Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2282, the Agriculture Export Relief Act of 1998. This bill will allow our agriculture exporters to continue to sell food and fertilizer to India and Pakistan, both of whom are subject to sanctions under the Arms Export Control Act for conducting nuclear tests. Let's be clear here. This is not an argument about either of these countries conducting nuclear tests and raising tensions in this region of the world. I deplore their unilateral decisions to conduct tests, and urge both countries to comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But, without this legislation, our farmers will be shut out of these growing export markets, unable to sell their products, and thus unable to meet their own financial obligations. This could lead to job losses and bankruptcies throughout rural America. The sad truth is that we created this problem ourselves. We enacted a sanctions law with noble purposes--among them stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this law, like most laws imposing unilateral sanctions, didn't work. It didn't stop India and Pakistan from nuclear testing. Yet our farmers and ranchers continue to pay the price. Unfortunately, this Congress seems to be far more willing to impose unilateral economic sanctions as the foreign policy solution to practically all of our international problems. And the fact is--they rarely work! When we pull out of a foreign market or refuse to trade with foreign countries our foreign competitors love it! U.S. products are quickly and easily replaced by foreign goods while U.S. business is forces to stand on the sidelines. And, unfortunately, unilateral sanctions rarely result in the political changes we want. Now I am not saying that economic sanctions should never be imposed. They can be an effective tool of foreign policy, particularly when applied selectively and multilaterally. Be we in Congress should remember that they are just a tool--not the ultimate solution. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. I also hope many of you will take a hard look at a measure introduced by myself, Representative Hamilton and Representative Crane--the Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights through Sanctions Reform Act. Our legislation would not stop Congress from imposing sanctions, but would require a careful analysis of sanctions' costs and benefits before they are imposed. It would provide a rational, reasoned approach to our sanctions policy to help make sure that we do not find ourselves once again in the difficult situation we are trying to fix today.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize my friend Bill McDonald, a constituent from Douglas, Arizona, who earlier this month was awarded a prestigious ``genius grant'' by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. I can't think of anyone more deserving of this recognition, for I have seen the fruits of Bill's particular vision and genius first hand. Bill and I have a few things in common: We both grew up on family ranches in southeastern Arizona, and we both have an abiding faith in the bedrock values of hard work, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. We also share a love for the land which, in Bill's case, has sustained his family for five generations. To appreciate the true significance of the accomplishment for which Bill has been recognized, one must first understand that there is a real Range War raging through the American West today. It is a classic conflict that pits certain environmentalists against the cattle ranching industry, and federal land managers have been caught in the crossfire. Bill decided to reject the old paradigm and try something new. With true pioneering spirit, he established the Malpai Borderlands Group, a group of neighboring ranchers whose properties, along with adjacent public lands, comprise about one million acres of contiguous territory in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Under Bill's leadership, and in cooperation with various federal land management agencies, conservationists and scientists, the Malpai Borderlands Group ranchers have developed an innovative, voluntary land management strategy. They also have funded programs to identify and protect endangered species on their land. Through a unique, cooperative grass banking program, participating ranchers are permitted to graze their cattle on one another's property. This eliminates problems, such as erosion and habitat destruction, that can result from overgrazing. Group members also have pooled resources to support experimental land management programs, including the replanting of native grasses. And they have agreed to establish permanent conservation easements to prevent the open range from being subdivided for residential development. Bill and his neighbors have demonstrated that cattle ranching can be both economically rewarding and ecologically responsible. And the Malpai Borderlands Group that he founded is proof positive that ranchers, acting with enlightened self interest, can be the best stewards of the land they love.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to say that I rise in support of this Rule, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4104, which is the fiscal year 1999 Treasury and general government appropriations bill. I want to pay tribute to the Committee on Rules for crafting a Rule that I think is fair to everyone. I want to pay tribute to my ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the good work that he has done on the bill, and I will have more to say on that when we come to the consideration of the legislation. I listened with interest to the debate that we had on the Rule yesterday on the National Security appropriations bill, and I have listened today to the debate that we have had, particularly the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I think they have the facts wrong here. The rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for the vulnerable state of the Federal computer systems and put it in the laps of the Republican Congress. I think that if there is blame, and I think there is some, I think it rests very clearly with the Administration. Let us be clear about this. Our bill included $2.25 billion for the unanticipated emergency requirements of ensuring Federal information technology systems will be compliant with the requirements of the Year 2000. By the rule, that will be taken out. The fact that it is going to move in a separate vehicle, in my opinion, is really a nonissue. The money is going to get to the Federal agencies. It is going to get there in a timely fashion. There is no one on either side of the aisle that does not understand that we have to have the money to make sure our Federal agencies are ready--whether we are talking about defense with its mission-critical issues, or whether we are talking about the FAA with its mission-critical issues, or whether we are talking about the Social Security Administration and the Financial Management Administration to make sure that the checks go out on time and the bills get paid on time, or whether we are talking about something as simple as the Congress to make sure the elevators move on January 1, 2000. We all understand that we have to do this. We are going to make sure that the money is there. The fact is, the Administration has consistently low-balled the true costs of the fiscal year 2000 efforts. In May of 1997, the Administration told us it would cost $2.8 billion governmentwide to make Federal information systems compliant for the year 2000. The estimate has been rapidly going up. They now tell us it is going to cost $5 billion. The reality is the Administration does not really know how much it will cost. And that may be fair. We do not really know. But they have not been aggressive enough, in my opinion, in their oversight. And that is part of the reason we do not know the cost; they have not been aggressive enough in their assessment of agency progress on this issue. Governmentwide, the Administration has requested only $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1999 for the Y2K issue. They are asking agencies to absorb the cost within their regular appropriations. Now we are told that $1.3 billion just is not going to cut it. We know that the Department of Treasury is working on a budget amendment and anticipates that they will need an additional $100 million. I know that because Treasury comes under the purview of my subcommittee. For the Department of Treasury, the Administration has been asking for Y2K money bit by bit; the fiscal year 1998 supplemental included $174 million. This was on top of the $419 million made available through the regular appropriation bill. The Administration has displayed what I think is a real lack of urgency and attention to this issue. This should not be a partisan issue. I do not intend to make it a partisan issue. I want to knock somebody over the head to get their attention down there and make sure that we are giving this issue the kind of attention that it needs. It is not being given the attention that it needs. Up until the appointment of a Y2K coordinator in February of this year, 22 months prior to the time that the drop-dead date occurs, there has been no centralized Federal management structure in place to coordinate policy and oversight across agencies. There has been no coordinated management of this issue despite the fact that some agencies, going back as far as the Social Security Administration in 1989, recognized the seriousness of this problem and began to put some effort in to addressing it. But there has been no centralized, no coordinated effort. There will be other speakers who can speak even more directly to this, such as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) who has been very engaged in the oversight of this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, Republicans have acknowledged that Y2K is a true emergency. We are being up front. We are declaring it just as that. We are going to put it into a supplemental appropriations bill. And whether we offset it or whether we do not offset it is a decision that can be made by this body and by the Senate at a later time. There are those who will argue it ought to be offset, that agencies should have seen this coming. They should have provided enough contingency funding for this. They should reduce other things. There are others who say this is a one-time shot, it is a true emergency, and it really should be paid for with the budget surplus. There are good arguments on both sides. That is something that this body can debate and we can decide upon. But it is appropriate that we do it in a supplemental appropriation bill. So we are not going to appropriate the money bit by bit. We need to provide this money up front and make it available as soon as possible. That means it has to be made available at the beginning of the next fiscal year. I believe that is the responsible way to proceed, and I believe that putting it into a separate supplemental emergency appropriation bill is the right way to go. I support this rule which in every other way. I think, it meets the needs of all the Members on both sides of the aisle in terms of protecting legislative items that are in H.R. 4104 and giving opportunities to offer amendments. I support this rule.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for yielding and would join my colleagues in thanking him for the tremendous service that he has given this subcommittee, the full committee, the Congress, and our Nation. We wish him well in retirement.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have just one simple question I would like to ask with regard to whether it is the committee's intent that the solar and renewable energy funds be targeted to projects developed by nongovernmental organizations that produce the greatest reductions in CO2 on a metric ton basis within the project's life cycle, that have an existing private funding component, that have a high potential of becoming totally privately financed in the shortest period of time, and are not dependent on the development of new technologies or operational systems in order to be successful.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who has had one more thought and has to catch a plane.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members who wish to speak on this, and I want to accommodate them all. I would like to begin with the other member of the Page Board who is with me today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we do traditionally on the last day that our pages are with us, to recognize them, to talk about the program and the contributions that they make to the House of Representatives and to all of us individually. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), the Chairman of the Page Board, wanted very much to have been here to do this herself, but she had to catch a plane from Baltimore and so has left us. But, Mr. Speaker, I will include at this point in the Record the remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the list of all the pages who have served us this year.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind comments and good words. Mr. Speaker, if I might ask my colleagues and the pages to indulge me for just 1 minute for a couple of comments of my own as we close here. Mr. Speaker, let me also add my words of thanks to the pages for the service that they have given us. This is a program that goes back a long ways, almost 200 years ago, when an individual was appointed to serve as a runner here in the Congress. Through the years, the program has sputtered on and off, but it has generally been with us. It has kind of been more formalized in this century. Of course, for the last 20 years it has been a much more organized and formal program. But even though the program has changed dramatically through the years, when I was here as a page it was boys only, when I was here as a page it was 4 years of high school that you could be here for, the program has changed a lot but many things about it are still very much the same. What is the same about it is the kind of good work you do for us, the kind of help you give us to make our lives just a little bit easier. It is like the grease on the wheel that just makes it turn a little bit easier. We sometimes take it for granted and forget about it, but you make our lives just better and easier for us. I hope it is the same for you, that you take something back from this program, as I think you should and you will. I know for me there were many things I took back from it, good friends, and I know from the exchanges of phone numbers and addresses and, of course, now E-mail. We did not have that either when I was here as a page. You are all going to be staying in touch and you will be coming back. But I have taken many good friends. Two of them are here on the floor of the House of Representatives that were in my class. Donn Anderson used to be the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and Ron Lasch, our majority person here on the floor, assistant on the floor, both of them were in my class. They have stayed and given an incredible amount of service to this body and to their country through the years. You have an opportunity to do that as well. When I left here, people would ask me, ``What is it you really learned about politicians and Senators and Congressmen from your experience as a page?'' I thought about it, and I said, ``Well, you know, I guess the most important thing I learned is that they put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.'' We may laugh at that, but it is true. You learn the very best and you learn the worst about politicians here. You see them at their very best. You see them at their very worst. That is true of any experience you are going to have in life where you are close up with people. You will see the human frailties, but you will also see the good things that will come out about people. I hope you will remember the good things, and you will use the good things to build on that. This week I flew across this country of ours to attend the funeral of my sponsor, Barry Goldwater. He was a great mentor to me. I learned a lot from Barry Goldwater. But I think what I learned most was some very simple values that he gave of integrity, of honesty, of patriotism. When you go away from this experience, I hope that above anything else that you get out of this, it will be some of those simple values that you can use in life no matter what you do. Whether you return to the Congress as a Member, as a staff person, whether you serve in government as he served for so many years, there are values that go beyond any particular job. There are values of patriotism, of honor, of integrity. You have a great opportunity to make a lot from this. We wish you Godspeed and we look forward to seeing each and every one of you come back. I thank each and every one of you.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend and fellow member of the Page Board for his remarks. He has been one of the stalwart individuals who has helped to make this page program work so well, and we thank him for his kind remarks. There are few Members of this body that are better friends of the pages, few Members that take more time to stop by and say hello and thank them and do things for them and even take them on to his boat on the Potomac, than my good friend and colleague from California, Duke Cunningham. I would like to yield to him at this time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks. It is because of individuals like him that the program for the pages is more than just a job, it becomes a real life experience, where they get to know real people that work here in our Congress and our government, and I thank Duke Cunningham for making that very possible for us. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, who also is, like myself, a former page, and knows something about this program, though from a slightly earlier day.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his kind comments about our pages and for his service here as a page, as well as a Member of Congress. I am sure he has had an opportunity to explain to the pages that he was always perfect when he was here and never engaged in any kind of antics. I know that certainly was the case for myself when I was here. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 285 expressing the sense of Congress that President Clinton ought not to be received by the Chinese Government on his arrival at Tiananmen Square when he goes there later this month. Mr. Speaker, as many in this body know, I am one who believes very strongly in a policy of engagement. I am one that supported China MFN. I believe that engagement works. I believe that when American citizens, businesspeople, students, and academicians travel to China, we help to spread our values there. And I do believe that makes a difference. I also do not oppose the President's visiting China. Indeed, I believe he should visit China, because I believe it is an important element of a sound foreign policy for China. Others that have supported this resolution have talked about the abuses that are going on today in China. They have talked about widespread political prisoners. They have talked about body parts being sold commercially and about forced abortions. We know there are human rights abuses in China--some of them alleged, some that we know take place. But that is not what this resolution is about. The resolution says that this President ought not to be received as an official part of his visit in Tiananmen Square because of the very symbolism that an event there would suggest. It would suggest that the United States, that the President of the United States, forgives and forgets what happened there only 9 years ago when the Chinese Government callously crushed an incipient student political democracy movement. It was brutal, and we all saw it on television. And, yes, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said that I was in Tiananmen Square with him. Yes, I was there. But I think there is a difference in walking across Tiananmen Square and being officially received there as part of the opening ceremony. Mr. Speaker, the President should go to China, but he ought to be in control of his own visit. No Chinese visitor would agree to be received on American soil at the site of some atrocity against its citizens in this country, if such an event were to occur. If we believe in freedom and human rights for Chinese, our president should not visit in any official capacity the scene of the brutal repression. Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Mr. President, make your visit. Stay engaged. But do not say to the Chinese that we condone and forgive what happened there 9 years ago. Mr. President, do not go to Tiananmen Square on this visit.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note with profound sadness the passing of my fellow Arizonan, Senator Barry Goldwater, a great American statesman. I was just 10 years old when I met Barry Goldwater at an old- fashioned political rally in the little town of Elgin, Arizona. At the time he was running against an incumbent Democrat Senator, Majority leader Ernest McFarland. Nobody thought he could do it, but he won. The rest, as they say is history. Six years later Barry nominated me to become his Senate page, and I served in that capacity for 3 years. That is when I got to know, really know, this extraordinary man. He always said what was on his mind. He never shaded the truth. Mr. Speaker, Barry Goldwater did not spend a lot of time worrying about whether he would be elected or not. He worried instead about principles and about America. He did not change his principles, but America changed. In an era of cynicism and distrust of public officials, Barry Goldwater's life stands as a reminder of values that are lasting and eternal--honesty, integrity, patriotism. We will miss him, but in our hearts we know he was right. Farewell, my friend.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio spoke about the war on drugs, and nobody can deny that that is happening in America today. But the front line of the war on drugs is just as much in Youngstown, Ohio, as it is in Nogales, Arizona; and I do not think any of us believe that the 82nd Airborne should be patrolling the streets of Youngstown, Ohio. The fact is, we are already using military forces in a substantial way along the border. We have JTF-6 located in El Paso that coordinates all of the intelligence work that we are doing on the war on drugs. We have the Air Force operating the aerostats that look for the planes that would be crossing the border. We have Reserve engineering companies that are on active duty along the border building roads and fences every single day. We have the National Guard that is helping to load and unload trucks so they can be inspected along the border. Mr. Chairman, I serve on two of the appropriations subcommittees that between them fund almost 100 percent of Federal law enforcement. We are struggling in those subcommittees to make sure that we have adequate resources to provide the Customs agents, the Border Patrol, the INF inspectors, the DEA people that we need. But we need specialized people trained to do the work. We do not need paratroopers, we do not need Abraham tanks, we do not need B-2 bombers. We need to have the kind of people that can do the work of interdicting drugs and protecting our borders. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Traficant amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2431. This bill, The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, is a well- intentioned piece of legislation but it is sadly misguided. I think like every Member of this body, I share the belief that every individual, wherever they are in the world, ought to be able to practice their faith freely without fear of harassment or persecution. And if I believed for one minute that this bill would enhance that right, I would use every tool at my disposal to ensure its passage. But the sad fact is it will not. In fact, it may do the opposite. The problem of this bill is the problem that is at the core of all sanctions legislation. It allows Members of Congress to feel like they are taking actions to solve the legitimate foreign policy problem, without taking any responsibility for the long-term consequences of their actions or the unintended impacts of this legislation. My greatest fear is that this bill will actually lessen tolerance for religious freedom abroad. Let me explain why I say that. Today there are a large number of faith-based organizations performing missionary work abroad, organizations such as East Gates Ministries, working in China to distribute Bibles and provide religious training to the Chinese people. These people that work for these organizations, empowered by their faith, work daily under very harsh and dangerous conditions, subjecting themselves to the scrutiny and the whims of their host governments. A bill such as The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act could seriously jeopardize their ability to continue performing missionary activities abroad. Imagine for a moment that they were a foreign government or a representative. All of a sudden they are singled out for condemnation and automatic economic sanctions by the United States because of their actions, even because of actions that are beyond their control, towards Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious sect. In many nations the response is not going to be to openly embrace the criticism levied but to respond in more predictable ways, to rally around the flag, embrace their nationalistic roots, retaliate against those who antagonize them. In fact, we are seeing this in India today. And by the way, if we had given away all of our sanctions on religious persecution in India, we would not have anything today to deal with the nuclear proliferation problem. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to have the courage to vote no on this bill. Do not place the work of those who do missionary work abroad in jeopardy.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I want to echo the words that the Speaker said a few minutes ago in congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky, others on his subcommittee and the full committee for the work that has been done in this area. There can be no more important thing for us to talk about today, tomorrow, this year or next year than preserving Social Security and making sure it works for those who get it now and those who will need it in the future. This is not the first time we have had to deal with the troubled Social Security program, and no one is going to argue that it has been one of the, if not the most, successful social programs that we have today. It is one of the reasons that poverty among the elderly has declined as dramatically as it has. But, like many nations around the world, all nations, we are embarking on a major, unprecedented demographic transformation which threatens the promise of Social Security in the future. Most experts agree that a long-range deficit in the Social Security program needs to be addressed in the near future so that we can change it for the future. We really cannot delay reform. Now the legislation that is before us today would create a national dialogue on Social Security, and I believe that is the key to having a successful reform and change of it. It is imperative that Americans must be engaged in this discussion, understand the parameters of what we are talking about and to develop a national consensus for change. We need to hear what people are saying, to really listen to them. I like to think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I began this process 3 years ago when we created the House Public Pension Reform Caucus, which includes now more than 70 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. It began the process here in the House of educating the Members of Congress, providing a forum to discuss, to research, examine the problems that plague Social Security. Additionally, I have recently convened a group of my own in Tucson, 30 people, called my own task force on retirement savings to encourage a dialogue with constituents. They represent their own constituents' groups. The idea is for them to go back, have a dialogue with their individuals, their members, and bring it to my own task force. Again, this is part of reaching out that I think is necessary, that we must do on a national basis. Now this legislation also creates a bipartisan panel to design a long-range Social Security preservation plan, and I strongly agree with my colleagues that Social Security reform must be bipartisan if it is going to receive the confidence of the American people or the needed support in Congress. But I would like to mention there have been a lot of commissions and panels that have diagnosed the problems that are facing Social Security and offered countless options for ways in which we could improve it or fix it. One commission which I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to participate in is the CSIS National Commission on Retirement Policy. Along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and with Senators Gregg and Breaux, this commission has helped to bridge the gap between House and Senate, private and public sectors. Next month, this commission, after more than a year of work, will unveil its bipartisan, bicameral public service sector reform proposal. Mr. Speaker, we have grappled with the difficult decisions necessary to advance a bipartisan Social Security reform, such as the long-term solvency of the system, national savings, equity of benefits across income, across generations and income levels, designing the individual retirement accounts to supplement Social Security, the administrative feasibility of accounts, the management and regulation of accounts and the distribution of those funds upon retirement. I absolutely agree that this bipartisan panel that is created by this legislation needs to look at all of these different proposals that are out there, and I believe if we do that not starting from ground zero we can accomplish this next year, which I believe is the critical year for us to do so. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, for years, in scores of town hall meetings I have conducted throughout my district, an overwhelming majority of my constituents have told me consistently that balancing the federal budget and making our tax system fairer rank among their top priorities. That's why I am so pleased that this year, for the first time in a generation, we will achieve a balanced budget. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, is now actually projecting a surplus by year-end. This is great news. But what's to guarantee that Congress, in future years, will continue to maintain fiscal discipline and live within its means? What's to prevent Congress from returning to the ruinous tax-and-spend policies of the past? Today, the House will vote on the Tax Limitation Amendment. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important, bipartisan resolution, which would make it unconstitutional for Congress to raise taxes without first achieving a two-thirds supermajority vote in both Houses. According to a poll conducted just last month, a supermajority of the American taxpayers supports a supermajority requirement for Congress to raise taxes. And just last week, when I spoke to the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, my assertion that Congress should vote to impose this restriction on itself drew loud applause. Legislatures in fourteen states, including my home state of Arizona, have already instituted this fiscally responsible provision. And the evidence is clear that tax limitation amendments work. Studies have shown that states with this supermajority provision have not only reduced the growth of taxes and spending, but also increased economic growth and employment, compared to states that have no tax limitation provision. The Tax Limitation Amendment would enshrine the principle of tax limitation, and the supermajority requirement, in permanent law, while providing the right mix of discipline and flexibility for Congress. It would make it much more difficult for Congress to increase discretionary spending without undermining its authority to deal with legitimate economic and military emergencies. The House of Representatives already is on record for tax limitation. House rules now require a supermajority vote is increase income taxes. But this only applies to the House, and--because it is only a rule, not a law--it is only for this Congress. There is no guarantee that future Congresses will adopt similar rules. To make tax limitation permanent, we must pass this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in support of the Kasich substitute. Frankly, I am disappointed today that we see before us a bill that so fundamentally, so clearly violates the principles of fiscal responsibility, flies in the face of the balanced budget agreement that so many of us in this body worked so hard to achieve. Should we not be concerned about the fact that we are going to be spending $33 billion more than the balanced budget agreement? That is $33 billion more. Mr. Chairman, I think it is hypocritical for this Congress to brag about its historic balanced budget agreement on the one hand and then move to trash that agreement. There is no way that I think any of us here can justify this shameful exercise in fiscal irresponsibility. Now I know the legislation says that there is going to be offsets to it, but do we not have a responsibility to first determine where those offsets ought to come from, where we are going to get the money to spend for this, before we go about authorizing it? Are we going to take it out of defense? Are we going to take it out of programs in law enforcement? Tax relief for American citizens? War on drugs? Where are we going to take it from? I think we should think about those things before we pass this legislation. Congress has an established process for appropriating money. The authorizing committee approves the spending, the Committee on Appropriations appropriates the money. That is a frequently contentious process, but it is a democratic process and we ought to keep it. Vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the American people must think this debate is quite disingenuous. They recognize that all our discussion about campaign reform is to take the debate away from the real problems--that some people broke the campaign laws. They took money from foreign interests; that is illegal under current law. They solicited money in government offices; that is illegal under current law. They sold access and privileges to high government officials; that is illegal under current law. Apparently, those people think if they talk ever more loudly about reforming the system, the American people will forget that they broke the laws we already have. But no matter what brings us to this debate today, I think this bill--and the other three bills which make narrower reforms--does make some needed reforms. And I don't apologize that I am voting for partial reform because we can't get agreement on everything. If I have a toothache and a backache, I don't mind fixing the toothache even if that doesn't cure the backache. Much has been said about illegal foreign money. Accepting money from foreign interests has always been illegal. But I agree with taking this further step to say that only those who are American citizens can give to the political candidates that only they can vote to elect. And if we are concerned that non citizens are voting, let's give our local election officials the ability to confirm that those who register are indeed citizens. Let the registrant check a box affirming that he or she is a citizen. That's neither discriminatory nor onerous. My campaign committee tells me the new reporting requirements will be more difficult to comply with, but I support them. One of my contentions all along has been that more disclosure is good for open honest campaigns. The very best campaign finance reform is that which focuses on letting more sunshine into the process. I strongly support the provision that requires unions or corporations to get permission from their employees before they use their workers' dues to support candidates. According to polling data, so do about three/fourths of the union members. Asking a union member for written permission to spend their hard earned dues dollars to support candidates cannot possibly be construed as denying workers their rights. They can agree with letting the union leadership make decisions about whom they support or they can keep it to spend as they wish. It gives them power over their own earnings; it does not deny them any right. The underlying reform bill allows middle class candidates to run for office against millionaires by removing party and individuals contribution limits so that parties can match a wealthy candidate's personal spending that goes beyond an individual contribution limit. No longer will the millionaire have a nearly insurmountable advantage. This bill increases individual contribution limits to $2000 for a candidate for federal office. It does not increase PAC contribution limits. It bans soft money for federal parties and also for state parties in those cases where they are joint federal and state elections. Certain reforms I support are not here; I favor a requirement that candidates must raise half of their campaign funds in their own state. I support lowering PAC contribution limits to match the amount an individual can give. But the fact these items are missing does not mean I can't support the good things that are here. Mr. Speaker, this is a good package of bills which makes some much needed reforms. I am pleased to support each of them.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998, and I would like to commend the gentlemen, Messrs. Portman and Kasich, from Ohio, for their efforts. The purpose of this legislation is simple--to facilitate greater protection of tropical forests while being cognizant of today's tight budgetary constraints. The benefits derived from these biologically diverse forests are numerous. Rain forests should not be considered as just a source of timber. They provide a livelihood for people, a habitat for plants and animals, and help stabilize the global climate. Unfortunately, more than half of the earth's tropical forests have disappeared. I believe it is in the best interest of America to cooperate with the rest of the world to protect this vital resource. Developing countries face enormous economic pressures which have increased the pressure on the world's rainforests. By relieving the economic burdens that fuel this destruction and exploitation of fragile resources, we can help redirect a nation's development efforts to more environmentally friendly projects. HR 2870 addresses this need through an innovative program--restructuring the U.S. debts of extremely poor countries in exchange for local protection of tropical forests. This program would not be open to any country wanting to restructure its debt. A country could participate only if it meets certain eligibility requirements, such as having a democratically elected government. Also, a country would be prohibited from supporting terrorism and would have to cooperate in the international war on drugs. These are not the only criteria a country must meet to receive the benefits of debt restructuring. An eligible country must use the funds only to ``preserve, maintain, and restore the tropical forests.'' Also, the distribution of these funds would be monitored by an administering body composed of U.S. Government officials and representatives from various environmental, scientific, and academic organizations. This legislation builds on President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, providing an effective solution to deforestation while assisting less-developed countries restructure uncontrollable debt. This bill shows what can be accomplished when everyone, irrespective of political and ideological views, puts their differences aside to solve a common problem. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2870.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and thank him for the leadership he has given the body, bringing to our attention the issues surrounding Africa, and for making it a high-profile issue for all of us. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation. It is heartening for me to see many of my colleagues who oppose granting fast track negotiating authority to the President stand here today and declare their support for expanding trade with sub- Saharan Africa. As my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) said, last August I had an opportunity to lead an eight-member bipartisan delegation to Africa to view firsthand many of the issues that surround our relations with this important region. During my short time there, I was very impressed with the spirit, the ingenuity and the initiative of the African people. My visit left me with little doubt that the Africa we see today is vastly different than the Africa of yesterday. It is truly remarkable that a continent once racked by the insidious evils of apartheid, civil strife, dependence and economic stagnation is today in the dawn of a new renaissance. The engineers of this renaissance are not the Americans, nor the Europeans, who colonized the continent, nor the Japanese or the Chinese or the Asians who followed them. The engineers of this renaissance are the Africans themselves. Today there is a new 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 own crops grow. They do not ask America for schools or hospitals or dams, but for capital incentives to build their own. That is precisely what this bill would do. H.R. 1432 extends and expands the generalized system of preferences program for sub-Saharan Africa. It provides duty-free access to U.S. markets for eligible items, thereby creating incentives for private capital investment. The bill establishes for the first time a U.S.- Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum to facilitate annual high- level meetings to discuss trade and economic issues. Mr. Chairman, through their actions, the African people have asked us to hear their call for hope, opportunity and self-sufficiency and sustainable economic growth. We should give them that. We should support H.R. 1432.