Date: 1985-09-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman. the House today begins consideration of one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with this session. this year. in fact. I might say toward the end of this century. H.R. 2100 the Food Security Act of 1985. This omnibus bill as reported by the committee and the appropriate subcommittees of jurisdiction was drafted after we spent all of last year listening. counseling with. receiving advice from every segment of agribusiness. For the first time. we brought in banks. seed dealers. fertilizer dealers. automobile and implement dealers. We listened to anyone that would be impacted. consumers. environmentalists. and we think we have a good product. Mr. Chairman. which we bring to the floor of this House. I would hope that as we proceed through the amendment process that the membership of the House. and of the Committee when we are in the Committee. would support what the Agriculture Committee has reported in behalf of American agriculture that needs the assistance we can give them at this time. We bring this bill to- the floor because American agriculture is in trouble todayand it is the responsibility of the House to do whatever can be done to help dam the flood of problems facing agriculture that is causing great distress in many parts of the Nation. This is a big bill. The text of the bill covers 525 printed pages and the Agriculture Committees report is 827 pages long. Its a big bill because the problem is big. Its a complicated bill because the problems are complicated. The crisis this bill addresses affects the farm economy and rural Amrerica. It affects millions of consumers. bankers. businessmen and workers in many industries and businesses all across the countryand it affects the international economy as .well. I could tell the story we have to face by reading you economic reports and reciting from tables of figures. But I ask this House today to look behind the numbers and the tables and the economic reports. I ask the House to look at the human beings behind those numbers. One of those people called me the other day. Her name is Mrs. Naomi Woods. She lives on a farm with her husband near Fort Morgan. CO. And she talked to me about problems on the farm in a way that I wish everyone in this House Fould hear and understand. Mrs. Woods pointed out that when a family cant afford to buy farm supplies. it hurtsbut so do the people in the local businesses that depend on them. When a farm family cant afford to buy a pickup truck needed on the farm. they hurtbut so do the people on an automobile company assembly line far away from Colorado. I hope the Woods family can survive on their farm. Thats what they want to do. But what happens if they are squeezed out by forces they cannot control. no matter how hard they work or how efficient they are? Mrs. Woods told me she guesses theyd have to move to Denver to look for work. But is that any answer? What happens when thousands of farm families are forced to move into urban areas? What is the real cost to our society in the new housing needs. in all the other costs that pile up when people dont have jobs? I say that whatever it may cost to help efficient farmers stay on the land may be less than the real cost of forcing them off. What this comes down to is that we are dealing with more than questions of policy and dollars. We are dealing with the future of people. and this is a great responsibility for every Member of the House and everyone else involved in farm policy. Much of agriculture is in trouble today because of a combination of factors and forces that lie largely outside the areas that farmers themselves can control. The causes of todays problems include the general worldwide recession of the early 1980s. which depressed markets for American products. the strength of the dollar in recent years. which cost us export sales. the unfair trade practices of some competing nations in world markets. and continuing surpluses of some commodities. Farm income is down to disastrous levels. Thousands of good. efficient family farmers find themselves unable to pay their bills. Farmland values in some States have fallen by up to 50 percent since 1981. We are facing what some people say is a crisis among some agricultural lenders. Behind these grim statistics are stories of stark tragedy for thousands of families and hundreds of rural communities. When a farm family cannot pay its bills. as Mrs. Wood eloquently explained. the bad news does not stop at the farm gate. The shock wave goes all through our economy. Here is just one example: The Agriculture Department is currently predicting that farm purchases of new and used equipment this year are expected to sink as low as $6.4 billion compared with last years depressed $7.3 billion figure. The pain in agriculture is deep. and it is spreadingand forecasts for the near future. at least. are not encouraging. Members of the House probably have heard that record crops are being predicted this fall. and unless we get some unexpected news. the result is likely to be continuing low farm prices and more distress in agriculture. The most severe crunch in our farm economy since the Great Depression is here. It poses a great challenge to this Congress. We need to provide agriculture at this time with an economic life preserver. not a pair of concrete boots. These are some of the reasons why the Agriculture Committee is asking your help in passing a farm bill. I know that some may disagree with us over one or another portion of our bill. But I do not think anyone will disagree when I say that the need for an effective farm policy is urgent and in the interests of our entire Nation. That means consumers. too. In the long run. a depressed agriculture is bad news for consumers because they must depend on agriculture for what they need mostan ample and stable food supply at reasonable prices. In drafting H.R. 2100. the Agriculture Committee was faced with two challenges: We wanted. and I believe the House wants. a bill that protects farm income to the greatest possible extent so that efficient farmers can hang on until conditions improve. Under the terms of the congressional budget resolution. we were required to bring in a bill that fits within the budget targets for agriculture. This we have done through a process of hard and painful compromise. I will not take your time to describe in full detail the provisions of H.R. 2100. but I will note briefly the major features of the bill. First. it provides 5year income stabilization programs. and in most cases supply stabilization programs. for major commodities including wheat. feed grains. upland cotton. rice. milk. soybeans. sugar. wool. and peanuts. Next. it includes general commodity provisions. including a new and more effective method of setting farm bases and yields. a continued limitation on direct payments to farmers. and a new $250.000 ceiling on nonrecourse loans to individual farmers on wheat. feed grains. soybeans. peanuts. and tobacco. Also. there is an important trade section that includes a program to use some of our surpluses as export bonuses to help regain and. we might hope. to expand overseas markets. With this. we have provided for expanded export credit programs and an extension of the FoodforPeace Program together with additional authority to use our surplus food abroad. In the conservation area. we have landmark new legislation. which I believe has wide support. to protect our fragile land. This section includes a proposed Conservation Reserve Program to get fragile land that is now in crops moved into protected use. And it includes Sodbuster and Swampbuster Programs to discourage the movement of erodible land into crop production. In the field of agricultural credit. we have an extension of authority for Farmers Home Administration programs for farmers and rural development. with some changes in these areas. We have new regulations for the handling of land that the Farmers Home Administration has foreclosed. And we have a section to protect purchasers of farm products from liens held by creditors. In the area of agricultural research. we extend authority for research programs with a number of provisions aimed at encouraging work in highpriority areas. And in the field of domestic food assistance. our bill extends the.Food Stamp Program for 5 years together with some modest and overdue improvements and a new section that requires States to set up special employment and training programs. In addition. we have other features including a 2year extension of the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program to help get cohtmodities to hungry people through agencies like food banks and soup kitchens. Much of the discussion of this bill will involve the commodity programs. In that respect. let me give you some brief explanation. For wheat. feed grains. upland cotton. and rice. the bill provides machinery that. for the next 5 years. would make market prices more competitive by providing authority to tie price support loan rates more closely to market conditions and by several export programs. At the same time. however. the income of farmers would be maintained because we would keep target prices frozen for 1986 and 1987 and would permit reductions in targets in the following 3 years only if farmers costs also decline. For wheat and feed grains. the bill also includes one additional important feature. This is a provision under which wheat and feed grain farmers would vote in a referendum on whether to adopt a program of voluntary acreage control coupled with an increased price support loan rate without target prices. If the referendum program becomes law. and if farmers then go on to adopt the program. producers who comply with acreage controls would be eligible for the new support levels. and their crops would be kept competitive in export markets by the kind of export subsidy that is provided in the general trade section of the bill. Producers who choose not to comply with acreage controls could grow as much as they want to. but they could use their grain only for feeding on their own farms or for export at world prices. If the referendum program becomes law and farmers do not approve it in their balloting. wheat and feed grains would remain under the target price program that will also be in effect for cotton and rice. I must note that. as costed out by the Congressional Budget Office. the referendum provision will not reduce program costs as much as initially estimated. This was not intended by the sponsor of the provision. and he has already prepared a floor amendment that will achieve the needed savings in program costs. I know that the administration has indicated it is opposed to the referendum provision. and the House will hear later a fuller report from sponsors of the provision on why it deserves support I want to point out now that it is a compromise proposal. Some Members favor a tighter mandatory control program. but the version approved by the Agriculture Committee provides that if farmers approve the marketing certificate plan in a referendum. individual producers could still choose to stay out of the program and use their grain on their own farms or for export at world prices. I want to add a brief word about the dairy program. This is a carefully and painfully developed compromise. It is built around a new price support formula that takes- into account both farm costs and the need to reduce surplusesa formula that is fair to consumers as well as to farmers. And it includes the surplus diversion program about which there has been much discussion. I will say at this point only that the diversion program has been tried before and has worked. It is financed by the farmers themselves. and it helps protect both the dairy industry and the taxpayer. The committees dairy program helps meet our budget targets by saving $1.7 billion over 3 years. The budget requirements that we had to meet were difficult. They forced the Agriculture Committee to make hard choices and forced us to make some reductions that we did not want to accept particularly at this time of economic stress for farmers. Our committee recognized. as it has in the past. however. that farmers must join other Americans in attacking the problem of the national deficit. I want to caution Members that. if they consider amendments which would increase potential costs. they should think about what else they can find to cut to get us back to the budget. As you know. the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has reported out cargo preference provisions that differ from those contained in H.R. 2100. as reported by the Agriculture Committee. While I hoped that this difficult issue could have been resolved by now. it will have to be disposed of during floor debate. I hope the House will remember in this debate that those of us in agriculture have no quarrel with the goal of maintaining an American merchant fleet. Where there are differing views on this issue. it is over means and not ends. Mr. Chairman. I know that when the House debates amendments to this bill. we will be faced *with many proposals to make changes in the Agriculture Committees product. I appeal to Members today to consider those proposals in the light of what they may do to helpor hurta segment of our economy thatis in great and sometimes heartbreaking distress today. You may be asked to cut the programs for some commodities in this bill. When you face those choices. I hope you will think about more than the numbers. I hope you will think about the farm families who produce those crops. You may be told that consumers will get cheaper food if Congress drives down farm prices. When you face that choice. I hope you will remember that driving down farm prices wont necessarily mean lower consumer prices. And I hope you will remember that the American consumer already gets the worlds best food supply at bitrgain basement prices in comparison with average consumer income. We have poor and needy people in this country. trut we try to help them with programs like the Food Stamp Program. which this bill addresses. For the average American consumer. however. food is a bargainand it will remain a bargain if the House stands with our Agriculture Committee and adopts this bill. This bill is a collection of compromises. It does not give any one group everything it wants. It does not go as far as many of us would like to go in improving farm income. But it does provide machinery that can help in the crisis we face while keeping within the budget. In that respect. this is a good bill for farmers. it is a good bill for consumers. and it is a good bill for the Nation as a whole. I urge the House to adopt it. The following material was accidentally omitted from the section of the committee report entitled "Purpose and Need for the Legislation" and I include it at this time to complete that section of the report: The Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Act [TEFAP} requires the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that commodities distributed under the program are not made available in quantities that are determined to result in substitution for commercial market sales. The determination is made by the Secretary of Agriculture. According to a recent report by the USDA. substantial commercial displacement of margarine has occurred as a result of USDA butter donations. This report by Dr. James Zellner of the Economic Research Service indicated that during the 34 months of TEFAP operations. an estimated 428 million pounds of butter were donated. displacing 370 million pounds of margarine. For fiscal year 1985. USDA estimates a $69 million loss in retail margarine sales as a result of butter donations and. assuming the margarine displaced came from soybean oil. a $55million reduction in soybean growers receipts. The committee also received testimony indicating a negative effect on employment and manufacturing within. the margarine industry as a result of commercial displacement due to TEFAP butter donations. In response to reports of displacement. USDA reduced by half the level of TEFAP butter donations effective August 1. 1985. from a monthly average of 12 million pounds to 6 million pounds. The Agriculture Committee is concerned about the degree of estimated displacement of commercial margarine sales due to the volume of butter released under the TEFAP Program. The committee is likewise concerned that future donations of other products may have similarly negative consequences on other commercial sales and expects the Secretary of Agriculture to monitor this carefully. The committee bill maintains the language of current law restricting donation of commodities in quantities that the Secretary. in his discretion. determines will result in substitution for commercial purchases. To ensure that the Secretary will monitor this more carefully. the committee has added a requirement for an annual report to Congress on the occurrence and extent of any such displacement or substitution. The committee expects the Secretary to provide this report by January I each year. The Secretary will also give consideration to the needs of the lowincome population being served by the program.