[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________