Senate Farm Bill Amendments Day 2

Votes on amendments to the Senate Farm Bill continued today. Unfortunately, the Senate did not get through all the amendments and will finish tomorrow. In the meantime, you will find an update list below of amendment voting results.


- Akaka #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Akaka #2396 (tribal relations office);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Baucus #2429 (Livestock);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Bingaman #2364 (multi-state aquifers);
            Withdrawn
- Brown (OH) #2445 (rural development);
            Passed by a vote of 55-41
- Cantwell #2370 (pulse pilot);
            Passed by a vote of 58-41
- Casey #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing)

Passed by a vote of 73-26

- Coons #2426 (poultry insurance study);
            Pass by a voice vote
- Feinstein #2422 (conservation innovation grants);

Passed by a voice vote.

- Feinstein #2309 (insurance recall);
            Passed by a vote of 76-23
- Gillibrand #2156 (SNAP);
             Did not pass by a vote of 33-66
- Hagan #2366 (crop insurance – plain language);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Kerry #2187 (commercial fishermen);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Landrieu #2321 (rural development loans);

Passed by a voice vote.

- Manchin #2345 (dietary study);
            Passed by a voice vote.
- Merkley #2382 (organic crop insurance);
            Passed by a vote of 63-36
- Schumer #2427 (acer);

Passed by a voice vote
- Stabenow #2453 (NAP);

Passed by a voice vote

- Udall(CO) #2295 (bark beetle);
            Passed by a vote of 77-22
- Warner #2457 (rural broadband);

Passed by a voice vote.

- Wyden #2442 (microloans);
            Did not pass on a voice vote. Passed on a division vote.
- Wyden #2388 (farm to school);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Leahy #2204 (rural development);

Passed by a voice vote.

- Nelson(NE) #2242 (rural housing);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Klobuchar #2299 (transportation study);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Carper #2287 (poultry feed research);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Sanders #2254 (biomass);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Thune #2437 (crop insurance);
            Did not pass by a vote of 44-55
- Durbin-Coburn #2439 (crop insurance);
Passed by a vote of 66-33
- Snowe #2190 (milk marketing order reform);
            Passed by a vote of 66-33
- Ayotte #2192 (value added grants);
            Did not pass by a vote of 38-61
- Collins #2444 (dairy);
            Withdrawn
- Grassley #2167 (pay cap marketing loans);
            Passed by a vote of 75-24
- Sessions #2174 (SNAP);

Did not pass by a vote of 43-56

- Nelson(NE) #2243 (SNAP);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Sessions #2172 (SNAP);

Did not pass 41-58

- Paul #2181 ($250,000 income limit);
            Did not pass by a vote of 15-84
- Alexander #2191 (wind loans);
            Did not pass by a vote of 33-66
- McCain #2199 (catfish);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Toomey #2217 (organic/AMA);
            Did not pass by a vote of 42-47
- DeMint #2263 (broadband funding);
            Did not pass by a vote of 45-54
- DeMint #2262 (SoS Free MKT);
            Passed by a voice vote
- DeMint #2268 (Loan guarantees);
            Did not pass by a vote of 14-84
- DeMint #2276 (checkoffs);
            Did not pass by a vote of 20-79
- DeMint #2273 (broadband);
            Did not pass by a vote of 44-55
- Coburn #2289 (MAP);
            Did not pass by a vote of 30-69
- Coburn #2293 (Limit Millionaires);
            Passed by a vote of 63-36
- Kerry #2454 (North Korea);
            Passed by a vote of 59-40
- Kyl #2354 (North Korea);
            Did not pass by a vote of 43-56
- Lee #2313 (Forest Legacy);

Did not pass by a vote of 21-77

- Lee #2314 (CSP/CRP cut);
            Did not pass by a vote of 15-84
- Boozman #2355 (Ag research, law info);
            Passed by a voice vote.
- Boozman #2360 (TEFAP);

Did not pass 35-63- 1 (present)

- Toomey #2226 (energy title);
            Did not pass by a vote of 36-63
- Toomey #2433 (sugar);
            Did not pass by a vote of 46-53
- Lee Motion to Recommit (FY 2008 levels);
            Did not pass by a vote of 29-70
- Johnson(WI) Motion to Recommit;

Did not pass by a vote of 40-59

- Chambliss #2438 (conservation crop insurance);
            Passed by a vote of 52-47
- Chambliss #2340 (sugar);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Chambliss #2432 (FMPP);

Did not pass by a voice vote. .

- Ayotte #2195 (GAO crop insurance fraud report);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Blunt #2246 (veterans);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Moran #2403 (food aid);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Moran #2443 (beginning farmers)
            Passed by a voice vote
- Vitter #2363 (pets); (60 votes needed)
            Originally passed by voice vote. Then passed by a vote of 88-11
- Toomey #2247 (paperwork); (60 votes needed)

- Sanders #2310 (genetically engineered food); (60 votes needed)
- Coburn #2214 (convention funding); (60 votes needed)
- Boxer #2456 (aerial inspections); (60 votes needed)

- Johanns #2372 (aerial inspections); (60 votes needed)
- Murray # 2455(sequestration); (60 votes needed)
- McCain #2162 (Sequestration report – DoD); (60 votes needed)

- Rubio #2166 (RAISE Act) (60 votes needed)

*** Follow Nick on Twitter for more information

Senate Farm Bill Amendment Results- Day 1

Today, the Senate began voting on the 73 amendments offered to S.3240, Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, commonly referred to as the Farm Bill. Below you will see the results of today's votes.


- Akaka #2440 (highly fractionated tribal lands);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Akaka #2396 (tribal relations office);
            Passed via voice vote
- Baucus #2429 (Livestock);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Bingaman #2364 (multi-state aquifers);
            Withdrawn
- Brown (OH) #2445 (rural development);
            Passed by a vote of 55-41
- Cantwell #2370 (pulse pilot);
            Passed by a vote of 58-41
- Casey #2238 (technical/study -federal milk marketing)

Passed by a vote of 73-26

- Coons #2426 (poultry insurance study);
            Pass via voice vote
- Feinstein #2422 (conservation innovation grants);

Passed by a voice vote.

- Feinstein #2309 (insurance recall);
            Passed by a vote of 76-23
- Gillibrand #2156 (SNAP);
            Did not pass by a vote of 33-66
- Hagan #2366 (crop insurance – plain language);
            Passed via voice vote
- Kerry #2187 (commercial fishermen);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Landrieu #2321 (rural development loans);

Passed by a voice vote.

- Manchin #2345 (dietary study);

- Merkley #2382 (organic crop insurance);
- Schumer #2427 (acer);
- Stabenow #2453 (NAP);

- Udall(CO) #2295 (bark beetle);
- Warner #2457 (rural broadband);
- Wyden #2442 (microloans);

- Wyden #2388 (farm to school);
- Leahy #2204 (rural development);
- Nelson(NE) #2242 (rural housing);

- Klobuchar #2299 (transportation study);
- Carper #2287 (poultry feed research);
- Sanders #2254 (biomass);

- Thune #2437 (crop insurance);
- Durbin-Coburn #2439 (crop insurance);
- Snowe #2190 (milk marketing order reform);
            Passed by a vote of 66-33
- Ayotte #2192 (value added grants);
            Did not pass by a vote of 38-61
- Collins #2444 (dairy);
            Withdrawn
- Grassley #2167 (pay cap marketing loans);
            Passed with a vote of 75-24
- Sessions #2174 (SNAP);

Did not pass by a vote of 43-56

- Nelson(NE) #2243 (SNAP);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Sessions #2172 (SNAP);

Did not pass by a vote of 41-58

- Paul #2181 ($250,000 income limit);
            Did not pass by a vote of 15-84
- Alexander #2191 (wind loans);
            Did not pass by a vote of 33-66
- McCain #2199 (catfish);
            Passed by a voice vote
- Toomey #2217 (organic/AMA);
            Did not pass by a vote of 42-47
- DeMint #2263 (broadband funding);
            Did not pass by a vote of 45-54
- DeMint #2262 (SoS Free MKT);
            Passed by a voice vote
- DeMint #2268 (Loan guarantees);
            Did not pass by a vote of 14-84
- DeMint #2276 (checkoffs);
            Did not pass by a vote of 20-79 
- DeMint #2273 (broadband);

- Coburn #2289 (MAP);
- Coburn #2293 (Limit Millionaires);
- Kerry #2454 (North Korea);

- Kyl #2354 (North Korea);
- Lee #2313 (Forest Legacy);
- Lee #2314 (CSP/CRP cut);

- Boozman #2355 (Ag research, law info);
- Boozman #2360 (TEFAP);
- Toomey #2226 (energy title);

- Toomey #2433 (sugar);
- Lee Motion to Recommit (FY 2008 levels);
- Johnson(WI) Motion to Recommit;

- Chambliss #2438 (conservation crop insurance);
- Chambliss #2340 (sugar);
- Chambliss #2432 (FMPP);

- Ayotte #2195 (GAO crop insurance fraud report);
- Blunt #2246 (veterans);
- Moran #2403 (food aid);

- Moran #2443 (beginning farmers)
- Vitter #2363 (pets);
- Toomey #2247 (paperwork); (60 votes needed)

- Sanders #2310 (genetically engineered food); (60 votes needed)
- Coburn #2214 (convention funding); (60 votes needed)
- Boxer #2456 (aerial inspections); (60 votes needed)

- Johanns #2372 (aerial inspections); (60 votes needed)
- Murray # 2455(sequestration); (60 votes needed)
- McCain #2162 (Sequestration report – DoD); (60 votes needed)

- Rubio #2166 (RAISE Act) (60 votes needed)

***Follow Nick on Twitter for more up-to-date information

One Shocking Truth About Campaign Money -- It's Not Shocking

There’s a perception in the world at large that politicians are allowed to use their personal left-over campaign funds for anything – fancy houses, nice cars, their kids’ college education, a pony – whatever they want.  In fact, they can’t.  Under federal law, when an incumbent loses any remaining campaign money cannot be used for personal expenses.  It must be donated to the campaigns of other lawmakers, to political parties or to charities.

That’s why I found a new report from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called “No Strings Attached”  to be both a useful overview of what happens with left-over campaign funds while at the same time maybe not as shocking a message to those outside the beltway as one might think.  CREW found that members of Congress who become lobbyists spend more of their left-over money on political contributions than those former members of Congress who went into other professions. 

OK, so, yeah. On the negative side this does leave the impression that legislators are “buying off” those they want to influence. Or on the positive side one could interpret it as an investment in getting people elected who are most likely to agree with the newly minted lobbyist’s views. They are, after all, in the persuasion profession. It’s a lot easier to persuade someone who sees the world as you do than otherwise.

In short, the authors suggest that the shockingly negative news of the report was that those former lawmakers who move into the lobbying profession shift whatever was left from their campaigns to the political coffers of others.  In my opinion there’s a shockingly positive spin as well – members of Congress aren’t allowed to buy ponies with their excess campaign funds.  And this is really where the American populace is in terms of their views of our political system.  Now that’s truly shocking.

Senate Farm Bill Reauthorization- Bipartisan Success or Partisan Failure

Link to Senate Ag Website

The long reauthorization process began in earnest earlier this spring with series of hearings on conservation, rural development, healthy food initiatives, risk management and commodities in what was seen as the buildup to the 2012 Farm Bill. The anticipated action finally came to fruition in late April: the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY13 Agricultural Appropriations bill and the Senate Agriculture Committee passed its version of the Farm Bill. Chairwoman Stabenow officially introduced the Farm Bill into the Senate on May 24^th. The bill has been heralded as a bipartisan success in deficit reduction and job creation, but there are obstacles that can make it a partisan failure.

Current Issues:

Amendments- Over 200 amendments have since been filed and many are not related to agriculture. This has led Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to fill the amendment tree, a procedural move that allows him to filter which amendments will be considered on the floor. This has angered several Republican Senators. Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking member Pat Roberts (R-KS) say they are currently working with members to narrow down the pool of 200+ amendments into a group of 40 amendments to be debated and voted on. If Republicans feel unfairly treated, the bill may be killed with procedural moves.

Supplemental Nutritional Program (SNAP) - Budget Hawks are looking to cut more funds from SNAP (formerly food stamps) while other members are looking to restore funds ALREADY cut from SNAP. This will likely be a sticking point if the House passes a Farm bill because SNAP is already starting at a much lower level.

Commodities/Crop Insurance- Southern Senators with large constituencies of rice and peanut farmers still feel that they are being treated unfairly in the new crop insurance structure. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is leading the charge with an amendment that addresses this concern. Unfortunately, Sen. Stabenow and Roberts DO NOT believe this amendment “fits well” with the market based approach to crop insurance the Farm bill is using.

Latest intelligence is that further votes on Farm Bill amendments are unlikely this week and at the earliest Monday. They are probably going to work over the weekend to find a consensus on amendments.

***Get updates and follow Nick on Twitter

Pinterest and Politics

I hear all the kids these days use Pinterest.  I’m not entirely sure what that is, but I guess it has to do with using images to represent events, things you like or want, happenings in your life or even just cute stuff, like puppies.  I’m on it (I think), but just can’t integrate it in to my life yet.

That said, I may need to learn how to do so soon as, according to a USA Today article, the political world is starting to pick-up on this tool.  Both the presidential campaigns have accounts designed to capture the attention of subgroups of voters.  President Obama, for example, has a “pet lovers for Obama” board.  I’m a little obsessed with it.

Until now I’ve thought of Pinterest as just another social media site to try to keep up with (is there such a thing as “social media stress?”)  But as Alan Rosenblatt from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (and a friend) points out in the USA Today article "[Pinterest’s] core is not political . . . its audience is a group of people who need to be reached with this message because they’re not being reached otherwise.”  Reaching new audiences… Hmmm… That sounds good.  Pictures of cute puppies and to-die-for shoes, here I come.

Your Democracy at Work: Wisconsin

The great state of Wisconsin was the scene of a significant political battle last week over the proposed recall of Governor Scott Walker.  I know it was a great political battle because BOTH The Daily Show and The Colbert Report covered it on the same night.  Outraged citizens on one side argued that Governor Walker’s policies caused too much harm to the good people of Wisconsin.  Outraged citizens on the other side argued that the recall was nothing more than a very expensive and inappropriate “do-over” demanded by unions.

Regardless of where you stand on the substance of the issue, in my opinion the debate has served only to benefit our democracy.  Why?  Because like the infamous ‘hanging chad’ debate of 2000 (and the subsequent national discussion about the electoral college), it has inspired citizens to talk about our democratic process. I have actually heard people in the streets – and streets outside of Washington, D.C. no less – get in to heated arguments about whether “we don’t like this guy” is an adequate reason to initiate a recall.

While I really don’t have any feeling of outrage on either side of the debate, I am strongly of the opinion that recall elections based on “we don’t like this guy” are perfectly reasonable -- as long as they come with the support of the appropriate number of citizens (as reflected through petition signatures).  The rights to both express dissatisfaction as well as to demand a vote on that dissatisfaction are basic tenants of democracy.

In addition to the discussion over the role of recalls in a democracy, some people see this particular battle as a presentiment of what will happen during the upcoming Presidential and Congressional election war.  Personally, I think of all this as less connected to the overall political situation of the country and more about the politics of Wisconsin.  Neither side should feel encouraged or discouraged about Walker’s victory. But regardless of how we feel about the outcome, we all should feel just a little heartened about the renewed interest in democracy.

From Chic Retirement Community to Trailer Park In One Day

News flash: things continue to be “not-so-great” with the economy. Friday’s unemployment figures, described by “dismal” as many observers, caused the markets to fall precipitously. My investment advisor says, “this is a great time to buy: so many bargains!” That’s a very difficult perspective to take as you watch your retirement income go from “chic small condo in a retirement community” to “trailer park” in the course of a day.

Clearly those running the political campaigns see our economic situation as an opportunity to attack the other side. President Obama seeks to paint his opponent as one of the job-cutting “corporate raiders” whose actions led in part to the recession. Mr. Romney seeks to paint his opponent as an incompetent bureaucrat who is unable to solve the problem. The truth is, as former-President Bill Clinton recently pointed out, neither can be dismissed as completely unqualified and, given the neck and neck polls, this strategy isn’t working.

An interesting Washington Post article titled “Jobs numbers remind Obama that he must do more than attack” makes this point. Dan Balz, the author, reminds us that successful influencers do not rely on attacking their opponent for getting to yes.

A better strategy is to base your arguments on your opponents’ fundamental weaknesses. There’s an entire chapter in The Influence Game dedicated to knowing your competition, which you can achieve by conducting extensive opposition research, knowing exactly what it is you’re competing for (it’s not always what you think) and perhaps more important, researching yourself as if you WERE the opposition.

If you employ these tactics you’ll know enough about your opponents to contradict their substantive arguments instead of focusing on more personal surface attacks. And frankly, if you do it right, their flaws will be obvious and you won’t even have to point them out directly..