Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1429 - 1988 Disaster Assistance Extension

Revised LA

(Senate)
(Leahy (D) Vermont)

The Administration has serious concerns about the scope, and the resultant cost, of S. 1429. Enactment of across-the-board multi-crop/multi-peril disaster relief legislation is inappropriate for two reasons. First, federally-subsidized crop insurance was available for many of these crops and perils. Second, many of the payments required by S. 1429 would be made for normal losses associated with agricultural production in any year.

Accordingly, the Administration opposes S. 1429 unless it is amended to:

• reduce the cost of the bill. Whatever is spent on disaster assistance will add to the Federal deficit. Therefore, Congress will be required to offset this increased spending to avoid triggering sequestration under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings; and
• include provisions to ensure that there are not two separate programs in the future for managing weather risk (i.e., Federal crop insurance and annual disaster relief legislation). Moreover, producers who purchased crop insurance for their 1989 crops should be rewarded for taking that prudent step, rather than penalized by receiving the same support as those who did not.

If the bill presented to the President is not fiscally responsible, his senior advisers would recommend that it be vetoed.