Date: 1983-11-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the Conable amendment because It Just is not good enough when we compare it to the compromise bill. People who favor the Conable amendment have been telling us it will reduce the dairy surplus. But we know that it will not reduce the surplus as effectively or as quickly as the comnpromise bill. Those who favor the Conable amendment have been telling us it would produce great savings for consumers. But on this point. I ask my colleagues to consider two simple facts. Fact No. 1 is that history indicates that very little. If any. of the reducdion in price supports in cases like this is actually passed on to consumers by milk and dairy processors. If the Conable amendment becomes law. therc might be some very small reduction ir consumer pricesbut we more likely would see a. repetition of what hap pened when milk prices at the farm In Florida dropped by 95 cents a hundredweight and consumer prices remained the same. Fact No. 2 is that eVen if the Conable amendment could produce savings for consumers. it would have only a small and temporary advantage over the compromise bill in that respect. Remember. the compromise bill also Includes an immediate cut in the price support level. and it provides for further cuts later on if the surplus is not reduced to below specified levels. If the Conable amendment passes. the Secretary of Agriculture says he would reduce price supports by $1.10 per 100 pounds immediatelybut if the compromise bill passes. the support would come down Immediately by 50 cents. so the difference Is not great. By 1985. the support level under the compromise bill could be the same as the level under the Conable amendment. This adds up to a simple conclusionany consumei- savings produced by what we do today will be small. And if they exist at all. they will be nearly as great under the compromise bill at the beginning and Just as great later on. Now. what about the taxpayes? I the Conable amendment good enough for them? It is not In the short run. and it is not in the long run. According to the Congressional Budget Office. the compromise bill would cost $728 million less than the Conable amendment in fiscal 1984 and $343 million less in fiscal 1985a total saving of about $1.1 billion for the life of the pending bill. We have seen assertions that the Conable amendment would cost less in the long run. If that means beyond fisdal 1985. there is no long run. The bill ends on September 30. 1985. But suppose the same program were reenacted to run for 3 additional years. The CBO estimates that if this is done. the compromise bill total cost over the following 3 years would be $69 million less than the cost of the Conable amendment. What this means Is that unless you think a potential $1 billion in savings Is not important. the Conable amendment is not good enough. Now. what about effectiveness. The Conable amendment would reduce dairy production. But over the next 2 years. CBO estimates indicate the compromise bill would cut production by 14 billion pounds more than the Conable amendment. The compromise bill would cut Government purchases of surplus dairy products by 8.5 billion pounds more than Conable. In comparison. the Conable amendment is not good enough. Many of my colleagues are concerned about the potential impact of these bills on the pork. beef. and poultry industries. I think we ought to talk commonsense about this subject. Either bill could lead to some culling of dairy cattle. But the compromise bill now includes the Harkin amendment with positive. effective tools for HI 9525 use by the Secretary of Agriculture to protect thle livestock industry. The Conable amendment would provide no protection at all if culling rates should be high. In comparison again. the Conable amendment is just not good enough. What about promoting sales of milk products to help produce some improvement in consumer demand? The compromise bill contains a program to move in this area. The Conable amemdment has nothing. Once more. the Conable amendment Is not good enough. Finally. some of my colleagues have been concerned by the fact that some farm organizations back the Coniable amendmentand by the fact that the Secretary of Agriculture now says he likes the Conable amendment. I would like to remind the committee that the Secretary earlier had taken part in negotiating the compromise and had indicated his support for that legislation. And just last week. after he had written to the minority leader in support of the Conable amendment. the Secretary also stated publicly that he thinks either bill would solve the dairy problem. I do niot believe that the Conable amendment would solve the program as effectively. But I am glad to see that. even now. the Secretary agrees- that the compromise bill. which his Department helped to work out. will do the Job. As for farm organizations. some of them do back the Conable amendment. But the National Grange is against it. and so is the National Farmers Organization. the National Farmers Union. the American Agriculture Movement. the National Milk Producers Federation and several major dairy farm cooperatives. In addition. I am informed that a number of country and State farm bureau units are not backing the Conable amendment. Finally. this adds up to a simple and basic issue. Both the compromise bill and the Conable amendment are aimed at reducing the dairy surplus. but thle compromise bill would do the job far more effectively. The compromise bill will save more money for taxpayers. On top of that. it reduces the support price. so if a support cut can produce any consumer benefit. that benefit would be there. The compromise bill protects the livestock industries. The pompromise bill protects the dairy farmers. far more effectively than the Conable amendment. When you add it all up. the balance Is clear. The Conable amendment is not good enough. and I urge the House to reject it. Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California .