[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S11832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE PRESIDENT DID THE RIGHT THING

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last evening, President Clinton did the 
right thing, did the right thing for this country and did the right 
thing for our farmers and for people who live all across rural America. 
He did the right thing for farmers who are suffering because of a 
drastic drop in prices. He did the right thing for farmers who are 
suffering because of a loss of crop in disaster areas in the South and 
Upper Midwest. The President did the right thing by vetoing the 
woefully inadequate farm disaster bill that this Congress passed and 
sent to him for his signature. Now it is up to us to see what we can do 
to make that bill better and get it back to the President for his 
signature.
  Rural America needs help. Farmers need assistance. Disaster-hit areas 
need help. And yet they do not need the woefully inadequate bill that 
was passed here. I likened the bill that was passed by the Congress as 
giving a thimbleful of water to a person dying of thirst. It may 
assuage their thirst momentarily, but it is not going to keep them 
alive. We need to give those farmers who are dying of thirst out there 
the adequate water they need to get them through this year and the next 
to keep them alive.
  Mr. President, I was encouraged by what I read in Congress Daily, 
that the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman 
Livingston, has said that they expected a veto and that after the veto 
comes negotiations. I do not have the exact quote, but that is about 
what he said. I think that gives us some hope that we can work together 
here, we can negotiate out some differences, and we can come up with a 
bill that the President will sign and that will, indeed, benefit our 
producers.
  There are some principles that we must maintain, however. First of 
all, there must be adequate disaster assistance. There needs to be 
equitable treatment regionally both within the distribution of the 
disaster assistance and within the overall package of disaster-related, 
commodity-based assistance. That means it has to be equitable, and it 
has to be adequate. It does not necessarily mean the dollars have to be 
spread around evenly. Equitable treatment is the key for farmers who 
have suffered from natural disasters.
  A second principle is that assistance must go to producers who need 
it. Assistance based on low commodity prices should be delivered to 
producers suffering from low commodity prices. That is the advantage of 
the marketing loan proposal that those on our side have advocated. The 
proposal just to add on some money to this so-called AMTA payment has 
no relationship to the level of commodity prices. And not all commodity 
prices are depressed equally or substantially, particularly in cotton 
and rice. So assistance must have some relation to market conditions.
  I always wonder what it is about some of my friends on the other 
side. They always talk about the market, the market, the market, yet 
the direct payment that goes out to farmers has no relationship to the 
market.
  Removing the loan rate caps, as we want to do, does have a 
relationship to the market. If the market price goes up, the exposure 
to the Government is less and farmers will get their money from the 
market and not from the Government. Just giving out a direct payment 
has no relationship to the market whatsoever.
  I think a third principle that we must have in any negotiated 
settlement is assistance to actual producers. Lump cash payments in a 
fixed amount are less likely to remain in the hands of the actual 
farmer than is assistance provided in a way that is contingent on 
market conditions. The additional AMTA payment that is in the vetoed 
bill is readily identified by landlords who are in a strong position to 
capture the payment in land rental rates. That is why raising the 
marketing loans, raising those caps will get to the producers.
  Another principle. We must restore the safety net. Farmers are in 
their current predicament in large measure because the safety net 
feature of previous farm bills was abandoned in the 1996 farm bill. A 
set cash payment does nothing to restore the safety net because it is 
not responsive to market conditions. By contrast, removing loan rate 
caps would help restore a safety net responsive to market conditions.
  Two last and final principles. Some linkage to actual production. The 
marketing assistance loan is tied directly to actual production. The 
Republican plan in the vetoed bill would have provided an additional 
money windfall even though no crop had been produced on the land. Why 
would we want to do that? Let's have assistance out to farmers who 
actually produced a crop.
  And last, let's have a major measure of fiscal responsibility. This 
idea of just throwing out another payment to farmers is not fiscally 
responsible. If commodity prices should rise next year, which we all 
hope will happen, our plan would cost less than expected. But if the 
commodity prices rise next year, after the Republican plan payment went 
out, we would not recapture any of that money. It would be gone. That 
is why raising the marketing loan caps is, indeed, more fiscally 
responsible than just giving out a payment.
  Mr. President, I believe within those principles there is room for 
negotiation. I look forward to the negotiations. I hope we can very 
rapidly come up with a bill that will meet these principles and that 
the President will sign into law, because our farmers need the 
assistance, and the disaster areas also need that assistance.
  I will yield the floor.




                          ____________________