Date: 1994-08-05
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I find myself in a very awkward and uneasy situation in that we have a simply bill that hopefully will correct the crop insurance program. take away the perennial ad hoc disaster that has cost $2.3 billion. $3. some billion. if we correct properly the crop insurance for farmers which benefits farmer. consumer. and allows for the continuation of producing food and fiber. indeed. for our very national security. This is a situation that. hopefully. we are trying -to correct. The government/private sector partnership in providing lowcost insurance to the pro* ducers. Why lowcost insurance? For a very simple reason: If it were a viable moneymaking endeavor. the private sector would be doing it on their own. They cannot. So we have to intervene - for our very national security to provide for the food and fiber. We are the best fed nation in the * world. in the history of the world. with the least amount of disposable income per family of the major industrialized countries in the world. That does not change. That is the reason that we 7 have this safety net. But because of budgetary constraints and trying to help. indeed. our friends and colleagues from the Committee on Appropriations. we put on budget ad hoc disaster and say that farmers have to buy the insurance. pay up front and then a comprehensive. So that our friends on the Committee on. Appropriations will not have to work or worry about ad hoc disasters in the billions of dollars. And we are here because the Plesident recommended a fix to the crop inf surance program. His budget allowed for a billion dollars to do that. We did not get the billion dollars. We were - some 200 plus million short. This is what the argument will be about. that how do we take care of that? We propose. and I will offer an amendment that pays for 3 years. Al- lows us time for a GAO study to find out where we are. to find out what we need to do in order to make it a viable program. It never has been a paygo situation. If anyone. if anyone at any time 1 points a finger at this committee. they do so unjustly. because we have been at the forefront. We have saved $60 billion in the past 12 years. If every committee in this House had -done that. we would not have a deficit. We have been responsible. We have taken the blows from agriculture. We never have asked anyone to share the burden With us. We have taken the blow. I am very concerned. disappointed and frustrated that somehow the issue has come around that it is us versus WIC or feeding programs. This is erroneous. Some of the "Dear Colleague" letters are completely erroneous in that respect. We meet the paygo. It was this committee that established the Mickey Leland legislation. We have been in the forefront. For anyone to say or even insinuate that we are out to get WIC or endanger WIC. it is not accurate. It is not correct. We have been in the forefront. I. me personally. my colleague from Texas died working to help hungry people. I would be the last one personally to in any way smear his name or endanger the programs that he worked so hard. for. On the contrary. some of those that are now accusing us have at one. time or another sought reductions in some of those programs. Public Law 480. food stamps. Somehow the stripes on some of those individuals have changed. and they put us in this very awkward. frustrating situation. I challenge anyone to say that our committee has not been in the forefront. On the contrary. when the Select Committee on Hunger in the wisdom of this House was abolished. we established a Subcommittee on Hunger. so it would not die. so that Mickey Lelands name would not die with him. Odd as it may seem. even though we had reduced the number of subcommittees. I asked that we add another subcommittee. that we add hunger to that subcommittee. and the gentleman from Minnesota was made chairman of that subcommittee. That is our history. That is what we have done. I am so frustrated that because of misinformation. that there are those that are now pointing the finger at us: If you fund crop insurance. WIC will die. Under my amendment and under this bill. WIC is funded for 3 years. We are arguing about 2 years that should not be. I hope that the Members would listen to the facts. would not get carried away with emotion. but most of all. that my colleagues would look to the background of this _committee. of this gentleman from Texas. of the members of our committee who have worked diligently. hand in hand with the appropriators. We do not want a problem with the appropriators. They have a hard enough problem without us intervening or interfering. but we have a difference of opinion. Unfortunately. some personalities have come into the picture. I want to disassociate myself from all that. The question. Mr. Chairman. is very simple. actually. very truthfully. One program. they think they pay for everything In 5 years. They think they do. They now accuse us. that if we do it our way. somehow we will endanger WIC and the feeding programs and Public Law 480. We do not do that. That is not our intention. That has not been our background. That has not been what we have done. I come before my colleagues. actually putting my name and my person on the line. the activity of our committee on the line. and saying. "Look at what we have done. and pay no heed of what we are being accused unjustly. unmerited. unwarranted. and totally without fact." Mr. Chairman. Ireserve the balance of my time.