Date: 1985-09-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for his remarks and I thank him for his contribution as the distinguished chairman of the Cotton. Sugar. and Rice Subcommitte. three major commodities. That will be part of the overall omnibus bill that we will begin with in what we call generaldebate. the discussion. tomorrow. But let me continue by saying that then the subcommittees did the drafting of the cotton version. the sugar. the rice. the soybeans. the wheat. the feed grain. conservation. credit19 sections to the bill. I introduced H.R. 2100 to be the vehicle. and I say very humbly and honestly that no intent was had at all that it has ny name. My name is incidental only as author. What we attempted to provide with this H.R. 2100 that will be the vehicle that we begin discussion on tomorrow was that I would provide the engine and the caboose with flatcars. and then each subcommittee then would piggyback their version onto the flatcar. and eventually we would have a train engine. caboose. and 19 flatcars that would have from the subcommittees what they had drafted or crafted themselves. with the hearings. with the input from everyone concerned. and make that the vehicle that would come to the floor. I would submit to my colleagues that it has been a very difficult process. it has been long. many hours have been taken and devoted by members of the committee. the subcommittee. the subcommittee chairmen. myself. staff of the committee and the various subcommittees. I would. very briefly. like to enumerate the sections which I will incorporate into the RECORD. Title I will be sugar. which. basically. extends the program that we now have until 1990. Title II would be dairy. And this is an area that is very important because we have had added inventory. or surplus. if you would call it. in that area. and it has a combination of diversion. of buyout protection. One of the interesting areas. I think my colleagues would be interested in knowing. I liken somewhat to a juggler. You see a juggler juggling. but I have never noticed. and I am sure most of us have not noticed. he always juggles the same item. the duckpin. plate. or ball. but always they are the same size. same weight. and all he has to provide then is the rhythm. Once he starts the rhythm. it is the same item. same size ball. same configuration. same everything. Well. in trying to pass a farm bill and adding all of the provisions. we do not have that luxury. We have to juggle a bale of cotton. a can of milk. a bushel of wheat. everything different. But we have to keep them in the air and balance so one will not do damage to the other. This is one of the areas that I would like to mention in the dairy section. In attempting to reduce the overage in the dairy. you cull some cows or you buy out a whole herd. but if you put that into the redmeat market. then you do damage to the producers of the redmeat industry. So we have to be very conscious and we have to dedicate our best efforts to see that we have a balance. that in helping one you do not do damage to the other one over here on the other side. I think we have done that fairly well in the dairy section. We create a national dairy research endowment institute. to be funded by revenues raised from milk producers. and we bring in the importers for the first time so they participate. We have differentials for areas. different regions. of the country. and we extend the authority to transfer dairy products to the military for 5 years. So that would be the second section. Then the third section would be wool and mohair. This is a national strategic item. Many people really do not know that we have a major wool industry. getting wool from sheep. Mohair. for those who may be from urban areas. comes from goats. That is a strategic material that we provide support so that we might have in time of need. Then we have title IV. That is wheat. It establishes a program for the 1986 through 1990 years. extending and modifying provisions for target price. I want to be very elementary and I want to see that everyone understands. not only our colleagues. but their constituents. exactly what we are doing with that legislation and what it does. You might hear loan rate and target price. Well. what does that mean? Well. target price is. basically. arbitrary. but you take some averages for 3 years back. and the target price is what we decide. the Congress decides. the item should sell for. And then you have loan rate. Loan rate is a provision for credit to the producer. that you give him assistance either before or after. depending on which road you take. the crop is harvested. But. basically. it guarantees him the opportunity that. if he cannot sell his crop. he can leave it in the loan. forfeit it. basically. and get from the Government that amount of loan per pound or per bushel. or whatever the crop might be. And that is done by the CCC. the Commodity Credit Corporation. This is a semi-. quasigovernmental agency that sits off on the side to regulate all of this and is the one that the loan is forfeited to. Target price. I am just using arbitrary figures. not what would be the actual figure. But let us say that the cotton target price would be 85 cents.. The farmer then sold if for 80 cents. So that means that the Government would make up the 5 cents that he sold below the target price. That would be taxpayers money. that would be your funds. that would be taxpayers money. Later I will go into why and the need for it. So. basically. section 4 would be wheat. Section 5 would be feedgrains. That is corn and milo sorghum and the other grains that we deal with. Again. this modifies provision for target price protection. And I might add that it freezes for 2 years the target price. Title V(A) would be a producerapproved referendum. This has stirred some controversy. but it is a very simple process. that the Secretary of Agriculture would referendum. would ask producers. farmers. if they would like. to have this program. and they would vote. anyone who has over 15 acres would then have the opportunity to vote. "Yes. we want it." or. "No. we do not want it." If they say. "No." then he has this backup. what I just explained in title V. This referendum. then. the farmers. producers themselves. for wheat and the feedgrains. which is basically corn and sorghum. would make the decision. and this would provide for domestic and foreign provisions so that you would have certificates. what would be the domestic part of the product that he would have a certificate and could get the Government guarantee or the Government loan. The rest. then. would go into export. and there would be a provision to see that we can compete with the rest of the world that produces this commodity. Later. I will also mention in the trade section one of the problems there. Title VI would be cotton. and it basically carries forward the provisions of the present act. Title VII would be rice. Again we have a little problem with rice. Many of the countries of the world that were not producing rice are now producing. Some that were producing are now producing sufficiently to export and are competing with us in the exports in that their price is below our price. and we have a difficult situation in that respect. So we are trying to bolster or sustain as best we can the American production and make it compatible with the other nations in the world that produce and export. Title VIII would be peanuts. We basically extend the present program. Title IX would be soybeans. and the existing soybean price program would be continued. with one change. This change provides the Secretary of Agriculture with additional authority whereby he can reduce the level of the 1986 soybean loan. that loan I mentioned that they can forfeit into the Government. by up to 5 percent if he so determines. Title X would be general commodity provisions. which covers commodities and technical means. Title XI would be trade. And this extends Public Law 480. This is the law whereby it would take from that quasiGovernment institution. the Commodity Credit Corporation. for donations to other countries. to needy countries. and/or to sell at lower interest rates to developing countries. This section now raises authorization for Public Law 480 so we can assist more countries and participate in exporting more of our commodities. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to direct a paymentinkind export assistance program to encourage expansion of our domestic farm productivity. It broadens authority for intermediateterm export loans. and it provides for Government guarantees of at least $5 billion in commercial shortterm export credits. This is a very good program. An exporter or an individual finds a customer in another country. The other customer then has to secure his commercial financing for the commodity. but under this provision our Government would guarantee to the bank an x percentage of that loan. so he is committed to pay for the loan. but then should something go wrong. we would pick up that loan. It is rarely done. It is a very good program. Title XII would be credit. One of my colleagues mentioned earlier the farm credit system. That is another issue. I will mention that again later. But what we deal with now is basically Farmers Home Administration. an entity of the Department of Agriculture. and that is the one that makes operating loans or available loans to purchase land or refinance. and that would be title X1II of our bill. Title XIV would be the national agricultural research extension and teaching policy. This is where we extend that for 5 years. We have several formulae by which we provide assistance to land grant institutions for reserach. for extension purposes. and we continue that very. very. very good program. Title XV is food stamp and related issues. The Food Stamp Program or assistance to those in need are handled through our committee and are a basic part of the Department of Agriculture. We authorize the program or reauthorize for 5 years. Title XVI is amendments to the temporary emergency food assistance. and we extend for 2 years. Title XVII is nutrition programs. We expand the consumer education services for lowincome families. and we work with lowincome families in nutrition programs to see that those who avail themselves or are in need of that program utilize it to the utmost. We have in my area in south Texas. we have a beautiful program that a young lady who is in charge of that program has gone into the neighborhoods and has selected a volunteer who is then trained to work with the rest of the neighborhood in what is a nutritious meal. What can you prepare for the lowest amount of money for the most nutrition. How can you feed your family. What are the items required in the diet. You should not give a 2yearold child the same meal that you give your 40yearold husband. They deal beautifully. This program has worked. Where properly utilized. and I would hope that it would be thus. it is a very good program. Title XVIII are miscellaneous provisions. For example. additional standards for processing of eggs. revises and strengthens the Beef Research and Information Act. it established a promotion. research. and consumer information for pork and pork producers. These two are basically to assist the industry in promoting the products. Again. we have a problem in the balancing act I was mentioning. We have beef producers. a rancher out there or a feedlot. They hire x number of people. and they have to sell their products to stay in business. They are doing fairly well. Some others not as well. But then you have coming from the other side. either in imports or then the health situation saying you should not eat beef or you should not eat this or that because of a health problem or possible health problem. I am not going to start an argument. I do not intend to start an argument. I do not challenge the experts. I do not challenge the medical profession. My wife and I have son who is a doctor. so I am not attempting to do that. I have taken the attitude as chairman of the Agriculture Committee that we want to sell every one of our products that we can and the only caviat I use is that you have to use moderation. You have to use moderation. Maybe you should not eat too much of this or too much of that. I guess I am not the best example of using moderation. but that is what we have to do. Then we have title XIX. which is the National Agricultural Policy Commission Act. that we hope would be helpful to the process. Let me go to the general aspects. Are our farmers and producers in trouble? Yes. a great number of them are. Why are they in trouble? Are they in trouble because they are not good farmers? No. we have the best in the world. Are they in trouble because they are lazy or inefficient? No. we have the best in the world. Are they in trouble because they do not have good land? No. we have the best in the world. So then you might ask: Why are they in trouble? They are in trouble. basically. for something beyond their control. Something that has befallen them made by other events and other circumstances. Those that are in trouble are in trouble because of the high interest rates in one respect. They have to borrow money. It is very rare the farmer. rancher. or producer that has his own resources to raise the annual crop. He has to borrow for that. almost like every business. Most major manufacturing institutions program debt. They borrow. they give debentures. they sell bonds. and so does the farmer. He has to borrow either from the private sector. from the farm credit system. or from the U.S. Government. This is basically where he borrows from. When the interest escalated. many of them got in trouble and they have not been able to recoup and get back. Another area was inflation. Now. we have got inflation fairly well under control. it is coming down some. But inflation escalated because of what the farmer uses to make their crops. The largest consumer in the United States is the agricultural sector. the farm sector. because he uses that land given to us by God. but that is only the receptacle for that seed. Beyond that he has to buy the seed. he has to buy the fertilizer. he has to buy in most instances water to water his seed. to water the fertilized seed. Then he has to have insecticides. pesticides. rodenticides. He has to have machinery in the shop. the tractor. He has to have pickups. he has to have trucks. All of this he has to buy. and when he was buying it at inflated prices. but his commodity prices were not keeping up with that. then he got in trouble. In the export area. this is a very difficult thing. and it is very difficult for me and for our committee. There is trading in currency. The average American pays little attention to that. You see in the paper or here on the television or the radio that the price of the dollar as against the deutsche mark or the British pound or the Japanese yen. and you say. well. it does not affect me. Well. it does. Because as the dollar gains in strength or in value. that means the other currency came down. This is what they were using to buy our products. So let us say that 100 deutsche marks. 100 German marks bought a bale of cotton. Not the actual amount. but we will use that. it bought a bale of cotton. That was 100 as contrasted to $100 when they were equal. But then. when the value of the dollar went up. that $100. now you have to have 150 deutsche marks to buy that $100 in the currency markets. which means then that the fellow that was going to buy the bale of cotton for $100 now has to add another $50. If he is going to add another $50. when he would have bought two bales of cotton. now he can only buy one. for onehalf or what would have bought the second half. That reduces our sale of exports. This is not the doing of the farmer: he has nothing to do with it. It is our Government. the stability. the Federal Reserve. the other countries stability of their currencies. Heaven knows what. But the ultimate one that suffered was our farmer. He has that problem. Now. I have the problem. our committee has the problem. do we say. "Do not buy our dollars. they are no good." How can we say that? So we have to then have current shifts and controls and manipulations to try and see how we can undo some of the damage by that value of the dollar. Then we have another very serious problemthat other countries in the export business subsidize. They subsidize their farmers and the export sector which makes their commodities of equal value. quality. maybe lesser quality. but more attractive because the government is subsidizing them so they can sell at a lower price. By and large we do not subsidize for exports. we have some in this legislation. Now. an area where we are going to try and match. to put it plainly or simply. as many Members mention. that we play the world game of export in an uneven field. Unbalanced against us. so we are going uphill. All we are trying to do is to balance that field so we have an even field. and then we can compete actively. Now. my colleagues ask: Why should we use the taxpayers money to work with the farmer. to help the farmer or the producer? Well. that is a legitimate question. but it is answered very simply. The American people are the best fed people in the world in the history of the world. It does not mean that there is no hunger here or deprivation. It does not mean that. But overall. we are the best fed people in the world. I would like to mention this. If someone does not have appropriate nutrition. it has not been the fault of the farmer. never the fault of the farmer. The food has been there. but the. man does not have a job. the famiy does not have income. there has been a disaster of some kind. transportation. marketing. whatever. but never the fault of the farmer. Second and very important. the American family spends the least amount of money from their income for food of any other nation in the world. The least amount of disposable income per family for food is the United States. Everything from there on escalates. We are now maybe at about 12 percent of disposable income. and going down. up to about 50 or 60 percent in other areas of the world. Some people call it a cheap food policy. I do not like to use the term. but I do want to emphasize that all that bounty that the homemaker or the housewife has at the grocery store comes from the farmer who by and large did not get what it cost him to produce that item. and he is the one at the bottom of the totem pole. Everything that you buy at the grocery store. my colleague. the one who got the least amount for what you paid was the farmer. You buy a loaf of bread. 86 cents. 6 cents went to the farmer. You buy a pound of beef. $3. maybe the cow sold on the hoof at 80 or 90 cents a pound and $1 a pound. That is part of the problem. and that is one of the reasons that Government has and should and well ought to intervene to see that we do not have this. I want to make something very clear: that not all commodities in my area of Texas. the fruit and vegetable industry. they get no support of any kind from Government. I probably .could say most of what they get from Government is harassment and intervention in their affairs. but yet they are not here asking and they are not complaining because they feel that they can do well with the system that they have now. Prices go up and down and we have problems there. Btt then one final item as to why we should use Government funds. taxpayers money. my taxes. to work with the producers and the farmers. This is my submarine story that many of my colleagues have heard. When I was 17 years old I joined the Navy. I saw a sign that said. "Join the Navy and see the world." I joined. They lied to me. I went to San Diego. CA. and the Great Lakes in Illinois. Camp Wallace. TX. between Houston and Galveston. the back way. a place called Hitchcock. So I never got on board a ship. I got run out of more captains offices and lieutenants offices. I said. "I want to go on board a ship." Well. it never happened. They kept sending me to school. I did not want to go to school. I did not join the Navy to go to school. but I kept going to school. When I was elected to Congress. we have liaison. That is. members of the Army. Navy. Air Force. Marines. and Coast Guard who are the liaison between their service and the Members of Congress. Naturally. when a new Member of Congress is elected. they come to visit him and to tell him about their service. and this is very important. So when the Navy fellow came to see me. he said. "I hear you are an old sailor." I said. "You bet." He started off with. "What ship were you on?" Well. I -had to say. "Great Lakes. IL." That was my ship. But then he said. "Anything I can do for you?" I said. "Yes. get me on board a ship." So he said. "When?" I said. "Any time." "What kind of ship?" I said. "Shoot the works. Give me the biggest one. A carrier." They have a program where they invite civic leaders and elected officials and Members of Congress and Boy Scouts. and so on. bring them aboard ship and give them sometimes an orientation cruise. staying overnight. and this is very interesting. So they had one of those and I went. We went on this carrier and we had a tremendous visit. a beautiful visit. I enjoyed it so much that the next time I said. "I would like to see a cruiser." I progressed. and about 3 years ago I finally came up with the big one. "I want to go on a submarine. nuclear power. nuclear arms." They said. "Well. you may have to take a physical exam. You might have to lose a few pounds." Those holes you go in and out of on a submarine are not too terribly big. so I had a little bit of a problem. We worked it out and off I went. We went on this submarine out in the Atlantic. nuclear power. nuclear arms. It was beautiful. The experience of a lifetime for me. For those of you who fly. you fly a submarine just like an airplane. It has dual controls. You push down. it goes down. Pull up and it goes up. Port. Starboard. That is left and right in Navy language. It was a great day. a beautiful experience. We are coming back. we are topside. I have seen everything. I have done everything. and I asked the captain. because we have in the national defense. in the physical defense of our country. and indeed the world. something we call the triad. We defend our country with the troops on the ground and missiles on the ground and in underground silos. We have the airplanes overhead. and we have the submarines under the sea. undetected. that are part of the triad for national defense in case of attack. and God forbid that it should ever happen. but they are there. So one of the most important things is how long can that submarine stay underwater undetected. so I asked him that question. He smiled at me and said. "That is a military secret." I did not want to involve myself with a military secret. but then he smiled and said. "Do you ivant to take a guess?" So I said. "Sure. I will take a guess." and I was thinking of the reactor. the propellant. that nuclear core that propels the ship. because they are selfcontained. In World War II and prior to that. the conventional submarines had to surface to recharge batteries. and so on. and this was very dangerous and very critical in wartime. especially in a war zone. But the niclearpowered sub does not have to do that. So my question was. "How long can you keep that baby down there undetected?" He said. "Guess." So I thought. short. 2 years. long. 15 years. so I said. "7 years." He smiled and he said. "No." He said. "You are chairman of the Ag Committee." I said. "Yes." He said. "Would you like to take another guess?" I said. "No. If you are going to tell me. tell me." He looked me straight in the eye and he smiled. and he said. "I can keep this submarine under water. undetected. as long as I have food for my crew." That is the limitation. So who is keeping the peace for the world and the United States? The farmers of America are the ones who are keeping that submarine under water. undetected. And let me tell you that that one submarine. it was an awesome feeling to know that that submarine had enough megatonnage to destroy the world. On one submarine. enough megatonnage to destroy the world. to be a deterrent to any aggressor. to be the item that we use in discussions for reducing armament. for reducing the possibility of nuclear exchange. That submarine could be the all of what we use to deter. to negotiate. to keep the peace. and yet its major limitation was food. provided by the farmers of America. Should we not then use the taxpayers money to see that the farmer stays on the land. I ask my colleagues? Is it not worth the safety and peace for our generation. our children and our childrens children. that we use some of the taxpayers dollars? How many of the taxpayers dollars do we use in relation to the budget? We have a budget now that is around $1 trillion. That is $100 billion. Three percent of that goes to agriculture. Three percent of the total budget of the appropriated funds from your tax dollars. only 3 percent. goes to agriculture. One percent almost goes to food stamp programs. One percent goes to run the Department of Agriculture and all of the areas of agriculture: research. extension. landgrant colleges. Farmers Home. and the areas where you do not have borrowing activity but appropriated funds. And only 1 percent goes to the commodity programs that I have been discussing. So we are the bestfed people in the world. with some exceptions. we have the lowest amount of disposable income for food per family. and we are keeping that submarine guarding the peace. for 1 percent of the total budget. Certainly I would be happy if jthey take 1 percent of what I pay. And I think that you would. too. You see farmers out there. they are selling their land. they are selling their implements. I have seen them cry. I just had a call from a lady from Colorado. Fort Morgan. CO. She said I could use her name. Naomi Woods. "I have 3.700 acres about to be auctioned off." she said. They are good farmers. She and her husband and the kids all worked on their farm. They are efficient. But they had to borrow when the interest rate was high. Maybe they made a bad judgment in buying additional land when the interest rate was high. but they cannot keep up the payment. they cannot sell the product they are producing. And she told me something I would like to leave with you. my colleagues. that we have to look at. Should we help Naomi Woods? I think so. Why? Because she is a nice. kind lady? No. Why? Because she is a farmer or a farmers wife? No. not necessarily. Why? She mentioned something so humbly. so simply. she said. "Congressman. rural Colorado is dying. They have closed the sugar mill at Fort Morgan. they have closed the beef plant at Fort Morgan. they closed the grain elevator at Fort Morgan. they are closing down the main street. and we cannot all go to Denver to look for jobs because they are not there." And if they all go to Denver. food stamps. aid to dependent children. housing. medical attention. everything that we do as a government with sensitivity. with compassion for those in time of need. would cost more than helping her keep her farm. That is the question. It is for the benefit of that taxpayer that would ultimately pay more if we let her go to Denver. because we are a compassionate people. and we are not going to let her go hungry. and we are not going to let her and her family go homeless. We are going to help. But it is going to cost more than that little help she needs to keep that farm. to keep that submarine under water protecting the peace. That is why I would want my taxpayers money. the money I pay. to go in part to agriculture. And I think you would. too. I say to my colleagues. The farmers of America need help. They need support. One of my colleagues asked me. "What do I ask my constituents to do?" I told him. "Very simply. you have your constituents contact their Congressman. Have them write him. Support the farmers of America." That is what I hope he tells his constituents right now. this week: "Write your Congressman. Tell him. Support the farmers of America. support the people who are keeping that submarine there protecting the peace for us. Support those who are providing the food for our troops in Europe and Korea and every corner of the world. Support the people who are giving us that food for the lowest amount of disposable income." That is what I told my colleague. I said. "You tell your friends. you tell your constituents. you tell anyone that will listen to you. Write. call. or contact your Member of Congress. He should know of your interest." That is what I told my colleague to tell his constituents. This is what I tell my constituents. I know that every farmer is not in trouble. Every farmer is not going broke. Yet it could be traumatic if those who are in trouble were to go under. It is not as simple as saying. "Well. if the Woods go. the Browns will come in. Interest rates will be lower. and they can replace them and they can continue." It does not work that way. because my colleagues might remember that I sent a chart in an article from one of the local newspapers that showed it in scale. In the graph the price of what the farmer pays for commodities went up. up. up. and then there was a little decline. The price of what the farmer paid for what he uses in farming. insecticides. pesticides. seed. fertilizer. et cetera. goes up. up. up on the graph. and then slightly down. And then the last part of the graph shows the income the farm gets. It goes along on a level. and then it goes down. down. down. That is the graphic situation. That is what is happening. and that is why all of us need to get together. There are some areas of the farm bill.I might mentionsugar. for example. We are a deficit nation in sugar. We do not produce all the sugar we consume in this country. so some wise people a few years back started a program that we import basically about 50 percent of the sugar that we consume in this country. So they put a little tariff or a fee on that sugar that comes in from another country. It guarantees a price. a level. higher than the world price. There is a floating level in the world price that is sometimes as low as 4 or 5 cents. but that is not what we would buy the sugar for. We helped developing countries. we helped our friends who ship us the sugar by giving them a good price. Then we said. "Hey. for the sake of that good price. for that protection you get for selling into our market. which is a lucrative market. why dont you give us back about 2 or 3 cents?" Well. we take that 2 or 3 cents. and that is what we use to provide support to the producer of sugar. and we do not use our taxpayers money. It is a good program. It has worked well. We have not utilized taxpayer money but very rarely in the past few years. because we get it from the people we give the privilege to. to sell us sugar at better prices than they would get if they would go into the open market or the world market. and we recoup that money. I have heard some of my colleagues over here from the shoe caucus tell us about the shoe Industry being in trouble. Over here the steel caucus says the steel industry is in trouble. Over here they talk about textiles. The textile industry is in trouble. One of our subcommittees passed a bill out of subcommittee today deaing with the textile issue. Then we have bricks. and then we have concrete. and we have automobiles. Almost all of America is in trouble. But these farsighted individuals long ago addressed the issue of sugar. and I would hope none of my colleagues would oppose that program. I know some will. and it is sad really that anybody would be trying to undo that program. It is not costing the taxpayer any money. They say. "Well. you are raising the price of sugar to the American consumer." But he still gets all his basket of food at the grocery store for less money than any other people in the world. and .sugar is a small item in his diet. I would hope that my colleagues would listen and take heed of that with some degree of compassion and then in an intelligent way look to see that we have done what they are asking us now to do for shoes. for textiles. for steel. for cars. and for all the other items we have manufactured. I say this with sadness in my heart: The world is not buying what we manufacture in the United States of America. We are not the greatest manufacturing country in the world anymore. What they are buying from us is what we produce in agriculture. and even that is coming down. That is the only thing that is bringing money back. We read in the paper. we hear. and we discuss it here. about the tremendous balance of payments. that more dollars are going out than are coming in. The only dollars coming inand this is hard to acknowledgeare from agriculture. And in the area where we are dificient. in sugar. I cannot imagine that any Member would even remotely think to undo a program that has worked so well and that has helped the American consumer. We should have pride in that we have at least some producers who are willing to continue at risk to produce cane or sugar beet for sugar in this market. And now we have sugar through this high fructose with corn liquid sweetners. So I say to my friends that I would hope my colleagues who are listening to me and who will read this in the Record will study this issue. and hopefully they will agree with me. Again I repeat that I hope every one of my colleagues tells his constituents. "Write me or write your Congressman and tell him to help the farmer of America. Help those who are helping us be healthy. be a proud nation. be a great nation. and be a strong nation in spite of adversity." Even if everything were perfect. farmers still have to fight Nature. drought. flood. insects. pests. Even with everything being perfect. the farmer has the deck stacked against him. "Why does he stay?" someone asked me. "Why does he stay year after year?" "Well." I replied. "I come from south Texas. and in our area of south Texas we have a saying: If you dont feel the vibration when you go on the land. forget it. it isnt going to grow for you." That is what the farmer is all about. If you do not feel the vibration when you go on the land. you ale not a farmer. you are not a rancher. and it is not going to work. That is why they hang in there. hoping against hope. Farmers are proud. They do not want sympathy. They do not go around begging. The last thing they want is to have the Government intervene. but there comes a time when need arises and they have to ask. and we have to give. The good Lord made us. in my belief. to His image and His likeness. Why did He make the human body require food or water? Only God can give us water. Only the farmer can give us food. So. Mr. Speaker. I guess the good Lord made the body to His image and His likeness needing food because he wanted farmers on the land. That is why. . Mr. Speaker. the major provisions of .the Food Security Act of 1985 are briefly described below.