Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do rise in strong support of this conference report. I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for the work that they have done. I think they bent over backwards to provide fairness and equity for the competing interests that we find in this bill. Obviously, not everything that I would like is in here. Some things that are in here I would perhaps prefer not be in here. But it is a good bill, and I think it is a good balance. And I think it does a good job of providing funding for the diverse range of programs that we find in this bill. Now, I am a representative of a border State, so I care a lot about border problems and funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This bill provides $3 billion for direct funding of the INS. That is $460 million more than last year. Very importantly, it provides full funding so that we can add another 1,000 agents. That is a commitment that we made as part of the immigration legislation that we passed a few years ago. It is very important if we are going to get a handle on the problem of illegal immigration along our border. We also have funding in there for increased detention of criminal and illegal aliens, and adequate funding to reduce the naturalization backlog. These are issues that those of us who live along the border deal with every single day, and that is why they are so important. I also want to congratulate the subcommittee for making other parts of law enforcement a priority; the flexibility that this bill gives to law enforcement at the local level. It restores the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant; the Truth-in-Sentencing State Prison Grants; the Byrne Law Enforcement Grants. It fully funds the FBI and Violence Against Women Act. Overall, for local law enforcement, there is $1.4 billion more in this bill than we have had before. Much was made on the floor about the census. That issue, too, is important to us. We have heard about the U.N. arrearages, but the money is in here to fully fund the U.N. arrearages, subject to an authorization bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is one that is carefully balanced, not perfect, but carefully balanced, does what it is supposed to do in terms of meeting our priorities; and I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, for the last 10 months, I've researched, analyzed, listened, and questioned, searching for the right answer to this policy conundrum. I believe there are four guiding principles that should govern any response: (1) Legislation should permit an individual to sue an HMO as long as the amount of damages are reasonably related to the economic loss. (2) Legislation should permit the right to sue over covered benefits only. (3) Legislation should emphasize mediation over litigation. (4) Legislation must provide sufficient protections for the employer--not the HMO--from lawsuits, unless the employer is actively engaged in making the health care decisions of the HMO. In my view, Norwood-Dingell runs counter to these principles. Specifically, the bill would: Allow lawsuits by anyone. No actual injury is required to recover damages under H.R. 2723. Allow lawsuits at any time. H.R. 2723 does not require patients to seek administrative remedies--including internal and external appeals-- before proceeding to litigation. Allow lawsuits over anything. Plaintiffs may challenge any coverage decision or action by an HMO they disagree with, even if the procedure or service is not a covered benefit. Allows lawsuits even when the HMO does everything right. Under H.R. 2723, an HMO may be sued even when it made the right decision according to an external medical review conducted by independent physicians. Allows lawsuits without limits. This bill would let a patient sue for unlimited damages, driving up health care costs. The Coburn-Shadegg substitute, however, meets these criteria. The bill: Provides reasonable, but limited, liability for HMOs. Protects employers from harassing litigation unless they choose to directly participate in any final decision to deny care. Requires plaintiffs to complete an internal and external review process before proceeding to court. Restricts lawsuits to covered benefits only, eliminating judicially mandated benefits. To my colleagues here today, I say this: the Coburn-Shadegg substitute borrows the best of the Norwood-Dingell bill, rejects its worst, and improves upon the rest. It is a final example of pragmatic policy and deserves your support. It is essential that common sense and the common good prevail over rhetoric and political gamesmanship. I urge my colleagues to support the Coburn-Shadegg substitute. Americans are in need of a solution to this problem, not an issue for next year's elections.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I think the significance of today's debate cannot really be overestimated. This legislation and the many permutations that we are considering is going to affect the lives of 160 million working Americans, every small business owner, every self-employed person, every corporation in America. The decision that we make here today and tomorrow has the potential to fundamentally alter the structure of the U.S. health care system, and with it, the quality and the quantity of health care that every American enjoys. The task that we have before us today and tomorrow is to strike a balance between assuring access to health care and assuring accountability for those who provide it. We have to rise above the rhetoric, the heated rhetoric, which we are going to hear in these next 2 days and find the truth. If we do not and we respond with knee-jerk legislation, that in the end will only cause more harm than good to patients. Let us be honest, there are no easy answers in this debate, but we can begin by acknowledging that under current laws, HMOs are not held truly accountable for their health care decisions. When the agent responsible for delivering health care services is the same agent that is responsible for controlling costs, then the quality of health care gets short-changed, and rationing of care results. I have heard the cries of people in Arizona, and I have listened to the angry complaints of physicians who serve them. I have heard the horror stories I know many of my colleagues have about cancers that went untreated, physical deformities that went uncorrected, lifesaving therapies that were denied. I believe HMOs should be held accountable for their decisions. But unfortunately, the suggested remedy in the underlying Norwood-Dingell bill establishing the unlimited right to sue an HMO I find equally troublesome. Already 44 million Americans have no health insurance, and that number is rising. Another significant number of Americans are underinsured. There can be no doubt that permitting unlimited liability will increase both the cost of health insurance and the number of uninsured. How do I say this? How do I know that I can say this? In the first instance, simple economic logic tells us that insurers will pass the cost of increased risk of litigation along to someone else, and that someone in this case is going to be the consumer. We have plenty of empirical evidence about the second concern, the loss of coverage for working people. I have in my office dozens of letters from companies in my area that say, in effect, any expansion of liability will force us to drop health insurance for our employees. The reason is straightforward. A company always seeks to reduce unknown and unquantifiable business risks. Norwood-Dingell is an open-ended liability, a brand new lottery for trial lawyers. I am concerned that instead of 44 million uninsured Americans, we should all worry that in 4 or 5 years, with unlimited right to sue, the ranks of uninsured Americans will swell to 144 million people. That is what I mean by a knee-jerk response to a very ugly problem. I urge my colleagues to reject the Norwood-Dingell bill and to support the Coburn-Shadegg bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce legislation creating the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Establishment Act of 1999). Las Cienegas is Spanish for marshes or bogs. In the Southwest desert, water is a treasured commodity. A cienega is even more precious and rare. This essential resource--water--is becoming increasingly difficult to manage because of the changes we see in the region. This legislation takes a large step to provide positive management. It establishes a national conservation area in the Cienega Creek and Babocomari River watersheds located in southern Arizona. The NCA will conserve, protect, and enhance various resources and values while allowing environmentally responsible and sustainable livestock grazing and recreation. Congressionally designated National Conservation areas (NCAs) have developed through the years as a method to protect and manage special areas that do not fit neatly into a traditional designation, such as wilderness. The NCA designation allows for flexible and creative management strategies for a resource area, while a designation of wilderness mandates a management structure set out in law. Therefore, an NCA is useful when there is a need to accomplish two objectives: (1) permanence to a management strategy, which is usually a compromise by all the stakeholders; and (2) flexibility to stipulate special management practices. In 1995, the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP) was formed to work on public lands issues in the Empire-Cienega Resources Conservation Area, which the BLM established in 1988. The Partnership is comprised of various stakeholders, such as hiking clubs, conservation organizations, grazing and mining interests, off-highway vehicle clubs, mountain bike clubs, as well as Federal, State, and county governments. The SVPP has developed a collaborative management plan for these lands, and an NCA designation would give this plan's objectives permanence and assure implementation. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Establishment Act would save a large tract of land significant for preserving a cross-section of plants and wildlife. The NCA would provide corridors for animal movements that are necessary for the long-term viability of important species. Two of southern Arizona's perennial streams, the Cienega Creek and the Babocomari River, would be protected, ensuring a long-term, sustainable riparian area. However, the NCA designation also retains these lands for human use. Ranching and recreation are integral parts of this conservation area, and the proposed legislations states this clearly. The core of this NCA designation is the management plan, which must be based on the SVPP land use management plan. The plan will include several key elements: A program for interpretation and public education; a proposal for needed administrative and public facilities; a cultural resources management strategy prepared in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer; a wildlife management strategy prepared in consultation with Arizona's Game and Fish Department; a production livestock grazing management strategy drafted in consultation with the State Land department; a strategy for recreation management including motorized and nonmotorized recreation, formulated in consultation with the State; and a cave resources management strategy. Another key component of the proposed legislation is the acquisition of land. This proposal reaffirms the principle of maintaining private property in Arizona, currently only 17.7 percent of the State, while providing the flexibility needed to include state lands in management strategies. Under this proposed bill, private land can be acquired only through donation, exchange, or conservation easements. To further ensure that Arizona's privately held lands will not be diminished, the proposed legislation specifically states that an exchange must not ``reduce the tax base within the State of Arizona.'' In addition, conservation easements are given a priority, and any activity related to private lands must be done with the consent of the owner. This bill has been drafted by the people who live and work in this area, and I am honored to introduce this bill for them and for future generations of Arizonans. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Establishment Act is proof positive that people with seemingly different objectives can work together and find a large expanse of common ground. This bill supported by ranchers and environmentalists, both understanding that they want the same thing--a beautiful and vibrant southern Arizona.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation to meet the health care needs of our veterans and rise to express my support for the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. This is the kind of act that will help restore accountability and credibility to the government's reputation with regard to keeping our promise to take care of our nation's veterans. In Tucson, we eagerly await the ground breaking of the Tucson VA Medical Center's new outpatient facility. This legislation complements that effort to insure the policy as well as the infrastructure is in place to provide appropriate care for Southern Arizona veterans. Outpatient care delivers more care to greater number at a lower cost. I am pleased to see outpatient care further supported in this bill. With the World War II generation and their sons and daughters entering the later half of their lives, these improvements to long term care is timely and needed. This represents Congress responding to real needs of the people. The broad support within the House of Representatives shows that we put the people we serve first and we are using the best of our collective experience to implement the most responsible policies. Again, I thank the members of the Committee and fellow Arizona member Bob Stump for is diligent efforts and leadership in serving our veterans.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his kind remarks about Clif. Clif is on the floor with us today, and Clif, it is not our eulogy to you but rather a tribute to you, and we look forward to continuing to work with you. Mr. Speaker, let me return to the conference report, if I might, and discuss for a moment some of the key parts about it. This conference agreement provides $13.7 billion for agencies which come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is $240 million above the current fiscal year, an increase of less than 2 percent, but it is $220 million below what the President requested. I am concerned to learn there are some Members who believe that this level of funding is both excessive and unnecessary. In fact, it is neither. Just to keep pace with inflation, the administration requested an increase of $600 million. That was before any of the initiatives, and before the mandatory requirements, such as Y2K readiness for the IRS, or workloads associated with the upcoming Presidential elections, the workload increase that will be caused during the upcoming Presidential election for the Secret Service, or for increases in the critical drug programs, such as the high-intensity drug trafficking areas or the Drug-Free Communities Act. Mr. Speaker, a $240 million increase barely makes a dent towards putting together a bill that meets all of our current law enforcement responsibilities. Clearly, this subcommittee was faced with a daunting task. I can tell the Members that without this funding level, the conference report before us now would not be pretty from anyone's perspective. The fact is, anything less than what is provided in the conference report would have fallen far short of our shared goals. Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, I know my colleagues have concerns over these funding levels. On the other hand, I know that we all support the same things. We all support IRS restructuring and reform and improving customer service for our constituents. We all support hardening the borders against drugs and illegal contraband while improving the flow of legitimate commerce. We all support keeping our children off drugs and strengthening our communities and families. Finally, we all support keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, adult and juvenile criminals, and giving State and local law enforcement officers the tools they need to enforce the firearms laws that we have adopted. These are items which certainly ought not to be controversial. These are items that are funded within our conference allocation, and I think we can all agree they are not excessive, they are not unnecessary. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of legislative items and the suggestion that somehow the conference agreement has put one over on some Members, including items which, for a variety of reasons, should not be included, or should not be in there in their present form. Each year, this subcommittee is burdened with controversial legislative provisions that ultimately have to be negotiated in conference with the Senate. The fact is, once they are attached to the bill, we are responsible for negotiating differences with the Senate on behalf of the sponsors. So we did not put anything over on anybody in this conference report. The conferees negotiated to the best of their ability, and with nothing but the best of intentions. The conferees made every effort possible to accommodate the views of all Members, House and Senate, both sides of the aisle, on these different issues. The agreement before us now reflects the very best intentions and the very best judgment of the conferees. I might add, it has received the unanimous and unqualified support of the House and Senate conferees. We have a bill that I believe can receive a majority of votes in both sides of the aisle, in both chambers, and one that I believe can and will be signed by the President of the United States. I hope that, when some of my colleagues say they are threatening to vote against this measure because they disagree with the specifics of it or some of the controversial provisions, that they will reconsider that position. That would be a very shortsighted approach, and I urge Members to look at this conference report in its entirety. This is an excellent conference agreement. It is strong on law enforcement, it is tough on drugs, and it continues our commitment to restructure and reform the IRS. I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE99.004 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for his kind comments, and I would say that it has also been a great pleasure for me and my staff to work with him. We do not always agree on everything, and we will not, that is the nature of this body, that is the nature of the legislative process. But it also is the nature of the legislative process experience on appropriations that we work together to solve problems, and work together to make sure that we have a government that functions for the best interests of all of our citizens. I think that this bill reflects the very best of that process, and certainly both with his staff and with the ranking minority member and the other members of the subcommittee, I think we have achieved a result that we can all be quite proud of. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has been very instrumental in working for child care provisions in legislation.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment on language that is in the statement of managers for the conference report on the Treasury and General Government's appropriations bills. This deals with the issue of a report that is to be submitted to Congress on personal search inspections policies and practices of the U.S. Customs Service. Because of the implications the personal search policy has for individual rights, Congress clearly needs to monitor proposed policies and their implementation. We have anticipated and we expect that Customs Service will prepare this report, a report that will cover changes being implemented, together with an action plan for further improvement in its personal search policies, and that they would submit this to the Secretary of the Treasury for approval and transmittal to the Committee on Appropriations. Let me make note of the fact that Commissioner Kelly has taken steps that demonstrate his commitment to improving Customs' policy on personal search of international passengers at our airports. The search process has been made less invasive. Supervisors are being made more accountable by being more closely involved in decisions to conduct a personal search. I think it is clear that the commissioner is committed to fairness in the processing of international passengers and making sure that there is no racial bias in selecting who is searched. But this does not diminish our responsibility as a Congress to oversee this issue and to make sure that individual rights are being protected. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) if he would like to add any comments to this.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote in favor of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2490) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I might, respond to a few of the comments that were made by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). Let me say that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). He has been the conscience of this House, he has been a fiscal hawk, and he has forced those of us on the appropriations committees, and all the committees, to answer questions in a way that I think we need to have answers, not only to our colleagues but to the American people. So I salute him for the work that he has done and I appreciate it. It may not have always have made my days easier, but it is okay. I think it makes for a better bill in the long-run. But if I might, let me just talk about a couple of things that he mentioned. He talked about the fact that this is $240 million over last year. In my opening remarks, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) was not on the floor at that time, but I noted that that $240 million, which is less than a 2 percent increase over the current year, is considerably short of what we would need--$600 million--to maintain current levels. That is just to keep the current operations going. Now, one can argue that we ought to make it more efficient, that we ought to be more productive, and that there ought to be ways to make Government do better with less. And I do not disagree with that. I think through the years, for example in the IRS, we have done that very substantially. We have brought the number of employees down in IRS by 20,000. We have brought the amount of money that we have spent in IRS substantially. We do have a much more efficient Internal Revenue Service. But it, nonetheless, gives us a benchmark I think for where we can compare things. And clearly, the amount of money needed to make all the services that were in our bill last year stay just the same, keep on automatic pilot, would be $600 million. We are only taking $240 million over that from last year. In just two accounts, IRS tax processing, for example, it would take $118 million more to maintain current levels. In tax law enforcement, it would take $137 million to maintain current levels. Those two accounts alone, and those are just two accounts of IRS, which is just one very large part of our entire bill, those two accounts alone require more than we are giving this bill just to maintain current services. So it is clear we are not even maintaining current services with the proposed spending increases. We are doing it frankly by cutting out spending in other areas, and a lot of that comes in courthouse spending that we are not able to do this year. So I would just make that note that I believe that we do need to have these additional resources if we are to have efficiencies in the Internal Revenue Service. All of us on this floor, I believe all of us that are here at this moment, and I believe my colleague from Oklahoma, voted for the IRS modernization legislation, which requires much more consumer friendly, much more customer orientation on the part of the Internal Revenue Service. That costs money. We have shifted a lot of people over from IRS tax law enforcement to customer service. It requires more money and more time in order to do that. That is one of the things that we did not do when we passed the bill on this floor in July. We were not able to give all the money we needed for the new initiatives that this body has authorized for the Internal Revenue Service. We attempted to do that with the money that has been restored in the conference committee. So I think it is reasonable. I also think that this subcommittee has been very diligent in going after agencies to make sure that we are spending every dollar as wisely as possible. Does that mean we cannot do more? No. We can do more. Does that mean we can do better? Yes, we can do better. The agencies can do better and the Office of Management and Budget can help us with that as they prepare the request for this next year. But I think this bill will stand the test of time. Let me also just finally mention the issue of pay increases for Federal workers. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said that he thought it was not fair that Federal employees were getting more than retirees were getting into their annual adjustment. We all know the difficulty that that poses for us from a fairness standpoint or from a political standpoint. But we also know that those two items are based on very different kinds of adjustments. One for workers, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has pointed out, is based on an employment index, that has to do with what is the comparable pay on the outside for workers. We are in a very tight labor market. Labor costs have been going up fairly dramatically in the last couple of years. Fortunately, inflation has not been going up as rapidly. So we find ourselves with this anomaly, and it is an anomaly based on historic conditions, where inflation remains very low, but thanks to productivity gains and other gains, we have been able to increase real wages more rapidly in the last couple of years. Now, this was true last year. The difference was not as great, but it was true last year as well. Many of us can remember going back 15, 16, 17 years ago to the early 1980s when Social Security recipients and Federal retirees were getting 12 and 13 percent COLA adjustments, while Federal workers were getting 3 and 4 percent pay increases. The difference was much more dramatic going the other direction. So I would just say that these are based on two different indexes and we ought not to start to mix apples with oranges on that issue. Finally, let me just say on the issue of the pay increase, the fact that this legislation mandates a 4.8 instead of the 4.4 percent that had been requested by the President. The Members will remember that earlier this year we gave that larger increase to the military because it was felt that we needed to do that in order to try to catch up. There was a sense that the same kind of fairness needed to be given to civilian employees. And so, in the bill that was adopted here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we included a provision, a sense of Congress provision, that Federal civilian employees should get the same 4.8 percent increase. Subsequently, after the President announced that he was going to agree to a 4.8 percent adjustment, we decided to write it into the bill. That is why we have a 4.8 percent increase in our legislation. So I would just want to make those points at this time. I respect what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has suggested to us, but I think this bill does stand any test and I think it can be fully justified.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to present to the House the conference report on the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill. This is a bill that not only meets the commitment we have made to the American people to reform modernize the Internal Revenue Service, but one that continues to strengthen our support for Federal law enforcement, to protect our borders against drugs, and to prosecute violations of our gun laws. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to say that I think that the staff always plays an essential role in preparing and supporting the committee at all stages of its annual appropriations bills, and I am surrounded today by the very valuable staff that has made this work very possible, and it is true also of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) whose staff is on the way. I want to pay special tribute if I might to one individual, our congressional fellow, Clif Morehead, who leaves us at year end, having performed exemplary service for the House of Representatives. Clif has worked for this subcommittee for the past year, and after serving a year in the personal office of my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Clif will be leaving the committee to return to his work as a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service. Clif has been a terrific asset to this subcommittee, bringing not only his experience and insight into Federal law enforcement from his Secret Service career, but also his understanding of how Congress and the Federal agencies operate from his previous work on defense issues, and as a Marine Corps officer. Whether it has been preparing for the hearings, doing the in-depth research, briefings, planning and organizing committee travel, including a very informative trip that we participated in to review counterdrug efforts in the Andes earlier this year, to the drafting and negotiations of the bill and its report, Cliff has been an invaluable staff member. I am grateful for his hard work. Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Clifton, D. Morehead, as he begins his next assignment as Special Agent for the U.S. Secret Service. Special Agent Morehead has proven himself to be tremendous asset to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the experience he has gained with the Secret Service, as a business manager for Procter and Gamble, and as a Marine Corps officer. Clif began his fellowship in 1998 in the office of the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Steny Hoyer, where he served as his legislative assistant for defense policy and appropriations issues. Clif therefore arrived in this subcommittee with a strong background in the technical issues and folkways of the appropriations process. Serving as a member of my subcommittee staff, Clif has brought a unique perspective to bear on many of the lively debates and sometimes convoluted issues we face as we craft this appropriation bill, and in overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. In particular, Clif's insight and contribution has been invaluable on matters affecting law enforcement, national security, and management issues. Throughout his service here, Clif's unqualified professionalism, perceptiveness, great sense of humor and cool head have helped this Subcommittee and the Congress move forward on a wide range of policy and budgetary issues. His assistance in planning for and coordinating a complicated trip to the Andean countries to review the U.S. counternarcotics assistance programs there was of particular benefit to us. Special Agent Morehead has served me, this subcommittee, and the House well: we are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as a colleague and as a friend. Each of us on the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee wish Clif all the best as he resumes his Secret Service career, and expect to see great things there.

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 the conference report to accompany H.R. 2490 and that I may include tabular and extraneous materials.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give voice to the concerns of scientists and other citizens of southern Arizona who have grave misgivings about the funding decisions in this bill. As an appropriator and a subcommittee Chair myself, I understand and sympathize with the gentleman from New York on the difficulty of writing a bill under the caps by which we are currently governed. However, as the elected representative of some of this country's pre- eminent scientists, I must speak on their behalf and relate to you the impact these funding cuts for basic research could have. Many of you followed the success a year ago when the Mars Pathfinder mission landed on the Martian surface on the 4th of July. The camera that provided the stunning images of that new world was built at the University of Arizona and the world was watching. in that project we proved we could do significant science for a fraction of the cost and it was the front-page story around the world. This project was a dramatic example of the core, basic research accomplished by our nation's universities and grant based research. Many of these programs are funded under NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Technology Account. In this bill, that account is funded at $628 million, more than half a billion dollars below last year's budget. Competitively awarded space science grants in every state in the nation will be drastically cut, with the biggest cuts coming in California, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Alabama and Pennsylvania. In addition to cuts to space science programs, the subcommittee's decision to cut $150 million from the Earth Observing System (EOS) program and an additional $50 million from the EOS Data Information System (EOSDIS) significantly impairs our ability to understand our environment. These cuts will make it difficult, if not impossible, to process data we are collecting from Landsat 7 and that we will collect on the EOS series of satellites. It makes little sense to have spent billions of dollars building these satellites over the last decade and fail to provide the funds to analyze the data they collect. And the impact from this lack of data analysis will hurt important sectors of our economy; Farmers won't gain advance warning of oncoming severe weather like droughts or flooding; coastal areas like the southeastern U.S. won't be able to anticipate the severity of hurricanes. In summary, these cuts in NASA's science programs will set back our nation. They are not balanced. They pose a great threat to our future competitiveness in research and technology. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting some of the amendments to this bill which will help restore some of the funding cut by this bill. However, I am still concerned about the level of funding and ask the chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee to continue to work to find funds to fully support basic, core research.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with pride to support the conference report on H.R. 2488, which provides a sizable tax cut for the American taxpayers. I am proud to give taxpayers back their money the federal government doesn't need. That's right; the federal government doesn't need it. Surplus means the amount in excess of what we spend. And the federal government has and will have all it needs plus enough to reform Social Security and Medicare and start paying down the debt, and still leave a small amount to return to the folks who are sending their hard- earned dollars to Washington, DC. Within hours of the announcement of the conference agreement, my office began receiving letters from groups opposing this tax cut. And what are they saying? Don't give the money back; spend more money on my program. The Minority Leader suggests that the amount we're giving back is too much; that we have to save the surplus so we have money available for entitlement reform. Didn't he hear that we're using $3 to save Social Security and Medicare, to fund programs and to pay down the debt, for each $1 we are giving back to the taxpayers? President Clinton says he'll talk about giving a tax cut after we provide for Medicare, debt reduction and federal spending. Didn't he hear? This bill gives $3 of the surplus to Social Security, Medicare, government programs, and debt reduction for every $1 of the surplus that it leaves with the taxpayer. Makes one worry about what he has in mind for federal spending. Is he thinking about more and bigger government programs? Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers have been paying and paying and paying. The typical American family pays more in taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined. Our tax burden from all government is the highest since we were financing a world war in the 40s. In fact, without this tax relief bill, the average American household will pay $5,307 more in taxes over the next 10 years than the government needs to operate. We have a good economy; unemployment is at record lows. We don't need more government. We do need to scrutinize programs and divert dollars from ineffective and wasteful programs to areas that need additional funding. But we don't need to increase the size of government. Individuals have the right to choose how to spend their money. They can choose to tutor their kids, or replace a furnace or air conditioner, or help an elderly parent, or support a favorite charity, or even save it for their own retirement. They shouldn't have it taken from their paycheck before they even see it so that government can use it to fund yet another program. One administration official called these taxpayers selfish. I call the groups who want to spend more of the taxpayers' money selfish. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Let's return a small share of the surplus to the taxpayers. It belongs to them.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment. The U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, recently wrote a letter expressing her very strong opposition to this amendment. In that letter she said, and I quote, ``This is unnecessary and ill- advised.'' Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with what Ambassador Barshefsky said. This amendment is unnecessary. Never in the history of either the GATT, its 50 years, or NAFTA, its 5 years, has the Federal Government brought suit against a State, municipal or local government to enforce a NAFTA or GATT panel decision. Never. Now, opponents will say, well, if it is unnecessary, why not just go ahead and vote for it? Because, to use the other half of Ambassador Barshefsky's phrase, it is ill-advised. This amendment revisits a question that was resolved by the American people over 200 years ago, the relationship between the regulation of international commerce and the rights of States and local governments to enact their own laws, and we did decide that. In 1789, our Founding Fathers put this argument to rest. We had had the fiasco of the Articles of Confederation where each State could impose its own tariff and tax structure and that was put aside and replaced with, as we know, ``a more perfect union.'' Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says, ``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.'' Article 6 of the Constitution says the laws and the treaties of the U.S. are the ``supreme law of the land.'' The fact is international agreements are entered into on behalf of the American people, all the American people, not just a single town or State, and they are for the benefit of all Americans, and necessarily they sometimes do preempt State, local and municipal laws. Our Founding Fathers made that decision a long time ago. We ought not to pass this. I urge my colleagues to defeat this. Executive Office of the President, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Washington, DC, August 3, 1999. Hon. Jim Kolbe, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Kolbe: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. That amendment would prevent the Administration from taking legal action to enforce U.S. international trade and investment obligations at the State and local level. The amendment is unnecessary and ill-advised. The amendment appears to be founded on a faulty premise. The premise is that dispute settlement panels convened under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and under our other trade and investment agreements have the authority to compel the United States to follow their recommendations and thus will inevitably lead the federal government to sue our State and local governments into compliance. That is simply wrong. In fact, neither WTO dispute settlement panels, nor the WTO itself, has any power to compel the United States to change its laws and regulations. More specifically, the federal government is under no obligation to sue a State or municipality on the basis of any WTO or other trade panel report. Only the United States can decide how it will respond, if at all, to panel reports. In fact, trade panel reports are not binding as a matter of U.S. law and cannot form the basis for bringing suit in U.S. Courts. Indeed, federal law (section 102(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) specifically precludes the federal courts from giving WTO panel reports any special deference. Global trade rules have been in effect now for over 50 years. Despite scores of panel reports over the past decades, the federal government has never brought suit, or even threatened suit, to enforce a panel report against a state or local government. Congress has carefully considered the question of federal- state relations under both the WTO and the NAFTA. Federal law today contains elaborate consultation and cooperation requirements to ensure that the Executive Branch will work with, not against, our state and local governments both in dispute settlement proceedings and in carrying out U.S. obligations under our trade agreements. Those arrangements are working well, as our experience with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts demonstrates, where USTR worked closely and cooperatively with Commonwealth of Massachusetts officials in consultations convened by the European Union and Japan last year. Over the past five years, fully one-third of U.S. economic growth has been tied to our dynamic export sector. American workers and companies depend on open markets around the world. Congress and the Administration have worked very hard, over many decades, to put trade rules in place that open those markets--and to keep them open through effective dispute settlement procedures. The United States is by far the most frequent user of international trade dispute settlement mechanisms. They have benefitted U.S. workers and industries across a wide range of sectors, and were put in place at U.S. insistence with our sovereignty concerns fully in mind. No change in U.S. law is needed to ensure that this remains the case. Sincerely, Charlene Barshefsky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and seek the time in opposition.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman to close our debate, I yield the balance of my time to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules and champion of free trade under NAFTA.