Speech #1050108453

So there will be. in the practical world. no net gain for ag research. My second objection is that the source of the savings in the mandatory spending is the food stamp program. And while I certainly agree that States should not be able to double bill the Federal Government for food stamp administrative costs. there are other pressing needs in the food stamp arena that ought to be met. including restoring food stamp benefits to legal refugees. including the Hmong veterans who fought sidebyside with American troops during the Vietnam war. Thirdly. even if full savings were not needed to restore food stamp benefits to immigrants or refugees. there are other mandatory spending issues that the authorizing committee ought to be addressing. in my view. rather than raiding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. I would point out that spending $200 million a year for sales commissions in the .crop insurance program means that there will be less discretionary money spent for important agricultural research programs. and I think that the authorizing committee ought to fix that problem before they set up new mandatory spending programs. So I would simply say to Members who have asked me about whether they should vote for this bill or not.