vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this, the ayes are 73, the nays are 26. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up amendment 2881. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 2181. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: minutes of debate -- two minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from encan ken. mr. paul: this amendment will eliminate farm subsidies to all americans with an adjusted gross income of $250,000. my friends across the aisle are commonly saying why don't those of means pay more or receive less? this amendment would do precisely that. % of farmers -- 9% of farmers earn more than $250,000 worth of gross income. this would limit their payments. currently 9% of farmers are receiving nearly a third of the benefits. a good question for the senate might be, what do scottie

pippen, larr larry flynt, and dd rockefeller have in common? the answer would be that besides being very rich, they've all gotten farm subsidies in the past. i think this should change and that the wealthy shouldn't be receiving farm subsidies. this amendment would get rid of this. and i yield back the remainder of my time and encourage the senators to support this amendment. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would urge a "no" vote on this bill. the good news is that the people mentioned will no longer be able to get farm subsidies under this bill because of the reforms we've already put in place. we have already lowered the adjusted gross income. we have put $50,000-per-person cap on payments, which is less than half than farmers currently receive, and let me just say, this would cap across the board, including conservation and conservation of land and water is critically to us, as a country. i yield to my ranking member. robert rocket it is not only commodity programs, had --

mr. roberts: this would also affect rural development programs, research, dairy, and livestock. i doubt if larry flynt has anything to do with any of those. ms. stabenow: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? paul i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: there appears to be. the question is on amendment number 2181. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this the yeas are 15 and the nays are 84. the amendment's not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: i call up my amendment 2426. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from delaware, mr. coons reports -- mr. coons: i ask further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. there are two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. coons: thank you, mr. president, and thank you to the leaders who have worked so hard on this -- the presiding officer: if the senator will yield? the senate will come to order. the senator from delaware.

mr. coons: -- on this bipartisan farm bill especially chairman stabenow and senator roberts. poultry is a critical industry in delaware, georgia and many of our states, and between the recession and volatile cost of chicken feed there are a rising number of factors that can have a catastrophic impact on local economies well beyond the control of farmers. the two studies we propose in this amendment would explore whether insurance programs might make sense as a tool for helping poultry farmers and integrate tors continue to thrive during certain economic times and study protection from catastrophic loss from disease outbreaks. this amendment is at no additional do have the taxpayers, and i urge my colleagues to join senator chambliss and me in supporting it. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on coons number

2426. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, phr-pbt. i call up -- thank you, mr. president. i call up amendment 2422. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. feinstein -- mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i ask that the reading be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. there will be two minutes of debate equally divided. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i present this amendment on behalf of senator kyl, senator boxer -- the presiding officer: if the senator will yield, the senate will come to order.

please take your conversations out of the senate. the senate will come to order. the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i present this amendment on behalf of senator kyl, boxer and myself. it is a very simple amendment. it maintains a provision from the 2008 farm bill that sets aside $37.5 million for air quality improvement projects. this program has been used to replace old diesel tractors' engines with newer cleaner ones. this improves efficiency for the farmer and air quality in the regions. it has helped thousands of farmers comply with e.p.a., state and local air quality regulations. in california, in the central valley, we have some of the poorest air quality in the country. it is an e.p.a. extreme he nonattainment zone and the e.p.a. and the state have set very strict standards for

emissions. this funding has achieved the egive latin of removing more than -- achieved the equivalent of removing more than 800,000 cars from california highways. i urge its passage. mr. kyl: who -- the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i want to take a moment. the ranking member has yielded some time to me. i just want to thank senator feinstein. this is, i think, an excellent amendment. she has done a tremendous amount of work on it. i would urge a "yes" vote. mrs. feinstein: voice vote. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i would call up amendment 2129 -- 2191. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, proposes amendment numbered 2191. the presiding officer: two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. if my colleagues think it is a good idea to give rich developers of wind turbines a double dip into the federal treasury at a time when we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, then this provision in the farm bill is for you. if you think a single dip into

the treasury is justified, then this amendment is for you. the farm bill gives new loans, new loan guarantees for wind turbines. that is on top of the 14 billion federal tax dollars that we are spending over five years for wind turbines, $6 billion of it through the production tax credit and the other $8 billion through the section 603 grants. this simply says no double dipping, only one dip. if you do the tax credit, you can't do the farm bill. vote yes if you don't like double dipping into the federal treasury. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i rise to oppose this amendment. i appreciate the interest and concern of the senator from tennessee. let me just say that this amendment would cut off access for farmers and small businesses that are looking to develop wind energy projects that will create jobs. i have to say someone coming

from michigan when i look at one of those big wind turbines, i see 8,000 parts and every single one of them can be made in michigan or across the country. we prefer michigan. but the reality is that this is about jobs. we're in the middle of a global clean energy race with countries like china. this is about giving our businesses a leg up to be able to win that race, and frankly it's about getting us off of foreign oil. this is one way to do that to create jobs. since 2005, wind energy companies have contributed more than $60 billion to the economy. over 400 facilities in 43 states. it's about jobs. it's about manufacturing. i would urge a no vote. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on amendment numbered 2191. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this the yeas are 33, the nays are 66. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from massachusetts. a senator: could we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i call up amendment,

senator mccain's and my amendment 2199. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from massachusetts, mr. kerry, for mr. mccain and himself and others -- mr. kerry: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. two minutes of debate, equally divided. mr. kerry: senator mccain and i and a strong bipartisan group are offering this amendment to repeal the catfish language. our amendment would repeal this language because it's unfair to importers, it is costly to the taxpayers, it provides no food safety benefit, it is duplicative of other programs, and it never received consideration or debate in the house or snoot. it should never have passed in the first place. it doesn't make sense to have a catfish category for the regulation of fish and all other fish are in a completely separate category. the g.a.o. concluded in a report to enhance the effectiveness of

food safety system for catfish and avoid duplication and cost, congress should consider repealing the part of the farm bill that assigned the usda. five years later they're still debate wag a catfish is. -- debating what a cat fish is. this is a waste of time, would hurt processers and consumers. i hope colleagues will support us in this effort. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: thank you, mr. president. let me just give the other side of the story here. that is that we have a lot of fish that gets imported from -- important trading partners like vietnam and other asian countries, but it's disputed whether they meet the definition of catfish. they certainly aren't an american variety of catfish, probably some other type of fish but regardless of all the science there, it's important that we inspect these fish as

they come in because they are not grown in the same sanitary conditions that we have in the united states. they use different herbicides and pesticides and different pollutants. in fact, we've seen documented cases where they're raised in sewage water, water contaminated with sewage. and we need to make sure that these fish are inspected when they come into the united states and that's what the underlying bill provides and that's what i support. thank you. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on amendment number 2199. a senator: yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there's not a sufficient second. ms. stabenow: i believe it's my understanding we can proceed with a voice vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: if no further debate, all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed say no. appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. without objection. the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i call up -- oh, dear.

amendment number 2309. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. feinstein proposes amendment numbered 2309. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. i offer this on behalf of senator chambliss and myself. the presiding officer: would the senator yield. the senate is not in order. the senate will come to order. please take your conversations out of the senate. the senate will come to order. the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i offer this on behalf of senator chambliss and myself. it is a simple amendment. it simply authorizes a study into how we can better cover farmers affected by recalls they did not cause. when the food safety recall occurs like spinach, like tomatoes or cantaloupe, consumers stop purchasing the product regardless of what food

the farm came from. when this happens, producers suffer major financial losses because of a recall they did not cause. this amendment directs the usda to conduct a study into the feasibility of crop insurance that would cover a producer's losses after these kinds of events. the amendment has zero cost, it has bipartisan support, it is endorsed by united fresh. the presiding officer: time has expired. mrs. feinstein: i urge an eye vote and -- aye vote and i don't believe a roll call is necessary. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i commend senator feinstein, strongly support the amendment. it's my understanding that we do have those who have asked for a record roll call on this amendment.

i yield to my ranking member, i believe that we have been asked to do that. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: we have a request on our side for a recorded vote. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this amendment, the ayes are 76, the nays are 23. the amendment is agreed to. nor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i'd like to --

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. toomey: i had are he like to call up -- i'd like 0 call up amendment 2217. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey, proposes amendment numbered 2217. the presiding officer: two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. the bill we're debating today has a provision called the organic certification cost-share and the agricultural management assistance program. this creates $115 million of mandatory spending over the next five years. it continues existing policy except that a much higher spending level. it is a 53% increase over the 2008 farm bill. half of the funding here goes to pay producers who -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: half of this funding goes to have taxpayers pay the cost of producers who want to certify that they grow

an organize gaining product. i have nothing against organic farming but it is a $31 billion century. it has had a 50% growth since 2008 and this applies only to large producers because small producers are not required to seek the certification. this is a great market. there is a great deal of interest in organic products. but i think these large producers can go ahead and pay for their own certification. the other half goes to a duplicative -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has spraoeurd. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i rise to oppose this amendment. one of the important principles in this bill is we support the great diversity of american agriculture. this particular amendment would go after a very small provision of $23 million and a multi hundreds of billion-dollar bill to support the fastest-rising part of agriculture, which is organic farming. we have reformed this bill, as

we have every other part of the bill. we continue here what has been in the farm bills of the past. and i might add this amendment would also reduce funding available for conservation and risk-management assistance for states that have been underserved by crop insurance. i would urge a "no" vote on the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment 2217. ms. stabenow: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 42, the nays are 57. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i call up my amendment 2156. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, ms. gillibrand -- ms. gillibrand: i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. gillibrand: i ask my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is so modified. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from new york. ms. gillibrand: let me be clear, mr. president, about what this amendment does and does not do. this amendment does not extend or expand the food stamp

program. it provides the exact same benefits that our families are receiving today. half of the food stamp beneficiaries are children. 17% are seniors. and unfortunately now, 1.5 million households are veteran households that are receiving food stamps. this amendment does not take a penny from our farmers. these cuts are not about waste, fraud and abuse. according to c.b.o., it is $90 a month from these families' kitchen tables. we all here in this chamber take the ability to feed our children for granted. that is not the case for too many families in america. put yourself for just a moment in their shoes. imagine being a parent who cannot feed your children the food they need to grow. it's beneath this body to cut food assistance for those who are struggling the most among us. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you,

mr. president. i must regretfully oppose this amendment. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. ms. stabenow: i deeply care about protecting nutrition assistance programs, i hope that's not in doubt. here is what's going on. in a handful of states, they found a way to increase the snap benefits for their states by sending $1 in checks in heating assistance for everyone who gets food assistance. it's important to consider what a family's heating bill is when determining how much help they need which is why the two programs are linked, but sending out $1 checks to everyone isn't the intent of congress. for the small number of states that are doing that, it is undermining the integrity of the program, in my judgment. i appreciate we have turned down those amendments that would, in fact, change the structure and lower benefits, but this is about accountability and integrity within the program, and i must oppose the amendment.

the presiding officer: the question is -- the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i strongly oppose this amendment. this amendment would shield over 82% of farm bill spending from deficit reduction and prevent the bill from addressing a serious breach in nutrition program integrity. let me be clear, tightening the liheap loophole does not affect snap eligibility for anyone using snap. to add insult to this injury, this amendment then pillages money from crop insurance -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. roberts: did we not have -- ms. stabenow: i ask if there is any time remaining in debate. the presiding officer: all debate time is expired. mr. roberts: we'll stop at pillaging. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 33, the nays are 66. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we've done very well today. we have two and a half pages, almost have a page finished of our amendments. we're going to tonight have two hours of the time set forth for the resolution of disapproval, two hours of debate tonight. that will start at 10 to 8:00 tonight or theres about. one of the senators agreed to take a voice vote, that saved 15 minutes so we gave them 15 minutes off earlier. if everyone would look at these amendments, we have to finish this bill and flood insurance this week.

wewe have to do this. i don't want to be crying wolf and being here friday. we've actually finished some votes before the time has expired. that's really difficult. the floor staff has a difficult time recapping the votes and doing that but everyone has done such a good job. i would hope also one of the things we could could look look at is that boxer and inhofe could look at giving back at least an hour of the time of debate. i think virtually everybody knows how they're going to vote on this issue. although their debate could be stunning and somebody could change but i doubt it. so if they could dr giving back an hour of their time out of the four hours, i think it would help us work through this stuff. i don't want have to be here until 2:00 thursday morning. i don't want to do that. i hope that we can work through this. so we have a limited amount of

morning business tomorrow, we'll start voting as soon as we can and move quickly like we have today. everyone take look at their amendment and see if they can take it by voice. all looks the same when it's all over with. we'll stop voting tonight about 10 to 8:00. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. demint: i call up demint amendment 2263. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes amendment numbered 2263. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. the senate will come to order. the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: the president's 2013 budget asked for about $9 million for the rural utility service to expand broadband services in rural areas.

the average over the last ten years spending for that service is about $14 million. the current level of spending is at $25 million. so if anything, given our $16 trillion in debt, you would think we would come in somewhat below that but the farm bill doubles our current level from $25 million to $50 million. my amendment keeps spending at $25 million level. that's the least we can do given the president has asked for nine, the average is 14. we're at 25. we at least need to keep it there. i encourage my colleagues to have a brief moment of fiscal sanity and vote for my amendment. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i rise to oppose the demint amendment that would cut funding for critical program for small businesses in rural communities across the country. you know, in the 1930's and 19 rts 40's -- 1940's we made a

commitment to rural electrification, extended what was a new technology across the country and had a boom in economic growth. our country no longer has a divide between urban haves and rural have-notes as a result of that. too many communities don't have access to broadband internet for businesses in these locations it's a competitive disadvantage for them especially in a global economy. by urge that we support what we've done to invest in small businesses and the ability to connect. we do not need the new urban haves and rural have-notes. this is about investing in rural communities. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the amendment.

a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not in on the demint amendment, the ayes are 45, the nays are 54. the amendment fails.

mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: is noter from south carolina. mrs. hagan: calm my amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mrs. hagan proposessen amendment number 2366. mrs. hagan: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. fer he if without objection. there will be two minutes of debate equally divided. mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator north carolina.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. roberts: the national is not in order. the senator has a very commonsense amendment o amendme. hague thank you, mr. president. mrs. hagan: as everyone knows, federal crop insurance policies are extremely technical and complex. my amendment seeks to give farmers additional access to clear, concise information about crop insurance policies and programs approved by the usda. this commonsense amendment seeks to accomplish this goal in two ways. first, it will require the secretary of agriculture to report back to congress on the status of the agency's effort to comply with the president's executive order to require the use of plain language. my hope is that this simple measure will force usda to move quickly to provide information necessary for our farmers in north carolina and other parts of the country to make informed decisions about signing up for

the crop insurance plans that meet their specific needs. second, my amendment requires the risk management agency to improve its consist existing web site so that agricultural producers in any state may access easily understandable information on crop insurance. the web site will provide -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. hagan: i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. the presiding officer: 0 yields time? ms. -- ms. stabenow: on behalf of the ranking member and myself we would yield back time. i understand we can proceed with a voice vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: hearing no further debate on the amendment, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say kwraoeufplt -- aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i'd like to bring up amendment 2262. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina mr. demint proposes amendment numbered 2262. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of debate equally divided. dent dint thank you, mr. president. this amendment is a sense of the senate that reflects what all of us talk about, not just with the farm bill but with the whole u.s. economy. the importance of a free market, letting our competitive system work. this bill would just say that nothing -- or my amendment says that nothing in the farm bill would interfere with the free market. my -- setting prices or doing anything that i think all the proponents of the bill say that it will do, that it will protect the free market. so it's just a sense of the senate. and i've agreed to a voice vote on this. but i encourage my colleagues to add their voice to the free

market system and support this amendment. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: on behalf of the ranking member and myself we would yield back all time and agree to a voice vote. the presiding officer: hearing no further debate the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 2187. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from massachusetts mr. kerry proposes amendment number 2187. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. kerry: could we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. kerry: mr. president, this

is an amendment on behalf of myself and senator murkowski, senator brown and others. in these very difficult economic times, we've also had a problem for the fishermen of the northeast and in other parts of the country where the fishing stocks have been greatly reduced but for a lot of different reasons, and a lot of fishermen are sitting there with their boats where they're trying to get through the season in order to be able to fish in the future with greatly restricted fishing capacity and availability. this is not unlike farmers who wind up with crops being affected, flood, other disasters, things that take place. all we are seeking for here is the ability of doing away with an inequity in the law that denies fishermen access to a loan under federal emergency loan standards, for an emergency when it arises and they need to have some ability to stay over. we want to provide the -- the

congressional budget office determines that this amendment has no score. there is no score. so commercial fishermen, we believe, deserve access to the same type of assistance that other commercial farmers and other people in this country get, and we hope colleagues will do away with this anomaly that denies them the ability to simply apply through normal standards for a loan. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: we would yield back all time and understand we can proceed with a voice vote. the presiding officer: hearing no further debate, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i'd thraoeubg call up de -- i'd like to call up amendment 2268. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. demint proposes an amendment numbered 2268. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of time debate equally divided between both sides, one minute each. dent dint thank you, mr. president. -- mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i'm tempted to try another voice vote since the last one worked so well, but i think we'll have the yeas and nays on this one. this amendment just says that, as all of us look as some of the loan guarantees like with solyndra that have gone bad, this amendment would prohibit loan guarantees for the farm bill, that there are many programs that guarantee the

loans that expose the american taxpayers for millions and millions of dollars. this bill would actually prohibit those guarantees. not prohibit the programs themselves and crop insurance and the things that farmers count on, but just the liability that we put on the american taxpayer. loan guarantees do cost the taxpayer money. c.b.o. says that it does. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and save the american taxpayers from this additional liability. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i do rise to oppose this amendment. usda loan guarantees are critical to our farmers, our rural small businesses, community banks in small towns across the country. the loan guarantee program helps support commercial and farm lending when farmers and ranchers face tough time. it is also an important program to help beginning farmers and ranchers who don't have a long

history of credit but are certainly qualified to receive loans to start their operation. we know the average age of an american farmer is 57 years of age and one quarter of our farmers are 65 years of age are older. if agriculture in america is going to survive, we need to have young people engaged in farming. this amendment would make it much, much harder. so i oppose the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. demint: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 14, the noes are 84. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from louisiana.

the senator will suspend. the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. ms. landrieu: i'd like to call up amendment 2321. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu, proposes amendment numbered 2321. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i don't believe there is any opposition to this amendment, but i'd like a minute to explain. under current law, any rural development project is automatically excluded from even applying for a loan under the current law. that was not the intention of the farm bill but it was put in the farm bill, the last one. i'd like to remove that language so that rural -- small rural communities of 20,000 or less can apply to build a hospital, fire station, et cetera. they don't have to be given the permit. they still need to get the wetlands permit from the corps of engineers, but this removes an automatic prohibition. the agriculture department supports it, i don't believe

there is any opposition, and thank the chair and the ranking member. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, we agree to a voice vote. the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. stabenow: i would yield back the balance of the time. the presiding officer: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i believe this will be the last vote of the day on demint amendment 2276. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes amendment numbered 2276. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. demint: i thank the senator. this amendment would give individual businesses and small farmers the freedom from -- to refrain from joining one of the 19 checkoff programs against

their will. right now, a lot of businesses are forced into programs that they don't want to be a part of, and as a lot of us know, a lot of the large corporate farmers, a lot of large businesses love to form these checkoff programs to force the smaller companies to pay into them. this just makes it strictly voluntary, so any company that wants to be a part of this, any farmer that wants to be a part of it can, but it makes no sense to continue to force small businesses into these checkoff programs against their will. thank you, mr. president. i reserve the balance of my time. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment that would prohibit the zero cost checkoff programs. these programs are funded by the private sector, private industry, not taxpayers. they are incredibly beneficial to farmers and businesses who want to help market their products. for example, you have heard of

got milk. that came from a checkoff program used by the dairy industry. the incredible edible egg is another one. no single egg farmer is going to have the resources to run a national television ad encouraging folks to eat more eggs, so let's be clear. this is a program that commodity groups vote on, they agree to, and the got milk campaign happened because dairy farmers got together, voted, decided they wanted to go ahead and do research and a promotion program. so let's not take that ability for the industry to come together, pool their own money to market their product. i would urge a no vote and ask for the yeas and nays. mr. demint: how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: 10 seconds. mr. demint: while it is not taxpayer money, we are forcing businesses to do things that they don't necessarily want to. my amendment would allow any business to join the checkoff program, but voluntarily. that's the american way. thank you. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: