Date: 1981-07-31
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. we are considering the conference report on the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. legislation which will sharpiy cut programs vital to the needy and to the farmers of this Nation. The President and the Congress have spoken. We have our marching orders from the GrammLatta budget resolution. Like good soldiers. we have done our duty. Mr. Speaker. I would like to pay special commendation to the ranking minority member of our committee. the gentleman from Virginia. the Honorable BILL WAMPLER. all of the subcomimittee chairmen and all Of Lhe ranking members. and all of my colleagues on the committee who stood by me as we worked painfully but diligently in the task we had before us. I would like to pay a special commendation to the chairman of the Senate conferees. the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. JSSE HELMS. for his patience and understanding as we labored together to accomplish the task which we had before us. The conferees on aspects of the House and Senate reconciliation bills concerning agriculture. forestry. and related matters faced a formidable task. The bills adopted by the two bodies reflected substantial differences In programs such as food stamps. dairy price supports. and agricultural credit. These are matters about which the House and the Senate conferees held firm and. In some cases. quite divergent views. Very painful choices were presented. However. under the savings directives Imposed by the budget resolution. there was no way to avoid painto escape cutting programs which in many cases are the lifeblood of rural America and our less fortunate. On a bipartisan basis. the conferees forged a compromise which met the mandate under which we labored. Congress. In the first concurrent budget resolution. had directed our committee to produce legislation cutting budget spending In fiscal 1982. July31. 1981 19d3. and 1984 by a 3year total of $8.8 billion. The conferees made a 31percentgreater cut. I inform my colleagues. which amounts to a total of $11.6 billion in outlays. Outlays cuts resulting from the conference agreement total $3.2 billion for fiscal year 1982 compared to our directive of $2.5 billion: $3.8 billion for fiscal year 1983 compared with a directive of $2.8 billion: and $4.6 billionfor fiscal year 1984 compared with a directive of $3.5 .billion. Trhis was due largely to differences in the Senate and Housc measures. While both versions made severe cuts in the food stamp program. the Senates were deeper. The Senate bill contained no provision for dairy price supports. The House bill didwith outlay savings amounting to $449 million in fiscal 1982: and up to $1.188 billion for fiscal 1984. The Senate achieved its targets by heavily reducing rural credit programs. including those directly benefiting farmersa course the House had struggled to avoid. The conferees to some degree split the difference on these crucial matters by accepting the House provision on dairy and a number of the Senate provisions dealing with reductions in the rural credit programs. With respect to food stamps. the conference report provides a number of program changes. It reduces food stamp benefits by more than $6 billion over the next 3 years. for an average of $2 billion a year. The bill reduces food stamp costs by $1.657 billion In fiscal year 1982or $200 million more than the budget resolution required. In fiscal year 1983. the reduction is $2.046 billion. or about $75 million more than the budget resolution. required. In fiscal year 1983. food stamp costs are cut by $2.335 billion. or $8 million more than the resolution required. These are deep cuts. The great bulk of these savings come from families below the poverty line. Of the 22 million persons now receiving food stamps. about 1 million will be terminated from the program and about 20 million. including virtually all of the poorest participants in the program. will receive lower benefits than current law would provide. The only households wvho will not be adversely affected by the bill are those receiving the minimum benefit of $10 per month. I am disturbed by the provision of the report that replaces the food stamp program in Puerto Rico with a block grant. Puerto Ricans are. American citizens. they fight in our wars. and they should not be treated In a discriminatory fashion in the food stamp program. Nevertheless. the report does establish a block grant effective July 1. 1982. The block grant Is funded at 75 percent of the 1982 current services level In Puerto Rico. This level is not increased In future years to take account of future increases in food prices. This means that as the years go by. the block grant will fall further and further belowv the 75percent level. and that as food prices rise. poor citizens In Puerto Rico will have to eat less. We did succeed in removing a provision of the Senate bill that would have established special income limits for Puerto Ricolower than those for the rest of the United Statesfor the Interim period before the block grant is implemented. The report provides a 4year dairy price support program. effective October 1. 1982. with supports ranging from 75 to 90 percent of parity and with semiannual adjustments to keep supports from falling below 75 percent during the last 3 years of the program. The conferees agreed. however. that the dairy provision is to be regarded as an Interim step and that milk supports will be reconsidered. along with other farm supports. when a general farm bill is debated later this year. The report also puts a ceiling of 117.000 on the number of fulltime equivalent staff yearsincluding overtimethe Agriculture Department may have during the 3 fiscal years beginning October 1. 1981. The Department currently operates at the level of about 121.000 fulltime equivalent staff years and had asked for permission to raise this figure to 124.000 In fiscal 1982. I would note that the Department of Agriculture. notwithstanding the budgetcutting crusade of the administration. vigorously opposed provisions in the House bill which would have reduced authorizations for salaries and expenses for most Department agencies by about 9 percent. A number of USDA programs. which had also been subject to a blanket 9percent cut in the House bill. wvere reduced by lesser amounts by the conferees. Final agreements include a decision to cap Forest Service spending on forest research. State and private forestry. the national forest system. and construction and land acquisition at a total of $1.498 billion for fiscal year 1982 instead of the $1.446 billion proposed by the House. The cal. does not apply to other authorizations for the Forest Service. including permanent appropriations. Public Law 480 appropriations were limited to $1.305 billion in fiscal year 1982. $1.320 billion in 1983. and $1.402 billion in 1984. In the energy field. the report reduces the authorization for spending by the Secretary of Agriculture on biomass energy development under the Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act of 1980 from the original $600 million to a new level of $460 million. The report imposes fees to be paid by farmers and others who use Agriculture Department programs of grain Inspection and weighing. cotton classing and related services. tobacco inspection and related services. warehouse examination. inspection and licensing. and naval stores inspection. In provisions dealing with agricultural credit. for fiscal 1982 Farmers Home Administration insured farm operating loans were capped at $700 million and farm operating loans at $1.325 billion. The report earmarks not less than 20 percent of tnese funds for lowincome. limitedresource borrowers In lieu of 25 percent under current law and 15 percent in the Senate provision. Interest rates on disaster loans were raised to market levels for borrowers able to get credit elsewhere. but to not more than 8 percent for farmers who cannot get credit elsewhere. Interest rate provisions for lowincome borrowers would be revised to not more than half the cost of money to the Government on farmownership loans. and to a rate set at 3 percent. below the cost of money to the Government. plus uip to 1 percent. for farm operating loans. Also. the bill makes discretionary with the Secretary after September 30. 1981. the permanent authority for a storage facility loan program. The conferees. however. expect that the Secretary of Agriculture would continue this program. in storagedeficit areas. The Members may be further reviewing the action taken on this issue during consideration of the farm bill later this year. Finally. the report would require the Federal Financing Bank. on the request of any rural electric or telephone borrower. to handle any REAguaranteed loan. And Insured loans to rural utilities would normally be made at a 5percent rate. as opposed to the current 2percent rate. but the REA Administrator would have discretionary authority to reduce rates to as low as 2 percent In unusual cases of extreme need or hardship. Mr. Speaker. I will not burden my colleagues with further details of the cuts made and of the reconcilation process followed in the conference. except to say that we met the mandate: we exceeded the mandate. Everything that we submitted for the reconcilation package which the Members have before them was not adoped unanimously. There were items that we did not agree on individually. but in the end. no one being satisfied completely. all agreed that we had done our work. that we had done our best under the circumstances and that we brought the House a package which surpasses the savings mandated by the GrammLatta resolution and by the Budget Committee. While many of the cuts will fall heavily upon the needy and the farmers of the Nation. they respond to the mandate adopted earli-. er by the Congress. Inasmuch as they meet the standards which have been imposed upon us. I urge their support..