[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11950-S11951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to express my grave 
disappointment of President Clinton's decision to veto the 1998 
Agriculture Appropriations conference report, which includes emergency 
relief for farmers around the country, like those farmers in the Red 
River Valley area of my home state of Minnesota, who are struggling 
against a combination of devastating factors.
  Inclement weather, low prices, high market yields generally, and 
multiple years of wheat scab disease have converged to produce an 
atmosphere where even the best, most competitive farmers in 
Northwestern Minnesota are suffering.
  This, despite the fact that the Market Transition Payments in the 
FAIR Act have provided our nation's producers with a much greater 
safety net than the deficiency payments they would have received under 
the old program--about $7.5 billion more under the new farm bill than 
the old.
  Yet the President's actions will delay this important relief. This 
bill provides twice as much assistance as he originally requested, yet 
he has now joined the bidding war, changed his mind and now jeopardizes 
this needed assistance to our farmers.
  It is crucial for farmers in Minnesota, as well as other states, that 
the Agriculture Appropriations bill be signed by the President and not 
used as a pawn in a political debate. The bill funds all of our 
agriculture programs including $675 million to Plains farmers to help 
offset crop failures, like those caused by the wheat scab epidemic.
  It also includes $1.65 billion which is to be added to the annual 
market transition payments--this money will help to address depressed 
commodity prices.
  The conference report funds $56 billion to fund needed agriculture 
programs. This includes funds for many crucial tools to help our 
farmers promote their commodities at home and throughout the world.
  The bill funds the Farm Service Offices in our states to aid farmers 
in making the adjustment to Freedom to Farm.
  It also funds the Foreign Agricultural Service, which promotes U.S. 
agriculture products abroad. The Service coordinates CCC Export Credit 
Guarantee Programs; PL-480; Export Enhancement; and the Market Access 
Program.
  The bill will continue and expand needed assistance to farmers in the 
long term, as well as the short term. It is a good compromise. I voted 
for the conference report although there are sections that I, like 
many, oppose, such as language from an earlier House version which 
would create a backdoor extension of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact. I raised some strong objections to this political maneuvering 
on the Senate floor last week.
  It will allow an unjustifiable, reprehensible program to continue for 
another six months.
  While I have deep reservations, this compromise is one we should 
continue to support and one the President should sign.
  Some say this compromise does not include enough to address the farm 
crisis. Yet, this conference report provides over $4.2 billion in farm 
relief money. This is money that will be available immediately to 
farmers.
  This is in addition to the regular AMTA payments-- that is the 
marketing transition support payments which have provided roughly $17.5 
billion to farmers over the last two years. This is also in addition to 
approximately $4 billion that producers will receive in loan deficiency 
payments this year.

  Both Democrat and Republican plans were debated thoroughly in 
Committee, and the plan before the President is the one that the 
Members decided to support. The concept behind this agreement is that 
it continues to support farmers through the transition from the old 
failed system of our farm program to the new Freedom to Farm 
legislation, as well as to address needs created by weather and disease 
disasters.
  It does not attempt to throw another net of Washington programs over 
our farmers.
  Despite the partisan grandstanding you have heard, the plan before us 
will provide the transition assistance that our farmers need. And it 
will not undo the Freedom to Farm policy that we worked so hard to 
achieve.
  Farmers in Minnesota have made it clear to me that they do not want 
welfare. The relief plan currently in the Agriculture Appropriations 
report avoids going in that direction. It is a one-time support 
package, as opposed to returning to our failed agriculture policies of 
the past. It also avoids the flaw of lifting the loan caps, a move that 
would both exacerbate the current grain glut and also distort market 
signals, encouraging excess production, which would continue low 
prices.
  It is painfully clear by this point that the only purpose served by 
promoting ``lifting the loan caps'' is one of grandstanding, and we all 
know that a higher loan rate leads both to increased production, larger 
surpluses along with lower prices.
  This option again was rejected by the Senate, Senate twice, yet it 
keeps coming back, rearing its ugly head.
  There is simply no justifiable basis for a Presidential veto of the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  As we have heard Chairman Cochran explain here on the floor, it 
contains a lot of money for production agriculture. So a threatened 
veto is certainly not about money--it is about politics.

[[Page S11951]]

  I remind my colleagues the President's original request for farmer 
relief--the original request--was $2.3 billion. The current package 
contains more than $4 billion. Now, however, he wants to veto 
legislation providing more money than his request. He has changed his 
mind and now wants $3 billion more.
  This is simply a half-hearted attempt by the President to back a 
Democrat effort to revisit the Freedom to Farm bill. This is 
legislation that only 2 years ago, the Congress and President Clinton 
himself agreed it was needed to move the business of agriculture out of 
the grip of Government control.
  It is disturbing to me that when the White House does not get its 
way, it vetoes legislation or takes it to the courts, and if rejected 
there, appeals to the higher courts. The bottom line is that it 
continues to try and go around Congress, rejecting decisions made by a 
majority of Congress.
  Minnesota farmers should not be used as pawns in an election-year 
drama. The President should help farmers by signing this significant, 
emergency legislation, rather than joining those here who seek to undo 
the progress that has been made on agriculture policy.
  The solution is here before us, and delays will be laid right at the 
President's feet. For the sake of our nation's farmers, let's end the 
bidding war. Let's end it now. I strongly urge the President to 
reconsider his decision as he reviews this crucial legislation again in 
the Omnibus Appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grams from 
Minnesota, for his speech, but also for the homework and dedication 
that he had on this piece of legislation. He had some concerns about 
it. He raised those concerns. He was an effective Senator. We worked to 
alleviate some of those concerns and we wanted to make sure that no 
person who is in a foreign field--that these actions would cause them 
greater pain or greater discrimination. So I thank him for his efforts 
on the Religious Freedom Act, and I also thank him for his statement 
that he just made on the ag bill. I happen to agree with his statements 
wholeheartedly.

                          ____________________