Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues. this is the third opportunity that I have had to present to my colleagues in the House of Representatives a farm bill since becoming chairman in 198L It is also the first opportunity for me to tell my colleagues that this is perhaps the most comprehensive. progressive. forward looking piece of legislation that our Committee on Agriculture has ever handled. I find myself in the very awkward situation. though. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues. For whatever reason major media have portrayed what we do here today or what we begin today as a very small "yes or no" question and they have ignored the entirety or the immensity of what this legislation is all about. It is being reduced only to. "Are you going to help the big guy or the little guy?" Or. "Are you going to give money to the big farmer. the undeserving?" That seems to be the Issue that brings us here. and it is not. We have in this bill 18 titles. If I could. I would like to give you the anatomy of a farm bill. It began 2 years ago. We began 2 years ago. our subcommittees. going out to the people. It has been said here. by a Member. unbelievable as it may seem. that we sit there and we divide and we throw a bit here and we throw a bit there. Mr. Chairman. we went to the people. This is grassroots legislation. The subcommittees held over 30 hearings. We went throughout the country. I went to as many as I could. So did the chairmen of the subcommittees. the members of the committees. ad hoc committees. we went out there 2 years ago. and we heard. We heard from the farmers. ranchers. from implement dealers. from automobile dealers. from bankers. from conservationists. from environmentalists. from consumers. from segments of the agribusiness sector. We heard from all of them. Then we came back to Washington. We had hearings here in Washington. and we asked anyone that was interested in coming. Then we began the process of drafting or crafting what we bring you here today. It is a very comprehensive bill. It goes to the depth of the food and fiber needs of this country. It is. indeed. for the best interests of our national security. Mr. Chairman. we are the best fed people in the world. in the history of the world. for the least amount of disposable income per family. of all the major industrialized countries in the world. Not that there is not hunger in America. There is. But it never has been the fault of the farmer. The food has been there. We will hear about foreign assistance. taking food to hungry people. from the taxpayers money. We will give. from your money. the product of our blood and sweat tears as we have done throughout the history of our country. to bring food to those who suffer. We lost one of our Members. our former colleague Mickey Leland of Texas. Do you know what he was doing out there in Africa? He was negotiating between competing factions and tribal factions. so that they would allow us to bring the bounty from our country to the needs of people out there. That is our commitment. That is our commitment. and his commitment. Little did he know when he made it. A child died in his arms of hunger and malnutritionand he said he was committing his life to aid those. Little knowning that he would. not too long thereafter. be giving his life. We have incorporated his commitment into this legislation. Also. we have problems. There is a saying in south Texas. an old Spanish saying. "If you go on the land and you dont feel the vibration. forget It. It is not going to grow for you. You dont belong." That is what farming is all about. Some of my colleagues ask: Why does someone stay in farming when year after year he loses. when he does not make a crop? In part of my congressional district. it has been the fourth year without rain. It is their commitment to making things grow that keeps them on the land. Should Government intervene or in any way intercede? Of course it should. I think the basic answer is that we have a moral responsibility to see that the people of the United States are fed. properly so. at the least cost possible. Supply and demand is not going to do that. we already know. Now they will be aiming at this piece of legislation about what it is we are doing. for whom it is we are doing it. and cost. First let me show this chart. Almost 50 percent. all of that area here. Is feeding the hungry. All of that. almost 50 percent. is feeding the elderly. school lunch. and the Women. Infants. and Children Program. This is spending for the whole Department of Agriculture. If you would just shut down the Department of Agriculture. 50 percent would be assistance to the needy and the hungry. Only this part here is what we deal with. with farmers. about 17 percent. Now here is where we fit in with government. It is almost embarrassing that we who feed all of the people of this great country of ours have enough left to sell abroad. You know that we have an unfavorable balance of trade except in agriculture? They are not buying what we manufacture except for some very high technology items. They are only buying what we produce. That is the only thing bringing money back from abroad. But where do we fit in Government spending priorities? Defense. Social Security. and so forth. they have already spent 99 percent of the budget by the time they get to agriculture. Let Mr. Darman see that. let our friends in the summit see that. It is almost embarrassing that 99 percent is already spent by the time you get to agriculture. And we feed everyone. we feed the hungry around the world and we help bring money back from abroad. Now let me show you the shocker. because there will be some debate about the high cost of the programs and that you are giving it to some farmers not to plant. That is not the issue. We will address that when the amendments are offered. But the totality of what we do and the efficiency and dedication and commitment of American agriculture. small or medium or large. whatever the income. their commitment is to see that we have the food and fiber available. How much of an impact do they have on the total Federal budget? The graph shows you. $1.23 trillion. $1 trillion plus. This is what we will be discussing here and what amendments will be offered and the arguments will be made that "This fellow shouldnt be getting money." or. "That fellow shouldnt be getting that much. You are throwing taxpayers money away." But we forget that we are the bestfed people in the world. in the history of the world for the least amount of disposable income per family. What is it that we do? What impact do we have on the budget? Well. there it is. See that little black line at the bottom? That. my friends. is your taxpayers money that goes to the producers of America who participate in our programs. 0.63 percent. sixtenths of 1 percent of the total Federal budget. Sixtenths of 1 percent of the total Federal budget. We will later get to it. but that lady from HUD. and that lady from California. and Mr. whatever his name is in New York. I could point the finger at many people who took moremoney than that during the lunch hour. from your taxpayers money. It is sad that we would be in a situation where the major question is going to be the cost to the Government. There is your cost to the Government from USDA. according to the Congressional Budget Office figures. No one can challenge that. That is the cost. Now. someone may embellish it. Well. yes. we have an income tax. We have this. We have that. There it is. Right there. I want Members to keep in mind. as we debate this legislation. and there are issues discussed as to cost. keep in your mind that is what we are speaking about. 0.63 percent. Now. dear friends. let me say later we will articulate the issues and discuss the issues. We will be discussing cotton and wool and mohair. and we will be discussing peanuts. and we will be discussing sugar. This bill is very progressive and enviornmentally sound. We have involved ourselves in protecting the ecosystem. We have added environmentally progressive sections to this legislation that will put this Congress down in history. should it be finally approved. as the most progressive environmentally oriented group ever. since we began concerning ourselves with the environmental issues. We have done that. Trade. we have told and we have sent the message to our competitors that we want a level playing field. Now. whatever they do at Geneva and the GATT. that is for them to do. Here we are. doing what we need to for the reason that we need to do them here. Later. we will put them together. and we will see where they come out. and we wish them well In Geneva. for we need a level playing J uly23 1990. field. We have sent the message to our competitors. "We will do what you do and go you one better." No question about that. But even then it has not cost anl that much. We will have programs to feed the elderly. We will have planting flexibility. We will meet our responsibility to the budget problem. I can assure Members. Friends. this is a most responsible bill. budgetwise. We are below budget. We are below baseline. If we would be. we would see that we were. We have been fiscally responsible. We will continue being fiscally responsible. I would say at this time that this legislation merits our support. We will discuss It. Perhaps it could be better. That Is the process that we will follow. but as of now. we bring Members a bill that Is fiscally responsible. and one that meets the concerns and needs of the American people. and this great country of ours. Mr. Chairman. this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year. the Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990. Most of us know this bill as the agricultural bill or the farm bill. But this legislationwhich we generally take up every 4 or 5 yearshas been much more than a farm bill for quite some time. In reality. all Americans are touched by the provisions contained in this legislation. The proposed policies and programs contained in H.R. 3950 affect virtually every aspect of the Nations wellbeing: food and fiber production. farm income protection. resource conservation and environmental quality. human nutrition. export promotion and overseas food aid. agricultural research. and domestic food assistance. We have named this bill the Food and Agricultural Resources Act to reflect what we berieve should be the primary thrust of this legislation. namely. a commitment to protect the basis of food production in our country. Our Nations food and agricultural resources make up a national asset that Americans cannot afford to take for granted or ignore. Other countries4n Western Europe. the Soviet Union. Japan. and Chinsall look with envy on our productive and efficient agricultural sector. AU American consumers benefit from the success of the U.S. agricultural system. American famils spend less than 12 percent of their disposable Income on food. the lowest in the world and ha.f of what was spent 50 yams ago. What does it cost us to be the bestfed people for the lowest price with the best quality. the safest food supply in the world? It costs us less than 1 percent of the Federal budget I submit to you that the American people are getting a very good deal. Mr. Chairman. H.R. 3950 has many specific objectives but as stated In the report to accompany the bill. it has one primary goa. To foster an economic climate In which the largest possible number of efficient American farmers can survive. prosper. and producein an envirorunentafly prudent mannera safe. adequate. and affordable supply of food and fiber for American donsumers and millions of others around the world. BUDGET Members of the Agriculture Committee are very conscious of the budget constraints our Nation faces. The committee has made a great effort to keep the cost of these programs within the budget targets as specified in the House and Senate budget resolutions and the Congressional Budget Office baseline estimates. This was not an easy task. During committee consideration. we made a number of painful choices to drop subcommitteeapproved measures that would have provided for indexing of target prices to inflation. On top of that. we adopted other measures to reduce spending in a number of areas In our final committee action on the bill. At the time the committee reported the bill. unofficial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office put us $1 million under baseline spending for fiscal 1991 farm spending by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Now that they have had time to look at things more closely. CBO estimates CCC spending is about $11 million under the baseline for next year. This is for the Agriculture Committee reported bill. However. as amended by the Committee on Ways and Means. the CCC spending is now $73 million over the baseline. Mr. MADIGAN and I will. if necessary. offer additional amendments at the appropriate time to reduce the costs of this bill further and bring us closer to the CBO baseline target