Date: 1991-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman. this is a statement I wish I did not have to make. This is a place I would rather not be at this time. I say it with some degree of sadness in my heart. because I am going to be speaking about procedure and usurpation of prerogatives of committees. But first. for all my colleagues. I concur with what has been said about what this bill does in a positive way. For example. there is much criticism about how much we spend for farm programs which has led to countless editorials. But lets look at the budget. Here it is graphically. The red is the total budget. The tiny little line at the bottom. 0.63 percent of the total budget. is what we spent for agricultural programs. So let no one point the finger. We are the best fed people in the world. in the history of the world. for the least amount of disposable income per family. And this is what the Federal Government spends. So I want to start with that premiseto look at the positive side and commend all my colleagues who have worked on this endeavor. Then let me say. as mentioned by the gentleman from New York . all the positive programs. the WIC and all the nutrition programs. So that our colleagues can see. on the right. this is almost onehalf. on the left. I guess as you see it. that is what we do for women and children. These are the domestic nutrition programs. There is still hunger in America. but not because we have not tried. We still have to do more. So only this part here is commodity programs. I wanted to start from that premisewhat we have done positively. what we have done together. the Agriculture Committee and my distinguished colleagues from the Appropriations Committee. Now let me get to the point that I wish I did not have to make. but as chairman of the committee I have an obligation and I have a responsibility. and it must be said. There are many areas where all the Appropriations Committee. sometimes the subcommittees. legislate. In some. it is done probably positively. some with good intentions in their hearts. but sometimes it penalizes the authorizing committee. And then we use the report language. For example. in this report. and this is legal. you cannot object to It. but there is an instruction basically having to do with the Farm Credit System. A Farm Credit System that works to provide funds for rural America and for farmers. The report says that the Committee on Appropriations "expects the Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Jackson to submit a plan under which it will merge to form a farm credit bank for the fifth [farm credit] district." This bypasses the regulator. This is a usurpation of power. my dear friends. Out there they may misinterpret this report as law. so it is my responsibility and my obligation as chairman of the authorizing committee to emphasize that this report language has no force of law and does not reflect the intent of Congress with regard to the statutory authorities of the Farm Credit Administration. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I would urge the Farm Credit Administration to ignore this language and to implement the law as it has been approved by the Congress and signed by the President. That is one of the areas that we have concern about. I say that if they are going to take the report as law. then what I say has the same Impact in law. Mr. Chairman. I rise. as I have in the past when the agricultural appropriations bill has been considered by this House. to reaffirm the fact that report language accompanying this bill is merely advisory in nature. does not have the force of law. and should not be interpreted to broaden. narrow. or otherwise affect the application of authorization statutes. This year the report to accompany H.R. 2698 includes language indicating that the Committee on Appropriations expects the Farm Credit Administration. the armslength. independent regulator for the Federal Farm Credit System. to submit to the Congress a plan for the consolidation of the 11 Federal farm credit banks. Unfortunately. the report language also states that one Farm Credit System institution. the Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Jackson. should be given preferential treatment in this process by the Farm Credit Administration. According to the report language. the Committee on AppropriationsExpects the Federal Intermediate Cedit Bank of Jackson to submit a plan under which It will merge to form a Farm Credit Bank for the Fifth Farm Credit District. subject to stockholder votes. The Farm Credit Administration will then include this bank in its consolidation plan. Mr. Chairman. this report language. if heeded by the regulator. would create a dangerous precedent in the regulation of financial institutions. It implies that the Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Jackson should be able to dictate to its Federal regulator how and under what conditions it will merge to create a new farm credit bank. The language also suggests that a new farm credit bank be chartered. thus increasing the overhead costs that must be borne by Farm Credit System borrowers. If this precedent were to be extended to other armslength financial regulators It would allow individual banks. savings and loans. and other governmentinsured financial institutions to dictate to their regulators whether they should be allowed to merge with other institutions. or whether the parochial interests of individual committees of the Congress should be allowed to override the statutory requirement that these financial institutions be regulated in accordance with modern standards of safety and soundness. In 1985. 1986. and 1987. the Congress approved legislation to provide for the consolidation of Farm Credit System institutions and to establish an independent. comprehensive. armslength regulator for the Farm Credit System. The Department of the Treasury and the General Accounting Office agree with me that. on the whole. this modern regulatory system has worked well. The report language I described earlier. if heeded by the regulator. would place the interests of one Farm Credit System institution above the interests of the rest of the System and the taxpayer. This is contrary to the concept of armslength financial regulation. This is bad public policy. It is bad regulatory policy. And the precedent it sets. if allowed to stand. does not bode well for the regulation of the Nations financial institutions. It is especially frustrating for me as the chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction to see this happen. I regret that I must emphasize that this report language has no force of law and does not reflect the intent of Congress with regard to the statutory authorities of the Farm Credit Administration. I would urge the Farm Credit Administration to ignore this language and to implement the law as it has been approved by the Congress and signed by the President. With regard to the broader issue of the regulation of the Farm Credit System. section 13501 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires the authorizing committees with jurisdiction over Governmentsponsored enterprises to report legislation to ensure the financial soundness of Governmentsponsored enterprises and to minimize the possibility that such enterprises might require future assistance from the Government. The Department of the Treasury. the General Accounting Office. the Congressional Budget Office. and the Farm Credit Administration have all submitted recommendations to the Committee on Agriculture in this regard. The Committee on Agriculture has held hearings on the matter. Other authorizing committees in the Hosue have done likewise. The report language accompanying this bill attempts to circumvent this congressionally approved process and give one financial institution a preference in determining its fate in the recommendations made to Ccngress by Its regulator. This attempt to place parochial concerns above sound financial regulation runs contrary to the mandate that the Farm Credit Administration regulate system institutions in accordance with law. If the report language described above had been included in the bill we are considering today. it would have been subject to a point of order for legislating on an appropriations bill. Report language seeking to achieve these ends does not have the force of law. nor does it affect current authorities. If it did. it would be subject to the same point of order. Mr. Chairman. I am concerned. very concerned. that ad hoc mandates such as this. not properly studied by the committees of jurisdiction. could achieve an opposite result than the one sought. In the Instant case. an attempt to assist one financial institution could endanger the safety and soundness of the entire Farm Credit System. If similar dictates were applied to other Federal financial regulators. similar threats to the Nations financial system could result. That is my concern. I have no quarrel with the distinguished chairman of the committee on Appropriations. whom I respect and admire. I know that in his heart he is always trying to do what is best. I would hope that as we continue to work in the future. the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and members of the Committee on Appropriations know and understand that we are readily available. that we are interested in cooperating with them. that we are willing to work with them in good faith on matters of mutual concern. and that there is no problem that. together. we cannot resolve for the benefit of those whom we attempt to serve. Then over in the conservation area. the Agriculture Committee passed. approved by the House. approved by the Senate. signed by the President. a wetlands program that we hope will be able to help rural America in conservation and all the areas that we are concerned with in the environment. June .28. 1991 The legislation says that the law shall be ignored. that there should be a study made to better define the cost benefits. It is not appropriating funds. We know and we submit to the fact that the Appropriations Committee has the sole authority to appropriate or not to appropriate. This is not our problem. The problem is that even though this is a mandated program. the Appropriations Committee may choose not to appropriate funds. But this Is basically Instructing an agency not to do something which was required in the basic law. That is not right. Then we have the Rural Development Administration that was passed by the committee. approved by the House. approved by the Senate. signed by the President. the law of the land. This bill says that no funds shall be used to implement. period. because we do not like it. Well. it has been approved by the House. it has been approved by the Senate. been signed by the President. If no funds had been authorized. fine. We subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of the distinguished Committee on Appropriations. That is not our problem. But It is when you say now. "Thou shalt not implement." no funds under this bill shall be used. Mr. Chairman. I am talking about some very sensitive matters. But these are matters. my colleagues. that have to be addressed. Maybe the system is wrong. maybe there has been lack of communication. but not from our part. We tried to work with the distinguished chairman. On this issue. we discussed a possible compromise. But he added Insult to Injury. You will see later that he offered a compromise that is legislation on an appropriation bill. which is what we were objecting to. So. my friends. we will have amendments later to the Rural Development Administration and to the wetlands issue. I say again. I say this with pain in my heart. that I have do do this. that I have to represent the interests of you. the Members. who rely on the authorizing committees to do what you think and what we collectively think is best for our Nation and for rural America. The problems of the big cities. they begin in rural America. What the distinguished chairman said about what is happening in rural America. that is true. I agree. But to thwart the law authorizing beyond not appropriating. I think is not right. I plead with my Members to support us on the amendments. to do things right and then all of us will be traveling in the same vehicle. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my distinguished colleagues for yielding me the time. both the gentleman from New Mexico and the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman. in the Food. Agriculture and Conservation Act of 1990the 1990 farm billCongress authorized funding for a targeted program to help communities facing health risks due to inadequate water or waste services. I was pleased to play a key role in developing this program. and I was particularly proud that language was included at my urging to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to give preference to improving water and waste services for residents of colonlas. As some of my colleagues know. colonias are unincorporated subdivisions found in States along the United StatesMexico border. Living conditions in many of these colonlas are quite distressing and it was our hope that Federal funding to improve basic services in these areas would be given a higher priority. In the agriculture appropriations bill. I am pleased to see increased funding is provided to the overall Rural Water and Waste Progran I am also pleased that report language expresses the Appropriations Committee intent that Farmers Home Administration provide priority assistance to colonias. However. I am concerned that language in the appropriations bill may be construed by the Department of Agriculture as a prohibition on grants and loans for hookups for eligible residents of areas that face severe health risks. Section 306C of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act specifically provides authority for USDA to make grants and loans to eligible applicants for hookups. and I trust the Department will provide this muchneeded assistance. I will continue to work with the Department of Agriculture on this issue and do everything I can to direct funding to the very real needs of the thousands of lowincome people who live in the colonias along the border.