Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 2378, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment, and that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time in general debate.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared from the majority side to accept this amendment. I know that the Committee on Ways and Means has expressed some concerns about some of the language, and I would advise the gentleman that I would certainly protect those interests in the conference that the Committee on Ways and Means has expressed. They have not objected and suggested that this amendment should not be accepted here today. I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order, and I accept the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich]. But I would like to note that I do have concerns about other high priorities in this bill that are not being met at this time. The amendment would rescind, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich] has pointed out, the $1 million funding for the Inspector General of the Treasury and place that money in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for funding of the youth programs. And I would accept that amendment.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order, not being sure which amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I present to the House H.R. 2378, the fiscal year 1998 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriations bill, a bill that is consistent with our objectives of achieving a balanced budget by 2002, a bill strong on oversight of the agencies that come under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. I present to my colleagues legislation that very dramatically changes and improves the way the White House accounts for political events held there; a bill that continues the aggressive oversight over the Internal Revenue Service's modernization program; and a bill that tackles important issues of integrity in the Customs Service. Mr. Chairman, this bill balances the competing demands of being fiscally responsible and providing what is needed to fully fund drug and law enforcement programs under our jurisdiction. As reported, H.R. 2378 provides $12.5 billion in budget authority and is exactly as it's 602(b) allocation in both budget authority and outlays. At the same time, we continue our strong commitment to counter-narcotic and law enforcement programs, providing $3.4 billion for these efforts, an increase of $287 million over fiscal year 1997 funding. This includes $1.5 billion for drug-related activities, including $195 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy's proposed media campaign that is targeted to the youth of this country--that is $20 million more than the President requested. It also includes $10 million for the recently authorized Drug-Free Communities Act, and $47 million for additional Customs Service equipment for drug interdiction and passenger processing. I am also pleased to report a bill that I think makes a strong stand on oversight. During the fiscal year 1998 hearing cycle, the committee learned of instances of taxpayer subsidization of political events in the White House, overspending in GSA's Federal Building Fund, vulnerability within the Customs Service operations, and an ongoing need to get the Internal Revenue Service on track in the development of a modernized tax collection system. H.R. 2378 addresses each of these issues. Let me just highlight a couple of the ways in which we do that. First, there is a moratorium on construction and major repair projects within GSA's Federal Building Program. There are no GSA construction projects funded in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a time when we have had a bill that had no Federal building projects in it. It includes a requirement that the Office of Professional Responsibility within the Treasury Department undertake a comprehensive and aggressive review of Customs Service operations in order to address concerns that agents and inspectors may be vulnerable to corruption, and it includes a continuation of the requirement that IRS complete and submit a comprehensive capital investment blueprint prior to obligating a penny toward computer modernization. Let me briefly address one issue all Members should be aware of. As I mentioned earlier, we did discover in our hearing process that taxpayers have traditionally, this is not a new thing, subsidized the cost of political fundraisers in the Executive residence of the White House. I fully acknowledge the political hat that the President wears, and I have no intention of limiting the President's duties as the head of his political party. However, all of us in this body and as American citizens should be opposed to using Federal dollars to pay for political events. Apparently, and despite initial protests, the White House now agrees with that position and supports the changes in this bill that would ensure that taxpayers no longer support political events in the Executive residence. This bill establishes an entirely new appropriation account to be used for official and political events within the White House. It requires that all political events be paid for up front without the use of taxpayer funds. It requires prompt reimbursements for political and official events held in the Executive residence. It requires the Executive to develop a standard definition for the classification of political or nonpolitical events and, based on input from the minority side, it establishes a $25,000 revolving fund, capitalized by the national political party of the President who sits in the White House, to accommodate those political events which cannot be scheduled in advance, such as the spontaneous meetings on legislation that the President may have with congressional leaders from his party. The changes made to the accounting structure of the Executive residence are based on good budgeting, good government and the fundamental principles of appropriation laws. The changes proposed here are the exact ones I would have proposed for a Republican administration, had we known about this practice of Federal taxpayers paying for political events in the White House. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time I do want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, my ranking member, who has worked with me and my staff to produce a bill that all Members can support. I have never had a Member that I have worked with as closely as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and I appreciate the cooperation that he has shown. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to note the work that has been done by our staff. I think the really exceptional work by our staff, two of them of course are now national media figures with the Wall Street Journal, are: The clerk of the subcommittee, Michelle Mrdeza, and Betsy Phillips, who is also the staff assistant. Without their work and the work of our other staff, Jeff Ashford, Melanie Marshall, Jennifer Rouse, and from the minority side Pat Schlueter, we would not have the bill that we have today. Let me finally mention the personal work of my assistant Jason Isaak and Mr. Hoyer's assistant Seth Statler, who have been instrumental in getting this bill to us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2378) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. 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 pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and myself.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is correct. I am prepared to accept the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], which would amend the bill to prohibit Customs using any of its funding to allow any imports into the United States of goods that are produced by forced or indentured child labor. This is a limitation on an expenditure and it would underscore the existing legal barrier. This is already an existing barrier that we have on imports which sometimes, however, may not be adequately enforced. I think the provision that the gentleman is suggesting here is simply a reinforcement of what is existing law, that Customs should vigorously enforce the law with regard to imported merchandise that uses forced child labor. So in my view it supports and clarifies the current legal requirement and a practice that is very much in law, and I urge the Members to support this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order is correct. While I strongly favor this provision, given the circumstances that this bill is brought to the floor, this provision is clearly legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on (H.R. 2378) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. 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 that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 385 and 386. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Fox amendment, In a misguided attempt to save the African elephant, the Fox amendment would cut funding for the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources [CAMPFIRE]. Such a move would be disastrous. I recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe, where myself and several of my colleagues witnessed the CAMPFIRE Program first hand. What we found was a program based on sound economic, scientific, and environmental principles. We found a program which works. The CAMPFIRE Program uses free market principles to promote the conservation of Africa's valuable and irreplaceable natural resources. By providing economic incentives for the conservation of wildlife, CAMPFIRE has instilled a sense of national ownership over their natural resources into the people of Zimbabwe. Rather than viewing the African elephant as a menace, the people of Zimbabwe we now see the elephant as a natural treasure to be preserved. As a result, the illegal hunting of the African elephant in Zimbabwe has virtually stopped. One only has to look at the number of elephants thriving in Zimbabwe today to know that this program works. From 1980, the elephant population in Zimbabwe has increased from 45,000 to 66,000. And it continues to grow at an estimated rate of 3,000 per year. Contrast this with Kenya, where alternative policies have resulted in a massive drop in the elephant population, falling from 100,000 in 1970 to 26,000 today. The CAMPFIRE Program also helps to bring the poorest of the poor much-needed capital to develop their village resources. The money earned through CAMPFIRE enables these villages to erect schools, dig clean-water wells, and develop training programs. It is a model for sustainable economic development and environmental conservation. I urge my colleagues to support this program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Fox amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2014, the Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997. This is a proud moment for me--to be able to tell the citizens of Arizona that the U.S. Congress has heard their plea to reduce their taxes and to balance the budget. In my 13 years here in the House, how many times have I made that plea on this floor? And today it is really going to happen. In terms of the future of this country, the tax incentives for higher education may be the most important thing we do here today. As we continue to engage in the global marketplace, education is the factor that makes our workers more productive and creative. Education is the key to higher wages and a better standard of living. Reducing the financial burden on families who want to provide that future for their children is a step to insuring the viability of our economy for years to come. A college tuition tax credit, deductible interest on student loans, a credit for continuing education, extension of employer provided education assistance--these incentives will be incredibly valuable in assuring the educated work force we need for the future. As important as the education incentives are, I don't want to downplay the $500/child tax credit. An extra $500, $1,000, or $1,500 or even more in the pockets of families with children up through the age of 16 will make the lives of those families so much richer. We aren't giving these parents anything. We are just allowing them to keep that much more of the money they work so hard to earn for their families-- for clothes, for piano lessons, for braces, for camp, or vacations. And as pleased as I am that we are letting them keep more, I am troubled by the fact that I even say those words. Who are we as the Federal Government to say that people can keep their own money? How did we get to this place? We must get back to having the people tell us how much they are willing to give the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we know we are facing a looming crisis in payroll taxes and funding Social Security payments, I am especially pleased that we're letting people keep more of their investments. If they are thrifty and invest for the future, we are taking less of the earnings on those investments. We are dropping the top capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent and eventually there will be an 18- percent top rate for those investments held for 5 years or more. We are providing more ways, especially for middle income families, to save for those retirement years ahead through expanded IRA's. That will make a tremendous difference for our citizens who want to provide for themselves after retirement. We are helping small business with this tax bill. In addition to the capital gains tax relief, we are exempting them from the alternative minimum tax. We are phasing in full deductibility for health insurance premiums for self-employed persons. And there is an immediate jump in the death tax threshold to $1.3 million for small family farms and businesses. There are many, many other excellent provisions in this bill, but I won't take more time now to itemize what many of my colleagues already have. I might also say there are a few of the loophole closing provisions that I don't like--provisions that actually will create tax burdens where none existed before. And there are some provisions that will greatly complicate the Tax Code and create still more confusion in the IRS administration of the tax law. Such complications are bound to create more dissatisfaction with an already controversial agency. But, I am pleased that we are taking less in taxes from the American people. Some on this floor have decried giving back this money. They are treating it as if it belongs to the Government. It doesn't. It belongs to the people who pay the taxes and if we think otherwise, it's time for us to be replaced. Yesterday's accomplishment, passage of the Balanced Budget Act, will balance the Federal budget by 2002; save Medicare from bankruptcy, and shrink the size and scope of Government. It addresses the short-term financing problem of the Medicare trust fund, and establishes a national commission to study and make recommendations to ensure the long-term viability of the important program. It gives seniors choices in the Medicare Program rather than locking them into the one-size-fits-all system. Seniors will have the opportunity to choose from the traditional Medicare Program, or from the alphabet soup of managed care, or take complete control over their health and decide what type of medical services best suits their individual needs through a medical savings account. And most important, this reform attacks waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. The anti-fraud initiative includes a ``three strikes you're out'' penalty for the worst abusers of the system. Also, this historic reform increase health care coverage for children who are uninsured, and gives the States the flexibility to administer a child health initiatives which work best at the State and local level. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and Taxpayer Relief Act are not victories of the President or the Congress, they are victories for the American people.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have been a longtime advocate of funding for research in the field of sustainable development of arid lands in order to fight desertification, and I applaud the committee's decision to recommend greater resources be made available for this important work. Significant work has been accomplished in this field by the University of Arizona and its cooperating partners in the International Arid Lands Consortium. It is vital, however, that the funds for Middle East Desertification activity be administered by AID in a competitive, peer-reviewed program that will encourage the best scientists, researchers, and land managers in this important field to seek solutions to the complicated problems associated with desertification. Resources for important research have become all too scarce, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that we must ensure that those funds we do make available are expended in a fashion that will produce tangible results and inspire taxpayer confidence. Peer- review is vital to assessing the quality of the science produced by federal funding, and increasing the number of disciplines involved in arid lands sciences will help bring about a greater utilization of sustainable arid land management techniques. It is for these reasons I ask that Congress require any program that results from this funding for the Middle East Desertification activities be administered through a peer-reviewed, competitive process.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, I rise to a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment because it proposes to change existing law and therefore violates clause 2 of House rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``no amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment first gives affirmative direction, in effect. Second, it imposes additional duties. Third, it modifies existing powers and duties. And fourth, it modifies existing law. The Istook-Visclosky amendment prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust for an Indian tribal government unless the tribe negotiates a binding agreement with State and local governments for collection and payment of State and local sales and excise taxes on retail purchases made on that land by nontribal members. The amendment also applies similar restrictions on the Secretary's authority to take land into trust for individual Indians. The Istook-Visclosky amendment constitutes a violation of clause 2 of House rule XXI, and I would ask that the Chair give a ruling on this point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I cannot help but remember the very bitter and contentious debate we had on a similar amendment during floor consideration of last year's Interior appropriations bill. As some here may recall, that amendment was adopted by a very narrow six-vote margin. What happened after that, well, we know it was stripped from the bill after the administration objected to its inclusion. Things have not changed this year. Let me quote from Secretary Babbitt's letter to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] about this particular amendment: The Department of the Interior strongly opposes ``this measure'' because it would infringe upon tribal sovereignty, thwart the longstanding Federal policy of promoting tribal economic self-sufficiency, and undermine ongoing efforts of tribes and States to negotiate joint taxation agreements to accommodate the needs of both parties. It is clear that the administration opposes this, but, Mr. Chairman, we should oppose it in the House of Representatives. Members on both sides of the aisle ought to oppose it. Very simply put, this is bad public policy. The Member offering the amendment, and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma, but he talked a lot about tax evasion. And yet the fact of the matter is that, when polled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on the subject of evasion of taxes, only 5 out of 28 States that were polled could respond that they could make any determination. They could make no distinction between what was the legal loss of revenue and what was the contraband loss of revenue; in other words, what was legally sold on the reservations for use there by the people buying it and what was sold for resale, which would be contraband. So they could not make any distinction between what was the actual loss of revenue between what is legal and what was illegal. I think that is an important point to keep in mind. It is, I think, important to note that this would have a tremendous impact on a lot of the tribes and their ability to carry out their responsibilities. Pending land acquisitions would be put on hold, brought to a halt. Let me give my colleagues a couple that would be affected, one by the Oneida tribe of Wisconsin to acquire land for housing of tribal members; a pending application from the Sauk and the Fox tribe of Kansas to acquire land to be used to provide tribal elders with senior citizen centers. Let us face it, this is going to have a tremendous impact on the ability of tribes to provide for the self-sufficiency of their own people. It is another attempt to get back at tribal governments because they have the ability to negotiate, on their terms, tax compacts with State and local governments. This amendment would prevent the expenditure of any Federal funds to take lands into trust for individual Indians or tribal governments. Why are we considering this action? Apparently there are some that think that we should penalize native American tribes because they are on the way to providing for their own self-sufficiency with a variety of things, some of which we do not like, and some of which I do not personally agree with and do not believe we should be doing but, nonetheless, they are legal and they are doing it to provide for their own self-sufficiency. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that instead of promoting positive thought-provoking legislative initiatives that benefit native Americans, we have embarked on a policy that would impose punitive punishment. We cannot be sure what the impact of this limitation amendment is going to have on the Native American population. I do not think there is anyone that can tell us what its impact will be because we have never held any hearings on this issue. Again, let us make it clear. Why are we having this debate at all? It is because some people are angry, but not all. The tribal governments pay no State or local sales tax on retail sales that take place on Indian trust land, but we should not be doing this today to punish them. But we should find out before we do this, if we are going to do this, what the impact would actually be on tribes. We need to hold hearings on this, but we have not held any hearings on this issue. I understand the problem the gentleman has of not being able to get hearings. I think there should be hearings on this subject, should be debate on this, but we should not do it on an appropriations bill. Consider what would be the impact this would have on, for example, the Oglala Sioux in Pine Ridge, South Dakota.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, what would be the impact on the Oglala Sioux in Pine Ridge, SD? They have 400 families on the waiting list for home repair. What about the Turtle Mountain tribe in North Dakota, who report that only half of the adult members have high school diplomas? Or the Navajo people in my own State? They have 13,000 eligible students from the scholarship program this year, and there are over 20,000 homeless families on the reservation, and they do not have funds for this kind of thing. So I would implore anyone and everyone in this body to think about the impact on relations between Indian tribes and State governments, between Indian tribes and the Federal Government. There will be a serious negative impact, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for his statement. I think he has made a very important point, and that is that this is a very broad amendment. I will come back to that in a moment. I certainly agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma, this is a significant debate we are having and a significant amendment. It is one of great importance and it deserves the kind of debate that it gets here today. I think what must be emphasized here is the issue of sovereignty. These are sovereign tribes. They do have sovereign rights. They have the right to approach the Federal Government when they negotiate on an equal basis, and yet the thrust of this amendment is to put a limitation on the Secretary from taking lands into the reservation unless there is a binding agreement between the tribes, States, and local governments that would require the tribe to pay State and local taxes on reservation lands; in other words, unless they give up their sovereignty, unless we limit that sovereignty for this purpose. So they are not going into some negotiation on an equal basis when not one but both hands are tied behind their back, as this amendment would do. I think it is very important to keep that in mind. It is also important to recognize that we are really talking about enterprise zones here. In many cases the lands we are talking about are not part of the reservation itself but are adjacent to it, because very often the reservation lands originally set aside were not the best lands, were not good lands. They have had to bring in some of these other lands in order to have the kind of enterprise zones that we are talking about. The Republicans on this side of the aisle have supported it in inner cities, we supported it in rural areas. Native Americans have that. They have it by virtue of the sovereignty that they have, by virtue of the fact that they are not subject to the taxation that the rest of us have. That kind of enterprise zone we should be supporting for these people who have been among the very poorest. Finally let me make this final point, that what is missing here is this is a limitation amendment. As the chairman said, it is much broader. It goes far beyond simply being a limitation. It goes too broad. We are talking about putting a limitation on bringing lands in for any purpose whatever. I think of in my State, legislation that this body has debated for a long time, the Hopie-Navajo land settlement. Part of that has to do with bringing certain lands under the jurisdiction of the two tribes. That is critical to making that settlement work. Yet this would put a prohibition on making that happen, on making that work. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. As much as I sympathize with what the gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to do, it is not the right place, it is not the right way to go about it, and it certainly is not the right time without having the committee of jurisdiction take this up and take this under consideration.