Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have delayed the implementation of the new formula so that the appropriate authorizing committees would have an opportunity to address these issues properly. I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the committee, if he agrees there is merit in some kind of a more gradual phasein for dramatic funding changes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, do not make education a partisan issue. We have now proven that Republicans and Democrats can work together when we are doing something the American people want. We have ended up with a balanced budget, the first time in 31 years. We have ended up with tax cuts, the first time in 16 years. We have been able to work together as Democrats and Republicans because we were doing something the people want. Now we need to work together in education. My wife was a teacher. My daughter, Juliana, is a teacher in Grand Rapids, MI. My daughter-in-law, Diane, is a teacher. We need to get back to some of the old-fashioned dedication where parents are interested in what their kids are doing in school, and spend time with their kids as well as attending school meetings. We need a renewed respect for teachers in their schoolrooms. Look, when great people are interviewed and they are asked what was the greatest effect on their lives, they say, my parents, teachers that helped me and inspired me. We need to get rid of 30 years of liberalism in the classroom. Republicans and Democrats need to work together, not to have the Federal Government manage education, but to develop an environment that encourages parents to be more involved in the decisions that affect their children's educational lives.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this tax legislation is monumental, and I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time. What is exciting is that we are starting to let the American people keep a few more dollars of what they earn in their own pockets instead of sending it to Washington. It seems that we have been under the philosophy that the American people should sacrifice in order to send more money to Washington so that politicians can spend those dollars. Now at last we are starting to acknowledge that it should be Washington who should sacrifice; cut down the size of government, find the best, most efficient ways to spend less money so that the people who earn that money can keep it in their pockets and spend it or save it as they decide. As a farmer, I am especially pleased that we have strengthened the chances of the survival of the American agricultural industry by including several provisions in this tax bill that helps us keep a strong, viable agricultural industry; lets farm families keep and preserve their farming operations. So my thanks to the chairman and all those involved in moving us to this new beginning for America and Americans.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there are some Members that would like to put off a decision on balancing the budget and having tax cuts. There are some Members that would hope that we could discuss this enough that they might discourage the President from going along with this tax cut and balanced budget for the American people. Regarding the questions whether we have had time to review this legislation, we never have enough time for each Member to totally understand the text of this legislation without the help of specialists. Look at Medicare, which is the large portion of this bill. It is essentially the same Medicare proposal that was offered by the Republicans over 2 years ago. It is the same Medicare bill that was demagogued last year in the election. Obviously Members have had 2 years to review that proposal. If we want to look at the other provisions of this bill, many are similar and we have talked about them since we voted on similar change in 1995. This legislation, this agreement has been on the table since last April in terms of what Republicans and Democrats working together actually signed off on a detailed agreement. We are doing what the American people want us to do. That is balancing the budget and cutting taxes. There is a lot more to do but this is a good start.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 332, I was delayed and unable to vote because my air flight was detained because of weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 333, my air flight was detained because of weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, there is a misconception about bringing the sugar prices down by doing away with this program. I served for 4 years as the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs in USDA. I assure you that today's agricultural policy is developed based on the priorities of having an abundant supply of food and fiber at a reasonable price for the American consumer. Consumers are paying less for sugar in this country than most of the major countries of the world. It makes no sense to compare a dumping price for sugar from another country against the current domestic price. Consider our vulnerability and what we are going to have to pay for sugar if we do away with our sugar producers in this country, it is ridiculous. Our price for sugar is one of the cheapest in the world. Do not compare it to the dump price of sugar. Keep producing quality sugar in this country. Keep this program.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman. Let us remind ourselves, this is the first year of these six new regional offices. If we let them be entrenched, then we go for 2 and 3 and 4 years. It is going to be that much more difficult. It is a cost of $22 million that could be much better spent at our local county offices, in our State offices. That is where the action is. That is where farmers and ranchers need their help. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment on the general amendments that we have had today. Look, the reason we have farm programs in this country is to assure an adequate supply of food and fiber. Let me tell the Members what these farm programs have done. It does not go into the pockets of farmers. It is not subsidizing. We have ended up with a farm program that has created the most efficient industry in the world as far as agricultural production. That is why the American people eat and spend only 11 percent of their take-home pay on food, the cheapest, highest quality food in the world. So when we talk about knocking down these amendments for export enhancement programs, for programs that allow farmers to buy the kind of insurance that is going to move ahead with our Freedom to Farm bill, putting farmers on an even keel with the rest of the world, that is the challenge we have. When other countries are subsidizing their crops and subsidizing their exports into this country, we need to do something to make sure we have a strong industry.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I would like to address the question to the chairman of the standing Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, can we pursue this question in the gentleman's committee?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If it is a new level of bureaucracy, it makes no sense.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement, and to have a colloquy with the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I will make a brief statement and proceed into the colloquy. In the last year the National Conservation Service has created a new regional bureaucracy. NRCS has local, State, and national offices. That is what they had before. Now they have put a new tier of bureaucracy between the State offices and the national offices. There was a situation in Congress in 1994, partially in 1995, when the Democrats and Republicans said that Washington is too top-heavy in USDA. So what happened? There was no firing of personnel, but all of those top-ranking, high-grade executives in the Department of Agriculture, as part of that reorganization, those personnel were not fired or pink-slipped but they were transferred to regional offices, a new tier of six regional offices for our conservation service. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues that are concerned with conservation, concerned about the service to farmers and ranchers in this country, to call their conservationists in their area and ask them about the slow-down of paperwork, the slow-down of personnel. We have $22 million in this budget for these regional offices. This, Mr. Chairman, is the first year that these six regional offices existed. I think it is important that we not allow those to be entrenched. Mr. Chairman, new bureaucracy makes no sense in the era of ``reinvented government'' and budget cuts. As we phase out payments to producers and scale back agricultural programs, it is unreasonable to add new layers of bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to join this effort to cut back unnecessary bureaucracy at NRCS. If we go to conference with this amendment, we can talk out this problem and reach a solution. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], would he review this issue and the spending of $22 million for these new regional offices in the conference committee, and work to include such report language to ensure that these six new regional offices will not continue if they are an unnecessary level of bureaucracy?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think part of the problem is that we have not debated this bill. There are a lot of good things in this budget enforcement proposal before us. However, we do have enforcement within the reconciliation bill that is going to be put before this body in the next few weeks. My bill, H.R. 2037, included the enforcement provision that is going to be in reconciliation. It says, put caps and limits on discretionary spending, have sequesters, maintain the pay-go provisions for entitlement and tax changes. So the question before us is; are we prepared to pass this kind of legislation implementing dramatic budget reform and the budget process without undergoing more through examination and consideration of the Committee on the Budget? Legislation such as this, should also be considered by the Committee on Ways and Means and other committees, to bring a studied bill before this body rather then a mostly unread and unconsidered bill with no chance of amendments. I introduced for the last 4 years budget reform legislation. I am convinced that some of those items that are not in this bill should be considered by this House when we finally pass a budget bill that is going to dramatically change the way this Congress does budget business.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that we are not going to engage in real, hard debate having aggressive committee consideration of this kind of bill. I have introduced a budget reform bill for the last 4 years. I would like that debate on a budget reform bill include consideration of provisions I think are important. I have also introduced a different budget enforcement bill, H.R. 2037, that was made part of the budget reconciliation language. The bill before us needs more consideration and debate than simply the brief 1 hour debate on the floor. I am disappointed that the rule does not have the options for amendments and debate. I am disappointed that this bill is before us today without being considered by committee or at the very least, requiring a two-third majority like any other suspension bill that has not gone through the committee process.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Pro rata across the board like she is suggesting.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Agriculture, for 7 of the last 11 years, has taken the biggest hit on reductions. I would like to convince my colleagues over on the left that we have now stopped and are phasing out subsidies for agriculture. I helped write the risk management language in the farm bill. They now have to pay for this insurance. No more disaster relief for agriculture. If we cannot phase in this kind of risk management insurance for farmers, we are going to be very hard-pressed. As we phase out the subsidy programs and do not pay the farmers that direct payment anymore, now we are simply saying farmers have to dig into their own pocket to start covering their risk, no more disaster insurance, no more subsidy payments. I think it is very important that we not cut way down on the phasing in of this risk management and insurance.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for that amendment if she puts it in, but let us not take it out of crop insurance that farmers are going to suffer from.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentlewoman takes it out as a pro rata reduction across the board. But do not take it out of crop insurance that is so important in the transition of the Freedom to Farm bill.