Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) from the 6th Congressional District. In doing so, I would note that he is one of those Members who did not serve with Mo Udall. But none of us who come from Arizona have not been touched by his great works.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, which was one of Mo Udall's other great loves. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to gentleman from the Arizona (Mr. Salmon), a very distinguished Member of the Arizona delegation, but also I know he knew Mo Udall personally and has profited from that knowledge of knowing him.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart but a clear conscience that I will vote for Articles of Impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. I know that some of my colleagues who have spoken out in the President's defense have asserted that this impeachment process is illegitimate and, by voting to impeach, this Congress will plunge our nation into a constitutional crisis. But, in fact, this is a legitimate process contemplated by the Constitution and duly authorized by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of House members. The only crisis we face now is the possibility that we might fail to do our duty as mandated by the Constitution. This is not about overturning the will of the American people as expressed in the election of 1996. Great weight should be placed on protecting the decision made by the voters, and only the most extraordinary circumstances can justify negating that decision. I believe the circumstances in this case are extraordinary. While most Americans find the President's underlying conduct in this matter deplorable--and he himself has already admitted as much--such behavior is not, in and of itself, impeachable. But this Congress is not being asked to judge President Clinton's private sexual behavior or his personal morality. Despite what some would have you believe, this case is no more about sex than a bank robbery is about currency. A grand jury is at the very heart of our judicial system. It is the chief tool by which we ferret out felonious conduct that should be prosecuted. Lying to a Federal grand jury is a grave offense, and the President clearly lied before that grand jury. As our chief law enforcement officer--as a lawyer and officer of the court--President Clinton knew all of this. And yet he chose to lie anyway. Ours is a nation that holds the rule of law as near to being sacred as any aspect of our form of government. We not only believe that all men and women are created equal, but also that all are equal under the law. Our republic is a tapestry woven from many strands--a written Constitution, laws and statutes, and, just as important, a body of precedents, traditions, and common law developed over more than two centuries. That tapestry is surely worth preserving. Our responsibility, as Members of this Congress, is to keep it from being tattered by the winds which blow against our Republic. I am confident this House will not be found wanting. Mr. Speaker, I append my statement of December 17, 1998, to this statement. Statement on the Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton The votes I cast tomorrow on Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton will surely be the most profoundly significant and momentous of my career in public service. During the past 14 years in Congress, I have participated in two other impeachment proceedings; I have voted to send our armed forces into combat in Desert Storm; and I have engaged in countless other political battles. Some of these battles bordered on the absurd, while others truly helped define who we are as Americans, and what we stand for. This is only the second time in our Nation's history that the House of Representatives will actually vote on Articles of Impeachment against a President of the United Sates. This is, indeed, an historic moment. As I depart today to carry out my solemn responsibility, I believe it is important for me to first share my decision with those I represent. Perhaps the greatest challenge I faced in reaching my decision was to cut through all the media punditry and relentless political spin, which has largely served to obscure--rather than illuminate--the facts and the law in this case. I know some argue that this process is illegitimate and, by voting to impeach, Congress will plunge our nation into a constitutional crisis. But, in fact, this is a legitimate process contemplated by the Constitution and duly authorized by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of House members. The only crisis we face now is the possibility that we might fail to do our duty as mandated by the Constitution. This is not about convicting the President of perjury, obstruction of justice, or abuse of power. That responsibility is reserved exclusively to the Senate. No aspect of this debate has been more misrepresented by mainstream news media, and thus so poorly understood by the public. As one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, said clearly in Federalist Paper No. 66: ``The division . . . between the two branches of the legislative, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconveniences of making the same persons both accusers and judges.'' This point is important, for it is a well established principle of our system of jurisprudence that the standard of evidence to bring charges is substantially lower than that required to convict. Granted, no prosecutor would bring a case to a grand jury without a reasonable expectation that a conviction could be obtained. While Congress does not operate as a court of law when we consider impeachment, this is nevertheless as close to a legal proceeding as Congress gets. And so, as a defacto grand juror, the question I must ask myself is this: Is the weight of evidence now sufficient to require the Senate to conduct a trial? This is not a vendetta against this President. I bear him no personal ill will. While I have differed with President Clinton on numerous questions of policy, we have also agreed on various issues. For example, I have worked closely with this Administration, and President Clinton personally, to pass NAFTA and build a bipartisan, free-trade coalition. And as recently as last week, I joined with President Clinton and other Congressional leaders at Blair House, trying to forge a bipartisan consensus on Social Security reform. Like the vast majority of my colleagues in Congress, and I dare say most Americans, I am terribly saddened by this entire, tawdry affair. I believe it has diminished respect for our nation and the Office of the President, if not all elected officials. President Clinton is, undeniably, a shrewd political leader who possesses enormous personal charm and a remarkable intellect. But I cannot allow my admiration for President Clinton's considerable skills to cloud my judgment in this matter. What else is this vote not about? It is not about overturning the will of the American people as expressed in the election of 1996. Great weight should be placed on protecting the decision made by the voters, and only the most extraordinary circumstances can justify negating that decision. I believe the circumstances here are extraordinary. And it is precisely for this reason that the Constitution invests in the Congress the power to impeach a President. The framers recognized that, while the judiciary could adjudicate most cases of public malfeasance, a special process was necessary to accuse, try, and remove a President from office. Impeachment and conviction are the only means by which a President, fatally corrupted or guilty of abusing the power of his office, could be removed. These are the only means by which our Constitution and all the institutions therein can be protected from further damage. Finally, this matter is most assuredly not about sex or lying about sex. While most Americans find the underlying conduct of the President deplorable--and he himself has already admitted as much--such behavior is not, in and of itself, impeachable. Congress is not being asked to judge President Clinton's private sexual behavior or his personal morality. The spinmeisters' mantra notwithstanding, this case is no more about sex than a bank robbery is about currency. Rather, the Articles of Impeachment accuse President Clinton of lying in a civil deposition, committing perjury before a Federal grand jury, obstructing justice, and abusing the power and the office of the Presidency. And I have based my decision on a careful review of these articles and the supporting evidence, which I believe is substantial and credible. The heart of the case is perjury: Did President Clinton lie under oath when he gave testimony in his deposition in a civil rights lawsuit, and did he subsequently lie under oath to a Federal grand jury when questioned about that testimony? The evidence is overwhelming that he did lie. Even many of his most ardent supporters in Congress acknowledge that he lied and committed perjury in both instances. Some continue to assert, as the President does, that he only intended to ``mislead,'' and that does not conform to perjury as the Supreme Court defined it in 1973, in Bronston v. U.S. But the President's testimony exceeded even that high threshold of perjury. Listen to what the President said when questioned by his own attorney in the Paula Jones lawsuit deposition before a Federal judge: Robert Bennett, the President's lawyer, said: ``In [Monica Lewinsky's] affidavit, she says `I have never had a sexual relationship with the President . . . ' Is that a true and accurate statement . . . ?'' President Clinton responded: ``That is absolutely true.'' No reasonable person could conclude, from what we now know of what transpired between the President and Ms. Lewinsky, that this statement is anything other than a perjurious lie. So the only question which remains for me to ponder in considering the first two Articles of Impeachment is whether perjury in a matter of personal behavior rises to the level of an impeachable offense. A legal definition of treason can be found in the Constitution itself, and federal statutes give adequate judicial guidance with respect to the matter of bribery. But the framers left to future Congresses to decide what constitutes ``other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I believe there is ample evidence that felonious conduct--and perjury is a felony--falls well within the bounds of what our forefathers intended the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' to include. The Minority Counsel for the Judiciary Committee relied upon language used in the 1974 impeachment report dealing with President Nixon to suggest that these are not impeachable offenses. The committee that voted out Articles of Impeachment in the Nixon case said: `` . . . impeachment . . . is to be predicated upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the Presidential office.'' But ours is a nation that holds the rule of law as near to being sacred as any aspect of our form of government. We not only believe that all men and women are created equal, but also that all are equal under the law. Our republic is a tapestry woven from many strands, including a written Constitution, numerous laws and statutes, and--just as important--a body of precedents, traditions, and common law developed over more than two centuries. If our Star Spangled Banner is worth preserving, then certainly the tapestry of law and justice for which it stands is worth preserving, too. President Clinton solemnly swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to see that the laws shall be faithfully executed. He is the principal law enforcement officer of the United States. What possible respect for the rule of law can any of us have--or demand of others--if our President is not to be held accountable for perjury, just because he is the President or because the underlying circumstances for lying relates to personal behavior? Is perjury relative? No. Does it only apply in some cases? No. Should we apply penalties selectively? No. Are some individuals more equal than others, and are we to treat them differently? Absolutely not. And I can think of no prescription more certain to undermine our system of jurisprudence than to answer affirmatively to these questions. I cannot. Stuart Taylor, writing in the National Journal, noted that ``Before President Clinton got caught, no constitutional expert had ever suggested it would be wrong to impeach a President for crimes such as lying under oath (even about sex), suborning perjury, or obstructing both a civil rights lawsuit and a criminal investigation.'' And, I would add, if we need a precise legal precedent for perjury as grounds for impeachment, I can refer to a vote I cast nine years ago to impeach Judge Nixon of Mississippi. The charge, then as now, was perjury. Having said all this, I do make a distinction between perjury before a Federal grand jury and lying in a civil deposition. Both are perjury. But a grand jury is at the very heart of our judicial system. It's the chief tool by which we ferret out felonious conduct that should be prosecuted. Lying to a grand jury is the graver offense, in my view, and the President clearly lied before that grand jury. As our chief law enforcement officer--as a lawyer and officer of the court--President Clinton knew all of this. And yet he chose to lie anyway. Lying in a deposition taken in a civil case strikes a more glancing blow at the integrity of our judicial system. Here, I believe the balance of other factors, including the imperative to respect the integrity of the electoral process, argues against impeachment. For me, this was a very close call. Therefore, I will vote for impeachment on Article I, but not on Article II. Turning to Article III, I believe the weight of evidence is sufficient to try the President on this article, dealing with obstruction of justice. I will vote to send this article to the Senate for trial. The President did encourage Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case. He had prior knowledge that she would be subpoenaed; he knew what her affidavit said; and he knew it to be false. Can a reasonable person come to any conclusion about President Clinton's post-deposition conversation with his personal secretary, Betty Currie, other than this: That he purposefully suggested to her--indirectly but with specificity--the gist of his testimony and desired that Ms. Currie should conform to it in the event she might be called as a witness? Ms. Currie testified that she believed this was the President's intent. And yet, the declaratory statements he made to her that Sunday morning were known by him to be false. How do we explain why Ms. Currie would suddenly be motivated to retrieve gifts President Clinton had given to Ms. Lewinsky--evidence which certainly would be subpoenaed by a federal court--and hide them under her bed? How do we explain why the President had such a intense personal interest in seeing to it that Ms. Lewinsky found a job in New York after--and only after--her name appeared on the witness list in the Paula Jones case? All of these actions--the false affidavit, the coaching of Betty Currie, the retrieval of the gifts, the effort to find Ms. Lewinsky a job--are at the core of the case to be made for obstruction of justice. The pattern of evidence clearly requires a complete examination in the Senate. The fourth and final Article of Impeachment deals with abuse of power by the President. To my mind, this is the most troubling, but also the most subjective. As chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Executive Office of the President I have experienced the Clinton Administration's ``stonewalling'' efforts first hand. And I must say, as I listened to the testimony of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr before the Judiciary Committee, I found his litany about the lack of cooperation by the White House Counsel office distressingly familiar. Clearly, the evidence offered in support of Article IV suggests a pattern of abuse of power. Sending loyal cabinet members and White House aides before the cameras to proclaim the President's innocence, when he knew their statements to be false, is surely despicable. The President's aggressive efforts to undermine the Independent Counsel's investigation were outrageous. But are these offenses impeachable? I have concluded that they are not. I return to Washington today with a heavy heart, but I am buoyed by the wonderful expressions of support I have received from so many--friends and total strangers alike--who have urged me to do what I believe to be right, whatever that decision might be. I also want to commend the thousands of individuals who have contacted my district and Washington offices during the last several weeks to express their views. Having answered scores of constituent phone calls myself, I am well aware that the people of southern Arizona are deeply divided or the prospect of Impeachment. I said at the outset that this is a decision I must make alone, based on my conscience and best judgment of the facts and the law. No Republic Congressional leaders have contacted me of attempted to influence my votes. Should there be political repercussion as a result of the votes I will cast tomorrow, so be it. Whatever the outcome of tomorrow's votes, it will certainly be one of the saddest moments in our nation's history. But I will cast my votes with confidence that I have done what I believe is right, for the sake of our nation,

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would say, yes, it was the understanding of the conferees that the waiver provision in subsection (d) of section 117 applies to the entire section 117.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the senseless and tragic death of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming, following by only a few months on the heels of an equally tragic murder in Jasper, Texas, reminds us of how imperfect are our efforts to eradicate violence, hatred and bigotry in our society. By all accounts, Matthew Shepard was a gentle young man, liked by all who knew him, an unlikely person to incite such mindless and brutal violence in others. How then does this occur? How do individuals get it fixed in their heads that it is open season on others simply because they are of a different color or different sexual orientation? I do not believe we should engage in an exercise of self-flagellation, but I do believe it is incumbent upon each of us to examine the words we use, the statements we condone, the rhetoric of bigotry we sometimes hear and simply let pass without condemnation because we are preoccupied with other things. We must not tolerate a message of hatred in our midst. We must not give bigotry the fertile soil it needs to flourish. A loving God has gathered Matthew Shepard to his bosom. He will never face such hate again. That same God may grant his mercy and forgiveness to those who killed him but a harsher justice awaits them in this life.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think it is very clear to those of us that have been around this process, and others speaking on the floor here have been around it a lot longer than I have, this is the kind of situation that we run into virtually every year at the end of the fiscal year. We always have the hopes that we are going to have every appropriation bill done by September 30, and we almost never do. At least in my recollection, I do not believe we have ever had all of them done by September 30. So this is not unusual, whether it is a Republican Congress or a Democrat Congress. This is the nature of the way the legislative process works. The old adage about the two things one does not want to watch if they have got a bad stomach is sausage being made or laws being made, it certainly applies when we get to the end of session. It is just the nature of the beast that we have to get enough pressure built up for both sides to get something done. So I think this bit of finger-pointing in either direction is really not very helpful. The fact is, this Congress has been here. We have been trying to get this done. The fact of the matter is that it has been hard to get the White House engaged. Heaven knows, they have had a few other things on their mind down there. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) a moment ago said the White House travels with the President, whatever President. That is true. To some extent, that is true for us when we travel to our districts. We are always able to be in touch with our staffs back here. But we cannot negotiate the same way. It is very difficult for the President to negotiate or have his people negotiating when the President is not directly in touch or engaged in other things, and the President needs to be directly engaged in these kinds of negotiations. We need to get this done so we can get the work of this Congress of this appropriations process done, and so that we can all get home and get this Congress over with. I think when it is all said and done, we can look back with considerable pride on this Congress and the work that we have done, on the legislation that we have passed, and the fact that we have achieved a balanced budget. I have no problems looking with pride on the record of this Congress.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for yielding me the time. Let me just respond to a few of the things. First, to my friend and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, he is right. I was wrong about the fact that in fiscal year 1995 all of the bills got done. I should have pointed out that whenever the situation was the same, that is, the reverse of what it is today, Republican- controlled Congress, Democrat President, when all of those first 10 years that I was here it was a Republican President and Democratic- controlled Congress, and then the Democrats were not able to get all the bills done, I think that would be the apples-to-apples comparison. The fact of the matter is, this is not an unusual process that we have been going through. The gentleman from Tennessee spoke about the fact that we had failed to pass a minimum wage. He seems to forget that we did pass a minimum wage last year, and not too many people believe, whether they are economists or otherwise or in business, that another minimum wage at this point is good for the Nation's economy and certainly not good for people at the low end of the income scale who would be the first ones that get laid off. Finally, as the gentleman from Louisiana pointed out in response to the gentlewoman from Connecticut's remarks, since when is it the President only gets involved in the process at the end? He comes to the Congress at the State of the Union address. He has not only a budget that he presents, but he has a whole list of issues and of achievements that he would like to see us, that he would like to achieve, issues that he would like us to deal with. So he is involved from the very outset. It is just that in this case he has chosen in the budget process to stay disengaged after proposing his budget. He has been disengaged throughout this process. But last year we talked about the achievements of this Congress. Last year we passed the Balanced Budget Act, which gave the first tax relief in 16 years to American citizens, a $500-a-year tax credit for every child that is under the age of 16, tax relief for those who paid their own health insurance premiums, tax relief for those who have to face the inheritance tax. So the accomplishments of this Congress are very, very substantial, and I am glad that the President has seen fit to sign some of those into law.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today marks a historic moment in U.S. economic history. Over fifty years ago, this nation embraced a multilateral, rule-based approach to our international trade policy with the creation of the GATT. Our acceptance of the role of multilateral institutions in international trade did not occur in a vacuum. It arose out of the ashes of the great depression and World War II. For two decades we witnessed the human damage which unilateral protectionism, nationalism and economic stagnation could bring, and we vowed never to let it happen again. During the Bretton Woods conference in 1948 the United States helped establish the framework for the creation of GATT. The objectives of the GATT system were simple: to promote trade liberalization and to guarantee stable conditions for market access on a nondiscriminatory basis by creating a set of transparent rules and dispute-settlement procedures. World leaders of that time believed--as I do today--that increased economic integration through trade would strengthen world stability and provide a bulwark of democracy in the emerging Cold War. And the system, although far from perfect, worked. Nations opened their markets and began to view other nations as trading partners, rather than antagonists. The results have been dramatic. For the past fifty years the world has experienced a degree of economic growth and stability which was unimaginable to our forefathers. In my view, this stability and prosperity are in no small part due to the growth of international commerce among nations. Since the adoption of the GATT we have been working to perfect the multilateral trading system. A great steep forward was taken when this Congress adopted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1995. With the adoption of this act, the GATT and its successor organization the World Trade Organization--moved from its inception as a forum for discussing tariff reductions for trade in goods to cover such diverse and important areas as intellectual property, services and agriculture. Most important, the GATT moved away from a slow and ineffective dispute resolution forum to one based on clear, objective criteria, enforced through a multilateral system of debate, consultation, negotiation, adjudication and consensus. Clearly one of the most important benefits of the WTO is the enhanced dispute settlement process. Under the old system, U.S. exporters with legitimate grievances against foreign trade barriers had to wait years before cases were resolved. The system was excruciatingly slow and--in the end--largely ineffectual. In contrast, the new dispute settlement procedures provide U.S. exporters with a relatively quick and effective system for resolving trade grievances. And it has worked largely to our advantage. The United States won far more cases than any other nation and the WTO has become an effective tool in our trade arsenal to open foreign markets and level the playing field for U.S. exporters. This brings us to where we are today. We have a rule based system that works to our advantage and a dispute settlement process that enables us to bring multilateral legitimacy to our international trade complaints. Today, when we win a case in the WTO, our position is clearly strengthened vis-a-vis our trading partners. But we must have compliance. The United States won two significant cases against the European Union. The first ruling determined that the EU banana import licensing and quota scheme was designed to favor European importers over U.S. suppliers. The second determined that the EU ban against U.S. beef was not based upon sound science but served as a non-tariff trade barrier to U.S. beef imports. But, rather than comply with these rulings and open their markets to U.S. products the EU is seeking to take advantage of a loop-hole in the system, a loop-hole which, if allowed to be exploited, will result in endless meeting and meaningless negotiations. It will also establish a precedent for compliance with WTO decisions which would seriously damage the effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism. What we are saying here today is no. We will not accept endless negotiations over true market access. When the WTO makes a ruling, we expect compliance within a reasonable period. If not, we will take actions consistent with the WTO to enforce our rights. That is what this historic legislation does. It sets out a clear framework for compliance, a framework which is completely consistent with our international commitments under the WTO. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and I urge my colleagues to show their support for American exporters and to protect our rights under the multilateral system. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule for H.R. 4761.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart but a clear conscience, I will vote today to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to proceed with a formal inquiry that could lead to the impeachment of President Clinton. The President's personal indiscretions, which he himself has essentially acknowledged, are not at issue. What is at issue are allegations of perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, and obstruction of justice, both in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and in sworn testimony before a federal grand jury. Judge Starr has suggested that there are eleven instances in which there is substantial and credible evidence of perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. The Judiciary Committee has suggested there may be as many as fifteen separate charges that warrant investigation. These are serious charges; the underlying behavior which may have led to these charges is important, but not central to the charges themselves. If proven true, these charges could constitute grounds for the President's impeachment and removal from office. In the meantime, Congress bears the burden of proof and the President is entitled to a presumption of innocence. While I have not supported President Clinton politically in his election campaigns, I have always tried to work with him and his Administration in a bipartisan manner and for the good of the country. I hope we can all put aside partisanship, maintain the proper decorum and avoid a rush to judgment. Removing a President from office is the most serious step any Congress can ever take since it sets aside the decision made by the voters. It has never happened before in 220 years of our history, and it must never be done lightly. However, ours is a nation governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. No person may be above the law, including--or perhaps especially--the Chief Executive of our country. Congress must carry out its constitutional responsibilities in a fair and dignified manner. As a potential ``grand juror'' who may be required to vote on Articles of Impeachment, I will maintain the highest degree of objectivity and consider fairly all the evidence ultimately gathered by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), if this was such an important provision, where was she Thursday night? She was not here to vote for it. She voted against it. She did not think it was important on Thursday when we had the bill up here. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman from Florida makes a very powerful argument for the assistance to the Haitian refugees. I believe that her argument is one that should be considered by this House. But, as she knows, there are people, people who have responsibility for the authorization of immigration legislation that have very strong views on the other side, and we just could not carry it in this bill. If it is as important as it is, and the administration agrees, and the Senate leadership agrees, and the House leadership agrees, it should be included in the omnibus bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his point, and I would like to advise all those on the floor and otherwise in our hearing range that the intention and the understanding of both the majority and the minority side is that when we complete the debate on this conference report there will likely be a motion to recommit. But the vote on both the motion to recommit and on final passage of the conference report will not occur until at least 8 o'clock this evening. So there will be approximately an hour and a half before we have any votes. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I might proceed. As I said, staff is obviously essential to getting any piece of legislation passed, but I want to pay special tribute to two staff people who will be leaving this body after having given it exceptional service. One is our congressional fellow, Francis Larken, who has worked for the subcommittee for the past year. He will be beginning his job as Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Secret Service in New York. Frank has been a tremendous asset to this subcommittee, bringing not only the experience and knowledge that he has coming from the Secret Service and from Treasury law enforcement, but also from local law enforcement. He has been an absolutely essential part of our subcommittee staff, and I am very grateful for the work that he has done. Mr. Speaker, the other one I want to pay tribute to is an individual who has worked for me now for nearly 8 years on my personal staff, but for the last 2 years has absolutely been essential to this legislation, and that is my good friend and staff person Jason Isaak. Jason has been with us since he came directly out of college at Baylor University. He began as an intern and has progressively worked up through the office to a legislative assistant, legislative director; He has directed many important pieces of legislation, but none so ably as the work that I have had to do from my office on this subcommittee. He will be leaving this month in order to take a position in Phoenix, Arizona, returns to the State from where he came, and he will be marrying Miss Beth Barr, a former Olympic medalist in swimming. Mr. Speaker, I have a statement I will put in the Record at this point regarding both of these individuals and the exemplary service they have given this Congress and our country. Mr. Speaker, this week the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee bids farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Francis J. Larkin, as he begins his assignment as Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Secret Service in New York. Frank has proven himself to be tremendous asset to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the experience he has gained with the Secret Service, from local law enforcement, as an emergency medical technician, and as a U.S. Navy SEAL. Frank began his fellowship in 1997 with the Senate counterpart of this Subcommittee, and so came to us with a strong background in the technical issues and folkways of the appropriations process. Working as a member of my subcommittee staff, Frank has brought a unique perspective to bear on many of the turbulent and sometimes arcane issues that we confront in the course of crafting appropriations bills, and in overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. In particular, Frank's advice and contribution has been invaluable on matters affecting law enforcement, national security, and the Year 2000 computer issue. Throughout his service here, Franks's consummate professionalism, good nature and level head have helped this Subcommittee and the Congress achieve progress on both short- and long- term policy and budgetary issues. Specal Agent Larkin has served me, this subcommittee, and the House well: we will miss him as a colleague and as a friend. All of us on the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee wish Frank and his family all the best as they begin their new lives in the New jersey/New York area. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to recognize someone very special to me who soon will be leaving Capitol Hill to pursue new personal challenges. Jason Isaak, my legislative director, has been with me for the past seven years. Upon graduating from Baylor University, Jason started as an intern in my office and has progressively worked his way up the ranks to his current position. He has managed many important issues for my office and has been my point person for Defense, Commerce, Justice, State and the Treasury Postal Service and General Government Appropriations. Jason is leaving Washington to take a position with a consulting firm in Phoenix and on October 24, 1998, will marry Miss Beth Barr, a former Olympic medalist in swimming. Mr. Speaker, Jason Isaak has made enormous contributions to our legislative process and will be truly missed for his professionalism, insight, and tireless dedication. As I mentioned, for seven years, he has been one of my key lieutenants, and I personally will feel a great loss when he leaves. Jason Isaak is truly a model for those who seek to constructively offer their intellectual skills and motivation to better this governmental process, and to do so with unflagging grace and good humor. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in wishing Jason Isaak the very best for a brilliant career, one in which I foresee him potentially returning to Congress as a member of this great body. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about the conference report on H.R. 4104. This is a bill and a conference that has had more lives than a cat. It has had the perils of Pauline. It has had every other travail along the way, but here we are and I hope that, finally, tonight we are going to be able to pass this legislation. I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee, those on both sides of the aisle, those who have supported us in various provisions. I know that at times when we get to this legislation, there are times when they cannot be with us on the vote that we need them on final passage. But we would not be here this evening if it were not for the work of the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the other members of the minority side and all the members of this side of the aisle as well, I might say, who have helped us get to where we are tonight. The work has paid off. The conference report that is before us I believe is one that can make us all very proud because it is about law enforcement, it is about the operations of the Federal Government, it is about what this appropriations bill should be about. Six days ago when we brought this rule for this conference report, it failed, because it was saddled with four controversial legislative riders. Well, this evening we bring this back with all four of those provisions stripped. Gone is the provision so vehemently objected to by the minority regarding the appointment of the Federal Election Commission's General Counsel. Gone is the provision expanding contraceptive coverage for Federal employees. Gone is the provision providing for assistance and easier admission for Haitian refugees to the United States. Gone is the provision in the bill dealing with child care in the Federal Government. Everyone with an interest in these provisions is treated the same. In that sense, I believe it is a fair compromise. These provisions are stripped. They are stripped because we simply could not get a conference report to the floor and we could not get it passed if we had these provisions there. I for one believe that some of these provisions have real merit. Particularly I have been a strong supporter of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the provisions that she had dealing with contraceptive coverage in the FEHBP. I also happen to believe that the time has come for us to change the way the General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission is appointed and that we should require a term for that person and we should require an affirmative majority vote for that person to be appointed or reappointed. But because politics has taken priority over the practical demands of governing, these items are not going to see the light of day--at least not in this appropriations measure. Quite honestly, it is not just that I am disappointed in this outcome. More than anything, I am fed up frankly with trying to negotiate these controversial legislative riders in an appropriations bill. As we have learned from this last week or from the last month, it is a no-win situation. This bill, which ought to be a relatively easy bill, has been through the wringer. I do not think there is any bill that has been brought to the floor this year that has been a more difficult bill to get to the floor and get passed. In case my colleagues have forgotten, let me replay a year in the life of the Treasury-Postal subcommittee. Our first rule providing for the consideration of the bill as reported went down in flames on June 24 of this year on a vote of 125-291. The second rule squeaked by, by a vote of 218-201. During House debate on July 16, we had 48 points of order raised against legislative provisions in the bill. Final passage of the bill barely eked out with a vote of 218-203. Believe me, you could actually hear bones practically breaking in this Chamber to get to 218 votes. Last week the rule, the first time we considered the rule for considering the conference report, bombed on a vote of 106-294. Those votes were not because we failed to do our jobs as appropriators, and I say that of every member of this subcommittee, both on the minority and majority side. Far from it. Let me be clear about this. The Department of Treasury likes this bill very, very much and they are anxious to have it signed into law. It is the best bill they have seen in years. The debate on this bill is never about money. It is about legislative riders and only about legislative riders. This bill and the conference report deserves better treatment than to be battered about over legislative matters. It is an outstanding appropriations measure. I know all the Members are familiar with the legislative riders that have been causing us so much trouble, but let me just tell you about a few other items, items that these Members have been voting against each time they voted against the rule or each time they voted against this bill or the conference report: We provide $1.95 billion for drug-related activities, including $185 million for the second year of the national media campaign. $20 million for the Drug Free Communities Act, so strongly supported by so many people on both sides of this aisle. $1.8 billion for the Customs Service, including $54 million for new narcotics detections technologies for both sea and land ports of entry. $15.2 million to address the badly needed maintenance needs of the air and marine interdiction programs. I am pleased to say that these funds will be reused to return three Black Hawk helicopters to operational status and to increase the flight hours for the entire Customs Black Hawk fleet from 18 hours per month to 30 hours per month. We have $3.2 million to fight crimes against children through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. We have $3.4 million to further combat child pornography and related Internet cyber smuggling. We have $7.9 billion for the Internal Revenue Service, including $211 million for ongoing efforts to revamp the IRS computer systems, $25 million for restructuring the way the IRS does business, $103 million for improved customer relations. And then there is $462 million for 14 new courthouse construction projects in order to accommodate the increasing demands we are placing on our judicial system. I can count on one hand the number of times that Members have offered appropriations-related amendments to this bill. Of the 14 amendments that were offered to this bill during House consideration, only three of them had anything to do with an appropriations matter. All the rest involved controversial legislative riders that have little or nothing to do with the work of this committee or this subcommittee. Well, I have an announcement. Not that it should come as any great surprise, but guess what? We are not going to be able to effectively govern if we continue to blur the lines between appropriations and authorization. We cannot run the Customs Service, the IRS, the Secret Service, the Office of National Drug Policy if we continue to hold this bill hostage to extraneous legislative matters. The conference report before us right now is one of which I am very proud and I believe every Member on both sides of the aisle can be very proud. It is not about controversial legislative riders. It is now about appropriations. It is now about funding these Federal agencies. It is about fiscal responsibility with respect to how we fund the agencies that come under the jurisdiction of this bill. It is about accountability to Congress and to the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Members to set aside their disagreement over specific legislative matters that deserve more deliberate review and action than being stuck into this appropriations bill. It is time to put aside the politics and do the right thing. Vote for an appropriations bill that is free of these controversial riders and deals with appropriations matters as it should deal. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous matter for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07OC98.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07OC98.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07OC98.003

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me begin by saying that we have had an extraordinary ordeal to get to where we are today, but as any Member that has ever worked on an appropriations bill, or any bill for that matter, knows, it requires the work of a lot of very good staff people to get us here. When we considered the bill on the floor, I paid tribute to all the staff on both the majority and the minority side, but this evening, Mr. Speaker, I want to just pay special tribute to two individuals who are going to be leaving the staff of this House of Representatives.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 579, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4104) 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, 1999, and for other purposes.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I once again thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for his assistance here with the rule, and all of the members of the Committee on Rules. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for the very nice words she said, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the nice words he said about the work that I have done, and the subcommittee Members and the staff. I reciprocate completely the respect and the strong feelings that I have for both the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I am very grateful for their assistance on this bill; assistance to a point, I guess, is where we are at. It does not extend all the way, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) made clear the other night and again this afternoon. The fact of the matter is, and let me just review again what we are talking about, the fact of the matter is, we have a conference report, yes. As everybody in this body knows, the process is you pass a bill, the Senate passes a bill, you have to go to conference, and you have a conference report. Each of those is a different bill. Each of those is different than the form it was in in the other body or the form it was when it first passed this House. So the conference report has to be seen separately. It is not accurate to simply say that this was a controversy, this position was in or some form of it was in the House and some form was in the Senate bill, so therefore, ergo, it has to be included in this bill. That is not the case here. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) well knows, and she spoke passionately, and I do agree with her position that we should extend contraceptive coverage to Federal employees beyond where it is today, but we are not, as some of the speakers talked about here this afternoon, not cutting off contraceptive coverage. We are not denying it. As the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) has pointed out, 84 percent of the plans provide it in some form or another, and 40 percent provide all the forms of contraceptive coverage. We are keeping the current law where it is today. There is no change in the current law, so we are neither expanding it nor moving backwards, we are keeping the law where it is today. If this was so important, if this provision was so important, is so important to those who have spoken so passionately about it here this afternoon, where were they last Thursday night? Yes, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) was there and she spoke to it, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), because of the Haiti position, and voted for the rule. But where were all these other people that this afternoon have said this is such an important provision? Why were they not there, speaking for the rule at that time? In fact, one of the people, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who was up here earlier, spoke against the rule last Thursday night. She said we should defeat it. Today she says it is very important to have that contraceptive coverage in there, that expansion of contraceptive coverage. It is important today, but it was not important last Thursday, or it was not as important. It is a moving marker. The field keeps moving. It is whatever there is today that we do not like in here is why we are going to be against this. I understand that the National Abortion Rights Action League has decided they will score this vote, but last Thursday night, when we had an opportunity to get to the floor with that in it and with the Haiti assistance, they did not score it. They did not think it was that important last Thursday night. I want to just say, in conclusion, that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was correct in the way he described the sequence of events that occurred on this bill. When we finished the conference meeting yesterday morning, I did say that it looks to me as though we do not have any deal. I cannot see any way out of this. Yet today, the dynamics of this conference report have changed. There is now a way to get this through the Senate and the House that I believe is possible, and this is the only way. I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) believes very strongly that we should not have a government shutdown, that these 163,000 Federal employees that are supported by this bill should go on collecting IRS taxes, should go along with drug enforcement. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is important. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the conference.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time to me, and it will not take me more than 1 minute. As I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin and his comments, it is correct that yesterday there was a suggestion of an offer of a deal that might be made, and it was to drop out the one provision that we do not like in there, and keep the other three that we do like. So, Mr. Speaker, the offer was: What's mine is mine, what's is yours is also mine. That is basically it. It is four out of four. We have got four provisions in there, three we really like, one we do not like. We have to be given the fourth one. That is their idea of a compromise. It is like moving the goalposts all the time. Now we have got a provision here, a bill on the floor, where we have dropped out that one that was so controversial last week and that caused most of the Democrats to vote against it. But that is not enough, there has to be something else. So they always keep moving the markers, and we have to pass a bill, we do have to get out here, and we have to get our job done, and we are going to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. As my colleague from Maryland has said, it is a good bill which provides for good money for law enforcement, and we should pass this bill.