federal 
programs.
  Repealing this program would be a tragic mistake, especially at a 
time when the Nation's forests are under attack from real estate 
development and urban sprawl, among other enemies. The U.S. is 
projected to lose up to 75 million acres of forest over the next half 
century. As forest areas are fragmented and disappear, so too do the 
benefits they provide. This program is essential to protect these 
benefits and ensure that we have a healthy environment and strong rural 
economies in the future. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge all 
Senators to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2313.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. CARDIN. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
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 21, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--21

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Rubio
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--77

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Mikulski
       
  The amendment (No. 2313) was rejected.

[[Page S4341]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, right now we have 34 amendments left plus 
final passage. That is 11 hours. I was hoping we could dispose of quite 
a few of these on voice, but that has not worked out very well. We have 
had a number of people who offered to have their votes by voice, but 
those were objected to.
  We have to finish this bill. We have to do flood insurance this week. 
I know people have schedules. We have all kinds of things going on, but 
we have to show a little bit of understanding about the ordeal we have 
ahead of us.
  I am confident we are not going to stay here until 2 o'clock this 
morning, but we are going to stay here a while because until we have a 
way of finishing this bill that is set in stone, we are going to have 
to proceed forward. This is an important piece of legislation but also 
flood insurance is an extremely important piece of legislation. If we 
do not complete that by the end of this month, there will be thousands 
and thousands of people who cannot close their loans every day--not a 
month, every day.
  With the economy in the state it is in now, we need to close every 
loan, every home that is purchased, every commercial piece of property 
that is bought. We have to close those now. We cannot tell the American 
people we tried to get it done, but we could not because we were--
whatever.
  People have indicated they want to get out of here early tonight. 
There may be somebody who wants to get out of here earlier tonight than 
I, but I would be happy to debate that subject with them. But we need 
to show some cooperation. We have two of the finest Senators we could 
have managing this bill. Let's work together and get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                    Amendment No. 2457, as Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2457 and 
ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mrs. 
     Shaheen, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Bennet, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2457.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, June 
19, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. WARNER. I further ask the amendment be modified with the changes 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve access to broadband telecommunication services in 
                              rural areas)

       Strike section 6104 and insert the following:

     SEC. 6104. ACCESS TO BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN 
                   RURAL AREAS.

       Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 950bb) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``loans and'' and 
     inserting ``grants, loans, and'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means any area 
     described in section 3002 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act.'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Loans and'' 
     and inserting ``Grants, Loans, and'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``make grants and'' 
     after ``Secretary shall'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Priority.--
       ``(A) In general.--In making grants, loans, or loan 
     guarantees under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) establish not less than 2, and not more than 4, 
     evaluation periods for each fiscal year to compare grant, 
     loan, and loan guarantee applications and to prioritize 
     grants, loans, and loan guarantees to all or part of rural 
     communities that do not have residential broadband service 
     that meets the minimum acceptable level of broadband service 
     established under subsection (e);
       ``(ii) give the highest priority to applicants that offer 
     to provide broadband service to the greatest proportion of 
     unserved rural households or rural households that do not 
     have residential broadband service that meets the minimum 
     acceptable level of broadband service established under 
     subsection (e), as--

       ``(I) certified by the affected community, city, county, or 
     designee; or
       ``(II) demonstrated on--

       ``(aa) the broadband map of the affected State if the map 
     contains address-level data; or
       ``(bb) the National Broadband Map if address-level data is 
     unavailable; and
       ``(iii) provide equal consideration to all qualified 
     applicants, including those that have not previously received 
     grants, loans, or loan guarantees under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Other.--After giving priority to the applicants 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall then give 
     priority to projects that serve rural communities--
       ``(i) with a population of less than 20,000 permanent 
     residents;
       ``(ii) experiencing outmigration;
       ``(iii) with a high percentage of low-income residents; and
       ``(iv) that are isolated from other significant population 
     centers.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Grant amounts.--
       ``(A) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, the project that is the subject of the grant shall 
     be carried out in a rural area.
       ``(B) Maximum.--Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the 
     amount of any grant made under this section shall not exceed 
     50 percent of the development costs of the project for which 
     the grant is provided.
       ``(C) Grant rate.--The Secretary shall establish the grant 
     rate for each project in accordance with regulations issued 
     by the Secretary that shall provide for a graduated scale of 
     grant rates that establish higher rates for projects in 
     communities that have--
       ``(i) remote locations;
       ``(ii) low community populations;
       ``(iii) low income levels;
       ``(iv) developed the applications of the communities with 
     the participation of combinations of stakeholders, 
     including--

       ``(I) State, local, and tribal governments;
       ``(II) nonprofit institutions;
       ``(III) institutions of higher education;
       ``(IV) private entities; and
       ``(V) philanthropic organizations; and

       ``(v) targeted funding to provide the minimum acceptable 
     level of broadband service established under subsection (e) 
     in all or part of an unserved community that is below that 
     minimum acceptable level of broadband service.
       ``(D) Secretarial authority to adjust.--The Secretary may 
     make grants of up to 75 percent of the development costs of 
     the project for which the grant is provided to an eligible 
     entity if the Secretary determines that the project serves a 
     remote or low income area that does not have access to 
     broadband service from any provider of broadband service 
     (including the applicant).'';
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``loan 
     or'' and inserting ``grant, loan, or'';
       (ii) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) demonstrate the ability to furnish, improve in order 
     to meet the minimum acceptable level of broadband service 
     established under subsection (e), or extend broadband service 
     to all or part of an unserved rural area or an area below the 
     minimum acceptable level of broadband service established 
     under subsection (e);'';
       (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``a loan application'' 
     and inserting ``an application''; and
       (iv) in clause (iii)--

       (I) by striking ``the loan application'' and inserting 
     ``the application''; and
       (II) by striking ``proceeds from the loan made or 
     guaranteed under this section are'' and inserting 
     ``assistance under this section is'';

       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

       (aa) by striking ``the proceeds of a loan made or 
     guaranteed'' and inserting ``assistance''; and
       (bb) by striking ``for the loan or loan guarantee'' and 
     inserting ``of the eligible entity'';

       (II) in clause (i), by striking ``is offered broadband 
     service by not more than 1 incumbent service provider'' and 
     inserting ``are unserved or have service levels below the 
     minimum acceptable level of broadband service established 
     under subsection (e)''; and
       (III) in clause (ii), by striking ``3'' and inserting 
     ``2'';

       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Adjustments.--
       ``(i) Increase.--The Secretary may increase the household 
     percentage requirement under subparagraph (A)(i) if--

       ``(I) more than 25 percent of the costs of the project are 
     funded by grants made under this section; or
       ``(II) the proposed service territory includes 1 or more 
     communities with a population in excess of 20,000.

       ``(ii) Reduction.--The Secretary may reduce the household 
     percentage requirement under subparagraph (A)(i)--

       ``(I) to not less than 15 percent, if the proposed service 
     territory does not have a population in excess of 5,000 
     people; or

[[Page S4342]]

       ``(II) to not less than 18 percent, if the proposed service 
     territory does not have a population in excess of 7,500 
     people.''; and

       (iii) in subparagraph (C)--

       (I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``3'' and 
     inserting ``2''; and
       (II) in clause (i), by inserting ``the minimum acceptable 
     level of broadband service established under subsection (e) 
     in'' after ``service to'';

       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``loan or'' and 
     inserting ``grant, loan, or''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Information.--Information submitted under this 
     subparagraph shall be--

       ``(I) certified by the affected community, city, county, or 
     designee; and
       ``(II) demonstrated on--

       ``(aa) the broadband map of the affected State if the map 
     contains address-level data; or
       ``(bb) the National Broadband Map if address-level data is 
     unavailable.'';
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``Subject to paragraph (1),'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (1) and 
     subparagraph (B),'';
       (ii) by striking ``loan or'' and inserting ``grant, loan, 
     or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Pilot programs.--The Secretary may carry out pilot 
     programs in conjunction with interested entities described in 
     subparagraph (A) (which may be in partnership with other 
     entities, as determined appropriate by the Secretary) to 
     address areas that are unserved or have service levels below 
     the minimum acceptable level of broadband service established 
     under subsection (e).'';
       (E) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``loan or'' and inserting ``grant, loan, or''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and proportion 
     relative to the service territory,'' after ``estimated 
     number'';
       (F) in paragraph (6), by striking ``loan or'' and inserting 
     ``grant, loan, or'';
       (G) in paragraph (7), by striking ``a loan application'' 
     and inserting ``an application''; and
       (H) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Transparency and reporting.--The Secretary--
       ``(A) shall require any entity receiving assistance under 
     this section to submit quarterly, in a format specified by 
     the Secretary, a report that describes--
       ``(i) the use by the entity of the assistance, including 
     new equipment and capacity enhancements that support high-
     speed broadband access for educational institutions, health 
     care providers, and public safety service providers 
     (including the estimated number of end users who are 
     currently using or forecasted to use the new or upgraded 
     infrastructure); and
       ``(ii) the progress towards fulfilling the objectives for 
     which the assistance was granted, including--

       ``(I) the number and location of residences and businesses 
     that will receive new broadband service, existing network 
     service improvements, and facility upgrades resulting from 
     the Federal assistance;
       ``(II) the speed of broadband service;
       ``(III) the price of broadband service;
       ``(IV) any changes in broadband service adoption rates, 
     including new subscribers generated from demand-side 
     projects; and
       ``(V) any other metrics the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate

       ``(B) shall maintain a fully searchable database, 
     accessible on the Internet at no cost to the public, that 
     contains, at a minimum--
       ``(i) a list of each entity that has applied for assistance 
     under this section;
       ``(ii) a description of each application, including the 
     status of each application;
       ``(iii) for each entity receiving assistance under this 
     section--

       ``(I) the name of the entity;
       ``(II) the type of assistance being received;
       ``(III) the purpose for which the entity is receiving the 
     assistance; and
       ``(IV) each quarterly report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A); and

       ``(iv) such other information as is sufficient to allow the 
     public to understand and monitor assistance provided under 
     this section;
       ``(C) shall, in addition to other authority under 
     applicable law, establish written procedures for all 
     broadband programs administered by the Secretary that, to the 
     maximum extent practicable--
       ``(i) recover funds from loan defaults;
       ``(ii)(I) deobligate awards to grantees that demonstrate an 
     insufficient level of performance (including failure to meet 
     build-out requirements, service quality issues, or other 
     metrics determined by the Secretary) or wasteful or 
     fraudulent spending; and
       ``(II) award those funds, on a competitive basis, to new or 
     existing applicants consistent with this section; and
       ``(iii) consolidate and minimize overlap among the 
     programs;
       ``(D) with respect to an application for assistance under 
     this section, shall--
       ``(i) promptly post on the website of the Rural Utility 
     Service--

       ``(I) an announcement that identifies--

       ``(aa) each applicant;
       ``(bb) the amount and type of support requested by each 
     applicant; and

       ``(II) a list of the census block groups or proposed 
     service territory, in a manner specified by the Secretary, 
     that the applicant proposes to service;

       ``(ii) provide not less than 15 days for broadband service 
     providers to voluntarily submit information about the 
     broadband services that the providers offer in the groups or 
     tracts listed under clause (i)(II) so that the Secretary may 
     assess whether the applications submitted meet the 
     eligibility requirements under this section; and
       ``(iii) if no broadband service provider submits 
     information under clause (ii), consider the number of 
     providers in the group or tract to be established by 
     reference to--

       ``(I) the most current National Broadband Map of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 
     or
       ``(II) any other data regarding the availability of 
     broadband service that the Secretary may collect or obtain 
     through reasonable efforts; and

       ``(E) may establish additional reporting and information 
     requirements for any recipient of any assistance under this 
     section so as to ensure compliance with this section.'';
       (5) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes 
     of this section, the minimum acceptable level of broadband 
     service for a rural area shall be at least--
       ``(A) a 4-Mbps downstream transmission capacity; and
       ``(B) a 1-Mbps upstream transmission capacity.
       ``(2) Adjustments.--
       ``(A) In general.--At least once every 2 years, the 
     Secretary shall review, and may adjust, the minimum 
     acceptable level of broadband service established under 
     paragraph (1) to ensure that high quality, cost-effective 
     broadband service is provided to rural areas over time.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In making an adjustment to the 
     minimum acceptable level of broadband service under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary may consider establishing 
     different transmission rates for fixed broadband service and 
     mobile broadband service.'';
       (6) in subsection (f), by striking ``make a loan or loan 
     guarantee'' and inserting ``provide assistance'';
       (7) in subsection (g), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Terms.--In determining the term and conditions of a 
     loan or loan guarantee, the Secretary may--
       ``(A) consider whether the recipient would be serving an 
     area that is unserved; and
       ``(B) if the Secretary makes a determination in the 
     affirmative under subparagraph (A), establish a limited 
     initial deferral period or comparable terms necessary to 
     achieve the financial feasibility and long-term 
     sustainability of the project.'';
       (8) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``loan and loan guarantee'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``grants and'' after ``number of''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, including any loan terms or 
     conditions for which the Secretary provided additional 
     assistance to unserved areas'' before the semicolon at the 
     end;
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``loan''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``loans and'' and 
     inserting ``grants, loans, and'';
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``loan'';
       (E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (F) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (G) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the overall progress towards fulfilling the goal of 
     improving the quality of rural life by expanding rural 
     broadband access, as demonstrated by metrics, including--
       ``(A) the number of residences and businesses receiving new 
     broadband services;
       ``(B) network improvements, including facility upgrades and 
     equipment purchases;
       ``(C) average broadband speeds and prices on a local and 
     statewide basis;
       ``(D) any changes in broadband adoption rates; and
       ``(E) any specific activities that increased high speed 
     broadband access for educational institutions, health care 
     providers. and public safety service providers.''; and
       (9) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections 
     (l) and (m), respectively;
       (10) by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
       ``(k) Broadband Buildout Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--As a condition of receiving a grant, 
     loan, or loan guarantee under this section, a recipient of 
     assistance shall provide to the Secretary address-level 
     broadband buildout data that indicates the location of new 
     broadband service that is being provided or upgraded within 
     the service territory supported by the grant, loan, or loan 
     guarantee--
       ``(A) for purposes of inclusion in the semiannual updates 
     to the National Broadband Map that is managed by the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration (referred 
     to in this subsection as the `Administration'); and
       ``(B) not later than 30 days after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date of completion of any project milestone 
     established by the Secretary; or
       ``(ii) the date of completion of the project.

[[Page S4343]]

       ``(2) Address-level data.--Effective beginning on the date 
     the Administration receives data described in paragraph (1), 
     the Administration shall use only address-level broadband 
     buildout data for the National Broadband Map.
       ``(3) Corrections.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Administration any correction to the National Broadband Map 
     that is based on the actual level of broadband coverage 
     within the rural area, including any requests for a 
     correction from an elected or economic development official.
       ``(B) Incorporation.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the Administration receives a correction submitted 
     under subparagraph (A), the Administration shall incorporate 
     the correction into the National Broadband Map.
       ``(C) Use.--If the Secretary has submitted a correction to 
     the Administration under subparagraph (A), but the National 
     Broadband Map has not been updated to reflect the correct by 
     the date on which the Secretary is making a grant or loan 
     award decision under this section, the Secretary may use the 
     correction submitted under that subparagraph for purposes of 
     make the grant or loan award decision.'';
       (11) subsection (l) (as redesignated by paragraph (9))--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000,000''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2017''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) set aside at least 1 percent to be used for--

       ``(I) conducting oversight under this section; and
       ``(II) implementing accountability measures and related 
     activities authorized under this section.''; and

       (12) in subsection (m) (as redesignated by paragraph (9))--
       (A) by striking ``loan or'' and inserting ``grant, loan, 
     or''; and
       (B) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2017''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate. The Senator 
from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a broad, bipartisan amendment--
Warner-Crapo-Kirk-Shaheen-Bennet-Webb. It basically does three things 
in the broadband area. It accelerates access to those areas that are 
underserved. As a matter of fact, we have a 2009 USDA IG report which 
showed that less than 3 percent of loans provided by RUS went toward 
unserved communities. This will move forward in that area.
  Second, it creates greater access and transparency and accountability 
standards for RUS and applicants. These are items that were brought 
forward from the GAO and the IG of the USDA and CRS. It also allows 
greater levels of accountability in ensuring that those States that 
collect data by address--that that information is related to RUS, so we 
don't have counties where certain parts are served and other parts are 
left unserved, never able to get access. It has the broad support of 
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Taxpayers Union, the 
League of Rural Voters.
  I ask bipartisan support of this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY, Mr. President, I have long believed that Congress must 
work to enact policies that promote the deployment of broadband in 
rural America. There is no doubt that rural areas lag behind the rest 
of the country when it comes to access to affordable, quality, high-
speed Internet. As the Internet rapidly evolves beyond what the slow 
speeds offered by dial up service can handle, broadband service is no 
longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Today, I voted against an amendment 
that, while well intentioned, may have the unintended consequence of 
making it harder for the Rural Utilities Service to incentivize 
broadband expansion and competition in rural areas like Vermont.
  I support the provisions in the underlying farm bill that seek to 
provide additional forms of assistance to broadband projects in rural 
areas, and I had hoped that the Senate would not significantly alter 
these provisions. It is important to ensure that the Rural Utilities 
Service has the flexibility it needs to provide assistance to rural 
areas--both those that have no service at all and those that have 
inadequate service.
  Senator Warner's amendment does contain elements that I support, 
including provisions that will help to improve transparency and 
accountability within the Rural Utilities Service Program. 
Unfortunately, it may go too far in refocusing the scope of the program 
at the expense of rural communities in Vermont.
  I look forward to continuing my work in the Senate to expand 
broadband service and competition in rural America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Ms. STABENOW. I am not yielding time in opposition. I commend Senator 
Warner and everyone on this amendment for their tremendous amount of 
work. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. It is real reform. I 
believe we have an understanding to proceed with a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2457, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2457), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I would like to have the Record reflect if 
there had been a rollcall vote, I would have voted no on this item.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I wish to be recorded also as I would have 
voted no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 2314

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2314 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2314.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To repeal the conservation stewardship program and the 
                     conservation reserve program)

       Strike subtitles A and B of title II and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 2001. REPEAL OF CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       Subchapter B of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 2101. REPEAL OF 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate, equally divided. 
The Senator from Utah is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I propose amendment No. 2314 to repeal the 
Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program. 
Here we have another instance of the Federal Government paying people 
not to use their land. In this circumstance, they are being paid not to 
grow crops on their land, not to use agricultural land.
  We have an almost $16 trillion debt. CBO says this amendment would 
save over $15 billion in mandatory spending over 10 years. Not doing 
something is something that should be free. Only the Federal Government 
would try to defend the practice of spending billions and billions of 
dollars--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend for a moment. 
Senators will please take their conversations out of the well.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Only the Federal Government would try to defend the 
barbaric, outmoded practice of paying people billions of dollars not to 
use their land. That is what these programs do. We need to get rid of 
them. That is why I propose this amendment. I invite my colleagues to 
join me in supporting it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. We 
have over 643 conservation and environmental groups from every State in 
the Union supporting our conservation reforms in this bill. This is 
about protecting land and water and air habitat, wetlands. Ducks 
Unlimited is a huge supporter of what we have been doing.
  The Conservation Reserve Program, which has been in place for 25 
years, was shown last year, with the drought, to have had a tremendous 
effect. We saw some of the worst droughts on record since the Dust Bowl 
in the last number of months, but we did not have a Dust Bowl and that 
is because the CRP prevented erosion and the soil stayed where it 
should stay. This is about our country, protecting our land, resources 
for our children and grandchildren.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

[[Page S4344]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
  (Chorus of ayes.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No?
  (Chorus of nays.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The noes appear to have it.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 84, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--15

     Ayotte
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Hatch
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Rubio
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2314) was rejected.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2427

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before moving to Senator Wyden's 
amendment, we want to go back to an agreed-upon amendment, which is 
Schumer amendment No. 2427, to increase research, education, and 
promotion of maple products.
  I call up amendment No. 2427, and I ask unanimous consent that we 
move forward with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for Mr. Schumer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2427.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To support State and tribal government efforts to promote 
   research and education related to maple syrup production, natural 
 resource sustainability in the maple syrup industry, market promotion 
 of maple products, and greater access to lands containing maple trees 
         for maple-sugaring activities, and for other purposes)

       On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. 12207. ACER ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized; Authorized Activities.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture may make grants to States and tribal 
     governments to support their efforts to promote the domestic 
     maple syrup industry through the following activities:
       (1) Promotion of research and education related to maple 
     syrup production.
       (2) Promotion of natural resource sustainability in the 
     maple syrup industry.
       (3) Market promotion for maple syrup and maple-sap 
     products.
       (4) Encouragement of owners and operators of privately held 
     land containing species of tree in the genus Acer--
       (A) to initiate or expand maple-sugaring activities on the 
     land; or
       (B) to voluntarily make the land available, including by 
     lease or other means, for access by the public for maple-
     sugaring activities.
       (b) Applications.--In submitting an application for a grant 
     under this section, a State or tribal government shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of the activities to be supported using 
     the grant funds;
       (2) a description of the benefits that the State or tribal 
     government intends to achieve as a result of engaging in such 
     activities; and
       (3) an estimate of the increase in maple-sugaring 
     activities or maple syrup production that the State or tribal 
     government anticipates will occur as a result of engaging in 
     such activities.
       (c) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     preempts a State or tribal government law, including any 
     State or tribal government liability law.
       (d) Definition of Maple Sugaring.--In this section, the 
     term ``maple-sugaring'' means the collection of sap from any 
     species of tree in the genus Acer for the purpose of boiling 
     to produce food.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015.

  Ms. STABENOW. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2427) was agreed to.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Wyden allowing us 
to go out of order. I will now turn it over to Senator Wyden for his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 2388

  Mr. WYDEN. I call up my farm-to-school amendment No. 2388.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2388.

  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to purchases of locally 
                            produced foods)

       On page 360, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 4207. PURCHASES OF LOCALLY PRODUCED FOODS.

       Section 9(j) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(j)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively, and indenting 
     the subparagraphs appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (1) of the policy described in 
     that paragraph and paragraph (3)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A) of the policy described in that 
     subparagraph and subparagraph (C)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subparagraph, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3), 
     conduct not fewer than 5 demonstration projects through 
     school food authorities receiving funds under this Act and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) to 
     facilitate the purchase of unprocessed and minimally 
     processed locally grown and locally raised agricultural 
     products.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Selection.--In conducting demonstration projects 
     under paragraph (1)(D), the Secretary shall ensure that at 
     least 1 project is located in a State in each of--
       ``(A) the Pacific Northwest Region;
       ``(B) the Northeast Region;
       ``(C) the Western Region;
       ``(D) the Midwest Region; and
       ``(E) the Southern Region.
       ``(3) Priority.--In selecting States for participation in 
     the demonstration projects under paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall prioritize applications based on--
       ``(A) the quantity and variety of growers of local fruits 
     and vegetables in the State;
       ``(B) the demonstrated commitment of the State to farm-to-
     school efforts, as evidenced by prior efforts to increase and 
     promote farm-to- school programs in the State; and
       ``(C) whether the State contains a sufficient quantity of 
     school districts of varying population sizes and geographical 
     locations.''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
country's pediatricians, is recommending to the Senate that this 
amendment be passed to encourage healthier foods for our kids. The 
Congressional Budget Office has stated that this amendment has no cost.
  This amendment would, for the first time, test out farm-to-school 
programs through a competitive pilot program with at least five farm-
to-school demonstration projects so it would be possible to fill in the 
information void

[[Page S4345]]

about what works and what doesn't. The Agriculture Department's own 
Economic Research Service reports that ``data and analysis of farm-to-
school programs are scarce.''
  Under this amendment, the schools win, the farmers win, and the 
taxpayers win. I hope we can accept it with a voice vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I yield back all time, and we do have an 
agreement on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2388.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2355

  Mr. BOOZMAN. I call up amendment No. 2355, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Boozman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2355.

  The amendment was as follows:

   (Purpose: To support the dissemination of objective and scholarly 
          agricultural and food law research and information)

       On page 860, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 7602. OBJECTIVE AND SCHOLARLY AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD LAW 
                   RESEARCH AND INFORMATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the farms, ranches, and forests of the United States 
     are impacted by a complex and rapidly evolving web of 
     international, Federal, State, and local laws (including 
     regulations);
       (2) objective, scholarly, and authoritative agricultural 
     and food law research and information helps the farm, ranch, 
     and forestry community contribute to the strength of the 
     United States through improved conservation, environmental 
     protection, job creation, economic development, renewable 
     energy production, outdoor recreational opportunities, and 
     increased local and regional supplies of food, fiber, and 
     fuel; and
       (3) the vast agricultural community of the United States, 
     including farmers, ranchers, foresters, attorneys, 
     policymakers, and extension personnel, need access to 
     agricultural and food law research and information provided 
     by an objective, scholarly, and neutral source.
       (b) Partnerships.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     National Agricultural Library, shall support the 
     dissemination of objective, scholarly, and authoritative 
     agricultural and food law research and information by 
     entering into partnerships with institutions of higher 
     education that have expertise in agricultural and food law 
     research and information.
       (c) Restriction.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     use not more than $1,000,000 of the amounts made available to 
     the National Agricultural Library to carry out this section.

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the farms, ranches, and forests of the 
United States are impacted by a complex and rapidly evolving web of 
international, Federal, State, and local laws.
  The vast agricultural community of the United States--including 
farmers, ranchers, foresters, attorneys, policymakers and extension 
personnel--needs access to agricultural and food law research and 
information provided by an objective, scholarly, and neutral source. 
This amendment encourages the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through 
the National Agricultural Library, to get the information out by 
entering into partnerships with institutions of higher education that 
have expertise in this area.
  The amendment does not authorize a new program or increase the 
authorization for the National Agricultural Library. Again, CBO says it 
has no cost.
  I urge a voice vote in the affirmative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, as 
does my ranking member. I wish to congratulate Senator Boozman on great 
work on this amendment. I believe we can proceed with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2355.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 2442

  Mr. WYDEN. I call up amendment No. 2442.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2442.

  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a pilot loan program to support healthy foods 
                            for the hungry)

       At the end of section 3201 of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (as added by section 5001), add the 
     following:
       ``(e) Pilot Loan Program to Support Healthy Foods for the 
     Hungry.--
       ``(1) Definition of gleaner.--In this subsection, the term 
     `gleaner' means an entity that--
       ``(A) collects edible, surplus food that would be thrown 
     away and distributes the food to agencies or nonprofit 
     organizations that feed the hungry; or
       ``(B) harvests for free distribution to the needy, or for 
     donation to agencies or nonprofit organizations for ultimate 
     distribution to the needy, an agricultural crop that has been 
     donated by the owner of the crop.
       ``(2) Program.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish, 
     within the operating loan program established under this 
     chapter, a pilot program under which the Secretary makes 
     loans available to eligible entities to assist the entities 
     in providing food to the hungry.
       ``(3) Eligibility.--In addition to any other person 
     eligible under the terms and conditions of the operating loan 
     program established under this chapter, gleaners shall be 
     eligible to receive loans under this subsection.
       ``(4) Loan amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each loan issued under the program shall 
     be in an amount of not less than $500 and not more than 
     $5,000.
       ``(B) Redistribution.--If the eligible recipients in a 
     State do not use the full allocation of loans that are 
     available to eligible recipients in the State under this 
     subsection, the Secretary may use any unused amounts to make 
     loans available to eligible entities in other States in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(5) Loan processing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall process any loan 
     application submitted under the program not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the application was submitted.
       ``(B) Expediting applications.--The Secretary shall take 
     any measure the Secretary determines necessary to expedite 
     any application submitted under the program.
       ``(6) Paperwork reduction.--The Secretary shall take 
     measures to reduce any paperwork requirements for loans under 
     the program.
       ``(7) Program integrity.--The Secretary shall take such 
     actions as are necessary to ensure the integrity of the 
     program established under this subsection.
       ``(8) Maximum amount.--Of funds that are made available to 
     carry out this chapter, the Secretary shall use to carry out 
     this subsection a total amount of not more than $500,000.
       ``(9) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the maximum 
     amount of funds are used to carry out this subsection under 
     paragraph (8), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     report that describes the results of the pilot program and 
     the feasibility of expanding the program.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, again, I hope we can handle this amendment 
on a voice vote. This is an amendment that would help the gleaners all 
across the country, who, of course, are the volunteers across America 
who help get surplus food that would otherwise be wasted out to the 
hungry at senior centers and at various kinds of food kitchens and 
other critical hunger programs. Thirty-four million tons of food waste 
is generated each year. That could feed a lot of people.
  The gleaners are trying to make sure this perfectly good food goes on 
the plates of struggling Americans as opposed to millions of pounds of 
it going into landfills and incinerators.
  This amendment, again, costs no money. It simply makes----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WYDEN.--it possible to collect and preserve edible food. I hope 
we accept it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join with me 
to oppose the amendment.
  The amendment would provide government loans for brick-and-mortar 
projects, including food refrigeration capacity. We are talking about 
refrigerators--big refrigerators. At a time when we are working to 
streamline current programs and reduce the size of government, I am 
concerned we would be expanding the size to serve a new pool of 
applicants competing for very limited resources at the Department of

[[Page S4346]]

Agriculture. In this regard, the gleaners would be taken to the 
cleaners.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time in opposition remains.
  Mr. WYDEN. I will only state this costs no additional money. Senator 
Stabenow supports it, and I yield to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would just simply say that I strongly 
support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Is there further debate in opposition? If there is no further debate, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  All those in favor say aye.
  (Chorus of ayes.)
  All those opposed, no.
  (Chorus of nays.)
  The nays appear to have it.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask for a recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second at this time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for a division vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All those in favor of the amendment will stand 
and be counted.
  Now would all those opposed stand and be counted.
  On a division, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the 
affirmative, the amendment No. 2442 was agreed to.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk to my 
amendment No. 2360.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I am sorry, Mr. President. We were in discussions. At 
this moment if we might just pause, we will just object for a moment. I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. We are now told that this has been reviewed, and so we 
have no objection to proceeding to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Amendment No. 2360, as Modified

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2360, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment, as modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Boozman] proposes an 
     amendment No. 2360, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide for emergency food assistance, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4____. QUALITY CONTROL BONUSES.

       Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2025) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking 
     ``payment error rate'' and all that follows through 
     ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``liability amount or new 
     investment amount under paragraph (1) or payment error 
     rate''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (5), by striking 
     ``payment error rate'' and all that follows through 
     ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``liability amount or new 
     investment amount under paragraph (1) or payment error 
     rate'';
       (2) by striking subsection (d); and
       (3) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)''.
       On page 337, line 8, strike ``$28,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$71,000,000''.
       On page 337, line 10, strike ``$24,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$67,000,000''.
       On page 337, line 12, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$63,000,000''.
       On page 337, line 14, strike ``$18,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$61,000,000''.
       On page 337, line 16, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$53,000,000''.

  Mr. BOOZMAN. My amendment redirects funding currently going to the 
States for the administration of SNAP. It puts that money in TEFAP, 
which provides funding to the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
commodity purchases given to food banks.
  I am sure my colleagues are aware of the difficult situation in our 
food banks right now. They are under immense pressure in these very 
difficult economic times.
  The importance of TEFAP is it provides food banks with commodities. 
This amendment takes money currently used to encourage the States to do 
something that they ought to be doing anyway and reinvests in a program 
that actually provides food to Americans who need it the most.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to reluctantly oppose the 
amendment of my colleague. I appreciate what he is trying to do. I 
couldn't agree more about the needs of food banks. That is why in this 
legislation we increase food bank funding by $174 million.
  The problem is the way the Senator wants to do this, which is by 
reducing the funding available to stop food stamp fraud efforts. It 
would reduce the SNAP error rates efforts. Right now, what has been 
done to tackle waste, fraud, and abuse has actually reduced error rates 
dramatically--by 43 percent. We want to keep that going.
  So I certainly support what he is trying to do but not by taking 
money away from waste, fraud, and abuse efforts within the food 
assistance program. So I have to ask for a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I ask for a recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. PAUL (when his name was called). Present.
  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 35, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moran
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--63

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2360) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2204

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2204.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2204.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S4347]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To support the State Rural Development Partnership)

       On page 652, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 3707. STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency with rural responsibilities.--The term `agency 
     with rural responsibilities' means any executive agency (as 
     defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) that 
     implements a Federal law, or administers a program, targeted 
     at or having a significant impact on rural areas.
       ``(2) Partnership.--The term `Partnership' means the State 
     Rural Development Partnership continued by subsection (b).
       ``(3) State rural development council.--The term `State 
     rural development council' means a State rural development 
     council that meets the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(b) Partnership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall support the State 
     Rural Development Partnership comprised of State rural 
     development councils.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Partnership are to 
     empower and build the capacity of States, regions, and rural 
     communities to design flexible and innovative responses to 
     their rural development needs in a manner that maximizes 
     collaborative public- and private-sector cooperation and 
     minimizes regulatory redundancy.
       ``(3) Coordinating panel.--A panel consisting of 
     representatives of State rural development councils shall be 
     established--
       ``(A) to lead and coordinate the strategic operation and 
     policies of the Partnership; and
       ``(B) to facilitate effective communication among the 
     members of the Partnership, including the sharing of best 
     practices.
       ``(4) Role of federal government.--The role of the Federal 
     Government in the Partnership may be that of a partner and 
     facilitator, with Federal agencies authorized--
       ``(A) to cooperate with States to implement the 
     Partnership;
       ``(B) to provide States with the technical and 
     administrative support necessary to plan and implement 
     tailored rural development strategies to meet local needs;
       ``(C) to ensure that the head of each agency with rural 
     responsibilities directs appropriate field staff to 
     participate fully with the State rural development council 
     within the jurisdiction of the field staff; and
       ``(D) to enter into cooperative agreements with, and to 
     provide grants and other assistance to, State rural 
     development councils.
       ``(c) State Rural Development Councils.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 
     31, United States Code, each State may elect to participate 
     in the Partnership by entering into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to recognize a State rural development council.
       ``(2) Composition.--A State rural development council 
     shall--
       ``(A) be composed of representatives of Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, 
     regional organizations, the private sector, and other 
     entities committed to rural advancement; and
       ``(B) have a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory membership 
     that--
       ``(i) is broad and representative of the economic, social, 
     and political diversity of the State; and
       ``(ii) shall be responsible for the governance and 
     operations of the State rural development council.
       ``(3) Duties.--A State rural development council shall--
       ``(A) facilitate collaboration among Federal, State, local, 
     and tribal governments and the private and nonprofit sectors 
     in the planning and implementation of programs and policies 
     that have an impact on rural areas of the State;
       ``(B) monitor, report, and comment on policies and programs 
     that address, or fail to address, the needs of the rural 
     areas of the State;
       ``(C) as part of the Partnership, facilitate the 
     development of strategies to reduce or eliminate conflicting 
     or duplicative administrative or regulatory requirements of 
     Federal, State, local, and tribal governments; and
       ``(D)(i) provide to the Secretary an annual plan with goals 
     and performance measures; and
       ``(ii) submit to the Secretary an annual report on the 
     progress of the State rural development council in meeting 
     the goals and measures.
       ``(4) Federal participation in state rural development 
     councils.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State Director for Rural Development 
     of the Department of Agriculture, other employees of the 
     Department, and employees of other Federal agencies with 
     rural responsibilities shall fully participate as voting 
     members in the governance and operations of State rural 
     development councils (including activities related to grants, 
     contracts, and other agreements in accordance with this 
     section) on an equal basis with other members of the State 
     rural development councils.
       ``(B) Conflicts.--Participation by a Federal employee in a 
     State rural development council in accordance with this 
     paragraph shall not constitute a violation of section 205 or 
     208 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(d) Administrative Support of the Partnership.--
       ``(1) Detail of employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--In order to provide experience in 
     intergovernmental collaboration, the head of an agency with 
     rural responsibilities that elects to participate in the 
     Partnership may, and is encouraged to, detail to the 
     Secretary for the support of the Partnership 1 or more 
     employees of the agency with rural responsibilities without 
     reimbursement for a period of up to 1 year.
       ``(B) Civil service status.--The detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       ``(2) Additional support.--The Secretary may provide for 
     any additional support staff to the Partnership as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the duties 
     of the Partnership.
       ``(3) Intermediaries.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     contract with a qualified intermediary under which the 
     intermediary shall be responsible for providing 
     administrative and technical assistance to a State rural 
     development council, including administering the financial 
     assistance available to the State rural development council.
       ``(e) Matching Requirements for State Rural Development 
     Councils.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     State rural development council shall provide matching funds, 
     or in-kind goods or services, to support the activities of 
     the State rural development council in an amount that is not 
     less than 33 percent of the amount of Federal funds received 
     from a Federal agency under subsection (f)(2).
       ``(2) Exceptions to matching requirement for certain 
     federal funds.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to funds, 
     grants, funds provided under contracts or cooperative 
     agreements, gifts, contributions, or technical assistance 
     received by a State rural development council from a Federal 
     agency that are used--
       ``(A) to support 1 or more specific program or project 
     activities; or
       ``(B) to reimburse the State rural development council for 
     services provided to the Federal agency providing the funds, 
     grants, funds provided under contracts or cooperative 
     agreements, gifts, contributions, or technical assistance.
       ``(3) Department's share.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     plan to decrease, over time, the share of the Department of 
     Agriculture of the cost of the core operations of State rural 
     development councils.
       ``(f) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017.
       ``(2) Federal agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law limiting the ability of an agency, along with other 
     agencies, to provide funds to a State rural development 
     council in order to carry out the purposes of this section, a 
     Federal agency may make grants, gifts, or contributions to, 
     provide technical assistance to, or enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with, a State rural development 
     council.
       ``(B) Assistance.--Federal agencies are encouraged to use 
     funds made available for programs that have an impact on 
     rural areas to provide assistance to, and enter into 
     contracts with, a State rural development council, as 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Contributions.--A State rural development council may 
     accept private contributions.
       ``(g) Termination.--The authority provided under this 
     section shall terminate on September 30, 2017.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. This amendment will reestablish authorization for National 
Rural Development Partnerships--renamed State Rural Development 
Partnerships--in the 2012 farm bill. Reauthorization of these effective 
and efficient councils will allow them to continue their important work 
of strengthening rural communities in Vermont and across the country.
  This reauthorization would recognize the State councils' on-the-
ground leadership in rural communities, and allow them to continue 
their vital work. I would note that this amendment does not cost a 
single farm bill dollar; it would merely maintain the States' statutory 
authority to establish these State-run rural development councils.
  I urge all Senators to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I commend Senator Leahy, who, as 
a former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is a tremendous 
champion not only for Vermont but for the entire country on these 
issues.
  I yield back the time. I believe we have agreement for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S4348]]

  The amendment (No. 2204) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2226

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2226, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2226.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To eliminate biorefinery, renewable chemical, and biobased 
                   product manufacturing assistance)

       Beginning on page 888, strike line 5, and all that follows 
     through page 890, line 21.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, this is an amendment that repeals the 
Biorefinery Assistance Program. This is a program that primarily 
provides loan guarantees to cellulosic ethanol plants.
  The fact is the taxpayers are already subsidizing ethanol plants in 
many ways. The Federal Government already provides a tax credit of $1 a 
gallon to ethanol. The Federal Government creates a mandate that forces 
consumers to buy this product whether they want to or not, thereby 
creating a market for ethanol.
  We provide grants for ethanol. Do taxpayers also have to risk their 
money by guaranteeing loans to subsidize this activity? I do not think 
that is a good idea. This is the same idea that got us into trouble in 
so many ways. A similar loan program was the source of hundreds of 
millions of dollars of losses to Solyndra. And just this year, this 
very program cost $40 million with the bankruptcy of Range Fuels.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for a modest reform here. Repeal this 
one narrow program, the Biorefinery Assistance Program. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. In 
fact, we are not talking about ethanol. We are talking about, first of 
all, advanced biofuels using food waste or animal waste or biomass 
materials. We are talking about biobased manufacturing, which is an 
exciting new opportunity in making things and growing things together 
in our country, whether it is corn or wheat byproducts, whether it is 
soybeans. In fact, if you drive a Ford vehicle today, a new vehicle, a 
new Chevy Volt, you sit on seats with soy-based foam that is 
biodegradable, more lightweight, and you get better fuel economy, grown 
by American soybean growers.
  So this is the opportunity for new growth in jobs that is in this 
bill. It is a part I am very excited about for the future for every 
part of this country. It involves more than 3,000 innovative companies 
right now engaging in new cutting-edge manufacturing to use 
agricultural products----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW.--to get us off of foreign oil.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Those in favor say aye.
  (Chorus of ayes.)
  Those opposed say nay.
  (Chorus of nays.)
  The nays appear to have it.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  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 36, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--63

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2226) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 2242

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise to call up my 
amendment No. 2242.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr. 
     Johanns, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, and Mr. Moran, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2242.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to revise the 
 census data and population requirements for areas to be considered as 
                 rural areas for purposes of such Act)

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12207. DEFINITION OF RURAL AREA FOR PURPOSES OF THE 
                   HOUSING ACT OF 1949.

       The second sentence of section 520 of the Housing Act of 
     1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1990 or 2000 decennial census shall 
     continue to be so classified until the receipt of data from 
     the decennial census in the year 2010'' and inserting ``1990, 
     2000, or 2010 decennial census, and any area deemed to be a 
     `rural area' for purposes of this title under any other 
     provision of law at any time during the period beginning 
     January 1, 2000, and ending December 31, 2010, shall continue 
     to be so classified until the receipt of data from the 
     decennial census in the year 2020''; and
       (2) by striking ``25,000'' and inserting ``35,000''.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, this amendment would ensure 
that rural communities in all our States will remain eligible for 
housing assistance from the Department of Agriculture.
  My amendment simply extends the grandfathering clause these 
communities have operated under since 1990 and ensures that these 
communities remain eligible through 2020. This is a bipartisan 
amendment that is supported by my colleagues, Senators Johanns, Moran, 
chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Johnson, and my good friend 
and neighbor Senator Tester.
  I urge adoption of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I rise to take 10 seconds to support the amendment of my 
colleague from Nebraska. It keeps in place a program that has been in 
place since 1990. It is a good amendment.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I commend both Senators from Nebraska. 
I thank Senator Nelson for this amendment. I support it.
  I believe we have an agreement for a voice vote on this amendment, so 
I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2242) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2433

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2433.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey], for himself, 
     Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr.

[[Page S4349]]

     Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 2433.

  The amendment is as follows:

                 (Purpose: To reform the sugar program)

       Strike subtitle C of title I and insert the following:

                           Subtitle C--Sugar

     SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) Sugarcane.--Section 156(a) of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for each of the 
     2013 through 2017 crop years.''.
       (b) Sugar Beets.--Section 156(b)(2) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2017''.
       (c) Effective Period.--Section 156(i) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(i)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2017''.

     SEC. 1302. FLEXIBLE MARKETING ALLOTMENTS FOR SUGAR.

       (a) In General.--Section 359b of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2017''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``at reasonable 
     prices'' after ``stocks'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``but'' after the 
     semicolon at the end and inserting ``and''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) appropriate to maintain adequate domestic supplies at 
     reasonable prices, taking into account all sources of 
     domestic supply, including imports.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(2)(C), by striking ``if the 
     disposition of the sugar is administered by the Secretary 
     under section 9010 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002''.
       (b) Establishment of Flexible Marketing Allotments.--
     Section 359c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 
     U.S.C. 1359cc) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``but'' after the 
     semicolon at the end and inserting ``and''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) appropriate to maintain adequate supplies at 
     reasonable prices, taking into account all sources of 
     domestic supply, including imports.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``at reasonable 
     prices'' after ``market''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``Allotments.--'' and all that follows 
     through ``Subject to subparagraph (B), the'' and inserting 
     ``Allotments.--The''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (c) Suspension or Modification of Provisions.--Section 359j 
     of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359jj) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Suspension or Modification of Provisions.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the 
     Secretary may suspend or modify, in whole or in part, the 
     application of any provision of this part if the Secretary 
     determines that the action is appropriate, taking into 
     account--
       ``(1) the interests of consumers, workers in the food 
     industry, businesses (including small businesses), and 
     agricultural producers; and
       ``(2) the relative competitiveness of domestically produced 
     and imported foods containing sugar.''.
       (d) Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas.--Section 359k of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359kk) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 359K. ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, at the beginning of the quota year, the Secretary 
     shall establish the tariff-rate quotas for raw cane sugar and 
     refined sugar at no less than the minimum level necessary to 
     comply with obligations under international trade agreements 
     that have been approved by Congress.
       ``(b) Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall adjust the tariff-rate quotas for raw cane sugar and 
     refined sugar to provide adequate supplies of sugar at 
     reasonable prices in the domestic market.
       ``(2) Ending stocks.--Subject to paragraphs (1) and (3), 
     the Secretary shall establish and adjust tariff-rate quotas 
     in such a manner that the ratio of sugar stocks to total 
     sugar use at the end of the quota year will be approximately 
     15.5 percent.
       ``(3) Maintenance of reasonable prices and avoidance of 
     forfeitures.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may establish a different 
     target for the ratio of ending stocks to total use if, in the 
     judgment of the Secretary, the different target is necessary 
     to prevent--
       ``(i) unreasonably high prices; or
       ``(ii) forfeitures of sugar pledged as collateral for a 
     loan under section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
     and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272).
       ``(B) Announcement.--The Secretary shall publicly announce 
     any establishment of a target under this paragraph.
       ``(4) Considerations.--In establishing tariff-rate quotas 
     under subsection (a) and making adjustments under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consider the impact of the 
     quotas on consumers, workers, businesses (including small 
     businesses), and agricultural producers.
       ``(c) Temporary Transfer of Quotas.--
       ``(1) In general.--To promote full use of the tariff-rate 
     quotas for raw cane sugar and refined sugar, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that provide that any country that has been 
     allocated a share of the quotas may temporarily transfer all 
     or part of the share to any other country that has also been 
     allocated a share of the quotas.
       ``(2) Transfers voluntary.--Any transfer under this 
     subsection shall be valid only on voluntary agreement between 
     the transferor and the transferee, consistent with procedures 
     established by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Transfers temporary.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any transfer under this subsection shall 
     be valid only for the duration of the quota year during which 
     the transfer is made.
       ``(B) Following quota year.--No transfer under this 
     subsection shall affect the share of the quota allocated to 
     the transferor or transferee for the following quota year.''.
       (e) Effective Period.--Section 359l(a) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ll(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2017''.

       On page 897, strike lines 8 through 15, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 9009. REPEAL OF FEEDSTOCK FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM FOR 
                   BIOENERGY PRODUCERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9010 of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8110) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 359a(3)(B) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
     of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa(3)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``; and'' at the end and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking clause (iii).
       (2) Section 359b(c)(2)(C) of the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(c)(2)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``, except for'' and all that follows through `` of 2002''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate on the 
amendment.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I will claim the first minute and yield 
the first 30 seconds to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Pennsylvania in supporting his amendment. This is the last opportunity 
for a bipartisan amendment to reform sugar subsidies that are costing 
consumers $3.5 million a year and losing 20,000 jobs a year in this 
country.
  This amendment maintains the current sugar program but rolls back the 
additional subsidies that were provided for sugar in the 2008 farm 
bill.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Let me point out 
that this amendment is such a modest reform. It lowers the price 
support on raw sugar, for instance, from 18.75 cents per pound all the 
way down to 18 cents per pound.
  This is an amendment that will save consumers money, save taxpayers 
money and, most importantly, it will save jobs. As the Department of 
Commerce pointed out, for every job saved by the sugar program, three 
jobs are lost. It is a modest amendment that simply restores us to the 
policy prior to 2008.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I strongly oppose this argument. If we 
want to jeopardize 142,000 American jobs, this is the vote to do it. We 
will see these jobs shipped overseas.
  The bottom line is that this program operates at zero cost to the 
taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office says it will continue 
operating at zero cost for the next 10 years. This is about American 
jobs in American communities all across this country. We are talking 
about 142,000 jobs. If we are importing cheap sugar at a point where we 
undermine American jobs, what have we gained? We want to export our 
products, not our jobs. That is what this amendment would do.
  I urge strongly a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S4350]]

  Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  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 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Paul
     Portman
     Reed
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Toomey
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2433) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2299

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I call up my amendment No. 2299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar] proposes 
     amendment numbered 2299.

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of 
   Transportation to conduct a study on rural transportation issues)

       On page 782, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 6203. STUDY OF RURAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall jointly conduct a study of 
     transportation issues regarding the movement of agricultural 
     products, domestically produced renewable fuels, and 
     domestically produced resources for the production of 
     electricity for rural areas of the United States, and 
     economic development in those areas.
       (b) Inclusions.--The study shall include an examination 
     of--
       (1) the importance of freight transportation, including 
     rail, truck, and barge, to--
       (A) the delivery of equipment, seed, fertilizer, and other 
     products important to the development of agricultural 
     commodities and products;
       (B) the movement of agricultural commodities and products 
     to market;
       (C) the delivery of ethanol and other renewable fuels;
       (D) the delivery of domestically produced resources for use 
     in the generation of electricity for rural areas;
       (E) the location of grain elevators, ethanol plants, and 
     other facilities;
       (F) the development of manufacturing facilities in rural 
     areas; and
       (G) the vitality and economic development of rural 
     communities;
       (2) the sufficiency in rural areas of transportation 
     capacity, the sufficiency of competition in the 
     transportation system, the reliability of transportation 
     services, and the reasonableness of transportation rates;
       (3) the sufficiency of facility investment in rural areas 
     necessary for efficient and cost-effective transportation; 
     and
       (4) the accessibility to shippers in rural areas of Federal 
     processes for the resolution of grievances arising within 
     various transportation modes.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall submit a report to Congress 
     that contains the results of the study required under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Periodic Updates.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall publish triennially an updated version 
     of the study described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 6204. AGRICULTURAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.

       Section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622) is amended by striking subsection (j) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(j) Policy Development Proceedings.--The Secretary shall 
     participate on behalf of the interests of agriculture and 
     rural America in all policy development proceedings or other 
     proceedings of the Surface Transportation Board that may 
     establish freight rail transportation policy affecting 
     agriculture and rural America.''.

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan amendment. Senator Hoeven of North Dakota is a 
cosponsor, and this helps address the transportation needs of rural 
America.
  This amendment simply calls for a study on rural transportation and 
takes a close look at the issue of captive shippers. Farmers, energy 
producers, and manufacturers who depend on freight rail service find 
themselves trapped today in a back-to-the-future world, struggling with 
a problem that has resurfaced from a century ago. Many of these end 
users--these captive customers--have only one railroad to serve them. 
Three decades ago there were 63 class I railroads and today only 7 
remain. This amendment simply looks at the effect this situation has on 
transportation in rural areas. It is supported by nearly 40 national 
and regional agricultural and energy organizations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask for a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Klobuchar's 
amendment and appreciate her great work.
  I yield back the remaining time, and it is my understanding we can 
proceed to a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2299) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] moves to recommit the bill, 
     S. 3240, to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
     Forestry with instructions to report the same back to the 
     Senate with a reduction in spending to 2008 levels so that 
     overall spending shall not exceed $714,247,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I introduce this motion to recommit to move 
us back to 2008 levels. We cannot continue to kick this can down the 
road in perpetuity. Our spending levels threaten to impair our ability 
to fund everything from defense to entitlements and everything that 
falls in between. This is a good start, and this is something that 
would cut the 10-year cost of this bill by $254 billion. We need to do 
it. We need to send it back to the committee, where the committee will 
have discretion on exactly how to accomplish that.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I strongly oppose this motion to 
recommit. I want to read the cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office. This bill spends $23.6 billion less than 
we project would be spent if those programs were continued as under 
current law. This bill is $23 billion in deficit reduction, according 
to the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office.
  Frankly, we believe, in agriculture, on a bipartisan basis, that we 
have done our job. We have scoured every page, reduced the deficit by 
$23 billion-plus, and eliminated 100 different programs and 
authorizations within our jurisdiction. Frankly, I think we are 
offering, within what we can do, reform and deficit reduction of which 
we should all feel very proud.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S4351]]

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in my approximately 20 seconds remaining, 
let me say that if we want to continue the same budgeting process that 
has put us nearly $16 trillion in debt, then we should proceed to vote 
against this. If, on the other hand, we want to turn this around and 
maintain our ability to fund essential government programs, we need to 
pass this.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, let me take just 1 second to say that 
this bill turns us in a different direction--$23 billion-plus in 
deficit reduction. It may be the only bipartisan deficit reduction 
proposal we will pass in the Senate before the election.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  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 29, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--70

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


       Amendments Nos. 2195, 2246, 2403, 2443, 2363, as Modified

  Mrs. STABENOW. Madam President, we have been hard at work to pull 
together some amendments we need to do in a vote. I ask unanimous 
consent the following amendments that are in order under the unanimous 
consent agreement be agreed to: Ayotte No. 2195, Blunt No. 2246, Moran 
No. 2403, Moran No. 2443, and Vitter No. 2363, as modified with the 
changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2195

       (Purpose: To require a GAO report on crop insurance fraud)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. GAO CROP INSURANCE FRAUD REPORT.

       Section 515(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1515(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) GAO crop insurance fraud report.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, 
     and submit to Congress a report describing the results of, a 
     study regarding fraudulent claims filed, and benefits 
     provided, under this subtitle.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2246

   (Purpose: To assist military veterans in agricultural occupations)

       On page 999, strike line 13 and insert the following:
     ``actions with employees of the Department.
       ``(c) Contracts and Cooperative Agreements.--For purposes 
     of carrying out the duties under subsection (b), the Military 
     Veterans Agricultural Liaison may enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with the research centers of the 
     Agricultural Research Service, institutions of higher 
     education, or nonprofit organizations for--
       ``(1) the conduct of regional research on the profitability 
     of small farms;
       ``(2) the development of educational materials;
       ``(3) the conduct of workshops, courses, and certified 
     vocational training;
       ``(4) the conduct of mentoring activities; or
       ``(5) the provision of internship opportunities.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2403

     (Purpose: To increase the minimum level of nonemergency food 
                              assistance)

       On page 291, lines 20 and 21, strike ``15 percent'' and 
     insert ``20''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2443

          (Purpose: To improve farm safety at the local level)

       In section 7408, strike ``(2) in subsection (h)--'' and 
     insert the following:
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i);
       (3) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) State Grants.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subsection, 
     the term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) an agency of a State or political subdivision of a 
     State;
       ``(B) a national, State, or regional organization of 
     agricultural producers; and
       ``(C) any other entity determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Grants.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds made available to carry out this section 
     for each fiscal year under subsection (i) to make grants to 
     States, on a competitive basis, which States shall use the 
     grants to make grants to eligible entities to establish and 
     improve farm safety programs at the local level.''; and
       (4) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2363, AS MODIFIED

   (Purpose: To ensure that extras in film and television who bring 
 personal, common domesticated household pets do not face unnecessary 
 regulations and to prohibit attendance at an animal fighting venture)

       At the end of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12207. ANIMAL WELFARE.

       Section 2(h) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132(h)) 
     is amended by adding ``an owner of a common, domesticated 
     household pet who derives less than a substantial portion of 
     income from a nonprimary source (as determined by the 
     Secretary) for exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides 
     at the residence of the pet owner,'' after ``stores,''.

     SEC. 12208. PROHIBITION ON ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHT OR 
                   CAUSING A MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL FIGHT; 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Prohibition on Attending an Animal Fight or Causing a 
     Minor to Attend an Animal Fight.--Section 26 of the Animal 
     Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Sponsoring or Exhibiting 
     an Animal in'' and inserting ``Sponsoring or Exhibiting an 
     Animal in, Attending, or Causing a Minor To Attend'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``In General'' and 
     inserting ``Sponsoring or Exhibiting''; and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (3)'';
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Attending or causing a minor to attend.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to--
       ``(A) knowingly attend an animal fighting venture; or
       ``(B) knowingly cause a minor to attend an animal fighting 
     venture.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) the term `minor' means a person under the age of 18 
     years old.''.
       (b) Enforcement of Animal Fighting Prohibitions.--Section 
     49 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Whoever'';
       (2) in subsection (a), as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section, by striking ``subsection (a),'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(1),''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) Attending an Animal Fighting Venture.--Whoever 
     violates subsection (a)(2)(A) of section 26 of the Animal 
     Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each 
     violation.
       ``(c) Causing a Minor To Attend an Animal Fighting 
     Venture.--Whoever violates subsection (a)(2)(B) of section 26 
     (7 U.S.C. 2156) of the Animal Welfare Act shall be fined 
     under this title, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or 
     both, for each violation.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2287

  Mr. CARPER. I call up amendment No. 2287 and ask unanimous consent 
that the reading be dispensed with.

[[Page S4352]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for himself and Mr. 
     Boozman, proposes an amendment numbered 2287.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to high-priority research and 
                         extension initiatives)

       On page 805, strike lines 18 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
     (43), (47), (48), (51), and (52);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (9), (10), (40), (44), 
     (45), (46), (49), and (50) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), 
     (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9), respectively; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) Corn, soybean meal, cereal grains, and grain 
     byproducts research and extension.--Research and extension 
     grants may be made under this section for the purpose of 
     carrying out or enhancing research to improve the 
     digestibility, nutritional value, and efficiency of use of 
     corn, soybean meal, cereal grains, and grain byproducts for 
     the poultry and food animal production industries.'';

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, roughly two-thirds of the cost of 
raising a chicken is the cost of feed. In recent years, the cost of 
feed, including the cost of corn, has, as we know, risen dramatically, 
raising with it the cost of chicken and other meats in our 
supermarkets. These rising costs have placed a strain on the poultry 
industry, among others, and on consumers too. That is why I joined with 
Senator Boozman in offering an amendment to this bill that makes 
improving the efficiency, digestibility, and nutritional value of feed 
for poultry and livestock--including corn, soybean meal, grains and 
grain byproducts--a top research priority at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  By improving the food used to raise our chickens and livestock we can 
provide the poultry and livestock industry with a greater variety of 
feed choices for use in their operations. But this research will not 
only benefit our country's food producers, it also benefits our 
Nation's families by continuing to provide consumers with affordable 
high-quality food.
  Senator Boozman and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. STABENOW. I commend Senator Carper. I have to say he has 
mentioned to me many times there are 300 chickens for every person in 
Delaware. I think I have that in my memory now. I commend him for his 
work.
  We are yielding back time, and we have agreed to a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2287) was agreed to.


                  Motion To Recommit With Instructions

  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I have a motion at the 
desk.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Johnson the Senator from Wisconsin, moves to recommit 
     the bill S. 3240 to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate with instructions to report the 
     same back to the Senate after removing the title relating to 
     nutrition and to report to the Senate as a separate bill the 
     title related to nutrition.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. This is a pretty straightforward motion. It 
recommits the bill in the Senate back to the committee to have that 
committee report back to the full Senate two separate bills. It 
recognizes the reality that what we have in front of us is not really a 
farm bill but a food stamp bill.
  The history is that in 1964 we made food stamps permanent. In 1973 we 
combined the food stamp portion with the farm bill to ease passage of 
both votes--to make it easier to spend money. That has worked pretty 
well because when the food stamp bill was first passed, it cost $375 
million--million--per year. Really, 500,000 people were eligible. Since 
that point in time it is now going to cost $772 billion over 10 years. 
It is now 78 percent the size of this entire package.
  Again, I think it is more than appropriate to split these bills in 
two so both bills, the food stamp bill and the farm bill, would get 
more scrutiny and there would be more debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to oppose the motion to 
recommit. After all the hard work we have been doing, I am not sure we 
want to do it twice this year on a farm bill. But on a more serious 
note, let me just indicate, again, these are major reforms, $23 
billion-plus in deficit reduction. It addresses the diversity of 
agriculture--16 million jobs are connected to agriculture in every 
corner of our country. All of us have a stake in food security. We have 
the safest, most affordable food supply in the world thanks to a lot of 
hard-working folks all across this country.
  We believe what we have put forward is something worthy of support. 
We appreciate all the hard work everyone is doing, the changes that are 
being made. But I urge we not recommit this bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--59

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2254

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2254.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2254.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

        (Purpose: To improve the community wood energy program)

       On page 914, line 14, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Definition of Biomass Consumer Cooperative.--Section 
     9013(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
     (7 U.S.C. 8113(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) Biomass consumer cooperative.--The term `biomass 
     consumer cooperative' means a consumer membership 
     organization the purpose of which is to provide members with 
     services or discounts relating to the purchase of biomass 
     heating products or biomass heating systems.''.
       (b) Grant Program.--Section 9013(b)(1) of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8113(b)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) grants of up to $50,000 to biomass consumer 
     cooperatives for the purpose of establishing or expanding 
     biomass consumer cooperatives that will provide consumers 
     with services or discounts relating to--

[[Page S4353]]

       ``(i) the purchase of biomass heating systems;
       ``(ii) biomass heating products, including wood chips, wood 
     pellets, and advanced biofuels; or
       ``(iii) the delivery and storage of biomass of heating 
     products.''.
       (c) Matching Funds.--Section 9013(d) of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8113(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``A State or local government that receives 
     a grant under subsection (b)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) State and local governments.--A State or local 
     government that receives a grant under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) of subsection (b)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Biomass consumer cooperatives.--A biomass consumer 
     cooperative that receives a grant under subsection (b)(1)(C) 
     shall contribute an amount of non-Federal funds (which may 
     include State, local, and nonprofit funds and membership 
     dues) toward the establishment or expansion of a biomass 
     consumer cooperative that is at least equal to 50 percent of 
     the amount of Federal funds received for that purpose.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is a noncontroversial amendment 
which, according to the CBO, has zero costs. It is supported by the 
National Wildlife Federation, the American Forest Foundation, the 
Biomass Thermal Energy Council, and the Trust for Public Land.
  This amendment would simply allow, under the Community Wood Energy 
Program, a new category of small grants to be created which would 
provide seed capital for biomass cooperatives through grants of up to 
$50,000. These cooperatives would have the opportunity to work with 
local wood pellet or wood chip manufacturers to supply bulk purchases 
that provide consumers with modest discounts.
  This amendment can help our Nation move forward to more locally 
produced renewable biomass heating. Again, according to the CBO, it has 
zero costs, and I would ask for the support of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator 
from Vermont and yield back time. It is my understanding that we will 
proceed to a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2254) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                    Amendment No. 2363, as Modified

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
adoption of Vitter amendment No. 2363, as modified, be vitiated; and 
further, that the Vitter amendment, as modified, be subject to a 60-
affirmative-vote threshold.
  I turn now to Senator Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I expect this amendment to pass, but I 
know some Members expected a vote, and I certainly wanted to provide 
them that vote with a 60-vote threshold.
  I urge support of this bipartisan amendment. It does two things. 
First of all, it clears up a situation in the context of the film 
industry where there are certain unintended regulations of extras and 
actors bringing their pets on the set. All of a sudden that is being 
captured by regulation which is intended for zoo animals and circus 
animals, and things such as that. There is no opposition to this part 
of the amendment at all.
  Secondly, because of the modification, which adds a provision 
supported by myself and Senators Blumenthal, Kirk, and others, that 
would make it illegal under Federal law to attend an animal fight. It 
is already outlawed to help organize an animal fight under Federal law. 
It is also illegal to attend one under State law in 49 States. This 
will make Federal law similar to State law and will help Federal 
authorities work with local government in sting operations, and that is 
what they normally do.
  I ask support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been in contact with Senator 
McConnell. We are making good progress here. The goal is to get down to 
10 votes. Once we get down to 10 votes, we will stop for the night. We 
should be able to do that in the next hour or hour and half, give or 
take a few minutes. I think the goal is reachable.
  We will come in tomorrow. We have some important votes tomorrow. 
Don't forget that we have flood insurance. I hope we can move up the 
vote on cloture on flood insurance tomorrow. If not, we are going to 
have to vote on it on Friday. We have done that in the past. We should 
be able to do that. The goal is 10 votes left by the time we leave here 
this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Vitter 
amendment?
  Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might, I am not sure if we have 
anyone in opposition. I rise in strong support of this amendment. We 
know that there are Members who wanted the opportunity to vote and 
record a ``no'' vote. I hope that since we passed this by a voice vote 
a bit ago, we will have an overwhelming affirmative vote for this 
amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  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 88, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Alexander
     Bingaman
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Lee
     Paul
     Rubio
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, as modified, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 2438

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up Chambliss amendment No. 2438.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2438.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish highly erodible land and wetland conservation 
    compliance requirements for the Federal crop insurance program)

       At the end of subtitle G of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 2609. HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND CONSERVATION FOR 
                   CROP INSURANCE.

       (a) Highly Erodible Land Program Ineligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1211(a)(1) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) any portion of premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a plan or policy of insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);''.
       (2) Exemptions.--Section 1212(a)(2) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812(a)(2)) is amended--

[[Page S4354]]

       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``(2) If,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Eligibility based on compliance with conservation 
     plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--If,'';
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``In carrying'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Minimization of documentation.--In carrying''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Crop insurance.--In the case of payments that are 
     subject to section 1211 for the first time due to the 
     amendment made by section 2609(a) of the Agriculture Reform, 
     Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, any person who produces an 
     agricultural commodity on the land that is the basis of the 
     payments shall have until January 1 of the fifth year after 
     the date on which the payments became subject to section 1211 
     to develop and comply with an approved conservation plan.''.
       (b) Wetland Conservation Program Ineligibility.--Section 
     1221(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Any portion of premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a plan or policy of insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).''.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment would require those who 
receive crop insurance protection from the Federal Government to now 
follow conservation compliance laws. Conservation compliance was 
enacted as part of the 1985 farm bill and has contributed almost 
singlehandedly to almost three decades of progress in limiting erosion, 
cleaning up waterways, and protecting wetlands. For those of us who 
love to fish and hunt, that has been of critical importance. No other 
program has done more for protecting our farmland and topsoil than 
conservation compliance.
  In 1996 Congress exempted crop insurance from the conservation 
requirement. Back then, the reason for doing so was to increase 
participation in the Crop Insurance Program. And that is exactly what 
we have seen. We have seen premium subsidies increase by 500 percent.
  The farm bill we are debating now will incentivize farmers to move 
from title I programs to crop insurance, and as a result soil and 
wetland conservation will not be a policy priority. And it should be. 
This shift will likely adversely impact soil and conservation without 
this amendment.
  If crop insurance is going to be the preferred safety net for 
farmers, then we also need to make sure the program does not 
incentivize farmers to eliminate the gains we have made in the last 25 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment of my friend and colleague.
  The battle cry for conservation compliance requirements to be 
attached to crop insurance seems, strangely, to assume that 
conservation compliance is somehow eliminated in commodity programs in 
this new bill. This is not true. Conservation compliance is attached to 
the new farm revenue program in title I of the bill. Conservation 
compliance is also attached to the marketing loan program.
  To duplicate the same requirements in crop insurance is wasteful of 
government resources, taxpayer dollars, and will cause a lot more 
paperwork. When your farmers find out you are wasting taxpayer dollars 
and are in charge of a duplicative effort and making them fill out more 
paperwork, you will have to hide in your office for 4 weeks. Do not 
hide in your office for 4 weeks. Vote no.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Amen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  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 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Cantwell
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2438) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2437

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2437.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2437.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To limit the amount of premium subsidy provided by the 
  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on behalf of any person or legal 
  entity with an average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000, 
  with a delayed application of the limitation until completion of a 
                study on the effects of the limitation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON PREMIUM SUBSIDY BASED ON AVERAGE 
                   ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.

       Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(e)) (as amended by section 11023(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Limitation on premium subsidy based on average 
     adjusted gross income.--
       ``(A) Definition of average adjusted gross income.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `average adjusted gross income' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 1001D(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 3a(a)).
       ``(B) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle and beginning with the 2014 reinsurance year, 
     in the case of any producer that is a person or legal entity 
     that has an average adjusted gross income in excess of 
     $750,000 based on the most recent data available from the 
     Farm Service Agency as of the beginning of the reinsurance 
     year, the total amount of premium subsidy provided with 
     respect to additional coverage under subsection (c), section 
     508B, or section 508C issued on behalf of the producer for a 
     reinsurance year shall be 15 percentage points less than the 
     premium subsidy provided in accordance with this subsection 
     that would otherwise be available for the applicable policy, 
     plan of insurance, and coverage level selected by the 
     producer.
       ``(C) Application.--
       ``(i) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the approved insurance providers, shall carry out a study to 
     determine the effects of the limitation described in 
     subparagraph (B) on--

       ``(I) the overall operations of the Federal crop insurance 
     program;
       ``(II) the number of producers participating in the Federal 
     crop insurance program;
       ``(III) the amount of premiums paid by participating 
     producers;
       ``(IV) any potential liability for approved insurance 
     providers;
       ``(V) any crops or growing regions that may be 
     disproportionately impacted;
       ``(VI) program rating structures;
       ``(VII) creation of schemes or devices to evade the impact 
     of the limitation; and
       ``(VIII) underwriting gains and losses.

       ``(ii) Effectiveness.--The limitation described in 
     subparagraph (B) shall not take effect unless the Secretary 
     determines, through the study described in clause (i), that 
     the limitation would not--

       ``(I) increase the premium amount paid by producers with an 
     average adjusted gross income of less than $750,000;
       ``(II) result in a decline in the availability of crop 
     insurance services to producers; and

[[Page S4355]]

       ``(III) increase the costs to the Federal government to 
     administer the Federal crop insurance program established 
     under this subtitle.''.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in the years 1994 to 2003, the Congress 
appropriated over $36 billion in ad hoc or emergency assistance for 
farmers and ranchers across this country above and beyond the normal 
farm program payments. Let me say that again--$36 billion in a 10-year 
period between 1994 and 2003 above and beyond normal farm program 
payments.
  Since the emergence of the Crop Insurance Program, we have seen those 
disaster ad hoc emergency bills go away. The Crop Insurance Program is 
the centerpiece of this farm policy. That is what this entire farm bill 
is built around. That is what farmers and producers in this country 
said they wanted.
  There is going to be an amendment offered by our colleagues Senators 
Durbin and Coburn that would limit the availability of that to people 
who have adjusted gross incomes under $750,000. What I would say to 
that is that this amendment--the amendment I am offering--is not about 
those who are making more than $750,000; it is about those who make 
less whose premiums would go up as a result of that change.
  We need a good, strong Crop Insurance Program for the farmers in this 
country. That is what this farm bill is built upon. We should not take 
any chances with it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a good farm bill. It eliminates 
direct payments and a lot of subsidies. But there is one aspect of 
Federal subsidy in this bill that goes untouched; it is the Federal 
subsidy from our Treasury to pay for the crop insurance premiums. 
Sixty-two percent, the GAO tells us, of crop insurance premiums are 
paid for by taxpayers, which means those who are using crop insurance 
are relying on the Treasury.
  So Senator Coburn and I, a political odd couple I will admit, said, 
for at least those making over $750,000 a year, we are going to trim 
the Federal subsidy by 15 percentage points. How many farmers would be 
affected by this nationwide--15,000 farmers out of 1.5 million.
  The Thune amendment says: We cannot reduce this subsidy, even though 
it saves us $1 billion. We cannot reduce this subsidy--in his 
language--if it adds any administrative expense. So if it costs $1 to 
even figure out who the 15,000 farmers are, no way we are going to save 
$1 billion.
  Vote against the Thune amendment and then vote for Durbin-Coburn. 
Voting for both does not get the job done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
respond to the comments of the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time does he have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time is remaining.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. DUBIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would support the yeas and nays and 
just strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the Thune amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I will support the yeas and nays and 
stand with the chairwoman and Senator Thune.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Franken
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2437) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2439

  Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 2439.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2439.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To limit the amount of premium subsidy provided by the 
  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on behalf of any person or legal 
  entity with an average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000, 
  with a delayed application of the limitation until completion of a 
                study on the effects of the limitation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON PREMIUM SUBSIDY BASED ON AVERAGE 
                   ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.

       Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(e)) (as amended by section 11023(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Limitation on premium subsidy based on average 
     adjusted gross income.--
       ``(A) Definition of average adjusted gross income.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `average adjusted gross income' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 1001D(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 3a(a)).
       ``(B) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle and beginning with the 2014 reinsurance year, 
     in the case of any producer that is a person or legal entity 
     that has an average adjusted gross income in excess of 
     $750,000 based on the most recent data available from the 
     Farm Service Agency as of the beginning of the reinsurance 
     year, the total amount of premium subsidy provided with 
     respect to additional coverage under subsection (c), section 
     508B, or section 508C issued on behalf of the producer for a 
     reinsurance year shall be 15 percentage points less than the 
     premium subsidy provided in accordance with this subsection 
     that would otherwise be available for the applicable policy, 
     plan of insurance, and coverage level selected by the 
     producer.
       ``(C) Application.--
       ``(i) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Government Accountability Office, shall carry out a study 
     to determine the effects of the limitation described in 
     subparagraph (B) on--

       ``(I) the overall operations of the Federal crop insurance 
     program;
       ``(II) the number of producers participating in the Federal 
     crop insurance program;
       ``(III) the level of coverage purchased by participating 
     producers;
       ``(IV) the amount of premiums paid by participating 
     producers and the Federal Government;
       ``(V) any potential liability for participating producers, 
     approved insurance providers, and the Federal Government;
       ``(VI) different crops or growing regions;
       ``(VII) program rating structures;
       ``(VIII) creation of schemes or devices to evade the impact 
     of the limitation; and
       ``(IX) administrative and operating expenses paid to 
     approved insurance providers and underwriting gains and loss 
     for the Federal government and approved insurance providers.

       ``(ii) Effectiveness.--The limitation described in 
     subparagraph (B) shall not take effect unless the Secretary 
     determines, through the study described in clause (i), that 
     the limitation would not--

       ``(I) significantly increase the premium amount paid by 
     producers with an average adjusted gross income of less than 
     $750,000;

[[Page S4356]]

       ``(II) result in a decline in the crop insurance coverage 
     available to producers; and
       ``(III) increase the total cost of the Federal crop 
     insurance program.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that both Senator 
Durbin and I have offered. It is not nearly as severe as the GAO's 
recommendation for this program.
  The very wealthiest of farmers, in terms of income in this country, 
are the people most likely to buy less crop insurance, not more. Yet we 
subsidize them at the same rate as we do the middle-income and lower 
income farmers.
  This is straightforward. If you want to save $1 billion, if you want 
to tackle the debt, here is a way that will allow us to save $1 billion 
and not put anybody at risk. Highly capitalized farmers don't insure at 
the same rate as lower capitalized farmers.
  This will be the only program, if this amendment doesn't pass, that 
doesn't have a payment limitation on it in terms of adjusted gross 
income. So there should be no question we should do this just in terms 
of fairness of all the sacrifices we are going to ask everybody else in 
this country to make in the coming years. This ought to be part of this 
farm program.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, on behalf of Chairwoman Stabenow, myself, 
Senator Thune, and every farm organization and commodity group in 
America, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It will impact every 
single producer in the program, not those that exceed this arbitrary 
limit or ``rich producers.'' The rest will pay higher premiums when 
they are out of the program because that is what happens with an 
insurance pool.
  I have no doubt, just as sure as I am standing here and the Senator 
from Oklahoma is sitting there and contemplating this, that under this 
amendment we will soon return to the days of low crop insurance 
participation, multibillion-dollar ad hoc disaster programs, just as in 
the 1990s--$36 billion over 10 years, $11 billion in 1 year. These are 
a disaster to plan, to legislate, and to implement.
  If you are for these ad hoc disaster programs, you better hide for at 
least 6 weeks in your office. We just passed two where you are hiding 
for 2 and 4. Now you are going to have to hide in your office for 6 
weeks. Don't hide in your office for 6 weeks. Vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  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 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2439) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have made a lot of progress on this 
legislation. We are down to 10 or 11 amendments. We are going to come 
in tomorrow and finish this bill. We are going to try to get 
permission--I understand we can--to have a cloture vote tomorrow.
  We have to figure out where we are going on flood insurance. It is 
obvious, with all the problems we are having with flood insurance, we 
are not going to finish that tomorrow or the next day; but we have to 
work toward completing that as quickly as we can next week. Remember, 
the program expires at the end of the month--and the end of the month 
is coming very quickly. We have two voice votes, but this will be the 
last recorded vote. We will come in tomorrow and work through these. We 
will have the staff work with the requests people have for time on the 
floor and other things that need to be done.
  We don't know exactly what time we are coming in tomorrow or what 
time the votes will start, but as soon as we can. There will be votes 
all through the lunch hour. Everybody should understand that. We hope 
to be able to finish by 3 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.


                           Amendment No. 2340

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up Chambliss amendment No. 2340.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for himself and 
     Mr. Isakson, propose an amendment numbered 2340.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To move the sugar import quota adjustment date forward in the 
                               crop year)

       On page 69, strike line 15 and insert the following:
       (2) Sugar import quota adjustment date.--Section 359k(b) of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359kk(b)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``April 1'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``February 1''; and
       (B) by striking ``April 1'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``February 1''.
       (3) Effective period.--Section 359l(a) of

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering has a very 
focused and modest reform objective--specifically, to accelerate by 60 
days the date on which USDA may increase the import quota, if in the 
agency's judgment such action is needed to adequately supply the 
Nation's demand for sugar.
  The current farm bill prohibits the USDA from adjusting the minimum 
sugar quota imports until April 1 of the crop year unless there is an 
emergency shortage of sugar that is caused by war, flood, hurricane, or 
other natural disaster, or other similar event as determined by the 
Secretary.
  Experience with the April 1 date has been very unsatisfactory to 
independent domestic sugar refiners and their refined sugar customers 
who have annually experienced shortfalls in the supply of sugar and 
endured the elevated prices that ensue from inadequacy of timely 
supply. The April 1 date leaves precious little time in the balance of 
the sugar crop year for USDA's complex bureaucratic process.
  I ask support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask that we take this as a voice vote. 
We have an agreement to proceed to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2340) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2432

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment No. 2432 be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S4357]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2432.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal mandatory funding for the farmers market and local 
 food promotion program) In section 10003(7), strike subparagraph (A).

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment simply strikes $20 
million annually in mandatory funds from the Farmers Market Promotion 
Program. The program will still retain its authorization for annual 
appropriations at $20 million per year.
  I understand the important role that farmers markets play in 
connecting consumers with the farmers who grow their food. However, 
this is a grant program that should be funded with discretionary 
appropriations. We can't give every program in the farm bill mandatory 
money at a time of fiscal crisis.
  The number of farmers markets in the United States has grown 
exponentially over the last 5 years. The Agriculture Marketing Service 
reports that in mid-2011, there were 7,175 farmers markets in the 
United States. This was a 17-percent increase over 2010.
  This amendment will save the government $200 million over the next 10 
years while still allowing the program to retain its integrity. I ask 
for consideration and for an affirmative vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. This 
relates to a very important growth area in agriculture regarding 
farmers markets. We now have farmers markets all across the country in 
every community, providing the chance for local growers to come 
together, for families to receive healthy food and have access to local 
food in their communities.
  I know in Michigan for every $10 families spend at a farmers market 
we have $40 million in economic activity--just in Michigan alone, for 
$10.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2432) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first want to say thank you to all of 
our colleagues for their wonderful work today--and apologize. I think 
when I was speaking a moment ago I was not exactly clear, after 
numerous hours on the floor. It is true that if a family spends $10 at 
a farmers market, it generates economic activity in Michigan of $40 
million--that is if every family in Michigan spent $10. I don't know if 
that is any clearer, but I apologize. I think at the end of the day I 
was not clear.
  Before going to a unanimous consent request, I thank the leader--both 
our leaders for their patience and diligence and for supporting our 
efforts. We have had a long day. People have worked very hard. We are 
near the end. We are going to have a farm bill. We are going to have 
major reform, $23 billion in deficit reduction. We are doing it 
altogether through a process where we propose amendments and vote on 
amendments, and the Senate is operating in regular order. We appreciate 
everybody's hard work, hanging in there with us as we get this done, 
which we are on the path to do tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 2202

  I ask unanimous consent that the Bennet-Crapo amendment No. 2202 be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2202) was agreed to, as follows:

           (Purpose: To improve agricultural land easements)

       On page 205, line 4, insert ``by eligible entities'' after 
     ``purchase''.
       On page 207, lines 10 and 11, strike ``contiguous acres'' 
     and insert ``areas''.
       On page 208, line 24, insert ``if terms of the easement are 
     not enforced by the holder of the easement'' before the 
     semicolon at the end.

                    Easement and Insect Infestation

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
the farm bill we have on the floor, and to recognize chairwoman 
Stabenow and ranking member Roberts for constructing a bill that passed 
the Committee with strong, bipartisan support.
  I would like to express my strong support for the bill's work on 
conservation including a reformed and stronger conservation title, and 
a provision known as ``sodsaver'' that was authored by Senator Thune of 
South Dakota. I was a proud cosponsor of the provision when we marked 
up the bill in committee, and I am glad to see it in the package on the 
floor.
  I would also thank the Chair for including the Bennet-Crapo amendment 
regarding conservation easements in the consent agreement, and I look 
forward to the amendment's expected passage later today.
  Finally, I hope to continue to work with the chair and ranking member 
on two topics.
  The first is easement policy. In my State of Colorado, easements are 
an important tool for protecting environmentally vital and valuable 
grasslands. We did a lot of great work in committee to simplify this 
program and make it easier for the administration, partner entities, 
and landowners to use. One great thing S. 3240 does is provide a waiver 
for grasslands of significance, making it easier for the Secretary to 
enter into agreements to conserve these areas. The west is experiencing 
grassland loss, which impacts soil and water quality. Anything we can 
do to make it easier to protect this land is needed.
  The second issue centers on treating insect infestations in our 
national forests. My State and others are experiencing epidemic levels 
of insect infestations causing unbelievable levels of tree mortality. I 
have been working with Senator Bingaman, Senator Baucus, Senator Wyden, 
Senator Mark Udall and others to make sure we have the right policies 
in place to react to the situation.
  It is my understanding that the chairwoman would be willing to work 
with me on these important issues; is that correct?
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator for his leadership as chairman of 
our conservation subcommittee. I have been glad to work with the 
Senator on this legislation and I am committed to continuing to work 
with him on easement and forestry issues.


                     Conservation Easement Program

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask permission to engage in a colloquy 
with the Senators from Michigan and Vermont, Senators Stabenow and 
Leahy. I wish to address a problem that affects many farmers and 
agricultural producers in States, including New Hampshire, with 
significant forest cover. Agricultural producers face tremendous 
development pressures as the value of land increases. As chairwoman of 
the Agriculture Committee, I know Senator Stabenow has a great 
familiarity with this issue.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank my friend, the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire, for bringing attention to this important matter and for her 
incredible leadership on forestry issues. Since she was first sworn 
into the Senate, we have worked together on forest conservation 
efforts, which are so important for the Granite State and the Great 
Lakes State. As my friend knows, development and sprawl are certainly 
pressuring our productive agricultural lands. One critical component of 
the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, the Agricultural 
Conservation Easement Program, provides continued funding to allow 
farmers and ranchers to voluntarily purchase easements on their land to 
keep it in agricultural use.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I agree that easement programs are an essential part of 
the effort to keep land available for agriculture. In New Hampshire, 
the Farmland Protection Program has provided a crucial backstop against 
development pressures, but the program has not been as effective as it 
can be. I know Senator Leahy helped to create the Farmland Protection 
Program when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee and his State 
has used this program very effectively.
  Mr. LEAHY. Like New Hampshire, Vermont is one of the most forested 
States in the country. Even farms with a significant amount of open 
space tend to have significant forested acreage and both are feeling 
tremendous development pressures. While many agricultural producers in 
my state would like to purchase easements to keep

[[Page S4358]]

their lands working, a 2008 Natural Resource Conservation Service rule 
prohibited the agency from protecting tracts with more than two-thirds 
of their acres under forest cover. This rule has hampered conservation 
efforts in Vermont. Has it had a similar effect in Michigan?
  Ms. STABENOW. It has. Like New Hampshire and Vermont, Michigan is 
heavily forested and this NRCS rule has impacted the ability of 
agricultural producers to purchase on their working lands. I would like 
to clarify that it is not the intent of Congress to limit eligibility 
for critical easement programs based on the forested acreage of 
otherwise eligible land.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank my friend for making that critical 
clarification. Agricultural producers in New Hampshire and many other 
States work primarily on small farms. They may actively use only a 
small number of their acres at any given time, and the rest of their 
parcels tend to be forested. We need to ensure that Federal programs 
are tailored to fit local conditions and doing away with restrictions 
on forested land is an important part of making NRCS easement programs 
as effective as they can be.
  Mr. LEAHY. I completely agree. We need to ensure that Federal 
programs are carried out in a manner that ensures we keep as much 
agricultural land in working production as we possibly can. In Vermont, 
our forests are an important part of that agricultural landscape, 
especially with our maple syrup producers who depend on these 
productive and working forestlands. According to USDA, the Northeast 
and many other heavily forested regions of the country have experienced 
long-term declines in cropland and forestland use as a result of urban 
pressures.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is exactly right. Once rural land is developed it 
rarely reverts back to agricultural uses, which is why Federal programs 
are such a critical part of giving farmers alternatives to converting 
their land to nonagricultural uses. Our agricultural producers should 
be able to access these tools regardless of the percentage of their 
land they keep forested.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I couldn't agree more. I thank the Senator from 
Michigan and the Senator from Vermont for engaging in this colloquy to 
address the importance of allowing agricultural producers who own 
heavily forested tracts to access NRCS easement programs. This issue is 
of critical importance to farmers in New Hampshire, Michigan, and many 
other States.


                       Multi-year Price Declines

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my 
good friends and colleagues the Senator from Michigan and Chair of the 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, and the Chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Baucus from Montana.
  The Senate has been working the past few weeks to get an agreement to 
move forward and complete our work on the Farm Bill. The Senate 
Agriculture Committee passed a strong bipartisan bill out of the 
committee under the strong leadership of Senator Stabenow.
  The Farm Bill is a reform bill which cuts federal spending by $23 
billion. This is a rare example, this Congress, of Senators working 
across the aisle to pass a bill which helps to expand our markets 
abroad, keep food on the table for working families, and ensure our 
conservation dollars are funding projects to protect the land for years 
to come.
  With all of the changes in the farm bill the largest changes have 
been made to the Commodity Title of the Farm Bill.
  Congress has eliminated direct payments for a market-based safety net 
which will pay producers when they actually experience a loss, known as 
the Agricultural Risk Coverage program. As direct payments are 
eliminated in this farm bill, how does the bill protect producers 
against multi-year price declines?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with my good friend, the majority leader, that 
this farm bill is a reform bill. And I would like to answer your 
questions about how it addresses--or struggles to address--multi-year 
price declines.
  I worked very closely with Chairwoman Stabenow, through the Senate 
Agriculture Committee markup this spring, along with my colleagues, 
Senators Conrad and Hoeven, to ensure the Agricultural Risk Coverage 
program worked for farmers in the Northern Great Plaines--not just the 
Midwest.
  I commend the Chairwoman for working with me through that markup, and 
supporting my amendment which improved the farm level coverage option 
and her commitment for continued work to improve the bill for grain 
farmers in my home State of Montana.
  One of the lingering questions is what happens to the Agricultural 
Risk Coverage program should we have a few years of consecutive price 
collapses in the market. I agree that the Agricultural Risk Program 
should follow market signals, and I commend this bill for doing just 
that. But when the market fails, there has to be a failsafe to prevent 
our farm policy from driving off a cliff--taking jobs and food security 
with it.
  So although the bill is a step forward in creating a market-oriented 
safety net, it does not provide optimal protection for multi-year price 
declines. I filed an amendment which would have added price protection 
should we have multi-year price declines while ensuring it does not 
distort the marketplace.
  This is a remaining concern I have with the Agricultural Risk 
Coverage program and I ask the majority leader and Chairwoman Stabenow 
for the continued commitment to ensure any agreement which comes out of 
a conference report with the House addresses this weakness in the 
Agricultural Risk Coverage program.
  Mr. REID. I thank Senator Baucus. I look forward to working with the 
Senator to ensure any final measure on the farm bill will address the 
Senators remaining concerns on multi-year price declines. It is vital 
to our farmers across the country that their safety net is not actually 
a rug that can be pulled out from underneath them.
  Ms. STABENOW: I thank the majority leader and Senator Baucus for 
their continued work and advocacy for ensuring the farm bill works for 
parts of the country and all commodities.
  Through the committee process, Senator Baucus has been true a leader 
to improve the Agricultural Risk Coverage program so it offers an 
adequate safety net to all farmers.
  I think we have made great strides through the Senate Agriculture 
Committee markup in April but I understand that is the beginning of the 
process and not the end.
  I believe the amendment Senator Baucus filed is thoughtful and would 
provide the Agricultural Risk Coverage program with an additional layer 
of protection from several years of steep price declines. I will 
continue to work with my colleague from Montana to ensure as the 
process moves forward Senator Baucus has my full support to address 
this issue in conference and include a market-based solution to multi-
year price declines.
  The farm bill supports over 16 million jobs nationwide. The farm bill 
is the truest jobs bill Congress has considered in the 112th Congress. 
As Senator Baucus said, we need to guarantee that our farmer's safety-
networks for every farmer and rancher in America.


                           vote explanations

  Ms. McCASKILL. Mr. President, Senator Nelson of Nebraska's amendment 
No. 2242 to S. 3240 passed the Senate today by voice vote. I was not in 
the Senate chamber at the time the voice vote on the amendment was 
taken. Had I been present or had the amendment been subject to a roll 
call vote, I would have voted ``present.''
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote on 
amendment No. 2457 I would have opposed it. This amendment creates new 
and unnecessary reporting requirements that will burden rural broadband 
companies and could slow down the growth of broadband expansion in 
states like Montana.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe we are waiting on another 
possibility of an agreement on amendments that may come tomorrow. But 
at this point, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
5 minutes to introduce a bill, not anything related to the farm bill, 
is that appropriate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4359]]

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first let me say thank you to the 
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Kansas for conducting 
another very long session today on agriculture. They did an 
extraordinary job helping us move through this important bill. I thank 
them very much, and I know we are going to take that up tomorrow.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3321 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my comments, which will not be more than about 10 minutes, Senator 
Brown of Ohio follow me for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________