Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. and I take this time on behalf of out committee to thank all the Members for their attendance and attention to this very important amendment. Again. Mr. Chairman. I ask my colleagues to stay with the committee. We labored long and hard. This process began at the beginning of last year. We had hearings throughout the country. and then. at the be- ginning of July we began the markup process. Unfortunately. . we find ourselves here on the floor at this late date. at this point in time. due to the budget process. of having to comply with the budget requirements. Our fiscal 1986 budget was not finished until August. and that is why we were forced to wait until now to bring the bill to the floor. But at last. the long process is nearing an end. There are great philosophical differences on one issue or another before the House. but let me say that where we are now is that we have on the extreme right a submission of the President that was not embraced by anyone. We have on the extreme left a proportion that would be mandatory for everyone and would include. nonetheless. a referendum. but would not be acceptable to the Houseas was seen by the action on the proposal offered by our colleague. the gentleman from Missouri . Then we go toward the center. and somewhat to the right we have what came from the subcommittee. a more or less standard loan rate and target price. with some modifications. freezing target levels and trying not to reduce income. which has been our intent all along. Then on the other side of that center line we have the proposal by our distinguished colleague. the gentleman from Iowa . So we have then. I would say. the best of two worlds. We have a proposition. the norni. from the subcommittee which would be a fallback to the proposition offered by the gentleman from Iowa. and this would then.give the farmers an opportunity to vote. I am not going to discuss who votes and who does not vote under the Bedell proposal. Perhaps even that could be refined later. The issue is. again. that agriculture is in very difficult circumstances. and I have said. and someone may wonder if I am changing position. and I am not. that we cannot do radical surgery. It is too much of a risk. too much of a gamble. This proposal is not new. It has been tried before. but certainly it -is an opportunity for us to go the center. to take two routes. Farmers will choose. Do they go the standard way or do they go this other way. Related provisions regarding exports we have further down the line in another section. Those provisions address how we would utilize the tools of government to try and stabilize the export situation. What we need to do at this point. we have to sell what we produce. We do not produce to store it. whoever pays for it. We have to sell what we produce. Again. I repeat my phrase. It is not a question of supply and demand but. rather demand and supply. We are working toward that end with the committee bill. We are seek ing to anticipate future production trends. Some of the experts predict. Luther Tweeten. for example. predicts. that inbalance of supply and demand would be almost the same from now until the end of the century. almost the same every year. Further. we have to be able to deal with. we should be dealing with. the variable prices weekly. We need the tools to do. this. The Bedell proposal allows us a shorter span of time to deal with the variables In the prices. What the farmer needs is not charity. nor food stamps. Basically. I would say respectfully not even understanding or sympathy. He needs the price for his crop. We do not have unlimited supplies of money. The Treasury does not have unlimited funds to just prop up and pay the farmer for whatever he grows. however much he needs or we need for a reliable supply into the marketplace here and abroad. So that. Mr. Chairman. is very briefly. without passion. just an attempt to state as best I can the facts. We think that we have in the committee version a proposal that is compatible with what we perceive to be.the needs. and now is not the time to turn our backs on the farmer. We need to do something. There are differences of. opinion: You have seen. that there are differences of opinion. But I think. even on a close vote. that it is very difficult for Members from a particular districtit is very hard. Mr. Chairmanto see a farmer or visit with the farmer who tells you with tears in his eyes. "Do something. Do something." This is an attempt to try to do something somewhere near the center in a way that provides the farmers two alternatives. and then let them choose: this or that. I would hope that the membership of the House would support the committee and stay with the committee to allow farmers to make that choice.