Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make an announcement. For all those Members on the floor or those who may be listening and staff people who may be listening, we are trying very diligently to complete consideration of this bill in a timely fashion. It would be helpful if Members would advise us if there are amendments that they have not yet filed, if they would bring them here to either the ranking minority member or myself so that we could perhaps consider whether or not a unanimous consent agreement on time limitations might be in order at some point during this afternoon's debate. So I would ask all Members that may have amendments that we are not aware of if they would like to alert us to that so that we can begin to consider whether or not time limitations when we get to considering amendments might be possible. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the second-ranking member of the subcommittee and a very hard working member.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who happens to be a very hard-working member on the subcommittee who has contributed tremendously to this bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased today to present H.R. 4871, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. As reported to the floor, this bill contains $14.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Postal Service, and other independent agencies. This represents an increase of $678 million above the current year levels. That is about 5 percent. Mr. Chairman, in a few moments, I suspect we will hear from some of our colleagues that this bill fails to meet its critical responsibilities for agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. I do not disagree with that. I disagree, however, that we are not meeting our priorities, because we do meet the priorities in this bill. We do not fund everything, but we meet the priorities. Do we fund everything that was requested by the President? No. But being below the President's request by $2.1 billion does not make this bill or this subcommittee irresponsible. It means we have somewhat different priorities. Do we provide $225 million to hire an additional 2,835 IRS employees? No. Do we fund seven new courthouses for a cost of $488 million? No, we do not. The bottom line is this, in putting together this bill, choices had to be made. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called this bill half empty. I, on the other hand, believe the bill presented here today is more than half full. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides $4.9 billion for Federal law enforcement, and that supports 30 percent of all Federal law enforcement. This includes funds for the U.S. Customs Service to protect our borders from drugs and other contraband as well as to protect our burgeoning trade; funds for the Secret Service to protect, not only our Nation's dignitaries, but also our currency and our children through their school violence program; and funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to enforce our gun laws. As my colleagues are aware, one of the greatest challenges with this bill is keeping it free of controversial legislative riders. We seem to have a great talent for attracting controversy for a whole host of reasons. It is unfortunate that so much time gets spent debating not appropriations matters on this bill. From my perspective, it is even more unfortunate the passage of this measure has nothing to do with the programs and activities that are funded here but rather with legislative items that either are attached or perhaps not attached. And what gets lost in the debate is the good things that are accomplished by this bill. For those who may in the end decide to vote against this measure, let me tell them what they are opposing. They would be opposed to $185 million for ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, for that youth media campaign that keeps kids off drugs and helps parents learn how to teach children just to say no. They would be opposed to $30 million for Drug Free Community Grants, partnerships between community coalitions and the Federal Government for the purpose of reducing drug use. They would be opposed to $192 million for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Programs, providing assistance to State and local law enforcement in areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking. They would be opposed to $13 million to keep children out of gangs through the GREAT program that is administered through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They would be opposed to $76 million for the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, called YCGII, to take guns out of the hands of our Nation's youth. They would be opposed to $3.6 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, reuniting children with their families and supporting the child exploitation unit. They would be opposed to $1.7 million for a new program for the Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, a project designed to prevent targeted violence from occurring in schools by helping schoolteachers and administrators identify problems in advance. And, yes, $4 million for the Customs Cybersmuggling Center to target international child pornography trafficking and child exploitation via the Internet. The list I have just shared with my colleagues is a small sampling of what is included in this bill. I could continue. I could tell my colleagues about the $233 million that is in here for Customs Automation, including $105 million for the much-awaited and even more needed Customs information technology modernization program that is known as ACE, and I know that many of my colleagues have a strong interest in this program. I could also stand here and inform Members about the reporting requirements that we have included regarding the First Lady's use of government aircraft for the Senate campaign, and funding for the National Archives to improve veterans recordkeeping and accessibility or the reforms for the Federal Elections Commission that will help ensure accurate and timely disclosure during the current election cycle or advise my colleagues about improvements in Treasury's ability to collect Federal debts. But, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will not list all of the many fiscally responsible or the good government provisions that are included in this bill. My point is simply this: Does the bill do everything that everyone wants? No. But it is strong on law enforcement, it is tough on drugs, it is supportive of efforts to modernize the Customs Service, provides law enforcement with the resources it needs to enforce our current gun laws and is a good government bill. It is a people's bill. And all this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks in this general debate, I want to take just a moment to say thank you to the other hard-working members of this subcommittee and to all the others who have worked to help make this, I believe, a better bill. In particular, I want to extend my appreciation to the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and to his staff, Scott Nance and Pat Schlueter; the subcommittee staff on our side who are surrounding us here, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeff Ashford, Kurt Dodd, Tammy Hughes, and Doug Burke; and my personal staff, who has worked so hard on this bill, Kevin Messner. Without their work, Mr. Chairman, the bill that we would have here today would be far more imperfect than it is. Without the work and the cooperation of the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I do not believe we would have a bill here. While it is not acceptable to him, and I understand that, it is a bill that we have at least been able to work together on to try to move through this process and get it to where we are. I am very grateful to the gentleman from Maryland for the cooperation that he has shown and for his hard work on this bill, as I have just said. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from Maryland, I know, is trying very well to use up some time here while he is waiting for his colleague to arrive, I would just suggest we do have one Member here who does have a colloquy prepared, if he would like to yield back.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding to me, and I appreciate the comments that he has made. I share the concern that the gentleman has, first, that we are not able to do any of the courthouse funding and construction that we would like to do. We have a significant need for infrastructure in this country, and the longer we postpone building courthouses, the more difficult it gets. So I am concerned about that. I hope that perhaps an additional allocation of funds might make it possible for us to do some of the courthouse construction. We also know that courthouse construction is a priority for a number of Members whose districts are affected by that. Buffalo, while it is number six on the priority list for the courts, was not included in one of the seven projects which the administration recommended be funded, a moot point, as I said, because we did not recommend funding any of these. But I look forward very much to working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and with other Members of his delegation as we move forward on the construction to be sure that this priority that the courts have held for this is adhered to and that we are able to fund this in a timely fashion.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) for underscoring the fact that this bill is about making our laws work for the safety of all citizens and especially for our children. All the laws of the world that we might pass are not going to make a difference if we do not put an effort behind them to enforce them, and that is one of the things that I think every Member of this House believes in and can support, regardless of what side of the aisle we are on and wherever we might stand on the issue of gun use and gun ownership.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title III be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on consideration of H.R. 4871 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, to correct apparently an error in propounding my earlier unanimous consent request, I now ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4871 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 560 and the order of the House of earlier today, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) be permitted to offer an amendment regarding Federal contracts in lieu of an amendment regarding Federal election contracts.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee, was on his feet.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for the amendment he has offered. Members of this body have been working closely with the gentleman from New Jersey and his staff for some time on this. I think the gentleman has raised an important issue and, as he suggests here, we really need to have a consistent government-wide policy on the use of gathering information about people who are on the Internet and who seek access to Internet sites, including government sites. So I commend him for what he is doing. We do have some concerns that we have talked to him about the way his amendment is drafted, but we think we can work those out. Members will also note this is the second amendment on this topic that we have had here tonight. The gentleman from Washington offered one which proceeds from the presumption that Internet access is being looked at and he asked to study it. This one proceeds from the idea that cookies should not be used. I think that is the appropriate way to look at this for the moment. So I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and thank him for yielding.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for offering this amendment. I am prepared as chairman of the subcommittee to accept the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this has been added to other bills. The gentleman from Ohio knows my particular views on this issue, but I think we are prepared to accept the amendment here.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the time in opposition, but I just want to continue to reserve my point of order, and will make it at the appropriate time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. While there may be some merits to this issue and the debate is certainly one that this House should have, it does not belong on this appropriation bill. This appropriation bill has enough weight on it, and I would urge my colleagues not to add this amendment to this bill. I urge the rejection of this amendment.