Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The debate, as indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier, has been very lively and very engaging here. One only has to read the decision of the Federal judge in this, the scathing comments that the judge made, not just about the White House and Mr. Magaziner, but also about the Justice Department and the way this was handled, to know that there was a complete failure on the part of all parties in this to handle this appropriately. And so it is quite appropriate, I think, that we have a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for the legal fees here and that the individuals involved should be doing so. But I rise for another reason; that is that I, in my responsibility as the chairman of the subcommittee of appropriations that funds the Executive Office of the President, I can assure my colleagues that we intend to take a very close look at this issue; that indeed if there is an intention of the White House to pay for this out of the Justice Department funds that is reserved for this, there should be, I think, an appropriate reduction in the amount of funding that goes to the White House, to the Executive Office. And we will look for the appropriate account to make sure it is as closely related to the specific thing, to this issue that is involved, to see that we should say that no, if indeed you are going to pay for it that way and not pay for it as it should be, out of your funds, that indeed there would be a concomitant reduction in spending for the White House for this kind of thing. I think it is very clear that what we heard in the judge's comments, and again I would urge all my colleagues to read the judge's decision in this case, it is absolutely unremittingly scathing in the comments that it makes about the conduct, the conduct of the White House, the conduct of the Justice Department in the handling of this. There is no excuse for the way this was done. There is no excuse essentially for the dissembling that was done on the part of the White House, that was told to people, to the judge. The judge points out that there is no excuse for this. There could be no other explanation for it except that there was dissembling going on. There was an attempt by the Justice Department not to look into that and to allow this to happen. I think it is quite appropriate that at the appropriations level that we should take action that would assure that in the future this kind of conduct does not occur. And so I can only say to my colleagues that indeed this may be about nothing, that indeed this resolution cannot assure that it will be paid from private sources as it should be, but I can tell my colleagues that this will help send a signal to the Committee on Appropriations and to the subcommittee that we should look for ways in which to make sure that there is a reduction in the spending elsewhere by the White House to offset this, if indeed they pay it out of what has been the normal standard, through the Justice Department fund that is set aside for this.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, in this case there is a specific fund that is set aside when there are legal fees for this. But never have I experienced a judge that has written such a scathing remark.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say that it differs like night and day. In the first case, that of Travelgate, you are talking about individuals who were victimized by the White House, who were fired and victimized and had to try to recover their good names. And I think it was appropriate that the government pay for their being victimized. We are talking here about an individual who victimized the American public and the judge said so.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would say that each of these cases so far that the gentleman has raised substantiate what I am suggesting. Yes, the two Secret Service agents, and I am very aware of that because the subcommittee funds both the White House and the Secret Service, were indeed victimized in this case. They were unfairly called to task by the inspector general of the Treasury Department who is no longer there, and of course they were completely cleared by this. Again, the good employees of the Federal Government should not be held responsible for when they are made victims of the bureaucracy or victims of political appointees. But we are not talking about that in the case of Mr. Magaziner.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I think the thread that runs through all of these is consistent and the same in that I think in this case we are saying that the people who committed what I think is the wrong in this case of the dissembling that was going on should indeed pay the legal costs for those who tried to bring this case to light, I think appropriately so.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend to my colleagues an article concerning the Mexican political system by Mr. C. Allen Ellis, the president of Ellis Interfin Services, Ltd. Mexico at Watershed On July 6 Mexico, with over 30 million of its 52 million registered voters participating, held congressional elections for all 500 members of its Chamber of Deputies, to replace one third of its Senate, and to elect a mayor of its vast capital city for the first time. The result was historic. Mexico's 65 year old one-party political system, led by a one term president having near absolute power, crumbled before an electorate slowly emerging from Mexico's worst political and economic crisis since its Revolution of 1910. The immediate results have been the end of congressional dominance by the ``Partido Revolucionario Institucional'' (PRI), which now holds a minority of 239 seats in the 500 member lower chamber, and a former party opposition holding 261 seats, which has formed a working coalition at least for the present. The opposition majority is asserting itself in seeking basic prerogatives and is developing fundamental changes in congressional rules and procedures to limit the vast powers held by the president since 1928. In addition, a leftist opposition party, the PRD, has elected Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, son of a populist former president, to govern as mayor of Mexico City's Federal District for a three year term along with a 40 member Council, of which 38 are members of his party and to which not a single P.I. candidate was elected. President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon, midway through his single 6 year term of office, has emerged as a principal beneficiary of the elections whose fairness and extent of voter participation were unique in Mexico's electoral history. This success was the product of the newly independent Federal Electoral Institute, a vocal and critical press and media, the availability of public funding for all political parties, and, in general, President Zedillo's insistence on a fair and democratic election at the expense of his own presidential powers. The emergence of a politically significant Congress has been accomplished without formal changes in the Constitution of 1917 or the laws of Mexico. Among the initial political changes that could prove to be more than transient are: limiting of our neighbor's ``spoil system'' whereby sitting presidents, their relatives and close political and private sector associates can amass great wealth, the greater sharing of presidential power with state and municipal governments many led by opposition parties (6 of Mexico's 31 states and hundreds of municipalities), and a stronger Supreme Court no longer serving only at presidential pleasure. The new political system which is emerging is accompanying an economic recovery from the ``Crisis'' of 1995 and early 1996, led by the export sector principally benefiting approximately 200 major companies and their domestic and foreign suppliers, and, in stark contrast, a slow and painful recovery of its domestic economy. Mexico's two-way trade with its United States and Canada NAFTA partners has increased by 67% in three years from $91 billion to $152 billion in 1996, with Mexico this year expected to supplant Japan as the second most important trading partner of the United States after Canada. This year United States exports to Mexico are once again accelerating after their dramatic fall in 1995 (resulting from the ``Crisis'' and the December, 1994 devaluation of the peso), at $32.7 billion for the first six months running 23% ahead of the same period in 1996. Thus Mexico's new political system is emerging in tandem with a strengthening economy, and in a North American regional economy where the United States continues its remarkable seven year record of non-inflationary growth with massive job creation, much of which is due to vastly accelerating exports of goods and services from the United States to developing nations led by Mexico. One of the principal challenges facing Mexico, which President Zedillo emphasized in his comprehensive annual address to the Mexican people on September 1, is the development of a long-term economic strategy, based on a private sector-led market economy, and acceptable to a political consensus. This has become critical because in each of Mexico's last five presidential terms, beginning in 1970, a financial crisis has been precipitated by differing and often contradictory economic policies. This will be a particularly difficult challenge, as highlighted recently by the highly adversarial response by opposition members to the recent appearance before the Congress of several cabinet officers, urging continuation of President Zedillo's and Treasury Secretary's Guillermo Ortiz's economic recovery and growth program and its required budget. Another principal issue confronting Mexico involves the escalating threat to the personal security of persons in Mexico, at all levels of society, from a growing crime wave overwhelming an ineffectual and often corrupt criminal justice system and federal, state, and local police forces increasingly led by Mexican Army officers. A leading force in criminal activity are the regional narcotics cartels, which with their vast financial resources are responsible for widespread corruption throughout the public and private sectors of Mexico, as well as in the Army which for years has led the national anti-narcotics campaign. President Zedillo in his September 1 address emphasized to his country and its citizenry the threat represented by the prevailing climate of insecurity and from narcotics. Fundamental reform of the judicial and public security systems have been a particular priority of his administration, but he acknowledged these programs and policies had to be improved. He vowed to develop and fund additional public security measures and called on the Congress, state, and municipal governments to work closely with executive branch in this vital arena. In Mexico's economy, the present state of the financial and commercial banking sector remains a principal obstacle to economic growth and development. The public finances of Mexico are strong, having recovered far earlier than expected from the ``Crisis'' thanks to a wise and timely financial assistance package led by the United States and the international financial agencies. Continuing consolidation, led by commercial banks in Spain and Canada, has been required among financial institutions which began to fall shortly after their poorly conceived and implemented privatization by the prior administration. Massive government assistance and debt assumption has been provided to the privatized financial sector, with accompanying widespread public criticism, to confront a bad debt overhang which now exceeds $50 billion and will require many years of continuing economic progress to surmount. Mexicans traditionally have had a keen awareness and pride in their own extraordinary history. However, this admirable quality has limited development of modern democratic political institutions and the ability to develop the economic and social policies required by a young, ambitious and increasingly restive population. The crossroads at which Mexico finds itself has been particularly well-stated in a recently published history of Mexico: ``The ordinary Mexican is no longer obsessed by the gravitational pull of the past. Intoxication with history is now more an issue for political and intellectual elites. In the midst of the Crisis, in a national mood of confusion and unease, today's Mexican is turning toward the future. And the man and woman in the street have begun to understand that, even if the lack of democracy is not Mexico's foremost problem, the country's other problems cannot be resolved without democracy. These are the issues of the past and the present and the future, including the ancient social and economic problems that Mexico has endured as ``the land of inequality.'' Without a legitimate division of powers, the President, if he wishes, can reign as an absolute for six years. Without a solidly based and independent system of justice, the corrupted ``Revolutionary Family'' will continue exploiting ``public posts as private property,'' sacking the country as it has from the days of Aleman to Salinas de Gortari. Without a truly efficient and honest civil service, neither a just system of taxation nor a way of delivering benefits directly to the poor are possible, as modes for reducing the enormous inequalities between great wealth and great poverty. Without a reliable and honest police system, the streets will be insecure and the financial influence of drug cartels will grow geometrically. Without true and effective federalism, the capital will continue to exercise a form of imperialism over the provinces and the cities. Without democracy--the ideal of Madero (and less completely of Juarez)-- any economic reforms, even if they move in the right direction, will always be fragile and endangered.''\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Mexico: biography of power: a history of modern Mexico. 1810-1996/ by Enrique Krauze --------------------------------------------------------------------------- My own view of the road ahead for Mexico, at this watershed in its history, is that our neighbor has found in President Ernesto Zedillo a wise and dedicated leader whose policies, along with the present confluence of events, can produce a presidency sharing power with a representative Congress having real legislative, oversight and budgetary powers, and with an independent judiciary providing the rule of law and the fair administration of justice. Whether Mexico is continuing on the course this paper has described will become more apparent in its crucial political year 2000 when presidential, state and municipal elections are scheduled. These will constitute a plebiscite on Mexico's emerging political system, on present economic and social policies, and on those to be followed in the next three years. The course of present and future developments in Mexico will have profound implications for our own country and national interest. A growing and increasingly prosperous Mexico, with responsive and representative political institutions, will remove, or at least substantially reduce, many of the conflicts which have characterized our nation's historic relations with Mexico. This relationship is the most complex and wide-ranging we have with any nation, and in coming years will continue to be among our most important.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for his cooperation on this. This fulfills a commitment that this body made several years ago when we created the Udall Foundation, to provide for them an authorization for them to do mediation on environmental disputes between Federal agencies and other Federal agencies, State or local agencies, as well as private businesses. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a step in the right direction to get litigation out of the courtroom and into mediation. I think it can serve us very well in our goals of trying to protect the environment, and also provide for economic growth in this country. I strongly support this.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to S. 1228, a bill that does a number of things, including calling for the redesign of the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin. While I enthusiastically support the portion of this legislation providing for the minting of 50 different circulating commemorative quarters, I have serious concerns about the portion dealing with the redesign of the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin. For over a decade, I have been the principal sponsor of legislation calling for the redesign of the Anthony dollar and for the phaseout of the $1 Federal Reserve note. While S. 1228 addresses the issue of the look and feel of our Nation's $1 coin, it neglects the important issue of what to do with the $1 note. S. 1228 recognizes one of the great myths about the Anthony dollar-- that size was not the problem with the coin. It maintains the Anthony's dimensions, but changes the color to golden and calls for a distinctive edge--exactly what I've been proposing for the last decade. With the changes, the newly-designed dollar will be easier to distinguish from a quarter than a quarter from the current nickel. Unfortunately, S. 1228 will not remove the $1 bill from circulation. Ever since Congressman Mo Udall and I introduced the first dollar coin legislation in 1986, I have argued that the Anthony dollar failed for two reasons: it looked and felt like a quarter and the $1 bill was not taken out of circulation. So, this legislation takes a first and very important step in the effort to introduce a circulating $1 coin. However, I fear that the new dollar coin will be doomed to the fate of the Anthony dollar since the $1 note remains in circulation and no provision for its phase-out is included in the legislation. I've been delivering this unpopular message for a decade, and it has been my experience that the general public understands the necessity of a phaseout when given the facts. Mr. Speaker, I have been raked over the coals by those who opposed the phaseout of the $1 note. My efforts have been attacked through sound bites that instill fear and tell the public that elimination of the $1 note is taking about the choice. Well, when those delivering that message introduce legislation to create paper pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters, and $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 coins, I will be convinced they truly believe in giving choice to the American public. Sadly, the smear campaigns that have been going on for over a decade leave Congress in a situation where we can take only incremental steps to implement good currency policy. Sadly, this and prior administrations have forwarded no comprehensive policy objectives related to modernizing our currency. I still read and hear about the stunning success of the Canadian ``loon'' dollar coin which was introduced in 1987. Make no mistake. The coin was extremely unpopular in concept before its introduction. And the coin did not widely circulate until late in 1989--when the $1 bill was removed from circulation. The retail industry was very reluctant to use the $1 coin, and it did not circulate widely for that reason. I traveled to Ottawa several years ago to meet with officials of the Royal Canadian Mint, the Canadian banking industry, the Canadian Parliament, and Canadian retail executives. While they were very proud of the accomplishment, they did acknowledge one significant error in their planning. The said that the prolonged cocirculation of both the ``loon'' coin and the $1 bill made the transition more difficult and unpopular than it should have been. That is my fear about S. 1228. Congress cannot idly sit back and expect the mere introduction of a redesigned dollar coin will develop it own momentum. And no amount of marketing by the Mint will make the coin succeed. As a matter of fact, heavy simultaneous circulation of both the redesigned dollar coin and $1 bills will become a major nuisance to retailer, mass transit, and the visually impaired. I expect Congress will be hearing from them before long. Let me finally add that unlike my legislation, H.R. 1174, there is little budgetary savings associated with legislation that only has redesignated the Anthony dollar without phasing out the $1 note. While passage of H.R. 1174 would ultimately result in about $12 billion in savings to taxpayers over 30 years, I understand that the language in S. 1228 will result in minimal budgetary savings. I commend Chairman Castle for his continuing attention to coinage matters--especially the circulating commemorative quarter legislation. And frankly, I am relieved to know that the Mint will be saved from the embarrassment of having to produce more Anthony dollars. However, I remain convinced that the absence of a plan to address the necessary action of removing the $1 bill from circulation will doom us to the same embarrassment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding naval officer, Lt. Tracy Anne Barkhimer, U.S. Navy. Lieutenant Barkhimer will soon be completing her assignment as liaison officer in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs, Rayburn House Office Building. It is a distinct pleasure for me to recognize a few of her many outstanding accomplishments. A native of Staten Island, NY, Lieutenant Barkhimer received a bachelor of engineering degree in electrical engineering and an unlimited tonnage/any ocean third mates' license in the U.S. Merchant Marine from the State University of New York Maritime College and was commissioned an ensign in August 1988. Lieutenant Barkhimer completed naval aviation training in the T-34C airplane and in the H-57B helicopter in Pensacola, FL, and was designated an unrestricted naval aviator in June 1990. After receiving her wings of gold, Lieutenant Barkhimer was transferred to the H-46 Helicopter Fleet Replacement Squadron in San Diego, CA for training in the Sea Knight helicopter. In August 1991, she reported to Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Eleven [HC-11] as an operations officer. During her tour, she deployed as a copilot for 6 months aboard U.S.S. Wabash [AOR5], participating in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Lieutenant Barkhimer also flew marines under combat conditions to the shores of Mogadishu, Somalia as U.S. forces worked to secure the airport and the U.S. Embassy. While on shore, Lieutenant Barkhimer performed duties as the squadron NATOPS officer, nuclear safety officer, assistant administrative officer and administrative department head for 3 months. Lieutenant Barkhimer then deployed aboard U.S.S. Camden [AOE2] as assistant officer in charge/operations officer of a two-plane detachment with a compliment of 30 maintenance personnel. During this 6-month deployment, she participated as an aircraft commander in Operations Desert Storm and Restore Hope. Upon successful completion of her second deployment, she returned to PC-11 as administrative officer and reached the 1,000 flight hours in model milestone. In January 1995, Lieutenant Barkhimer was handpicked as a liaison officer to the House of Representatives for the Navy's Chief of Legislative Affairs. Lieutenant Barkhimer has made a lasting contribution during her 3- year tenure at the Navy Liaison Office. She has processed thousands of sensitive constituent inquiries for the 104th and 105th Congresses in a timely, highly efficient, and caring manner. Lieutenant Barkhimer planned and escorted numerous staff delegation orientation trips to various Navy and Marine Crops units and installations across the United States, introducing key congressional military advisors to the issues and challenges facing the sea services. Her extensive professional knowledge of aviation, surface and submarine programs, and impressive ability to communicate Navy legislative priorities. Lieutenant Barkhimer flawlessly planned and executed three major overseas congressional delegation trips, two of which were led by myself. Her meticulous attention to detail and outstanding organizational skills were absolutely essential to the success of these trips. Mr. Speaker, Tracy Barkhimer and her husband Eric have made significant sacrifices during her 9-year naval career. Tracy has spent a significant amount of time away from her family to support the vital role the U.S. Navy plays in executing our national security strategy. Lieutenant Barkhimer is a great credit to the U.S. Navy and to this great country she so proudly serves. Recently selected to the highly competitive Aviation Engineering Duty Officer Program, she now departs Capitol Hill to take on a new challenge at the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD as the V-22 Osprey Avionics Systems Project Officer. I call upon my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to wish her every success as well as fair winds and following seas, always.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I appreciate what the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is saying. And I think that is important, that we keep in mind that we really are not just talking about some kind of abstract thing, we are talking about people who are out there in American companies every day, union people, nonunion people, working, making widgets, making all kinds of manufactured goods, providing all kinds of services, and these goods are being sold overseas. My colleague talked about the example in Chile. And I would like to point out in a kind of an aggregate or macroeconomic sense the kinds of opportunities that we lose if we are not able to engage in these trade negotiations. Here is just a list of some of them. For example, the Latin American trade negotiations have roughly a $300 billion import market. That is exports from the United States, imports into Latin America. The President of the United States called all the Latin American countries, all the countries of the western hemisphere, together for a summit, as my colleague knows, in December of 1994. And we made a commitment. We got a commitment to come to a free-trade agreement with all the American countries of Latin America, Central America, North America by the year 2005. These are countries that heretofore had been largely closed. Many of them were not democracies. They had import substitution kinds of economies. They were completely closed. They were poor economies. They were not doing well. We did not have many markets there. But now the world is changing, and these countries are changing, they are growing, they have growing economies and growing hunger for American exports. And there is a tremendous opportunity out there. And the question is, are we going to try to sit down with those countries and negotiate a trade agreement for the Latin American countries, $300 million worth? That is just the first one here. The agricultural negotiations that we talked about earlier with the World Trade Organization are worth roughly $600 billion in the global market.

Mr. KOLBE. So despite the fact that the wages they would have had to pay in Mexico, or they did pay in Mexico were a fraction, maybe a tenth of the amount.

Mr. KOLBE. So they were paying a tenth as much in Mexico. They moved the production back to Connecticut. The answer is because of the productivity that they have.

Mr. KOLBE. And more capital investment and more technology. That is, of course, what countries like the United States have. That is the advantage that we have. Let me just tell the gentlewoman my example that I always use is the copper industry in my own State. Copper was riding high back in the 1960's and 1970's and right up to 1982 when the world copper price collapsed. Half the mines in Arizona closed as a result of that. The other half were struggling selling copper at below the market price, so they were losing money with every pound of copper that they were selling. They knew that in order to stay competitive, they had to make some big changes. What they did was they put a tremendous investment in capital into those mines. We now have the most technologically advanced copper mines in the world in Arizona. Everything is computer controlled, they use robots, they use all kinds of things. The bottom line is yes, there is half the people working in the copper industry in Arizona but there is still a copper industry and they are producing more copper today than they were in 1982 with less than half of the number of people. The result is they can compete and they can outproduce in copper Chile, which is a medium-priced country in terms of wages, Zambia which is at 25 cents an hour or Zaire or Guinea or those other countries which are at the very rock bottom there. We can still beat them because we have much more productivity. Being able to invest in capital and in technology and have a well-trained work force is really the key to being able to compete. But I have not found any American companies that are afraid of that. They all want to be able to do that.

Mr. KOLBE. The gentlewoman is absolutely right. Just two more that I would like to point out when we talk about fast track, the lost opportunities really pile up. Here we have got the world trade negotiations on services which are worth $1.2 trillion. Finally we have got the Asia Pacific, this is the APEC. Again President Clinton has made a commitment with the Asian countries that we are going to try to have a free trade agreement by 2010 that is worth $1.7 trillion. The bottom line is we add all these up and we have a cumulative effect of nearly $5 trillion, just in these areas of negotiations. These are not just fantasy. These are not wannabes, these are not maybes. These are things that are scheduled to occur, negotiations on these kinds of trade opportunities. We will lose, not all, but we will lose a significant part of this if we are not able to have a trade agreement that favors us, that gets the things that we need in order to have access to these markets. I think the gentlewoman would agree with that.

Mr. KOLBE. They have to get into market. They cannot do it if we do not----

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has made a very good point, and one I think we need to explore a little bit more. The gentlewoman serves, of course, on the Committee on Ways and Means, which has the primary jurisdiction over trade issues. I have listened to a lot of these discussions that have gone on on the floor here, and I think there has been a lot of misinformation about what fast track really is about. So before we come back to some of these figures on trade, maybe we ought to just talk a little bit about what fast track really means. Fast track is a process. A lot of people right now are talking about, oh, we do not want to get into another agreement. We may not get into another agreement. That is down the road. But fast track says whether or not we are ever going to be at the table talking about these trade arrangements and trade agreements. Because the fact of the matter is, the world is moving ahead on trade. Whether we are there or not, they are going on and moving ahead. We have scheduled, and I am sure the gentlewoman knows, we have scheduled in this coming year talks in Geneva, where the World Trade Organization is located, and we are one of the 150-plus members now of the World Trade Organization. Talks are scheduled to go on on intellectual property. We are the leading exporter in the world of intellectual property. We are talking about computer software, we are talking about all the elements of movies and records and tapes and CDs, all those things in which we are a tremendous exporter of that intellectual property. Now, the rules governing that and protecting our intellectual property and making sure we can trade that overseas, those are going to be decided. If we are not able to sit in those negotiations, we are going to be out of it.

Mr. KOLBE. Well, I think the gentlewoman is absolutely right, and I think we do not want to be apocalyptic about that, and certainly the world will go on, and the United States will continue to trade, but we will trade on much more difficult terms and not as well as we would do if we have trade agreements, and those can only come about if we have fast track authority to allow the President to negotiate those trade agreements. We have been talking a bit this evening about NAFTA, and I just want to take a minute to talk about it, because if you listen to some of the opponents of fast track authority, you would think that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA as it is called, that links the United States, Mexico and Canada in a free trade agreement is the only agreement we have ever negotiated under using the fast track authority. But the fact is we have had four other critical agreements, and those are the 1979 Tokyo Round of GATT talks, General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs; the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement; the 1988 U.S.- Canada Free Trade Agreement; and the 1994 Uruguay Round of GATT talks. Now in that last round, of course, GATT became the World Trade Organization, so we talk now about WTO. But those four rounds, all of which made significant breakthroughs for the United States in the areas of not just of tariff barriers, but of allowing us access to different markets, were absolutely critical for us. Now, I want to just focus for a moment on the North American Free Trade Agreement in Mexico because a lot of people shy away from this and say, oh, we should not talk about that, and it is very important to understand that this fast track authority is not about Mexico, it is not about NAFTA, it is about allowing the President of the United States authority to negotiate all kinds of trade arrangements. But I still take on the issue of NAFTA and confront it head on because I believe that when the book is written, and I think some of it is already being written, it will be demonstrated that the North American Free Trade Agreement has been a good agreement for not just Mexico, but for the United States as well. Yes, it is true that we had a trade surplus before NAFTA, and today we have a trade deficit with Mexico. But it was not NAFTA that caused that. It was the collapse of the Mexican peso, where all of a sudden after the collapse of the Mexican peso that had nothing to do with NAFTA and everything to do with some ill-founded policies that were followed by the previous administration in Mexico and the mishandling of a currency devaluation, the collapse of that peso, the result of that is that suddenly anybody trying to buy something when they are in Mexico from another country is going to pay a lot more in dollar terms, and anybody outside of Mexico buying something in Mexico is going to pay a lot less. And so the Mexican exports to the United States went up, and U.S. imports to Mexico or exports to Mexico went down by comparison. But let me just give a couple of facts to show why I think we can say that NAFTA has worked in terms of leveling out the dips and making it less of a slide than would otherwise be the case, because in 1982 we had a similar, almost equal, amount of devaluation of the Mexican currency. When that occurred in 1982, U.S. exports to Mexico dropped 49 percent; repeat that, 49 percent our exports dropped, and it took us 7 years for us to restore the level of exports to Mexico that we had before 1982. In 1995, when the peso was devalued, that time about the same amount of devaluation, that time we had a 9.4-percent drop in U.S. exports to Mexico, and it took us 1 year to get back up over the level of exports that we had before that time. And so I think we can see that the NAFTA agreement, the reason for that, people say, well, so what does NAFTA have to do with that? Why was that the case? Well, what happened in 1982 was that when you did not have an agreement, when they have a peso devaluation, a country tries to trade itself out of that, they slap on import quotas, the hundred percent tariffs, licensing requirements, all the things that make it impossible for an American exporter to get their products into Mexico while they are able to export, take advantage of the peso devaluation and export to the United States. With NAFTA, Mexico, and with other free trade agreements, the other countries cannot do that. They are not able to resort to that kind of thing in order to what I would call beggar thy neighbor approach, and so as a result of that, Mexico was, although our exports to Mexico dropped, those that were able to get the money, to get their hands on the cash in Mexico, were still able to buy. And so our exports to Mexico did continue. They dipped, but within 1 year we were back up over where we had been before. So I would say, quite frankly, to my colleagues who decry the North American Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA agreement, I would say, you are wrong, it has worked, it has done precisely as we wanted. And I will yield, and we only have just about 5 more minutes, and we are going to close up, and I will yield to you, and then I will end.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I come here to this House, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, to talk about an issue that we believe is so critical to the future of this country; that is, trade. In the end, though, trade is not really about statistics. It is not really about numbers. It is not, in a sense, even about jobs. It is about the opportunities for jobs. It is about the opportunities that American consumers have to make choices. It is about getting lower prices for goods and better quality, of having competition. Yes, it is about American leadership. It is about our place in the world. It is whether the United States is going to lead on trade or whether we are going to follow on trade. The fact of the matter is there are very few countries in the world that benefit as much from trade as the United States of America does. I would just like to begin with this one chart, which shows how American businesses and American workers have benefited by the fact that U.S. exports have increased more than 3,000 percent in the last 35 years. It is not that far back to 1961, when we look at the value of U.S. exports, they were less than $100 billion, around $50 billion. It did not reach $100 billion until about 1973. Then it has simply taken off since then. The most steep rise is in the last 2 years, the last 4 years, since 1993. Even as Americans continue to worry about trade deficits, we continue to have a very substantial growth in exports. What does that mean? Does exports mean something to other than just a number on a chart, other than a line on a chart? It means a great deal. It means a lot about the growth. Growth, of course, means something about the jobs that are available to Americans. This chart demonstrates the difference between jobs in the total civilian employment, which has been rising, this red line down here, which has been rising fairly steadily. But if we look at the export- related jobs as an index, this is on an index basis, we can see that the export-related jobs are growing much more rapidly. In other words, the great economy that this country is enjoying today, the tremendous benefits that we all enjoy from having a low unemployment rate, from having the ability to have a second car, from rising incomes and wages, the vast majority of that has come from export-related jobs. These are not jobs that are poor-paying jobs, they are better, much better, on average than the jobs that we have in the United States that are service economy jobs. Export manufacturing and service-related jobs pay, on average, about 16 percent more than a job that is totally or solely domestic-oriented. So I would point out to my colleagues who have engaged in this debate about fast track, and whether or not the United States should continue to promote more jobs, that the bottom line really is that there really is not much choice. Our growth, our future, depends on creating these kinds of jobs so that our children and grandchildren will have jobs in the future. That is really what it is all about. I know tonight we are going to want to talk a little bit, my colleague and I, a little bit about what fast track really means, and what it really means for America. But I think these charts right here demonstrate why trade is so important for America. We, more than any other country in the world, have benefited from the tremendous increase that we have had in trade. Let me just show one more chart here that I think is very interesting, because we often hear that it is only the Boeings, it is only the Cargills, or Chryslers or General Motors that benefit from trade. But the fact is that small- and medium-size companies account for, in dollar volume, 30 percent of all of our exports. And if we look at it in terms of numbers of companies, 96 percent of the companies that are trading overseas are companies that have less than 500 employees. So it is the small- and medium-sized businesses. Yes, they do not sell as much as Boeing. No, they do not sell as much as Ford, Chrysler, or IBM. But they, too, benefit from trade. Ninety-six percent of our companies with under 500 employees are the ones that are engaged in trade overseas. So it is not just the large companies, it is small companies as well, and it is in middle America, it is in the towns of Iowa and in the streets of Connecticut, and yes, in my State of Arizona, where people benefit because they have the ability to engage in trade overseas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson, an individual who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means and has been instrumental in helping to carry this argument to the American people, and who I know has some thoughts about this.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentlewoman from Connecticut has just said. As she well knows, at the other end of the technology sale, you might say, is agriculture, that we have a very technologically innovative agricultural industry. At the other end is agriculture. We are, again, the largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. Those talks are scheduled to take place in the year 1999 in Geneva. And the question is, will the United States be there pounding on the table, hammering at the door, demanding that other countries, Europe in particular, which has very high protective tariffs against our agricultural products, which we can and would love to sell to Europe and the rest of the world, whether we are going to be able to get those tariffs lowered, whether we are going to be able to sell more of our products overseas, more wheat, more soybeans, more of the grains and the rice and all the specialized products.

Mr. KOLBE. I think my colleague has given an excellent example of exactly how fast track works when she is talking about countries and how it relates to the same kind of thing with families. The bottom line in a government setting is that no one wants to go into a negotiation and put their cards on the table and get the best deal if they do not know at the end that the deal is a done deal. Now, they recognize that they have to go back to their countries and get approval of it. But they do not expect to take that agreement back to the country and have it picked apart, amended, changed, and added to. And that is exactly what would happen if we did not have fast track authority. It becomes like any other bill that is introduced in Congress; it gets amended, it gets changed. Now, fast track does allow the Congress a very significant role in the whole process of this negotiation. We are involved, and my colleague's committee particularly is involved, in the consultation throughout all of these negotiations so that at every step of the way we know how the negotiations are going and we can say, this is not going to fly, Ambassador Barshevski, who is our trade representative, this is not going to fly if you bring this back, or, you need to add this to it, or, you need to do that. So we do have a role as the process goes forward. We have used this fast track, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] can correct me if I am wrong, but we have used this fast track procedure for more than 20 years now since, I think, 1974 when we first added it after the Tokyo Round, because we found at that point that trade was becoming not the simple thing of just lowering tariffs, but there were other things that had to be done. There were nontariff barriers, complex issues that had to be dealt with, and these discussions became much more complicated than they had been before. So we went to this process of fast track. And every President since Richard Nixon, that means Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and President Clinton, well, not President Clinton, he has not had fast track authority given to him, but every President up to President Clinton has had fast track authority granted to that President. Now we have been without it for 3 years, and we have not been able to engage in the kind of serious negotiations that we would like. I do not know if my colleague would agree, but I think we would find ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage if we do not have this fast track authority.

Mr. KOLBE. Agreements with other countries and let them in.

Mr. KOLBE. The gentlewoman has made a point that suggests something that I think is very curious in this debate that we have been having about trade and about fast track. I know the gentlewoman has talked to many businesses and plant managers and supervisors all over her district as I do throughout Arizona and around this country when I travel. American business is not afraid to compete. We are able to compete. We want to compete. They want to get out there and compete. It strikes me as very curious that some of our colleagues here in Congress seem to be a lot more fearful of this competition than our own businesses and, frankly, I think our own workers are. I have never met a worker in one of my factories in Arizona that was not willing to compete. They know they can make good products. All they want to do is have a fair shot at selling that product overseas. That is what these trade negotiations are all about. I just note, point out to the gentlewoman here, when we talk about the U.S. and its role in trade, it is overwhelming. Our trade, our value of our goods and services that we export in 1996 is $849 billion. That is about a sixth of our total GDP, and it is a huge amount. This is just the exports, not the import side of it. Compare that to other countries like Germany at 609 and Japan at 468. We are so far and away the biggest exporter in the world that we still dominate the world. Yet some people would say, gosh, we are afraid of this, we are afraid of trying to expand these markets. If we do not have fast track, I can tell the gentlewoman that the happiest people in the world are going to be the European countries when it comes to the agricultural negotiations. They have been resisting opening up their markets for years and they will be delighted that the United States will not be there in Geneva pounding on the table insisting that those negotiations be opened up.

Mr. KOLBE. I think that the gentlewoman has suggested something that I think is indicative of the problem that we face in trying to make this appeal on trade and make the sale. I am sometimes puzzled as to why it is so difficult for us to make this case. I think one of the reasons is that whenever there is a plant that closes or moves some of its operations to an offshore setting, which by the way is not necessarily bad because they may be sourcing many of the materials from this country itself, but when they move that down there, if a plant closes in Missouri and they move the assembly plant to Mexico, that is a big headline and 200 jobs get lost because a plant moved to Mexico, or as we have seen this last week where Fruit of the Loom announced it is going to move some of its, where they manufacture underwear, they are going to move some of that to Mexico and to some of the Caribbean countries and jobs are going to be lost. Yes, I agree that is tough. That is tough for the people who are losing those jobs. But what never makes the headlines is the fact that on that same day, all over the country, hundreds of companies hired new people, one, or two, or 20 or 50 because they got some contract to sell some product into Mexico or to China or to Germany or elsewhere. There is never a story about that, because we do not see it. It is not visible. You do not open a factory just to sell to another country. But when you close a factory and move it to another country, it is a different story. Yet the fact is the doomsayers that we hear from people who are against fast track, who are against this kind of opportunities, these trade opportunities for America say that they do not trust us, they do not believe that Americans can compete, businesses believe they can compete and since 1993, since the last time we had fast track authority for the NAFTA agreement and the GATT agreement, we have created 12 million new jobs in this country. I want to talk a little bit in the remaining time about NAFTA, because that is one of the things, the North American Free-Trade Agreement, that Members sometimes say, ``Oh, this is just all about NAFTA.'' We know that fast track is not about NAFTA, but it is a curious thing that since the North American Free-Trade Agreement went into place, we have, as the gentlewoman knows, we have provisions in that legislation that is called trade adjustment assistance where a job that is lost, is certified it is lost because the factory moved a job or a plant or closed the plant and moved it overseas because of the trade agreement, they qualify for special assistance. A total of 125,000 jobs have been certified as having been lost because of that. You say 125,000 jobs seems like a lot, but when you remember that during that same time we created 12 million new jobs, you begin to see, well, maybe we benefited a lot from this because a lot of these new jobs were coming because we were selling more wheat to Mexico, we were selling more automobiles to Mexico, we were selling more petroleum drilling equipment to Mexico, and so forth. So the bottom line is that the numbers of the aggregate numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of trade. We are at the lowest unemployment level that this country has had in years. We are at the highest wage growth, personal income growth that we have had in years. This comes because we have had trade. I know the gentlewoman has worked hard on these issues in Connecticut with some of her companies and trying to encourage more trade and exports. I think we agree that that really is the future for the people that we represent to be able to have these opportunities for trade.