[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.
____________________