Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, as we conduct this debate, that we understand exactly what the lockbox does because there has been a lot of discussion about whether we need it or whether we do not. The way this bill works is that when we vote on the floor of the House to cut any program or project, in the current law that money, the program or project is cut, but the money allocated for spending in the budget for that program or project remains allocated, and it is simply respent on other measures, measures which are obviously of a lower priority or they would have been put in place of the spending in the first place. So all we see is a reshuffling of the spending, but never a reduction of the actual spending so that we get deficit reduction, and those who watch across this country on C-Span or in any other capacity and listen to the debates on this floor day after day as we talk about the need to balance the budget, hear us discuss that every day, they see us vote on amendments that would cut spending every day, but when we are all done, the spending is not reduced because of the budget system in which we now operate. This lockbox would create a mechanism whereby when we vote to cut spending on any particular program or project, if the majority of this Congress says that spending should be cut, then in reality that spending is allocated to deficit reduction rather than being shifted into new funds. Now if someone wants to bring an amendment and say I do not want deficit reduction, I simply want to cut spending from this program and put it into that program, that is perfectly allowed. This simply says that when we debate here on the floor and tell the American people that we are cutting spending in order to protect our budget, that when we are done with the day that is what happens. Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple and straightforward principle. It is one when American people understand it they cannot quite see why the Congress has to even have this kind of a system because it does not make sense that we could debate to cut spending and then, after we were done, have the spending simply shifted over into other spending priorities. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], who has also been one of our strong supporters from the outset. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], another of the freshmen so strong in support of this matter. (Mr. LARGENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], who is one of the strong fighters in the freshman class.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, before we begin the debate, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who has been so gracious to be a strong supporter of this measure and bring the amendment forward.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the committee yielding to me for this colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the future of agriculture research. Agriculture research extension and education programs have played a critical role in achieving the current productivity and competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. Taxpayers receive a rate of return on research and extension of 30 to 50 percent per year. While a research title is not included in the bill before the House today, I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Committee on Agriculture and conferees to promote changes to the research component of the fund for rural America in the Senate version of the farm bill. Changes need to be made which will bring better into balance the total research and extension portfolio, addressing those areas in which current funding relative to user-driven national priorities is inadequate. I have been working with Chairman Roberts for several months to promote a strong research extension and education program that reaches out to traditional and nontraditional researchers with an interest in basic and applied research. I would say to the chairman of the committee, I want to continue to work with him, Mr. Chairman, on this issue to address the challenges facing agriculture. We need an infusion of resources that will provide problem- and opportunity-oriented research, extension, and education. This will assist the entire system, including plant and animal sciences, processing, marketing, and natural resources, while also developing the next generation of knowledge and technology needed to maintain international competitiveness over the long term. For several months I have been advocating increased funding for agriculture research through a program which would provide a basic excessive grant program, balancing investments in basic and applied research, extension, and education. This program should incorporate a priority-setting mechanism that takes into account the views of producers and processors early in the process, as well as allowing for smaller research institutions to compete for grants. It is designed as an aggressive, coordinated program to be administered by the cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, with the agriculture industry playing a lead role in priority-setting. It is a worthwhile program. Again, I appreciate the chairman's willingness to review and consider this proposal and look forward to working with him on this critical issue.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment for several reasons. First, as has already been well stated by the chairman of our Committee on Appropriations, this amendment moves in a very difficult direction by taking spending that has been in discretionary accounts into mandatory accounts. There is not a lot of disagreement, as we have already heard, about the objectives of this amendment, but to make that step from discretionary spending into mandatory spending is to continue a spending practice that has seen far too much in this Congress and has left us now to the point where many of our budget problems are driven by the fact that there are mandatory spending accounts in place that Congress does not have the ability to address each year in the appropriations process, and I do not think we understand we have been moving in that direction. There are some further reasons, though, that I think we need to address these issues in a different forum. This bill would seek to spend nearly $3.5 billion, which again is much more than our budget allocations allow, but it would take that out of the CCC authority. The CCC has traditionally been used for farm commodity and related activities that are very helpful in the U.S. agricultural commodity sector. One of the problems that we face is that I do not see enough specificity in legislation in this proposed bill to let us know whether we are going to be spending the money in a better and a more effective way. Let me give one example. Earlier today I had a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture about research. It is very critical that we have effective and well funded research in the ag sector. It repays itself time and time again to the American taxpayer. We have a follow-on bill, farm bill II, where we are going to do very specific, and well evaluated work on the research sector of our ag programs, and we are going to have a good research provision in that bill. That is the forum in which we should be addressing these issues. Again, it is not that we do not agree on the direction that this amendment seeks to move us, it is the method and the timing and whether we should be working with the second ag bill that is following along here or whether we should be doing it in this way that does not give the specificity needed.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to stand in support of this legislation today. There has been a lot of talk about whether we really are reforming and whether the right reforms have been made. The bottom line is that the big debate here is another playout of some of the big debates we have had over the last year. It is whether we want Government control of the agriculture industry or whether we want to start freeing up our agricultural producers so they can farm to market principles rather than for the Government. I think it is very critical to point out that we have heard a lot of talk in America for the last 4 or 5 weeks about the critical crisis we face in agriculture because Congress has not got a farm bill out. Our farm producers do not know what crops to plant. They do. Their lenders do not know whether they can lend to them and on what basis they can lend to them. It is a signal point that we have gotten to the point in this country when American agriculture producers have to wait for Congress to tell them what they can plant before they can make their planting decisions. That is what this reform battle is all about. There are a lot of people who will try to say, well, we should not have this kind of a freedom to farm approach because it does not connect with crop prices or we should not have this type of reform. But the real battle here, the battle we are fighting in this Congress on this issue as so many others is whether we should have the ability in the agricultural community, the agricultural industry in this country to make decisions about what to plant, when to plant, how much to plant, and all of the other decisions that have to be made based on market principles and market decisions rather than on a Government, a Federal statute. I held farm meetings in my district, 26 counties, and talked to those who produce the food supply for the people of our Nation. They told me that if we do anything in terms of reform, they want us to get the Federal Government out of the business of running agriculture. That is what this bill does. That is why we ought to support it. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, no farmer is forced to use the program. Letting farmers plant what they want, when they want it, how they want it, they can do that now. We were ratcheting down. We were reforming. We were changing. We are taking regulation down. We were doing that in a systematic manner, at the same time saving $50 billion. The previous gentleman, he would not listen when we mentioned and said the farmer wants Government out of his hair. Government can be out of his hair today and continues to be. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Let me state one more time, because speaker after speaker continues to say that this is a subsidy program for sugar, the sugar program operates at no cost to the American taxpayer. In fact, it generates somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million a year in revenue to the Treasury. The fact is that this program did have marketing allotments, but the bill we are debating tonight removes those marketing allotments. What the bill did is it retained the import quotas that the sugar program has in effect, and that is the issue we are debating tonight. The issue is not subsidies, the issue is trade. The issue is whether we are going to let subsidized foreign sugar into the United States and stop protecting our producers against anticompetitive conduct by foreign nations. That is the issue. There are those who would like to bring subsidized sugar into our country because, in the short-term, it would benefit them and their particular operation. But the fact if that we all know how that works. If those foreign countries are allowed to subsidize their markets against our producers, push our producers out of business, then who can say that they are going to continue to keep the prices low? The last time we removed the sugar program, and these kinds of trade protections, we saw what happened. Prices shot up. Study after study has shown that if we let the market operate, which this bill will do, the price of sugar will be low. One speaker said to look in all the products in the stores, and there is sugar in every product. Of course, sugar is a very inexpensive product. In restaurants it is given away for free. The fact is the price of sugar is not out of line, and we ought to maintain our protection for American producers.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I think that a very important compromise was reached and that it should be a big Christmas present for the American people. Nevertheless, I think it should be very clear what agreement was reached and where we are now as we go forward. Mr. Speaker, immediately after the agreement, it seemed that there were very different discussions or representations to the American people about what was agreed to. In fact, that prompted a letter from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader of the House of Representatives, to Mr. Leon Panetta, the chief of staff of the White House, to clarify what we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will put the letter from the gentleman from Texas in the Congressional Record to clarify that the agreement which was reached was an agreement that does require us to balance the budget in 7 years. It was an agreement that does require that we all operate off the same sheet. In other words, that we all use the same numbers and the same projections as we discuss balancing the budget, that being the CBO projections. Mr. Speaker, it has been probably been said many times, but it needs to be said again, that as recently as 1993 when the President gave his first message to Congress, he talked about how CBO is the most honest and correct scorekeeper for our budgets and that the numbers we are now using are the numbers developed by the CBO as they were subject to the management of the Democratic Party at the time the numbers were developed. We must all talk off of the same sheet. We must all use the same numbers and we must all realize that the act that we are creating today, and the law that the President will sign, will commit this Nation to a balanced budget in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous change in the dynamic of the debate in Washington. To this point, we have been debating about whether we cut [[Page H 13369]] too deep into this or that program, or whether it was a cut at all. Everyone has been claiming that they wanted to do it in the context of balancing the Federal budget. Now we have parameters put to that debate. Now while Members talk about balancing the budget, they are going to have to use the right numbers. Mr. Speaker, we can move on to discuss the proper priorities for this country and move us to the prosperity that will come from a true balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 20, 1995. Hon. Leon Panetta, Chief of Staff, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Leon, I was dismayed by your comments this morning regarding the carefully crafted agreement reached between the Administration and congressional leaders. To the untrained eye, it might appear as though the Clinton Administration is already preparing to break its commitment to a seven year balanced budget. On the Today Show this morning, you said, ``If we can work out an agreement that protects those priorities, we can do it in seven years or eight years.'' That is inconsistent with the language you and the President personally committed to yesterday, which reads: ``The President and Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the One Hundred and Fourth Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans and the environment. . . .'' In addition, a White House spokesman said this morning that a ``seven-year timetable for the balanced budget is an important goal, it's an important objective.'' Remember, we flatly rejected your suggestion that we commit to a ``goal'' of balancing the budget in seven years in favor of an explicit commitment to a balanced budget in seven years. Words have meaning, Leon. Seven years is seven years, not ``seven years or eight years.'' A commitment to balance the budget in seven years is more than just a ``goal'' of seven years. Past congresses and presidents have embraced the ``goal'' of a balanced budget countless times, and all we have to show for it is nearly five trillion dollars in debt. You also said this morning, ``I don't think the American people ought to read a lot into what was agreed to last night. I think the important thing was that we put America back to work.'' I believe most Americans think the important thing was that their Congress and their President have made an explicit commitment to balance the budget for the first time in a generation, not that federal bureaucrats got to go back to work today. The American people now have their hopes up for an honest balanced budget in seven years. If the President intends to break this commitment, he shouldn't make it. If the President intends to sign the bill he agreed to last night only for short-term polling gains but with no intention of abiding by it, it would be better for him to veto the bill. Sincerely, Dick Armey, Majority Leader.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce 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 authority of the States 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 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 Management Policy Act, Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans, rangeland reform, and proposed wilderness legislation have 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 purpose 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 rise today with the support of Representatives Pomeroy, Chenoweth, and Brown of California, to introduce the Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act. Canola produces oil that is lower in saturated fat than any other commercially available edible oil. Since its approval by Federal Drug Association [FDA] in 1986 as a food, consumption of canola oil in the United States has grown from virtually zero, to the equivalent of over 333,000 acres in 35 States in 1994. This act will enable the industry to create a producer-driven and producer-controlled checkoff program. Similar to other successful checkoff programs, the available funds would be used to promote canola oil, meal, and other products; provide consumers with helpful information; and conduct essential research that the Federal Government is unable to fund. Please join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit the Interior appropriations conference report. Mr. Speaker, the conference report language does answer one of the critical issues that we are dealing with with regard to mining reform, and that is it does require a fair market value to be paid for the land in a mining claim. The other issue that is talked about so much is whether a royalty will be paid for the right to mine the minerals under the land that will be patented. That issue is also going to be resolved. Members all know that in the reconciliation bill that is coming, an imposition of a royalty is included. The two key issues that we must address here in mining reform, plus additional mining reform issues that are going to be addressed, are under consideration and will be resolved by this House. Mr. Speaker, the effort to recommit this bill is an effort to stall the mining reform that we are moving forward on and we must reject this motion to recommit.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we respond to what has just been said, because we must again make it clear that the legislation we are considering does require payment of fair market value for the land. The argument has been made, ``Yes, but it does not require payment for the minerals.'' But I say again, the reconciliation legislation that is coming does contain the royalty provision for payment of the minerals as they are extracted. Mr. Speaker, those are the two pieces of the reform that have consistently been thrown out as the components that we must address: The value of the land and the value of the minerals. Those are both being addressed and those who would have Members support the effort to recommit this conference report simply want to stop the progress on making these needed mining reforms.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, again, it is a privilege to be here debating this important measure here today. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I want to give some thanks to some of the people who have really been there when it counts, particularly to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] who is handling this measure for the Committee on Rules here today. They were there time and time again in the late night meetings and the negotiations that were necessary to help us move this legislation through the difficult political channels it had to be moved in order to get to the floor today. It is not easy to change a system that has been put into place over years and years, and just take it and change it overnight. I appreciate their support, and that of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who have been there in our bipartisan efforts for nearly 2 years now, working together to make this matter work. And that of so many of the other Members: the gentleman from California, Ed Royce, who is sitting here beside me and ready to speak in a few moments, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Zimmer; the freshman class who came in there this year and provided really the steam to move this reform forward, as we needed to have their strong support; the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, and so many others. The list goes on. The point I am trying to make is that this has been not only a strong effort by so many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who recognized that we need to reform our budget process, but that we have been able to put that effort together in the face of very strong political pressures. I want to go back and give just a little history. As I said, it has been just about 2 years since this process started, a little over 2 years since I first became aware of the way the budget system worked, and did not allow our cuts to really count. At that time I introduced a bill that I called the ``make our cuts count'' legislation. Shortly after that, I found that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and some others they were working with were also involved in trying to address the same issues. As we met together to put our efforts together and come together in a bipartisan effort, we changed the name of this to the lockbox concept, something that has stuck and has helped people across America to understand that we are really trying to balance the budget. Not only did we develop a bipartisan commission here in Congress, we went out and found grassroots support across the country. I am proud to say today that this legislation is supported by the Concord Coalition, by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Citizens Against Government Waste, who I believe are going to make it a key vote, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, who I also believe are going to register this as a key vote, the National Taxpayers Union, the United We Stand organizations in different parts of the country, and others across this country who have recognized the need for this legislation, and have joined in our effort to develop the coalitions necessary at the grassroots level in this country to push this legislation forward. I can remember when I was first interviewed on this legislation, and the interviewer said, ``What kind of a chance do you really think you have, trying to get something like this through this Congress?'' I said, ``To be honest with you, not much of a chance, but we are going to keep fighting and we are going to make this thing happen, no matter how long it takes.'' Little did I know that just 1 year later, about 1\1/2\ years later, we would be here on the floor, making sure that the legislation passed. Some may ask, why are we doing it again after we already did it on August 2? On August 2 we passed legislation attaching this to an appropriations bill. It has now become evident that that appropriations bill may be vetoed, so we are going on a separate track to have a dual approach to making sure this legislation passes by putting forth this independent legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a critical reform to our budget process. We must do it so Americans can count on this Congress, so the integrity of this institution is upheld, and when we say we are cutting the budget, those cuts go to deficit reduction. The American people can ask for no less. I am confident that today, this House will deliver them that kind of reform.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to say I appreciate the support that has been brought by both sides of the aisle and by so many Members to get us to this point today. This is a very important day for the House of Representatives, not just because we are going in a few minutes to debate a very critical reform to the budget process but because it is a day when this institution is working the way that was intended by our Founding Fathers. It is working in a way that shows the kind of integrity and the kind of good work that can be done when the Members of Congress work together. At a time in our history when so often there are negative stories in the media about how the Congress works, today we have a good strong example of how the system should work. Why do I say that? First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are here under an open rule. For so long we have been deprived in this Congress of having the opportunity to have open and free debate, where critical ideas are brought forward and debated and those who object to them can have the opportunity under an open rule to bring their objections and have those objections debated and voted on in an open recorded vote. Second, it is an important day for this institution because this bill was brought forward to reform the system in a bipartisan fashion. I do not think we are going to see a lot of partisan bickering here today because it is a good idea that needs to be put into law. Although there may be some discussions about just what the fine tuning should be, we are going to see strong support for this legislation. For about 2 years now we have been working to make sure that this legislation moves forward and that this critical reform that is necessary is put into place. I can still remember, it has been a little bit more than 2 years ago now that I was sitting right here on this floor, and I heard two Members debating about a major proposal to cut one of our budgets. One of the Members said to the other: You know, even if we cut this budget, this spending will not be reduced and the deficit will not be reduced. [[Page H 8838]] The other Member acknowledged that. That perked up my interest. I then started looking into it. Indeed, the budget system we have is one in which, even when Congress cuts a specific program or project, all that happens is that specific program or project is eliminated or reduced, and the spending simply becomes unallocated until the conference committee meets to reallocate it, often to projects that never saw the light of day in a hearing. Today we will create a lockbox account in the House and send forward to the Senate an opportunity for us to pass into law a critical reform of our budget process that will help us to ensure that, when we make cuts, the cuts count. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a hard process. It has taken us 2 years to get to this point in the House. We are going to have to fight it hard when it gets to the other body as well. But the American people deserve no less. We must past this rule, then pass this legislation and take one more important step in terms of reforming the budget process of this Congress.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity that we have had to have this critical debate. As the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] said, we have been fighting for a long time to get this issue to the floor, and I again want to say thank you to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for their strong help in getting this moved forward. This has been a bipartisan effort. For those on the Republican side whom I mentioned earlier, we have fought long and hard to bring this critical reform forward, and now, tonight, we are going to have a vote on one of the most important reforms of our budget process that we have seen in years. Mr. Chairman, as the previous speakers have said, we now have an opportunity to make our budget process real, so that when we vote, when those C-SPAN viewers see across the bottom of the screen that the debate is on whether to cut spending or to spend money on a certain project, then it is true that we are truly talking about making our cuts count. We now have the opportunity to create the lockbox; to create a true system in which when we vote on this floor to cut spending, spending is cut. Mr. Chairman, I again want to say that this vote, this bill, has support of the Concord Coalition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Citizens For a Sound Economy, and the National Taxpayers Union. Those who are interested in our budget process, in protecting the fiscal stability of our budget system, in protecting against the increasing taxes that we have seen across the country, are all standing up tonight, watching the vote here on this floor. Mr. Chairman, one final point. I think it is very important that we have a strong vote tonight, so that we can send a signal to the other body that we are serious, that this reform was put into this appropriations bill because we expect to see it back, we expect it to come out of conference, and we expect it to be delivered to the President for his signature. That kind of a vote is what we need to see tonight to send a strong signal. I think that the debate today has shown that there is that kind of support, and I am encouraged that we pass the lockbox.