Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment and the Daschle amendment be set aside to accommodate an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request which I think he thought I was going to make the first time, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1731 at 9:30 on Thursday, December 13, there be 90 minutes for debate prior to vote in relation to the Bond amendment with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form with no intervening amendment in order prior to the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly we can bring it up at some point tomorrow. As I understand it, Senator Bond was hoping to have at least an hour on the amendment to be offered tonight. It would be my expectation that sometime tomorrow we would return to this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE. I draw the distinction. We will certainly be in session on Friday. My hope is we could bring up a conference report, and maybe a conference report on education on Monday, but not have any votes. That, again, will be up to all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have not hot-lined it. I just wanted to make that proposal and see what kind of reaction we would get. That would be the proposal, and I will have more to say about that at a later time. I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate very much the Senator from Missouri yielding for that purpose. I was going to inform my colleagues that we have already noted there will be filing of cloture tonight. I know there are Senators who are asking about Friday and Monday. I am not going to propound the unanimous consent request because I don't think it has been properly vented on each side. I suggest that perhaps we could have cloture tomorrow and that we would be prepared to forego votes on Friday and Monday and still take into account the need to consider the so-called Cochran-Roberts amendment regardless of cloture. My thought is that we file cloture and vote on cloture and have consideration of the Cochran-Roberts amendment with some expectation of a vote at a later time on that. Whether or not that could be accomplished is still in question. But that is something that I suggest. I notify our colleagues that will be a possibility: File cloture tonight, have a vote on that either tomorrow or Friday. If we have it tomorrow, we could still bring up the so-called Cochran-Roberts amendment for consideration. I thank my colleague. I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana for his eloquence and for his willingness to be supportive of this amendment. It is always a pleasure to work with him. Certainly in this case it is, again, a matter of import. I appreciate very much his willingness to be involved. I hope by the next time we pass a farm bill the numbers and the statistics and reports of continued erosion of minority involvement in agriculture can be turned around. As the distinguished Senator from Indiana has noted, this has not been necessarily by design. I think in large measure it has happened for reasons beyond the control of any one individual or any particular division of the Department of Agriculture. But we can do better. It is our hope that by putting somebody in charge we will do better. It is our expectation that by the time we do another farm bill we can look back with some satisfaction that we indeed have done better and responded in a way that would make us far more satisfied about the progress that I believe we can make in this area. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I agree that the Senate should vote on MTBE legislation in the near future and have included S. 950 in the comprehensive energy bill that I introduced with Senator Bingaman last week. I can assure the Senator from New Hampshire that it is my intention to bring up for debate and votes before the full Senate that energy bill, including S. 950, prior to the President's Day recess in February 2002.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I do understand the problems associated with MTBE and I recognize your hard work in helping to bring about a resolution to this important issue. I also share the concerns of the Assistant Majority Leader, co-sponsor of S. 950, with regards to the devastating contamination found in communities surrounding Lake Tahoe, NV.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. And I, again, like the Senator from North Dakota, do not want to go back to the old wars and battles if we are going to try to create a new environment here. But the Senator is right. We have made a lot of efforts on the floor, off the floor, in the effort to try to get a meeting. Procedurally, we had a number of obstacles that had to be overcome. We have done that. I have done everything I know how to do to bring this effort forward. And now, perhaps, with some movement on the other side, we are in a position to take full advantage of what could be some really new common ground. Before I yield to the Senator from California, I will to yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will answer the Senator from California after acknowledging her kind words. And I appreciate very much--as she always provides--the gracious support she has provided me. Let me just say that our concern for the accelerated rate cut reduction at this point is based on three concerns. First, it is not in keeping with the principles we laid out. We said it ought to be stimulative. We said it ought to be temporary. It is neither of these. So for those reasons, we are opposed to the accelerated rate reduction. Second, we said it ought to be cost conscious. Of course, this is a very expensive proposal, at least $52 billion, and as much as about $125 billion depending on what kind of acceleration we are talking about. So there is a very significant cost associated with it. When we recognize that this money is coming from borrowed funds, the Social Security trust fund, that will be troubling. Third, of course, is who benefits. What we want to do is put it into the hands of those who will benefit and who is most likely to spend the money so that there is something of consumptive value and whatever it is we are doing in an economic stimulus will be most appreciated. This does not have much consumptive value. This does not have much value in terms of both economic as well as fairness factors and considerations. From that perspective as well, we have a lot of concerns. I have to leave the floor at this time, but I do appreciate the comments and the question of the Senator from California. I hope this will open up a new opportunity for us to work together to find some resolution, sometime hopefully in the next day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. That is, of course, one of the really appealing features of this plan. We said at the beginning we would want this to be immediate, we would want it to be stimulative, and we would want it to be cost conscious. This meets all of those criteria. This is immediate, it is stimulative, and the Domenici proposal is less in cost than the accelerated rate cuts. So we are in a very strong position to meet the criteria, to find the common ground that both sides have said they are looking for. That is why I wanted to come to the floor. I read about this proposal this morning with great enthusiasm because I do believe it represents movement here. I hope with that one change, and with the clarifications I have suggested are important to our caucus, we can reach an agreement. I appreciate the Senator's views on this as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his question.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, another amendment will be offered within the next half hour. I ask unanimous consent that the period between now and 4:30 be for debate only and divided equally between Republicans and Democrats, and that at that time the Senator from Indiana be recognized to offer an amendment.