[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  STATEMENT OF THE HON. EARL POMEROY ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 84

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN R. KASICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 5, 1997

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the views of Representative 
Earl Pomeroy for inclusion in the Congressional Record. Representative 
Pomeroy submitted his views in a timely manner and in accordance with 
the provisions of House Rule XI, clause 2(l)(5). Unfortunately, the 
Government Printing Office inadvertently omitted his name from the 
views that he submitted, which were printed on page 123 of House Report 
105-100, the report to accompany House Concurrent Resolution 84. To 
remedy this oversight, the views of Representative Pomeroy are 
submitted for publication in the Congressional Record:

   The Honorable Earl Pomeroy Fiscal Year 1998 Congressional Budget 
               Resolution Additional Views--May 17, 1997

       I want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     Committee for their outstanding efforts in forging this 
     bipartisan balanced budget agreement. I am pleased to support 
     this agreement that balances the federal budget in five years 
     while protecting important national priorities including the 
     education of our children and quality health care for our 
     senior citizens. Importantly, the agreement also provides tax 
     relief for middle income working families.
       While I support this budget resolution, I am seriously 
     concerned about the lack of funding allocated to the 
     discretionary account for agriculture, function 350. The 
     resolution assumes a cut of $1.4 billion below a freeze for 
     agriculture over the next five years. Without adjusting for 
     inflation, agriculture spending will be $400 million lower in 
     2002 than in 1997. In real dollar terms, discretionary funds 
     for agriculture will be cut by more than 22 percent under 
     this budget agreement. Unfortunately, several additional 
     factors will constrain agriculture investment even further.
       In 1994, Congress enacted sweeping reforms of the federal 
     crop insurance program by providing catastrophic crop failure 
     coverage to all producers and deleting the authority for 
     congressional provision of ad hoc disaster assistance. As 
     part of this crop insurance agreement, the federal 
     reimbursement to private companies for the sales and service 
     of crop insurance was to be provided for three years from the 
     crop insurance fund, a mandatory expenditure account in the 
     federal budget. Previously, half of the reimbursement had 
     been provided in the agriculture appropriations bill as a 
     discretionary expenditure.
       Under the 1994 agreement, provision of the traditionally 
     discretionary half of the delivery cost reimbursement was to 
     be resumed by the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in 
     the 1998 appropriations bill. The problem we now face is that 
     the Congressional Budget Office baseline contains no 
     projection for this delivery cost reimbursement because it 
     was not provided in the 1997 appropriations act.
       The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is further 
     burdened in 1998 with requirements to offset $350 million of 
     expenditures in the food stamp program that was displaced by 
     prior enactment of last year's welfare reform bill. In 
     addition, there is an expectation that $375 million more will 
     be required for the WIC program.
       Adding together the $350 million for foods stamps, $375 
     million for WIC and $200 million needed to provide the sales 
     and service of crop insurance, the Agriculture Subcommittee 
     is expected to be $900 million over their 1997 allocation, 
     which would be the basis for establishing the 1998 
     allocation. To reflect the 1994 crop insurance agreement, the 
     discretionary expenditure in function 350 would have to be 
     increased by $200 million in FY98 and by $1.1 billion through 
     FY02.
       Agriculture programs have already been reduced more than 
     any other function of government. I would like to remind my 
     colleagues that American agriculture provides this nation 
     with the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food 
     supply in the world. In addition, agriculture exports 
     contribute more toward a positive trade balance than any 
     other sector of the economy. It is vitally important that we 
     not abandon federal investment in agriculture research, trade 
     and other programs to the detriment of American farmers, 
     consumers and our national economy.

     

                          ____________________