Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I will be brief, but I especially thank him for yielding, because I know this evening he is going to be talking about something very important and very personal to him. I did want to take just a moment or two to pay tribute to, as the gentleman from Texas said, a good friend of ours, a loyal employee of this House of Representatives, somebody who served this House extraordinarily well for so many years, Ron Lasch. It was just a little over 41 years ago that Ron Lasch came to the House of Representatives as a young page. I know, because I was also here at that time as a page. I was a page over in the U.S. Senate at that time when Ron came under Mr. Whitnall's sponsorship to the House of Representatives. Along with Don Anderson, who, of course, went on to become the Clerk of the House of Representatives, we all graduated in 1960 from the page school. Most of us went on with our lives and did other things, went away to college and began families, went into the service, but Ron Lasch, along with Don Anderson, stayed here in the House of Representatives. I mention that because he has given an extraordinarily large part of his life and his service to the House of Representatives. For the last 16 years I have served in the House and have had an opportunity to know Ron in a different capacity, in a professional way as well in the personal way that I knew Ron Lasch. His service here I think has been absolutely extraordinary. His leaving the House of Representatives is something in keeping, I guess, with Ron's personality, in that he left without telling any of his friends that he was going to do this. He insisted that he was determined there would be no farewells for him, at least while he was around. I guess he cannot stop us once he is gone from here. That is why I think many of us have taken an opportunity in the last couple of days to rise, realizing that Ron Lasch is not in the back of the Chamber like in his usual position there. We miss him, so we have taken this opportunity to rise and to reflect on just how much he means to this House of Representatives. This institution gets criticized, and I think perhaps sometimes quite justifiably, but very often the unsung heroes of this place are the staff that make it work. Some of them get on television right behind the gentleman from Texas, and they are seen every day. Others of them are in the back of the Chamber or off the Chamber. But, together, collectively, they are what makes this place work. They are what makes this place run smoothly. They are the glue which often holds it together. They are very often the institutional history of this body. Ron Lasch, with 41 years of service in the House of Representatives, knew the precedents of the House. He knew about the ways in which this House ran. He also knew the personalities of the House of Representatives. I think that he epitomized what is so good about this institution. He reflected the very best of this institution. Ron could be sarcastic, he could sometimes even be caustic, but he was always honest. He told Members in a way that was extraordinarily honest about what he thought, about what was going on, and his views about things. I think that was extraordinarily important, because we got an unvarnished view of what was happening around this place from Ron Lasch. He is the person we relied on when we came to the floor to help us understand what the votes were about, what the procedures were about, about what the time frame of what we were going to be doing would be, how we could proceed when we had a question about how should we handle a parliamentary issue. He was the one who helped us understand that. He is the one who helped us get the rules right. He is the one who, when the Republicans came into the majority 6 years ago, I think made it possible for us to make that transition so much more smoothly than we might otherwise have made. So I just want to say to my friend Ron Lasch that we are going to miss him tremendously. We thank him for the service that he has given to this country, and, most particularly, to the House of Representatives. But I also want to thank him very personally for the friendship and what it has meant to work with him and to know him for these last 41 years. He is not gone from among us. He will continue to be that friend of mine. But I will certainly miss him in the professional capacity that he has served. I know that many of my colleagues would join in this sentiment. We wish him well. We hope to see him back on the floor of the House of Representatives from time to time. I thank my good friend the gentleman from Texas for yielding this time to me this afternoon.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I believe every senior citizen should have insurance coverage for prescription drugs. Pharmaceuticals are increasingly an important part of modern medicine, and the cost of prescription drugs is rising faster than most seniors can afford. The truth is, however, that most seniors already have drug coverage, and some have excellent coverage. According to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), 65% of Medicare beneficiaries already have prescription drug coverage, either through their former employer, through Medicaid or through the Medicare+Choice program. Unfortunately, over 13 million remaining seniors have no prescription drug coverage at all. Often, these individuals are low-income seniors or people with large prescription drug costs (due to multiple medications). Sadly, these people often must choose between buying groceries or taking their medication. This travesty must not continue unabated. I believe we can help low-income seniors while preserving and strengthening Medicare for current beneficiaries and future generations. Moreover, I think we can do this without increasing premiums of jeopardizing the fiscal stability of Medicare. H.R. 4680, the bipartisan Medicare prescription drug bill accomplishes these goals. For those seniors who have drug coverage, the bipartisan plan won't change a thing. These seniors would continue to enjoy the benefits of their existing plan, if they choose. For those seniors who do not have coverage, this plan will help them obtain coverage through Medicare. By doing this, the federal government can reduce drug prices for all seniors. Specifically, H.R. 4680 would: Lower drug prices and expand access to prescription drugs for all beneficiaries. Protect seniors against higher drug prices and runaway out-of-pocket costs. Subsidize insurance premiums and prescription drug purchases for low- income seniors. Expand an individual's right to choose the coverage that best suits their needs through a voluntary and universally-offered benefit. Preserve and protect Medicare to keep the program solvent for our children and grandchildren. Ensure that today's scientific research and medical innovation will continue to find tomorrow's cures. Invest $40 billion to modernize and strengthen Medicare. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Supporters of it would have us believe that the United States would be better off if we withdrew from the World Trade Organization, but I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. Political leaders and statesmen who created the WTO and its predecessor, the GATT, did so for good reasons. They had lived through some of the darkest days in the history of the world, famine, poverty, war that dominated the lives of millions of people around the world. Protectionism and economic stagnation put millions of Americans out of work. Factories closed, homes were lost, families were destroyed. They witnessed the havoc which trade wars and military wars and the protectionism that comes from trade wars can bring. And they vowed not to let it happen again. So they created an organization whose sole purpose was to open up closed markets, promote economic growth, provide a forum for the peaceful resolution of trade disputes. This was the GATT, the predecessor to the WTO. And it worked. Since World War II, the world has experienced unprecedented economic growth. Millions of people around the world have been pulled from economic poverty. But the system certainly was not perfect. So, we tried to correct some of the deficiencies of the past by creating the WTO which would further liberalize trade and provide for an even stronger dispute settlement procedure. Again, I believe the system has worked, especially for the United States. In the first year of implementation, U.S. exports rose 14.4 percent, seven times greater than the GDP growth in that same year. When fully implemented, it is estimated that the agreement establishing the WTO will add somewhere between 125 and $250 billion each year to the GDP of this country. I agree that it is still not perfect, it is an evolving institution. But what is it supporters of this resolution disapprove of? Tariff cuts? Opening export markets? Peaceful dispute resolution? Economic growth? Full employment? And if this is what they disapprove of, what exactly is the alternative that they propose? It is easy to criticize, it is easy to point fingers, to lambaste, but what is the proposed alternative? I have yet to hear anyone that can prove to me that there is a better way than to proceed with the WTO. We will be hearing a lot today about how our antidumping laws are the cornerstone of U.S. trade policy, critical to our economic growth, that they are responsible for the prosperity we experience today. I say baloney to that. Our antidumping laws are more often than not little more than special interest protectionism for select U.S. industries, protectionism that costs every single American. Take a look at the recent editorial in the Washington Post, not exactly a conservative newspaper, entitled ``Steel's Deal.'' It says: ``The theory of antidumping cases is that foreigners are protecting their markets, allowing firms to make huge profits at home and sell at a loss to Americans. Even where this is the case, it is not obviously bad. Cheaper steel helps the U.S. carmakers and other manufacturers that buy the stuff, and these firms employ far more American workers than do U.S. steelmakers.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better. The WTO may not be perfect, but it is the best that we have. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include the Washington Post editorial in its entirety: Steel's Deal Sometimes the administration sings anthems to free trade. But last week, faced with a study documenting the steel industry's efforts to hobble foreign competitors, the Commerce Department felt obliged to defend protectionist policies. Rather than concede the obvious facts, a department official pleaded that the U.S. market is relatively open and complained that the study was ``totally ridiculous and absurd'' because it was paid for by foreign steel makers. It is true that the tariffs and quotas that once excluded foreign steel are mostly gone, thanks to international trade deals. But the new battle has shifted to anti-dumping suits. Whenever foreign imports surge, U.S. makers allege that steel is being ``dumped'' on the U.S. market at prices lower than it would fetch in its country of origin. If the U.S. side can convince a special tribunal that its business is damaged by such dumping, the Commerce Department imposes punitive tariffs on the dumpers. The steel industry uses this device so aggressively that about 80 percent of steel imports from Japan are subject to anti-dumping tariffs or investigations. As of last December, steel accounted for 103 of 250 punitive orders in effect across the economy. The theory of anti-dumping cases is that foreigners are protecting their markets, allowing firms to make huge profits at home and sell at a loss of Americans. Even where this is the case, it is not obviously bad: Cheaper steel helps the U.S. car makers and other manufacturers that buy the stuff, and these firms employ far more American workers than do U.S. steel makers. But foreign protectionism occurs less often than U.S. industry claims, and these claims get too little scrutiny. Because of pressure from the steel caucus in Congress, the dumping tribunal tends to side with U.S. firms; just last week, a House committee refused to appropriate funds for the tribunal's budget because members disliked one of its recent findings. In addition to pushing up U.S. prices, anti-dumping actions weaken America's ability to lead the world toward trade liberalization. One reason for the failure of November's Seattle trade summit was that the United States had refused to put its dumping rules on the table. Most countries rightly regard anti-dumping law as a cover for protectionism. In the only test of this suspicion so far, the World Trade Organization's dispute-settlement panel found against a U.S. claim that South Korea's computer-chip ``protectionism'' warranted anti-dumping action. America's steel industry accounts for a tiny proportion of the national economy. But its lobby fills the campaign coffers of both parties and can distort trade policy. Most American workers, employed in competitive industries that depend on open markets, suffer from this quiet corruption.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington can have that vote.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just reiterate something that I said this afternoon on the floor, and I have been, and I think some in this body know and certainly those that I have talked to in my State know that I have been a strong supporter of the arts for a number of years and I believe very passionately in it. And I believe that there is a Federal role. I regret that we are finding ourselves in the position where we are pitting one priority against another. But the Federal budget is not limitless. There are limits. We must establish priorities. That is really what we are about doing here this evening. I believe that there will be additional dollars in the conference for the arts, but I believe that at this moment that it is not the appropriate time to do it because it will not help us pass this bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and this will be my final comment on this, I would just say that the offset is available at this point. It is now open, and it can be considered. This body can work its will as to whether to place it here or to place it in another location.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the frustration of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). But the gentleman may now have the opportunity to say that this is of such priority, a highest priority, and ask the House to defeat the motion to place this money in Indian Health Service, and then it would be available. If that does not occur, when the opportunity arises, when we get to the section about the NEA and NEH in it, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) can offer another amendment and take the money from another place.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is to inquire of the Chair whether the remarks of the previous speaker in ascribing motives to another Member are appropriate.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, the gentleman from Washington is correct. But the rules of the House do permit somebody to object from considering this en bloc, and that was done. Now we are faced with the issue of trying to decide on the priority, where do we want to place this money. The money has now been reserved, and my colleagues have an option. It does not have to go to Indian Health Service.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of increased funding for the arts and humanities. I know there is a philosophical difference over whether or not there is a Federal responsibility to assist in the creation of the arts and the humanities across this Nation and whether the Federal Government should be involved in helping to expose more Americans to the benefits of those arts. But I have come to the realization that I think the Federal Government does have a role, not a primary role but it does have a role. I also believe that increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is justified. There are a lot of arts groups in my district, in my part of Arizona that benefit very directly from this funding, such as dance theater performances and in-residence musical troupes that have been there in communities like Safford and Thatcher, poetry readings, photography exhibits in Tucson and other small communities around the district. These activities are a real asset to the rural towns and to the larger metropolitan areas. They are precisely the type of cultural activities that got overlooked too often without the National Endowment for the Arts. But having said that and my support for added funding, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, as a member of the majority and as a member of this subcommittee, I have a basic question and a basic responsibility and, that is, how do we get this bill past the House of Representatives? An increase is great if it helps us to pass this bill on the floor of the House. But it does not do us much good if the majority of this body end up voting against the overall measure. So my question to the sponsors would be, do they intend to support this bill if an amendment is passed to increase the funding of the NEH and the NEA? I hope that we get this answered sometime before this debate is over. My concern is a very practical one. If we adopt the amendment, do we gain support for the bill? It appears that we do not. But I can assure my colleagues that its passage results in a loss of support, unfortunately as far as I am concerned, but a loss of support by some Members on my side who have a very different point of view and whose view I also respect. It is for that reason, until I have some assurance about this, that I would have to oppose this amendment. Because if we cannot get the bill through the House of Representatives, off the floor of the House and to conference with the Senate, then we all lose. We have to govern responsibly. I do not want to risk shutting down our national parks and forests over a virtual increase in funding, and I say ``virtual'' because this amendment does not actually allow any additional money to be spent or obligated to NEA or NEH until the last day of the fiscal year. It is in essence an advanced appropriation for the fiscal year 2002, not 2001. So it is my hope that when this process is completed, the appropriations process is finished for this next fiscal year, we can find a consensus somewhere in what I would call the ``radical center'' and achieve a responsible increase in funding for the arts and humanities.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and I understand his concern and the frustration that he feels, but let me just add if I might that there are differences on both sides as to where the priorities should be in terms of the funding. I would say that, if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) wishes and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) wishes, it is very easy to ask for and have a rollcall and decide that they do not want to put these dollars that have now been taken out, have been reserved, and not put them into Indian Health Service and reserve them for the purpose for which they would like. It is a matter of simply establishing priorities. Some people feel that if we have these dollars available now in the bill that Indian Health Service should be the first priority. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. KOLBE. No. The gentleman from Washington yielded back the time. I have got the time.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, the gentleman has promulgated a request for unanimous consent at 30 minutes, 15 on each side. I am not sure if that is acceptable.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I think the bipartisan nature of this debate has been shown just by the speakers from my State of Arizona with three of us in the same party on opposite sides of this issue. There is clearly a lot of debate about this and fair debate, I think. I think we have heard some good discussion here tonight. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) laid out the very technical and kind of legalistic arguments about this. I want to answer a couple of the things that were said here tonight, but I also want to say very clearly that the effect of this legislation is to say to the Indian tribes, ``There will be no gaming until this issue is settled, no gaming whatever, you won't proceed anywhere in the country.'' I am going to come back to that in a second. I think it is important to understand that while many of us may have concerns about the way some of the Indian gaming has proceeded, we need to also understand that it has brought about some wonderful economic development and wonderful improvements in the lives of people on Indian reservations. I have one small tribe in my community that has used the money that they have had from Indian gaming to improve the lives of their citizens, to improve the health care of children, the education of children. They have used some of the money to jump start economic development by allowing for the creation of a high-tech company, to fund a high-tech company to move onto the reservation to provide very skilled kinds of jobs on the Indian reservation. This is a company that would not have been able to get financing, venture capital financing if it had not been for the Indian gaming money that that tribe had. It has made a difference. It is making a difference for that tribe. Now, there were a couple of things that have been said here I think that need to be corrected. My friend from Missouri spoke about the fact that this is a narrow and not a broad piece of legislation. He also said if the Secretary has said he will not issue the regulations, why worry about it, then? Why not just go ahead? The answer is very clear to that, Mr. Chairman. The reason is because this legislation would preclude even States where the tribe and the governor want to go ahead, where there is no question, they would not be able to move ahead. In answer to the last question of my friend from Arizona who spoke about the fact that the courts struck this down, they did not strike down the right of the Secretary to promulgate regulations. Mr. Chairman, we should defeat this amendment. We should allow the process to move forward. I urge a no vote.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his wonderful remarks. I am sure I speak for all of the pages when I say that one of the favorite Members is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who never fails to stop by the page desk and inquire about the pages and spend a little time talking to them. It is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).