Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on June 17, 1999 the House debated the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act (H.R. 1501). Following the vote, I was dismayed to see that I was listed as not voting on rollcall vote No. 223. I was on the floor and am positive I put my card in the voting device. Had my vote been recorded, it would have been ``nay.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1000. Although I support the reauthorization of the FAA and the Airport Improvement Program, I find the manipulation of the current budget structure in this bill detrimental to the fiscally sound budget process the Republicans have been fighting for, and have achieved, as the majority party. Why do we want to take a step backwards, back to when this House was governed by a tax and spend policy, in a misguided attempt to drastically inflate a federal agency's budget? Where is the Republican agenda--the agenda to make the federal government smaller, leaner, more efficient? It is disappointing to see the bill come before the House today under the slogan of ``unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund.'' Federal trust funds are not your run-of-the-mill trust fund that can be compared to a family or business trust fund. These federal trust funds are authorizations for appropriations, and this has always been the intent since their creation. But, don't take my word for it. Let me quote a CRS report: Whatever their intended purposes, federal trust funds are basically record-keeping devices that account for the spending authority available for certain programs. Although frequently thought of as holding financial assets, they do not. I repeat: trust funds do not hold financial assets; there is not money in them. The report goes on to say: Simply stated, as long as a trust fund has a balance, the Treasury Department has authority to keep issuing checks for the program, but balances do not provide the treasury with the cash to cover these checks. So if it's the right policy to take trust funds off-budget, where is the cash going to come from to cover the checks written on the trust fund balances? Are we going to cut funding for our schools, for law enforcement, for environmental programs, for our Veterans? Are we going to increase the debt, raise taxes? I hope not. And we are not talking about a few dollars. There are over 100 federal trust funds, and this bill deals with only one. But, at the end of FY1997, these trust funds had a combined ``virtual balance'' of $1.520 trillion--that's one and a half trillion dollars! If we are going to unlock our trust funds because this money was intended for specific purposes, we need to find $1\1/2\ trillion to put real money into these funds. In addition, we simply cannot govern a nation by compartmentalizing our budget through dedicated funding streams. Revenue streams must be spent on the nation's priorities as a whole. You can't run a business by restricting cash flows to expenses directly attributable to their related sales. Can GM effectively compete in the world market if the money they received from selling shock absorbers couldn't be used for maintenance of brake manufacturing equipment? No. GM can't, and neither can the federal government. We need to take a step back and understand where this road leads us. I understand the supporters of this measure see guaranteed money every year. Wouldn't this be nice if everyone had a guaranteed stream of cash flowing into their coffers every October First? But, that is not the way to run a fiscally responsible government. Republicans have governed our nation's tax dollars with restraint and have given the taxpayer some of this money back with tax cuts. Let's not sabotage 4 and a half years of work. We should be looking at ways of streamlining federal agencies, not bloating their budgets by creating a mandatory account and increasing the taxes for this account.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, is the motion to adjourn in writing?

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I admire the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) said, for his tenacity, but I disagree strongly with his proposal to militarize our border, to put a significant part of my congressional district under martial law. He is not talking about martial law in Youngstown, Ohio. He is not talking about martial law in New York City. He wants to clear the streets of gangs and drug dealers. What about clearing them with military troops there in those cities as well? He wants to use the military resources to help stop drugs at our borders and prevent terrorists. Guess what. It is happening. It is happening right now. Joint Task Force 6, located in El Paso, Texas, is doing that. Here are some of the things that the military does now along the border. Army engineering groups are building roads and fences along the border so that we can patrol it. We have the National Guard unloading trucks at our crossing stations so they can be inspected for drugs. We have the Air Force operating our aerostats which provide radar coverage against drug-smuggling aircraft. It is Customs that should deal with this. It is Immigration and Border Patrol that should deal with this; it is not the military role to deal with this. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charlie Stenholm) and I have introduced a comprehensive Social Security reform legislation, H.R. 1793, and I want to talk today about some of the provisions that are in this bill. Today, I want to concentrate on those dealing with women. Our bill contains a minimum benefit provision that would provide a more robust benefit than afforded by the current system. For an individual who works 40 years, we guarantee them a Social Security benefit equal to 100 percent of the poverty level. And as a result of that provision alone, 50 percent of women will get more retirement benefits under the Kolbe-Stenholm plan than under current law. Our plan also allows workers to contribute an additional $2,000 per year into their personal account. Women expected to take time off to raise children can make voluntary contributions both before and after their hiatus to catch up. For women who earn less than $30,000, the Kolbe-Stenholm plan provides a savings subsidy for up to $600 per year. One of the reasons our bill is better for women is the changing nature of divorce. Not only has the divorce rate skyrocketed, but marriages are not lasting as long and more and more women are not remarrying. Consequently, more and more women are heading into retirement alone without the benefit of a spouse's Social Security income. As more women are raising children alone, working in lower-paying jobs, or not remarrying after divorce, the minimum benefit provision, the ability to catch up for lost years and the savings subsidy will do more to lift those women out of poverty.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today I met two young people from the 5th District of Arizona who are really making a difference in their communities. Both of them are Prudential Spirit of Community State Honorees for 1999, and were hosted in Washington, DC by Prudential and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. While nearly 20,000 youth volunteers submitted applications for these awards, Gabriella Contreras and Ryan Leybas are among 104 students from across the United States who were chosen for this honor. Gabriella Contreras, a 13-year-old 7th grader at Roskruge Middle School in Tucson, had the additional honor of being named one of America's top ten youth volunteers by Prudential. When she was nine, Gabriella organized a community service club at her school in response to a nearby high school's problems with violence, gang activity, and drug use. Now in it's fifth year, Gabriella's ``Club B.A.D.D.D.,'' which stands for ``Be Alert--Don't Do Drugs,'' helps students channel their time and energy into community service projects. These projects have included clothing and food drives, annual ``peace'' marches, recycling campaigns, schoolwide cleanups, and anti-drug art gallery, and a citywide youth volunteer summit. Club B.A.D.D.D., known as the club that does good, now draws more than 500 people to some events and is being promoted at other schools. Ryan Leybas, the other honoree from Arizona's 5th District, is an 18 year old senior at Casa Grande Union High School. Five years ago, Ryan founded a leadership camp for junior high students to teach them skills to succeed in school and life. With the support of the Pinal County school superintendent, what started out as a requirement for a Boy Scout merit badge has expanded into 120 participants this year, with at least two students from almost every school in Pinal County attending the three-day camp. Ryan, who is developing the leadership camp into a model that can be used in other states, continues to recruit students, coordinate logistics and find motivational guest speakers for the camp. Both of these young people have shown exceptional talent in working with their peers for the betterment of their communities and their schools. I'd like to recognize them for their achievements as Prudential Spirit of Community State Honorees, and I look forward to working with them as they become tomorrow's adult leaders of Arizona.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Arizona's finest young people, sixth-grader Justin Blake Horne of Booth-Fickett Math/Science Magnet School in Tucson. We all too often complain that today's young people don't care about their communities or their schools. I think the following articles from The Arizona Daily Star and The Tucson Citizen show just how committed to others in their community some of our young people truly are. [From the Arizona Daily Star, Mar. 19, 1999] Kodak Likes Tucson Kid's Crime Deterrent Idea (By Sarah Tully Tapia) Sixth-grader Justin Blake Horne knew exactly how to push the buttons of Kodak's CEO. The 12-year-old invoked company tradition in asking George Fisher to bankroll his idea: Give school monitors cameras so they can take pictures of suspicious activity such as last fall's string of attempted child abductions in Tucson-area schools. ``I have heard it said, `A picture is worth a thousand words,' '' Justin wrote to Fisher, chief executive officer of the Eastman Kodak Co. ``Of course, my idea would be totally experimental, however, where would Kodak be if George Eastman did not undertake to perform experiments.'' Fisher accepted the challenge, donating 50 cameras and sending Justin a handwritten note. ``Your idea seems interesting and we are always experimenting with new thoughts,'' Fisher wrote, adding that he wants progress reports. Yesterday, Justin delivered 10 cameras to Kellond Elementary School. He plans to give 10 each to four more schools, including his own, Booth-Fickett Magnet School. In his letter, Justin explains that in one of the attempted kidnappings, a monitor spotted someone approaching a child, but the man drove off before the monitor could get a good look at the man, car or license plate. If Kodak donated cameras--worth $15 to $17 each--monitors could snap pictures of the vehicles and suspects for evidence, Justin wrote. At Kellond, Justin gave Principal Marcia Baab explicit instructions for his ``deterrent program,'' saying the cameras must be used only for security purposes and must be turned in to the police immediately. He plans to write instructions for all the schools. ``He'd got it so organized, I can't even mess up,'' Baab said. The school had four instances of suspicious behavior in the fall, but no one could provide police a good description of the perpetrator. The school resource officer said the cameras could help. ``It's good to see someone else being pro-active besides us,'' said Officer Judy Augustine. Justin said he hopes the mere presence of cameras will keep criminals away from the schools. ``I actually am not expecting pictures. It's kind of odd,'' Justin said. If it works, he said he's like to see the program go national. This isn't the first time Justin has taken such an initiative. In second grade, he wrote to a stapler company for parts to repair his teacher's broken stapler, which she was going to throw out. They sent him parts, staples and other goodies. At Booth-Fickett, he arranged for police to bring a helicopter to the school. He convinced Iceoplex to donate 130 passes for students with improved grades and behavior. A science whiz, Justin is already planning to put these activities on his application for MIT. Justin's latest endeavor is attracting a lot of attention, including an interview on a Denver radio station and a planned visit from Congressman Jim Kolbe. Justin's ready for the spotlight to dim, as his classmates have ribbed him a bit. But he has no intention of stopping. ``I want to help people and I don't want to be a slumball in life,'' Justin said.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, these four important votes concerning NATO Operation Allied Force in Kosovo cause me tremendous difficulty. We hold this debate today because the mission, the means and the mentality behind this operation are unclear. There are no good options before us, only some less bad than others. People speak of winning, people speak of losing. People speak of sins of omission and sins of commission. But, we have no agreed definitions for those terms so we stutter and speak similar words with disparate meanings. Look at the history of the Balkans and you can understand one thing--no one's hands are clean and everything is colored in shades of gray. We must look to the President of the United States to lead and give us common definitions and meaning for our involvement, to define the political objectives we seek to achieve, and to determine how we can best achieve them. On March 11, over a month ago, we debated our interests in Kosovo. At that time I had not heard from the President an unambiguous statement of our interests and goals in Kosovo. Today, we cover some of the same ground and yet still do not have an articulation of the central strategic national interest involved. That suggests at best an unfortunate lack of communication, consultation and evolution, at worst, a complete muddle on the part of the administration. Given this environment, it is proper that we pass legislation that puts a check on escalation to ground forces. As one who seeks to maintain our leadership in international trade issues, I understand the arguments of maintaining international stability, NATO credibility, of assisting in the humanitarian relief, and on standing firm against the kind of atrocities that have been taking place in Kosovo. For those reasons I am willing to give the President and NATO leaders the benefit of the doubt on their air campaign strategy. In any event, it is the reality of where we are today, the level at which we are now engaged. That is why I support S. Con. Res. 21 which authorizes the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. Following those same arguments, I also stand opposed to the immediate removal of our military forces under section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution as H. Con. Res. 82 would have us do. But, those arguments do not convince me that the situation warrants the United States of America declaring war on the Federal Republic of Serbia; so, I oppose H.J. Res. 44. I trust the President shares this letter view since he himself has not asked Congress for a declaration of war. Let me also mention that none of the above in any way diminishes the importance of passing an emergency appropriation bill to pay for the cost of what has already been done. The number of missiles and munitions already expended in Operation Allied Force is extraordinary. This action in addition to Desert Fox, Afghanistan and other operations has exceeded all forecasts and expectations. Therefore, we need to replenish the stocks and give the military the resources they need to maintain their equipment through this campaign. But none of us should be under any illusion; if this air war continues, this will not be the last supplemental appropriation bill we will see on this floor.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 472, the Post Census Local Review Program. This program which was dropped by the Clinton administration has strong support from my local government officials and needs to be reinstated. In Arizona, we have experienced unprecedented growth during the 1990's. Small towns like Oro Valley have quadrupled in size between 1990 and 1999. The following is from a letter written by Mayor Paul Loomis of Oro Valley. Because of this rate of growth and our changing community we feel the Post Census Local Review program is very important in order for Oro Valley to receive our fair share of State and Federal funds. The town of Oro Valley does want the opportunity to correct mistakes before the Bureau of the Census finalizes the year 2000 count. Pima County wants the opportunity to make sure the families in houses occupied in the last few months before the census are included in the count and to verify that areas containing concentrations of ``hard to count'' populations are counted. In some areas we have 6,000 residential building permits outstanding and many of these ``addresses'' will become valid after the local update of census addresses is completed. In Cochise County, we are finishing a decade long addressing project during which we named or renamed 3,000 road and addressed more than 85,000 parcels. In Bisbee, the city is worried that due to the unique and difficult topography, many small neighborhoods and small enclaves of homes in side canyons and hidden basins will be missed. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled that we must have an actual count; that is not the issue here. The Post Census Local Review Program is merely an opportunity for the local officials who know their communities to look at the census results and verify their accuracy. Calling such a program ``unfair'' stretches the credibility of any thinking person.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the development of a national missile defense is vital and I support this resolution. The bottom line is that this is a natural evolution for our defense. Once upon a time, our ancestors built walls of stone to defend themselves from swords and arrows. As military weapons have evolved, so must our defenses. While some in this chamber raise legal, treaty- oriented objections to this bill, we know that the reality of our age is that a missile attack on U.S. soil by some rogue nations may soon be technically achievable and perhaps politically desirable. We don't have to go far back in time to understand this. We all know that the single bloodiest moment for American servicemen and women in the Gulf War was the moment an Iraqi Scud landed on the barracks occupied by our forces. If anyone doubts that a despotic leader would take an opportunistic chance to launch a missile attack at American soil--even as merely a demonstration strike or as a symbolic strike, consider the SCUD missile attacks on Israel. While there was clearly no military advantage to be gained through that action, Sadam Hussein launched those attacks to prove that he could, and to see if it would rouse support from other nations. Given those circumstances, we have no choice but to embrace the policy declared in this bill and move forward with the development of a national missile defense system. This is not a threat that will pass. The Rumsfield Commission has opened our eyes to the reality that this is not a situation we can postpone. The responsible action at this moment in history is to rally the political support necessary to make a national missile defensive system available to protect the American people as soon as possible.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, this is one heck of a corrosive proposal, and I rise in steely opposition to it. The notion that we are victims of predatory and illegal dumping is a corrosive idea. We are told that the only way that this practice is going to cease is if we limit or ban imports to some kind of an arbitrary level set in 1994, and that is very rusty logic for a number of reasons. So let me focus on a couple of facts. Fact one: U.S. law provides clear trade remedies for industries that are harmed by dumping. In fact, the steel industry has already filed and won anti-dumping cases against Japan and Brazil, and it has negotiated a voluntary restraint agreement with Russia. The results of that are dramatically shown in this chart which shows imports from those three countries subject to investigations have dropped for hot rolled steel products. This drop over the last three months has been 98 percent, 97 percent in the case of Brazil and about 60 percent in the case of Japan, or more than that. So it has been almost cut to nothing. Even as we debate, there are antidumping cases proceeding against France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Macedonia. More than a third of the 300 antidumping and countervailing duty orders address steel. So here we can see in three months' time the reduction of hot-rolled steel products from all countries, from a total of 1.4 million tons per month in November of 1998 to 437,000 tons today. Fact two, the remedies designed to deal with the sudden import surge, Section 201, wasn't even utilized by the industry. They did not even bother to file a case. Instead, the big steel bosses spent an unknown amount of money lobbying Congress for special protection. Fact three, dumping is not inherently wrong. A product that is dumped is sold in the United States for less than it is sold in the home market or less than the cost of production. This means that foreign producers are selling steel to the United States at a great price, and that helps users of steel in this country. That is not inherently evil, but in order to protect certain industries dumping is not allowed under our trade laws. Our solution is not a punitive one. The foreign producer is not thrown in jail, prohibited from selling in the market. Instead, the company is required to pay a duty equal to the amount of the discount. In effect, they are forced to raise the price of their product to more closely approximate the cost of our domestic producers. By the way, U.S. steel companies dump steel abroad all the time. In fact, there are duties in place against 10 U.S. steel companies for dumping overseas. Believe me, foreign steel companies are watching this vote today. If this bill passes, if it became law, they are really going to ask their governments very quickly for Visclosky-type bans on U.S. steel. Which brings me to fact four. This is not a free vote! A 1995 study found that U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties affected only 1.8 percent of U.S. merchandise imports. Yet, the cost to our economy? $1.59 billion dollars! The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Visclosky ban will cost one billion dollars over the next three years! An aye vote today is a vote for a billion dollar tax on the American consumer. Every member that votes for this bill will have to explain to steel-users why they have to pay a billion dollar ``steel tax'' before they can buy the product. And every member that votes for this bill will have to explain to farmers and exporters why they voted for a bill which puts their livelihood at risk by subjecting them to retaliation against U.S. products. This is one of the most misguided and dangerous pieces of legislation I have ever seen. The Visclosky quota sought today goes beyond ``fair'' trade. It applies to all steel imports, even those that are not dumped. And it creates billion dollar casualties along the way. Where the damage stops, nobody knows. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Nebraska yielding this time to me, and I also appreciate his bringing this resolution to the floor. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 32. In January, along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), I had the honor of leading an official delegation that went to Indonesia as well as other countries of Asia. I was moved by the spirit that we saw in Indonesia and struck by the daunting economic and political crisis that faces that Nation. President Soeharto, who ruled Indonesia for over 30 years, left a tremendous political void in the wake of his resignation last year. Although he had brought stability and economic growth to Indonesia during the years that he ruled, when he left there was a tremendous void of institutions equipped to handle a true democracy. So today, with a precarious economic situation, we also find a very precarious political situation. President Habibie faces a tremendous challenge in helping steer Indonesia toward democracy. To some degree I believe that President Habibie has met this challenge. He has instituted a series of steps, including the release of political prisoners, and he has provided greater press liberties. He has ordered investigations into human rights violations and granted labor unions and political parties the right to organize. He has introduced and supported a series of election laws which will provide the framework for elections in Indonesia in June of this year. But the question still remains, is it too little and is it too late? Indonesia remains a very close ally of the United States. Continued stability in that country is critical. It is critical to stability throughout all of Southeast Asia and, to a lesser degree, to the rest of Asia and the rest of the developing world, and that stability in Indonesia is intimately tied to elections that are free and fair and transparent. Should this election process fail, I think the worst could happen. Certainly we should fear the worst of civil unrest, and that would have ominous consequences for Indonesia and the region. Unfortunately little will get done financially or economically in this country until after these elections take place. Because these elections are fundamental to creating political stability, to achieving economic reform, the international community must take a lead role in helping to ensure that the elections are conducted freely and fairly and that they are seen as being credible. The United States has an immense interest in ensuring that the elections are free and open, and we have an immense international credibility that we can lend to this process. If we do not have progress on the political front, it is very difficult to see how we are going to make progress on the economic front afterwards. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe the United States must take a leading role in assuring that the elections scheduled for this June are free and fair, and I pledge my strong support to assuring that that takes place. This resolution is one way for us as a Nation, as a Congress, to go on record in support of these elections, these free and open elections, and I commend the gentleman for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 40, the concurrent resolution just adopted.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), who did serve on the Interior Committee with him and knows very well the legacy of Mo Udall.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing this, and ``debate'' is not the right word for it, closing these discussions, these eulogies, these wonderful statements that have been made here today and before yielding back the balancing of my time, let me just say to my colleagues that I think the words that have been spoken here on the floor give only a very partial sketch of this wonderful person who we all knew as Mo Udall because he was such a giant there really are not enough colors in the palette to paint this wonderful person. It is hard to think what about Mo Udall I would want most to remember, whether it is his legacy of the environment, the courage that he had of speaking out on Vietnam back in the 1960s, what he did for Native Americans. But I think I would choose to think of the civility that he brought to this body, Mo Udall's sense of humor, his self- deprecation. He was an individual who never took himself so seriously that he lost sight of where he came from or where he was going, and I think that really is the legacy that all of us in this body would do well each day and each week and each year to remember. If we do, we will not only be better as human beings, but this will be a better body, and this will be a better country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues and all others who either knew Mo Udall or did not know him but loved him and know of what he has done that this afternoon, in just 30 minutes, at 2 o'clock in the Cannon Caucus Room, there will be a memorial service to honor him.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the concurrent resolution. The previous question was ordered. The concurrent resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 40) honoring Morris King Udall, former United States Representative from Arizona, and extending the condolences of the Congress on his death, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today to introduce and to call up this resolution honoring a great American and certainly a great Arizonan. There really could be no better homage to Mo Udall than if I could stand up here for a few minutes and take the time to simply lampoon myself. But the risk of that kind of self-exploration would probably be too much. I might actually learn the truth about myself, for example, and turn to something more noble like perhaps running numbers or selling ocean-front parcels in Tucson. That was the kind of thing that Mo would say. Mr. Speaker, Mo was a mentor and a close friend of many of us. Certainly, he was a friend of mine and a political idol as well. I have tried hard to follow in Mo's footsteps in southern Arizona's congressional district. Much of what he represented, I now represent. I certainly have learned extensive lessons in what it means to be second- best, because no one could ever best Mo Udall. So now I know what it is like to be taken off the bench to replace Mark McGwire, to sing backup to Pavarotti, to be Mike Tyson's sparring partner. It is one of the humble honors of my career that I have the opportunity to offer this resolution that will help affix Morris King Udall's name to our memories and to those of generations to come. Mr. Speaker, if I could have a vote in my district for every time that he made one of us smile or laugh, I would be winning all of my elections unanimously. Mo was loved by the public. He was loved by the press, by his colleagues, and by his family, many of whom are here today. There was a reason for that. It was because Mo Udall was true to Mo. He could stand for hours and he could tell one-liners. And by making himself the brunt of his own humor, he could reach those MBA arms of his right into our consciences and wrest away any pretensions that we might have, or self-righteousness. Mo made us see our foibles, not by moralizing or yelling at us. He did not say ``Change those wretched ways.'' Rather, he made us laugh at ourselves, even against our will, and he forced, and I do mean forced, us to see the smallness of ourselves. He forced us to see our blindness, our pettiness, the vanity we sometimes have, our egomania. Coming from a conservative State like Arizona, Mo Udall defied easy or politically opportune choices. He voted his conscience. He voted it whether the topic was racial equality back in the 1960s, the dire need for government to assume better stewardship of its public lands, or the sacrifice of American lives in Vietnam. He spoke out on those issues. But no one in our country, Johnny Carson, Bob Hope, Jack Benny included, could keep a straight face like Mo could. With that humor, he carried a very serious and a profound message and that humor helped to enlighten the ignorant, satirize the comforted, and make us take inventory at every moment of the beauty and fragility of our lives. Even as his health waned, Mo was passing on a message of hope to us: Help those of us whose bodies are imprisoned by Parkinson's and other such illnesses to recover. Even when he was unable to speak to us, Mo and his loyal and extraordinary family brought about policy changes in the health field that few might have imagined possible. For those in this body who have had the opportunity to be touched by Mo, today is an appropriate occasion to remember a man who brought civility through humor into the political process. For those who were not fortunate enough to have known this man, they have missed an icon. But they should seek solace in knowing two things. The political process in the United States of America has been deeply enriched by the contributions, and because of the contributions of Mo Udall, there is a secure place in public service for those willing to take a step back and look at their own shortcomings. Mr. Speaker, today, along with many members of the delegation and members of the family who now serve in this body, we will be introducing a bill which would rename the Coronado National Forest, which lies in southern Arizona and which encompasses eight wilderness areas. I can think of no more fitting tribute to this great towering man who was so instrumental in establishing those wilderness areas, and so many other wilderness areas, than to call that beautiful National Forest the Udall National Forest. I welcome the support of my colleagues in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, March 8, 1999, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 9, for morning hour debates.