Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, over the past several months, Congress and the American people have endured a wrenching debate concerning the issue of ``partial-birth'' abortions. Like most Americans, I do not support abortion on demand. In fact, I am opposed to any late term abortion by whatever method, unless it is performed to save the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse consequences to her health. The Congressional debate has centered, thus far, around legislation introduced by Congressman Charles Canady, H.R. 1122, the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1997. This bill would federalize the regulation of abortion, a matter historically left to the discretion of the states. And, for the first time in medical history, it would ban a specific procedure, known medically as a dilation and extraction (D&X). I could not support this legislation when it came to the floor of the House of Representatives earlier because of its uncompromising language banning this specific late term abortion method even in a case where a pregnancy goes tragically wrong and the woman's health is placed in serious peril. Recognizing the need for some answers in a debate that has generated more heat than light, I joined my colleagues, Congressman Jim Greenwood and Steny Hoyer, as a cosponsor of a bill which would prohibit all late-term abortions, regardless of the method used to terminate the abortion. This bill, H.R. 1032, the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act, applies to all abortions performed after ``viability'', defined as that time when a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. The bill provides an exception only in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse consequences to her health. Unlike H.R. 1122, I believe this legislation correctly puts the emphasis on when abortions are performed, not how they are performed. It does not try to put Congress in the inappropriate role of determining the correctness of one particular medical procedure. Instead, this bill makes it clear that throughout the course of a pregnancy, prior to viability, medical decisions regarding a woman's personal care and treatment must lie with the patient, her physician, and her family--not lawmakers in Washington. H.R. 1032, which I support, would prohibit all post viability abortions even if the woman suddenly decided she no longer wanted the child or was emotionally unable to care for a child. I cannot and I will not justify a late term abortion in these instances. However, when an abortion is medically necessary, I want every woman to have available to her the procedure that is the safest. Today, we are here to vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 1122, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; however, I will not vote to override that veto since H.R. 1122 does not include an exception for situations where the mother's health or life is in danger. I will continue, however, to work to pass legislation to ban all late term abortions while protecting the life of the mother.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, a few hours ago the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and I were clashing over the issue of normal trade relations for China. But at this moment, I want to rise to associate myself completely with the remarks that she just made about our distinguished ranking minority member, Sid Yates. It is going to be hard to imagine a debate on this bill next year without Sid Yates being involved in it, but we shall survive somehow. But his spirit will certainly linger with us as we continue the debate next year and in following years on this legislation. His advocacy, not only for the arts, but his advocacy for national parks and for preservation of lands in the United States has been extraordinary. And even though I have disagreed with him many times on many of the issues, I have always admired the perseverance that he has shown, the knowledge base that he comes from, and as the gentlewoman said, the civility with which he always approaches these issues. It is a lesson which many of us in this body who are so much newer, and we are all much newer than Sid Yates around this place, know that we could all take to heart.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to use a moment to address the amendment at hand. Back to the business of the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, we have worked very hard, under the chairman's leadership, to address the operation on the maintenance shortfalls which exist at so many of our national parks, our Fish and Wildlife Refuges, on our other lands which are heavily utilized by the public. No one wants our parks or forests or refuges to deteriorate. These represent in many cases some of the most spectacular and beautiful treasures that we have in our country. In my own State of Arizona, the Grand Canyon park is certainly one of the most spectacular natural splendors in the world. We cannot and must not let the quality of this park slip through our hands. Yet the increasing pressure of the public is enormous. We have an enormous backlog of capital needs in all of our land management agencies and this is a problem that demands our attention, even as we seek to balance the budget and struggle to reduce our national debt. The utilization of our public lands is rising. We cannot expect appropriated funds to meet all of the increasing needs. We need to look for other solutions to this very troubling problem. That is what the fee demonstration program is about. I believe it is having a positive effect. I have to tell my colleagues it is in my area. It is used in one of the national forests in the heart of my district, and it was unpopular with a lot of people. But I think as people have begun to see that the money is staying there in the forest, that it is being used to address the problems of maintenance and operation that is so badly needed to build new restrooms for example, to build new trails, I think people begin to understand this is good. It is a user fee that really is doing what it ought to do. In Arizona, the Grand Canyon expects to collect $38 million in new money over 3 years. And at the Grand Canyon, this will be used to improve a transit center, a maintenance facility, back country trails, archaeological site, stabilization initiatives. Eliminating the program is not going to help address the critical backlog that we have on our Federal lands. So I hope that my colleagues will think very seriously about this amendment. Yes, we need to have the evaluation of it, but we need also to have some more time for it. We need to get more data. So I strongly oppose this amendment and hope that we will keep the demonstration fee program in effect. It is doing what Congress intended it do. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for his comments, and I would point out, as the gentleman mentioned, they have the authority now to have those fees, and that is absolutely true. But the reason they have not all too often is because it takes resources away from the parks or the forests to collect them, someone who could be doing law enforcement or building trails, and they could not keep the money in the park. Now they have the incentive to do so, because the money gets to stay in the park or national forest to do exactly the kind of maintenance and operational backlog work that needs to be done. So I think the gentleman is exactly correct.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I want to congratulate him for his leadership on this issue, and for the efforts that he has made through the years to help us maintain normal trade relations with China. He has been a giant in this fight. Madam Speaker, I also want to respond to the comments that were just made by the gentlewoman from California, my friend and an individual whom I have a lot of respect for. She asked the question at the end, ``Are we into denial? When are we going to stop denying reality?'' I might turn the question around and say, when instead are we going to get out of the time warp that this body has been in with regard to U.S.-China relations, a time warp that goes back to a deep, dark Cold War era and does not recognize the massive changes that are taking place not just in China and the United States but in the region around it. On the figures of trade that the gentlewoman pointed to, Madam Speaker, I would note that those trade figures do not include what is generally considered greater China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. We have a very different picture when we look at that. That really is the China that we are talking about as a larger trading China. But even then, I concede there is still a trade deficit with greater China. And so I would ask the gentlewoman, at what point is the deficit small enought that it is acceptable to trade? When we have a trade deficit of only $10 billion, of $5 billion? Or is it only acceptable to trade with countries with whom we have a trade surplus? That would be unrealistic. And so I do not think that that really should be the criteria for maintaining normal trade relations. But I want to address my remarks, if I might, Madam Speaker, to some other issues here. We are going to hear a lot--we have already heard--a lot of rhetoric about China and U.S.-Chinese relations. Unfortunately, most of this rhetoric tends to focus not on the larger picture but instead upon 100 little anecdotes. Those who want to cut off relations with China pursue their case here on the House floor with stories of gulags and imports produced by forced labor. They weave stories of Chinese government conspiracies to steal American jobs through unfair competition. They talk about individual stories of forced abortions and political repression. They take these anecdotes, these hundreds of little snapshots, and they lay them side by side until a verbal collage emerges, one which is designed to incite fear and intimidation in the hearts of the American people. Any picture that emerges makes our hearts ache. We can see the exploited workers. We can visualize each individual story of political or religious repression. We see the tanks in Tiananmen Square. And we find ourselves affirming the tale of a Chinese army using trade with the U.S. to finance a massive military buildup, a buildup which somehow one day will lead to our own demise. Add to this the allegations of Chinese money illegally flowing into our electoral politics and we have all the stuff of a John LaCarre novel. In a Nation attuned to sound bites and slogans, this is a compelling story. But I submit that while these anecdotes may be individually accurate, woven together they tell only part of the story. The real story in China is one of slow and steady progress toward open markets and individual empowerment. Two decades ago virtually every aspect of Chinese society was under state control. Today over half of China's output is generated by private enterprise. Eighty-five percent of China's workers are employed in the private sector. The development of a strong, vibrant private sector, particularly in southern China, continues to draw power away from Beijing. Economic liberalization, the growth of trade, and economic links with the United States over the past two decades has promoted freedom for the Chinese people. With growing employment opportunities in nonstate enterprises, millions of Chinese have obtained the basic freedom to select their own employment and to change jobs when dissatisfied with working conditions or wages. That is why I am convinced a policy of engagement is working on behalf of the Chinese people as well as in our own national interests. If we look at the big picture, we will see a policy of engagement that is slowly and steadily working to liberalize China economically and expose the Chinese to Western values. Madam Speaker, it is time we moved beyond the anecdotes, the rhetoric, and the snapshot mentality of looking at U.S.-China relations. It is time we begin to think about a multi-year renewal of normal trade relations. I urge my colleagues to begin this process today by voting ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 121.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and commend the gentleman from Nebraska for drafting it. For too long we in the United States have misjudged, the U.S.-Japan relationship. In fact, I think Japan has misjudged the relationship as well. I remember just a few years ago, as I think many in this body remember, U.S.-Japan relations, particularly our trade relations, were very much at the forefront of American political thinking. One could not turn on a television, could not open a newspaper, could not buy a magazine or look at what was the latest on the New York Times best seller list without reading about the coming Japanese century or how America was losing its trade war with Japan. The Japanese economy was the envy of Asia, emulated by its neighbors and held up as a model for economic growth in the 21st century. At that time the Japanese economy was seen as a danger to our own economic prosperity. How quaint that picture seems today. How almost we wished that that were the case again today. But today it is a vastly different picture. Today we find a Japan that seems to be mired in perpetual economic stagnation. Year after year of a no-growth economy is beginning to take its toll as unemployment continues to rise and credit becomes more difficult to attain. Underlying it all is a massive public debt, estimated by some to be as much as 250 percent of the gross domestic product; over $600 billion in nonperforming bank loans; corporate liabilities exceeding equity by an average of four to one; and an overvalued property market. Yet most Japanese seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the extent of the economic crisis or the impact it is having on the rest of us in this globe that we all occupy. If you walk down the streets of Tokyo today, you do not find a populace in fear for the future. Stores are filled with the latest merchandise, public works projects continue and virtually everywhere you look are the signs of a prosperous and successful society. There seems to be little concern for the future, or perhaps an unwillingness to admit it. There seems to be a quiet contentment with the prospects of subpar economic growth into the near future. This, Mr. Speaker, is not and must not be acceptable to the rest of the world, for our futures depend on the Japanese ability to solve their economic problems. It is time for Japan to recognize its pivotal role in Asia. Japan must confront honestly its own domestic economic problems and assume its proper leadership role in southeast Asia and the rest of Asia. Japan can help pull Asia out of its economic doldrums and help to serve as one of the world's leading engines of economic growth. But it can do so only if the Japanese government and people have the political courage to do that. This resolution that my colleague has drafted calls upon Japan to continue deregulation of its economy, to open its market to foreign goods as well as adopt policies to strengthen the yen. I fully support these efforts and hope my colleagues will support this important resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would concede the gentleman's point of order but would make the following observation. I would concede it based on the rule which we adopted that these projects are at the same time unauthorized. I would, however, note that in every case we simply follow the priorities the Judicial Conference and so we are not substituting our own judgment, but the gentleman's point of order would be correct on this. I regret very much saying that, that that would be the case.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief on this. The gentleman is correct, I do accept this. As he knows, and he and I have had considerable discussions, I have considerable concerns about the substance of his amendment, which was adopted in Committee. He did win that fair and square. This amendment has no real effect because it only effects funds in this bill dealing with the Postal Service. It simply maintains its place for the conference. But I do have real concerns about the substance of the amendment, and the gentleman knows that. But I accept this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not sure, quite frankly, in trying to read this amendment, whether it really has any impact at all, since it states that no funds in the act shall be made available or shall be used to make any loan or credit in excess of $250 million. Since we do not appropriate money for the loans or credit in this act, it is not clear to me at all, without a further limitation on salaries of the personnel of the Department, whether or not this really has any impact. But on the assumption that it will indeed have an impact, let me just say that I am very opposed to putting such a sweeping and substantive amendment on this legislation. If the gentleman's intent is correct and it is worded correctly, he would prevent them from administering funds for the Economic Stabilization Fund but it does not spell out any conditions for turning the funding back on. So it is just nothing in excess of $250 million which, as we know, in modern day times is not a lot of money when you are looking at trying to stabilize the currency of a country. This is an overreaction, Mr. Chairman. It is an overreaction to the concerns about legislative oversight of the ESF, which is considerable, but it should not be a part of this bill. The primary purpose of the fund is to give the Department of Treasury, which has the expertise, the training and the institutional knowledge to deal with an economic crisis, the ability to respond to unforeseen shifts in currency markets. Now, this is not new. The ESF has been around for over 60 years as a vital tool for defending the American dollar and protecting U.S. economic and security issues. It was critical in stopping the dollar turbulence from 1987 to 1990, and the fund continues to be the Department of Treasury's main currency stabilizing force. It has been used again, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Vermont, in Mexico. It has been used again in the crisis in Asia. While it is important that Congress continue its oversight function to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly administered, it is completely unrealistic and unworkable for the U.S. Congress to preapprove each and every use of this fund. Let me just give you an example of this. At this time, we have 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea. The border area between the North and South is constantly on the verge of conflict. The North Koreans certainly want to take advantage of any weakness that they would see in South Korea, and that would include economic weaknesses. Our troops, our men and women who are stationed in Korea, would be in jeopardy from a national security standpoint if there was a complete financial breakdown, an economic breakdown in South Korea. There is no way that Congress can convene to determine whether or not to stabilize that economic situation on the spur of the moment. Given the current economic crisis that we are seeing in Southeast Asia and the recent saber rattling between Pakistan and India, this is not the time to take away this important economic tool that the administration has. I cannot think of anything that we would be more ill-advised to do on an appropriations bill, something as sweeping as this, as far-reaching as this, and one which would have such an enormous economic impact. I would hope this body would reject firmly and decisively the Sanders amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is quite correct. As drafted, this amendment is quite germane, because it is simply a funds limitation to this act, as I think she knows, and as is suggested by her comments that she is looking for a placeholder. There are no funds appropriated in this act for the Postal Service for this purpose, or virtually any other purpose, for that matter, except for a very small appropriation that we give for the overseas mail and for mail for the blind. Therefore, it does not have any real effect on the bill, but would certainly sustain or keep her position in the conference committee. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, if one was inclined to be opposed to this amendment after the impassioned plea of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), it would be very hard to oppose him. Mr. Chairman, let me just state for the record that our committee, our subcommittee, has recognized the problem. We have been talking with and working with the Archives. This has been, for a long time, an ongoing problem we have had with the National Personnel Records Center, going back more than 25, almost 30, years, since the great fire took place there and destroyed so many records. The Archives is very much committed to changing the way it does its work at the Personnel Records Center, and the key part of that change is going to be the infusion of information technology in the receipt, control, and response to the 1.75 million requests for information it receives on an annual basis. That is going to take place over the next 5 years at a cost of about $6 million. The goal is to be able to have retrieval of information, case retrieval time, in less than 10 days for every individual. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that this amendment is required for this coming fiscal year, but I would like to accept the amendment and work with the author and with the ranking member of the minority side and others to try to achieve in conference what we all agree is the goal that we want to achieve.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I really think this amendment is big spending at its very worst. As the distinguished chairman of the full committee has pointed out, the FEC's budget has grown by 85 percent since 1991. The President is requesting an additional 15 percent for the forthcoming year, 1 year, and that is what this amendment would provide. We have recommended in our bill, we have $33.7 million for the FEC in fiscal year 1999. That is an increase of 9 percent, more than $2 million over the amount that is available in the current fiscal year. So we gave the President a good more than half of what he thought that this agency should have. Let us be honest. If we look at any of the spending bills, a 9 percent increase in any spending bill, even those that have as much popular support such as the National Institutes of Health is a large, substantial increase, especially given the budgetary constraints that we are under right now. But to talk of giving an agency and this agency of which against I think there lies serious questions of its management, to talk about giving them a 15 percent increase when we have not really seen the reforms that we think need to be made to this agency, I think it is just unthinkable. The sponsors of the amendment say they are concerned about the enforcement part of FEC. But I am sure they are aware the committee includes an increase of $1.12 million for enhanced enforcement by the Federal Elections Commission. So this would add another $2.8 million to the increase that is already in there. While I certainly agree that enforcement ought to be a top priority of the FEC, and there are clearly some problems as it relates to enforcing our campaign finance laws, and that most lay here at the foot of Congress itself, I do not agree that simply throwing more money at the FEC is the way to fix it. The fact of the matter is, funding for the Office of General Counsel, which is the enforcement arm of the FEC, has increased even more than the rest of the FEC, slightly more, by 88 percent. Its staffing has increased by more than 28 percent. Surely, given the problems that exist there, I do not think that additional revenue is really going to resolve the problem. We initiated an independent audit of the Federal Elections Commission, and of its operations and management. The purpose of the audit is to address the issue of resources as it relates to their ability to meet its statutory responsibility. This audit is under way, and we anticipate the results in January of 1999. It will include a thorough review of all of their enforcement activities, including the Office of General Counsel, and I am optimistic that, based on what we find in this audit, we will be in a position to address from an appropriations viewpoint, if the authorizing committees do not, the issues raised by this audit and the issues that have been raised, I think correctly, on this floor for and against additional funding for the Federal Elections Commission. But I do not think we should go with this money, on top of the money we are already increasing their budget by, until we at least are able to see how these concerns bear out in that audit. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. We have done the best we can, given the resources we have. This additional increase will take severely from some other areas that I know are important to other Members, including maintenance and rehabilitation of buildings. So I would urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, but I do seek to speak against it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would make the point, as the Chair correctly said, a Member may expand a point of order. It is correct that an individual may make a point of order against certain provisions of a paragraph. But if a Member chooses to make the point of order and believes that there is something in that paragraph which is not permissible, under the Rules of the House, the point of order lies against the entire paragraph. And I make the point of order against the entire paragraph and would ask for a ruling.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on my point of order?

Mr. KOLBE. I would insist the point of order lie against the entire paragraph, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland made a point of order, I believe, against line 2 beginning with ``Provided''.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and will give the time back if he wants to followup. The gentleman from Oklahoma makes one point very well, and that is the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, referred to these people as people who were evading the law. They were not evading the law. They were complying with the law. The administration changed the law through its Executive Order. The second misstatement. He referred to them as manufacturers. They are not manufacturers. These are people that import goods. Whether they import guns or they import television sets or they import dolls or they import shirts, they are importers. They are not manufacturers of these guns. And the third point I would make is the gentleman referred to the fact that we should not sanction these people getting around the rule of law. Well, if we are going to talk about the rule of law, how about the Gun Control Act of 1968? That is where Congress established which the last I heard Congress was the law making body of this country, the definitions of permissible guns in the United States that could be sold and manufactured in this country. So I would suggest that it is the administration who was evading the law with this Executive Order. Nonetheless, that is the reality. And even the administration, a little bit embarrassed by what they have done, recognizes there should be compensation for these people who were acting lawfully when they brought these guns to the United States. The last point I would make, in response to what the other gentleman from New York, from Brooklyn, said, when he referred to this being a $2 million boondoggle for all of these importers. It does not mean all this money is going to go to them. It is only going to go to them as these guns are purchased. It is up to $2 million. And if it is not used for that purpose, then, fine, it will be reprogrammed for other purposes.

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