Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. That is correct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that I accept the responsibility for the fact that this debate on this motion may be more prolonged than might have been indicated to him by staff. They were corrected, believing there would be no great debate on this. It was my view that I needed to say some things about the bill that had been vetoed, and so I accept that responsibility for that, and I apologize if a miscommunication was made to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 2000, I was unavoidably absent when the House voted on ``Approving the Journal'', H.J. Res. 118, ``Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2001'', and two Motions to Instruct on H.R. 4577. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on ``Approving the Journal'' (rollcall vote 570), ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 118 (rollcall vote 571), ``nay'' on the first motion to instruct conferees (rollcall vote 572), and ``nay'' on the second motion to instruct conferees (rollcall vote 573). On October 29, 2000, I was also unavoidably absent when the House voted on ``Approving the Journal'' H.J. Res. 119 ``Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2001'', and a Motion to Instruct on H.R. 4577. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on ``Approving the Journal'' (rollcall vote 574), ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 119 (rollcall vote 575) and ``nay'' on the motion to instruct conferees (rollcall vote 576).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent today when the House debated and voted ``On Approving the Journal'', H.J. Res. 120 ``Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2001'', ``On a Motion on the Hour of Meeting'', on ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 662 Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001'', on H. Res. 662 ``Providing for consideration of certain joint resolutions making further continuing appropriations for FY 2001'', on ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 663 Providing for consideration of S. 2485; and Corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 2614'', and on H. Res. 662, ``Providing for consideration of S. 2485; and Corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 2614.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on ``Approving the Journal'' (rollcall vote 577), ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 120 (rollcall vote 578), ``aye'' on a ``Motion on the Hour of Meeting'' (rollcall vote 579), ``aye'' on ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 662'' (rollcall vote 580), ``aye'' on H. Res. 662 (rollcall vote 581), ``aye'' on ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 663'' (rollcall vote 582), and ``aye'' on H. Res. 663 (rollcall vote 583).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 2000 the House voted on H.J. Res. 117, ``Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 2001'', S. 2943, the ``International Malaria Control Act'', H.R. 2498, the ``Cardiac Arrest Survival Act'', H. Res. 655, ``Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1550 and the Senate Amendment'', S. 2712, the ``Reports Consolidation Act of 2000'', H.R. 5309, ``Designating Ronald Reagan Post Office,'' said S. 3194, ``Designating Bob Walker Post Office.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 117, (rollcall vote No. 563), ``aye'' on S. 2943, (rollcall vote No. 564), ``aye'' on H.R. 2498, (rollcall vote No. 565), ``aye'' on H.R. 5309, (rollcall vote No. 568), and ``aye'' on S. 3194, (rollcall vote No. 569).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 2000 the House debated and voted on H. Res. 634, ``Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4656, Lake Tahoe Basin School Site Land Conveyance Act'', H. Con. Res. 414, ``Relating to the Reestablishment of Representative Government in Afghanistan'', and H.R. 4271, the ``National Science Education Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 634, (roll call vote number 541) ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 414 (roll call vote number 542), and ``aye'' on H.R. 4271 (roll call vote number 543).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a member of the committee and, of course, also the majority whip.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate, and there are a couple of things that I thought we might want to correct just for the record here. There have been speakers on the other side that have talked about how they are concerned about class size reduction, how they are concerned about the infrastructure of our schools and making sure that we have money for that. And we are too. But perhaps the public does not know that in the conference that has been worked out on the Labor-HHS bill, there is every single dollar that the President has requested for classroom size reduction, $1.4 billion, and for new school construction, $1.3 billion. Every one of those dollars is in there. The difference, of course, is that in the conference report, it is in a block grant to the schools. Because as we know, in one school district, there may not be a problem with new school construction. It may be teacher development, and in another school district, there may not be a problem with class sizes, it may be a community where the population is shrinking. They may need to have new computers and renovation. What we suggest is give the money back to the school districts, to the local districts, to the teachers, to the parents, to the administrators to make the decisions about how the dollars will be spent; but the other side says no, we, here in Washington, the bureaucracy in Washington, we, in Congress, we will dictate exactly how you are going to spend those dollars. We know best. That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the minority and the majority. We believe that the dollars should go back to the schools, back to the parents, back to the teachers, back to those who need it, get into the classrooms. They believe it should go to the bureaucracy to determine how it will be spent, and we will direct exactly how those dollars will be spent. One other point, Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned here earlier that the only thing different about this CR is the date is changed. Well, there is another difference, the previous CR did not give the authority to the administration to write the checks beginning for November 1 for Social Security benefits and for veterans' benefits and all other entitlements, but mainly for Social Security and for veterans' benefits. This continuing resolution does give them that. Mr. Speaker, a vote against this continuing resolution, make no mistake about it, a vote against this continuing resolution is a vote against writing the Social Security checks for the beginning of the month. It is a vote against the benefits for veterans. It is a vote to say no, we will not make the payments for veterans or for Social Security beneficiaries. That is what the vote against this continuing resolution would do, because it is not the same as the previous continuing resolution. So I think those points need to be kept in mind here as we move forward with this debate. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the additional time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 2000 the House debated and voted on H. Res. 631, ``Honoring the Members of the Crew of the Guided Missile Destroyer U.S.S. Cole Who Were killed or Wounded in the Terrorist Attack on that Vessel in Aden, Yemen, on October 12, 2000'', H. Con. Res. 415, National Children's Memorial Day, and H.R. 3218, the Social Security Number Confidentiality Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 631, (rollcall vote No. 531), ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 415 (rollcall vote No. 532), and ``yea'' on H.R. 3218 (rollcall vote No. 533).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2000, I was on an airplane returning from my district and missed the following votes: H.R. 208, to amend Title 5, U.S. Code, to allow for the contribution of certain rollover distributions to accounts in the Thrift Savings Plan; H.R. 762, the Lupus Research and Care Amendments; and S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three of these votes (#519, #520 and #521).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I believe overall that the Agriculture Appropriations Conference report is a very good bill. It contains many admirable provisions including language that would allow the reimportation of prescription drugs. Data shows that a single does of a drug that costs a senior citizen $1 in the United States only cost 64 cents in Canada, while in Italy the same drug costs only 51 cents. I support drug reimportation--I am convinced this is one way to reduce the cost of prescription drug prices without imposing price controls or burdensome regulations on drug manufacturers. Indeed, I voted in favor of these provisions when the Agriculture Appropriations bill first passed the House and I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1885, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, which contains many similar provisions. Also included is funding for a number of initiatives which I strongly favor, including $1.5 million for pink bollworm control programs, $500,000 for aflatoxin research in Arizona. $5 million for the Water conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory move from Phoenix to the University of Arizona's Maricopa Agriculture Center (MAC), $495,000 for the International Arid Lands Consortium (administered by UA), $369,000 for the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources, $200,000 for hesperaloe and other natural products from desert plants research (conducted by UA), and $4,177,000 for shrimp aquaculture research. And I voted for a bill which contains these provisions when it passed the House on July 11, 2000. However, during conference deliberations on the Agriculture Appropriations bill, an amendment was inserted into the bill that was not considered by an committee in either the House or Senate. This provision has serious repercussions for U.S. industry. Because of my strong opposition to this provision, I will reluctantly vote against this bill today. Under the amendment adopted in the Agriculture Appropriations conference report, antidumping and countervailing duties which are currently paid by the importing industry would be transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department directly in the petitioning company. This is a major change in our current antidumping and countervailing duty laws with potentially disastrous consequences. Under current law, antidumping or countervailing duties are assessed to offset the dumping or subsidy and paid to the U.S. Treasury. Payment of the duties readjusts the market to replicate conditions as if dumping or subsidization had not occurred. The theory behind this law is to level the playing field between U.S. producers and foreign importers so that each may compete fairly for access to U.S. consumers. The provision inserted into the Agriculture Appropriations bill does much more--it double compensates the petitioner by no only offsetting the alleged injury, but also providing a windfall subsidy to the petitioner. This provision will encourage other countries to adopt a similar industry subsidy. U.S. exporters facing dumping duties will end up directly subsidizing their competitors instead of paying duties to a foreign government. Because U.S. companies are the biggest targets of AD/CVD actions, this threatens our exports. Subsidization of industry by any government which is a member of the World Trade Organization violates the WTO Agreement on Subsidies on Countervailing Measures. The U.S. Government supported this Agreement because we sought to eliminate foreign subsidies which undercut the ability of U.S. industry to compete abroad. Payment of AD/CVD duties violates the Agreement which could lead to retaliatory tariffs against innocent U.S. exporters. The lure of a potential monetary windfall could spur additional litigation under our AD/CVD laws. In order to be eligible for the potential windfall, U.S. industry would be encouraged to join in the filing of AD/CVD petitions. Otherwise, they would not be eligible for any payments which might be made under this new provision. Furthermore, the promise of monetary compensation would take away any incentive to enter into ``suspension agreements'' or settlements whereby a foreign producer agrees not to sell below an agreed price in an antidumping case. More cases means more duties, on the backs of this U.S. industries which depend on steady supplies of products which may subject to AD/CVD. Because of the serious implications of this ill-considered provision, I am reluctantly voting against the Agriculture Appropriations conference report.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today the House debated H.R. 3244, the ``Trafficking Victims Protection Act'' conference report. I was unavoidably absent for a vote on the rule (H. Res. 613) and the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rule (rollcall vote No. 517) and ``aye'' on the conference report (rollcall vote No. 518).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss those provisions of this conference agreement which come under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. These provisions are ones that we hope will allow the conference report, which has been over in the Senate and, unfortunately, has not been successful in passage, to allow that to be brought up again and finally passed. We believe that these represent the final compromises and agreements on the Treasury-Postal legislation, and those changes are incorporated into this bill. The provisions include more funding for the IRS, and they are items that the administration has indicated that they need to have in order to fully support the fiscal year 2001 conference report that we passed on September 14. The conference report includes an additional $348 million for the programs of the Department of Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the National Archives, and the General Services Administration. When combined with the amounts that are in H.R. 4985, the fiscal year 2001 conference agreement, it provides $15.9 billion for agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. That is an increase of $2.3 billion from fiscal year 2000, or 16.4 percent. Included in the amount under consideration in the conference report pending before us now are these, among others: $37.2 million for Treasury-wide efforts to combat terrorism, that is an increase; an increase of $215 million for the IRS, including $71.8 million for ongoing efforts related to information systems modernization, $141 million to support ongoing reform efforts, including staff for customer service and audits, and $3.1 million for money laundering; an additional $16.6 million for the Customs Service, to enhance both infrastructure and staffing along the northern border, specifically to counter terrorist threats in that area; an additional $30 million to establish and operate a metropolitan area law enforcement training center for the Department of Treasury, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and other Federal agencies; $5 million for the enhanced operation of the Office of National Drug Control's Technology Transfer Program; and $2.5 million as a transfer to the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for objective nonpartisan citizens education for choice by voters on the island's future status. Let me just say a few words about this latter item, because it proved to be one of the more contentious ones. It is money that is provided for the Puerto Rico referendum on statehood or independence. After many long hours of numerous variations on a theme, we were able to secure a compromise with the administration on the use of these funds. The funds are provided with the following conditions: they are not available until March 31, 2001; the funds may not be used by the Elections Commission until 45 days after the commission submits to the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan developed jointly by the Popular Democratic Party, the New Progressive Party, and the Puerto Rico Independence Party; and the expenditure plan must be approved by the Committees on Appropriations prior to any funds being spent. I want to pay special tribute to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). This has been a difficult bill, to negotiate the final agreements. He and his staff have worked extremely hard with us, and I believe what we have achieved is good legislation. I want to thank the staff of my subcommittee, led by the clerk, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Tammy Hughes, our detailee, Doug Burke, Kevin Messner from any own staff, and, of course, on the other side, Pat Schlueter and Scott Nance, who have played key roles in getting this legislation to where we are today. I believe we have legislation that can be supported, and I hope that Members will support it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this conference report. I say reluctant because there is a provision in this bill which tramples state rights. The conference agreement requires states to adopt a .08 blood alcohol law and provides highway sanctions beginning in fiscal year 2004. Reductions in highway funds of 2 percent per year would be phased in, not to exceed 8 percent, for those states that are in noncompliance. Now I strongly support measures to discourage drunk driving. But this provision disregards the right of states to regulate alcohol sales. Such a provision should not be included as a part of this conference report and it should have been rejected. Unfortunately it was not. And as opposed as I am to this provision I am going to vote for this report. It provides much needed federal funds to increase the capacity and safety of our nation's transportation infrastructure. In total, the bill provides nearly $17.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, an increase of $3.5 billion over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Outlays, mostly needed for transportation infrastructure, are up 13.3 percent compared to the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The conference agreement provides $12 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration--$2.5 billion (25 percent) over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 7 percent more than the Administration's request. Funding for the airport improvement program is $3.2 billion, an increase of $1.25 billion--or 64 percent--over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. It also includes $5 billion is provided in the conference report to reduce the public debt. Thus, despite my misgivings about the impact of this bill on state's rights. I will vote for this bill. However, I will continue to work with my colleagues to overturn this provision or to lessen its impact on state's rights.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for H.R. 2941, the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Establishment Act. As the gentleman from Washington said, it is an open rule, and deserves support of all the Members of this body.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, this represents the last piece of the compromise on this legislation. After discussions at the last hour last night with the Secretary of Interior, we have agreed to remove the provision providing for any eminent domain provisions in the legislation. If Arizona adopts a constitutional change this year, the provisions dealing with sale or exchange will still be valid, but we have removed the eminent domain. And this amendment accomplishes that.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, consideration of H.R. 2941 marks not the beginning of the end for this legislation, but rather the end of the beginning. I say that because this is the culmination of 5 years of work by the people who live and work in the area, but its enactment will mark the beginning of an effort to preserve 143,000 acres of land so that future generations can enjoy Arizona's great western heritage, ranching, outdoor recreation and vast open spaces of desert filled with wildlife. This bill establishes the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of my colleagues, ``Las Cienegas'' means ``the marshes,'' something we do not normally associate with Arizona. And yet this river bottom, this watershed is indeed one of the spectacular areas of marshes and bogs. The legislation will ensure that a land management plan is developed that is consistent with local needs and interests. Besides grazing and recreation, other authorized uses of the lands and the NCA include motorized vehicles on specified roads and trails, continued military overflights, and hunting in accordance with State law. However, future mineral leases are prohibited. The management plan of this NCA must be based on the local partnership's land use plan that has been collaborative in nature. The plan must include educational programs as well as the strategies for management of wildlife, cultural resources, and cave resources. The bill also protects private property rights and it ensures access to private and other non-Federal properties within the NCA boundary. This legislation reflects, I believe, a balanced approach to land management that recreation, hunting and ranching can coexist with the Sonoran desert ecosystem. Several perspectives have been brought to the table during the 5 years that this vision has been molded into its current shape, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) alluded to some of that. The interest of hiking clubs, of conservation groups, of grazing permittees, of mountain bike clubs, as well as State and county governments have all been intricately involved and interwoven in this consensus building process. The bill does indeed, as a result, have very broad support. Both counties affected by this bill have passed unanimous bipartisan resolutions of support. It has shown to have bipartisan support here in the House of Representatives. It has support from the Department of Army and the very nearby Fort Huachuca. It has support of the City of Tucson and support of the Empire Ranch Foundation, of environmental organizations, of the Arizona and Pima Trail Associations, of the Southern Arizona Mountain Bike Association, of the Green Valley Hiking Club. And today, just this morning, I am pleased to say that the Governor of the State of Arizona has just faxed us a letter of her support. Yes, it even has the support of developers. The bill establishes a 142,800 acres Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District, which includes the 42,000 acres Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The goal of this acquisition planning district is to give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to reach a consensual agreement with the Governor of Arizona to acquire the State lands and prevent urban sprawl in the region. This is a one-way street, however. The Secretary of Interior has to try to negotiate and coordinate with the State, but the State must weigh its options and decide whether this would be beneficial for them. If the State or other non-Federal landowners decide not to participate in this vision, this legislation does not prevent them from doing anything that would be allowed today on that land. It simply provides another option to the State as the major landholder within this acquisition planning area. Also, let me point out that there are no private lands within the NCA boundary, and non-Federal land within the acquisition planning district could become a part of the National Conservation Area only if they are acquired from a willing seller or if a conservation easement is purchased by the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be here today representing the people of southeastern Arizona on the development of this legislation. They have made a very conscious effort to work with their neighbors, to understand the differing interests, the competing interests that are included in this bill, and to come up with a plan that meets everyone's needs. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the multitude of people who have helped us to get to this point. Many people have put their heart and soul into this bill. I think of Luther Propst and Mary Vint with the Sonoran Institute; John and Mac Donaldson and John McDonald with the Empire Ranch, and I only wish, I might add, that I could give them some rain right now for their cattle and their feed; of Sheldon Clark, Peter Backus; Supervisors Ray Carroll of Pima County and Ron Morriss of Santa Cruz County; Arizona Game & Fish Commissioner Joe Carter; and Jesse Juen and Laurie Sedlmayr with the Bureau of Land Management. I also commend Governor Hull and her staff for their valuable contributions to the legislation. I especially want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), for his consistent support. Lisa Daly with Legislative Counsel has to be commended for dealing with my staff's constant pestering and pleasantly and competently dealing with the seemingly never-ending changes to the bill. Finally, I thank my own staff in Arizona: Kay McLoughlin, Bernadette Polley. And as a witness to just how long this has been going on, I express my thanks also to Melinda Carrell, who retired more than a year ago, not, I might add, because of this bill, but played an instrumental role in developing this legislation. Without the dedicated work of Kevin Messner, who is with me on the floor today, giving birth to this bill countless times, negotiating improvements, and maneuvering through mine fields, we would not be here on the floor with this bill today. And finally, last but not least, let me also thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of subcommittee; Allen Freemyer from the majority staff; and Rick Healy from the minority staff for their invaluable input for bringing us here. These folks have been invaluable in this effort. I give my heartfelt thanks to them and say this is what I think the legislative process ought to be about. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of a 5-year bipartisan, multi- interest compromise that is being asked for by the people, and I can say virtually all the people, of southern Arizona.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to rise to talk about that part of this conference report that covers the 2001 Treasury Postal Service and General Government appropriations bill. This is a bill that is strong on law enforcement. It is tough on guns and it supports a policy of zero tolerance on drugs. Now, the President has said that he will sign all reasonable appropriation bills this Republican Congress sends to him. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what he asked for. It is reasonable in every sense of the word, as I will attempt to describe here. Our part of this conference report is fiscally responsible and it is completely free of any and all controversial legislative riders. Let me just take a moment to describe a little bit of the nuts and bolts of the measure. First of all, overall it has $15.6 billion in support of the agencies that are covered by our appropriations subcommittee. It is $1.9 billion, or 13.8 percent above the 2000 enacted level. It is 5.4 percent or $900 million below the President's request but it is also $1.228 billion above what we first initially passed in the House. Some of the increases over the 2000 enacted levels include these: $449 million for U.S. Customs Service, including not less than $258 million for the badly needed Customs automation program, particularly the new one called ACE or Automated Customs Environment; $204.9 million for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms; $423 million for IRS to support ongoing efforts for organizational modernization; $15.2 million for the HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, a total of $206.5 million for that; a $10 million increase for the Drug Free Communities Act; $142 million for the Secret Service to support their ongoing protective operations as well as the work that they do with school violence; a total of $276 million as an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2002 for four new courthouses for a total of $472 million in fiscal year 2001 for four new courthouse projects, two new border stations, the continuation of FDA consolidation and the construction of ATF headquarters. Lastly, let me just mention that there is $88 million to begin the work and restoration of the National Archives headquarters and protection of our charters of freedom. In terms of legislative items as compared to the House-passed bill, this agreement does not include any provisions related to the Cuban sanctions. It does not include provisions related to the prohibition on the use of funds to implement regulations clarifying what constitutes a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics for Federal contractors, also known as the black listing provision. It does not include the provision prohibiting the use of funds to provide preferential treatment for the acquisition of firearms or ammunition. It does not include any provisions relating to reforms of the Federal Elections Commission, including the provision on the use of government aircraft by House and Senate candidates. Conversely, this agreement does include current law from both the prohibition and use of funds for abortion as well as a requirement that health benefit plans provide contraceptive coverage. It does include a 1-year extension of the pilot project for child care and it does include current law as enacted in 1999 for the Kyoto protocol. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to cry foul about this bill. They are going to claim the conference agreement was put together in the dead of night without their participation. Well, we did work long hours and indeed some of those hours were in the middle of the night in order to put together this responsible bill, but the truth is, and my colleagues know this, that they were invited to participate at every step of the way. For every meeting that was scheduled with the Senate, they and their staffs were invited to attend. The fact is, they declined to participate. They declined our invitation to participate. Now, I also suspect my colleagues will claim, as they already have, this bill is headed for a veto because it fails to fund must-have items requested in the President's budget. The fact is, we do not know if the President will veto this measure. Through the grapevine we have heard several variations of the position of the White House. First, they thought this was a reasonable bill, albeit somewhat short when it came to funding new employees in the IRS. We were led to believe the administration wanted to add back or add an additional $100 million. Then we heard the White House wanted $300 million, some for IRS, some for Archives, some for Treasury law enforcement. Finally, we heard the White House does not really have a specific list of must-have programs they believe are underfunded but rather there is a general list of must-have items that now totals between $729 million and $783 million, more than half of which would go to courthouse construction. Regardless of courthouses, this conference agreement funds 8 projects, one more than the President requested. Now, some will say that we are playing games with the numbers because we forward funded four projects. The fact is of those four projects, one of them, the largest one, in Miami at $122 million, has a lot of controversy about it and it has a difficult time in the authorization process. It made sense to actually forward fund this one. Let us be honest about who is playing games and using gimmicks. It is not the Committee on Appropriations. There is one fact and one fact only that has kept us from passing this bill sooner. The White House will not give us a position on the bill. They will not specify what items which might cause them to veto this measure. They will not sit down and negotiate with us. In all my years on appropriations, I have not seen a time when the White House outright refused to give a position on the bill, but this is apparently the year where they simply refuse to come to the table and negotiate in good faith on this appropriation bill. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report so we can get on with the business of Congress.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we almost got him today. The gentleman is absolutely right. So I would simply repeat what I said in that tribute, and that is that this body is poorer for his absence; and we have been richer as an institution for what he brought to this body, the sense of calm, the sense of history, the sense of understanding of where this place is and where it is going. I think that he has elevated and has leavened this body I think substantially. I believe that the House of Representatives will miss him tremendously. I know all of us individually will. I wish him well.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I say I can say without fear of contradiction that I probably have known Ron Lasch longer than any other person in this Chamber because Ron Lasch and I came to Congress together as pages just a few months apart when we were at the age of 16 years. Earlier this summer we did some tributes to Ron Lasch but, of course, he chose, as he has today, to not be here on the floor.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.