Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a few of the things said by my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend, who I have a great deal of respect for. We just happen to disagree about this bill and the way it has come to the body. I wished we could be in more complete agreement about it. First, with regard to the funding for IRS. Let us be clear. We have an agency that has 95,000, that is 95,000, employees. It is not a small agency. It is also one in which I think most of us have recognized over the years, that is why we passed the modernization legislation, it has been one that has been too bureaucratic, too hard to move around, to difficult in order to get a handle on it. So I do not think that the issue really is adding more employees. It is making better use of the dollars, better use of technology, better use of management techniques more than anything else. Mr. Speaker, I would also note with regard to the employees that were suggested to be added, that the President originally asked for this in the emergency supplemental. Now, they were not in there. He signed that bill. They were not in there, so all of this plan that is being asked for, the so-called program of STABLE, was going to be for annualizing these employees. Since they were not there to begin with, we cannot be talking about analyzing them; but we cannot get a handle on what it is we really need. They will not tell us how much it is we really have to have. So we know that the amount that is requested for this program is wrong. It is not the correct amount, because it was to annualize a program that has not even begun. We cannot start off with everybody on board in the first day. Let me just talk about IRS accounts overall, and I think one of the things that I have learned as Chair of this committee, it is the biggest agency that we have. It is one of the hardest agencies to get your hands around and your arms around in terms of understanding it. Mr. Speaker, now I think we have done a pretty good job in the information technology. We have had some bad times in the past, but we have been able to get a pretty good handle on the information technology account. But I do not think we are there yet with the personnel account, those that fund things such as processing and management and the enforcement. We do not have a real good handle. We need to do better in that regard, and that is why I think we need to work with Mr. Rossotti and managers at the IRS to get a better handle on exactly how this money they are asking for, this STABLE, for this new large number of 2,500 new employees would actually be used, and what they would actually do. We have not been able to really get a clear understanding of what this would be all about. On construction, the gentleman from Maryland talked about forward funding and what a gimmick this is. Mr. Speaker, the President had in his request $477 million of forward funding requested for the FDA consolidation mostly, but for some other GSA projects. So please, do not tell us that forward funding is a gimmick. It is a commitment by this body that we are going to do the next set of four courthouses. And as I suggested, the one that is the largest by far in there is one that has not been authorized, has not been approved by the authorizing committee, and so it is not really in a position to go forward during the coming year anyhow. Lastly, with regard to counterter- rorism, in the emergency supplemental bill, we had $55 million for counterterrorism. There is a request now for some additional amounts of money, but I do not think that this Congress has failed to step up to the plate, has failed to understand the need to have a strong effort in counter- terrorism. Once again, we need to have a better idea of how this money is being used. We need to see where it is going before we just simply give a blank check to this administration or any other administration. That is our job as appropriators to do that. I believe that this bill is a very responsible one. I believe it is one that Members of this body can and should support. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to a couple things that the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations said. He used the word ``cutting,'' that this bill is cutting. But I think we should be clear that we may not be adding as much as he would like in terms of new spending, but at 13.8 percent over last year's spending, it is hardly a cut. There are not cuts in this in virtually every account, there are additions, and most of them are very much needed, and we acknowledge that. But this is not cuts. The second point, with regard to the matter of IRS law enforcement or enforcement that the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about, the President's proposal would have transferred $43 million out of law enforcement into other areas. We did not permit him to do that. So if there is inadequate law enforcement, I think the problem is to be found in the White House and in the administration and their plans to try to reduce the enforcement part of the Internal Revenue Service. The third point, with regard to counter-terrorism, the additional monies, as I mentioned, we have $55 million in this bill that is emergency spending so it can be spent immediately, above and beyond the budget caps. We offered in our discussions with the minority as we were trying to get agreement on this, we offered to put an additional $37.2 million, which is more than two-thirds of what the President thought was additionally required in this area. That offer was rejected. Again, we have not heard, other than that just absolutely everything is needed, there is no negotiation to be done except to give us 100 percent, that has been the bottom line of everything we have had in the discussions here, and that is not what I would call a serious negotiation. So I think we have been very, very generous, and certainly are going to be prepared to look at additional amounts as we go forward from here. But certainly this conference report deserves support.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I hope this may conclude my part of the debate, but I do feel I need to respond to a few of the things that have just been said in this debate. A few moments ago we had the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointing out that the counter-terrorism dollars were not in here, that we are not voting on something hypothetical, we have to be voting on the substance of this. In the next moment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is talking about how the process was not good. So we are talking about the process, not the substance of it. We are kind of getting whipsawed on both sides of this thing here.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the bottom line is is this a responsible bill? The question that we should ask is not does this bill have exactly everything in it that I want, because that is not the way the legislative process works; it is is this a responsible bill? And nobody can look at this bill and say that this is not a responsible bill. It does not do everything that I would like, because in the process of being chairman, I have to give on some things. It does not do everything that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) would like, it does not do everything that the White House would like, but it is a responsible bill. It funds in an adequate way the agencies that we are responsible for. The gentleman from Maryland has told us that this bill will not be signed by the President. That is somewhat news to us, because we have never been able to get a definitive statement from the White House about that. I do not want to be in the business of passing legislation, these appropriations bills, and going through this process of having them vetoed. I want to get bills that can be signed. But, as I said at the outset, our problem is the White House will not tell us. They have said in no uncertain terms, they will not tell us what it is that they need in order to pass this, other than, of course, give us everything in the request. So we have to at some point pass a bill so we can get in writing from the White House some kind of a definitive statement about what it is. Perhaps we can do that before we send it to the White House. After we pass it and send it to the White House, perhaps we can work that out, because there are going to be other appropriations bills and other parts of this could be worked out in supplemental or omnibus bills at the end, other appropriation bills and conference reports. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a bill that is responsible. I believe we have a conference report that should be supported. I believe that the White House, and I hope the minority, would join us in passing this, so we can move forward and get this legislation enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of the staff of my subcommittee: Michelle Mrdeza, the clerk; Kurt Dodd, Jeff Ashford, and Tammy Hughes, and Patricia Schlueter of the minority staff. I would also like to thank Kevin Messner of my personal staff, and Scott Nance, on the staff of Mr. Hoyer. In addition to acknowledging the work of staff who have contributed to getting this Conference Report before the House today, let me give a special thanks to Doug Burke, a special Agent with U.S. Secret Service who is detailed to the Subcommittee as a congressional fellow. Doug came to this assignment after serving for a year as a fellow in the office of my distinguished ranking member, Mr. Hoyer. He has brought considerable skill and energy to bear on our legislative work, to include preparing for hearings, conducting detailed oversight analysis, and coordinating two important Committee oversight trips to Miami and the West Coast, where his secret skills as a jazz pianist were exposed. In addition to serving as a full working staff member for the subcommittee, Mr. Burke did extra duty in doing Secret Service advance duty for the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia during the last recess. Mr. Burke, who grew up in the Washington Virginia suburbs as the son of a former Secret Service Assistant Director, began his government service in the U.S. Navy, and went on from there to graduate from Penn State University. His subsequent career in the Secret Service has included investigative field work in Miami, protective service on the Presidential Detail, and teaching assignments at the Secret Service's Rowley Training Center in Beltsville, Maryland and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. I would like to thank Mr. Burke for his contributions to the work of the Subcommittee and wish him well in his future career as he returns this fall to the Secret Service. I would also wish him especially the best as Doug, the father of three, prepares with his wife Sarah to bring a new Burke into the world next year.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Since the gentleman spoke about what I said, Mr. Speaker, I said that there was some disagreement over some of the judicial nominations and, for that reason, the other party in the Senate, it is my understanding, and I know we are not supposed to characterize what was happening, but for that reason they, therefore, put a hold on all the appropriation bills. That was simply what I was saying.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding the additional time so I can respond. Mr. Speaker, so the decision was made over in the Senate that in order to try to expedite this process and to get not only the legislative bill but the Treasury Postal bill and at least this one tax bill that had passed by such a very large margin done before the August recess, that they would put those together and that is the reason, very simply, why it was put on this bill. There was a debate that preceded yesterday on the Treasury bill. I am not sure how far they got yesterday before the end of the day, but they have had debate on the bill on the floor of the United States Senate.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do want to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin. He asked a question, as I recall a rhetorical question since he answered himself, about the amount that this was over the allocation. I can only respond, of course, for the Treasury bill. He is correct, it is about $1.2 billion over the allocation. My question to him in return would be, is the gentleman saying that the money is too much, that we should not have these funds in there? Because earlier on the floor, just to let me finish my comment, earlier on the floor when we were debating the Treasury-Postal bill, we heard from every person over on that side of the aisle that was debating it that it was woefully inadequate, woefully insufficient funds and that it needed more money in order to get into a signable form. We think we have done that. We put more money in to make it into a signable form. I would just inquire of the gentleman, is the money too much? Is the gentleman saying that we have put too much? If so, I would certainly like to know that so that maybe we could change some of that.

Mr. KOLBE. My time has expired.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the comments he made about the procedures that were followed in bringing this conference report to the floor of the House. I will not comment on some of those procedures because they are, as we say, above my pay grade. They were decisions made beyond me, but I do want to comment about that part for which I have some knowledge and some responsibility, and that is the part in here, the very large part in here, that deals with the Treasury, Postal and General Government Appropriation. I think from a procedural standpoint, we need to understand a couple of things. First of all, I can remember on the floor of this House last year listening to the laments of the minority, our friends across the aisle, as they complained that we were not acting on appropriation bills in a timely fashion. Now, of course, today, if we pass the D.C. appropriations bill we will have passed all of the appropriations bills before the August recess. I believe that is an unprecedented number in modern times. So we are hearing the complaint today with this conference report that we are really rushing it, we are moving it too fast; and we have heard that there was not sufficient consultation with the minority about this. I regret very much that there was not more minority participation in the informal conference which took place on this bill, but I think it is very important that my colleagues understand that the minority was given full opportunity to participate, both the minority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and it was their decision, their choice, not to have staff members participate in the discussion of the provisions that were different between the House and the Senate bills as we tried to iron those out. Now, the process that we followed was one that is followed, as far as I know, as long as I have been here in every appropriations conference. That is that staff people from the two sides, the Senate and the House, get together and try and iron out the major differences. We followed that procedure. Where there were major differences that could not be handled by staff, I worked with my counterpart over in the Senate. Again, because a decision was made by the minority not to participate in those meetings, we did it on an informal basis. Was there a formal conference committee held? No. I cannot say how many times that I served on conference committees when I was in the minority of appropriations where the conference committee never met at all. So I do not think this process has been any different. I do regret very much that the minority chose not to participate in this process. They chose not to be involved in it. Nonetheless, the charge that was given to me was to make sure that we had a bill that was signable and passable, passable in the House and the Senate, signable by the President of the United States. I think when we get into a discussion of the conference report itself, we will have an opportunity to see that many of the concerns that were expressed on this floor during debate on the Treasury Postal bill, by the Members from the other side of the aisle, were addressed. Many, if not all, of the concerns that were expressed by the administration through their statement of administration policy, called the SAP, in the letter that was sent both to the House and to the Senate appropriators, virtually all of those issues were addressed. We have what I believe is a bill that is definitely a very good bill. It deals with the problems that confront the Internal Revenue Service, the Customs Service. We will have an opportunity to discuss those in greater detail as we go forward here, but I think that it is very clear to say that an opportunity was given for both sides to participate in this process. I do hope, before we get to a vote on the conference report, that there will be a much better understanding by all Members about the process, not only about the process but about the content of what is in this bill. I think when they do understand it, there will be a great deal of acceptance.

Mr. KOLBE. The answer is that over in the Senate, for reasons of their own, there was a dispute over some of the confirmations, as I understand it, confirmations of judgeships, and for that reason there was a hold placed on any of the appropriation bills after the legislative bill. So that became the only vehicle really that was available to us.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this House Joint Resolution 99. As a Vietnam veteran, I empathize with many of the arguments that I have heard by some of the opponents to this waiver. I am concerned about the issue of emigration of Vietnamese from that country. I also, of course, want a full accounting of our MIAs and POWs, and our ambassador has been working very hard on achieving that. Of course I am concerned about religious freedom and its state in a country like Vietnam. But I disagree with the proposed solutions that the other side suggested as denying the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam does nothing to further the progress in any of these areas. In fact, I believe it has just the opposite effect. Let us put this vote today in its historical perspective. It was 1991 that President Bush proposed a road map for improving our relations with Vietnam. To follow the road map, Vietnam had to take steps to help us account for our missing servicemen. In return for this cooperation, the United States agreed to move towards normalizing relations in an incremental fashion. Progress has been made through the years in that. In 1994, a second step was taken when President Clinton lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam. In 1995, in response to further reforms by the Vietnamese, formal diplomatic relations were established between the United States and Vietnam. In 1998, President Clinton issued the first waiver for Vietnam under the Jackson-Vanik procedures. This waiver, which was approved by this House by a very substantial margin, made American products eligible for trade investment programs such as Ex-Im and OPIC. This year, an even more historic step was reached when the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral trade agreement which contained significant concessions for the U.S. industry in Vietnam. Now, this vote today is not going to provide us with all the benefits of the agreement, nor will it mean that we will have normal trade relations with Vietnam. That will require an additional vote by Congress. But today's vote does send a message that Congress supports the policy of continued engagement with Vietnam. I believe that has helped us. I urge a no vote on this resolution. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. I also thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for their efforts as well. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment that we are here on the floor with this resolution, and I rise in strong support of it, a resolution to congratulate the people of Mexico for their historic democratic election which was held just a few days ago. As a student of U.S.-Mexico relations, I know that history has not always been kind to Mexico. From the Spanish conquest of Mexico to the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz, Mexico was for too long under the thumb of oppressive governments. The Mexican revolution broke those chains of oppression, but it threw Mexico into years of civil war and infighting. It was not until the PRI consolidated power 70-plus years ago that peace really returned to Mexico. During the past two PRI presidencies, we began to see real change occurring in Mexico. A traditionally closed and protected economy began to open up to the world. United States and Mexico, sensing an historic opportunity, locked these reforms into place with the conclusion of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But NAFTA was more than a simple trade agreement between our three countries. It symbolized a new sense of partnership between the United States and Mexico. It made concrete what we all know to be true, that like it or not, the United States and Mexico share a common future. Economically, I think NAFTA has been a huge success. It helps to bring investor confidence to Mexico. It has enabled both the United States and Mexico to specialize its production and it has led to increased exports on both sides of the border. But the true success of NAFTA lies much deeper than that. As I have always said, with economic reforms, political reforms will follow. And there is no greater testament to this fundamental truth than the recent democratic elections in Mexico. So, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the Mexican people for the bold and visionary steps that they have taken in recent years and very dramatically with this election. This month's election is the cumulation of slow political change in Mexico. And so we congratulate President-elect Vicente Fox and his party, the National Action Party. But we congratulate more than an individual and more than a political party. We congratulate the people of Mexico, for this is a moment that Mexico should be justly proud. It is not the end; it is the beginning of a new era, a new era of openness, of democracy, of prosperity for the Mexican people. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to extend my best wishes and sincere congratulations to the people of Mexico. As the Mexicans themselves might say it, ``En hora buena. Muchas Felicidades.'' Well done, congratulations.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I again want to thank him for his leadership on this and certainly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for introducing this very important legislation, which I think is really very much underestimated in terms of its importance. For decades, the United States has carried the standard in promoting democracy, market liberalization, economic development abroad. To further those goals, we have spent literally billions of dollars in developing countries in our aid programs. And those aid programs have made substantial progress. Underdeveloped nations have seen their economies bloom over the last few decades. We have seen democracy take root in some of the rockiest soil on this globe. Thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization a few years ago, the vast majority of international trade is now governed by clear and transparent rules. But, as the Asian financial crisis and the theft of billions of dollars of IMF money in Russia shows, we still have a long way to go. Too many places in the world continue to be held in the grip of corruption and cronyism. The obvious impact of these two evils are the loss of untold billions of dollars for people who desperately need the economic benefits those lost dollars might bring to them. But the corrosive effects of corruption and cronyism are worse. They are often hidden and ignored. Government corruption undermines the rule of law, and that is the very cornerstone of democracy. It undermines economic development, squandering billions of dollars of investment capital on enrichment of the few rather than the benefit of the many. Not only that, it undermines the ability of U.S. business to compete freely and fairly for foreign government contracts, and that costs U.S. corporations millions of dollars in lost sales. This legislation which we are considering here tonight makes anti- corruption procedures a key principle of our development assistance. The legislation requires that the Treasury Department incorporate anti- corruption measures when providing international technical assistance. The bill also requires the Agency for International Development to establish programs to battle corruption overseas and includes a provision of a bill that I have introduced on third-party monitoring to make sure that contracts are given by development banks and U.S. government agencies are fully monitored. This legislation will help to ensure that U.S. funds are going for the purpose for which they are intended. It will also help to build a more open and transparent government procurement system in developing countries and help to eliminate corruption around the world. It is, simply speaking, a much-needed common sense approach to a very serious problem. I urge support for this bill and congratulate the authors of it for bringing it to this body.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 2000, I introduced, along with my colleague Representative Steny Hoyer, H. Con. Res. 252, calling for an end to the U.S./Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement when it expires in 2001. The resolution was introduced with 30 bipartisan original cosponsors. There are now 115 cosponsors from all regions of the country and the number is growing every day. The purpose of the resolution is to: (1) Ensure a competitive North American market for softwood lumber; (2) ensure free trade regarding softwood lumber between the U.S. and Canada; (3) ensure all stakeholders are included in discussions regarding trade of softwood lumber; and, (4) ensure that the Softwood Lumber Agreement is allowed to terminate when it expires in 2001. By taking these steps, the negative impact on U.S. consumers and housing affordability can be eliminated. The Softwood Lumber Agreement imposes quotas on lumber shipped from Canada to the United States. These quotas have a dramatic impact on the price and volatility of lumber, which jeopardizes affordable housing in America and hurts American consumers. A recent study by Brink Lindsay and Mark Groombridge of the Cato Institute entitled ``Nailing the Homeowner: the Economic Impact of Trade Protection of the Softwood Lumber Industry,'' confirms the detrimental impact this agreement has on the American consumer. The authors calculated that trade restrictions imposed upon the American consumer by the Softwood Lumber Agreement added an estimated $50 to $80 per thousand board feet to the price of lumber. The result is an addition of $800 to $1,300 to the cost of new home prices, thereby driving some 300,000 American families out of the housing market. Unfortunately, the bulk of these consumers are lower-income families. The Softwood Lumber Agreement is the worst form of government market intervention, driving up consumer costs and distorting the free market. Fortunately, the agreement is set to expire on April 1, 2001. I hope that the Administration will seriously consider the impact of the Softwood Lumber Agreement on consumers within the United States and allow the agreement to expire with no extension or further quota agreement. If the administration wants to discuss softwood lumber and forestry matters with Canada, the President should include consumers in any discussion. I hope the Administration will notify interested members of the U.S. House of Representatives if such discussions are underway.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 416, on Wednesday, July 19. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I am committed to working with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) to make sure that this program is adequately funded and receives the necessary oversight.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for raising these, again, very important issues. It certainly was not the intention of the subcommittee to question the usefulness or the importance of State and local grants that help to combat money laundering. We recognize that money laundering is a significant problem and that State and local officials are critical in our efforts to combat this problem.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on page 1, line 2, after the comma, the following be inserted: ``That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:'' Mr. Chairman, this vital section was simply left out in preparing the bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).