Date: 1982-08-10
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. first. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that this substitute. which I assume represents the consensus judgment of the minority members of the Agriculture Committee. adopts the provisions of the committee bill in almost all cases. This means that we now have a bipartisan consensus in favor of the committees proposals to help reduce surpluses and improve market prices for grains. This means that we now have a bipartisan consensus in favor of the committee proposals. to reduce dairy surpluses and the cost of the dairy support program. This means that we now have a bipartisan consensus in favor to the committees proposals for standby programs for cotton and rice. And. finally. this means that we now have a bipartisan consensus in favor of almost all the imprtant decisionsrepresented in the committees proposals for food stamps. When you look at the substitute. Mr. Chairman. you find that it embraces about 95 percent of the committee bill. The only difference is that the substitute includes three additional cuts in the food stamp program. I am encourged by the fact that both I and the ranking minority member of our committee can stand before you together and urge the House to adopt 95 percent of the cornmittee bill. Now. I want to urge the House to adopt that remaining 5 percent. I want to urge the House to defeat the substitute because I believe that the proposed additional cuts in food stamps would do far more harm than good. To begin with. Mr. Chairman. Members should ask themselves this questionare the additional proposed cuts needed in order to meet the Agriculture Committees reconciliation goal? The answer isno. The committee bill as it stands makes cuts in spending which go 40 percent beyond our reconciliation goal. If even more reductions were desirable. I would support them for their own sake. but this is not the case with these amendments. One of these amendments proposes a change in the treatment of people and families which apply for food stamps under the socalled "expedited services" provision. The amendment would try to save $15 million in fiscal 1983 by setting up new requirements and by allowing delays of up to 5 daysinstead of the current 2 or 3in providing expedited service. Mr. Chairman. the House should remember why we have expedited service in the first place. It is designed for people who are suddenly thrown out of work and have no resources to tide themselves over with. This is for people who will go hungry unless they get food stamps inunediately. We have tightened the food stamp program repeatedly in recent years and we are doing so again in several portions of this bill. But when we tighten the program. we should do so in a way which avoids harm to the truly needy people who need this food stamp help and who are fully eligible for it. The amendment. if adopted. could result in denying food to fully eligible people at a time when they need food desperately. You may say that the amendment could delay food assistance for only. a few days. Mr. Chairman. if you are hungry. and if you are a migrant family and have no money to buy food for yourself and your children. a few days can be a very long time. Another portion of the subsitute proposes to stiffen penalties which are imposed on States which do not reach the targets we set for them. In this connection. we should remember that the committee bill already proposes such increases in penalties against States which do not meet targetsthe amendment. however. would make those penalties stiffer than those in the committee bill. Nobody disagrees with the basic fact that we want the States to reduce their error rates. We want to encourage them to make progress by providing a financial incentivea reduction in the amount of money they get for administrative costs. This is. frankly. part of a carrot and stick approach. The substitute amendment on this issue. however. turns the stick into a cannon. It would cut administrative payments to States dollar for dollar for all stamp errors above target rates which would reach 5 percent in fiscal 1985. This could amount. in a sense..to transferring the cost of the food stamp program from the Federal Government to the States. The penalty provisions of the substitute are so harsh that I am afraid they might be counterproductive. It is pos. sible that. although .they are intended to save money. they might save less money than a more practical approach like the one which is already in the committee bill. I share with the backers of the sub. stitute a desire to reduce food stamp errors as much as possible. I am convinced. however. that. the committee bill on this point is more practical and will reach our mutual goal more effectively. * For these reasons. Mr. Chairman. I urge defeat of the substitute amendment. The result will be a bill on which we have a bipartisan consensus already in place on all but a few amendments. It will be a bill which I believe practically all of us can suppcrt. With that. Mr. Chairman. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.