Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, others have spoken here today about the improprieties or, some would say at the very least, the inconsistencies that we have seen in the caseload figures that have been provided by the Legal Services Corporation. Others have said, well, that is not really how they get their funding, they get it from the level of poverty that is found in each of the areas where legal services are provided. But the fact is, we have seen some wild variations in the caseloads, and we do know that the Inspector General and even the Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, has himself acknowledged that there are tremendous discrepancies in the way caseloads these are reported. Now, some say it is because there are no real guidelines. Well, I believe the Board has a responsibility to promulgate those guidelines to make sure that it is clear so that we know what cases are being accepted or how they are being disposes of so that we can have consistent statistical data on which to make the judgment in the subcommittee that I serve on level of funding for the Legal Services Corporation. We also heard the gentleman from California talk about how over the years Congress has had to take action against the Legal Services Corporation for meddling in areas where Congress has demonstrated clear legislative direction. Instead, too often the Legal Services Corporation has attempted not to implement legislative intent, but to block the actions of Congress. We heard about that most dramatically, in the memory of most of the Members of Congress, in the area of redistricting. I want to talk about another area where this is going on, legislation that we passed a few years ago dealing with migrant farm worker programs, and the very limited guest worker programs with foreign countries. These are very heavily constricted programs with a lot of regulations, a lot of rules which must be implemented in order to comply with them. They have to advertise; they have to show that there is no work force available. Even with all these hurdles to clear, what we have found is that Legal Services Corporation in almost every area and every State, has filed all kinds of actions to block any approval of these worker programs. The result is none, virtually none, have been approved. Less than 1 percent of the potential need for migrant workers, giving people jobs here in the United States to work, have actually been approved by the Labor Department. What we hear time and again from farm organizations is they just do not initiate the process because they know they are going to be blocked by the Legal Services Corporation. I want to finally discuss where the author proposes to find offsets for restoring this money to the Legal Services Corporation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has told us the money does not really come out of the Border Patrol, that this is really a shift from one account to the other. I will acknowledge that this is true. But there is a definite cut in the National Instant Crime Check system for the FBI, there is a definite cut in the Federal prison system, and there is a definite cut in the judicial services. Mr. Chairman, these funds are absolutely vital in order to carry out the legal system for those who need it most. Who needs it most except those who are the most impoverished? If we do not have a judicial system that works to put criminals behind bars, who is going to suffer? Those who are the most poor. If we do not have a judicial system that has the staff to process cases, who is going to suffer? Those who are the most poor. If we do not have a system to do crime checks, who will be the victims of crime? Those who are the most poor. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we defeat this amendment. I urge that we keep the cuts that the committee has judiciously imposed on the Legal Services Corporation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time. I, too, would like to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for the work that he has done and for being here this evening. But I do also rise in very strong opposition to this bill. It is a target-rich environment of arguments against it. I do not know which one to start with. Let me start with this one. This bill is being brought to this floor for the first time without the benefits of any hearings in the House or any kind of public input. This bill provides an almost open-ended $1 billion in loan guarantees for the steel industry and as much as $500 million in guarantees for the oil and gas industry. To cover potential defaults of administrative cost, $270 million are appropriated. Now, we have an offset for that, we have been told, an offset of an unspecified pro rata recessions from the nondefense travel and administrative accounts in all Federal agencies' fiscal 1999 budgets which have 2 months to run. Now, there are many of these budgets which do not have anything in those accounts, and OMB has acknowledged they have not the slightest idea of how they are going to handle it in those particular budgets. So, in short, it puts millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds at risk, rescinds millions of dollars in Federal administrative accounts, in the Veterans Administration, in the Energy Department, in the Agriculture Department where we have a real problem with agriculture in this country. It takes the money out of those accounts and sets up an elaborate loan guarantee board to administer the program. Yet no one, not a single Member of the House, has had an opportunity to review this proposal in committee nor hear from those who are affected. This is not the way this institution is supposed to function. Now, I also object to this on a substantive ground. The loan guarantees being considered would not go to the benefit of any workers. Instead they go to investors of a few companies, many of whom may have had troubled loans in the first place. The effect of these loan guarantees would be to reward inefficient producers and skew market capital away from efficient industries toward inefficient companies and inefficient industries. Rather than save jobs, this bill would simply reallocate jobs in our country. This is nothing but a special interest bailout for specific industries, and I urge the defeat of this particular bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 58. As a Vietnam War veteran, I empathize with many of the arguments that are made by opponents to this waiver. I, too, am concerned about freedom of emigration. I, too, want a full accounting for our MIA and POWs. I, too, am concerned about religious freedom. But I strongly disagree with how this solution proposes to resolve these problems. Denying the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam will do nothing to further progress in any of these areas. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. I hope my colleagues will take a moment to consider the changes that have occurred and that are occurring to Vietnam. Vietnam is not the same country it was 30 years ago when I was there. Over the past 15 years, 500,000 Vietnamese have emigrated to the United States. Over 96 percent of the resettlement opportunities for Vietnamese returnees cases have been cleared for interview by Vietnam. On emigration issues, we are clearly headed in the right direction. On POW/MIA accounting, we have had and continue to have substantial cooperation from the Vietnamese Government in all areas. On religious freedom, progress is also being made. Three weeks ago, a high-level U.S. delegation traveled to Vietnam to engage in the seventh session of our annual human rights dialogue with Vietnamese officials. At each of these meetings, religious freedom has been a major topic of discussion; and each time U.S. officials have been able to report that progress is being made. In October of this year, five American Catholic bishops will be visiting Vietnam, the first visit by an American bishop since 1975. This will be a momentous event. Let me be clear. While there is progress, the situation in Vietnam today is far from perfect. But it is important that we put this vote in its historical perspective. In 1991, President Bush proposed a road map for improving our relations with Vietnam. To follow the road map, Vietnam had to take steps to help us account for our missing servicemen. In return for this cooperation, the United States was to move incrementally toward normalized relations. We have moved in that direction. I urge my colleagues not to abandon decades of progress. Only with engagement can we have commerce and only with commerce can we have change. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, although I rise in support of the pending amendment, which I think certainly improves the bill, I do want to express my concerns about the legislation as a whole, H.R. 2031. This is legislation that directly impacts interstate commerce, and it drastically tips the scales of commerce in favor of large wholesale distributors at the expense of consumers and small local vineyards, which rely heavily on direct sales for their business. This legislation gives attorneys general the power to sue out-of-State wine and beer distributors in Federal court for violations of State liquor laws. As a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal makes clear, giving State attorneys general the power to sue out-of-State vineyards in Federal court can lead to nothing but political mischief. What better way for a politically ambitious attorney general to build political support at home than to sue out-of-State shippers on behalf of local wholesalers to help keep the competition out? The 21st amendment was designed to give States the power to regulate alcohol sales within their States, and to ban it altogether, if they choose. It was not designed to give States the power to keep the wine sales of some distributors out while allowing others in. Such a result flies directly in the face of the interstate commerce clause by establishing special interest protections for local distributors. Any resident who seeks to buy a rare or obscure vintage of wine not offered by his local distributor with this legislation is simply out of luck. The legislation is anticompetitive, it is anti-consumer. Unfortunately, it sounds good. This legislation would do great mischief. It injects the strong arm of the Federal courts into an area of commerce that is best left to the States. It imposes unnecessary Federal interference in the enforcement of State laws, and gives the State Attorney General a new weapon, the Federal court, to favor local over interstate commerce. The result will not balance the scales of justice. It will, instead, tip those scales against consumers who have found in the Internet a cornucopia of goods and services heretofore unknown to them. I urge us to defeat this legislation. Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodlatte, as Amended

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma. Last month, over 1,000 children in the District of Columbia's foster care system waited for someone, anyone, to take them home. Over 1,000 children, children looking for a stable, secure home. The sponsor of the amendment during last year's floor debate indicated that he wanted to provide a sense of stability for children, and I believe that is true, that he wants that, and we all do. I think the sponsor has also spoken about the importance of the need for two- parent families. So which is it? This amendment would allow single parent adoptions, but it disallows joint adoptions in the District of Columbia by persons who are not related by either blood or marriage. I do not quite understand. The sponsor of this amendment believes it is okay not to have two single people who want to be parents to adopt a child, but it is okay to have a single parent adopt a child. Is there not a bit of a double standard here? The gentleman from Oklahoma has spoken about not wanting to put children in an ambiguous situation, but what could be more ambiguous than keeping a child in foster care? What could be more ambiguous than keeping them in limbo, never allowing them to be adopted? We have these children in the District who are waiting to be adopted. I would love to have 1,000 lawfully-married-in-the-eyes-of-whatever- religion couples in the District of Columbia step up and adopt these children. But that is not going to happen. I would love to have 1,000 single people in the District of Columbia decide to become a parent and step up and adopt these children. But that is not going to happen, either. This amendment would limit the options for adoption to those two scenarios. There are 1,000 children in the District waiting to be adopted, that are looking for caring, loving families. We should not adopt this amendment, we should reject it and allow them to have the option of being adopted.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is just like clock work. As spring turns into summer and the throngs of tourists begin their dissent on the Nation's Capital once again, we come to the House floor for what has become an almost ritualistic debate about trade relations with China. Once again, we find ourselves driven to view our trade relations with 1.3 billion people through the narrow prism of a decades-old statute that was not even designed to fit this situation. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to end this kind of debate. If we are ever to develop a truly coherent and a comprehensive policy towards this nation, the largest on the face of this planet, we have to break free from this debate. Our relationship with China is complex, and it is increasingly important. There are a myriad of issues that are intertwined in this relationship: nuclear proliferation, regional security, the bilateral trade balance, intellectual property protection, religious freedom, the future of Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong, and political and economic freedom for the people of China. How can we possibly deal with these complex issues through an annual congressional debate that asks a single question: Should we conduct commercial relations with China on the same basis that we do with other countries? Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to take a step forward with me today. Vote down this resolution of disapproval and join in forging a truly comprehensive policy towards the People's Republic of China. I believe to my very core that the most important thing we can do for human rights in China is to help bring a rules-based system of trading to that country, and the only certain way we can do this is to get China into the World Trade Organization. We must help those who are reformers in China to help themselves. We must continue to work to bring the rule of law to China. We must strengthen our relationship with our allies by maintaining a strong military presence in that region, and we must be clear and consistent in our message to the Chinese government. But one thing is clear. This annual debate over whether we will continue our political and economic relations with China is never constructive. It hampers our ability to formulate a comprehensive and effective policy toward the region, and I believe it is time for it to end. Mr. Speaker, I urge a renewal of Normal Trade Relations. History has shown economic growth to be an effective catalyst for political change. The principles of individual liberty and a freedom embodied in economic liberalization will prevail, but only if we have the political courage to make the right choice to let them flourish, and that means renewing Normal Trade Relations with China.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the work Bob Tobias has done for federal employees. Bob has been the president of the National Treasury Employees Union since 1983 and has been with this organization for the last 31 years. No doubt about it--Bob Tobias has positively affected the character of the NTEU. As chairman of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I have had the honor and privilege of working closely with Bob on many issues. He has always been honest, compassionate, and unrelenting in fighting for what he believed to be the right course of action. I will always look back favorably on the times I have spent working with Mr. Tobias. It is my understanding that Bob will be 56 years old in August, which is when his fourth term will expire. I wish him the best in his next endeavor. I'm told that he plans to write or teach, and even though he is an alumnus from the University of Michigan, and not from another more formidable ``Big 10'' school--Northwestern University from which I graduated--I am pleased to recognize Mr. Robert M. Tobias for his work with the NTEU.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the tax relief bill we have before us today. It is another down payment on our promise to bring tax relief to the American people. After we make sure we have repaid Social Security and Medicare, we must give the surplus back to those who are giving it to us. It's wrong, just plain wrong, to make the average family pay $5,307 more than the government needs over the next ten years. In my view, denying tax cuts for our people who work hard to earn a living for themselves and their families is unthinkable when government has a surplus. One letter I received from a group of organizations opposed to tax cuts said that they want past spending cuts restored and even increased for inflation. Further, they want to insure that future surpluses are used to fund more federal spending programs. I couldn't disagree more. The surplus belongs to the people who pay the taxes, and we should give it back to them. The tax relief provided in this bill is considerable. It has an across-the-board tax cut of 10 percent that will help all taxpayers. It reduces, even if it doesn't totally eliminate, the marriage penalty. It helps parents save to educate their children. It offers incentives to save for retirement and increases pension portability. It finally ends the death tax. It offers tax relief for medical expenses. Mr. Speaker, I have worked for years with my colleagues to end the death tax. I am especially pleased to see this phase out included in this bill. Southern Arizona has many family ranches and small businesses that are forced into liquidation by estate taxes. That's not fair. Increasing the exemption from these taxes is right. The Marriage Penalty is an onerous tax on families. More than 21 million Americans pay more in taxes simply because they are married. We should encourage marriage--not tax it. While this bill doesn't take care of the bracket problem, it does eliminate the penalty in the standard deduction. The standard deduction for a married couple becomes exactly double the deductible for an individual. This means savings of $243 per couple each year. We all know how the cost of educating our children continues to skyrocket. This bill raises the ceiling on Education Savings Accounts from $500 to $2000/year. It permits these accounts to be used to pay for elementary and secondary education in addition to higher education. The bill ends the 60 month limitation on the student loan interest deduction. And there are changes to revenue bond rules to help school construction. I have spent much of my time in Congress working on a reliable retirement income for senior citizens. This bill increases contribution limits to 401(k) and other retirement plans; it increases portability of pensions for our new workplace reality in which a person no longer works for the same company during his/her entire work life. In short, it makes it easier to save for retirement. Medical expenses have become a huge item in our personal budgets. This bill offers relief in this area, too. It provides a 100% deduction for health insurance premiums for individuals who purchase health insurance. Long-term care insurance is extremely expensive. This bill helps by providing a 100% deduction for these premiums also. It expands the exemption for those who care for an elderly family member at home. And it expands Medical Savings Accounts. For those who are concerned that we need protection against the loss of revenue should we face a future economic downturn, I believe our trigger is an excellent protection. In any year when the total interest paid out on the public and private debt does not decrease from the previous year, then the incremental across-the-board tax cut doesn't kick in. This would protect us in a situation of rising interest rates or declining revenues and make sure we keep a balanced budget. The revenue for these tax cuts is not coming from the surplus in the Social Security Account. We have locked that away. Instead, this surplus is ``on budget'' and will not affect our efforts to reform Social Security. We need fundamental reform of the tax system. I think most in this body would agree with other taxpayers about this. The tax relief offered in this bill does simplify the tax code, but I recognize that it does not achieve the more complete reforms we all would like to see. The fact is we have not reached a national consensus as to how this reform should be accomplished, and I don't want to tempt fate by waiting for tax relief until we have this consensus. The temptation to spend more would be irresistible in this town. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. Let's return the surplus to the American Taxpayers.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this motion to instruct conferees. Obviously, at this moment we do not have an allocation that is sufficient to permit us to easily restore these Y2K funds without having to take it from some other place that might be even more detrimental. But I am certainly hopeful that it will be possible for us to restore at least this amount of the Y2K funding to the Internal Revenue Service and other Federal agencies. So, I have no objection to this motion to instruct. But I say that with the understanding that I can give no absolute assurances to my colleagues in this body that we can accomplish this in the conference, although I am hopeful that we would be able to.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2490.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, and I appreciate the leadership the gentleman has shown in bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation. There is very little doubt that the Africa that we see today is vastly different from the Africa we knew of yesterday. It is truly remarkable that a continent that was once racked by the insidious evils of apartheid, of civil strife, of dependence and economic stagnation, is today on the eve and in the making of an economic renaissance. The engineers of this renaissance are not the Americans, they are not their former European colonial masters nor the Japanese. The engineers of this renaissance are the African themselves. Today there is a generation of leadership in sub-Saharan Africa, leadership dedicated not to the failed status development models of the past, but to market-based reforms and private sector growth. This new generation does not ask America for help, but for hope. They do not ask America for food, but for the tools to make their crops grow. They do not ask America for roads or schools or dams, but for the capital incentives to build their own. That is precisely what this bill would do. Through their actions, the African people have asked us to hear their call for hope, for opportunity, self-sufficiency, and sustainable economic growth. That is precisely what this bill would do. I urge my colleagues to heed this vote, to heed this call, and to vote yes on H.R. 434.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I had understood there were some members of the Committee on Ways and Means that might object to this, but they have not shown up and I am prepared to accept this amendment if we can move it along as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. KOLBE. If the gentlewoman will yield, I would urge that the committee adopt this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Again, the gentleman from Illinois has raised a very important policy issue. I might just add that it is now the policy of the Customs Service to require that a strip search of an individual must be conducted by an individual of the same gender. But this is certainly something that we would want to monitor very closely. We intend to do that. We intend to gather the statistics to make sure that they are doing that. I will work with the gentleman from Illinois to share that information. And if he is not satisfied, we will make other inquiries in our hearings of the Customs Service and can pursue this in another way if it is not to the satisfaction of the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in opposition to the amendment which is being considered here. But I agree with the gentleman from Vermont, this has been a good debate. It has not been enough of a debate with the right kinds of people in the right kind of forum, and that means we should have had this debate in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and then here on the floor as a separate bill. Because the issue of what we should do with the Exchange Stabilization Fund and the levels of its loan authority, of its guarantee authority, is clearly an issue that this body should debate. But surely we ought to at least have pause to consider the fact that the Secretary of Treasury has said that this amendment alone would be a reason that he would recommend a veto to the President. Now, that is not a reason for us to vote for or against it. But it certainly ought to give us pause. And it ought to give us pause that the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, somebody who I think most Members of this body respect very greatly, has said: ``I also believe it is important to have mechanisms such as the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund that permit the United States in exceptional circumstances to provide temporary bilateral financial support, often on short notice and under appropriate conditions and on occasion in cooperation with other countries.'' That ought to at least give us pause when somebody like Alan Greenspan says that. Now, the question was raised here earlier, somebody said, well, we are going to claim that it is risk free. No, of course it is not risk free. But it is also not a hundred percent risk. Just as a bank does not have to reserve a hundred percent of all of its loans in reserve, we do not reserve a hundred percent of this either. It is a credit issue, and that is how it is scored appropriately. We have other kinds of funds like this. We have the Trade Adjustment Assistance that we provide these funds in-ready when it is needed for workers. We have FEMA's Diaster Fund. It is not we come to Congress every time there is a disaster in order to get a fund. We have a fund in order to provide that. And that is exactly what I think we have here. We live in a world where these kinds of economic crises are becoming more and more real. I believe very strongly that we should give this kind of flexibility for economic crises, just as we do for the kinds of fiscal disasters which can afflict our country. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is wrong policy. It is not the right thing to be doing on this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have gone for an hour on this issue, and I have a proposal so that we can bring this debate on this issue to a close. I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all the amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, the time to be equally divided between the sponsor and myself.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this matter to our attention, and this is something the subcommittee is aware of, and we have heard about this not only from members of the subcommittee and the full committee, but we did inquire of the Commissioner of Customs about this problem, and I think the gentleman has raised a very valid point. We need to understand whether or not strip searches have been used in an inappropriate manner. Let me just share with my colleagues, if I might, a couple of things that Commissioner Kelley is doing. I think he is really making a real effort to address the concerns that have been raised about this problem of personal searches, and I would also note that this legislation that we are considering this evening includes $9 million to help put in place non-intrusive inspection technologies at airports and other locations which would reduce the need for such searches. This is non- intrusive technology. That means one does not have to go through a strip search. It also includes $5 million in super surplus funding. It would go to Customs training initiative, some of which would support their inspectors training in this issue in not only the technology but in the procedures that are to be used. So I do believe that the Commissioner has a real concern about this. I will tell the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that we intend to follow this matter very closely in further hearings with Customs and in our regular appropriations hearings next year. The gentleman has raised a very valid point, and I appreciate the fact that he has brought this to our attention.