[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31328-31330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the comments I am about to make could 
well have been made by my friend on the other side of the aisle as 
recently as last year, when his party was in the minority.
  Of course, we all know we will indeed pass the farm bill. The only 
issue is: When and how. We actually made good progress yesterday on 
both sides, defining the realm of possible amendments that might be 
filed to the bill. The amendments list on our side is actually about 
120, and the Democratic list is 140--approximately 265 amendments on 
the list.
  Before my good friend on the other side protests too much about this 
number, let me remind Senators that 246 amendments were filed to the 
2002 farm bill, 339 amendments were filed to the 1996 farm bill, 
averaging about 300 amendments per bill. In fact, when Republicans were 
attempting to move the 1996 farm bill through the Senate, the current 
committee chairman, Senator Harkin himself, filed 35 amendments. So if 
all 100 Senators emulated the Senator from Iowa, 3,500 amendments would 
be the normal for farm bill consideration.
  Thus, the current list of 265 amendments is not insurmountable, and, 
actually, not at all unusual at the beginning of the process of passing 
a farm bill. This is a complex bill that only gets reauthorized every 5 
years. This time it is 1,600 pages long and includes the first farm 
bill tax title since 1933, adding an extra degree of difficulty.
  However, Republicans are ready and willing to begin working in 
earnest to address these amendments. What always happens is that most 
of the amendments go away and we gradually work down the list. But this 
is a massive bill. The notion--if I can lift it here--that we are going 
to basically call up a bill of this magnitude, file cloture, and 
basically have no amendments strikes me as, shall I say, odd at least. 
What we always do is try to work out an orderly way to go forward. The 
issue of getting a fixed amendment list, which we were prepared to 
enter into last night, is the way it usually begins.
  I am a little perplexed as to whether the majority actually wants 
this bill to pass and is trying to simply blame the minority for trying 
to bring it down. We all know, and I am sure anybody who has followed 
the Senate at all knows, we are going to pass a farm bill, no question 
about that. The farm bill is not going to be killed. The issue is 
whether we are going to have any kind of reasonable process for going 
forward, and I think getting an amendment list is the first step. I was 
hoping we could do that, but, apparently, that is not the case, and I 
regret that we are where we are.
  But let me reassure everyone, I don't think there is anybody in the 
country who knows we aren't going to pass a farm bill, and nobody is 
going to kill the farm bill. But we are going to insist on a reasonable 
procedure for going forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no ability to pass a farm bill 
under the present situation. If people think the farm bill is going to 
be just passed because the distinguished Republican leader says one is 
going to pass, they are mistaken. We have a lot to do. We have 3 weeks 
after we come back after Thanksgiving and that is it for this year. 
Next year is going to be a very difficult year.
  We have to figure out some way, next year, to work our way through 
the Presidential election and all the other elections that are taking 
place around the country. There is no guarantee--and that is an 
understatement--we will have a farm bill.
  The one question no one answers is, What do we do with nonrelevant 
amendments? The history is one per bill. Here we have immigration, AMT 
six different times, we have fire safety, Exxon Valdez litigation, and 
on and on with nonrelevant amendments.
  This is not the beginning of the process. The process started 10 days 
ago, and we have been stalled for 10 days-- 10 days with nothing being 
done. We can talk about maybe the Democrats don't want it done. We have 
been here

[[Page 31329]]

willing and able to work through these amendments, but Republicans have 
been unwilling to work with us in any meaningful way.
  I would also say, a reasonable process? I am willing to work through 
a reasonable process, but we cannot put the Senate through having 
multiple votes on immigration issues or on nonrelated tax issues. We 
need to work on a farm bill. I repeat, if the Republicans want to come 
up with some type of a reasonable way to go forward, fine. Otherwise, 
they can vote to kill this bill, and they will vote to do it.
  We will vote on the bipartisan Dorgan-Grassley amendment on cloture, 
which, in the past, has received overwhelming support in the Senate; it 
has been done. The amendment has been offered before. And a vote on 
cloture on the bill. If the bill goes down, there may be an opportunity 
we will bring it back again, but I do not know when. It certainly is 
not going to be in January. We have a lot of other people who are 
interested in doing things in January.
  The Republicans have had their chance to be reasonable on the farm 
bill. I have tried my best to be patient, to be reasonable, to be 
thoughtful on a way to proceed on this bill. What did we get last 
night? I have said: Right now, Democrats--we can come up with 5 
amendments, all relevant. That leaves them with the nonrelevant 
amendments. We will give them the average--or if they want 2, we will 
consider that. But we are not going to deal with 247 amendments. We 
want five; we don't want nonrelevant amendments as has been done in the 
past. I don't know how we could be more reasonable than that--five.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We could have done way more than 5 amendments over the 
past week if the majority leader had not filled up the tree and 
prevented amendments from being offered. The last time the tree was 
filled on a farm bill was 2 decades ago, on October 31, 1985. In 1985, 
the majority leader filled the tree after a week of floor 
consideration; not after the very first day, but after a week--a week.
  Here, amendments were prevented by a parliamentary device of the 
majority leader, which he is certainly entitled to use, to prevent an 
amendment process from going forward. Now we have this 1,600-page bill 
with no amendments allowed, and the majority leader says we ought to 
invoke cloture on the bill and pass it.
  Look, we know the farm bill is going to pass. With all due respect to 
my good friend the majority leader, I know he is bluffing. He is going 
to pass a farm bill. I am reasonably confident the farm bill is going 
to pass after the minority gets an opportunity to offer some 
amendments.
  I am also totally confident that the fact that the amendment list has 
a lot of amendments on it at the beginning does not mean they are all 
going to be offered or all going to be voted on. That is just the way 
the legislative process starts on a very large, complicated bill that 
we only pass once every 5 years.
  I suppose we are at a stalemate. Obviously, we will continue to talk, 
and hopefully we can work out some way to go forward. But I am very 
doubtful that the minority is going to be interested in going forward 
in a situation where they basically have no opportunities to affect a 
1,600-page bill that we only pass every 5 years.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if this were a jury, they wouldn't be out 
very long and they would return a verdict on behalf of the majority. To 
think someone would be gullible enough to believe the Republicans have 
not had an opportunity to offer amendments is simply without basis in 
fact. We have said all we have to do is get rid of the Dorgan 
amendment. There is plenty of opportunity to offer any amendment they 
want to offer in relation to this bill--anything they want to offer 
that is relevant and germane.
  This is all a game, a game that is being played for reasons to 
destroy this farm bill, and they are doing a pretty good job. A week 
ago last Monday we started on this legislation, and we have 
accomplished nothing because the Republicans have refused to do so on 
the basis that they have been unable to offer amendments, which is 
untrue.
  This is a situation in which we find ourselves. I think Democrats and 
Republicans are satisfied that the right thing is being done, where 
they don't have to march down here again on an unrelated matter and 
vote on immigration. We spent a month on immigration matters. Everyone 
knows AMT is going to be resolved. It has passed the House; we are 
going to do it here. This is a game that is being played.
  I repeat, if this were a jury--and it is not, and I understand that; 
at least the jury is not going to be in until next November--we would 
find a quick return of a verdict because what we have agreed to do is 
what has been done in many instances on every farm bill. We do not deal 
with nonrelevant amendments, and we are not going to on this one unless 
there is some agreement reached, as I have indicated.
  I repeat, this afternoon we are going to go ahead and file cloture on 
this amendment that has been pending for 10 days and file cloture on 
the bill. If the Republicans don't want a farm bill, they have an 
opportunity to vote not to proceed on the legislation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the issue of nonrelevant amendments 
in the last several decades, the majority leader has indicated the farm 
bill has not had nonrelevant amendments. According to my information, 
the Democrats have filed seemingly nonrelevant amendments during 
consideration of the last several farm bills on such things as the 
Social Security trust fund--offered on a farm bill; bankruptcy--offered 
on a farm bill; and convicted fugitives in Cuba--offered on a farm 
bill. So I hope no one seriously believed that nonrelevant amendments 
have not been offered by the other side on farm bills over the last 
couple of decades.
  This is the kind of sparring that frequently goes on at the beginning 
of a big, complicated bill. We all know how it will end. It will end, 
in the end, with a reasonable number of amendments on both sides being 
voted on and the passage of the farm bill. The timing of that, 
obviously, will be up to the majority leader, who does have a difficult 
challenge. Floor time is always at a premium in the Senate. We 
understand that. But at some point, we will pass the farm bill, in the 
near future, after we have negotiated a process that is fair to both 
sides.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader still refuses to 
answer the question before this body. The question is very direct. Why 
nonrelevant amendments? People can file them; we just have never voted 
on them in farm bills. It is very clear we have not voted on them.
  We had a bill in 2001-2002, one in 1996, and one in 1990. In 1990, 
there were two nonrelevant amendments that were considered, that is it; 
in 1996, no nonrelevant amendments; in 2001-2002, two nonrelevant 
amendments--as I have indicated, an average of one in the last three 
bills.
  We cannot be in a position here where the first amendment offered is 
one that is going to deal with immigration again, border fences, how 
long the fence is. How many times do we have to vote on how long the 
fence should be between the United States and Mexico, without even 
addressing the fence in northern America? As I indicated, the new 
immigration legislation of choice to bash people is now the driver's 
license--that is here. I don't think we need to get into that. What we 
need to get into is amendments that deal with this farm bill.
  Some may say this is sparring. I do not agree with that. I think we 
are about the business of this country. We have a lot to do. The issue 
before this body now is this farm bill. I am very disappointed that it 
appears quite likely there will be no farm bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this has been an interesting colloquy, 
but the parliamentary situation we are in

[[Page 31330]]

is that unless the majority leader gives his consent, no amendments on 
my side will be allowed. That is an unacceptable way to go forward on a 
1,600-page bill that we pass every 5 years. We will continue to talk. 
We all know there will be a farm bill. The only issue is when and how, 
and that is something we will have to negotiate here in the Senate, as 
we always do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last word, maybe; otherwise, I get the last 
word later.
  Mr. President, the Republicans offer an amendment. I offered the 
first amendment on behalf of Dorgan and Grassley. It is a bipartisan 
amendment. If they have an amendment they want to offer, let them offer 
it. I will be happy to stand out of the way. But they are offering all 
these excuses why they can't do it, and that is too bad.

                          ____________________