[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 121 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10309-S10313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
continue with the consideration of the bill.
  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           amendment no. 3580

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand all time has expired on the 
pending amendment. I choose to use my leader time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, could we have order? The leader is entitled 
to be heard. The Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. Senators 
will please take their conversations to the cloakroom. We would like to 
have quiet in the Chamber.
  The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair, and I yield 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my leader from South Dakota.
  Mr. President, I think many minds on this amendment are already made 
up. I, just for a couple of minutes, would like to speak to those 
Senators who have not yet made up their minds. The point very simply is 
this: There are a good number of farmers and ranchers. I daresay most 
of them are in dire straits through problems and conditions that are no 
fault of theirs. They didn't cause them.
  Prices for their products are way below cost of production, whether 
it is wheat, cattle prices, whatnot. For example, in my State of 
Montana, farmers are getting $2 a bushel. They subtract from that $1 a 
bushel for freight costs and that ends up $1 a bushel. The price of a 
loaf of bread in the supermarkets is pretty close to that. There is no 
way in the world a farmer can begin to make ends meet in these 
conditions, and that is true for most farmers.
  The amendment before us is very simple. It just says take the cap off 
the loan rates just for crops that are harvested in 1998--not for next 
year, just 1998--to put a little bit of cash in farmers' pockets to 
help them pay the loans, to help them make the payments to the bank, to 
help them just a little bit. I must tell you, raising the caps is 
nowhere close to solving the problem. It is just a little bit.
  Why are prices so low? Very simply, because of worldwide production, 
countries are subsidizing producing wheat.
  Second, we are in dire straits because of the Asian crisis. Asia is 
not buying anymore.
  Third, because the U.S. dollar is so high. Farmers didn't cause those 
problems, but farmers are facing those problems, and in some parts of 
the country, there is a drought, there is flooding, there is 
infestation of insects. They are stuck.

[[Page S10310]]

  The only argument of any credibility I have heard against this 
amendment----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. The only credible argument I have 
heard against this amendment is it breaks open Freedom to Farm and it 
might raise worldwide prices because you are raising loan rates. The 
short answer to that is we are not opening Freedom to Farm. This is 
just a 1-year, temporary payment to meet an emergency. And secondly, we 
have no idea what the prices are going to be next year. We have no 
idea.
  We can't let perfection be the enemy of the good. At least adopt this 
amendment to help farmers right now. We will worry about next year, 
next year. This amendment is very much needed.
  Mr. President, I very much thank the Senator from South Dakota for 
yielding this time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to our ranking member, 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is going to save a lot of 
farmers and do it in a cost-effective manner and a manner that is sound 
financially. It looks as though we are going to come down on one or two 
courses here. We either are going to raise the caps on loans and 
provide a loan rate increase to farmers, or we are going to have some 
kind of direct payment to farmers. I hear rumbling around that there is 
going to be a big, massive multibillion-dollar check to go out to 
farmers this year.
  I said earlier there is a poll released today of 1,000 farmers--Mr. 
President, may we have order? I can't even hear myself think.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. The 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President. A poll came out today of 1,000 
farmers taken nationwide by a polling firm. It was done for the 
Nebraska Wheat Growers, American Corn Growers and the Nebraska Farmers 
Union--1,000 farmers.
  Two questions I will point out: One, Congress should modify the 
current farm program. Yes, 76.9 percent; no, 17 percent.
  Congress should lift loan caps and raise loan rates 59 cents per 
bushel on wheat and 32 cents on corn. Yes, 72.5 percent; no, 19.4 
percent.
  Over 3 to 1. Farmers recognize this is the best way to proceed rather 
than getting a direct payment. Keep in mind, if we raise the loan 
rates, it gives the farmer a marketing tool. The farmer can get the 
loan and hold on to the crop. If prices go up next year, the farmer can 
sell that crop and then pay the loan back to the Government with 
interest.
  If, however, we are just going to get a bunch of money and send it 
out to farmers in a payment, there is no chance that any of that money 
is ever going to come back to the Government. Keep in mind, these loans 
have interest charges, and if farmers pay those loans back, they pay 
them back with interest.
  Secondly, if we make a payment to farmers this fall, as I hear some 
people want to do, just one big lump sum, just a check that goes out, a 
lot of those people getting that money will not be in farming next 
year, and it won't go to the producers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 2 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 30 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the Senator an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the loan rates go up, the loan rates increase, it goes 
to producers; it gives them a marketing tool whereby they can take the 
grain and market when they want and not just dump it all out there this 
fall. That is why we have to remove the loan caps that are in the farm 
bill of 1996. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, two months ago, I joined my colleagues 
in requesting assistance for our Nation's farmers in Louisiana and 
other parts of the Nation who are on the brink of bankruptcy. Not 
because they are bad farmers but as a result of natural disasters and 
prices that they cannot control.
  In Louisiana, farmers are experiencing the most severe agriculture 
disaster it has been subjected to in the last 100 years. The Louisiana 
State University (LSU) Agricultural Center has estimated crop losses at 
$391 million. When losses due to aflatoxin in corn and livestock losses 
are added, the State is projecting escalated losses of $450 million. If 
no effective disaster relief is provided, Louisiana will lose 35-40 
percent of its farmers. Without these farmers the State projects that 
its economy will lose an additional $1 billion.
  Mr. President, this is a very serious situation, one that warrants an 
effective solution for the disaster situation facing the South and the 
income losses facing the Midwest. For Louisiana, relief needed is 
twofold: One, production loss related to the drought and heat and two, 
economic. For other areas, income loss assistance needed is different.
  The major problem in providing equitable relief is that while the 
Midwest has bumper crops and no price, the South has no crops and no 
price. Therefore, I am very concerned that while this amendment will 
provide help to some, it does not go near far enough to ensure that 
Louisiana farmers are provided the emergency disaster assistance that 
they need to make it another year.
  For example, under the current legislation being debated a corn 
farmer in the Midwest who produces a normal yield of 120 bushels per 
acre under a loan rate of 30 cents per bushel would receive a Loan 
Deficiency Payment (LDP) of $36 per acre. In the South, a corn farmer 
who produced only 50 bushels per acre, due to the drought, under the 
same loan rate would only receive a LDP of $15 per acre. A corn farmer 
in the South whose corn had to be destroyed due to aflatoxin would 
receive no LDP whatsoever.
  The bottom line is that higher loan rates only benefit producers on 
actual production sold. The only way higher loan rates would benefit 
producers whose production was substantially reduced would be to make 
an economic payment on the lost production in addition to the bushels 
harvested. Therefore, while this may help farmers in the Midwest, it 
provides little to no assistance to farmers in the South.
  The other provision in the underlying amendment that may be more 
helpful in providing disaster assistance to Louisiana is the $1.5 
billion included in the amendment to replenish the national disaster 
reserve. However, the details in how USDA would implement this measure 
to provide disaster assistance to farmers with only one year losses, 
such as in the case of Louisiana, is unclear.
  As I have previously stated, the reasons for the income loss related 
problems facing farmers in Louisiana and other parts of the U.S. are 
quite different, but the results are the same. Only through direct 
assistance, can Louisiana farmers be helped.
  For Louisiana and other Southern States, many farmers will not see 
next year and grow the crops that provide Americans with the safest 
food supply in the world. Time and time again, when a natural disaster 
has struck, the Congress has provided the help needed to rebuild our 
cities and towns. Should we provide help to family farms that are 
facing an economic disaster beyond their control? Absolutely. It is now 
time that the Congress work on the bipartisan basis to provide direct 
financial assistance to our farmers just like we provide assistance to 
other individuals who have faced disasters beyond their control.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and my senior 
colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in working to ensure this 
assistance is provided fairly to all farmers, including farmers in 
Louisiana and the South.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their eloquent 
comments and the contributions they have made to this debate all 
afternoon. I will be very brief, because I know that Senators wish to 
express themselves on this amendment, and we will accommodate that.
  There are two points I want to make. The first is that since the 
Senate has

[[Page S10311]]

attempted to address this problem in July, the situation has worsened 
immeasurably. To the extent that we can measure it, it is simply 
important for all of us to understand that prices have fallen 
dramatically just in the last 6 weeks.
  For July, corn prices have fallen 28 percent. For wheat, since July, 
prices have fallen an additional 20 percent. For soybeans, an 
additional 20 percent, and that is just since July. The bottom has 
fallen out of the market. The situation continues to worsen.
  Mr. President, we have no choice but to take as immediate an action, 
as comprehensive an action as we possibly can to address this problem. 
Very simply, the second point is to simply address one last time what 
it is we attempt to do.
  The Senator from Iowa ably, again, articulated why we need to 
increase the cap on the marketing loan. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, so farmers aren't forced to move their grain onto the market, 
we give them the opportunity to store their grain on an emergency 
basis. Let me remind my colleagues, we are only talking about a 1-year 
authorization, first for the loan rate, and second for the storage.
  Third, we provide indemnity losses. The Senator from Louisiana is 
right and the senior Senator from Louisiana has expressed his concern 
to me about how this problem is spreading. Louisiana is hit even harder 
now than they were last July. So the indemnity proposal is absolutely 
essential if we are going to address the multiplicity of problems we 
have in agriculture nationally.
  The fourth is that we go back to the issue that we discussed earlier 
on mandatory price reporting. If we are ever going to change the 
livestock situation, we must get rid of the secret deals. We must make 
sure that they--that is livestock producers--have the same 
opportunities for open and fair competition as others. Mandatory price 
reporting will do that.

  And then finally, we believe that we need to make consistent in 
agriculture what we have done in every other commodity and industry for 
as long as I know, and that is, simply label the products when they are 
imported. We do it for every other product. We ought to do it for the 
food we eat.
  Mr. President, basically that is what we are proposing today, to 
address this problem in as comprehensive a way, recognizing that in 
both livestock and grain we have a serious problem. We cannot wait any 
longer. This issue must be addressed. This amendment does it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. From my leader time, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, is there a farm problem? You bet there is. 
Is there a farm crisis? Yes. On most farms in America today, if you are 
below the cost of production, and you have a debt, you have a problem. 
The Senators on the other side of the aisle are absolutely true to what 
they speak. And I could have used every one of their charts this 
afternoon for the very same message.
  We have a crisis in American agriculture. Is it a result of Freedom 
to Farm? No. It is a combination of everything coming together, the 
loss of our markets in Asian countries and tremendous overproduction. 
Thank goodness, it is a blessing in most countries when agriculture 
overproduces; it is a crisis in ours because it shoves down the price 
of commodities.
  Yes, Mr. President, we have a crisis in farm country. Have we 
recognized it? Yes, we have. And we started doing something about it 
before we adjourned here in August. We passed and reauthorized the 
agriculture research title. We advanced the fiscal year 1999 transition 
payment. We revoked sanctions on India and Pakistan to try to move some 
of our product into the market.
  We approved significant reform in the farm labor program. We 
established a binational commission to examine the concern that we have 
with beef prices and with the flood of Canadian meat coming into our 
market. We required international programs to purchase American 
commodities. And we passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution encouraging 
USDA to use existing authorities to help wheat farmers. Did it raise 
the price of wheat at the farm bin? It did not. But it sets in motion a 
variety of opportunities to begin to move that.
  What further should we do? Frankly, Mr. President, there is a great 
deal more we should do. The chairman of the Ag Committee has announced 
he will reexamine much more thoroughly sanctions and trade reform to 
open up the 11 percent of the market that our farmers are now exempt 
from or cannot get to. We have talked about and we will do meaningful 
tax reform.
  Our colleague from Kansas has talked about making sure that crop 
insurance is the right kind of insurance so that the production 
agriculture buys it and uses it to insure their crops, to insure their 
income against disaster, against drought for an income purpose. We are 
working on that. We have to get that done next Congress, come heck or 
high water.
  And then let us look at a lost market compensation payment. The 
Senator from Iowa says that is so much money, just throw it out to the 
farmer. It is something we can buy and afford to buy. It is not a $7 
billion program off-budget, no offsets--emergency spending proposed by 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Senators, this is a $7 billion program you are being asked to vote on 
tonight. Stop and think about it. We have not worked together. When we 
solve agricultural problems, we come together. All of those items that 
I mentioned we passed before the August recess, we did it in a 
bipartisan way. We did not open the farm bill. We did not open Freedom 
to Farm.
  I would hope you stand behind the chairman of the Senate Ag Committee 
tonight on a motion to table. Does that mean this issue is gone? 
Absolutely not. We are meeting now and we will meet tomorrow. I would 
hope, too, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come 
down and sit with us and look at what we can do. Are we going to spend 
some money? Yes. We are going to spend some money so that agriculture 
does not go bankrupt. And we have got to do it. But I suggest that 
lifting a loan cap does not solve that problem on the short-term basis 
and the long-term basis. Then it becomes so easy to extend it, and then 
it is $8 or $10 billion or more.
  So this is not the last vote we are going to have tonight or tomorrow 
or before this Congress adjourns to deal with a real farm crisis, be 
you a grain producer, a hog farmer, a cattle rancher--soybeans, corn, 
you name it. They are not making money. They are losing millions.
  We ought to be sensitive to assuring that there is some kind of 
baseline out there this year so that the farmer can be in production 
next year. We will accomplish that here in the Senate, if we recognize 
that and come together to get it done.
  I do not believe this is a solution to the problem. I encourage all 
of our colleagues to stand with the chairman of the Ag Committee--vote 
to table this amendment.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Roberts. I 
understand we have one other Senator who would like to speak briefly, 
Senator Breaux. But first I yield that time to Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding.
  Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Iowa and to present what I believe will be an 
important plan to help our farmers and ranchers get through the current 
low prices and natural disasters they are experiencing.
  Mr. President, there are indeed areas of rural America facing 
economic hardships caused by drought, flooding, wheat scab, and low 
prices. The question here is: will raising loan rates provide the cash 
flow assistance that farmers need? Or, will it create an additional set 
of issues that simply exacerbate the current problem?
  We have consistently heard on this floor that there is no longer a 
``safety net'' for America's farmers. Yet, we do not hear that under 
the 1996 farm bill,

[[Page S10312]]

farmers have received over $6 billion more in payments than they would 
have received under the old farm bill. We do not hear about the 
transition payments producers are receiving on 85 percent of their 
historical yields. And, we do not hear about the Loan Deficiency 
Payments (LDPs) producers are receiving under the 1996 legislation. 
Recent estimates show that producers may obtain up to $3 billion in 
LDPs on their 1998 crops--in addition to their transition payments.
  This is a ``safety-net!''
  Let me repeat: We have a ``safety-net!''
  Raising and extending loan rates does not improve producer incomes. 
Extending the loan rate actually results in lower prices in the long-
run. Extending the loan for six months simply gives producers another 
false hope for holding onto the remainder of last year's crop. Farmers 
will be holding onto a portion of the previous year's crop, while at 
the same time harvesting another bumper crop in 1998.
  As I stated during debate on the Agricultural Appropriations bill, 
rolling over the loan rate actually increases the amount of grain and 
soybeans on the market and results in lower prices--not higher prices. 
Since excess stocks will continue to depress prices, will we then 
extend the rate again? It will become an endless cycle that costs 
billions of dollars, and which will eventually lead to a return to 
planting requirements and set-aside acres in an attempt to control 
agricultural output and limit the budget effects.
  Extending and raising loan rates will only serve to exacerbate the 
lack of storage associated with the transportation problems in rural 
America because it causes farmers to hold onto their crops and fill 
elevator storage spaces. Kansas still has wheat on the ground from this 
year's near record wheat harvest and we have begun to harvest what are 
expected to be record or near record corn, sorgham, and soybean crops. 
Raising loan rates will worsen the storage problems we are already 
facing.
  It is also argued raising loans rates allows farmers to wait for a 
higher price. However, a study by Kansas State University looked at the 
years 1981 through 1997 and compared farmers' earnings if they held 
wheat in storage until mid-November versus selling at harvest. In all 
but five years, farmers ended up with a net loss as storage and 
interest costs exceeded grains in prices. Raising rates simply provides 
a false hope to farmers.
  Mr. President, I think we must also ask several important question 
that have not been addressed by the advocates of this plan.
  How do higher loan rates help producers who have suffered crop 
failures and have no crop to put under loan?
  If loan rates will raise prices--as has been argued by the 
advocates--what will this do to feed prices for livestock producers who 
are in many instances facing more severe economic situations than grain 
producers?
  How do higher loan rates help wheat producers that have already 
harvested and marketed their crops?
  It is argued this action is needed to raise prices because the 1996 
Farm Bill has caused the low prices we are currently experiencing. What 
about the low prices we experienced under the previous program in the 
mid-1980s and early 1990s? What was the cause of those programs?
  Mr. President, it is obvious this plan will not work and will not 
assist all producers. Therefore, I am proposing the following five 
point plan which will be supported by many Republicans and which I 
believe can also garner bipartisan support.
  The plan addresses cash flow concerns, crop insurance, the tax burden 
on farmers, trade, and the Conservation Reserve Program.
  It is obvious we must provide some form of cash flow assistance to 
all farmers, including those who did not or will not have a crop to 
harvest. Therefore, I propose a ``Farmer Income Assistance Program'' 
which will ensure that all farmers receive some form of cash 
assistance. I know of no other way to address the multiple problems of 
farmers with one year of crop losses, multi-year crop losses, and those 
with large crop but no price. This is the fairest method available to 
us, and it will ensure that no producer slips through the cracks.
  Mr. President, we must also take important steps to reform the crop 
insurance program. One of the most common complaints I hear from my 
farmers is that cop insurance does not work. They argue the policies 
available do not address their needs, not do they get adequate coverage 
for the money they invest in insurance policies.
  A large problem with the program is the roadblocks the Risk 
Management Agency (RMA) has repeatedly put up to halt or slow down the 
development and expansion of many private policies. At the same time 
RMA acts as the regulator over these private companies, it is also 
developing and selling products in direct competition with the 
insurance companies. I know of no other industry facing these same 
roadblocks.
  Mr. Kerrey and I have long been committed to major reforms of the 
crop insurance program. And, we are circulating a proposal to pursue 
these goals. However, it will be difficult to pursue major reforms in 
the short period of time remaining this session. Therefore, I propose 
several minor changes this fall to improve the program followed by what 
I hope will be serious reform next year. The proposed changes include:

  Providing a proportional subsidy for all coverage levels up to 75 
percent. Farmers often buy only the lowest level of coverage because 
that is where the highest subsidy levels occur.
  Increase the subsidy rate so that it is the same for all revenue 
insurance contracts as for other all forms of crop insurance.
  Mr. President, we must also pursue real tax reform that benefits our 
farmers and ranchers. We must pursue tax legislation that includes: 100 
percent deductibility of self-employed health care; permanent extension 
of income averaging for farmers; farmer savings accounts; and 
reductions in the capital gains rates.
  I realize some will argue that capital gains reductions do not help 
farmers. However, I would advise my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that a recent report by the Department of Agriculture recently 
stated that the greatest level of benefits to farmers from the 1997 
Taxpayer Relief Act has come from the reduction in the capital gains 
rate.
  Increased access to world markets is an important step that must be 
taken. Our farmers and ranchers simply cannot be successful without 
access to foreign markets. The most important toll to obtaining these 
markets is to pass fast track trade negotiating authority for the 
President. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has stated on several 
occasions that trade is the ``safety-net'' for America's farmers and 
ranchers. Last fall's failure to pass fast track is the single most 
important foreign policy blunder for agriculture since the shattered 
glass embargo policies of the late 70s and early 80s. We must pass fast 
track now.
  Finally, Mr. President, USDA should announce a new Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) sign-up sometime this fall. I checked the Farm 
Service Agency (FSA) website before coming to the floor, and it stated 
that as of October 1998 there will be just over 30 million acres 
enrolled in the CRP. The Secretary is allowed to enroll up to 36.4 
million acres, and I encourage him to enroll the maximum number of 
acres during this fall's sign-up. This is an important action which the 
Secretary does not need additional Congressional approval to undertake, 
and it will help to take many acres of high risk land out of 
production--particularly in the Northern Plains.
  Mr. President, to summarize the plan is as follows: Income assistance 
payments; crop insurance reform; tax relief; increased trade; and full 
enrollment in the CRP.
  This is not a plan which is set in stone. It is open to change, and I 
am happy to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
undertake a plan to assist America's farmers.
  I am hopeful my colleagues will work with me in a bipartisan manner. 
I do not question the desire of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to help our producers. I simply think their approach will do more 
harm than good.
  We tried to increase loan rates in the early and mid-1980s. It led to 
excess production and excess stocks that brought agriculture to its 
knees and greatly contributed to the agricultural crisis of the 1980s.

[[Page S10313]]

  Mr. President, we tell our children that we study history so we will 
not make the same mistakes of the past. Past history shows us the 
Senator from Iowa's plan will not work. I hope that we have learned our 
lesson and will take the steps necessary to help agriculture move into 
the 21st Century and not mired in the broken policies of the 20th 
Century.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. This is unusual. But in the hope that he will be brief, I 
yield the balance of that time to Senator Breaux. I am sure he will 
speak against this amendment in that time.
  Mr. BREAUX. Thank you for the time.
  I make one point very quickly, and the point is this: Our friends in 
agriculture in the northern part of the United States have a problem: 
They have a crop but they have a very poor price that doesn't allow 
them to continue. They need help. That is why the loan level is being 
increased--to try to help those.
  For those of us who represent the southern areas, our problem is the 
opposite: Because of the drought, we don't have any crop. It is not a 
question of local price. There is no crop to sell at any price.
  One of the sections that is in this bill says that the Secretary may 
use funds made available under this section to make cash payments that 
don't go for crop disasters but for income loss.
  Now, as a representative of an area that has a crop disaster, it 
seems to me I am being written out of any help at all. If that is the 
case, I would like to know about it.
  Maybe my friend from North Dakota can respond, and I yield to him.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I might respond to the Senator from Louisiana and 
assure him, as the author of this provision, it is designed 
specifically to help every State that has experienced income loss.
  Mr. LOTT. How much time is left?
  Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad may complete 
the response to my question.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just say to the Senator from Louisiana, this is 
specifically designed to help every State that has suffered income 
loss. The reason the funding has been expanded is because of the losses 
in Louisiana, the losses in Oklahoma, the losses in Texas, the losses 
in Georgia.
  This is designed to help every State that has experienced income 
loss, including the Senator's State of Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we will proceed to 
vote. The question is on the motion to table the Daschle amendment. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato), 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun), would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     D'Amato
     Hollings
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Specter
     Torricelli
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3580) was agreed 
to.


                           Amendment No. 3581

  (Purpose: To provide emergency assistance to agricultural producers)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, 
     Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3581.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 199, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
              TITLE VII--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 701. MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

       (a) Marketing Assistance Loans.--
       (1) Loan rates.--Notwithstanding section 132 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7232), for crop 
     year 1998, loan rates for a loan commodity (as defined in 
     section 102 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7202)), other than rice, 
     shall not be subject to any dollar limitation on loan rates 
     prescribed under subsection (a)(1)(B), (b)(1)(B), (c)(2), 
     (d)(2), (f)(1)(B), or (f)(2)(B) of section 132 of that Act.
       (2) Rice.--Notwithstanding section 132(e) of that Act, for 
     crop year 1998, the loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7231) for rice shall 
     be not less than the greater of--
       (A) $6.50 per hundredweight; or
       (B) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of rice, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, during the marketing years for the immediately 
     preceding 5 crops of rice, excluding the year in which the 
     average price was the highest and the year in which the 
     average price was the lowest in the period.
       (3) Term of loan.--Notwithstanding section 133(c) of that 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 7233(c)), for crop year 1998, the Secretary may 
     extend the term of a marketing assistance loan for any loan 
     commodity for a period not to exceed 6 months.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--The authority provided by this section 
     applies to the 1998 crop of a loan commodity.
       (2) Loans.--This section applies to a marketing assistance 
     loan for a loan commodity made under subtitle C of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.) 
     for the 1998 crop year before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 706. EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Budget Request.--The entire amount necessary to carry 
     out this title and the amendments made by this title shall be 
     available only to the extent that the President submits to 
     Congress an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement for the purposes of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 900 et seq.).
       (b) Designation by Congress.--The entire amount of funds 
     necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made by 
     this title is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)).

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be laid aside to accommodate the amendment to be offered by 
the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________