Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has served in a very distinguished capacity as chairman of the page board. We recognize that the gentlewoman has another event that she has to get to, but we certainly appreciate her taking the time to speak to the pages and of the pages this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to yield to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert.)

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the Speaker for his kind remarks. It is my privilege to yield to a very distinguished gentleman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my colleague, my ranking member of the subcommittee that I chair.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very kind remarks. If I might, just in conclusion, make a few of my own. About 3 weeks ago, we held a reunion here in Washington, it was the 40th page school reunion for my class. Among those in that class are two that are known to most of these pages here. One, of course, is one of the most beloved former pages, Donn Anderson, who served this House as the Clerk of the House for many years and has been the staunchest supporter of the page program. Also in that same class was Mr. Ron Lasch who serves as a floor assistant for the Republican majority here and has been a stalwart person for a number of years on behalf of our party in the House of Representatives. Both of them believe so strongly in this institution, and I hope that is part of what you will take away from here. There is no doubt, as I had that reunion, while I know what you are thinking; you are thinking, certainly I could never look that old some day, but maybe some of you will, although most of you will probably be in much better shape 40 years from now. But what I remember, what I think was evident at that reunion for all of us is this was a very life-changing experience. Several people have talked about the friendships that you will make and that you will have for a lifetime, and you will. It is incredible how bonded our class has become over the years. For all of us, this was very much a life-changing experience. It has brought us closer to each other through the trials and tribulations; and yes, I am sad to say we have lost 4 members of our class now. But it has brought us closer together. And as we watched our families grow, we have shared those experiences with each other. That is very much the human part of what this program is all about. I am often asked as a member of the page board, why do we need a page program? Why do we not just hire messengers? It would be so much easier to do that than to maintain a staff and a place for the pages to live and a school and all of that. There is no question there are easier ways to handle the invaluable services that you provide for us. But I do not think there are very many Members of this House of Representatives that have ever wanted to give up this program, because we all understand that it is an opportunity every year to give a handful, a small handful, but a wonderful handful of young people an opportunity to understand their government in a way that their friends and classmates and others across this country will never, ever be able to have. But you can share that experience with them. That is really the message that I want to leave with you today as you go forward from this experience. You go forward as ambassadors, really, for our government, for the institutions of democracy that make this country such a great place. Your responsibility, having completed this year as pages, is not to be elected to office, though there will be some of you that will be elected. I will guarantee somebody in this class that will be serving some day in the House of Representatives or the United States Senate, and others of you will serve in State legislatures and city councils and school boards, other kinds of equally important tasks in life. Your job is not to be elected and your job is not to make as much money as Bill Gates; very few of us could ever hope to accomplish that. But your job is to serve, to serve your community, your country, your family in the best way possible. You have been given a great opportunity, and I know that each and every one of you will make the very most of this opportunity. So I hope that you will go out from here and help others understand what our government is about, and how wonderful it is, because these institutions of democracy, for all of their failings, is still the very best that we have been able to devise. You have done us a great service during this last year. Sometimes we do not even realize how the work of the House of Representatives depends on what you are doing every day, and it becomes a part of us, and yet you are so important to the operation of this House. So we will miss you. On Monday there will be a new batch of pages in here, and we will all be busy trying to orient them and get to know them. But we will miss you, and we hope that you will stay in touch with us and with others that you have gotten to know back here; and we look forward to the great service that you will be providing for your country in whatever capacity that might be, and there will be very many different kinds of things. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record a list of all of the pages. Max Abbott Dominic Adams Sarah Baca Thomas Bazan Christopher Bower Geoffrey Brown Diane Bruner Michael Buck Eric Cercone Adam Cheatham Christopher Clark David Cook Andrew D'Anna Ashley Daugherty Ashley Foster Katherine Fortune Kara Frank Amy Gaddis Adam Gellman Dana Hall Kristopher Hart Laura Heaton Androni Henry Rebecca Hoffman William Hooper Jay Kanterman James Kelley Stevens Kelly Susanna Khalil Jule Kolbe Julia Koplewski David Kroontje and Adam Kwasman Ray LaHoud Andrew Lerch Yun Hsin (Amy) Leung Brad Lyman Alison Lowery Renee Mack Megan Marshburn Jeffrey Mannion Marcella Martinez Lindsay Moon Clinton Morris Nancy Nicolas Casey Osterkamp Parker Payne Ashley Percy Christopher Perr Jessica Porras Tessa Powell Lindsey Ransdell Jennifer Reed Moriah Reed A.J. Rosenfeld Chase Rowan Danielle Ruse David Schweinfurth Samuel Sinkin Megan Smith Nouvelle Stubbs Erin Sweeney Christine Tancinco Anika Tank Margaret Theobald Lindsay Thomson Amber Walker Lauren Weeth Julie Wise and Jessica Wood.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would, in conclusion, also just like to mention my own page, as others have done, Adam Cheatham from Tucson. He has been a great page this last year and has become a great friend of mine, but each and every one of you have become great friends of mine. Some I have gotten to know, obviously, better than others. But I admire what you have done, we appreciate the service, we thank you for that, and we wish you Godspeed. Thank you.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize another former page, who has had the distinction of having served at one of the most dramatic moments in history for pages and he is memorialized forever in that photograph in the cloakroom as he was carrying stretchers down the front steps of the Capitol after the attack by some of the independent- minded people from Puerto Rico in 1954. And with, I might add, our former and beloved colleague who is no longer with us, Bill Emerson. It is my privilege to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his extraordinarily eloquent remarks. It is my privilege now to yield to an individual who can speak firsthand about the page program, in fact, I think he served certainly longer than I did here, he was here 4 years as a page. I only was here 3, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) was here for 2. Okay. So the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) holds the record. And we appreciate the gentleman coming today and speaking to the pages. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak about our pages. It is the last day of their service to us. I am going to yield to the chairman of the page board first, but as she speaks, I wonder if all the pages would come down and join us here in the well so that your families and others and everybody can see you here. I would like for all the pages to come down here to the well. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this evening we are beginning what I believe is a very historic debate in this body. I know that is sometimes an overworked word; but I think one has to go back to the last century, to the early part of the last century, and look at the vote and debate on the League of Nations, or the middle of the century to look at the debate on lend- lease, or towards the end of the century to look at the debate on Desert Storm, to find issues and foreign policy that really were pivotal to the future of this country. I say pivotal to the future of this country, because I believe, as important as the issues about trade and human rights and economic advantages are, this issue is not really about China, it is about America. As we embark on this century and this new millennium, the United States has to decide what role it is going to play in the world. There is this much discussed ``death of distance'' that we hear about today, but it is real. State-of-the-art telecommunications systems have brought about a global village. Now people from every corner of the planet are only a phone call, a satellite hookup, an e-mail away from each other. But in the wrong hands, technology has the potential to do great harm. As weapons of mass destruction continue to proliferate, every nation now faces the prospect of nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks from a rogue state that is just a half world away, or a terrorist group that has no fixed location. Confusion could reign in a world with such promise and peril. But that does not have to be the case, if America maintains its position of world leadership. Throughout this last century, we set the example for the world. Our vision helped to bring to this planet an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity at its end. International trade has connected our world's economies as never before and has made our people more dependent upon each other. This interconnectedness gives every nation a giant incentive to keep the peace. It has worked in the past, just look at how far we have come; and it will work in the future, if the United States continues to lead. Mr. Chairman, America cannot maintain its leadership role by refusing to trade with the world's largest economy. PNTR is in our economic self-interest, there can be no doubt about that, but it is also vital for peace and freedom throughout the world. If we choose to abdicate our leadership, the consequences are dire. Will America continue to show through the power of its example that representative government and free trade lead to stability, peace, and prosperity? That is the real issue we are dealing with today. I believe America has a mission. It is our duty to show that freedom works, and that is why I support PNTR; and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4489, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Improvement Act. This bipartisan legislation represents a good balance between the legitimate need to prevent visitors from overstaying their visas and the need to ensure efficient cross-border traffic. I do not oppose the goal of establishing an entry-exit system to monitor visa overstays. What I do oppose is establishing such a system with little disregard for its impact on trade and tourism. In my home state of Arizona, the Section 110 system, as originally devised, simply will not work. At the same time, it would have had a devastating impact on our economy. That is why I worked very hard to ensure that Section 110 not be implemented until it could be shown that it would not bring travel and tourism to a virtual standstill. I want to commend Chairman Smith for taking these concerns into account in drafting today's compromise. H.R. 4489 amends Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by replacing the current requirement that by March 30, 2001, a record of arrival and departure be collected for every alien at all ports of entry with a requirement that INS develop an ``integrated entry and exit data system'' that focuses on data that the INS already collects. Using this data, the Attorney General will implement the integrated entry and exit data system by December 31, 2003, at airports and seaports and not later than December 31, 2004, at 50 land border ports of entry. This is a careful compromise which helps balance our need to monitor visa overstays with the need to preserve the smooth flow of trade and tourism. This bill is broadly supported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the American for Better Borders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Travel Industry Association of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Council of International Personnel, the American Trucking Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, the Border Trade Alliance, the Canadian Embassy, and the Mexican Embassy. I am pleased to be able to support this bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because I think we need to refute some of the slander that is being perpetuated by some of the opponents of the School of the Americas, and that is that the United States Army systematically teaches its foreign students how to violate human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Army and this school has never taught torture techniques. Yes, some graduates of the School of America have subsequently been guilty of human rights abuses. So have some graduates from schools like Harvard. In those cases, the training did not take. But only 100 or 200 out of 58,000 graduates have documented human rights abuses. Let us not forget the other 57,800 plus graduates. Over 100 School of Americas graduates serve or served their Nation and its people from the highest levels of civilian and military office, from chief executive to commander of major military units. Furthermore, hundreds of School of America graduates currently occupy positions of leadership and command at all levels in their military and support democratically elected national leaders all over Latin America. The fact of the matter is that in the last 20 years, democracy, respect for the rule of law, sensitivity to human rights have greatly increased in Latin America. This progress would have been impossible had these countries' military not received training in how a military operates in a democratic society at the School of the Americas. Every year, soldiers from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and the United States attend the School of the Americas. No other school with such a small operational budget brings together future civilian and military leaders of 16 countries in the purposeful effort to prepare for the future, to strengthen alliances within a hemispheric region and increase mutual understanding, cooperation and reinforcement of the principles of democracy among neighboring countries. We need to keep this school because it keeps us active in the human rights affairs of Latin America. We should support the School of America, and I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Very briefly, because I also have an obligation downtown, and I know there are other people waiting to speak here this evening, but I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I also want to thank him for taking this special order tonight. As I do, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. There has been nobody in this House of Representatives that over the years has been as stalwart on this issue as the gentleman has been. His leadership now in the Committee on Rules has been absolutely essential to this. I think this country owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude. I am very grateful to him. It is a great opportunity and a privilege to work with the gentleman on this issue. Frankly, I look forward and I am confident that we will have victory next week on this issue, because I believe the American people want to see us have this permanent normal trade relations with China.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for taking this special order tonight, and I thank him for his statements. As I was listening to his opening remarks, it occurred to me that those of us who have been proponents of permanent normal trade relations, of developing this relationship with China, have perhaps been falling down on the job. We have been so busy talking to our colleagues, so busy working the issue, that we have not really taken the time I think sometimes to explain not only to our colleagues but to the American people the benefits that flow from permanent normal trade relations with China. I think those benefits are many. We have heard many of them talked about here tonight, particularly in the economic area. I thought I would just emphasize one that perhaps has not yet been talked about. That is what I believe is the importance of this vote, this decision to grant PNTR to China as it relates to what I would call a national security issue for the United States. It is an important national security issue. In fact, I would argue that this may be the most important national security issue that any of us in this Congress will face in these 2 years, or perhaps in the last decade. As we have seen the end of the Cold War come a decade ago, we have now struggled as the United States has tried to find exactly its role in the world. Today I think we clearly can see that the U.S.-China relationship is going to be the most significant relationship that will occupy the face of the Earth over the next 50 years. We have an opportunity to get this right, to not find ourselves thrust into another cold war, as we did at the end of World War II, but to have the opportunity to engage China, not necessarily to agree with them, not necessarily always to be friends with them, but to have a constructive engagement so we can have a dialogue, a political dialogue, as well as an economic dialogue with China. I believe that when we do that, that both countries will benefit and the world will benefit because the United States and China are engaged in a constructive dialogue. We do not need to spend more of our money than we have to, than we should have to, on arms. We do not need to spend it in fearing a confrontation with this large country. We need to be engaged with them. That is why I believe this is of such importance. I think the Chinese understand that, as well. Zhu Rongji knows very well that his opportunity to cut the cord from the State-owned industries in China depend on his joining the global forces that are at work around this Earth today. He knows becoming a member of the World Trade Organization is absolutely critical to doing that. So he is fighting his own battle within China. Perhaps that is not well understood by some of the people here in this body or in the United States, but he has his own struggle against those who would not seek reform in China. He clearly stands on the path towards reform. In helping China become a member of the World Trade Organization through granting permanent normal trade relations so we can have this relationship ourselves with China strengthens the hand of reformers in China. I am convinced, and I know my colleague knows as well, believes this as well, that with economic reforms, political reforms will follow. We saw that in Taiwan, we have seen that in South Korea. We have seen it even more recently in Mexico, a neighbor directly to our south, as they are going through major political changes today. Economic reform leads to political reform. When people have choices in the economy, when they have more opportunities, more wealth, more choices of the goods they have, they will also want to have the same choices in the political realm. I believe very strongly that this is a national security issue for the United States. Those who would vote against it because they believe that China is an adversary of ours need to think twice about that, because indeed, we have an opportunity not to let them become an adversary, but to have them on a constructive path, not always where we are going to agree with them, not always where we are going to be friends with China, but to at least engage them. I believe that is why this vote is so important.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. I support Federal funding for protecting lands that are critically important for wildlife habitat and recreation needs. But, this vote is not a vote in support of this laudable goal. It is a vote for inequity and fiscal irresponsibility. To start with, I cannot support a bill that literally takes money away from Arizona and funnels it into the coastal and Great Lakes states coffers. This bill is a cash cow for a few states, while the rest of us--like Arizona--fight for a few leftover scraps in an attempt to keep us happy. Under this bill, Arizona loses access to $1 billion in Federal money. The states that have access to this $1 billion are ``coastal states,'' which you may mistakenly think are states along the coast. No, coastal states are defined in this bill to include states bordering the Great Lakes, as well as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Under this bill, the coastal states do quite well--Louisiana would get $285 million, Texas takes home $132 million, Alaska $87 million, and California $67 million. This is money that is guaranteed to go to these states each year. Even Puerto Rico would get $8.5 million from this new $1 billion entitlement program, while Arizona would receive nothing--and be barred from ever competing for any of these dollars. It's not as if these ``coastal states'' aren't receiving money now from the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently shares revenue with the coastal states for some offshore drilling. In addition, these states receive offshore royalties from drilling that occurs in waters that are within three miles of their shores, which is within the state's jurisdiction. But, this bill isn't just about inequities to my part of the country. It is also about bad fiscal policy. We have a multi-billion dollar backlog in maintenance needs on our national lands. We are struggling to maintain what we already own. This bill makes this problem worse by providing more than twice the amount of money for land acquisitions as for restoration. Under this premise, we continue to buy lands, which compound future operating and maintenance costs. This policy decision inevitably drives up maintenance costs by increasing the backlog even more. I also oppose the budgeting aspects of this bill. We simply cannot govern a nation by compartmentalizing our budget through a myriad of dedicated funding streams. Revenues must be spent on the nation's priorities as a whole. You can't run a business by restricting cash flows to expenses directly attributable to their related sales. Could GM effectively compete in the marketplace if revenues from the sale of shock absorbers couldn't be used for maintenance of brake manufacturing equipment? No. GM can't, and neither can the Federal Government. We need to take a step back and understand where this road leads us. I understand the supporters of this measure are gleeful at the prospect of guaranteed money every year. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone with a claim on Federal spending had a guaranteed stream of cash flowing into their pockets? But, that is not the way to run a fiscally responsible government. Finally, I am leery of adding Federal mandatory programs like this one. By making this a mandatory spending program, by guaranteeing that all of this money must be spent each year on this one program, we are saying land acquisition is more important than dollars for our school children, that funds for species recovery is more pressing than prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. I doubt anyone here today intends to make that statement, but that is exactly what we are doing. For all these reasons--that it inequitably distributes funds among the states, that it worsens the maintenance backlog in our system of federal lands, that is furthers the fragmentation of our budget process, and that it mandates spending for one worthy purpose to the detriment of other equally important priorities--this legislation should be defeated.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this is an historic day. Today we are sending a message to the nations of sub-Saharan Africa and to our partners in Central America and the Caribbean. Today we open our arms and embrace those nations in a new partnership, the hallmarks of which are economic freedom, growth, and opportunity. By passing this legislation, we renew the hope of prosperity for millions of impoverished souls throughout the world. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) among many, we have successfully sailed through some dangerous holes to bring forth a balanced bill with substantial benefits for some of the poorest Nations in the world. The people of these Nations have been wracked by civil war, by ethnic conflict, by economic stagnation, every type of natural disaster that is known. We all know this is true. When tragedy occurs, we know that Americans respond generously. But today, for the first time, we are doing something more. We are knocking down quotas to the poor. We are taking active steps to help build the strong economies and vibrant civil societies needed to overcome instability, poverty, repression. As we enter the 21st century, we must do all we can to bring stability and growth to those parts of the world too often left behind in the economic miracle that free markets and globalism have brought elsewhere. By passing this legislation, we are opening the door to the future. We are giving hope to those who seek jobs, those who seek a better life, those who seek freedom. In my mind, there can be no greater gift we can give. I urge my colleagues to join with us today, help these Nations and these people to help themselves, and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 434. Let us keep the light of hope alive.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 130, H.R. 3439, Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this resolution. Throughout this sad and bloody century, it was the GI--the American citizen soldier--who left hearth and home, put his or her personal plans on hold, and traveled to every corner of the world to save the concept of democracy and preserve the value of freedom. Despots and dictators throughout this century were halted in their tracks and driven back to their lairs because Americans were not, as they thought, too soft and decadent to resist their battle-hardened armies. The warlords of Imperial Germany were the first to learn that the American fighting man was not a pushover. American soldiers at Chateau Thierry and United States Marines at Bellau Wood brought the German's last chance offensive in 1918 to a halt. Later, the Doughboys would be sent into the most difficult terrain in Northern France--the Argonne Forest--to drive the Germans out of positions that had stymied the Allies for over four years. Meanwhile the United States Navy was helping to sweep the seas clear of U-boats and the American Air Service was dueling in the skies with the students of the Red Baron. The Nazis of Germany, the Fascists of Italy, and the militarists of Japan were the next to try to, in Churchill's words, ``plunge the world into a new Dark Age.'' And again, it was the New World, with all its power and might, stepping forth to the rescue and liberation of the Old. Hitler had nothing but contempt for American fighting prowess. From Kassarine Pass, through Salerno and Anzio, to the maelstrom of Normandy, all the way to final victory in the heart of Europe--the GI shattered the same Wehrmacht that had marched through the Arc de Triomphe and past the Acropolis. In the air, Americans devastated the Luftwaffe that had terrorized Warsaw and destroyed Rotterdam, and then laid waste to the Nazi industrial complex. The Japanese believed that their troops, culturally imbued with the spirit of Bushido, would easily outfight the soft Americans. They did not expect that Americans would fight in places such as Guadalcanal, Tarawa, New Guinea, or Iwo Jima--where uncommon valor was a common virtue. The GI managed to so this at the end of supply lines stretching thousands of miles. They could only do this because their colleagues in the Navy kept those sea-lanes safe against submarines, surface raiders and aircraft. The merchant mariners who manned those supply and transport ships were the unsung heroes of that mission--suffering great travails as they got their vital cargoes through. Very few stories of the Second World War are as compelling as the ordeal of Convoy PQ-17, which suffered terrible losses on its way to Murmansk. As a result of these sacrifices, most Americans believed that tyranny was decisively defeated, that the second half of the century would be free of the perils that market the first. Instead, the GI was forced to wage a long twilight struggle against another form of totalitarianism-- Soviet Communism--and stand on guard for nearly another 50 years. American troops were forced to remain in Europe, to hold back the Iron Curtain from sweeping the entire continent into darkness. Millions of American families grew to recognize places such as the Fulda Gap and Rhein-Main air base. The Sixth Fleet patrolled the Mediterranean to a degree not dreamed of by their ancestors that had stormed the shores of Tripoli. In Asia, the Cold War grew hot in Korea, where the term ``Frozen Chosen'' entered the lexicon. Even now, GI's remain on alert to keep the North Korean Peoples Army on their side of the DMZ. Further south, Americans fought, bled, and died in Vietnam--America's longest war--and our most divisive since our Civil War. At last, all recognize that the GI's service there was honorable. Even now, after the global threat of Communism has collapsed, it is the GI who is called upon when freedom is seriously threatened. From Kuwait to Kosovo, it is only when the American fighting man arrives, that the world knows that aggression will be resisted. There have been many great people this century who have symbolized the struggle for freedom in the twentieth century--Churchill, Roosevelt, Reagan--but it is the millions of people behind them, the American GI's, who actually delivered on that promise. I ask my colleagues to join me in passing H. Con. Res. 282, to declare that the ``Person of the Century'' is truly the American GI. He enabled us to be debating in this chamber today.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1000. Although I support the reauthorization of the FAA and the Airport Improvement Program, I find the manipulation of the current budgeting process in this bill detrimental to a fiscally sound government, for which the Republicans have been fighting, and have achieved, as the majority party. Why do we want to take a step backwards, back to when this House was governed by a tax and spend policy, in a misguided attempt to drastically inflate a federal agency's budget? Where is the Republican agenda--the agenda to make the federal government smaller, leaner, more efficient? This bill could increase taxes by an estimated $700 million if all the airports levy the additional charge that this bill authorizes--and I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Is this what Congress wants to do today, raise taxes by $700 million when we have a surplus and are trying to cut taxes? I cannot support this approach. With the rise in fuel costs, which has equated to a rise in airline prices, we don't need to pile on to this and put another increase onto an air traveler's expenses. In addition, it is disappointing to see this bill come before the House today under the slogan of ``unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund.'' Federal trust funds are not your run-of-the-mill trust fund that can be compared to a family or business trust fund. These federal trust funds are authorizations for appropriations, and this has always been the intent since their creation. But, don't take my word for it. Let me quote a CRS report: Whatever their intended purposes, federal trust funds are basically record-keeping devices that account for the spending authority available for certain programs. Although frequently thought of as holding financial assets, they do not. I repeat: trust funds do not hold financial assets; there is no money in them. The report goes on to say: Simply stated, as long as a trust fund has a balance, the Treasury Department has authority to keep issuing checks for the program, but balances do not provide the treasury with the cash to cover these checks. So if it's the right policy to take trust funds off-budget, where is the cash going to come from to cover the checks written on the trust fund balance? Are we going to cut funding for our schools, for law enforcement, for environmental programs, for our Veterans? We need to take a step back and understand where this road leads us. I understand the supporters of this measure see guaranteed money every year. Wouldn't this be nice if everyone had a guaranteed stream of cash flowing into their coffers every October First? But, that is not the way to run a fiscally responsible government. We simply cannot govern a nation by compartmentalizing our budget through dedicated funding streams. Revenue streams must be spent on the nation's priorities as a whole. You can't run a business by restricting cash flows to expenses directly attributable to their related sales. Can GM effectively compete in the world market if the money they received from selling shock absorbers couldn't be used for maintenance of brake manufacturing equipment? No. GM can't, and neither can the federal government. Republicans have governed our nation's tax dollars with restraint and have given the taxpayer some of their money back with tax cuts. Let's not sabotage 5 and a half years of work. We should be looking at ways of streamlining federal agencies, not bloating their budgets by creating a mandatory account and increasing the taxes for this account.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding to me under his reservation. I will be very brief. Let me just say I feel very privileged today and am proud to be associated with the remarks that the gentleman from Texas just made. The gentleman from Texas has been and continues to be a leader in the fight to have a responsible Social Security reform. The integrity and the unwavering commitment that he has shown for preserving Social Security for future generations are worthy of the respect of all of us in this body. I am a longtime advocate of repealing the earnings limit. It is a remnant of depression-era policies that have no place in a 21st century economy. I have supported similar measures in the past and as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has said, it is a cornerstone of the Kolbe-Stenholm Social Security reform legislation. However, I am disappointed that Congress is passing this important reform without at least confronting the impact the change is going to have on the trust fund. Like it or not, election year or not, sooner or later this House, this Congress, this Nation must address the financial crisis that looms over Social Security. The longer we wait, the tougher the choices are going to be. The legislation we pursue today must become one part of a comprehensive reform package. There are no shortage of reform options. There is the one that I mentioned myself that the gentleman from Texas and I have proposed. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) have another one. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), those are just a few of the reform proposals that have been offered in this House but have yet to come to the floor, have yet to be really debated. What we lack is will and leadership in this country and we have seen that at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. We should pass this bill today. But I do not think we should be content with this effort. We must recognize that we have an obligation to preserve Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, only real reform will do that.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, for decades the United States has carried the standard in promoting democracy, market liberalization, and economic development abroad. To further those goals, we have spent literally billions of dollars in developing countries. And we have made progress. Nations have made economic progress over the past few decades and democracy is taking root in some of the rockiest soil in the 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 millions, even billions, of dollars. But the corrosive effects of corruption and cronyism are worse; they are all too often hidden and ignored. Government corruption undermines the rule of law--the very cornerstone of democracy. Government corruption undermines economic development, squandering billions of dollars of investment capital on enrichment of the few rather than the benefit of many. Government corruption undermines the ability of U.S. business to compete freely and fairly for foreign government contracts, costing U.S. corporations millions of dollars in lost sales. Government corruption undermines the integrity of public service and erodes the confidence of the public in their own government. Most important, government corruption steals hope--the hope for a better future that all citizens of the world have a right to expect. If nurturing democracy and expanding economic opportunity continue to be a goal of this country, then eliminating corruption and cronyism in government procurement must also be a priority. That is why I am proud to join with my colleague, Robert Matsui in introducing H.R. 3116, the Fair Competition in Foreign Commerce Act. This legislation builds upon the excellent work of the Organization on Economic Development and Cooperation which set the international standard with its Agreement on Bribery and Corruption. The agreement makes it a crime to offer, promise or give a bribe to a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain international business deals. Sadly, there are today only thirty-four signatory countries to this agreement. H.R. 3116 complements the work of the OECD, particularly that of the Development Assistance Committee Recommendation on Anti-Corruption Proposals for Aid-Funded Procurement, approaches the problem of corruption in international government Procurement through U.S. foreign aid and multilateral financial institutions, It is not a club or a blunt instrument, but its says in no uncertain terms that the United States will not continue to underwrite corrupt practices in other countries. Our bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a plan to promote international government procurement reforms using U.S. participation in international as the tool. It prohibits U.S. non- humanitarian foreign assistance to nations that have not demonstrated significant progress towards institutionalizing open and transparent government procurement practices. We want to assist the administration's efforts to promote government procurement transparency, whether through the World Trade Organization or the Free Trade Area of the Americas. But we also want to ensure that transparency in government procurement doesn't take a back seat--that is why we require the administration and other nations to focus on institutionalizing open and transparent international government procurement practices. The key to the legislation is building institutions in countries which promote and protect transparency in government procurement activities. We want nations to develop the institutional capacity needed to properly monitor international government procurement contracts. Where nations lack such capacity, we encourage the use of third-party procurement monitoring to ensure openness and transparency in the process. Third-party procurement monitoring is a process where an uninvolved third-party is hired to monitor every stage of the procurement process. The procedure has been used successfully in South America and Africa to fight corruption in international government procurement. Third-party procurement monitors have the expertise needed to ensure that a project is competitively bid and effectively executed. In turn, this expertise gets passed on to the host governments, which further institutionalizes open procurement practices. The goal should be a process free from cronyism and corruption. This legislation will help us accomplish that goal.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, since its creation, the Medicare program has protected millions of beneficiaries from poverty by helping to pay for medical services. It has improved access to care for the elderly and many disabled Americans and is certainly among the key policy successes of this century. Still, as the health care market evolves in this country, and as beneficiaries grow older and their health care needs change, Medicare must also evolve. In enacting the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), the Congress took important steps to begin this evolution and to help extend the program's financial viability. Unfortunately, many of the reforms Congress prescribed in the BBA have been implemented poorly, and sometimes counter to Congressional intent. While I continue to support the budget priorities established in the BBA, I believe Congress must act to correct the mistakes and misjudgments that now threaten the viability of many health care providers. For this reason, I support H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. In particular I am pleased the Committee has included specific provisions that will benefit Medicare providers and patients in Southern Arizona. This bill: Strengthens rural hospitals, provides additional funds for physicial therapy and speech therapy, expands the number of critical access hospitals, increases funding for teaching hospitals, extends Medicare's coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, improves the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and continues the Medicare Community Nursing Organization demonstration project, otherwise known as the Healthy Seniors program in Tucson. In total, this bill provides an additional $11.8 billion for Medicare providers and patients. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. KOLBE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the gentleman to speak beyond the matter of whether or not this is a matter of personal privilege?

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 190, the Global Internet Tax Freedom Act. This important legislation calls on the administration to take a tough stand at the World Trade Organization Ministerial to keep the Internet tax free worldwide. The Internet has appeared in an era when we realize how taxation discourages, even thwarts commerce. Against the natural inclination of many, a bare-bone majority has succeeded in keeping the Internet tax- free in the 50 United States. It is important that we continue the progress made here to other nations. I am going to attend the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle next month as a no-Internet-tax fanatic. Along with dozens of House colleagues, I will be preaching from House Con. Res. 190, which urges world leaders to make permanent a temporary moratorium on Internet taxes. The timing is important. I expect that dozens of members of the community of nations have dozens of pressing needs, and unique circumstances, and compelling motives to put a national checkout counter and tax-collector at the end of a web page. We all fancy ourselves as free-traders--except when there is some benefit derived from well, making a little innocuous exception. And the world's markets are made up of millions and millions of little exceptions. Fortunately, the Internet is too young and innocent to have been susceptible to those little exceptions. Years ago, a reporter asked the economist Milton Friedman about the North American Free Trade Agreement and its annexes. ``Misnomer,'' replied Friedman, ``That's no free trade agreement. It's managed trade. A real free-trade agreement would take one sentence, of if it's verbose, may be a paragraph.'' My hope is that all 134 nations will embrace the simplicity and brilliance of that philosophy when it comes to Internet Commerce. E- Commerce is critical to our continued growth and prosperity. We must leave it free to flourish worldwide.