Date: 1993-05-27
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Chairman. this Is a very difficult vote for all of us here In the House. This is an espedally difficult vote for those of us who represent rural districts around the country. In this bill we have yet another round of budget cuts In our vital farm and rural programs. Then there is this energyBtu tax which will be felt by practically every person and every business across rural America. It would be easy for a Member from a rural district to vote "no" on this bill. Voting against tax increases Is always popular back home. There are groups who always give you an award for voting against any tax increaseseven while they tell Congress to reduce the deficit. Voting for budget cuts in programs Is always popular back home tooas long as you also vigorously defend the programs that matter most to your districts Interests. Some of the taxpayer groups give out awards for being a porkbuster. But nobody gives you an award for raising taxes and cutting spending--even if it may be In our Nations best interests at this time. Some are going to argue that Democrats In Congress cut farm programs to increase food stamp spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. The budget resolution stipulated $2.95 billion in reductions in mandatory agriculture spending and $627 million in authorization reductions over the next 5 years. Some of the other side will claim the Agriculture *Committee could have reduced the food stamp funding increase by $3 billion and that would have eliminated the need for any farm program cuts. That will sound good back home. But it is not true. The food stamp provisions are not scored as mandatory spending. If that Republican amendment would have been adopted. it would have resulted in no budget savings by the House Agriculture Committee. The House would have imposed budget cuts on agriculture. We met the budget resolution targets in this reconciliation bill. As long as I am chairman. the Committee on Agriculture will fight the good fight on budget priorities. but we will always respect and abide by the final decision of the Congress on the budget resolution. Another misleading argument put out by the other side is that this $2.95 billion reduction in agriculture programs will. cripple the farm economy. Let there be no question. it will be painful. But I recall that Republican administrations for the past 12 years wanted to decimate agriculture programs. They asked Congress in 1990 to slash agriculture spending by more than $22 billion between fiscal 199195. Let us set the record straight. The Kasich substitutethe Republican substitute--will cut farm programs by half again as much as the Democratic bill. The Kasich substitute will reduce farm program spending by $4.5 billion over 5 years. H.R. 2264 represents a reduction of less than 6 percent from baseline farm program spending. Irs the best deal farmcountry has gotten in more than 12 years. None of us want to vote for a tax Increase. However. the package represented by the bill before the House today gives the opportunity to reverse the path of annual deficit increases in a fair and evenhanded- way. The table below was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and demonstrates that. taken as a whole. H.R. 2264 fairly spreads the burden of deficit reduction.