Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time and further reserving the right to object, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I appreciate the assistance that the minority has given in facilitating our consideration of the appropriation bills and the motions to instruct conferees and to get us moving to conference as quick as possible, but I do not think that is the question that we have here. The motion was not made in a timely fashion, it is one that I object to, and it is not one, is not our position, does not represent our position.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of objection, the gentleman is correct. Only moments, not even minutes, almost seconds before we began this discussion we got the revised or the new motion to instruct, and it was obviously different than we have been led to believe earlier. And it is true that when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) went down with the piece of paper I did think it was going to be the revised motion to instruct, however I was considering at that moment whether I should object to that. I did not. This gives me another opportunity to at least raise this. I would like to at least ask either the gentleman from Maryland or the gentleman from Wisconsin about whether or not we would be able, if we are going to use this motion, this revised motion dealing with Y2K, whether we would be able to expedite the discussion on this so that we would not require a lot of time here on the floor this morning.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, talk about ``deja vu all over again.'' It seems I have been here many times before, speaking out on Campaign Finance Reform. By now, I hope all my colleagues believe that after all the hours of debate in the past several weeks that we have fully explored this issue in the House of Representatives. My concerns with reforming the system remain as they were the previous times I stated my views. Our campaign financing laws need improvement, but I do not agree with taxpayer financing of campaigns nor limits on political speech. Increased disclosure will cure many ills in the system; and there are other reforms needed also. During consideration of Campaign Finance Reform over the past several weeks, I have again to require at least half of a federal candidate's campaign funds come from the state in which he runs. I have voted to make individual's contributions as important as those of political action committees. I have voted to make sure that only citizens vote and that only citizens can make campaign contributions. I have voted to ban soft money in federal campaigns. I have voted for increased and more timely disclosure of campaign contributions. I have voted to ensure that a wealthy candidate cannot use his personal funds to buy an election in a contest with a candidate with limited personal funds. And I have voted against any attempt to limit citizens' right to political speech. None of this is new to my constituents in Southern Arizona; I've made these same points numerous times. In the final analysis, it is up to the integrity of the candidates and to the vigilance of our citizens to ensure fair and honest elections. No matter how many laws we pass, there is always a weak spot that can be exploited by those who will. Today, I cast my vote both for the ``freshman bill'' and for the Doolittle bill because, those two most closely reflect the changes I believe will improve our system. Neither is the total answer, but voting for the Shays-Meehan Bill goes against everything I believe in terms of preserving freedom of political speech. I may not like the fact that groups can ``attack'' me any more than I like having people burn the flag. But freedom to band together to criticize elected officials is a right that should not be taken away. The Supreme Court has already ruled on where the limits lie and I do not think we need to further limit speech. Nor can the advocates of Shays-Meehan expect the public to take seriously their effort when, in order to keep their coalition intact, they rejected all efforts to include in their reforms the largest single player on the political scene--labor unions. In retrospect, we should probably look to creating a Commission with the powers given the Military Base Closing Commission. Since Congress has 535 ``experts'' in running campaigns, it may take something like that to enact reasonable, constitutional reforms.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an international organization funded by this bill--the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As many of my colleagues know, the OECD was founded in 1961 as a successor to the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). Since its inception, the OECD has never strayed too far from its core missions: to see that its member nations achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment, to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non- member nations, and to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis. The OECD continues to do important economic work. For example, it is working on the Asian economic crisis. It is making an effort to help Russia get on the right economic track. The OECD is also the organization that developed the Anti-Bribery Convention now pending before Congress. OECD economic studies are considered crucial to understanding the functioning of the global economy. It is doing cutting edge work on regulatory and tax reform. And the OECD is taking the lead on understanding the impact that electronic commerce will have on global economic issues. In short, the OECD is as important today to its member nations as it was at its inception. Nonetheless, the OECD understands that in today's tough budgetary environment, they need to find ways to do more with less. The OECD is reforming on its own initiative. In fact, I believe it has shown real leadership in this area. As its internal reforms continue, I believe we should take a close look at how these reforms are being implemented, and perhaps even hold it up as example for other international organizations. I would also like to draw the Chairman's attention to the work of the OECD Development Center. Over the years, the OECD Development Center has served as a bridge between OCED nations and emerging economies around the world. The Center's reputation as an ``honest broker,'' along with its commitment to promoting market-opening reforms, makes it an excellent resource to policy makers in developed nations and developing countries alike. Mr. Chairman, the OECD and the OECD Development Center are important to U.S. international economic interests. I am hopeful that their important work will continue.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote on amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) be rescinded, and I demand a recorded vote on that amendment to be taken immediately following the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and a strong advocate of expanded trade opportunities.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment today. We have heard phrases like it will change our laws, as though somehow the U.S. sovereignty was at stake, but we know that is not the case. United States sovereignty is quite intact here. Let us just look for a moment at what really happens under the WTO or the NAFTA if there is a ruling against us because some State has taken or local government has taken some kind of action. The United States can choose to do absolutely nothing. We can accept the consequences of it, and then the consequences would be that another government can take, under the NAFTA or the WTO, action against us, can suspend some of the trading rights that they have granted, you say, because some local government has decided to do the same. So the United States can do nothing, or we can accept it. We can abide by it but we can still do nothing about the local government. We can negotiate a compensation package where we have to pay compensation to the other country but we still have to do nothing. The fact of the matter is, so far it has never been used by the United States, but let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we better keep this arrow in our quiver. What if, for example, tomorrow the State of California were to say they do not like Japan and they were to ban all trade with Japan? The hundreds of billions of dollars that would be involved here would mean a massive tax on the rest of us to compensate for that. Now, we have heard about Nelson Mandela and South Africa. The fact is, that was coordinated and done by this Congress, by the United States Government acting in concert with other countries. It was not done by the State of Massachusetts. It was not because of some local government doing it. It was the fact that this Congress took the steps and our executive branch got the efforts of other countries in step with us to make sure that we had this kind of action. Mr. Chairman, let me just make it very clear I am a strong advocate of States' rights. I offered an amendment earlier on that subject. Article III, section 8 says the power to regulate foreign commerce and the commerce between States shall belong to the Federal Government. It is right here in the Constitution. If ever anybody would read the Constitution, it would be very clear that States' rights works two ways, and the Federal Government has the right to regulate this commerce. We should vote ``no'' on this to maintain the ability of the United States to trade and to regulate commerce. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), who has been a strong advocate of expanded trade opportunities.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things that I want to clarify. Earlier the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) referred to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough). That amendment was offered last week on VA-HUD dealing with the Federalism issue. That was absolutely correct. The gentleman from Massachusetts went on to say how this is a stake through the heart, that we are going to drive it through again and again and again. There is a difference between what was offered last week and this one. My amendment makes it clear that no funds in this or any other act; while the amendment last week applied only to the single bill under consideration--VA-HUD--this applies to any funds that are appropriated in any act. So this really does cover the whole issue of Federalism. It puts it to rest once and for all.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, my inquiry was has the Chair asked for further amendments to title VIII? Is it now appropriate for me to ask for other amendments?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, are you then asking if there are further amendments to title VIII?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, quoting from the Constitution of the United States: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.'' That is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. My amendment today goes to the very heart of that and would say that the executive order issued 2 months ago by the President, Executive Order No. 13083, could significantly expand the role and power of the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, a couple of examples of what this executive order would do: It justifies the creation of a national standards ``when there is a need'' as determined by the Federal Government. Second, it would eliminate language in President Reagan's federalism executive order regarding preemption of state law by the Federal Government. Third, it puts the Federal Government in the position of determining when States have not adequately protected individual rights. Even though the President has talked about suspending this executive order and may have done so today, I have not had it confirmed that the order suspending it was signed. I believe that Congress needs to speak very effectively to this issue, as the mayors and the governors, and county officials have done. We must say that we should kill this executive order to make sure that it does not raise its head again. Even the President's chief of staff colorfully described the administration as having messed up by not consulting with governors, mayors, and other state and local government leaders before they issued this executive order. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), who has already begun to hold some hearings on this matter, and I know that the Committee on the Judiciary is going to examine what the effects of this executive order, if it is reinstituted, would be. Hopefully, the administration will consult with them in addition to the state and local officials that were left out of the process. But by suspending Executive Order 13083, the administration has already demonstrated that it was premature and ill-advised. And I say it is time to put this House on the record as saying we agree and we do not expect you to implement that executive order, Mr. President. We should act now because we do not know when he might act to put it back in place and we would not have an opportunity then to offer that. That brings me to another reason for offering this amendment at this time. There is an amendment which will follow this offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) that would prohibit funding both for this executive order and the executive order that codifies administration policy, does not change Federal law or create any affirmative action program, but would codify the current Federal practices with respect to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unfortunately, because this amendment is protected by the rule, it cannot be divided. There is no way to get a vote separately on these two totally different issues that are out there. I think most Members in this House want to have a clean vote on these two issues separately. Now, let me just take a moment of my time, since only 20 minutes is permitted under the rule to debate the Hefley amendment, to say why I think that we should vote aye on this, on federalism, and no on the one dealing with sexual orientation. By passing the Kolbe amendment, it would make it clear in the next debate when we get to the Hefley debate that there is one subject and one subject only that is under discussion; and that is this simple question: Should discrimination be permitted in the Federal workplace based on sexual orientation. And that should be and will be the only question that is involved. The debate on that amendment is not going to be about affirmative action. It is not going to be about quotas. It should not be about giving the right to sue. It is not about giving the access of any individual to the EEOC or the Civil Rights Commission, because the executive order and the law does none of those things. Individuals have no such right, no such access under current law. So when my colleagues vote on Hefley, they have to ask themselves the very simple question: Do they believe that Federal employment supervisors and managers, those who have the responsibility for hiring and firing and promoting individuals, should be able to hire, to not hire, or to fire, or to fail to promote solely on the basis of sexual orientation? Members need to ask themselves would they fire someone in their office solely because they learned that that individual was a homosexual, or conversely, that they were heterosexual? Now, many in this body, in fact well over half of this body, have signed their own pledge of nondiscrimination within their offices. So I would ask this question of all of those who have signed that pledge: Do they believe that if a manager in a Federal executive agency in the branch of the Federal Government should be held to a lesser standard than they are willing to hold themselves to? Think about it. An aye vote on Hefley after we have disposed of this amendment, the Kolbe amendment, which would say no money shall be spent to implement the Federal executive order on federalism, that after we have voted to dispose of that, a vote on Hefley would be simply putting this body, the House, on record as saying that discrimination on sexual orientation solely because of an individual's sexual orientation is okay. Do we want that? Do my colleagues want that? I do not think so. I urge Members to vote aye on Kolbe and no on Hefley.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. May I inquire as to where we are in terms of amendments?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing my skills in that area. I also want to correct one comment that was made, I think erroneously, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) when he was speaking not about this amendment in particular but about the amendment which is going to be offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and which includes this provision on Federalism. The gentleman from New York made reference to the fact that defeat of this amendment could be a step towards expanding rights for individuals who are homosexual. This act, this executive order has nothing, nothing to do with that. It has only to do with the hiring practices of Federal employment managers. It does not give anybody a right to sue. It does not give anybody a right to go to the EEOC or the Civil Rights Commission. It does not grant any right which is not in law now. It does not create any protected class. It in no way expands any rights whatsoever. This only codifies what are currently the employment practices now in the Federal agencies and codifies them in a single place. It does nothing to change the law as it exists today. Let me come back to the Federalism issue here. I mentioned earlier that the chief of staff of the White House said it was a mistake. ``We screwed up,'' that was his quote there. And good reason that he said that, because indeed, when President Reagan issued his executive order on affirmative action in 1987, he took several specific steps, steps that placed the onus on Federal agencies to consult the Constitution to make certain that ``an action does not encroach upon the authority reserved for the States.'' He made sure that it said that they must adhere to the notion that Federal actions are not superior to State actions and that exemptions to Federal regulations should be granted on that basis. That same Reagan Executive Order also said that ``Federal regulations should not preempt State law unless the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law.'' Let me just conclude by saying this executive order from President Clinton is quite different than that previously issued. It fundamentally alters the Federal relationship that has been developed through the years. These changes were made without consultation with governors, mayors, or county commissioners. We should make it clear that this revision should not be the law of the land. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. As the gentleman from Illinois said, I did serve in the Vietnam War. I was a Navy officer on swift boats patrolling rivers and canals down in the delta region. But let me make it very clear that in my view having served in Vietnam does not give me any special qualification to have an opinion on this issue. Maybe it gives me some background on which to draw in making a decision. And I would use it to draw on a historical perspective. In 1991, it was President Bush that proposed a road map, and I was very much involved in the Congress at the time that was being considered, for improving our relations with Vietnam. To follow the road map, Vietnam had to take steps to help us account for our missing servicemen. In return for the cooperation, the United States was to move incrementally towards normalized relations. Progress was made, and in 1994 a second step was taken when President Clinton lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam. In 1995, formal diplomatic relations were established between the United States and Vietnam. Today's vote is just one more step along this road. As Ambassador Pete Peterson has said, if we grant this waiver today, he will have some of the tools he needs to convince Vietnam's leaders to improve human rights conditions, to continue support for the resolution of our POW and MIA cases that are still unresolved, and to maintain their commitment to liberalizing their economic and political institutions. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has always recognized a clear distinction between being at peace and being at war. We cannot, we must not forget the pain and suffering of war. But by granting this waiver and advocating for even greater liberalization of Vietnamese society, we can say to Americans who served in Vietnam that their commitment is vindicated as economic and political freedom takes root in that country. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4250, the Patient Protection Act. This bill lays an excellent foundation and contains many important pro-patient provisions. This bill adapts for the changing health care market without the unintended consequences of increased costs, increased bureaucracies and an explosion of lawsuits. This bill expands access to health care for millions of Americans, makes health care more affordable for working families and small businesses, and holds health insurance companies accountable for their decisions about your care. First, the Patient Protection Act allows individual's access to the best type of health care based on their and their families' needs. Women would have direct access, without having to go through a gatekeeper, to an ob/gyn as their primary care physician. It would also allow families to utilize a pediatrician for the health care of their children without the interference of an insurance gatekeeper. The Patient Protection Act also makes it easier for individuals to learn more about what their health care plan covers and discuss options with our doctors to determine the best form of treatment. This bill requires health plans to cover emergency room care for conditions which a prudent layperson would view as requiring emergency treatment. Second, the Patient Protection Act will make health more affordable for individuals. Most people without health insurance can not afford to pay for health benefits. They usually work in small businesses or are self-employed, but cannot afford to purchase health care insurance. This bill will make it affordable for small business owners to provide their employees with health insurance coverage. Through the creation HealthMarts, and Community Health Centers Organizations, Association Health Plans, and Medical Savings Accounts, small business will have the same access to health insurance as large business, therefore creating a more affordable health insurance market for workers. Workers that currently are caught between being too poor for Medicaid, but not cannot afford health insurance. And third, the Patient Protection Act makes health plans accountable for the health care services that are provided. Through the creation of an expedited review process--both internally and externally-- individuals will be able to receive the care they need first, rather than being thrown into a long, drawn-out legal process controlled by trial lawyers, with no resolution until long after they've been harmed or killed. This is the only bill that truly relies on getting patients treated first in hospital rooms, rather than in the courtroom. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to vote in support H.R. 4250, the Patient Protection Act, and urge my colleagues to join us in protecting patients and guaranteeing choices without the heavy-hand of big government and provide patients, especially the 42 million un-insured, with access to affordable health care, when they need it, where they need it, and with whom they need it.