[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H9651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE MUST BE ALLOWED TO PERFORM ITS WORK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a very alarming happening
occurred in the House Agriculture Committee. For the first time in
recollection, the leadership of this House took away the prerogative of
the Agriculture Committee for doing its work, in this case on a
reconciliation bill. It was not that the Agriculture Committee was not
trying to do its work, and I take great exception to a statement that
was made by the chairman that says, ``This situation, which has caused
the differences of opinion, has been made more difficult because our
Democratic colleagues have opted for a destructive role in the
process.'' I do not see how anyone could make that statement with a
clear conscience.
Mr. Speaker, we had a Democratic alternative, we have a Democratic
alternative, and we will fight for that alternative, and that
alternative for the budget reconciliation process says that basically
we think $400 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid are excessive,
that the additional cuts in education being proposed are excessive, and
that the $13.4 billion in cuts from agricultural programs are excessive
when they are used for purposes of granting a tax cut. We will show on
this floor that there is an alternative and we hope that there will be
21 votes for that alternative.
However, yesterday the leadership of this body decided that unless
the Agriculture Committee reports a politically correct solution, we do
not want to see it. That is disturbing.
{time} 1800
No witnesses have ever been called on the Freedom to Farm Act. I am
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities. I
was never informed that there were ever considered to be hearings on
the Freedom to Farm Act. The only time we heard about it is when it
came from the leadership of this body in suggesting that that is the
way we ought to go to the reconciliation committee.
We have a Democratic alternative. It was voted on in the Ag Committee
and it was voted down predictably because we do not have the votes and
I understand that. But I think it stretches the point when we say when
there were 2 Republicans who offered an alternative and some of us who
even disagreed with the 13.4, the majority of Democrats voted for a
bipartisan substitute, but we were unable to get votes from the
Republicans for that. It stretches the imagination and it stretches the
truth when we read and we hear what is going on.
It bothers me greatly when the leadership of this House suggests to
the Committee on Agriculture that unless you do our will, our bidding,
we may even consider eliminating the Committee on Agriculture, and put
it in writing.
Now, I do not know what is going on, but as a Member of this body who
has traditionally participated in bipartisan action, who shares the
frustration of the American people that we are constantly fighting
Democrats and Republicans, I do not know what is happening in this body
now when the hand of bipartisanship is not being offered, in fact it is
being cut off regularly.
When we look at what happened yesterday in the Committee on
Agriculture, it is a very disturbing trend. I hope that as we proceed
now to the budget reconciliation that the general public will begin to
understand there are alternatives out there, there are ways to balance
the budget by the year 2002, and it does not require gutting rural
America, health care, it does not require an absolute total change in
philosophy of farm programs.
Let us never forget for a moment, are we not all blessed to live in a
country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of
food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost of any other country in
the world, warts and all? All of the criticism we are hearing from the
editorial boards that agree with the Freedom to Farm Act because they
want to eliminate farm policy, should we the American people not stop
for just a moment and say, maybe just maybe American agriculture is
doing a few things right? And not have to follow blindly a
philosophical leadership of this House that does not have a clue about
farm policy and agriculture but has a great philosophical belief that
somehow, someway by eliminating farm programs we are going to do
better?
It is not a budget question, it is a philosophical question. The
sooner we start debating these things on this floor and in the
Committee on Agriculture and not getting mad and taking our bat and
going home, the sooner we will get on with the kind of policies
required for this country to see that we continue to have this abundant
food supply.
____________________