July 27, 1977
Page 25111
H.R. 7171 AND S. 275, THE FARM BILLS OF 1977
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, when the Senate debated S. 275, the farm bill for 1977, a number of Senators who thought that the commodity outlays of the Senate version were too high voted for them anyway in the belief that reductions could be made in conference with the House.
Forty-six Senators voted for my amendment opposing the most costly increase. Those who voted for a costly farm bill they did not really believe in are in for a rude shock. What has actually happened should be a lesson to anyone who believes that one House can abdicate its own budget responsibility.
I am especially disappointed that the administration has capitulated to those advocating ever higher farm income supports. Many Senators believed the President's assurances that he would veto the farm bill if it were as expensive as the Senate bill. Yet it appears that the administration has given in and now accepts spending as much as $2 billion above the level recommended in its budget update just 3 weeks ago. One wonders what further surprises from the President are in store for those of us who believe that this administration is trying to control spending. The message is clear. The Congress must set and stick to its own spending priorities without regard to the shifting positions of the administration.
Now we are faced with the strong possibility of even higher outlays for price supports than provided in the extravagant Senate bill. House actions taken this week on H.R. 7171 will add another $200 million to $300 million for a new sugar entitlement program, as much as $400 million for increased outlays for corn, and increased funding for disaster payments, grain reserves, and other costs.
What this means is that if the high outlay provisions of both Senate and House bills are accepted in conference and enacted into law, we could very likely have agricultural outlays of more than $6 billion in fiscal 1978. This is too much when we are limiting spending for so many needed programs in other parts of the budget.
I join my colleague in the House, Mr. GIAIMO, in saying that we have gone too far. We should not ask American taxpayers to pay for agricultural subsidies for surplus commodities that we cannot sell and sometimes cannot give away. This spending cannot be justified as sound when we have made a national commitment to balance the budget very early in the next decade.
As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee I would like to comment briefly on the budget outlook for the farmbill. I do so in support of remarks made by the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. GIAIMO, who has expressed deep concern about the skyrocketing costs of agriculture income support programs due to congressional action.
Only a few weeks ago, I pointed out to the Senate the possible consequences of the Senate version of the farm bill. At that time I expressed grave concern about some of the provisions of S. 275, particularly the proposed target price for the 1977 wheat crop of $2.90 per bushel, because the best estimates showed that the Senate bill would cause spending for the agricultural function to exceed the first budget resolution target for fiscal1978 by about $800 million.
Forty-five of my colleagues supported my effort to reduce the cost of that bill and I think they, as well as other Members of the Senate will be concerned with what I have to say.
Let me put this into the framework of the congressional budget, which already entails a deficit of over $64 billion. The $4.35 billion outlay target in the first budget resolution for the agriculture function is extremely generous compared to the budget proposed by President Carter on February 22, which requested $2.3 billion for agricultural outlays. Thereafter, Congress added another $2 billion to the administration request in the first budget resolution. This was to take care of later estimates for price supports and other agricultural needs, because we were aware of the severe problems faced by farmers in a time of mounting commodity surpluses, deteriorating prices, and increased costs of production.
Since then the Congressional Budget Office has reestimated outlays for farm price supports and has projected that they will increase by about $400 million above the amounts assumed in the first budget resolution. If we add the increased outlays that would occur in the event the Senate bill were enacted, an increase of $1.2 billion over the first budget resolution agriculture spending and total deficit would be needed.
Beyond fiscal 1978, the House bill is likely to be less costly than the Senate bill. The House has wisely included lower future price support levels and much needed crop limitation provisions which will permit control of the exorbitant costsof future years' farm programs. Forty-two of my colleagues supported my efforts to limit the future costs of farm programs and many more will join me if the conference report does not reduce those costs. If the fiscal 1979 and later year costs of the conference report exceed the House bill, we must make an effort to assure that the Senate and the President reject it.
I want to remind the Senate conferees that among the 51 supporters of the commodity programs in the Senate bill, there were many who expected reductions to be made in the conference in fiscal 1978 costs of farm income support programs. Where the conferees have the opportunity to make reductions, I encourage them to make them. Where the House bill leads to higher fiscal 1978 costs, I encourage the Senate conferees to hold the Senate provisions. If fiscal 1978 costs of the conference report rise above the current estimates of the Senate bill, the Senate should reject the conference report.
The farm bill must be a lesson to anyone who hesitated to take the difficult position of limiting spending in the Senate bill, hoping our colleagues in the House would be more responsible. If we are ever going to put a limit on runaway Federal programs, we must do it here in the Senate. Members of the House must do it there.
So I hope that the Senate conferees will keep a sense of national priorities in mind as they seek to hammer out a conference report that can be sustained inthe Senate. I fully recognize the problems facing our farmers, but if we spend more than can be justified for agriculture, you and I know it will be paid for by the farmers and other citizens of America through a deficit that is presently estimated at over $64 billion. We cannot afford to push this figure any higher and we must not abdicate our solemn obligation to take a responsible course in our spending decisions.