Kent Conrad: “this is an attempt to have a pure compromise between the two sides on the question of disaster relief for agriculture.…”

“this is an attempt to have a pure compromise between the two sides on the question of disaster relief for agriculture. The Democratic plan previously proposed was at $10.8 billion. The Republican plan that we started with was $6.9 billion. This is for $8.8 billion. First, it compromises on the money. Second, on the payment methodology, it adopts what the Republicans have insisted on, the use of enhanced AMTA payments for income support. This is a sincere attempt to compromise on the question of disaster relief. Beyond that, there are significant differences. This is a disaster bill that actually has disaster aid. Our amendment has $500 million set aside for 1999 crop income losses. There is nothing in the underlying amendment. Let me repeat that for people who are listening, and for our colleagues. Our amendment has $500 million for 1999 crop income losses from droughts and floods. The underlying amendment has zero. We are talking about a disaster bill that, on the Republican side, does not have disaster provisions. It has provisions to offset the dramatic loss from the plummeting crop prices, but it does not have provisions to address drought or flooded lands. In addition, the underlying amendment has no money for the unmet 1998 disaster assistance promise that was made. Last year, the government came up short. We gave farmers compensation based on a formula. They got 85 percent of what Congress had promised. My amendment improves on that.”