Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I wish to comment specifically on title I which includes those items for which the House Committee on Agriculture. which I have the privilege of chairing. has responsibility. The House Committee on Agriculture has reported legislation which contains a balanced package of reconciliation provisions. It is difficult to make cuts in programs of the magnitude demanded by the reconciliation provisions of the first concurrent budget resolution. However. the Committee on Agriculture faced its responsibilities and acted with two goals in mindto spread the burden of the cuts in a fair manner. and to prescrve essential services in programs for which this committee has jurisdiction. The committee was required to reduce authorizations for appropriations by $1.976 billion in budget authority and $1.828 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1982. with the savings increasing progressively for fiscal years 1983 and 1984. In the case of direct spending programs. it was required to reduce budget authority by $232 million and outlays by $693 million for fiscal year 1982. with increased amounts for the 2 succeeding years. The committee achieved the reductions in authorizations for appropriations in large part by imposing spending caps on the food stamp program. These are realistic spending caps. The savings would be achieved under the food stamp program by a series of amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 contained in H.R. 3603. which was reported to the House by the Committee on Agriculture on May 19. 1981. and by certain administrative changes which are to be implemented by the Department of Agriculture. These approach in total the savings for fiscal year 1982 effected by this bill. and make very significant savings for the outyears as well. Further savings came from similar spending caps on other programs of the Department of Agricultureand on the salaries and expenses relating to those other programsexcept for agricultural research. extensions. and teaching. and foreign market development. The committee achieved required reductions in direct spending by a variety of legislative changes. It reduced the support level for milk from 80 percent of parity to 75 percent of parity with no semiannual adjustment for fiscal year 1982. It also provided for elimination of the mandatory firstyear interest waiver for 1980- and 1981crop grain which producers deposit in the future in the longterm producer reserve. Additionally. it provided for imposition of user fees for inspection programs for cotton. tobacco. and grain. and for services under the U.S. Warehouse Act. it limited the amount of rural developmenttype loans that may be made by the Farmers Home Administration in fiscal year 1982. and increased the interest rato on such loans. Finally. it provided for reduction of the administrative expenses that may be paid from the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The committee reviewed the proposals for legislative changes transmitted to us by the Budget Committee reflecting the recommendations of the administration earlier this year. We accepted many of them. For example. the committee accepted the proposed reductions in the food stamp program. the elimination of the interest waiver on grain to be entered into the farmerheld reserve. the proposal for adoption of user fees for the inspection programs. and certain of the recommended changes in the rural development programs of the Farmers Home Administration. However. it did not agree with several other recommendations and. instead. adopted a package of legislation which it believes spreads the burden of required reductions more equitably. For example. the committee did not accept the recommendations for substantial cuts for authorization programs such as the Public Law 480 program. the agricultural conservation programs. and the programs for water and waste disposal grants. In the direct spending category. it did not agree with recommendations for phasing out the farm storage facility loan program and for sharp reductions in the farmer loan programs of the Farmers Home Administration. such as its real estate. operating and emergency loan programs. The committee is of the view that the foodforpeace program provided for in the Public Law 480 legislation is a very important foreign policy and market development tool which should not be short changed. It also believes that agricultural conservation is a matter deserving of prime attention in order to preserve our fertile farmlands so that American agriculture can continue to meet food and fiber demands here and abroad. Further. it is convinced that the integrity of the farmer credit programs of the Farmers Home Administration must be maintained. Adequate credit is the keystone to the success of a farmers operation. At times when interest rates are high and farmers are unable to obtain credit through their usual channels. there is danger that a farming operation may fail. Also. a farm storage facility loan program is important in order to enable a farmer to hold grain so that he can control the time of its disposition and obtain as high a return as possible. Adequate storage capacity further enables the producer to participate in the farmerheld reserve program. benefiting not only the farmer but also the economy as a whole. Instead of making these proposed legislative changes. the committee provided. in the case of authorizations for appropriations. an acrosstheboard cut of about 9 percent In budget authority for fiscal year 1982 and comparable cuts for the outyears for most of the programs of the Department of Agriculture. This was done so that the burden of spending reductions could be shared in a fair and equitable manner by all. instead of being target. ed to a few. In the case of direct spending programs. the committee achieved a sizable reduction in spending by providing for a reduction in the support level for milk from 80 percent of parity to a level of 75 percent of parity. I urge the Members to join me in support of this balanced and fair measure. Mr. Chairman. let me at the outset tell the Members of this committee that the Committee on Agriculture. after the first budget resolution was approved. took the mandate seriously. and we went back to work to implement the cuts mandated under the budget. Then on the reconciliation we went back and we made the cuts as mandated by the Budget Committee for the reconciliation. I feel somewhat personally aggrieved and incensed at the fact that after we had made what we thought were responsible cuts. after we had made cuts above and beyond what we thought the people of the United States in the agricultural sector could withstand. one area of all those segments of agriculture was taken out of context because it probably is one of the most controversial programs that we have. and that is the food stamp program. The Committee on Agriculture nonetheless did a responsible job. as we have been doing through the years. We have had continuous oversight to see that. in any area where we feel there is the possibility of fraud and abuse. we try to legislate or we try by regulation. working with the administration. to attempt to curtail further abuses in that program. I am aggrieved and incensed. because after having done this. very responsible people. Members of this House and of the administration. still incorrectly or if not incorrectly. then maliciously have maligned our committee. asserting that we have not made responsible legislative cuts in the food stamp program. This got spread out throughout the land and the media picked it up. notwithstanding what we said. The members of our counittee. both Democrats and Republicans. without any attempt at all at partisan endeavor have done their work. I think I speak for all the members of our committee. Democrats and Republicans. that it was unjust and unfair for responsible Members of this House. some in very high positions and for responsible members of the administration. as late as yesterday morning to state that we had not legislated meaningful cuts in the food stamp program. That is not so. Those that have made those statements have been misinformed. They have been misled and they have been given wrong information. or if they had the correct information. they were not stating the facts as they were.