Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. chairman, I object.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, the time to be equally divided.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have had some discussion with the gentleman offering this amendment and after we have one more speaker on this side, which would even out the time at that point, we will seek a unanimous-consent agreement to limit the debate on the amendment. So I would ask that we go to a speaker on this side, then we will have an even amount of time. I would object.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling I am not going to get it, but I am going to propound it anyhow. I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to 60 minutes, the time equally divided between the gentleman from Washington offering the amendment [Mr. Dicks] and the gentleman from California, and all amendments thereto.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to voice my support for the Interior appropriations bill which is before us today and add my thanks to both the chairman and the ranking minority member and their staffs for the work that they have done on this. Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear a lot of concerns expressed here today, some in support of this, some in adamant opposition to the bill. But, before we take too seriously some of the expressions of discontent, we should all be aware of the budget parameters under which our subcommittee was operating. Our initial 602(b) allocation was $1.1 billion below fiscal year 1996 funding levels. That is $1.1 billion below. Fortunately, when the House approved the budget resolution, we found there was an additional $3.9 billion of discretionary funding which the Committee on Appropriations was able to reallocate among the subcommittees. Despite this infusion of money, the Interior Subcommittee's fiscal year 1997 budget is still $482 million less than last year. Is this fair and equitable? Perhaps it is not for those concerned about these particular programs. But what is important is not what we do not have. What is significant is what we have done with the money that we do have available to us. This Interior appropriations bill reflects increases for our national parks, for the Everglades restoration, for forest health, specifically fire management and research, for USGS earthquake research and cooperative water research, and we have $4 million for a clean streams initiative. We have also increased or at least maintained fiscal year 1996 funding levels for native American programs, like the vital and multipurpose tribal priority allocations account, for Indian education, Indian health, and increased the funding levels of major cultural institutions, like the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum, the Kennedy Center, and the National Gallery of Art. We have attempted to ensure that sufficient funds are available to fulfill our responsibilities as stewards of the Nation's natural treasures. Did some agencies incur reductions or even terminations of programs? Absolutely. But this is necessary as a subcommittee, as a body for us to do this, to keep our commitment to the American people that we would exercise fiscal responsibility, that we would balance the Federal budget in 7 years. And, all told, we have saved nearly $500 million in doing that. Let us not fool each other about what is going to happen. There are going to be a lot of amendments to increase funding levels for programs and agencies. Members will speak with great conviction about the merits of these programs, and in many cases they will be right about whether the program is good or not. But, what I have said before needs to be said again. The appropriations process is not about numbers. It is not about whether we spend $12.1 billion, as this bill recommends, or $13.1 billion. It is not even about whether we cut a particular program, whether we increase a program, or whether we terminate a program. This and the other appropriations bills that are working their way through the legislative process is an opportunity for Congress and our political parties to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity to say something about where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision, its hopes and dreams for our future and our children's future. This bill does that. I urge support for this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I want to voice my strong support for the Interior appropriations bill before us. I know that you have heard many of my colleagues express their support for or adamant opposition to this bill. But before the opposition continues their litany of discontent, I'd like to make you aware of the budgetary parameters under which the subcommittee was operating. Our initial 602(b) allocation was $1.1 billion below fiscal year 1996 funding levels. That's $1.1 billion. Fortunately, when the House approved the budget resolution there was an additional $3.9 billion in discretionary funding which the Appropriations Committee was able to reallocate among the subcommittees. Despite this infusion of money, the Interior Subcommittee's fiscal year 1997 budget authority is still $482 million less than last year. Is this fair and equitable? Probably not. But what's important is not what we don't have. What is significant is what we did with the money we were provided. The fiscal year 1997 Interior appropriations bill reflects increases for our national parks, for Everglades restoration, for forest health-- specifically, fire management and research, for USGS earthquake research and cooperative water research, and we provide $4 million for a clean streams initiative. We have also increased or maintained fiscal year 1996 funding levels for native American programs like the vital and multipurpose tribal priority allocations account, Indian education, Indian health, and increased the funding levels of major cultural institutions like the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum, the Kennedy Center, and the National Gallery of Art. We have attempted to ensure that sufficient funds are available to fulfill our responsibilities as stewards of this Nation's natural treasures. Did some agencies incur funding reductions or program terminations? Absolutely. But this was necessary for us to keep our commitment to the American people that we would exercise fiscal responsibility and balance the Federal budget in 7 years. All told, this bill saves the American taxpayers almost $500 million. Let's not fool each other about what is going to happen. Several amendments will be offered to increase the funding levels for various programs and agencies. Members will speak with great conviction about the merits of these programs, and in many instances they'll be right. But I've said it before, and it needs to be said again. The appropriations process is not about numbers. It's not about whether we spend $12.1 billion--as this bill recommends--or $13.1 billion. It's not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, or whether we eliminate a program. This bill and the other appropriations bills working their way through the legislative process is an opportunity for Congress, and our political parties, to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity for us to say something about where we think our future is. It's an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision for America; its hopes, its dreams for our future, and for our children's future. Mr. Chairman, in its entirety, this appropriations bill reflects this vision. When you dissect and place the funding level of each program, each agency and each line item under a microscope you won't get a true indication of the overall picture. But if you step back and look at this bill in its entirely, keeping in mind that these numbers reflect a promise we made to our children--the promise that we would no longer burden them with our fiscally irresponsible actions--then you get a clearer perspective. This appropriations bill is not perfect. But I believe it reflects a thoughtful and balanced approach given this Nation's $5 trillion debt. I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Georgia that the last I checked, there is no Government price program for candy bars as there is for peanuts, so I do not think that the question is a relevant question.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. It is an amendment that simply carries out the intent of Congress on the peanut program. The farm bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, made some extremely modest changes to the peanut program. The change that was supposed to benefit consumers was a 10 percent reduction in support prices from $678 to $610. This amendment would ensure that the price of quota peanuts would actually be $610 per ton, as approved in the recently passed farm bill. Now, why is this amendment necessary, if all we are doing is seeking to implement what the farm bill said we were going to do? It is necessary because the Secretary of Agriculture, not without reason, since he represents agricultural interests, has chosen to administer this program in a way that makes sure that peanut prices will continue to stay at previous, much higher levels. The Secretary was able to do this, to keep the peanut pries high, by announcing a national peanut quota production level that is going to be at least 100,000 tons less than the projected domestic demand. In other words, the Government is creating an artificial shortage. Mr. Chairman, what we have is a Government-created artificial shortage of peanuts and, thus, a consequent higher price for peanuts. That is contrary clearly to what we intended to do in the farm bill. At a time when we have a peanut industry that is certainly in a serious state of decline, with peanut consumption dramatically declining over the last 5 years, it does not seem to me that we can afford to let bad government policy excessively inflate the prices for domestic consumers. Inflate the prices, I might add, to what is now double, double, the export price. The domestic price of peanuts is double what our producers get when they sell it into the export markets. In other words, we have this artificially created price. Even at $610 a ton, which we are not going to get to because of this reduction in the quota, U.S. peanuts are 33 percent above the world price of $350 per ton. So this amendment only ensures that the administration will carry out the will of Congress to reduce the price of quota peanuts by 10 percent, which is what we though we were getting when we voted for the Freedom to Farm Act. If some would question whether or not there is a precedent in this, I would point out that the Committee on Appropriations has already adopted an amendment which places a price cap on the price of raw cane sugar at 117.5 percent of the loan rate. It was done for the exact same reason we are talking about here today. This cap was necessary in order to ensure that the price of sugar did not rise too far. In both cases, the Department of Agriculture has created this false shortage of a very basic commodity that we use. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is very simple. We thought, we intended, and we wanted to get market reform when we voted for the Freedom to Farm Act. We got the least in the commodity programs, but we thought we were getting something with a 10-percent reduction in the target price. However because of the other aspects of this, the quota, the Secretary of Agriculture has been able to undermine any kind of a price reduction by setting a quota that is below what the market can consume. So all we are seeking to do is to make sure that the market works; that the Freedom to Farm Act works exactly the way it is intended. We are making no basic change to the program. And I might to also add, Mr. Chairman, that this is a fix that can only be good for 1 year. This is an appropriation bill for 1 year. It can only work for 1 year, that is we can try to make the farm program work they way we intended in the Freedom to Farm Act for 1 year any one year only. If everybody really want to find a way to make this work over the course of the next 7 years of the freedom to farm legislation, then we can find a way to do that. But this is only to be sure that in the calendar year 1997 it is already too late for 1996--that we can have a price for peanuts that does not mean that consumers will pay more for their peanut butter, more for their candy bars, more for everything that they buy that has peanuts in them. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the price fixing that is going on has been going on in this program, as we know, since the 1930s when we created this program. The reason for this amendment is because the Secretary has chosen to use the other provision of the law, the quota provision, by reducing that below the level of consumption. The result is a dramatic increase in the price, the actual domestic price consumers pay for peanuts. I would be happy, if the gentleman would agree to an amendment, to do away with this entire program in one fell swoop.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I will not take the full time, but I just want to emphasize a couple of points that have been made here and to reiterate that this has been a controversial program; I think we all acknowledge that, a controversial program since its very inception, and frankly growers, manufacturers, and consumers have been constantly at odds on this program. But I think the freedom to farm bill clearly had a philosophical direction, and that was to make commodities, to market commodities, consistent with a market-oriented approach, to move us in that direction. There is a huge difference, a huge gap it seems to me, when we are talking about peanuts. It is being treated in a very different fashion, particularly with regard to this gigantic loophole that the Secretary has used. When we talk about setting prices, we are setting prices at $610 a ton, we are setting prices at $640 a ton, whichever one we are using. But the fact of the matter is the Secretary has used a huge gap in the law which allows him to put the quota below, below where the actual level of domestic consumption is to force prices back up. One does not have to be an economics major to figure out that that is going to have a effect on the demand, and it is going to have a effect on the price. If we artificially set the amount of peanuts that can be sold in the United States and one cannot sell any peanuts in the United States without that, it is going to drive that price up. That is what we are trying to correct here. I have talked to numerous Members here who represent peanut growing interests and they have said, ``Look, we did not do it; it was the Secretary that did this.'' OK, if that is the case, all we are trying to do is correct what we thought we were getting in the farm bill, which was some very modest reduction in the price, and that is why I think this is so essential.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the answer is ``yes.'' I guess I have a naive belief in market systems that there will be some passing on of that price. And if the gentleman is correct about this being the floor, then why do we have to lower the quota 100,000 below the level of consumption?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, no one who would be under the quota program would get a price in excess of $640 a ton.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my understanding of the way the program works in actuality, this is not the case. I would just point out the difference between the domestic price and the export price of peanuts. It is clear that the reduction of the quota is designed to keep the domestic price at an artificially high level.

Mr. KOLBE. In theory.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do understand. I confess that I am certainly not the expert on the buy-back provisions that my colleague would be.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her for the statement she made. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a couple of things said by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] when he is talking about this being a floor. He is right. But he forgets to talk about the other aspect of this program, which is the quota that the Secretary can manipulate. The Secretary has toyed with the quota, which, as far as I know, has never in recent times ever been set below the level of consumption. By lowering it below the level of consumption, he has assured that that price will not drop to that floor of $610 a ton. So we know that we will not have a 10-percent reduction. And if we are talking about a safety net for growers, where is the safety net for those who do not have quotas, that sell only in exports? There is no safety net for them. Why do not we have a price that reflects the world market price?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the last speaker who said we are cutting education, that we are cutting student loans. It is not true. Mr. Speaker, under our budget proposal, the total volume of student loans will go from $26 billion in 1996 to $37 billion in the year 2002. I do not know how that is translated into a cut, but it is not a cut where I come from, in Arizona. We are going to save taxpayers' money by capping the Government-run direct lending program and achieve some savings from lenders in the guaranteed lending program, but we are not cutting the volume of student loans, and do not let anybody tell you we are.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, we heard already this evening, the very clear differences between these two budgets. These two budgets, the one presented by the White House, by the Clinton administration, and that one which has been prepared by the majority in the House and the Senate are very different in the philosophy they suggest for this country. I think our budget reflects what the American people said they wanted to have in this last election: less government, returning responsibility to citizens. But tonight I want to focus my comments on one part of this. That is the tax relief that we provide to families, the $500 tax credit that we give to families, an opportunity to keep some of the money, their hard-earned money, in their pockets. We say, ``Earn more, keep more, and do more yourself.'' Mr. Speaker, we say that one should not have to send that money to Washington, one should not have to give it up, one should not have to take it out of their family's well-being, out of their education, their health care, their housing and recreation. They should not have to send it to Washington to support Washington's programs. We say, ``Keep some of that money yourself.'' And that is why this is so fundamentally different from the President's proposal. The President's budget gives some very small amount of tax relief but then takes it all away, takes it all away in the year 2002 in order to balance the budget. It takes all the tax relief away. We say this tax relief should be permanent. We say American families should know they can have these dollars in their pockets, that they can keep this money so that they can spend it on what they know is best for their families. Tax relief is critical to the growth, the economic growth, of this country. Tax relief is not just something to do if there is a surplus. It is about giving money back to people, about reducing the size of government, about saying that people have a better idea of what they do with the dollars they earn than the Federal Government does. That is why tax relief is a critical cornerstone of this legislation, and that is why this budget conference report should be so supported by this body. I urge its support.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The last speaker just said extreme budget cuts. We have heard that. How many times have we heard that? But we know that is not what we are talking about here. Let us keep our eye on this ball during this debate that we are going to have in the next hour when we actually talk about the conference report and not about the rule, and I will have an opportunity to talk about some of that. But the bottom line is that we are changing the direction of government. My friends over on this side just cannot seem to come to terms with the fact that the election 2 years ago was about changing the direction of this government. And that is what we are doing with this budget, we are giving power back to people, power back to families, power back to states, power back to localities. We are changing programs so that they are streamlined. We are getting the Federal Government out of these programs. We are putting more money back in people's pockets rather than taking it out, bringing it to Washington and sending it back to States. That is what this is all about. It is not about a number, whether it is up a little bit, down a little bit. We know these numbers can change dramatically as economic conditions change. This budget is about changing the direction of government, and I urge that we support the rule and support the conference report.