Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me say to the chairman that I am very appreciative of the discussions and negotiations we have had ongoing over the last several weeks. He and I have both been very frustrated by the lack of activity on this farm bill. We know very well that we have worked in a bipartisan way to craft a farm bill that is going to be a great benefit to farmers and ranchers across America over the next 5 years. This is a critically important piece of legislation that was passed out of the committee by a unanimous vote, with only one person who was not there saying he would not have voted for it. That is significantly unusual. It is also unusual to complete the markup of a farm bill in a day and a half, which we did. I credit the chairman's leadership for that and the fact that we were able to work in a strong bipartisan way to make sure we got a bill that is not exactly like any of us would want it if we were the sole authors of the bill, but that is the way it is supposed to work in this body. I do truly want to thank Chairman Harkin and his staff. I see Mark Halverson sitting over there, who has worked very closely with Martha Scott Poindexter on my staff to clear so many of these almost 300 amendments that popped up over the last 4 weeks. Without the staff doing the work they have done, we simply would not be where we are today. I also wish to say to Senator Conrad that I appreciate very much his work--again, in a very bipartisan way--to come together and make sure we get relevant amendments. There are going to be some that are going to be irrelevant that may be considered, but, again, that is part of the way this body works; and to the two leaders for their discussions, their negotiations in allowing us ultimately to get to the point where we have now reached an agreement that we have 20 amendments offered by the Democrats, 20 amendments offered by the Republicans, and over the next several days we are going to debate these amendments, have votes on them, and move ahead with the conference with the House on a farm bill that is desperately needed by our farmers and ranchers. I think at the end of the day it is going to be a farm bill that will have a very positive influence on American agriculture. I thank the chairman for his cooperative spirit and for the fact that we have been able to come together with this farm bill now, get it to the floor, now get it debated, and you and I are going to work very hard to make sure we get it done in short order. I look forward to a discussion of the amendments.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and call up amendments Nos. 3807, 3530, and 3632 on behalf of Senator Coburn, en bloc.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, I thank the majority leader for coming down to the floor and providing one more chance to discuss this. I regret that the majority leader has taken this action to file cloture. But I can tell you what the answer is and I can tell you how to complete the farm bill. This is our fifth week on this bill, literally. We had 2 weeks before the Thanksgiving recess. We have been out 2 weeks, and our staff has been working extremely hard during those 2 weeks, and here we are back in the fifth week. If we had had an open process initially, this farm bill would be in conference today. I think that still can happen. The distinguished majority leader referred to the number of amendments that are out there. I don't remember what the number was, but 286, I believe, is what he said, and I think that is correct. A little over half of those were Democratic amendments and about half were Republican amendments. We have hotlined our bill once again today, and through work of the staff on both sides, we have cut our number in half again today, and I daresay I can cut it by two- thirds in very short order. So we are moving south. We are moving in the direction of getting amendments not only that are germane, but as the distinguished majority leader said, we have always had a couple of nongermane amendments on farm bills. As I looked at the list of the Democratic amendments, there were a number--I daresay more nongermane amendments on there than there were amendments that are germane to the farm bill. So I don't think it serves any purpose for us to argue about the germaneness or nongermaneness, obviously, with the exception of the cloture vote, what effect it will have on that. But here is my point. This has been a bipartisan effort, as the majority leader knows. I worked very closely with Senator Harkin and Senator Conrad and we have developed not only a bipartisan farm bill, but we, in a bipartisan way, have been whittling down the amendments. We are going to continue to do that, in spite of the cloture motion being filed, and I am very hopeful that whether it is Friday of this week or Monday of next week or Tuesday of next week, whatever the date may be, we can come back to the majority leader as well as the minority leader and say: OK, here is where we are. This is the final number of amendments that we can finally have votes on, and if no agreement can be negotiated on that basis, then perhaps we can't come to some conclusion of it. But we have stood ready from day 1 to have an open process of amendments being filed, amendments being debated, and votes on those amendments, and some of those amendments I have significant disagreements with. But I was willing to debate those amendments and if we win, we win; if we don't win, we don't win, and we move on, but we get a bill off the floor of the Senate. The House passed their bill in July, and here we are in December and our work has not been completed. I would simply say to the majority leader, if he asks me, as he did, how can we get a farm bill? Let's start it. Call it up. Let's let amendments be filed, debated, and voted on. I assure you we will move this farm bill. I am here Saturday, Sunday, nights, holidays, whatever the majority leader suggests. We are here to do a farm bill, and I think I also speak for Senator Harkin that he will be here, and we will get this done.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We have not agreed to that. We have been working together.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me respond to the distinguished majority leader by saying that when he says I don't want a farm bill, nothing could be further from the truth. I already voted for this farm bill. I am ready to vote for this farm bill that came out of the Agriculture Committee tonight. But when he says also that they are the advocates of change, what he is proposing is a change in the process when it comes to farm bills. We do think the status quo on farm bills is the direction we ought to go, which is a free and open amendment process, to let the will of the Senate operate relative to farm policy. This is a critical 5-year bill for every farmer and rancher in America. If we limit the ability of folks to certain areas of concern, then we are not giving every farmer and rancher in America the opportunity to have their case made in the Senate. So I simply say I am ready to bring a farm bill to the floor. I have been ready for 5 weeks to do it. Senator Harkin and I have not even had a discussion today about 40 amendments. I am not sure where that came from. There has been absolutely no conversation between Senator Harkin and myself about that. I am prepared to move forward. If the majority leader will call up the farm bill, let's start the amendment process, debate, and votes. I am here to do it. Thank you.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the upcoming vote to restrict debate on the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. Rule XXII has historically been used in the Senate of the United States as a way to limit the duration of debate on bills of consequence. This rule is typically utilized when the Senate--long known for its ability to conduct lengthy and protracted debates--is unable to conduct its business in a timely fashion due to a threat of filibuster or an unwillingness on the part of some Senators to end debate and vote on critical legislation. Today, the Senate has been forced into a cloture vote, not because we have conducted a protracted debate with no end in sight; not because a filibuster has been employed by the minority; not because there is a lack of desire by anyone in the Senate to pass a farm bill; but because the past precedent of conducting a fair and open farm bill debate was trampled upon before this process was even started. Both Democrats and Republicans have utilized the procedural tool of ``filling the tree'' in the past in an effort to restrict our deliberative process. Each circumstance for employing this tool is unique and I respect the right of the majority leader to choose this process; but I certainly wish he would have chosen a more bipartisan approach. The bill we passed out of the Agriculture Committee enjoyed so much support from our committee members that it was passed unanimously by voice vote. Our committee knew and understood that a bill of this magnitude would not only have to face the scrutiny of the entire Senate; but that it would also likely be amended in some form or fashion. We recognized and embraced that fact because we knew the strong bipartisan support within our committee would allow us to debate this legislation on the floor under the guiding principle of providing an effective safety net for America's farmers and ranchers; rather than the principles of political partisanship and procedural maneuvers. Unfortunately, as occurred with the House version of the farm bill, partisan politics were inserted into this debate at the final hour and have successfully transformed a bill that enjoyed vast bipartisan support into a partisan spectacle on the Senate floor. Let me be clear to every Senator on the floor and every farmer and rancher in America listening today; I have a vested interest in the passage of this legislation. I have tirelessly worked on the farm bill before us today for over 2 years. I have traveled the entire country and held field hearings to garner the views of America's farmers and ranchers. I have conducted oversight hearings, initiated GAO investigations, traveled to rural destinations across this great country and have met with everyone with an interest in this bill from the peanut farmer in Georgia to Agricultural Ministers from foreign lands. I have done all of these things with a singular goal in mind; that is, to craft a 2007 farm bill that will carry American agriculture into the next 5 years in a very prosperous way. With the help of my friends on the Agriculture Committee, both Democratic and Republican, and particularly the chairman, and particularly Senator Conrad, I believe we have accomplished just that. No one can challenge my sincere desire to pass this bill. I reject any suggestion that I do not want a farm bill. But I want a farm bill done the right way, a farm bill that is debated under the long-held principles of this body that any Member may offer any amendment he or she desires. Had we taken this approach on Tuesday morning, November 6, I am quite confident that today we would be voting on final passage rather than attempting to restrict a debate that has yet to even occur. It is, frankly, irresponsible and disrespectful to the Members of this body that we would constrict debate on this critical piece of legislation to the rules of postcloture without allowing any substantive debate. To be clear, there has been no debate on the farm bill in the 10 days it has been on the floor--not one vote, not one amendment considered, not one meaningful debate on the substance and merits of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. Every Member must understand that if we vote for cloture today, we will limit every Member's ability to offer amendments they believe are vital to this bill. Some will argue that 30 hours of debate will be adequate to address the concerns of Members, but history tells a clear and different story. During the 2002 farm bill debate, the Senate held three cloture votes, and they all failed. The farm bill was only allowed to move forward when the then-Senate majority leader finally allowed an open process. Once he did so, the bill was completed in a little over a week. An open process served the Senate then, and it will serve us well today. I respect this body. I respect the Members who rightfully have an opportunity to debate any piece of legislation brought before them. It is not in our interest nor in the interest of the American agricultural producer to force this bill through the Senate without the due consideration of the Members who so passionately represent them. Let us not rush to the finish line simply to stumble on our final step. A deliberative process will serve America well and perhaps will allow the bipartisan spirit of our Senate Agriculture Committee to infect and overwhelm the partisan rancor on the Senate floor. I humbly urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to invoke cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this morning we are going to be voting on two supplemental appropriations bills. Both of these bills would appropriate funds for our operations in Iraq--one would provide $50 billion while the other would provide $70 billion. However, the key difference between the bills is very simple: the goal of one of the bills is to help our efforts in Iraq succeed, and the goal of the other bill is to make our efforts fail. H.R. 4156, which passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a margin of only 15 votes, would mandate that the funds appropriated through the bill can only be used for a ``safe and orderly'' withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and requires that a withdrawal of U.S. forces begin 30 days after enactment with a goal for a complete withdraw of December 15, 2008. If there is a reason the restrictions in this bill sound familiar, it is because they are. This bill employs the same jargon and ill-advised deadlines and withdrawal dates that the majority tried on the Defense authorization bill and fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill earlier this year. Those strategies failed and, in the case of the appropriations bill, the proposed restrictions were removed after a Presidential veto and Congress then passed a supplemental appropriations bill without surrender dates. These strategies will fail this time as well, and they will fail for several reasons. First, in the midst of progress in Iraq--which no one denies--and a strategy which is working, it simply does not make sense to tie the hands of the commanders on the ground and force them to implement a strategy which--in the best judgment of our military leaders, our intelligence agencies, and the perspective of countless outside observers--will lead to the failure of our mission and the rapid deterioration of conditions in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. Second, the type of restrictions and conditions in this bill exceed both the authority and the expertise of the legislative branch. For example, section 104 of the bill requires that no unit can be deployed to Iraq unless it is certified to be fully mission capable 15 days prior to deployment. Everyone will agree that our troops need to be trained, rested, and ready to execute the missions they are given. No one will disagree that the global war on terrorism has stretched our military and that our military is having to adapt to meet the challenges we put before them. However, to legislate readiness levels in a time of war is extremely unwise and--in my judgment-- unconstitutional. Although appealing at face value, such restrictions will hamper our commanders, ability to respond to crises and weaken their ability to take advantage of momentum. These types of restrictions would have compromised our effectiveness and success in previous military engagements with catastrophic results. Third, the strategy which inspires these restrictions is--at root level--not a military strategy. It is a political strategy. The tactics being used by those who would enact conditions and deadlines like those in this bill are not based on any strategic thought or analysis-- instead they respond to a political base that is anti-war and refuses to acknowledge the progress we are making. Political strategies for fighting wars--like the strategy we are dealing with now--all have one thing in common--they result in failure. They are shortsighted, politically motivated, and--most importantly--do not serve any national security objective. We are making progress in Iraq. The strategy our President and our military commanders have implemented is working. We are receiving regular updates from our leaders in Iraq which are not ``glowing,'' but they are positive. Most importantly, our leaders are adjusting their strategy in accordance with developments on the ground as well as the realities back home. They are doing this wisely, not hastily, or in response to opinion polls, but according to good judgment and a realistic assessment of what will work, what won't work, and what is appropriate at this point of time. H.R. 4156 will put a stop to our leaders' ability to do this. It will keep them from doing the jobs we have sent them to do, and that is to lead, to decide, to make judgments, and to report back to us on their effectiveness. One week from today, I will be in Iraq. I will be spending Thanksgiving day with the troops and I am so looking forward to it. While we are there on this bipartisan trip, we are going to be getting the facts about what is happening in Iraq. I know militarily, as I stated, we are moving forward. That is what this bill is all about, supporting our troops. But at the same time, we know there are challenges there, particularly on the political side. The stability of the Iraqi Government is not where we want it to be, and we are going to be delivering a bipartisan message from this body that it is time for the Iraqi leadership to get their political Government in order and it is time for them to begin to exercise real leadership of the Iraqi people because we are not going to be there forever. They now have the ability, because of the great work the men and women of the U.S. military have done and continue to do, to provide stability to that Government, and that message will be delivered very clearly. For all the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4156 and in support of Senators McConnell and Stevens' alternative, S. 2340. Now I wish to move to the other vote we are going to be taking today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments made by my colleague, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. It is important to recognize why we are in the procedural predicament we find ourselves in today. This predicament is not based on the Senate Agriculture Committee's inability to come together to protect and enhance our most basic national security interest--food security. We have successfully done that with a bill supported unanimously by the committee--across partisan and regional divide. To be clear, this is a problem of including, in a farm bill, other extraneous issues that have little to do with agriculture policy. I don't fault the decision to go down this path of including tax-related provisions in the farm bill. It was decided early on. However, we must recognize the full implications of this decision. Indeed, one only need look at what occurred in the other body to see how a bipartisan process can completely disintegrate when other issues are injected into the farm bill debate. Tax debates are always difficult and the inclusion of tax-related provisions in a piece of legislation has never been known to simplify the legislative process. In this instance, however, as much as I regret its impact on the farm bill, it is simply necessary to allow for debate on the tax-related provisions included in the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I am confident we will work through these difficulties. I am grateful that my colleagues on the Finance Committee were able to avoid the problems created by the inclusion of the Ways and Means provisions in the underlying House bill. However, the tax-related provisions included in the underlying Senate bill have nonetheless complicated our process and we must recognize, accept, and work through the process in a deliberative and responsible manner.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I recognize the career and achievements of a great military officer, civilian leader, and friend. After a long and distinguished career culminating with nearly 44 years of service, LTG David Poythress will retire from the United States Air National Guard, with the honor of being the first adjutant general of Georgia to reach the rank of lieutenant general. General Poythress was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1964, a time in our Nation's history when serving in the military brought with it not only a requirement to face the enemy abroad but also the willingness to serve despite a divided nation. General Poythress received his law degree from Emory University in 1967 and was a distinguished graduate of Emory's ROTC program. Shortly thereafter, he was called to active duty and served 1 year as chief of military justice at DaNang Air Base, Vietnam. He served as a judge advocate general in the Air Force Reserve, rising from the rank of captain to brigadier general. During this same time period, complimenting his military career, he served the State of Georgia honorably as the assistant attorney general, the deputy state revenue commissioner, the secretary of State of Georgia, and the State labor commissioner. In 1999, he was appointed as the adjutant general of Georgia, with his tenure encompassing what may be the Georgia National Guard's most dynamic and demanding period in its 243-year history. Under General Poythress's leadership, the Georgia National Guard deployed nearly 10,000 soldiers and airmen around the world in support of the global war on terror, and more than 2,200 guardsmen to help Gulf Coast States following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. The Georgia Guard completed high profile/high risk security missions following September 11, 2001, and also conducted dangerous operations on the Mexican border. General Poythress's contributions will be appreciated by generations of Georgia guardsmen far in the future. He was successful in achieving the long-standing Georgia goal of legislation and funding for a State retirement plan for traditional guardsmen. He led the Georgia National Guard in winning the Oglethorpe Award for performance excellence. He also oversaw Robins Air Force Base's 116th Air Control Wing's transition from B-1s to a highly modernized Joint STARS unit. General Poythress's noteworthy service and responsibilities have been widely recognized. His distinguished honors include the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal with one device, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one device, the Vietnam Service Medal with one device and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. The Georgia National Guard will miss General Poythress's commitment to duty, ceaseless drive for improvement, and unwavering support for guardsmen, soldiers, and airmen everywhere. Although I will miss his service in the capacity as adjutant general, I am especially pleased that he will remain in the great State of Georgia and continue to serve both publicly and privately as he has done throughout his life. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing him well in all his future endeavors and hope that those who follow in his footsteps will continue his legacy of support to Georgia and our great Nation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, once again, based upon the process we are now engaged in and the comments of the majority leader this morning, I will have to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Then, Mr. President, I will have to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I would say there may be some common ground. I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request of the chairman be modified and that the pending amendments and motion to recommit be withdrawn and the only amendments in order be the bipartisan list of first-degree amendments I have sent to the desk and that all first-degree amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, unfortunately, based upon the status of the amendments at this point in time and based upon the comments by the majority leader this morning, at this point in time I am going to have to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again, as much as I would love to accommodate the chairman of the committee, based upon the status at this time and the comments of the majority leader this morning, I will have to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again, based upon the process that we are now involved in and the comments of the majority leader this morning relative to the farm bill, I will have to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments. He is exactly right. There are a lot of us in this body who wish to see this farm bill move. I actually came back a day early last week thinking the farm bill would be up the next day. I was prepared, as ranking member, to move ahead with the farm bill. When I got here, I found out we all of a sudden were going to be caught in a process that is unique to the Senate, and that is a process where the majority leader has the right--and I understand he has the right; I understand that we did that when we were in the majority--to fill the tree, and he did so. And when he does so, it kind of brings things to a halt. That is the purpose in doing that, in trying to control what amendments may be filed. I thought after a week's time, yesterday, rather than us debating amendments, moving through, which in all likelihood we conceivably could have been through this bill by now--but instead of being able to call up amendments, debating them and voting on them over the past week, we have been stuck in this process now that requires a unanimous consent by both sides before we can move forward with the process of dealing with amendments. Yesterday I had some hope, because Senator Harkin and I agreed that what we thought we ought to do would be to come up with a list of amendments that are relevant, and as always is the case on any major piece of legislation, some were irrelevant amendments. I would hope we could agree on a number. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do that. As of yesterday we had about 140 Democratic amendments that were filed, and about 120 Republican amendments that were filed. Most of them are relevant to the farm bill, but some of them are not. But it is always the case that we deal with some nonrelevant amendments. But instead of allowing Senator Harkin and me to move through the process of taking the amendments--the first one we had agreed to take was Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley's amendment. Instead of allowing us to move ahead and debate that amendment, and possibly have already voted on it, if we had taken it up this morning with the time agreement we had tentatively agreed to, a decision was made that we are not going to be allowed to do that, and nothing is going to happen until there is a definite agreement by both sides on not just the number of amendments but what nonrelevant amendments will be considered. It will happen. I know this is not the first time this situation has happened in this body with a farm bill. I would remind those who were here in 2002, at that time there were 246 amendments filed; almost exactly the same number of amendments were filed to the farm bill while the Democrats were in charge in 2002. There were at least two, and there may have been three, cloture votes. I am not sure because I was not here then. But there were two or three cloture votes asked for and made on the farm bill before cloture was invoked. Those cloture votes originally were made in December of 2001. When cloture was finally invoked in February of 2002, the farm bill sailed through in a matter of a few days. So we are basically in exactly the same position we were in 2002. But here is the problem. 2002 was an entirely different atmosphere in American agriculture. Farmers and ranchers need to be discussing next month with their bankers and their insurers and landowners from whom they lease property, or farmers whom they lease property to; they need to be talking to their equipment dealers about how much they are going to plant of what respective crops; how much insurance they are going to need; how much in the way of financing they are going to need; how much in the way of new equipment or repairs or replaced equipment they are going to need, so that come next March, in the whole Southeast, not just in my State, but in March we start planting crops. Early corn goes in in March or the first part of April. In 2002, I was a Member of the House, and I was a member of the conference committee on the farm bill that was delayed until final passage occurring sometime in March. Obviously when farmers do not know what to anticipate from the standpoint of farm policy, do not know what type of programs they are going to have available to them, it is difficult for them to make any decision regarding how much money they are going to have to finance their crops, how much insurance they are going to need, or how many acres of what crops to plant. So here we are stuck in a process. I am not saying one side or the other is more to blame than the other. I think it is more the rules of the Senate that have got us locked into this situation. I am ready to go. I was ready to go last Tuesday morning or actually last Monday afternoon. But, unfortunately, we are in a situation now where we cannot move ahead. I did have to object to Senator Harkin's request. There is nothing I would rather do than move on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, although I am strongly opposed to it. I am going to advocate a ``no'' vote on it. But I think we ought to move and get this process going and start winnowing down these 260 or so, whatever the number of amendments is we have filed, or that we have been notified that either are filed or are going to be filed. We can do that. It was done in 2002. We can do it now, and we are ultimately going to have to do it. Whether we do it now or whether we do it in January, whether we do it in February, we are going to do it. It is a bullet we are going to have to bite. I regret very much having to object to Senator Harkin's request. But, by the same token, he had to not agree to amend his unanimous consent request to comply with what I asked for, which would allow us to move ahead right now with amendments. Those folks who are out in ag country are depending on the Congress, the Presiding Officer being one of those members who sits on the Ag Committee who has a significant interest in agriculture. My friend Senator Salazar, a member of the committee, comes from a strong agricultural State. Folks are depending on all of us as policymakers to get our work done, and yet here we are stuck by the rules of the Senate. As I said in the press yesterday, I would simply say again, if we do not get this bill done this week, we do not have the opportunity to work with our colleagues in the House over the next 2 weeks while we are gone to get ready for a conference in December, it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a farm bill passed by both bodies, on the desk of the President before the end of the year. That does not handicap us, but it surely handicaps those folks we represent; that is, the great men and women who are the farmers and ranchers of America. So I am hopeful that over the next several hours-- I do not how long it may take, but I hope in the short term we are able to reach some agreement. Particularly it boils down to the nonrelevant amendments. If the other side would be lenient with us in trying to let us get those amendments up, debate them, get them voted on, we can move this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to say to all of our colleagues, we have worked diligently to try to come together with a list of amendments on the farm bill to try to make sure that we proceed in some sort of regular order over the next several days. Unfortunately, we have been here all day without being able to consider amendments. It is the unfortunate part of the way we do business in this body, trying to be deliberate, trying to make sure we are fair, not operating under a rule like our colleagues in the House do. It is the way the Senate is designed to work. I think now it appears our leaders are going to be able to sit down with a list of amendments that have come forward from the majority side of the aisle, a list of amendments that have come forward from the minority side of the aisle, and we are going to be able to agree that these are all of the amendments that can be considered. There is no agreement that all of them are germane, but there is hopefully going to be an agreement shortly that will allow us to proceed in the regular order for the consideration of amendments. It is a frustrating process that we go through from time to time. When we were in the majority and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the minority, again, there was many a day that we sat wanting to move forward and not being able to because of the way the process in the Senate works. I would simply say to our colleagues that I fully expect that we are going to have an agreement, which means we should be able to move forward with the farm bill tomorrow, from an amendment consideration standpoint. Senator Harkin and I pretty well agreed on the order of a couple of amendments that we will begin with that are critical amendments for consideration. I am very hopeful that within the next couple of days not only will we make significant progress on the farm bill, but I am very hopeful, as I know Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, and all of us are who have been working very hard together in a bipartisan way to get this bill before our colleagues, to have it considered before we get away from here for Thanksgiving so we can complete it early on in December and, hopefully, get it to the desk of the President in time that farmers and ranchers across this country will know what the farm policy is going to be for the next 5 years versus having to enter into the end-of-the-year process with a big question mark out there. I simply say, again, we hope that is going to happen. I hope before we leave here in the next several minutes, whatever it may be, that we do have some agreement on the direction in which we are moving with respect to amendments to be offered to the farm bill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I understand that Senator Coburn, who was on the Senate floor a little earlier, has an objection to this request. On his behalf I would object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Certainly.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me just say while the leadership is here, we appreciate their assistance in moving this bill. Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, and I have taken our list of amendments we have out there and we are working through them to try to get down to a reasonable number. One problem, frankly, we are having--and I think maybe on the other side too--is we keep having people come forward with amendments. I would simply say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we are going to reach a limit with these amendments, and if you have an amendment, we need to know about it now so we can negotiate and deliberate in good faith relative to the number of amendments that are going to be on this list so that we can pare those amendments down to a reasonable number. I thank the leadership for working with us.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we have been working very diligently on both sides of the aisle today to put together a list of amendments we could agree with each other would be the maximum number and substance of amendments that would be offered on the farm bill. Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, and myself have all been engaged in different conversations today about these amendments. At the end of the day, the lists we have come up with are very long on both sides. I think the total number exceeds 275. As we all know, on bills of this magnitude, an overwhelming number of those amendments will ultimately disappear. We will dispose of them by either bringing them to the floor by accepting them or by the authors and proponents of those amendments agreeing at the end of the day that they simply don't want to do anything other than talk about their amendments. We are not able to enter into a unanimous consent agreement on this right now. I understand the leadership is going to wait until in the morning to do that. But by starting first thing in the morning, I think we do have the opportunity to move through a significant number of these amendments, and I encourage the proponents of the amendments on both sides of the aisle to think seriously about whether you want to see a farm bill completed, and if you do, then come down, agree to a minimal amount of time we can use for debate and discussion on the amendments, and let's move through these amendments with as much haste as we possibly can. I do regret that--we are here ready to agree to a unanimous consent that this will be the complete list and we will begin working and we look forward to being here tomorrow in that same frame of mind, to agree to the list of amendments as proposed on both sides of the aisle. We are not happy with some of their amendments and I understand they are not happy with some of the amendments coming from this side. Again, that is the way this body has always worked, and I hope in the morning we are ready to proceed and we can move toward debate, discussion, and voting on these various amendments, and that we can conclude this as soon as possible, whether that is before we leave this week--it may be impossible--but in any event, we will begin work on it tomorrow.