Date: 1990-10-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. my colleagues. I take this time to address a question of the proposed budget and the negotiations that have gone on and will continue to go on perhaps into the evening. I hope that some agreement is reached and that we might be able to proceed to the satisfaction of everyone. Mr. Speaker. my concern this evening relates to agriculture and the Committee on Agriculture that I am a member of and my colleagues have honored me to allow me to be chairman. In the initial proposal. agriculture was asked to take a $1.3 billion cut which I was concerned with. because it was much higher percentagewise than the Impact that we make on the budget. The proposal that is now floating around. or the discussions. and this DSG sheet which has been bandied around this afternoon. I do not know whether it is accurate or not. but it shows a slight reduction on agriculture. I would like to say with all due respect that in the negotiation process we are now in a conference committee. House and Senate. on the agriculture. on the socalled farm bill. and there are Senate and House Members from the Committee on Agriculture and from about six other committees because of the collateral jurisdiction. and of course there is the administration to consult and advise. should there be need for it in relation to the position of the administration. However. they do not sit at the table as negotiators. They are our guests. and sit there as advisers or as consultants. and not as equal partners. We asked them. or they asked to be heard. and it is a workable situation. but it is not that they sit at the table as negotiators. This is one of my concerns. that there seemed to be an obsession with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in relation to agriculture. This is what I wanted to do. and I have already explained it to the negotiators. I wanted to share again with the Members of the House. if Members can see this chart. Members can see the tiny line at the bottom that is the impact that we. agriculture. make on the Federal Government. Yet the obsession of the gentleman and many others is that we are going to hit agriculture because they have been reading the editorials that are incorrect and have a misconception or erroneous perception. and at times consultants from outside of the Congress. but these are the facts of the $1 trillion plus budget. Sixtenths of 1 percent are the support programs for agriculture. Sixtenths of 1 percent. 0.63. However. editorials show this farmer got $1 million. and this one should or should not have. and I keep insisting and shall forever keep insisting that one cost overrun on a defense or offensive system in the Pentagon takes more than all of what agriculture is concerned with. Also. I think it would be well for Members to realize that the support programs are but 17 percent of the Department of Agriculture. is what goes to farmer programs. If we look at this chart again. the red on the right. almost 50 percent is nutrition. food stamps. school lunch. feeding the elderly. Therefore. looking at the farmer that is involved or participating in a program that is only 16 or 17 percent of the Department of Agriculture the major part is nutrition. If we now look at what is being discussed in the conference. that we are speaking of a reduction of some $500 billion. If we take that then. $300 billion are going to be cuts. The rest is going to be income. So if we take $300 billion. a general figure. of cuts. and agriculture impacts on the total budget onlysixtenths of 1 percent. then I would assume that we should take sixtenths of 1 percent of the cuts. equal with everyone else. However. it does not come out that way because if we take the $300 billion. then 10 percent would be $30 billion. 1 percent would be $3 billion. and they want agriculture to take 13 percent in the 5 years. I think that this is not fair to agriculture. If we take it in a larger proportion. let me use one of the larger charts here that I have here so that we can more readily see. if I could have this chart that we are speaking about. Here is how we impact on agriculture. The bottom line. this is a trillion dollar budget that I must agree is exceedingly high. and reduction should be made in good faith and in good order. and cool. calm. and collected. I hope. However. I cannot remain cool. calm. and collected when we are making this much of an impact.