Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. In some cases it was as much as 100 percent.

Mr. KOLBE. And more dried milk if you are a dairy State. That is exactly right. So whether it is high technology at one end or whether it is agriculture at the other end, those talks are very vital to us. And then finally, in the year 2000, investment services. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] comes from a State where this is extraordinarily important. Insurance and investment and brokerage services, those are absolutely vital. Financial services are absolutely vital. The United States again is the leader. And we have gotten the World Trade Organization to agree that these are the three areas that are going to be the next areas for discussion for lowering the barriers to our trade in goods and services with the rest of the world. And now, if we turn away from fast track, if we deny fast track to the President, and I think we need to explain exactly what that means ``fast track,'' but if we deny that, we are saying to the rest of the world, we are not going to be at the table, we are not going to be discussing this or negotiating on behalf of the United States. I wonder if the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] would just, since people might be wondering, what does she mean when she says ``fast track''? If I have somebody out there asking this question, I wonder how the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] would answer: So why do we need fast track in order to sit down at the table and negotiate with the world, with the European Union, or with any other country?

Mr. KOLBE. Here we go here with WTO, the procurement negotiations. We are talking about government buying goods, whether it is some countries are not completely privatized, they have state-owned aircraft industries, or, of course, we are talking about defense industries and other things, telephones and telecommunications. We are talking about a trillion-dollar global market that is available to us there that, again, if we are not going to engage in these procurement negotiations, which is also scheduled to take place in Geneva, it does not mean we will not be able to sell anything. I do not think any of us would try and suggest that nothing is going to be sold. But we will not have the access to this market that other countries will have that are going to have the rules that they are going to devise these rules.

Mr. KOLBE. I think the gentlelady's comments are right on target, and I think they summarize exactly why America needs to have fast track authority, why the President of the United States needs fast track authority, why we need to be able to pursue opportunities. Opportunities for trade means opportunities for jobs for Americans. It means opportunities for American consumers. It means opportunities for our children and opportunities for the future. None of us in this body should be afraid of the future. The American people are not afraid of the future. And this issue about fast track is not a partisan issue. It is an issue about whether we are going to lead, lead for ourselves and lead with the rest of the world. And Republicans and Democrats alike have spoken out strongly on the issue of free trade, and I would like to simply end tonight with some quotations that I think very well express the importance of why we need to have these kinds of trade agreements. The current Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Rubin, said this: We are now at a crossroads. The question before Congress is whether to grant the President fast track so that we can continue to open markets, expand trade and raise standards of living here at home, or to refuse and watch as U.S. workers and businesses lose out in access to the opportunities in the global economy. Brent Scowcroft was a White House national security adviser in President Reagan and President Bush's administration, and he said this: We cannot say we will lead on NATO and regional security, but not on trade. We cannot say we will lead on democracy and human rights, but not on trade. And we cannot say we will lead on the environment, but not on trade. Senator Dole, Robert Dole, the former majority leader and Republican Presidential nominee this last campaign, said, global trade is inevitable and Presidential fast track authority is indispensable if America is to lead the community of nations into the next century. And finally, the President of the United States, President Clinton, has said this: We owe it to the working men and women of America and around our entire country to level the playing field for trade so that when our workers are given a fair chance, they can and they do outcompete anyone anyplace in the world. My colleagues, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut participating with us this evening. I think it is very clear where the merits of this argument lie. We are confident about America's future, and I think we are confident that fast track authority will lead us into a brighter future for our children.

Mr. KOLBE. $600 billion that we are talking about that are available.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, a considerable amount of misinformation has dominated the 245(i) program debate. I'd like to set the record straight: 245(i) does not give anyone amnesty, it does not undermine the Immigration Reform and Control Act, and it does not jeopardize national security. Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows prospective family- and employment-based immigrants to adjust their status to that of permanent residents while remaining in the United States. That's the sole function of the program. The $1,000 adjustment fee that is collected from prospective immigrants is used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] to provide detention space for criminal aliens, and it pays for INS adjudication staff and improved customer service. Last year, the 245(i) program raised almost $200 million. I do not favor a permanent extension of the 245(i) program. I do believe, however, that we must help those that have already petitioned for relief under the program. Fairness and humanitarian concerns call for no less. But we must identify a date certain in which no new petitions will be accepted. There appears to be some legitimacy to the claims that petitioners under the 245(i) program enjoy an advantage that other prospective immigrants do not. If we cease accepting new applications yet process all those currently in the system, then from that point forward all intending immigrants would be competing under the same rules. This is fair and equitable, and continues this great Nation's policy of reunification of families. Therefore, I am going to vote against the motion to instruct conferees. As Ulysses found out, all is not what it appears to be. Such is the effort to instruct conferees. The motion is a not-so-veiled attempt to kill the 245(i) program. The motion would tie the hands of the conferees and limit our negotiating position in conference. We need to be placed in the situation where we can negotiate a reasonable, workable, and prudent solution. In fact, there are thousands of people expecting us to do so.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take this five minutes to begin what I hope will be a constructive and important debate on the subject of fast track, a debate which I think will certainly rank with among the most important debates that this Congress will undertake this year or next year, whenever we finally do actually take this debate and cast a vote on fast track. I recognize in beginning this discussion tonight, and this will only be the beginning of a long discussion I think we need to have, that there are many Members in this body who have come to the Congress of the United States since the Congress last voted on any kind of substantive trade issue, an issue where the fast track was the essence of the debate. It also ranks as one of the most unusual, some would say arcane, but certainly one of the most complex pieces of legislation that we have in our panoply of legislative tools. It ranks as that because it very uniquely delegates to the President certain responsibilities that normally Congress would not delegate to the President. It gives up certain powers of its own in order to get trade legislation enacted. During the course of the next several days and weeks, I hope that we can discuss the importance of trade, how the fast track process works, why fast track is an essential element to getting trade negotiations and trade agreements in place, why fast track does not represent something that will damage workers and consumers in this country, why, indeed, these trade agreements are essential, why it should be considered constitutional, why we should or should not consider it and what elements of labor and environmental considerations should be included in any kind of fast track negotiations, and, ultimately, how fast track and trade agreements can protect the U.S. health and safety standards. But today let me just begin with a little bit of background of where we have come from to get to this position today, where we now have a bill that has been reported from the Committee on Ways and Means, another bill in the other body that has been reported from the Senate Finance Committee, how we have gotten to this stage and why we are here today. Fast track is legislation that goes back more than 20 years, about 25 years, to a time when we began to see that the complexity of trade negotiations required something that gave the President the authority to negotiate these kinds of agreements with other countries, and usually multiple numbers of countries, as we have found in the Uruguay round of GATT talks or the other multiple trade talks that preceded that. We decided we needed this kind of fast track authority because the complexity of the negotiation itself meant that at the end of the negotiation, we had to be able to submit something to the Congress of the United States that would be voted yes or no. The reason for that is simply our trading partners do not want to negotiate with the United States if they do not know at the end of that time there is going to be a yes or no vote. They want to know with certainty that the agreement they reach is the agreement that will be voted on. That is why we gave fast track authority to the President of the United States, and it has worked for every President since 1974, Republican and Democrat. This is the first time that we have been, for several years now, without trade negotiating authority for a President. The results tell. During the course of the next several times that I will speak on this floor on this subject, I will outline some of the problems that we now have, because we have not had fast track authority for the President. But let me just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this is absolutely vital legislation. It is vital because I think literally the economic future of this country depends on having fast track. We must have fast track because we must have trade, and trade is the engine of economic opportunity for the future, for American workers, for American consumers, for American entrepreneurs, for the security of the United States. It depends on having fast track authority.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just covered this a moment ago. Let me tell the gentleman again what is in here. Although it is $204 million below what the President requested, we have three increases for the IRS. We have $377 million for Y-2K, year 2000 compliance, to make sure that the computers are compliant and that we will be able to process tax returns at the new millennium, which I do not know of any Member who thinks we should not be able to do in our Federal agencies. There is $325 million in this bill for technology investment. This was formerly called the tax system modernization program, but unfortunately that money was wasted, and we have now gone back and said that not one dime of this $325 million can be spent by the IRS until there is actually an architectural blueprint or a plan for how it is going to be used. Finally $138 million is in there for the earned income tax compliance initiative. We heard about this during the debate over the budget, the concerns about fraud and abuse of the EITC. I think it is a priority of this House that we have more compliance with the EITC. That is why we have it in here.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would briefly like to respond to a couple of the other things that the gentleman from Indiana spoke about on the IRS. I am very pleased with what we did here with the IRS. There are three increases that are in here for, as the gentleman from Indiana spoke about. Yes, it is an increase for IRS; $377 million of that increase is for Y-2K, that is the Year 2000 Compliance, to make sure that the computers are able to handle the shift to the new millennium. I do not think there is anybody that believes that we should have the whole system crash and the IRS not be able to function after the year 2000. That is what this money is in there for. We have funded that completely. There is also $325 million for technology investment, what we used to call the tax system modernization where, we know, money was unfortunately frittered away in past years. So we have gone to a new system where now the money that we put aside for that is going to be fenced. We will not allow one dime of that to be spent until the committees, both the House and Senate, have seen the architectural plan for the spending of that money. There again, I think this is wise management and prudent spending. Finally, for another initiative that this body has said is extraordinarily important, the $138 million for the earned income tax compliance initiative. We heard during the debate recently on the budget about the tremendous abuse of the earned income tax credit. We put in $138 million to enhance compliance and to cut down on the fraud and abuse of the earned income tax credit. For all of those reasons, I think that the money that we have appropriated here, the increased money for the Internal Revenue Service, which, by the way, is still $204 million below the President's request, that that money that is in here is well spent. It has been carefully thought out. It has been worked out very carefully not only with the Internal Revenue Service, but also with the minority side, with the Senate, and I think that we have a very good handle on that money.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, since I did not in my opening remarks, I would like to return the compliment to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. We have not agreed on everything, by any means, but I think we have always worked in a spirit of constructive cooperation, of finding answers to the problems, and I think what we have is a bill that has such bipartisan support because of the work of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and his staff, who I complimented when we considered the bill before. But I want to again compliment all the staff, the committee staff as well as the personal staffs on both sides of the aisle, for the work they have done. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, September 29, 1997, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2378) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2378, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the conference report on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. This is a very good conference report and one which represents a great success on all sides. It provides $12.7 billion for agencies that come under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction and, for the first time in 3 years, an increase in funding. I would point out that it is in strict compliance with the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. The actions taken by the conferees boost support for both drug and law enforcement programs. The bill puts us on track for a drug-free America by the year 2001. In total, the conferees have recommended $3.9 billion, $737 million over 1997, that is a 24-percent increase, for the Customs Service, ATF, the Secret Service, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Specifically, let me just highlight a couple of the specific items in this bill in the area of law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, we provide $1.6 billion for Customs to combat drugs that come in through our borders and to facilitate passenger and cargo processing. So both the interdiction and the processing of legitimate traffic across the border are accommodated. We provide an additional $8.4 million for the next stage of Operation Hardline, an initiative that was started years ago to harden our borders against drugs, and $4.5 million to equip Customs helicopters with night vision equipment. There is $195 million for the drug czar's anti-drug media campaign aimed at youth, $20 million more than the President had proposed. We believe this is a major step toward a comprehensive campaign for a drug-free America. There is $10 million for the recently authorized Drug Free Communities Act; $7.3 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy's efforts to combat the dangers and growing problems of methamphetamine use in the U.S.; $13 million to provide counter drug technology assistance to State and local law enforcement; $159 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas that I know many Members are concerned about; and $5.2 million for ballistic imaging systems for State and local law enforcement. In other areas outside of purely law enforcement, we also continued the Committee on Appropriation's aggressive oversight of the IRS, prohibiting the IRS from spending more money on its computer modernization programs without congressional approval. By maintaining restrictions on the IRS's use of money absent a solid set of blueprints or an architectural plan for how that is going to be spent, the conference committee ensures that there is not going to be even 1 more year of wasteful spending on the computer systems for the Internal Revenue Service. The conferees also make year 2000 computer compliance a priority within the IRS, providing $377 million for Century Date Conversion efforts. The conferees also include requirements ensuring that IRS is in compliance with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Finally, the agreement ends taxpayer subsidy of political events at the White House. In conjunction with the White House, we have worked out language that includes a new accounting mechanism for the Executive Residence. The agreement requires not only that expenses of all political events be carefully tracked, but that all of these events be paid for up front so that taxpayers are not tagged with the cost of, even for 1 day, fronting the money for political events in the White House, no matter which party is in the White House. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement. Not only are there no more free coffees at the White House, but the drug lords are not going to like this bill one bit. I think it is a bill that every Member of this body can support and support enthusiastically. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.004

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the remarks that he has made. I look forward to working with him, and other Members who have expressed the same views on this issue, in the forthcoming year to ensure that the OMB dedicates the necessary resources to this and to other issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins]. (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.