Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just note that in full committee, the gentleman may not be aware of this, but this account already was reduced by $2 million over the amount that was planned for. This is another $1 million out of that. In terms of meeting current services and paying the pay increases for the people that are already there doing the jobs of oversight, it will have an effect on that, there is no question about it. But I just raise these questions.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I have mixed views about this. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I would just point out that this comes out of the Inspector General's account. This is the account that we regard as the one we expect to do the oversight for the IRS and all the other functions in Treasury. Now, in an account that has over $100 million, maybe losing $1 million of that is not that significant. But we do not really know exactly what the impact of this will be in terms of their oversight functions. I am also a little unclear as to exactly, and I know the gentleman has talked about it being a demonstration project, but I am a little unclear as to exactly how this would work, what the $950,000 is going to be used for. There have not been any hearings, as I understand it, in front of the Committee on Commerce. There has been no work done by the authorizing committee on this. I think this needs more information and more discussion before we would proceed with it. For that reason, I would just say that I think this amendment may be an inappropriate amendment at this point.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, listening to the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), I would just say that I think that the information that the gentleman seeks from Treasury about these loans would be useful information to Congress. And if the gentleman does agree to withdraw his amendment, I will certainly work with him to find language that is mutually acceptable to us, that we could include in the conference report requiring such a study to get this information.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work in this area. In fact, I can say with absolute certainty, no issue in this bill has been raised more times by any Member in this body than this issue has by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). So his defense of the interests of Racine, Wisconsin have been tremendous. I appreciate the comments that he has made and understand what he is talking about, and I am very pleased that we could include statutory language, which I believe addresses this issue for him.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) has made a very good case for the HIDTAs, a case which I concur with entirely. I happen to be a strong supporter of HIDTAs. In fact, one of the first original HIDTAs, that is High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, was designated in Arizona. I work very closely with the law enforcement officials who manage that HIDTA in Arizona. I know the value that this HIDTA provides along the southwest border in helping us to interdict drugs in that area. There is a need for increased funding, in my view, for the HIDTAs. The problem that I have at this moment, and the reason we do not have additional amounts, is that we have asked the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar, who has the responsibility for these funds for managing this and making the grants to the HIDTAs, to come up with some criteria for us by which we can judge HIDTAs, the need for them, new ones being created, the ones that exist, whether they need additional funding or whether the problem has shifted and there may be some HIDTAs that actually require a reduction in funding. We do not have that criteria. We do not have a set of criteria that we can use to consider in a rational way how much additional funding is needed. The gentleman suggested $25 million. As he describes the problem, and it is enormous, $25 million may not be adequate. What is adequate? The other side of this amendment, of course, is taking the money out of the Internal Revenue Service. Now, the gentleman said it is huge, it is big, it is a big account; and it is. The dollar amount that he is taking out of here is also substantial. The responsibilities of the IRS that we have given them under the Reorganization Act that this Congress passed by an overwhelming majority a few years ago, the responsibilities we have given them to transform themselves and become more customer friendly, to focus more on filers and customer relations, those responsibilities are tremendous; and they have a reorganization requirement. They have two things. One, they need money for reorganization, and they need money for their technology modernization. This comes particularly out of the account for management processing, assistance, and management. This is where we have told them to become more customer friendly. We have already made a significant reduction in the last several years in the size of the IRS. I think it is justified, and I think the IRS needs to streamline its activities. We need to streamline the Tax Code to make it easier to file, but this would be a reduction of approximately 500 additional employees. That would mean people would wait longer for customer assistance. It would mean they would wait longer to get their refunds, to get questions answered about their filings of their tax returns. Is it legitimate that we should say it is more important to fight drugs than to do this? I do not have a simple answer to that. This bill attempts to address all of the requirements that we have within it in a way that meets the priorities in the best possible fashion. I said at the outset that we lacked funds to do everything that we would like in this legislation, but I think particularly at this time it would be inappropriate to take the money from this account, where Congress has acted, where Congress has said make this reorganization, where Congress has said meet these specific missions, IRS, to take the money from this account and put it into the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, as valuable as they are, without knowing exactly how that money should be allocated, what criteria we are going to use for the drug czar to reallocate that money. So I think it would be inappropriate for us to do that, and for that reason I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, as valuable though I think the idea of increasing HIDTA funding would be.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for the issue that he has raised and the efforts that he has made to make my subcommittee and our staff aware of the problems that exist along his border. I share his concerns, both about the security and about operational issues on the border, and I look forward to working with the gentleman as this bill moves forward through the conference.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Before he got to the floor here, the gentleman's colleague, the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, spoke eloquently about the project, and I concur. This is a project that we have looked at very closely. There is no question that the consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration is badly needed, and we have actually started that process. To me, it is a great disappointment that our bill requires the interruption of that process of consolidation. This is a very long-term process. We do hope that in conference, if funds are made available, that we would be able to move this project forward into the second phase, and certainly we do understand the importance of this consolidation. So I appreciate the gentleman's rising and making us very aware of this and bringing this again to our attention.

Mr. KOLBE. I include the following table for the Record as follows: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY00.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY00.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY00.003

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding to me and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her remarks. I would concur with her, this is an important and a useful program. I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking minority member, and the Senate to seek funding for this effort in the conference.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, yes, actually we are. We are making a reduction because of the need for meeting current services, that is, the pay increases that all Federal employees will get and so forth. There actually is a reduction under our legislation, the number of people.

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

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4871 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 560, that no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except: (1) Pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate. (2) The following additional amendment, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes: Ms. DeLauro, regarding health services. (3) The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes each: Mr. Moran of Kansas, regarding sales to any foreign country; Mr. Rangel, regarding Cuba; Mr. Coburn, regarding section 640; Mr. Davis of Virginia, regarding Federal election contracts; and The amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 14. (4) The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes: Mr. Traficant, regarding Buy America Act; Mr. Inslee, regarding Inspector General reports; Mr. Gilman, regarding day care centers; and The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15. Each additional amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in this request, or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee, and shall be considered as read. Each additional amendment shall be debatable for the time specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I think my position on this matter of choice is fairly well known. I have long supported a woman's right to choose. I find myself in a somewhat different position today here, as the chairman of the subcommittee. What we have attempted to do as a subcommittee is to cut through this Gordian's knot by taking the position that this House has spoken about fairly clearly in the last couple of years. On the one hand, we do have the prohibition, which the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) seeks to strike, that prevents health benefits for Federal employees from including any kind of abortion service. On the other hand, we do also have the provision in there which was debated and fought over this last year which allows for contraceptive services to be offered for those who have Federal employment health benefits. While this is a difficult position and one that I may not completely support myself, I do believe the position of the committee and the position of the House is in this legislation and should be supported. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to what I regard to be a shortsighted and, I believe, a very misguided attempt to undermine continued progress in the U.S.-Chinese relationship. Just a few months ago, a bipartisan majority of the House voted to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Now, this is not a vote that occurred in a vacuum. It followed 10 years of annual review of China's human rights policies under the Jackson-Vanik procedures that is now the law pertaining to trade with China. Under these procedures, we spent the last decade in committee hearings and in debates here on the floor. We spent the last decade analyzing and reanalyzing virtually every aspect of the relationship that we have with China. During that time I think two central tenets emerged. First, none of us are satisfied with the current political environment that exists in China. Second, all of us would like to see greater and more profound changes occur in China. On that we all agree. But then we diverge. We diverge on how we are going to bring that about. There is a group in the House, a minority in the House, that believes the best way to effectuate change in China is by isolating them. I respect that point of view; I disagree with it. They would have us cut off economic and political ties to the most populous nation on earth by voting first against permanent normal trade relations and now, today, against the annual renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver. A majority of the House, and the administration, rejects this view. They believe, as I do, that change in China is going to occur only if the United States continues to help nurture those elements within Chinese society that promote change; namely, the expanding free market system, a new civil society that is emerging, and reform of the political party system. And we can only nurture these elements if we are engaged. This year, after a long national debate that preceded it, the House was faced with a stark choice between these competing views. The majority rejected isolationism in favor of engagement. We rejected the flawed annual Jackson-Vanik procedures in favor of a more thoughtful, long-term approach to U.S.-China relations. We believe the Senate will follow shortly and that a new and more productive era in U.S.-China relations will begin. There are some in the U.S. Congress who want us to change course with today's vote. They urge that we return to unproductive policies of the past by voting against renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver this year. That would be a mistake, Mr. Speaker. This historic opportunity awaits us as we venture into the 21st century, an opportunity to help redefine our relationships with China, an opportunity to help bring greater security to Asia, and an opportunity to bring forth real change in China through the magic of the free enterprise. A ``yes'' vote today would be a vote for the past. I urge my colleagues to vote against the failed policies of the past and for a more enlightened future. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.