[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8334-S8337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001--MOTION TO PROCEED
cloture motion
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I understand we are unable to get
agreement to go to the Agriculture Supplemental Authorization.
Therefore, I move to proceed to S. 1246, the Agriculture supplemental
authorization, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
cloture motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on motion to
proceed to Cal. No. 102, S. 1246, a bill to respond to the
continuing economic crisis adversely affecting American
farmers:
Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, Jon S. Corzine, Max Baucus, Patty
Murray, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jeff Bingaman, Tim
Johnson, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Daniel K. Akaka,
Paul Wellstone, Mark Dayton, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin
Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Richard Durbin, and Herb Kohl.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent this cloture vote occur at 5:30
p.m. on Monday, July 30, and I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, for the information of all Senators,
this will be the last vote tonight, and we will have the next vote at
5:30 p.m. on Monday.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to further elaborate on the
comments I made just a moment ago. We made the motion to proceed to the
Agriculture supplemental authorization bill because we could not get
agreement to bring it up on Monday. As most of my colleagues know, this
is a very important piece of legislation for just about every State in
the country. It has passed in the House. It is important to pass it
before we leave, only because, as most of our colleagues probably
already know, if we are not able to utilize and commit these resources
prior to the August recess, the Congressional Budget Office has
indicated to us that they will not allow us the use of these resources
prior to the end of the fiscal year. We will lose $5.5 billion for
Agriculture if this legislation does not pass prior to the time we
leave in August.
I emphasize I am not making any threats. I am not trying to cajole. I
am just trying to state the fact that we need to get this legislation
done. This is not a partisan bill. The administration supports dealing
with Agriculture. On an overwhelming basis, it passed in the House. We
need to pass it in the Senate. I am very disappointed we are not
getting the cooperation to proceed to this bill because it is such an
important issue. It is for that reason, and only for that reason, that
I have delayed the cloture vote on the Transportation bill.
There will be a cloture vote on the Transportation appropriations
bill at some point, perhaps early in the week. But, nonetheless, it
will happen. If we need to, we will run out the time to get to final
passage and then vote on the bill. But I needed to get started on the
Agriculture supplemental. And that is what the procedural motion that
we just entered into entails.
I appreciate my colleagues' attention.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if the majority leader will
yield for a question.
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I am trying to understand what has happened. My
understanding is that the majority leader is forced to file a cloture
motion not to get the bill up but on the motion to proceed to the bill
dealing with an emergency appropriation for family farmers. My
understanding is in the budget we reserved an amount of money that we
all understood was necessary to try to help family farmers during a
pretty tough time. Prices have collapsed. Family farmers are
struggling. We all understood we were going to have to do an emergency
appropriation to help them.
My understanding at the moment is that you are prevented not only
from going to the bill but you are having to file a cloture motion on a
motion to proceed to go to the bill to try to provide emergency help
for family farmers.
Is that the circumstance we are in and, if so, who is forcing us to
do this?
I watched this week while for a couple of days nothing happened on
the floor. The appropriations subcommittee chair was here wanting
amendments to come, and no amendments came. It looked like the ultimate
slow motion on the floor of the Senate. Now we are told--those of us
who come from farm country--that not only can we not get to the bill
but we have to file cloture on the motion to proceed for emergency help
for family farmers.
What on Earth is that about, and who is forcing us to do this?
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, will the leader yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I am forcing it as someone who has stood on this floor for
the last 4 years and fought for nearly $8 billion a year for family
farmers such as you have. We have stood arm in arm in that. But the
bill that is coming to the floor is $2 billion over the budget that you
have talked about and that slot in the budget that we prepared.
I must tell you that this Senator is going to vote for emergency
funding for farmers in agriculture, but we are not going to go above a
very generous budget to do so.
I thought it was most important. Yes, the House has moved. I believe
the chairman of the authorizing committee is here, and he can speak for
himself.
But it is my understanding that this bill will come to the floor
about $2 billion ahead of where the House was. The House complied with
the budget resolution. We are rapping on that door of spending that
surplus in Medicare.
I don't care how you use the argument. The reality is very simple.
The majority leader is moving us--and he is right--to a very important
debate. But it was important for some of us who support farmers but
also support fiscal integrity and the budget to stand up and say, Mr.
Leader, we are out of budget, we are out of line, and we are $2 billion
beyond where we ought to be. That is why I objected.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I could regain the floor, let me say
that I appreciate and respect the position of the Senator from Idaho. I
am not sure that having this debate on the motion to proceed is the
appropriate place to
[[Page S8335]]
do it. It seems to me that it would be an appropriate subject for an
amendment to reduce the amount of emergency assistance from $7.49
billion to $5.5 billion. To say, we don't need to spend $7.49 billion.
We could have that amendment and have a debate about it. But having a
motion to proceed and then having a debate and a filibuster, if that is
required on the motion to proceed, just delays when we can actually get
into the discussion and debate about whether or not it ought to be
$7.49, or $7.1 billion, or $5.2 billion. But we will finish this
legislation only because of the ramifications of not finishing it,
whether it is Monday, or Friday, or at some other time.
I put my colleagues on notice. I have no other recourse. This is not
a threat. It is simply a fact that this is a piece of must-pass
legislation. I hope people understand that.
I would be happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the majority leader will yield for
one additional question, of course, the Senator from Idaho would have
every right to come to the floor and protest that the amount of help
for family farmers is too much, too generous, and this, that, or the
other thing. The Senator has every right to do that. But I think that
is different than trying to delay our ability to consider legislation
that responds to an emergency need for family farmers.
My question to the majority leader was not about how much money was
involved. My question was who is delaying this and why. I urge my
friend from Idaho not to delay us. He has every right to come to the
floor of the Senate and try to cut it or try to reduce it if he thinks
it is too much, but allow us to immediately go to this on Monday
because it is an emergency appropriations bill.
We all understood earlier this year that we needed an emergency
supplemental. We provided the money for it. Now the Senator from Idaho
has a dispute about how much money is going to come to the floor. Allow
that bill to come to the floor and then offer an amendment. But don't
force the majority leader to file a cloture motion on the motion to
proceed. Speaking as somebody who represents farm country--I know the
Senator from Idaho does as well--delaying on the motion to proceed is
the worst way, in my judgment, to serve our family farm interests. All
of us have the same interests.
I say to majority leader, I hope if there are disagreements about the
amount of aid that we will have a debate about it. But I certainly hope
that Members will allow us to get to this bill. It is an emergency
appropriations supplemental bill designed to address an emergency. It
ill-serves those who we intend to help to have to file a cloture motion
on a motion to proceed to the actual bill.
Let's not do that. Let's get it to the floor and have at it on
Monday, get it passed, and help family farmers.
I appreciate the majority leader yielding to me.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the leader for yielding.
I say to my friend from Idaho that we enjoyed his being on the
Agriculture Committee for a number of years. I am sorry that he is not
now on the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps if my friend from Idaho were
on the Agriculture Committee and had been involved in our debate and
deliberations and the markup of the bill, he might not be holding this
bill up because it was reported out on a unanimous voice vote. We only
had one amendment to take it down to $5.5 billion. That fell on a 12-9
vote.
Two things: There are farmers who are hurting all over this country--
not just in Iowa, or North Dakota, or Kansas but even in Idaho. Quite
frankly, this Senator went out of his way to accommodate the wishes of
Senators in this Chamber representing family farmers in their States to
put into that bill what was necessary to meet some of those needs.
In fact, I say to my friend from Idaho, there are provisions in the
bill that will help his farmers in Idaho that are not in the bill they
passed in the House.
Second, I say to my friend from Idaho that the budget that was passed
here allows in the 2001 fiscal year for the Agriculture Committee to
spend up to $5.5 billion. It allows the Agriculture Committee to spend
for the year 2002 $7.35 billion. The Agriculture Committee in the bill
we are trying to consider here adheres to those limits. It is
absolutely within the budget. The $5.1 billion goes out before
September 3.
The Agriculture Committee recognized that the crop-year and the
fiscal year don't coincide. The needs that farmers will have this fall
as a result of the crop-year happen in the 2002 fiscal year. I think a
lot of us thought that we could under the budget go into that $7.35
billion in 2002 and spend it in 2002. None of that $2 billion is spent
in 2001; it is spent in 2002. That is allowed by the budget. We could
have gone up to $7.35 billion, but we didn't. We wanted to hold some in
reserve. By taking that $2 billion, we are able after the first of the
fiscal year, October 1, we are able to have help for farmers until we
get a farm bill passed or until we are able to perhaps come again some
other time and expend the rest of the $7.35 billion.
I say to my friend from Idaho, this is within the budget the $5.5
billion we spend this year before September 30; the other $2 billion is
spent in 2002, and there is nothing in the budget that prohibits the
Agriculture Committee from saying in 2001 how we want that money spent
in 2002. We have met all the requirements. There will be no budget
point of order because we are well within the budget. I point that out
to my friend from Idaho. He is no longer a member of the committee. I
know that. I am sorry he is not. Maybe had the Senator been there he
would have realized and recognized how we went about this and how we
are not busting the budget in 2001.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleagues for all of those considerations and
I wish I did serve on the authorizing committee of agriculture. I serve
on the appropriating subcommittee for agriculture, the appropriations,
so I watch Agriculture budgets closely.
What the Senator from Iowa said is absolutely right. It is forward-
funding; it is reaching into 2002 and pulling money out for 2001. I
understand that. I know it will be spent in 2002 in a 2001
supplemental. I understand what is being done. I also understand that
is not necessarily the way it is done. But it is OK if you can get the
votes on the floor to do it. It is not necessarily how we work budgets
around here.
I will also say, whether I am holding this up or not, we will be on
the Agriculture bill come Monday, and Monday evening you will get
cloture and we will be there and probably move it quite quickly,
depending on the amendments that come. The leaders know this. There are
several amendments that may be very protracted in their debate.
The reality is, last year somebody made us file cloture on the
Agriculture appropriations conference report. I don't believe that was
talked about in such dramatic terms, but that is exactly what happened
last year. I have it in front of me, Agriculture appropriations, 106th
Congress. After all the work was done, the bill was ready to be sent to
the President and be signed so the money could go out and somebody had
to file cloture to move the bill.
I don't know that this is so unprecedented. Thou doth protest a bit
too much.
We will be on the Agriculture bill come Monday. I do appreciate the
work the Senator has done. He has worked thoroughly.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to try to summarize where we are and see if
my leader, the majority leader, can confirm if this is accurate.
I think the word of the day is ``delay.'' We are seeing an
Agriculture bill, an emergency bill, being delayed. We are not going to
be on it. We are going to have to debate a motion to proceed. For those
people who don't know the rules of the Senate, you can invoke these
rules and it can go slow. We are seeing a delay in getting help to our
farmers; and we are seeing anything but a delay in the day we will have
the Mexican trucks come barreling through our highways and byways when
we should delay that until
[[Page S8336]]
we have enough inspectors. We are only inspecting 2 percent of the
trucks, and out of that 2 percent, 35 percent of the trucks are failing
and a lot of them have no brakes.
I will not reiterate the horror stories and nightmares we heard in
the committee.
Where we have a delay, we don't want a delay; that is, to help our
American farmers. And where the other side is trying to do away with
the delay is the day that we have trucks coming through our border into
the interior of our country that are ill-equipped for those journeys.
I wonder if my leader would agree that is where we are right now.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator has described it very well. We have spent a
week delaying completion of our work on the Transportation
appropriations bill, fundamental investments in our Nation's
infrastructure. Why have we done that? Because there are those who are
opposed to the regulatory commitment that we want to make for truck
safety in this country. They are willing to sacrifice public investment
in our Nation's infrastructure not for days but for weeks because they
don't think we ought to support a rigorous inspection and a rigorous
standard of quality with regard to safety on our Nation's highways.
That is what this debate has been about now for several days. I am
disappointed that only because of absentee Senators we lost the cloture
vote tonight, but we will win that vote and inevitably we will win on
the final passage of the Transportation bill. This has been nothing
more than delay. This delay has been unnecessary, unproductive, and
very unfortunate.
The Senator from California could not have said it better. She is
right. There will be another day. We will deal with these issues. I
will say, as I said a moment ago, there are some things we must do
before we leave. We have no choice. So we can delay now and we will
compound the problems and the circumstances involving our departure
later.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I say to the majority leader in the form of a question, we
don't have nearly as many farmers--we call them ranchers--in the State
of Nevada, but we have some. They have benefits from this Agriculture
bill--not as much as we think they should.
I say to the leader, farmers all over America are not concerned about
the partisan politics. There are Democrat farmers and Republican
farmers. Isn't that right?
Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
Mr. REID. The American public wants us to accomplish results. The
fact that you have been a leader for a short period of time should not
mean we cannot move forward with the legislation. Is that fair?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would say that is fair.
Mr. REID. We had the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from
California, the Senator from South Dakota, huge producers of food and
fiber for this country. I know how important it is for your respective
States that we move forward on this Agriculture supplemental.
I say to the leader, if I had been in my office I would have taken
more calls, but I have been here most of the time, and I have had many,
many calls from people interested in the high-tech industry, people on
the cutting edge of what is going on in America today with computers.
They want to be competitive. They think they are unable to be
competitive because we cannot move forward on the Export Administration
Act. There are Democrat and Republican farmers. There are also Democrat
and Republican people involved in this high-tech industry. They don't
care who gets credit for it.
Would the leader agree if we can move forward on the Agriculture
supplemental and the Export Administration Act, there will be lots of
credit to go around for Democrats and Republicans, and it would help
this country?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. The Senator has spent a
good deal of time on this floor over not only of the past few months
but of the past few years trying to pass the Export Administration Act.
He ran into the same problems last year that we confront this year.
There are those who are unwilling to consider the tremendous, negative
repercussions that this country will continue to experience as a result
of our inability to update the Export Administration Act now.
Further delay, and it expires. I might add, it expires in August.
Further delay further undermines our ability to be competitive abroad.
I don't know why anyone would want to be in a position to put this
country into that kind of a situation, but because of objections on the
other side, we have so far been unable to move the bill.
Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. As the majority leader well knows, I am new to this
body and I think what we have just seen raises, in my mind, serious
questions about what it is we are trying to accomplish for the people
of our States and our country.
As I understand the response of the distinguished Senator from Idaho,
the delay is because somebody ``unnamed'' delayed something last year.
That, to me, is a strikingly inadequate explanation for a delay that is
holding up our efforts to help our oldest industry and our newest
industry.
With the fact that New York's largest economic sector is agriculture,
which most people outside New York would have no idea of, I have a
great interest in the Agriculture supplemental bill because we have
some aid in there for farmers who are following in the tradition of
those having farmed in New York for more than 400 years. Our apple
farmers are on the brink of extinction if they do not get some
emergency help. We had hail last year that destroyed the crop in the
Mid-Hudson River Valley; it took out orchards in the north country. So
this is not any geographic issue. This is a national issue that has to
be addressed.
At the same time, in New York, we have some of the cutting edge high-
tech industries that are begging for the kind of direction the Export
Administration Act will give them, the certainty about what they can
and cannot export, whether we can be competitive globally. Both of
these important pieces of legislation have to be addressed in the next
week.
It is regrettable that instead of doing the people's business,
dealing with the agricultural needs and the high-tech needs that really
cut across every geographic and political line we have in our Nation,
we see this kind of delay.
But I would ask the majority leader, is it your intention to do
everything you can possibly do, as our leader, who has done, in my
view, an absolutely tremendous job since assuming the leadership, to
make sure that the people's needs are met? And that includes the
Agriculture bill and the Export Administration bill.
Speaking just as one Senator, I do not think there is anything more
important than doing the work we were sent here to do, casting the
votes that will help people, and it is striking that we do not seem to
have the cooperation we need on the other side.
But I would ask the leader if it is his intention to make sure that
we do the people's business before we leave for the recess that is
scheduled.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator may be new here, but she certainly
understands how this institution must work. It can only work with
cooperation. As she has so rightfully indicated, the situation today is
that on issues of great importance, as she said, to our oldest and our
newest industries, there is no question that we cannot put any higher
of a priority on the work that must be done in the next week than to
address both of these bills.
The agricultural supplemental package represents, for many of our
program crop farmers, a significant portion of the income they will
receive in this calendar year. A large portion of the income they are
depending upon rides on whether or not we get this bill done in the
coming week. I do not know what percent some of our high-tech companies
relate to the ability to export abroad, but I would not be surprised if
it were not just as great.
So she is absolutely right. We cannot leave without addressing these
critical pieces of legislation. Why? Because they expire. The
authorization literally expires during the month of August. So we can
do it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or we can work into the weekend, or
the following week, but we really
[[Page S8337]]
have to understand that these are critical bills that must be
addressed. And the only way we can address them, as she correctly
points out, is through the cooperative effort of both parties, and I
would hope both leaders.
Mr. REID. Will the leader yield just for one more brief question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. There have been comments the last several days about what
has happened in the last year. I want the Record to be spread with the
fact--I want this confirmed by the leader--one of the assignments you
gave me as assistant leader was that when difficult matters arose on
the floor, one of my assignments directly from our leader--Tom Daschle
to Harry Reid--was to do what you can, Harry Reid, to help move
legislation. If it benefited the Republicans, I still had that
responsibility. And there are many statements in the Record by Senator
Lott of how he appreciated the work we did--my name was mentioned on
occasion--to move legislation.
I did that because you believed it was the right thing to do to move
legislation. That is why we were able to move eight appropriations
bills last year--does the Senator remember that--before the August
recess?
Mr. DASCHLE. I remember that vividly. I remember how it was that we
were able to work through these important matters, because we
understood that October 1st is the deadline to complete all of our work
on appropriations and that when you fall short of that deadline, you
find yourself in a very precarious situation, making decisions without
careful thought and, in some cases, making mistakes.
We want to complete our work on time. We want to be able to finish
these bills. I appreciate so much the cooperation, the effort, and the
leadership shown by the Senator from Nevada in reaching that goal.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator from South Dakota, our distinguished
majority leader, agree that when you were the minority leader, one of
your primary responsibilities was to move legislation, no matter
whether it was sponsored by a Democrat or a Republican, but to move
legislation off this floor?
Mr. DASCHLE. By and large, that was exactly what we attempted to do.
Obviously, there were many times when there were disagreements, but we
tried to work through those disagreements. I am hopeful we can do so
again in the coming week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I will return the floor to the Senator in just one brief
minute. I just want to say that I think no one knows more than I do how
passionately this majority leader, the then-minority leader, worked
with us to get legislation passed. That is why I repeat, eight
appropriations bills were passed in this body last year before the
August recess. That was hard work. It only came as a result of the
direction of the majority leader saying, we have to get this stuff
done, that is the responsible thing for this country; and we did it.
I know there are people who come in and make little snippets about
the fact that things have happened in the past. Look at our record.
Look at our record of how we helped move legislation. Of course, there
were disagreements on our side, but they passed quickly. Lots of
amendments were filed on bills. We worked through those.
I just say, I hope people will look at what we did and work with us
to try to move legislation. We want to do that. If we do something that
is good, there is credit for everyone to go around. If we do not do
things, there is blame to go around, as well it should. But the blame
now should be with the minority because they simply have not allowed us
to proceed on important legislation for this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
____________________