Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have finally made it to where the lock-box amendment is now getting an opportunity to be debated and voted on the floor. It has been nearly 2 years since a bipartisan group has been working to try to get this critical budget reform brought forward, and I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], from the Democratic side, for their support and continued effort to try to bring this issue forward. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Zimmer, the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Foley and Mr. Goss, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Neumann, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, for their strong effort on the Republican side to be sure that this important reform comes forward. In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, what does this amendment do? It corrects one of the basic problems in our budget process. Right now, as we vote to reduce spending, to try to balance our budget, and we reduce spending in a particular program, project or line item of our budget, all that happens is that particular program or project is eliminated. The money allocated to that project is not eliminated. It simply goes into the conference committee so that those in the conference committee can reallocate it to their special projects. Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to have a system where when we make a cut that counts, and that when we talk about deficit reduction on this floor, our cuts reduce the deficit. This bill does just that. It takes those cuts and puts them into a lock box and makes certain when this bill is conferenced, those lock-box items are used to reduce the statutory as well as the budgetary limits on our spending. I encourage the support of the Members of this body for this critical reform and think that we are now going to take one of the major steps in this Congress for budgetary reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who has been of great assistance in this bill.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I agree that we have been trying to get this lockbox amendment put into the process much earlier, and it should have been, so we could have caught some of the savings we already voted on. We did ask for retroactivity. We found there were some significant technical problems with that. The amendment has been written to give as much retroactivity as we can within the process that we are working in. I have to say it is not going to catch all of that which has now gone under the bridge.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, before we talk about lockbox, I have to respond also. As a freshman last year, I remember many times when we wanted to have a lot of time when we wanted to debate a lot of bills pushed through here in a short time, sometimes in a matter of hours. For the arguments to be made here, I think we should look back and see what the practice has been in this House. Mr. Speaker, I came to talk about a very critical issue, and I want to thank the Committee on Rules for making this in order, the lockbox amendment. We have been fighting now for close to 2 years to make one of the most important reforms in our budget process that we will address in this Congress. That is the lockbox. I can still remember as a freshman in this Congress when I found that after we had fought on bill after bill, motion after motion, to reduce spending here and to pare spending down there and to try to bring control to our budget, all we had been doing was eliminating various programs or projects; but the money was still getting spent. Why? Because we were just cutting the programs or projects, and what was happening to the money is it was simply unallocated. When it went into the conference committee, those in the conference committee sat down, pulled out special projects of their own interest or concern, put them back into the bill and used the unallocated money on those projects. The reason it happens, Mr. Speaker, is because our budget system does not mandate that when we vote on this floor to cut budgets, that the cuts go to deficit reduction. That is what the lockbox will do. It will create a special deficit reduction lockbox account. When we in the House and Senate vote to reduce spending, the spending reductions, the money, in addition to the projects, the money will go into these lockbox accounts, and there will then be a corresponding reduction in our Federal deficit spending, as we end each bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical reform of our budget process, and I again thank our Committee on Rules for making it in order. I look forward to this evening's debate on this critical issue.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, agriculture is a major Idaho industry. With 21,000 farmers and ranchers, its annual production totals nearly $3 billion. This translates into billions of dollars in additional economic activity as well as an expanded tax base and tens of thousands of jobs. This amendment arbitrarily excludes a small, yet very important part of this economy from participation in the MPP Program. Groups who do not believe that animals should be used for food, clothing or medical research are trying to prevent any MPP money from being used to retain and develop overseas markets for U.S.-produced mink. MPP Program helps U.S. mink ranchers counter the efforts of massive production subsidies which go to foreign mink ranchers. In Idaho alone, the economic impact of the mink industry is $7.3 million a year. MPP funding to promote mink exports is an investment with a 5,000 percent return. For about $2 million, the MPP helps the U.S. mink industry achieve over $100 million in export sales each years. Additionally, the United States mink industry has successfully promoted the superior quality of United States mink to quality- conscious furriers and importers in Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, and elsewhere. Over 95 percent of the U.S. mink industry's total sales will be exported this year. Contrary to the comments made that MPP funds go to big corporations, all of the branded mink participants in the MPP Program are classified as ``small entities'' by the SBA. The industry is made up of small, family owned mink ranches in 28 States. MPP marketing assistance has helped the mink producers survive 5 years of global over production caused by direct and indirect subsidization in China, Russia, and mostly in Scandinavian countries. I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-jobs amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, we have had lots of folks here from large metropolitan areas telling us how we should micromanage our farm program. However, once again, those who would like to micromanage this program have created a rule that is going to hurt the very people that they say they are trying to help. What will this program, which affects at most only 1.7 percent of the participants in agriculture, do? It is going to do just as other speakers have said. It is going to cause those landowners who then will not be able to participate in this program to shift from their rent programs to cash rent programs. Then the risk is all going to be shifted to the tenants. This will allow the landlord to protect against his loss, and the tenants will then not be able to share with the landlord some of the benefits of this program. The tenant will then have his ability to secure bank financing risked and put at jeopardy, and the net result will be no loss of income to those who are being attacked in this proposal, and instead, an economic harm to the farmer-tenant. Why should we take a step now in this House to try to micromanage the farm plan when the Committee on Agriculture, which is served by those who understand these programs, is going to be getting a full review of it in the next few months? Let us let those who know what is going to be done by these programs do the managing.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the motion and I think it is important that we understand what is happening procedurally in this debate. We are debating a motion to rise and to basically strike the enacting clause of the bill which would kill the bill. The real purpose of the motion, though, is to stop debate on this issue and to move us ahead without getting resolution of the question. It has been argued that we do not need to take this type of action to address the concerns about the ATF. What is not apparent, however, is that there were efforts to look at other parts of the bill which have been halted by not getting the kind of support that is necessary on the floor; efforts to look at the enforcement funding at the ATF; the kinds of issues that would be much more credible in terms of attacking the problems that many of us see with the handling of ATF issues around the country, but those efforts have been stopped. Certainly, it is possible that a better-crafted approach to this can happen, but this is this bill that we are talking about and this is the type of approach that we have been able to move forward on. I am sure that as we move forward on the debate on this bill, and on other bills, we can find more effective ways to do it. But this is an opportunity to send a message and to make a start in terms of telling the American public that we are now having debate, we are now having a hearing, and we are now looking at finding answers to questions about what happened at Waco and what happened at Ruby Ridge and what are we going to do in the future to deal with it? In this Congress, we use the vehicles we have to raise those issues and to make our points. I think we would all agree that as we address them, we will ultimately need to refine the approach that we take until it is pinpointed and it is effective. But today, this is the vehicle we have and this is the motion that we have and I think we ought to reject the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we rise.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, once again I stand in strong opposition to the efforts to eliminate some of the critical nuclear research that is necessary for our country's nuclear energy programs. We fought these kinds of battles repeatedly, but I think it is important that we recognize, as we did in previous years, that the National Academy of Sciences has recognized this technology as critical, and the reports that have been talked about today do not correctly reflect the information that has come out of the National Research Council and their testing. In fact, as the gentleman from Illinois has already indicated, today's report states that notwithstanding the above information in the report, it is desirable that the process technology here that we are talking about based at national laboratories be kept viable as a problem solving resource. We must recognize that, according to the DOE, this research can significantly reduce the amount of high level waste in spent nuclear fuel. This offers us the potential key for the safe treatment of our spent nuclear fuel. Funding fur nuclear technology research and development was requested by the Clinton administration and the Department of Energy and authorized by the House Committee on Science. At these amounts, we are already seeing significant reductions for budget balancing purposes. Now we must follow the strong science in this country and support continuing nuclear research. We have a problem in this country in dealing with spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. We have a scientific opportunity to find the solution, to unlock the problems and to get past the roadblocks that are facing us in the handling of our spent nuclear fuel, its storage and treatment. This technology is critical. The scientists in the country say it is needed, the Clinton administration says it is needed, the Department of Energy says that it is needed, the authorizing committee says that it is needed. It is time that we stop undercutting the nuclear research in this country and move forward to the kinds of solutions that are critical to the handling of these issues.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the committee's product. We in Idaho are doing some critical research under this proposal that will help us to develop this program.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my colloquy, I would like to mirror the comments of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about the importance of this historic opportunity to bring regulatory reform to the forefront in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I comment the chairman of the committee and Subcommittee Chairman David McIntosh and House Small Business Committee Chairwoman Jan Meyers for bringing this conference report to the floor. I strongly support the conference report and believe it will provide immediate benefits to business across the country. In that regard, I am particularly pleased that the final version of this legislation contains an amendment offered by myself, and Congressman Tom DeLay and David McIntosh, which passed unanimously on the House floor, that expressly provides for the enforcement mechanism implicit in section 3512 as it was originally enacted by Congress in 1980, and, therefore, put teeth in the public protection provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This should end any confusion which may exist in the courts and Federal agencies about how section 3512 was originally intended to work by codifying existing law. Mr. Speaker, is it your understanding that the amendments made to section 3512 are intended to clarify that a penalty imposed by a Federal agency based on failure to comply with an information request that does not bear on OMB control number is not enforcable, and had always provided the public with the right to petition the agencies or courts for complete relief at any time during the agency or court review process to eliminate the effects of any penalty.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the chairman of the committee. If the gentleman would respond to one more question, I would like to ask, is it the chairman's understanding that section 3512 will become effective as of October 1, 1995, and will apply to all cases then pending before the Federal agencies or the courts?

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 529, the Targhee National Forest Land Exchange bill. Before I begin, I want to thank Chairman Hansen, the subcommittee staff, and the Forest Service for the outstanding work they have done on behalf of this legislation. Legislation which is almost identical to H.R. 529 was passed by the House of Representatives on October 3, 1994. It was unfortunate that the 103d Congress came to a close before the Senate could act on this legislation. However, I am delighted that this noncontroversial legislation is once again before the House of Representatives. H.R. 529, as has been said by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], would allow the exchange of a section of property in Wyoming known as Squirrel Meadows for parcels of National Forest Service land located in Idaho. This is one of those exchanges where all parties are winners. This legislation requires a fair and equal land exchange. This land exchange involved approximately 26 acres of National Forest System lands and 95 acres of private land owned by Ricks College. Situated on this forest service land are several cabins owned by private citizens and a lodge, and these citizens own the cabins but not the land, and in this exchange critical grizzly bear habitat will go to the Government for protection. The private citizens will be able to purchase the land on which their cabins sit and, therefore, solidify their situation in the forest, and the Federal Government will be able to benefit, as all are involved in accomplishing an objective that each believes in and supports. Upon completion of the land exchange, these cabin owners will be allowed to purchase the land upon which their buildings sit. Ricks College plans to use the proceeds from these land sales to purchase lands along the Yale-Kilgore Road in Island Park, ID. The acquisition of the lands along the Yale-Kilgore Road will allow Ricks College to more effectively administer its educational programs. Within the confines of the private lands being exchanged is situation 1 grizzly bear habitat. The transfer of this private property to the ownership of the Forest Service will allow the Forest Service to protect this unique area which is capable of supporting viable grizzly bear populations. The Forest Service has been in extended negotiations to obtain the Squirrel Meadows property for some time. This unanimously agreed upon land transfer is a prime example of private citizenry and conservation management taking the initiative to protect areas of environmental habitat importance. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity we have had to work with the gentlewoman from Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin] on this issue, with the Forest Service, Ricks College and all other interested parties to forge this agreement and to encourage support by those in the House for this legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to get up and talk further about the lockbox. The deficit reduction lockbox is an idea that is introduced with a much broader scope than just this bill and which I am sure we will talk about a lot in the future as we address the questions about how we must develop a budget system that truly reduces our deficits in this country. With regard to this bill, however, I think it addresses one of the significant concerns that we have heard again and again and again. The argument being made is that, well, we should not be using this money for tax cuts, we should be using this money for deficit reduction. And it appears that we are getting into this continuous debate as to whether it is better to have deficit reduction or tax cuts, deficit reduction or tax cuts. This will make it clear once and for all that we will make the necessary deficit reduction that we have called for in the Contract With America. And I believe that we are going to be able to go forward in future actions and find the necessary cuts for tax cuts. But this bill will put into place a mechanism now that hopefully we can use in the future as we address other budgetary problems to assure that there is a lockbox mechanism that helps us to achieve deficit reduction. One thing that I hope it does is clarify the debate so that there will be no more objection to the questions about this bill going to deficit reduction. We have stated that in an earlier debate, in an earlier vote today on the amendment brought by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and this amendment provides the enforceable mechanism to make it happen with certainty. If we are concerned about deficit reduction, this bill will make it happen, and I do not think that those who have debated against this bill can now say there is no reason to support it. This makes it clear we are working for deficit reduction, and we will make deficit reduction a reality.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Representative Jane Harman and 35 of our colleagues in favor of a critical budget process reform in the 103d Congress. As you know, the Nation finds itself saddled with ever more Federal debt. If the debt were to be paid off today, some estimate that each person's share would be over $17,000. Addressing this debt, and exploring ways of cutting this debt through budget process reform, has been one of my primary goals as a Member of Congress. Today, I would like to speak on a budget process reform that is included in a bill which I am pleased to have engineered with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle: The Deficit Reduction Lock-Box Act. In the 103d Congress, this legislation (H.R. 4057) garnered the support of over 150 cosponsors almost evenly divided between party affiliation. Congress debates on numerous amendments that are designed to reduce spending for specific Federal programs or agencies. Unfortunately, passage of these amendments does not guarantee or mandate real spending cuts. We need to begin the process of bringing truth to the budget process and make our cuts count. When Congress votes for cuts they should be just that--cuts. Only by finding a method to reduce the spending caps and the related subcommittee allocations will we be certain that spending cuts to appropriations bills will ever be realized. This is what the deficit reduction lock-box addresses. And these spending cuts would be self-initiating, unless otherwise specifically designated or transferred. Endorsing this legislation since the 103d Congress are several national groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, and Citizens for a Sound Economy. It should be stressed that this bill is a truly bi-partisan product that would lead the way to making discretionary cuts count. I have a strong interest in proposals to require appropriations bill cuts to be translated into actual budget reductions. The lock-box must be considered as a stand-alone budget process reform measure, and a first-step in passing other necessary budget process reforms. It is an independent effort that does not seek to block other worthy budget process reforms. If anything, this budget process reform would complement other necessary efforts in this arena. Based on its proven bi-partisan in Congress since its introduction early this year, I feel it deserves a vote this year on the House floor. As I mentioned already, the House and Senate do not save money when they vote against approval of a specific program. What this means is that the whole Congress has no way to cut discretionary spending without the cooperation of the committees that appropriate Federal funds. Even when both Houses of Congress vote to defund a program, the committees that control appropriations are free to design new ways to spend the Federal money that they control. After repeated exhortations on the necessity for thrift in an age of deficit financing by, for example, the space station's political opponents, defenders like myself argued that its elimination is not going to give one penny of deficit reduction. The spending that has already been appropriated would merely be plowed back into other programs. The lock-box bill is geared toward finally doing what we constantly tell the American people that we're supposedly doing. Many people think that when we vote to make cuts and when we have success, that cuts are actually going to take place. Under present law, these dollars are reallocated. This proposal would ensure that we an actually address the deficit, which the American people want us to do. When Congress votes to cut Federal spending but the Treasury doesn't really save any money, it harms both American taxpayers and representative democracy. Congress should reform spending procedures to make its cuts count. When it votes against Federal spending, there should be a way to create opportunities for savings that are both substantial and mandatory. That way, money would in effect be deposited in the Federal treasury for deficit reduction, not just retreat a step back in the spending pipeline. Until Congress changes the way it approves Federal spending so cuts can really count, even if rank-and- file Members vote to cut every program in the world, conference committees can simply reallocate the money. Ensuring real spending cuts through this lock-box bill is a necessary first step in this process of spending reform. Members of Congress must seriously consider listening to their constituents about spending cuts and place good government over the self-interest of specific projects by indicating their support for this lock-box bill. Only through budget process reforms like this will Members be able to vote for cuts and be able to communicate the authenticity of these cuts honestly to the public. I am proud to reintroduce this key legislation today.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to make it clear there has been some discussion here as to whether people are being pressured into voting for a different amendment. When we talked to the Members about what their concern was, it was exactly what has been debated on this floor; that is, the 10 to 20 percent. What the gentleman just debated, many of them did not get an opportunity to vote for a pure 10- to 20-percent change and wanted that rather than the amendment which was put forth which changed it dramatically.