[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29692-29697]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                Amendment No. 3508 to Amendment No. 3500

 (Purpose: To strengthen payment limitations and direct the savings to 
                increased funding for certain programs)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up an amendment on behalf of Senators 
Dorgan and Grassley. The amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dorgan, for 
     himself and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 3508 
     to amendment No. 3500.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3509 to Amendment No. 3508

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3509 to amendment No. 3508.

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

[[Page 29693]]

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

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       This section shall take effect 1 day after enactment.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I wish to make a few 
comments at this point.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize to my distinguished colleague. 
That was actually in my script and I should have done that. I apologize 
for not doing that. Without losing my right to the floor, I yield to my 
friend. I apologize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the majority leader is certainly within 
his rights to do what we call ``filling up the tree.'' It has certainly 
been done by majority leaders in both parties over the years. But let's 
get a picture of what we are talking about.
  As I understand it, this is the amendment that has been offered. What 
my good friend, the majority leader, is saying is that in response to 
this amendment, the minority, this side of the aisle, will get an 
opportunity to offer only those amendments the majority leader allows 
us to offer.
  The farm bill is a very important bill. It happens about every 5 
years. There are many people interested in agriculture, school 
nutrition, and energy and others who have an abiding interest in this 
bill. The minority is going to insist on an open process.
  The last time we enacted a farm bill, the Democrats were also in the 
majority and Senator Daschle was the majority leader. I asked my staff 
to check on what the procedure was then.
  Senator Daschle attempted to limit amendments through early cloture, 
which is another procedural way to shut out the minority. Three cloture 
votes failed. They were not supported by the Republican minority. 
According to my notes, on the third day of consideration, a cloture 
motion ripened and failed by a vote of 53 to 45. The second cloture 
vote occurred 5 days later and also failed by a vote of 54 to 43. A 
third cloture vote failed by a vote of 54 to 43.
  Senator Daschle pulled the bill but returned to it later, and after 6 
days of floor consideration, the bill passed without a further cloture 
vote being necessary.
  So let's look at the way farm bills have typically been handled. That 
is the way it was handled in 2002. In 1985, there were 30 rollcall 
votes; in 1990, 22 rollcall votes; in 1996, 10 rollcall votes; and in 
2002, the year to which I was referring in which there were multiple 
cloture motions filed and cloture not invoked, there were 23 rollcall 
votes.
  I don't know, there may be a few people in the Senate who don't want 
to pass a farm bill at all, but that certainly is not the view of the 
Republican leader, certainly not the view of the Senator from Georgia, 
our ranking member on the Agriculture Committee. But we are going to 
insist on a fair process.
  We can get this bill done the easy way or the hard way. I think a 
better way to do it would be to understand that a bill of this 
magnitude is enormously significant, something we only do every 5 
years. The Republican minority is going to insist on an open process, 
which is what we will get to, one way or the other, in going forward. I 
don't think that is unreasonable.
  I thank the majority leader for giving me an opportunity to make some 
observations.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is not a tit for tat. Each time we do 
the farm bill, it comes at different times in the year and different 
situations and circumstances. I explained to both the chairman and 
ranking member that I have no intention of filing cloture this week. 
But there will be a time we will have to file cloture. We have such a 
small amount of time left this year and next year with the Presidential 
elections coming and all the other business we have to do that there 
will not be five cloture votes on this farm bill. People who vote no on 
cloture the first time should understand they may not get another 
chance to vote cloture on the bill, and there will be no farm bill. 
This is not a threat, it is what we have to deal with in the Senate.
  I also say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, once I 
complete the amendment process, the Republicans have equal authority as 
I do whether other amendments will be heard. It takes unanimous consent 
to set an amendment aside, and they have as much control over that as I 
do. So I am not the ruling authority on that issue. It takes both the 
Democrats and Republicans to move down the road.


                           Amendment No. 3510

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk, 
to the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3510 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 3500.

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

       At the end of the bill add the following:
       This section shall take effect 3 days after the date of 
     enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3511 to Amendment No. 3510

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3511 to amendment No. 3510.

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

       In the amendment strike 3 and insert 4.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 3512

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a motion to commit to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Reid moves to commit H.R. 2419 to the Committee on 
     Agriculture with instructions to report back forthwith with 
     the following amendment numbered 3512.

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

       At the end of the bill add the following:
       This section shall take effect 5 days after the date of 
     enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           amendment No. 3513

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the motion to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3513 to the instructions of the motion to commit.

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

       In the motion strike 5 and insert 6.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3514 to Amendment No. 3513

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3514 to amendment No. 3513.


[[Page 29694]]

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

       In the amendment strike 6 and insert 7.

  Mr. REID. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I am 
disappointed with the majority leader's announcement that he would fill 
the tree, which he just did, and not allow the amendment process to 
perfect the farm bill. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have had all year to complete a farm bill prior to September 30, when 
it expired. Yet we waited until now, 2 months after the law's 
expiration, to bring it to the floor. Now we are told by the majority 
there is too much to do in this final 2 weeks for us to have an open 
and fair debate on the farm bill. It is another unfortunate example of 
mismanagement of this Congress.
  Furthermore, filling the tree and shutting out amendments is not 
consistent with previous statements by the majority on this bill. For 
example, yesterday, Chairman Harkin reported the farm bill debate would 
be ``wide open as usual in the Senate.'' The majority leader's own 
spokesman expected an open debate when he said:

       The farm bill is the last truly amendable vehicle moving 
     through the Senate this calendar year.

  But the majority leader's words and actions seem to be exactly 
contradictory to this promised wide-open process, stating unequivocally 
yesterday afternoon that we are not going to have an open amendment 
process on this bill, and he has confirmed that, as we all know, again 
this morning.
  Unfortunately, we have been down this road before. Almost at the 
inception of the last farm bill debate, as I was describing earlier, 
then-Majority Leader Daschle filed cloture in an attempt to similarly 
limit amendments. After only 2 days of debate and only six amendments, 
a cloture vote occurred on December 13, 2001, even a little bit later 
in the calendar year than we are in now. Not surprisingly, the cloture 
motion failed 53 to 45.
  Similar to a bird continuing to slam into a paned-glass window, we 
had a second cloture vote on December 18, 2001, getting close to 
Christmas, with a similar vote of 54 to 43. Again, on December 19, 1 
day closer to Christmas, in 2001. Not surprisingly, the contentious 
debate took up most of December.
  However, after the majority finally agreed to open the amendment 
process, something that will ultimately be done here, in my view, the 
farm bill returned to the floor on February 6, 2002, no further cloture 
votes were necessary, and final passage occurred fairly quickly about a 
week later.
  Let's not beat our head against a wall again this time. One of my 
favorite old sayings from rural Kentucky is: There is no education in 
the second kick of a mule. Our Nation's farmers are too important to 
wait until February.
  Finally, look at the farm bill sitting on the desk in front of me. I 
held it up a while ago. It is quite thick. Reported by the committee 
less than 2 weeks ago, it totals 1,600 pages. Is the other side of the 
aisle suggesting this behemoth of a bill cannot be improved by an open 
amendment process? Surely, that is not the suggestion being made.
  I am surprised and disappointed we are in the position we are in. 
This is not the way the Senate likely will be allowed to work on a very 
large bill that we only address every 5 years. It is not going to be 
rubberstamped by fiat.
  I am dismayed by the attempt of the majority to ramrod this bill 
through, especially since the ink on 1,600 pages is barely dry and the 
administration claims it contains $37 billion in new budget gimmicks 
and new taxes.
  Let's have a fair, open debate. Believe me, I say to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, that is the way you get a farm bill 
completed. Our farmers and rural communities deserve no less and, 
hopefully, we can get back at the posture we ought to be in on this 
bill in the very near future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with my friend from Kentucky. 
Farmers do deserve more than what is going on here.
  You know, I took only one course in logic in college, but I did 
pretty well in that course. And what I would say to my friend is, it is 
illogical what he is talking about. A 1,600-page bill that needs to be 
improved can only be improved--if, in fact, people think it should be 
improved--by offering amendments to it--amendments to the farm bill. 
Every farmer and rancher in America should understand we are trying to 
pass a farm bill. We have said any amendment you want to offer to this 
big bill, offer it, but it has to be relevant to the farm bill. That is 
all.
  That is not a closed process. It is an open process. How can you have 
it both ways? The ink is hardly dry on this, is a gross overstatement. 
This bill has been around for several weeks now--not in its final form, 
but everyone knows what is in this bill. The tax portion was a little 
late in coming, but it had been worked on for a long time.
  This is a bill upon which Democrats and Republicans agreed. It is a 
bill that is here by virtue of that bipartisanship. The House has 
already done their bill, and a lot that is in this bill is in the House 
bill. So if this bill needs to be improved, let's improve it. Let's 
improve it. I have said let's offer amendments.
  One of the amendments that might be offered, and we have debated it 
before, is dealing with payment limitations--a bipartisan amendment 
offered by Dorgan and Grassley, two senior Senators who come from farm 
States. They think this bill can be made better. What are they doing 
about it? Offering an amendment. That is what this is all about.
  So for people to lament a closed process, look what Senator Daschle 
did--two amendments before cloture. Mr. President, I don't have any 
concern about how many amendments are offered, as long as they are 
relevant to the farm bill. That is all.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Sure.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I never served in the House of Representatives, but my 
question is--it strikes me, I would say to my good friend, the majority 
leader, that he is attempting to act as if he is chairman of the Rules 
Committee in the House in determining what amendments would be allowed. 
Under this filling-up-the-tree process, where the majority leader is 
then positioned in order to allow the tree to be open and select 
amendments, is it not the case that my definition of ``open'' would 
probably not meet yours in the sense that you would be, yourself, 
selecting which amendments would be allowed?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have served in the House of 
Representatives. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to understand 
the Congress. The House is a great institution but much different from 
the Senate. In the House, if you are in the majority, you can pretty 
much do as you want to do. That isn't the way we do it over here.
  As I indicated a few minutes ago, the first amendment I offered, I 
offered on behalf of Senators Dorgan and Grassley. If someone wants to 
offer another amendment, I don't control that. Any one Senator who 
wants to offer another amendment, let's take a look at it. I don't 
control that. It takes consent from both sides, or the pending 
amendment must be set aside and another offered. I am not controlling 
that.
  That certainly is not like the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee 
in the House sets what amendments can be offered--usually not very 
many--and how much debate time they can do on that amendment. That 
isn't anything like we are doing. What I am saying is, we have this big 
bill, and a number of people have said it can be improved upon. I am 
willing to work with

[[Page 29695]]

the Democrats and Republicans to try to improve it, but it will not be 
improved by nonrelevant amendments.
  I have mentioned some of the suspects that are lurking out there: 
provisions dealing with repealing the estate tax and getting us out of 
Iraq immediately. I mean, there are all kinds of suspects there. I am 
saying, if people want to change this bill, let's try to change it. I 
am not standing in the way of doing that, Mr. President.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Are you asking a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry, I was preoccupied.
  Mr. GREGG. So I am clear as to what the process is now that has been 
structured, you have used the term it has to be a ``relevant'' 
amendment. But, essentially, under the present process, is it not true 
that for any amendment to move forward in this body it would have to 
move forward on the basis of unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment?
  Mr. REID. The distinguished Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the majority leader would yield for a 
further question, essentially, we have set up a process which is 
extremely constricted. And, in fact, in comparison with the Rules 
Committee, it is even more constricted than the House process because 
any Member--and there are 100 Members in this body--who does not like 
the fact somebody is going to offer an amendment which might affect 
their interests--and, believe me, there isn't an amendment that will be 
offered that would not have opposition on the other side--is going to 
be knocked down by an objection from that individual Member.
  So you have essentially shut the floor of the Senate down because the 
only amendments that can be brought up would be amendments that would 
have unanimous consent, which means 100 people have to agree to them. 
Basically, they are amendments of no impact or significance, relevant 
or irrelevant.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to respond to my friend. I smile because 
that is the way every bill comes before the Senate. That is the way it 
works. Once you lay down an amendment and you want to set it aside, you 
have to ask unanimous consent to set it aside. Today is no different 
from any other day. That is the way it works here.
  I have bragged about my friend before. He has served in the House, he 
has been Governor of his State, and he is now a longtime Senator. He 
knows that. Every time we have a bill here, and you have an amendment 
that has been laid down, the only way you can set that aside is by 
unanimous consent. No one Senator can start offering amendments.
  So this bill, I say to my friend, is no different than any other bill 
we have done in that regard. The only difference is, I laid down the 
first amendment on behalf of Senators Grassley and Dorgan.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the majority leader would yield further, 
of course, the end of that sentence should have been: Yes, but I 
control the ability to allow those amendments to come forward.
  And, in fact, it has been made fairly clear that control will be 
exercised by the leadership in a way that limits amendments that are 
brought forward to those which are agreed to by the majority leader 
until we get to the point where the majority leader is going to file a 
motion for cloture, which, on a farm bill, of course, would most likely 
be successful because we all know everybody around here is ``in the 
field,'' so to say. I would not say ``in the tent,'' but they are in 
the field for the farmer.
  So as a practical matter, this is an extraordinarily closed process. 
Just to use one example, the majority leader said--he threw out, and 
maybe it was just a throw-away line--estate taxes shouldn't be brought 
onto this bill because they are not relevant, under the majority 
leader's terms. If I want to offer an amendment which says we should 
reform the death tax--which I might like to offer in light of the fact 
there is a tax title there--I happen to think that has a huge impact on 
the farming community because, for the most part, it is family farms 
and small businesses that are most impacted by the death tax. But we 
have already been told that would not be a relevant amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, any Senator--not me, any Senator--on any 
bill has the same power I have to stop the setting aside of an 
amendment to offer another amendment. It is not me. The Senator from 
New Hampshire can do it, the Senator from Arizona, or the Senator from 
Georgia can do it. The Senator from Iowa can do it. Any Senator; it is 
not me.
  I laid down the first amendment by virtue of being the majority 
leader. I have the right to do that. But that is about as far as it 
goes. Anytime after that, it takes unanimous consent to set aside that 
amendment. I agree, and offered a consent agreement, that any relevant 
amendment Senators want to offer, they should be able to do that, and 
that was objected to. But for my friend from New Hampshire to try to 
give a little mini lecture on what we are doing is different than 
anything we have ever done in the past, every day we are on a bill, it 
happens the way he has described it. Any one Senator can stop another 
Senator from setting aside an amendment and offering another amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President I don't want to beat a dead subsidy, so I 
will constrain myself to this last question.
  The point is pretty obvious. Sure, any Senator on any bill can object 
to setting aside an amendment. That is not the way the institution has 
ever worked, in my experience. The way the institution works is the 
amendment process is a free-flowing, Wild West exercise around here, 
especially on bills such as this, which are huge authorizing bills with 
a lot of mandatory funding in them. Amendments are simply taken up in 
seriatim as they are offered.
  What will happen now, and the majority leader has been specific about 
this and very open about this, he is going to limit the ability to 
bring forward amendments, and the unanimous consent is not going to be 
granted unless he deems those amendments are relevant to the underlying 
bill, which means in his context of what is relevant. Well, a lot of us 
will have different views on what that means, as I pointed out on the 
death tax alone as an issue.
  So this is a process of shutting down the amendment process on the 
farm bill. The last time we debated the farm bill, we had 245 
amendments and 19 rollcall votes, and we were on it for 4 weeks. I 
think on the first day or the second day of the farm bill debate around 
here, for those of us who may not be enamored with the bill, even 
though we know a lot of effort was put into it--because it spends a lot 
of money, creates a lot of new subsidies and programs, and uses a lot 
of budgetary gimmicks--we would like to have a much more open process, 
and I am disappointed we are not going to.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I am not going to, as my friend said, belabor the point, 
but my friend from New Hampshire has made my case for me--4 weeks, 245 
amendments, and 19 rollcall votes. I have no problem with the 19 
rollcall votes. I do have a problem with 4 weeks. I do have a problem 
with 245 amendments. That is why I think we should have a process 
whereby people offer amendments, if they are relevant, to the farm 
bill.
  In the time we have spent debating this--and we only have 15 minutes 
before we take our usual weekly Tuesday break--we could have taken up 
at least one amendment. The people who offered this huge amendment, a 
big amendment, and we had it described, for me, it is a pretty easy 
deal. I have been here when this has been debated before. Most everyone 
who has been here has heard this debate on numerous occasions. So I am 
sure they will go back, Senators Dorgan and Grassley, and pick out 
their favorite statements they made before, and they will talk about it 
again. They do not want a lot of time on it. So we could dispose of 
this amendment very quickly, as we

[[Page 29696]]

could most every other amendment on this bill.
  But as I say, my friend has made my case for me--245 amendments, 4 
weeks. I repeat: I don't have a problem with the 19 rollcall votes, but 
the only ones stopping the amendment process are my friends who think 
somehow this is different than other pieces of legislation we have. The 
difference is I offered the first amendment. And I am very happy, as 
the chairman of the bill is, and other people on this side of the aisle 
who are very concerned about the passage of this bill--they want it 
passed--to be cooperative. If there is something wrong with this bill, 
offer relevant amendments. If there is something in there you want to 
cut, that is always relevant, to cut things in a program, at least that 
is my understanding.
  The only ones stopping the amendment process are my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. They are making a big deal out of nothing.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The fundamental problem, I would say to my friend, the 
majority leader, is: What incentive do Members on my side of the aisle 
who object to the process have to grant consent to set aside an 
amendment? What incentive do they have?
  I would expect, just guessing, the senior Senator from New Hampshire 
may not be very enthusiastic about the underlying bill. By setting up a 
process like the majority leader has set up, in which a number of 
Members on my side believe the process is unfair, what is their 
incentive to give consent for the majority leader to set aside an 
amendment and then allow an amendment of his choosing to be dealt with?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to respond to that. Mr. President, I think 
there is tremendous incentive. First of all, they could have their 
amendment heard--their relevant amendment. And there is nothing to stop 
us from having the managers of the bill sit down and work out a 
procedure where they can come up with 10 relevant amendments--
amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10--to this bill. Do one, do the 
other, and we can try to work out time agreements on these matters.
  So there is tremendous incentive, because I am convinced there are 
people on both sides of the aisle who have problems with this bill. 
Some do not like the bill and they want to change it; others want to 
improve the bill. They want to do that in good faith. So the incentive 
would be, as I have said to my dear friend, the Senator from Kentucky, 
to have their amendment and others heard.
  There is nothing to prevent the manager of the bill from coming up 
with a series--I would even go as far as to say my distinguished 
friend, the Republican leader, if he wants to have the final say with 
me, if the managers do a good job, I would be happy to include him in 
the mix. But there is a lot of incentive. We could, in the next couple 
of days, work out a procedure to get rid of a lot of amendments that 
are relevant to this bill and would either improve the bill in the mind 
of some people or make it a little worse, which is the goal some people 
have.
  There is tremendous incentive here, because we could agree to--we 
might arrive at a point where people say we have had a pretty good 
opportunity to change this bill; we do not need to do an Iraq 
amendment; we do not need to do an amendment dealing with firefighters 
that has no bearing on this bill. In fact, what we need to do is work 
on making this bill one where people have the opportunity to offer 
amendments on the farm bill that are relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me sum up where I think we are. It 
has been a very interesting and enlightening discussion. But here is 
where we are. The Senate is gridlocked on the farm bill because of the 
decision to fill up the tree. And now where we are, as the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, is that any 
one Senator, any one of the 100, can object to an amendment being set 
aside in order to consider another amendment.
  What will have to happen at this point is, as it happens every day on 
virtually every bill, the majority leader and I are going to have to 
sit down off the floor of the Senate and talk about the way forward, 
because we will not be able to go forward in our current circumstance 
because of the decision by the majority to shut out the minority, or 
contrarily to select what amendments will be permitted. That is simply 
not acceptable on this side of the aisle.
  So it has been an interesting and useful discussion, and I am sure to 
some C-SPAN viewers quite boring, because it has largely been about 
procedure.
  Nevertheless, that is where we are. We are going to have to do what 
we do every day in the Senate, sit down and figure out the way forward. 
The farm bill needs to pass. We hope it passes sometime in the near 
future. But we are going to insist on a fair process consistent with 
the way farm bills have been debated in the past.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend from Arizona has been here 
and very patient. I guess the question I would ask--I have been asked 
most of the questions, but I do not ask any one person to answer this 
to me. But the question I have is: Why would there not be an agreement 
to my suggestion, my proposal? Let's debate the daylights out of this 
bill, offer amendments. What is wrong with that? Is it because there 
are people wanting to offer unrelated amendments to the bill? I mean, 
what in the world is wrong with what we are trying to accomplish here? 
It is a big bill. We do it every 5 years. People should have an 
opportunity to change it. I think they should do that. Why would they 
not want us to do that? Is there something I am missing here? I mean, 
is it their last opportunity to do--as Senator Dole used to refer to as 
decorating a Christmas tree? Is that what they want to do? Is this 
their Christmas tree to try to decorate it? I do not understand it.
  I say to everyone within the sound of my voice: Do we need on the 
farm bill amendments relating to labor issues? Do we need amendments 
dealing with Leave No Child Behind? Do we need amendments relating to 
environmental issues? Global warming? Do we need amendments dealing 
with Iraq, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the situation now in 
Pakistan?
  I do not think so. I think we need to work on this bill, get as much 
of it done as we can this week. I think it will spill over into next 
week, but in the process, we are going to have to find time to do a 
conference report on the Labor-HHS bill. That has a rule violation in 
it, perhaps; we have to do the Defense appropriations bill with the CR. 
Those are the must-do items.
  Now I am not trying, as I have said so many times here, to stop an 
open amendment process on this bill, except I want them to be relevant. 
I think most everybody does who has any dealing in this farm bill. I do 
not expect the ranking member to get engaged in this. He has 
responsibilities to listen to his leadership, and that is 
understandable.
  I will bet if the truth were known, those Senators who have worked so 
hard on this bill are thinking to themselves: Now, what has Reid said 
that is unreasonable? What he has said is: I have offered the first 
amendment, and it is not my amendment. I am not selfish, wanting my 
amendment to be heard. I have offered a bipartisan amendment that we 
know must be debated before this farm bill is completed. And then I 
say, anyone who wants to offer another amendment relating to the farm 
bill that is relevant: Have at it. I am not going to stop anyone from 
doing that. I don't think anybody on this side will either.
  The Republicans are not having a debate on the farm bill, for reasons 
that are beyond my ability to comprehend, unless it is the Dole theory 
of trying to put new lights on the Christmas tree.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's 
explanation of his position. But I think in his own explanation he 
raises the issues on which we are concerned. He has now taken off the 
table the estate tax. I

[[Page 29697]]

cannot think of anything that is more relevant to the farmers, to the 
family farm, than the ability to pass that farm on to your children 
without having it wiped out by punitive and other inappropriate taxes, 
the death tax.
  He has now taken off the table global warming issues. Well, I have to 
say from my little knowledge of that issue--I studied it a bit, I have 
spent a lot of time on it in a couple of narrow areas such as acid 
rain. Farming is a critical issue in the issue of global warming. What 
is done on a farm has a huge impact both positively and negatively on 
global warming.
  Then he took off the table the issue of labor, labor questions. Well, 
in my experience, labor questions have a huge impact on farm policy, 
especially the immigration labor issues, how you get people who are 
immigrants to help you pick apples in New Hampshire, and the potatoes 
in Idaho. That is a labor issue.
  So his concept of relevance is an extremely narrow one. But his 
concept of relevance is going to be the concept that disciplines this 
floor relevant to amendments being made.
  The Senate was never conceived as being the House. This is supposed 
to be the place where we get into debates, where we exchange ideas, 
where people throw out a thought on a bill such as this that is fairly 
significant, and it gets debated, a position. But that is not going to 
happen on this bill because the majority leader has decided to execute 
a process which is even more constricted than what would be the House 
procedure under this similar bill.
  It is certainly inconsistent with the traditions of the Senate, on 
the issue of the farm bills specifically, but on our traditions 
generally. He used my statistics to support his position. I do not see 
how he can do that, quite honestly. Farm bills have always involved 
significant debate on the floor. Why? Because they are huge policy 
issues which affect a lot of people in this country--everybody who 
eats, to begin with, and that is about everyone--and obviously the farm 
community, which is the producers of food and do an extraordinary job 
for our Nation. They have always taken a long time on the floor to 
debate--weeks, usually. And they have always been open for amendments, 
which is totally reasonable because of the complexity of the bill. They 
have often brought in issues such as the death tax, immigration, labor, 
and how you get migrant labor, global warming, and in the case of New 
England, for example, they brought in the question of these subsidies, 
which we find a little difficult to tolerate, which are now being 
expanded to asparagus. There is a crop that needs a subsidy or the 
walking-around money that has been put in this bill for the purpose of 
disasters or the fact that there is probably $20 billion of gimmicks 
put in this bill that are budgetary games or the fact that they have 
moved mandatory spending over to tax expenditures.
  What an outrage on the budget process. They opened a $3 billion add-
on in mandatory spending so they could go out and spend that on various 
interest groups by creating a tax credit. The list goes on and on and 
on and on.
  Why should we not on this bill get into a debate over the issue of 
tax policy? Because tax policy underlines the way this bill is paid 
for. The Senator from Arizona has an extraordinarily good proposal on 
the death tax. Why should that not be on the table here?
  The whole issue of AMT should be on the table, in my humble opinion, 
because there are a number of farmers, by the way, who pay the AMT tax, 
a number of them. There are going to be a lot more when we bump up to 
20 million people paying that tax next year. These are all relevant to 
this bill, in my humble opinion, of what relevant is.
  By the way, in the Senate, relevance is everything when it comes to 
the open amendment process. We are not functioning under postcloture 
rules here. Relevant is irrelevant when it comes to a bill on the floor 
of the Senate. Anything can be amended in any way, and it is an open 
bill. That is the concept of the Senate.
  If somebody wants to put on this bill policies relative to Nicaraguan 
housekeepers, they can put that amendment on traditionally. That has no 
relevance at all to the average American looking at it, but it is the 
Senate's prerogative.
  So we are undermining the fundamental prerogative of the Senate and 
every Member of the Senate, I think in a very damaging way. I am 
disappointed in the decision by the majority.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I had hoped to ask the majority leader a question here, but 
I think my question has already been answered, so I will simply make 
this point.
  There may be extraordinarily unique circumstances where once in a 
blue moon it is important to move a very focused piece of legislation 
in a very hurried period of time so that the majority is warranted in 
setting up a process such as that which has been established for this 
bill, where there are no amendments unless the majority leader says so. 
But that is not the situation with this bill. It never has been with 
the farm bill. This is the bill we are debating that we are taking up. 
And to suggest that the Senator's prerogative to offer any amendment--a 
lot of times they get voted down because they do not have the support--
but the Senator's prerogative to offer an amendment is going to be 
eliminated through the gatekeeper of the majority leader or any other 
member of the Senate who can object, is to derogate the basic rule of 
the Senate and eliminate a basic right of Senators.
  I recall not long after I got here, my colleague from Arizona 
objected to the then-majority on this side establishing a process that 
was not this drastic, but in some respects limited the right of 
amendments. He said: The Senate is the body in which any Member has a 
right to offer an amendment. It will be wrong for us to do that. Our 
leadership relented, and there were amendments allowed on the other 
side that got us over that impasse. That is what our minority leader 
was referring to a moment ago. You cannot impose a sort of dictatorial 
process where one person gets to decide whether you offer an amendment 
in the Senate.
  Sooner or later that process is going to break down. And on a bill as 
big as this bill, with as many diverse interests as the Senator from 
New Hampshire was talking about, it is not right that Senators not be 
allowed to offer amendments. Again, if they are not good amendments, 
they are going to be defeated, and they can always be tabled at any 
time, so they do not have to take up time. If I offered a silly, 
nongermane amendment, any of my colleagues could immediately move to 
table that amendment. Assuming it was simply nongermane, that motion to 
table would presumably pass. That whole thing would transpire in less 
than half an hour.
  So it is not about Republicans trying to take too long or offer silly 
amendments; it is about the regular process which ordinarily allowed us 
to offer amendments of our choice, not the choice of another Member of 
the body. I would hope the majority would reconsider, and that we 
could, after lunch, proceed with the process that is more amenable to 
all Senators being able to offer amendments they choose to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I only hope that both the minority and 
the majority can figure out a way of moving forward with what has been 
a labor that has taken up both Republican and Democrats for the last 2 
years to develop what is a very good farm bill. What the majority 
leader is attempting to do is to get us into a process where we will 
ultimately get a farm bill to cross the finish line, which is good for 
America. I hope the Republican minority can work with us to try to 
figure out a way forward to get us across the finish line.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________