May 24, 1977
Page 16300
Mr. DOLE. First, I commend my distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his vigorous leadership in trying to protect the budget.
Second, I point out that we are concerned about whether or not we can demonstrate a need for a target price of $2.90 for wheat for the 1977 crop or whether it should be $2.65.
Based on the testimony and based on the statements made by a number of Senators on this floor, I do not know of anyone who can produce wheat for $2.90 a bushel.
Let us take a look at the variation in estimated outlays in the First and Third Concurrent Resolutions. They range from $1.9 billion in the First Concurrent Resolution to $4.5 billion in the Third Concurrent Resolution, a variation of $2.6 billion.
You just cannot determine with any great accuracy what the situation is going to be in agriculture, because of the weather, and because of other variations. I suggest as strongly as I can that we are just not talking about the selfish interests of the wheat producers in America. We are talking about food production. There is a certainty of one thing, and that is that the target price at $2.90 is reasonable; the target price of $2.90 is needed. In fact, the target price, as the Senator from Montana said, ought to be higher than $2.90, and that view is shared by the two Senators from Colorado and others on this side.
I say to those who want to support the administration, go back and look at their campaign statement. In 1975, the Senate passed a target price for wheat of $3.46 a bushel. We are just asking for $2.90. It should have the support of the administration instead of resistance from the administration.
I say, on behalf of all wheat producers, in all the 27 States in which wheat is grown that this is a needed amendment. It is not an irresponsible amendment; it is not a budget buster.
We did notify the Budget Committee. This Senator raised it twice in the Budget Committee. We can take care of it in the second concurrent resolution. If we are saying we have to stick to the first concurrent resolution, then we are saying the budget process is meaningless.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, may we have order, so that we can hear the Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MUSKIE. This bill provides, over the next 5 years, spending for farm price supports of $24 billion. That is $2 billion more a year over the 4 years following 1978 than was requested by the President's budget. That is $8 billion.
With respect to fiscal 1978, it raises spending above the ceiling for the agricultural function by $0.5 billion, and this just 10 days after the congressional budget has been put in place.
The spending proposed in this bill was not reported to the Budget Committee on March 15 by the Committee on Agriculture. The request did not surface from the Committee on Agriculture, and I put correspondence into the RECORD today to document that, at the time of the budget resolution markup it was not raised on the floor of the Senate at a time when it was appropriate to raise it for those who thought this program was needed. So we did not have the opportunity to discuss it at that time. It will have the effect of raising the deficit for 1978 by $0.5 billion.
I understand the problems of the farmers, and I understand the difficulties of projecting market prices, weather, outlays, and all the rest of it. Those uncertainties plague the budget process, plague the farmer constantly, but that does not absolve us of the responsibility of trying to carry out our responsibilities.
That fact is that the estimates upon which I had reached the budgetary conclusions that I had described are estimates that are concurred in by all of the technicians in OMB, in the USDA, and in the CBO, our own estimating arm. The best estimates are that this bill will breach the budget ceiling.
I agree with the Senator from Kansas that there must be some flexibility between the first and second budget resolutions, but not to the point where the first budget resolution is meaningless. If the first budget resolution exercises no discipline, then whatever discipline is exercised prior to the second budget resolution must be done in individual spending bills like this. What kind of discipline would you guess that would be? It will be no discipline.
I urge the Senate to support my amendment to cut that spending out of this bill.