Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I urge in the strongest possible terms this body to reject this amendment. The compensation provision that is included, the gentleman from New York referred to it as a stealth amendment and an en bloc amendment, it was hardly stealthy. It was worked on at great length by members of the subcommittee and the full committee with the administration. Let me quote from the administration's Statement of Administration Policy: The administration supports an amendment agreed to in committee that would provide up to $2 million of in-transit relief as compensation for actual losses incurred due to denial of entry of certain assault weapons affected by the determination of the Treasury Department on April 6, 1998. So let us make no mistake about this. This was agreed to as a compromise with the administration. The question here is not one of gun control. It is not one of gun safety. Those are not in dispute. There is no risk of flooding the United States with so-called assault weapons. The weapons that we are talking about are very few in number, and they are in the custody of the Treasury Department. For that matter, I think it is important to note that the weapons in question, every one of these weapons could be manufactured and sold domestically. If it is manufactured here in the United States, it can be manufactured and sold legally. We are talking about guns that are being brought in that were being imported, the same guns, and because of a change in the administration policy, they were en route, and now they cannot be sold in the United States. If anything ever comes to a more clear taking of property at the last moment, this is really about it. These were being imported legally into the United States and were blocked from being sold because they were en route. All that is being dealt with is those that are in transit. Let me just give my colleagues the facts here. On November 14 of last year, the President announced a temporary ban on the import of certain categories of rifles that were and they remain legal to possess and to manufacture here in the United States. There were a small number of American businesses who complied with all the relevant laws and were fully entitled to import their goods, and they were left in the lurch. They could neither recover their goods, nor could they reexport them. Even had they done so, there is no foreign market for these specialized collectors' items. When, following the study announced by the President in November, the Treasury Department determined to make the ban permanent, these businesses were faced with, in some cases, a complete, a total financial loss. The committee believes that such action deprives citizens of their property without just compensation and this measure is designed to rectify that oversight. It is supported by the administration because it deals only with the compensation issue for these people who were legally bringing these guns in this country. This action does not present any risk of illegal weapons in the United States. It is only a few thousand weapons that are included in this provision. It is strictly limited to those weapons that are legal to manufacture and own here in the United States. It is specifically limited to those that are affected by the permanent ban. It is specifically limited to those that, as of February 10, 1998, had been conditionally released under bond, under bond to the importers by the Customs Service. And all of these guns are going to remain in the possession of the Treasury Department, of the Customs Bureau. Third point I would like to make is, this provision does not affect the April 6 determination that this, that the ban on these weapons would indeed be permanent. I would note that there is a precedent for this kind of in-transit relief. In 1994, a previous embargo was placed on a larger quantity of imports of sporting arms from China, and they were compensated. It also would not repeal the April 6 executive order, as I have said, that makes the ban permanent. Mr. Chairman, this executive order by the President has caused hardship to U.S. importers who possess valid imported permits for legally importable categories of firearms. This would simply undo that action. It is supported by the administration. It would rectify that, and it is a simple matter of fairness. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to defeat this very, very unfair amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. That is what I am doing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. I make the point of order. I concede the point of order, but I make the point of order against lines 1 through 11.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to do it from a correct parliamentary standpoint I would make the additional point of order against lines 1 and 2 on page 28, through line 11 on page 28.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be against the entire paragraph, not just the proviso portion.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, now that I have had a chance to see the amendment, I do make a point of order against the amendment, because it does, Mr. Chairman, propose to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The pertinent part of that rule says, ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment goes beyond funds in this act. It has the words ``none of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used to appropriate.'' Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would make the point of order.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to correct one thing that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) said I think in interpreting my remarks, my comment about the leadership agreement applied to the agreement that we reached last year. There was an attempt made to reach an agreement this year on the issue of the COLA. Since it was not reached, we agreed to put in the prohibition. There was no other agreement beyond that about what would or would not be said this year by anybody on the other side.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I understand the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from North Carolina. The gentleman from Maryland and I and others on both sides of the aisle in this body have worked very hard over the last couple of years to try to depoliticize the issue of Members' pay. This body did that, as a matter of fact, several years ago when we established a procedure whereby the increases, the cost of living adjustments in the salaries received by Members of this body, would be tied to that of other Federal employees, but with half a percent less than they would get. So we would never get the same amount as another Federal employee was getting. The idea was to take it out of the process of forcing us to have votes on this one at a time, to have the gut-wrenching vote as to whether or not we should receive a pay increase. That process was established in law and we had, I believe, every hope that that process would work. Unfortunately, Members have realized that the rules of this House permit other ways of getting at a vote on the Members' pay raise, even when there is not really an increase in the pay; that we are talking simply about a cost of living adjustment. So we have had this process, unfortunately, on this bill for too many years. It does not really belong at all on this legislation. We have had this provision added in on several years which would prevent Members from receiving the cost of living adjustment that other Federal employees have gotten. In the strongest possible terms I deplore the use of this issue by anybody on either side of the aisle. Members ought to be allowed to consider this in the least politically obtrusive way possible. We ought to be able to consider this on its merits. Unfortunately, when we have Members and it has happened, I would remind the gentleman from North Carolina, on both sides of the aisle in the past who have attacked the cost of living adjustment for Members, it becomes, especially in an election year, a very difficult issue for Members to withstand what they perceive to be the heat that they will receive at home on this issue. Therefore, this year, it was very clear from the statements that had been made in both the House and the Senate that there was going to be an effort made to make sure that Members did not get a cost of living adjustment. It was the decision of the subcommittee that we simply put that decision into the bill before it got to the floor of the House. And that is why we see this provision in the legislation, and that is why the rule, which was adopted last night, protects this particular provision. I wish that we did not have to go through this debate. I wish we did not have to have this kind of provision in the legislation but, nonetheless, it is there. It is, I think, the decision of the leadership on both sides of the aisle that we will not subject the Members to a vote on a cost of living adjustment, and I would certainly urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and leave this provision intact in the legislation when it leaves the House of Representatives.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just simply to say that I would concede that this is not authorized and, therefore, is subject to being stricken on a point of order under the rule that we have adopted, much to my regret.

Mr. KOLBE. Correct. We can have that discussion again.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to explain, our intention here is to try to proceed in as orderly a fashion as possible with the rule that we adopted last night. Obviously, large sections of our bill are subject to points of order. What I would like to do is to try, rather than reading paragraph by paragraph, to do it one title at a time, in this case, because title II is only 2 pages, titles 1 and 2, Treasury and Post Office. It does not preclude any amendment from being offered at any time, I would add.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, through page 26, line 10, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I will insert a table showing the details of this bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 4104, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and make other conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House today.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the further consideration of H.R. 4104, and that I may include tabular and extraneous materials.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, any provisions dealing with the bill itself, amendments or motions to strike, would not be in order tonight because we will not begin the reading of the bill this evening.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his kind words and would echo them back to him and tell him that I appreciate very much his cooperation and the efforts that he has made this year and in the past year that I have been chairman of this subcommittee to help me craft a bill that I think has been a good bill and one that can be supported by a majority on both sides of the aisle. I come to this subcommittee with a lot less knowledge than the ranking member has of these agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this committee and he has been extraordinarily helpful. Again, I want to thank his staff and the staff that is with me on this side of the aisle for the work that they have done. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member said, tonight is the calm before the storm. Tomorrow is not likely, when we take this bill up again, to be quite so easy in terms of the kinds of things that will happen to this bill tomorrow. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, I hope that Members will exercise as much restraint as possible, but as the gentleman from Maryland has pointed out, it takes only one Member out of 435 to strike most of the provisions of this bill, 80 percent of which, sadly, have not been authorized by the appropriate authorizing committees. So I would only say that if this is going to happen tomorrow, I will, although we will have to concede the point of order, I will vigorously object or urge Members not to make that point of order. I would do so now in a general fashion and will tomorrow at the time that they make these points of order. Nonetheless, I would note for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that there will be another day for this bill. We will have an opportunity in the conference committee with the Senate to craft, I think, again, a bill, using the work that we have already done in the subcommittee and the full committee, using that work to make sure that our priorities that have been expressed by this House through the committee process, as it should be done, that those priorities are included in the final bill which gets brought to the floor this fall in a conference report. I am confident that we will have a bill. I am confident we will have a bill that can be generally supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. I am confident we will have a bill that will deal with the priorities that we have established for law enforcement, for restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. I believe that those priorities will be dealt with. Mr. Chairman, I will say that while I believe that tomorrow may be a stormy day, the sun will come out on the other side of that day. And we will have legislation, we will have an appropriation that all of us can look with some pride on.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman for his interest and for the strong support that he has given to this law enforcement issue. The committee has tried very hard to fund law enforcement priority programs that have been requested by the administration, and I would like to point out that we increased funding for the ATF by $16 million to a total of $28 million for the youth crime gun interdiction initiative that was requested by the President. In trying to accommodate all the requirements the committee needed to fund, it was not possible to increase the funding for support of the trigger lock investigative efforts. However, we believe that locking up violent career criminals is an important objective, and ATF can contribute significantly to that effort. I, therefore, want to assure the gentleman that we will work with him on ways to fund this requirement when we do get to a conference on this bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois.