Date: 1995-10-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. and my colleagues. I rise in opposition to the main Gingrich Republican substitute amendment and in favor of what we call the coalition proposal that the gentleman from Texas and others have worked out. Balancing the budget is not an issue everyone Is for. reducing the deficit is not an issue everyone is for. and our section in agriculture though bears a tremendous burden. more than the norm. We have always provided in the past 10 years over $50 billion. If every other committee had done what the Committee on Agriculture has done. we would not be worrying here about reducing the budget or balancing the budget. We have done it. We have done our fair share. But in this case the process I must object to. We have not had a hearing on the freedom to farm. we have not had any discussion. We have had votes in the committee where everything failed. Basically the freedom to farm that is in this proposal has not and does not have the approval of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman. I strongly suggest that it might be well for us in the agriculture sector. in the areas where we impact negatively on Medicare. on Medicaid. that this is not the proper procedure. and I had to go to the Committee on Rules to say. "We have not had the opportunity to handle this. I hope that you do something for us." Unfortunately they did not. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491. and in support of the Democratic substitute. Mr. Chairman. the process of the development of this reconciliation bill has brought us a season of surprises: First. in a year when the No. 1 fiscal priority of the American people is to balance the budget. the Gingrich Republicans propose a $245 billion tax cut: Second. when a primary concern for many Americans revolves around providing health care for their elderly parents. Republicans cut Medicare by $270 billion. and Finallybecause of Republican conflicts over their own prioritiesnational farm policy for the next 7 years has been written in the House Committee on Rules. Mr. Chairman. the 1995 reconciliation process has turned into the sole forum for establishing national farm policy for the next 7 years. In past years. we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberative. allinclusive manner. When weve been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions. the House Agriculture Committee has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. The confusion this year of the policymaking process with the deficit elimination process has led to paralysis in the Agriculture Committee. For the first time ever. the House Agriculture Committee has failed to meet its budget reconciliation obligations. As a resultMr. ChairmanSpeaker GINGRICH and his Rules Committee were given the task of writing farm policy that will take us through 2002. I do want to commend Chairman ROBERTS for his efforts this year. He was placed in an impossible position. The Gingrich Republicans are requiring a 25 percent reduction in agricultural spending in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut. Mr. ROBERTS fought hard earlier this year for that tax cut to be scaled back. but to no avail. We agree that the tax cut is inappropriate and that it leads to farm. program cuts so deep that the viability of our Nations food production system is threatened. Mr. Chairman. Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food. and pay a lower percent of their disposal income for food than any other nation in the industrialized world. I like to think that the House Agriculture Committeeon a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say--has played a constructive role in that success story. Nevertheless. Speaker GINGRICH. the Republican leader. and the Republican whip wrote a letter to Chairman ROBERTS last month. That letter dictated to the Agriculture Committee--in no uncertain termsthe specific policy option the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate--for the committee to obtain the views of farmers. of consumer groups. of the administration. Mr. Chairman. the Freedom to Farm Act included by decree of Speaker GINGRICH in the bill now before the House. was first introduced as a bill in August. Our committee has not held one hearing on it. The details of the dairy portion were only made available in September: same storyno hearings. Mr. Chairman. farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before the House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the government of its roll in sharing the farmers risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that this sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government from sharing their risks may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes. they may know that each year they will get a cash payment. but if prices collapse next year. will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50. how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas. in the Dakotas. in Washington? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents. how many cotton growersspread out all over the Southwill survive? If corn prices are under $2. where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. how many of New Englands dairy farmers can make it? Mr. Chairman. farmers will hope for the best. But if the best doesnt materialize. and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lostwill we feel that it was worth the risk. to have incurred that loss in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut? All these questions. Mr. Chairman. and we have no answersnot even opinions. All we had in the Agriculture Committee this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of the farmers. the consumers. the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculturethose hearings on which weve always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Agriculture Committee. it was dictated by Speaker GINGRICH and Republican Leader ARMEY. Mr. Chairman. it is not easy to figure out where we went wrong this year but I do know this: The most basic needs of our society are at stake and we are nowhere near to a consensus on where we should go. The paralysis of the Agriculture Committee and the dissension within the majority party make it clear that we need to start over again. We need to support the Democratic substitute and if that fails. we need to vote this bill down and start again. The American people dont want this bill and many American farmers will not survive this bill. A rightthinking bipartisan majority defeated this proposal in the Agriculture Committee. Many of my colleagues on the Republican side know that the agriculture title in this bill is wrong. I urge them to resist the Speakers pressure and to join with us. to oppose this bill today. and to work with us in trying to reach a consensus on a balanced budget that doesnt undermine agriculture. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.