Date: 1995-11-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2491. Mr. Speaker. while I support. the goal of a balanced budget and voted for the Democratic approach to achieving that budget over 7 years. I must take great exception to this agreement which sacrifices one of our most important national goalsthat of preserving the health of our rural economy and the adequacy of our Nations food production system. Mr. Speaker. the GingrichArmey conference agreement endangers our Nations food security. While the cuts initially ordered to be attained in agriculture were irresponsibly drastic. the approach taken by the Republican leadership to eliminate the farm safety net altogether threatens to wreak havoc on the rural economy. No longer will producers be able to count on the Government when its own macroeconomic policies destroy their markets. as happened in the mid1980s. Under H.R. 2491. agricultural commodity programswhich have been key to our success in ensuring a consistently adequate. safe. and affordable food supply--will end with the 2002 crop year. Mr. Speaker. the Republican plan not only eliminates our Federal farm safety net. but it also makes devastating cuts in programs which allow our agricultural sector to compete with the European Union in farm trade. The future of our agricultural economy is in foreign trade but the Republican plan amounts to unilateral disarmament when our competitors are subsidizing heavily to take away markets that our more efficient producers would otherwise capture. With the tremendous beneficial impact that farm trade has on our economy as a whole. the Republican policy of drastically reducing the export enhancement program is extremely foolhardy. Mr. Speaker. there is substantial agreement now that the budget must be balanced. The American people want it balanced and we are working toward that goal. The Gingrich plan before the House today takes the wrong approach where rural America is concerned. Reductions in discretionary spending totals cut deeply into the programs that are vital to rural Americans. We have to continue to marshal our resources in a way that ensures we do not endanger the future of our rural economy on which our Nation so heavily depends. And yet. without the benefit of a single hearing. the GingrichArmey leadership has imposed an entirely new program that eliminates the Government role in ensuring the farmer a fair return. Instead. the Gingrich plan establishes a program of flat payments to farmers: regardless of what they plant. regardless of the level of market prices. Mr. Speaker. farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions in this bill. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the farmers risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that this sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes. they may know that each year they will get a cash payment. but if prices collapse next year. will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50. how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas. in the Dakotas. in Washington? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents. how many cotton growersspread out all over the southwill survive? If corn prices are under $2. where will the corn belt be? Agriculture deserves more consideration than has been given by this Congress and I am glad that the President has won from Speaker GINGRICH a commitment to recognize that fact in upcoming negotiations. Mr. Speaker. other parts of the Republican plan disregard the special needs of the Rural Economy. The cuts it would make in Medicare and Medicaid will have devastating and inordinate effects on rural hospitals and the provision of health care in rural areas. In block granting Medicaid and reducing funding available for lowincome health care services. support to health care in the State of Texas alone will be cut by 20 percent. These cuts will fall heavily in rural areas where health care services are sparsely provided to begin with. In a specific move. the Republican plan removes current rules designed to prevent "spousal impoverishment" and imposes a new possibilitythat a lien could actually be placed on a family farm before the owners spouse would be eligible to receive public assistance for catastrophic medical services. In addition. the Republican plan eliminates any link between Medicaid spending and localized economic distress. Currently. an economic recession in a heavily rural State would result in increased resources being made available under Medicaid. Under the Republican block grants. the amount to be availablealready severely reducedwould become highly inadequate if conditions in the farm economy deteriorated. The Republican plan also has tremendous implications for rural hospitals. Rural residents are chronically underserved. The plans cuts in payments to hospitals will threaten tie viability of many rural hospitals and clinics. In the days ahead. we must act to protect the ability of rural Americans to improve the availability of health care in their areas. Mr. Speaker. I strongly oppose H.R. 2491. Make no mistake: my colleagues who vote for it are voting to end farm programs. Its a bad bill. it is opposed by the American people. and because of that the President will veto it. I am encouraged. however. that the President and the Congress have now explicitly recognized that we will. in fact. agree on a balanced budget I am encouraged that we can now sit down in a bipartisan manner and fashion an agriculture policy that will recognize these basics: First. the need to preserve the farm safety net. second. Agriculture has contributed heavily in the past to deficit reduction. third. continuation of investment in rural America is of crucial importance. and fourth. the need to continue to provide the resources necessary to maintain a level playing field with our export competitors. Mr. Speaker. I came here in 1965. The first bill I introduced was a balanced budget amendment. so no one can point a finger at me and say I have not tried. I have served with Presidents Johnson. Nixon. Ford. Carter. Clinton. Bush. Reagan. and I respected them always. I respected my colleagues. but when foam comes out of the mouths when they say "tax and spend liberal Democrats." I resent that. As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. we cut over $50 billion. My colleagues have to respect that. my colleagues have to admire that. We did. If everybody else had done the same thing. we would not be here. And then I had to explain to someone. what is this continuing resolution? I said. so we can continue running the Government. Well. my dear friends. you waited 40 years to get here. and you messed it up the first year. You did not pass your appropriation bills. The President cannot legislate. It is a legislative failure. and you are .the majority. and nobody has noted that. You are arguing with the President. Bill Clinton. You did not pass the appropriation bills. It is a legislative failure. and it is on you side of the aisle. and I am sick and tired. and I am not going to abuse anyone. I am not going to do rhetoric. I am not demagoging. I am telling the truth. You did not pass the appropriation bills. It is a legislative failure. I have helped cut some $50 billion in 12 years. not from the poor. not from those that need it. but in the area where it could be judiciously done. So think about that. I am coming over and telling your side. you have been a legislative failure. You waited for 40 years. and you have messed it up.