[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E769-E770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         TAXPAYERS, TIGHTEN YOUR BELT TO PAD INDUSTRY'S PURSE?

                                 ______


                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 4, 1995
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as Congress nears the end of 
the first 100 days, let us examine some of the choices the new 
Republican majority has made to find ways to reduce the Federal 
deficit. In January, the Republican majority passed its balanced budget 
amendment without explaining to the American citizens which Federal 
programs will be sacrificed for the sake of deficit control. The 
Republican's rescissions bill, however, provided a glimpse of the 
programs on the chopping block, those which provide summer jobs for our 
youth, those which provide housing for the elderly and poor, those 
which provide community service volunteer placements in our inner 
cities, and those which provide healthy lunches for our schoolchildren. 
This week, Republicans would widen the gap between the rich and the 
middle-class by passing a healthy tax break for the wealthiest members 
of society.
  Of course, reducing our $4 trillion deficit is a responsibility for 
all Americans. However, if the average American thinks that everyone is 
equally sharing the burden of balancing the budget, it's time for a 
wake-up call. While many Americans will have to learn to do more with 
less and while many worthwhile Federal programs are facing the 
Republican firing squad, some industries have been granted clemency 
from deficit reduction efforts. The mining, grazing, timber and 
agricultural industries, which use Federal mineral resources and 
operate on public lands, continue to shamelessly receive billions of 
taxpayer dollars in Federal subsidies each year, and Republicans plan 
to do nothing to ensure Americans a better return for their resources.
  I'd like to submit for the Record and urge my colleagues to read a 
March 27 op ed by Mr. Jim Gogek that highlights some of the 
circumstances under which public resource industries continue to 
receive Federal handouts. In his San Diego Union-Tribune editorial, Mr. 
Gogek describes some of the egregious Federal policies that pad the 
pockets of natural resource development companies with billions of 
dollars each year.
  Understandably, the taxpayers are outraged by these massive handouts 
to multimillion dollar industries and are calling for an end to 
corporate welfare, but most Republicans appear indifferent to their 
demands. How much longer will the taxpayer have to watch the new 
majority in Congress cut valuable programs in order to pay for timber 
sales in our national forests that lose money? How much longer will 
large mining companies be able to extract gold and silver from our 
public lands for only $2.50 an acre? How much more money in subsidized 
irrigation must we give to huge agribusinesses for surplus crops? How 
much longer will we allow the annual giveaway of hundreds of millions 
of dollars to ranchers in the forms of cheap grazing leases and free 
livestock feed? How much longer must we all tighten our belts so that 
these industries, many of which are not even controlled by American 
citizens, may continue to grow rich from our tax dollars?
  In February 1995, I introduced the Public Resources Deficit Reduction 
Act, legislation which will recover more than $3 billion a year lost 
through these unreasonable Federal subsidies. I am pleased that 44 
other Members, from both sides of the aisle, have joined me as co-
sponsors of this legislation which will end this corporate welfare. As 
Congress continues to work toward increasing fiscal accountability and 
boosting returns to the Treasury, I urge my colleagues to consider 
joining us in our efforts to achieve fair-market value for the use of 
the public's resources.
           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 27, 1995]

              Big Agriculture Also Drains the Federal Till

                             (By Jim Gogek)

       My Republican colleagues promise that House GOP members 
     will soon begin taking 
     [[Page E770]]  on federal subsidies to business--dubbed 
     ``corporate welfare''--now that they have cut funding for 
     such social programs as job training, drug courts, vocational 
     education, summer jobs for kids, housing for the poor and 
     elderly and food subsidies for low-income women, infants and 
     children.
       San Diego's freshman Republican, Rep. Brian Bilbray, was 
     here recently and made the same promise: Subsidies are next 
     on the block. However, he admitted that it might be a tough 
     battle cutting some agriculture-related items, such as the 
     $500 million ethanol subsidy that goes mostly to one company 
     in Illinois.
       Big Ag greases the skids in Washington as well as anybody. 
     The constituency favoring corporate subsidies has a lot more 
     money for greasing than does the poor people's constituency. 
     So don't hold your breath.
       Here in California, federal subsidies are themselves a cash 
     crop. Central Valley agriculture floats on the federal dole. 
     Timber, mining and ranching operations also belly up to the 
     trough. These are the same folks, by the way, who vehemently 
     oppose any government regulation on their land. But they have 
     no problem accepting a government handout.
       Let's take a look at some of California's natural resource 
     subsidies, starting with agriculture:
       The Central Valley Project, a huge federal project that 
     provides water to farmers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento 
     valleys, has cost taxpayers between $34 billion and $70 
     billion since passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 
     according to the Congressional Budget Office.
       Of the nearly $1 billion spent just to construct its 
     irrigation facilities, only about $50 million has been paid 
     back by users.
       Central Valley Project water districts pay a fraction of 
     the full cost of water. According to a 1991 federal study, 
     Westlands Water District paid $8 per acre-foot of water whose 
     full cost was actually about $46 per acre-foot.
       Some federally subsidized water goes to irrigate surplus 
     crops, which receive an agriculture subsidy. A federal study 
     in 1986 found that California crops receiving subsidized 
     water were also getting nearly $500 million in crop 
     subsidies.
       One of the nation's largest corporate farms, J.G. Boswell 
     Co., tills about 192,000 acres in the Central Valley that are 
     irrigated with federally subsidized water.
       Farmers receiving federally subsidized water are 
     negotiating contracts to sell that water to cities like San 
     Diego--at market prices.
       Besides water and crop subsidies, most Central Valley farms 
     benefit from subsidized power from government-built 
     hydroelectric dams to pump subsidized water to their fields. 
     Some farms also receive millions to help market products 
     overseas.
       Over the last decade, $1.3 billion in agriculture subsidy 
     checks were mailed, not to rural areas but to major cities 
     and their suburbs, where corporate farms and absentee farmers 
     have their offices. San Diego received $11.8 million, Los 
     Angeles $10.8 million and San Francisco $13.9 million. 
     Sacramento received $102 million. A corporation based in 
     Rancho Bernardo got almost $1 million for a farm in Montana.
       Those are only some of the agricultural subsidies in 
     California alone. Imagine the cumulative sum we pay for the 
     whole nation.
       Then there are subsidies for grazing, mining and timber. 
     Here's a few goodies:
       The National Forest Service alone incurred $557 million in 
     net losses in 1993 in timber sales, grazing leases and mining 
     subsidies.
       A 120-year-old mining law doesn't require royalties based 
     on the value of metal ores taken from federal land. The only 
     payment for ownership of a claim is a fee of between $2.50 to 
     $5 an acre. A mining company holds a claim to a huge platinum 
     strike in national forests in Montana estimated to be worth 
     $32 billion. The federal government will receive at most 
     about $10,000 for patenting the claims and acreage fees.
       Ranchers pay $1.86 a month per animal unit, which equals 
     one cow and calf or four sheep, to graze on public land. The 
     fee on private property is $10 a month. Federal grazing 
     leaseholders are allowed to sublease their land--at a 
     substantial profit. Many leaseholders are huge corporate 
     ranchers. One rancher in California leases 5 million 
     subsidized acres in California, Nevada and Wyoming.
       In California alone, the private use of publicly owned 
     timber, grazing and mineral resources on national forest 
     property resulted in a $34 million net loss for taxpayers in 
     1993.
       Not all public subsidies to business are bad. Some, such as 
     certain research subsidies for medicine and science, return 
     much greater social benefits than the original cash outlay 
     could buy.
       But providing millions of dollars to wealthy corporate 
     farms? Giving away billions in valuable minerals and timber 
     on public land? And perhaps worst of all, subsidizing the 
     destruction of our forests, wilderness, grasslands and 
     fisheries?
       What do you call a public policy that does all that while 
     at the same time slashes funds for summer jobs for kids? I 
     can think of several words, but this is a family newspaper.
     

                          ____________________