Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation in favor of economic opportunity and vitality. The Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] was designed to promote economic opportunity. There have been instances, however, when unintended consequences are revealed. When they do, it is our imperative to correct them properly so that FLSA will be applied consistently and continue to promote basic economic fairness, its original goal. One unintended consequence, however, impacts a major economic force in our country as well as my home State of Idaho: Agriculture. FLSA itself recognizes that agriculture is a special industry and consequently contains numerous exceptions to the applicability of FLSA's ``time-and-a-half-overtime'' provisions. Unfortunately, a sugar beet is deemed ``not a vegetable'' under FLSA. As a result, no overtime is due a farmer's workers if the farmer transports sugar beets from his fields to the processing plant. If a farmer stockpiles his sugar beets in an effort to be more efficient and then contracts transportation with a hauler to bring these same vegetables to that same plant, however, the hauler is nevertheless required to pay his drivers overtime. This occurs even though those plant workers are also exempt from FLSA's overtime provisions. The scenario is not hypothetical; it occurs regularly to one constituent of mine who has for years been involved in the annual beet haul involving sugar beets. Ironically, applying FLSA to the beet haul actually lowers the compensation that his truck drivers are actually paid. In Idaho, the beet haul requires farmers to stockpile their crops in beet piles and await the processor's delivery instructions. Once processing begins, it is a 24-hour-per-day, 7 days a week affair, lasting from late September until early January. The most economically advantageous method--to both drivers and their employer--for compensating beet haul drivers is to pay them by the load. Truck drivers who want to work, hustle loads; they are rewarded for the diligent work ethic. The less motivated worker earns less. Unfortunately, with respect to my constituent--and my constituent alone--the Department of Labor has insisted that FLSA's overtime provisions apply to the beet haul. In theory, FLSA requires all beet haul operations to pay ``time-and- a-half.'' In reality, my constituent's competitors never have been required to comply with this FLSA provision; that competitor still pays by the load. This is despite the fact that both hauling entities are regulated by the Federal Department of Transportation. The competitor hauls a small percentage from beet piles located in Oregon--that is the only difference. This circumstance harms my constituent since his diligent workers are paid less under this rule and he must still absorb higher labor costs. This disparate treatment has caused my constituent to lose his better drivers repeatedly to his competitor. They earn more working by the load; my constituent pays more because he is not treated the same as other beet haulers. One might already assume that FLSA's agricultural exemptions would cure this inequity. It does not: a sugar beet as defined under the act is not a vegetable and therefore, the exemption does not apply, even though a sugar beet is, in fact, a vegetable. Consequently, the beet haul does not enjoy the FLSA agricultural exemption which applies to other agricultural endeavors.This inequality thus requires a definitional, that is, a legislative, solution. The legislation I propose is simple, direct, and in no way will interrupt the overall flow and impact of FLSA. This legislation seeks to include sugar beets as vegetables in FLSA. This legislation will level the playing field and enhance one of the actual goals of the statute: economic fairness.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to stand with my colleague from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] to offer this amendment, which has been an amendment that is required by the vote of the people of Idaho in the last election. This amendment is in the exact language as passed by the people of Idaho in the State initiative on the ballot in November of 1996. The amendment sets the terms for Members in the House of Representatives at three and Members in the Senate at two. These limits are not retroactive. The amendment does not require a constitutional convention, and it does not set a year limit for ratification. In the past I have supported a different term limits measure, one which had a 12-year term limit for the House and a 12-year term limit for the Senate. However, the voting by the people of Idaho as passed this year has declared their will that we as their Representatives in Congress put forward this amendment and the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] and I are doing as instructed by the law of the State of Idaho. Last Congress I supported the McCollum term limits bill that, as I said, supported a 12-year term limit. However, in this Congress I must oppose this bill because of the initiative passed by the people of the State of Idaho which requires me to oppose any term limits measure that does not have the same set of term limit conditions that are included in the initiative that was passed in the State. I am concerned that that might ultimately result in less votes for a term limit measure that may pass the House, and I am concerned and hopeful that the people of not only the State of Idaho but across the Nation will focus on the differences that may be present among us now because of different term limits measures and initiatives that are passed. Hopefully, this problem may not be something that will cause more difficulty for enacting term limits in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 9, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to help remedy a problem that is particularly burdensome to the water delivery companies in the West. Like many seasonal businesses, complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act has become a huge burden to both water delivery companies and their employees. Irrigation has never, nor will it ever be, a 40-hour-a-week job. During peak agricultural months, water must be managed and delivered continually. Later in the year, the work load is light, consisting mainly of maintenance duties. Time off and winter compensation have been the methods of compensating for overtime during these peak agricultural months. Instead of being allowed to offer their employees winter compensation or time off, water delivery companies must now lay off water delivery personnel after the peak agricultural months. Under current law, contained at 29 U.S.C. sec. 213(b)(12), an exemption from the maximum hour requirement exists for employees hired to work in conjunction with water delivery companies that deliver water exclusively for agricultural use. This exemption was designed specifically to address the unique problems faced by water delivery companies when complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the current interpretation of the law, water delivery organizations must deliver their water exclusively for agricultural purposes to qualify. For many water delivery organizations who deliver a small portion of their water for nonagricultural purposes, this interpretation has been disastrous. They are unable to benefit from the exemption even though it was designed with water delivery companies in mind. I am introducing legislation that would expressly set the requirement of water to be ultimately delivered for agriculture purposes at 75 percent. This adjustment more accurately reflects the realities of agricultural water delivery. It would also benefit agricultural employees by making it possible for employers to provide them with year-round compensation rather than seasonal wages.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority of the Congress to the States to regulate water, and for other purposes. Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal water claims in State water courts. However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, and proposed wilderness legislation have all been vehicles used to erode State sovereignty over its water. It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and control of their water and river systems. All rights to water or reservations of rights for any purposes in States should be subject to the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I'm introducing this bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain facilities at the Minidoka project to the Burley Irrigation District. In 1926, under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, Operation and Maintenance of the Distribution System of the Southside Pumping Division of the Minidoka Project was transferred to Burley Irrigation District. The district has operated and maintained the distribution system ever since. In the early 1950's the main southside canal and certain electrical distribution lines were transferred for operation and maintenance to Burley Irrigation District as well. In addition to those transfers the district agreed, under its contracts, to pay to the United States the construction costs incurred in constructing the project and the Minidoka Dam. It also agreed to pay its proportionate share of the construction costs of storage facilities in which the irrigation district attained a right to all water stored in the space acquired by the district in the reservoir. At this time, the Burley Irrigation District has paid in full all construction costs allocated to the district in the storage facilities and all costs incurred in the construction of the distribution system operated and maintained by the district. For 70 years the Burley Irrigation District has demonstrated its competence in operating and maintaining the facilities proposed for title transfer. Clearly they have the technical capability to meet both their physical and financial obligations. For these reasons I am introducing this bill to convey title to the Burley Irrigation District, of Federal reclamation distribution facilities.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide comments on the proposed Cluster rule for the pulp and paper industry, and specifically comments on the EPA's July 15 Federal Register notice. The forest and paper industry provides significant jobs and economic benefits in our State and its local communities. Several of us have communicated with EPA's staff directly in the past to express our concern about the original 1993 proposal. We believe strongly that EPA can, and should be able to achieve important environmental goals without damaging our State and communities. We commend EPA's efforts to improve the proposed rule, first in last spring's Federal Register notice on the MACT portion of the Cluster rule, and most recently in the July 15 notice. We urge you to promptly issue a final Cluster rule that incorporates these and other necessary improvements. One of the many improvements that has been announced for consideration for the final rule is the selection of option A as the basis for best available technology limits. The July 15 notice identifies this option as the most cost-effective, noting that it appears to provide comparable benefits to the more costly option, especially in the area reductions in key pollutant parameters. Improving the cost-effectiveness of the Cluster rule will also help ensure the success of the voluntary incentives program EPA has proposed. We encourage EPA to continue to seek new ways of achieving greater regulatory flexibility. For this new program to succeed, EPA must ensure that the criteria are focused on improvements in environmental measures and the incentives provide meaningful inducements for potential participants. We urge EPA again to move forward promptly to issue a final rule incorporating option A and the other improvements being considered. We believe that such a rule would protect the environment as well as the jobs employing the men and women who support Idaho's local communities.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to come here and support this bipartisan bill. It has been crafted with strong support from both parties throughout the process. I am a little saddened to see the tenure of the debate today because of the issues that have been raised, but let me talk about why this bill is so important for us to move forward. Many of my colleagues know I come from a rural State and, like many of the environmental mandates imposed on our States, the original Safe Drinking Water Act was crafted without the careful consideration of the ramifications that cookie-cutter solutions imposed by Washington will have on the States, the counties and cities across our country. Idaho is home to about a million people, and of the 2,700 water systems in my State, all but 12 have less than 10,000 users. Again and again and again across our State people have asked me to let us use the kinds of scientifically based solutions that will make our drinking water clean without forcing us to spend so much money on the cookie- cutter solutions that do not work. This bill does that. This bill makes it so that no longer will the EPA be forced to regulate from Washington in a way that does not make sense. We will not have to continue to look for contaminants that do not exist on our water, and we can focus on the things that will work. The EPA has estimated that the cost of cleaning up the clean water and the systems in our country will be about $8 billion, and this bill provides a revolving State loan fund that will give us the ability to bring those resources to bear to clean the water across our country. It provides technical assistance for rural water systems like those found in my State, Idaho. It provides for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, and it assures that the public will get clear and accurate information about the effects of contaminations in their population and subgroups and the health risks that they may face. This is the kind of bill that we ought to be linking arms to move forward to pass, and I encourage Members from both sides of the aisle to put aside our differences. Let us again step forward in this Congress and make some significant progress for the clean drinking water of America.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that several things need to be restated. First, this is not a debate over the breeder reactor. Those who oppose this technology have consistently tried to make that connection and falsely so. The argument has been made that this is a budget issue. The fact is that the D.C. Superior Court recently ruled that by 1998 the Department of Energy must take possession of and manage the spent fuel in this country. This is a technology that will help us reduce the volume of the spent fuel and reduce the toxicity of the spent fuel and better manage it. The argument has been made that it is a nonproliferation risk. I do not know whether we are talking about the same technology here, because this does not increase the plutonium, it binds the plutonium so that it cannot be used for weapons grade material, and it makes it ready for storage in safe manners. In fact, as I listened to the debate of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I was convinced that we were literally talking about different technologies. As has been indicated, there are major different scientific groups that support this. I encourage my colleagues to look to those scientists and oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker on June 5, 1996, I was unavoidably detained due to my daughters graduation. I missed rollcall votes: 210, 211, 212, and 213. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on all. Additionally, Mr. Speaker on June 10, 1996 I was unavoidably detained due to illness. I missed rollcall votes: 222, 223, and 224. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to help remedy a problem that is particularly burdensome to the water delivery companies in the West. Like many seasonal businesses, complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act has become a huge burden to both water delivery companies and their employees. Irrigation has never nor will it ever be a 40 hour a week job. During peak agricultural months, water must be managed and delivered continually. Later in the year, the work load is light, consisting mainly of maintenance duties. Time off and winter compensation have been the methods of compensating for overtime during these peak agricultural months. Instead of being allowed to offer their employees winter compensation or time off, water delivery companies must now lay off water delivery personnel after the peak agricultural months. Under current law, contained at 29 U.S.C., sec 213(b)(12), an exemption from the maximum hour requirement exists for employees hired to work in conjunction with water delivery companies that deliver water ``exclusively'' for agricultural use. This exemption was designed specifically to address the unique problems faced by water delivery companies when complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the current interpretation of the law, water delivery organizations must deliver their water ``exclusively'' for agricultural purposes to qualify. For many water delivery organizations who deliver a small portion of their water for nonagricultural purposes, this interpretation has been disastrous. They are unable to benefit from the exemption even though it was designed with water delivery companies in mind. I am introducing legislation that would expressly set the requirement of water to be ultimately delivered for agriculture purposes at 75 percent. This adjustment more accurately reflects the realities of agricultural water delivery. It would also benefit agricultural employees by making it possible for employers to provide them with year-round compensation rather than seasonal wages.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following essay by 16-year-old Meredith Taylor, one of my constituents. Meredith's essay won the Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy Broadcast Scriptwriting Contest. Answering America's Call (By Meredith Taylor) A needy America called--a compassionate America answered. Listen: ``Give me liberty or give me death!'' ``Let the open arms of your Statue of Liberty shelter me from me land's potato famine!'' ``Just one more breath, please. The polio . . . it hurts . . . my iron lung . . . will it last?'' ``Don't whip me, master. Let me be free from slavery!'' ``We have a voice, let us women speak out and vote!'' ``Reporting NASA, this is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!'' ``Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!'' Patrick Henry called for the separation from England, and the colonists rallied for freedom. Oppression, tyranny and famine led helpless Irish and other immigrants to our encompassing harbors. America fed and clothed them. Agonizing pleas for life screamed to America's medical researchers to discover a cure for Polio. Dr. Jonas Salk answered with a vaccine. The Civil War split not only the North from the South, but families and friends because of the call to end slavery. President Lincoln died and so did slavery. Following the end of slavery the suffragette demanded the right to vote in America's future and the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. Neil Armstrong walked on the silverdusted moon to answer the call of curiosity, ``to know the unknown.'' President Kennedy called out to the citizens of America to step up and participate in a positive way in the reformation of each citizen's relationship to the United States. The response was civil rights legislation and Medicare for the elderly. These were the inflammatory, pleading, demanding, awe- inspiring calls to America in the past, and each time America answered with justice, equality, research and compassion. Now Americans call out with greater intensity and passion. ``I never thought it could happen to me. I mean, I'm only fifteen and I have AIDs. And the baby . . . this means she could have it too.'' ``One more man. Please just give me one more hit!'' ``i'm outta here. I quit school.'' ``Don't hit me, momma, not again . . . please . . .!'' ``What's a divorce, daddy? Why does mommy have to leave?'' These are the present day calls--the opportunities for us, you--me, to give something back to our nation and those who helped make such a strong foundation. How many AIDS-caused deaths and teenage pregnancies must occur before sex education is engraved into the minds of the ignorant? Not just sex education, but comprehensive education will assist in the rebirth of an ``A'' rather than an ``X'' generation--a generation free of substance abuse, hatred and discrimination. In the past the patriots, libertarians, adventurers and risk-takers strived to overcome political barriers, hatred, disease and economic hardships. It is incumbent upon all of us to unveil our loyalty and hope and to act with determination, desire and commitment. We must buttress the efforts of our civic organizations, city councils and religious groups. Each call can be answered if we listen. As long as there are Americans, there will be the calls for clean air and water, conservation of resources and an effective educational system. But answering these calls with laws and money will fail unless we exhibit respect for people and property, love of God and country and compassion for the sick and poor. Then and only then can we answer the most important call--the right to be called an American.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Pharmacist's Patients Protection Act of 1996. This legislation relates to an everyday common occurrence, namely getting a prescription filled at your local pharmacy. As we all know, when you go to your pharmacy for a prescription, the pharmacist not only offers to counsel you on how to take your medication safely and effectively, but the pharmacist also provides detailed written information that is understandable and user friendly when the prescription is dispensed. Through the use of computer technology, consumers routinely receive written information about prescription drugs from their pharmacist in a variety of retail settings, such as pharmacies located in supermarkets, chain drug stores and independent pharmacies. And not only are pharmacists providing the information voluntarily, more importantly this written information is often specifically tailored to the particular needs of the patient in order to achieve the maximum benefit from the prescribed medication. I applaud community pharmacists for their dedication and commitment in this important area of patient education and information, but apparently these voluntary efforts aren't good enough for the Food and Drug Administration. Even though every survey conducted since 1994 shows that patients routinely receive written information on both new prescriptions and refills, FDA has decided that it wants to mandate this aspect of pharmacy practice and to restrict pharmacists so that only the information that FDA deems appropriate is distributed to patients. In other words, FDA knows better than your personal physician and your pharmacist regarding the information you should receive. And on top of this, FDA wants everybody to get the same information, no matter whether you are elderly, a young child, male, female or pregnant. The cost of this particular FDA initiative, called the Medguide Program will exceed $100 million each year to mandate what pharmacists are already doing voluntarily right now. FDA's Medguide Program is unnecessary, very costly and is the wrong approach. Additionally, I should mention that FDA's Medguide Program exceeds the agency's statutory authority. While FDA does have legal authority over the content of a drug manufacturer's labeling and advertising, FDA has no authority whatsoever over the professional practice of pharmacy. Standards of professional practice, including patient care, counseling and the dissemination of written information to patients has always been and still are the responsibility of state boards of pharmacy--not FDA. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing will prohibit the FDA from using any of its funding to implement its proposed Medguide Program. We don't need this costly mandate from the FDA when the competitive retail pharmacy marketplace is making great strides in providing consumers with meaningful, accurate and easily understood written information about prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Pharmacist's Patients Protection Act of 1996. Let's stop the misguides Medguide Program.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome to Washington the Nation's newest Republican, William Hanna Boger IV. William was born Tuesday, March 26 at 8:24 a.m., was 20 inches long and weighed 7 pounds, 7 ounces. His proud parents are my executive assistant, Dorothy S. Boger of Morrow, LA and her husband William, of Columbus, OH, partner at the law firm of Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer and Quinn and a former staffer of my good friend Bob Livingston. Although he was immediately registered as a Republican for the 2014 elections his parents extend their thanks to their friends on both sides of the aisle for the many expressions of support they received over the last few days. Congratulations, Dorothy, Bill, and little Billy.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I would offer that to his parents, but I will tell him, I think I am in a good position, and I will provide that counseling, if he does not mind.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Pombo amendment. The main arguments against this amendment are that supposedly there are a lot of workers in America who will be displaced by guest workers, and that they will be displaced by the intent of providing lower wages. The fact, again, is that the Pombo amendment requires that American workers get first crack at the job. It requires that they must get that crack without having to compete against guest workers. Employers must list job opportunities with the job service and give qualified U.S. workers the first preference for the first 25 days. There is no incentive to use guest workers if there are U.S. workers available. What about the issue of wages? The fact is that farm work is one of the highest paying low-skill, entry-level occupations in the United States. The average hourly wage for field and livestock workers in 1995 was $6.12 per hour, almost $2 above the minimum wage. The average for piece rate workers was $7.30 per hour. The fact is that since the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed in 1986, farm wages have outperformed nonfarm wages 35 to 27 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and it will help.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this is the third time that we will have had the lockbox provision before us. It is one of the most critical reform issues with regard to the budget that will face in this Congress. It makes sure that when we make cuts on the floor of this House to the discretionary budget, that those cuts are real and that they are not then shifted into other spending programs. Mr. Chairman, we have debated this many times. I suspect that we will continue debating it until it becomes law. I encourage Members to stay the course on the lockbox. We are going to have a lot of people here in support of it today, but the point that must be recognized is we will stick with this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], who has also been a strong supporter and worked with us from the outset on this matter. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.