Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. If the gentleman will yield further, yes. Because of the provisions that exist in the Senate legislation, this clearly will be an item for discussion in conference.

Mr. KOLBE. I would just, if I might, Mr. Chairman, say I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this issue to our attention. We had a lot of discussion about this last year. I think we are all familiar with the plight of the Flato family. I certainly worked with him and with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) last year on this issue. But I do have the concerns that I raised before and will at the appropriate time here raise my point of order if that is necessary.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and all amendments thereto, close in 20 minutes, and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard additionally. Again, I would point out that the legislation as it exists now refers to any existing or future plan if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs. That clearly is a particular limitation and says none of the funds appropriated may be used for that purpose. Now we have added in an additional duty to the Office of Personnel Management, by saying ``moral convictions.'' So they clearly have additional responsibilities that are going to be required in order to carry this out. In addition, subsection (c), and I am not sure I understand exactly what the impact of this is, but by striking ``prescribe'' and inserting ``prescribe or otherwise provide for'' would seem also to require some additional duties, and I believe that this clearly is additional legislation, additional duties.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. Again, this was just handed to us. I make a point of order against the amendment, because it appears to me that it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and would violate clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states that an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law imposes additional duties. This adds a word, in this case, to the current legislation, by adding ``moral convictions.'' For that reason, it would seem to impose an additional requirement on the Office of Personnel Management that administers these plans and in my view it would, for that reason, violate clause 2 of rule XXI. I would make that point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 99, line 20 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me. He has spoken with me at some length about this issue. I believe that he has raised some very, very good points; and I appreciate the tenacity with which he has pursued this. I want to share with the gentleman my understanding of the need to ensure that Racine does continue to be served by the U.S. Customs Service. The committee does not, as I think the gentleman knows, as a matter of fact, support specific designations or expansions of Customs' districts or ports in this appropriations bill. It is the intent of the committee that timely services at the Port of Racine will not be adversely affected in any way. I, therefore, would emphasize for the Record that this committee would expect to see and approve any Customs' proposal before actions are taken to close the offices of the Port of Racine or to otherwise change service in any way to Racine. No action could be taken by the Customs Service until it has been proven to the satisfaction of the committee that no reduction in timely service to Racine would result. I would also commit to the gentleman from Wisconsin that we will work in close consultation with him to ensure that, if there were to be any proposed changes, that they are in the best interest of Racine and of the business community there.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am not against a woman's right to choose. I am not even against a woman's right to have insurance coverage for abortion procedures when they are deemed necessary. But Mr. Chairman, I am not entirely, in this instance, a free agent in the sense that as chairman of this subcommittee, I believe I have a responsibility to bring a bill to the floor which can and will pass this body, as well as the Senate, and be enacted into law. This body has debated this issue on many numerous occasions. I have been on the other side of this issue. But I believe that the will of this body ought to stand at this point. I believe that this bill is balanced in the coverage, the provision that prohibits Federal funding for abortions, but on the other hand, permits contraceptive coverage. I would certainly vote against any effort to strike that provision from this bill. I believe we should keep this bill intact as it is. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting to keep this provision in the bill so that we may pass a piece of legislation that can ultimately be enacted into law. It is for that reason that I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in a colloquy.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and, in doing so, I want to make it clear that my position is not because of where I come from on this issue. As I think many of the Members know, I have regarded myself as pro-choice, in that I believe a woman should have the right not only to choose, but certainly in the case of coverage by a Federal health benefit should have the right to have this kind of coverage. However, having said that, I rise in opposition to this because I believe that it goes to the very heart of this bill and the balance that I think is in this bill. If this were a freestanding bill, I would be joining with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. But it is not; it is on this piece of legislation, which has been historically a magnet for a lot of the abortion issues that we have discussed in this body. The bill that we have before us today is balanced, balanced in the sense that it reflects exactly what this body and the Congress and the President of the United States signed into law last year. That is, it continues a prohibition which has existed since 1995 in the Congress against Federal health benefit funds being used to pay for an abortion. On the other hand, it also includes a provision that was adopted last year which we have come to know as the Lowey amendment, which provides for contraceptive coverage for women who are covered under the Federal Health Benefits Plan. So there is a certain symmetry to this. We do not fund an abortion procedure, but we do say that we will fund contraceptive coverage. In any event, it is my view that this battle, having been fought very hard in the House and the Senate last year and with the administration, that we ought to accept the bill that we have already adopted. We should leave these two provisions, both of them, in the bill. We should leave this section 509; and later, when we get to the section dealing with contraceptive coverage, we should leave that in the bill. I hope my colleagues, regardless of where they come down on this issue, would vote as I intend to do, which is to vote to retain both of these provisions. Mr. Chairman, legislating is the art of the possible. Legislating on appropriations bills particularly is the art of the possible. There are balances, there are compromises that have to be made. There are trade- offs which have to be made. We have to get a bill that can pass not only the House, that can pass the Senate, that can get through a conference committee, be passed again by the House and the Senate and be accepted by the President of the United States. I believe that these provisions, both of which did that last year, got through the House, got through the Senate, were adopted in the conference, and were signed into law by the President. We should retain these provisions in the legislation. I hope my colleagues would reject this amendment to strike section 509. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 45 minutes and the time to be equally divided between the two sides?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 63, line 13 be considered as read, printed in the RECORD, and open to amendment at any point.