Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 684, I was inadvertently not recorded. although I was on the floor during the vote. Had I been recorded, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate Chairman Young and the ranking member, Mr. Murtha, for writing a responsible spending bill that improves quality of life for our troops, but recognizes that we must pick carefully among competing programs to select those that yield the best results for our national security interests. Our resources are not unlimited, and this bill acknowledges that reality. It is in that spirit that I rise in support of the Kasich amendment to eliminate funding earmarked for production of additional B-2 bombers. Set aside the fact that Air Force Chief of Staff, General Fogleman, has concerns about the fiscal ramifications of producing more B-2's. And set aside the DOD commissioned study by the Analytical Sciences Corp. that concluded that the United States does not need to keep producing Stealth bombers to preserve bomber-manufacturing capabilities. But do not set aside the basic issue--and that is status of our strategic nuclear force structure and our ability to project nuclear force. That is the proper focus of this debate. Our nuclear triad depends not just on the B-2, of which we will have 20 by fiscal year 2000, but on our Ohio-class strategic submarines, land-based ICBM's, and B-52 bombers. Will our nuclear posture crumble without additional B-2 procurement? The answer is clearly, decisively, ``no.'' This is a time we are making difficult choices in all Federal agencies and programs. We must also look to our defense establishment for budgetary savings--but only when it is entirely consistent with our national security interests. Military leadership has told Congress that additional procurement of the B-2 is a luxury we cannot afford in future fiscal years, I am not willing to sacrifice other badly needed weapons systems which will become available in future years, nor sacrifice continued readiness on the altar of additional B-2 procurement. I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Greenwood amendment to restore funding to the title X Family Planning Program. My colleagues have been thorough in explaining what the Greenwood amendment entails. I would like to address my remarks to what a vote in favor of the Greenwood amendment is not. This is not a pro-choice or a pro-life vote. This amendment is not about abortion--despite calls to congressional offices to the contrary. Title X is not a radical program--in fact, the original legislation was sponsored by then Representative George Bush and signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. Title X is the only Federal program which must provide family planning services. It is a brilliant strategy on the part of the opponents of family planning to transfer title X moneys into the Maternal and Child Health Grant Program and the Consolidated Health Centers Migrant Block Grant Program. I strongly support both of these programs--which are adequately funded in the Labor-HHS bill. Neither of these programs, however, are required to provide family planning services. I believe a majority of those on both sides of the choice issue want abortion to be rare. The most effective method of doing this is to take steps to prevent unintended pregnancy. The title X Family Planning Program has been enormously successful in doing just that. Family planning clinics serve a high-risk population whose only source of preventative helath care is a clinic. We are talking about women who are caught in the gap--they do not qualify for Medicaid and can't afford private health insurance. An estimated 1.2 million additional unintended pregnancies would occur each year if there was no federally funded Family Planning Program. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, for every $1 invested in family planning services, this country saves $4.40 in costs that would otherwise be realized in welfare and medical services. I plead with my colleagues to make an informed vote on this amendment. I urge a yes vote on the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and that she be permitted to yield time from that 10 minutes.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], cosponsor of this amendment. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the last two speakers, including the gentleman from California, made the point that this is a States' rights issue and that the other side is trying to force these abortion services. Let me make it clear, that that was the gentleman who moved to strike my amendment which would have allowed the States to have that option. Mr. Chairman, that could have been there if we had made that amendment in order and they allowed the Committee on Rules to do so. So let us make no mistake about it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining on all sides?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, 1 minute, to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of this motion to strike the language which is section 509 in the Labor-HHS-Education bill which allows States to deny Medical funding for abortions for rape and incest. This was language that was added during the full committee consideration of the bill, and it was tagged as a States rights issue. I had an amendment that was not made in order which would have reinstated the current requirement that makes medicaid abortions available in circumstances involving life of the mother, rape, or incest, but relieves the States of any financial participation in cases of rape or incest if they choose not to fund them. Mr. Chairman, as I said, last year there were all of two Medicaid- funded abortions in the entire country in cases of rape or incest. The amendment that I offered in the committee I think was a fair compromise for Members who do support States rights, but who recognize that poor women who are pregnant as a result of a heinous crime like rape or incest should not be discriminated against in the process. Unfortunately, as we have just heard, with it being stricken here, Members of this body will not have the chance to vote on what was to have been the Kolbe-Pryce-Fowler amendment. Therefore, I am cosponsoring with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], this motion, so we can return to the original Hyde language. And I want to make that clear. We are talking about going back to the Hyde language, which requires States to fund abortion under Medicaid in the cases of life of the mother, rape, and incest. Mr. Chairman, the 103d Congress passed the Hyde amendment by a large margin, 256 to 171. A majority of the Congress, many of whom are pro- life, agreed that these three exceptions are reasonable and clearly not abortion on demand as now argued by some on the other side. So unless this amendment to strike passes, we will be taking a giant step backward away from the Hyde language. It is a sad day to see this body divided over an issue as important as providing a legal abortion for a poor woman who is a victim of rape or incest. If any of us in this body had a daughter or sister who became pregnant as a result of one of these heinous crimes, they would certainly want to have the option of being able to seek an abortion. But that would not occur for poor people in our country, at least not if our amendment fails. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Kolbe- Lowey-Morella motion to strike. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the Labor-HHS-Education bill before us today. Although we are now on title I, my comments are more general in nature. Chairman Porter deserves credit for the outstanding job he has done in his subcommittee. He has been patient in the face of extremely difficult circumstances as one bad amendment after another was attached to his bill during the full Appropriations Committee consideration. Unfortunately, this bill has now become a tar baby. Through no fault of the chairman, the Labor-HHS-Education bill is now fatally flawed. Let me enumerate some of the problems I have with this bill. First, it contains extremely restrictive language on a woman's right to choose. It prohibits from receiving Federal funds ob/gyn residency programs that provide abortion training. The message we are sending is that while abortion is legal in our country, we are not going to train physicians on how to safely perform this procedure. This is an unprecedented Government intrusion into medical education. Second, this bill contains a provision which allows Federal funds to be available for abortion under Medicaid in the cases of life of the mother, rape, or incest. However, States are only required to provide abortions under Medicaid in the case of life of the mother. This language was added during full committee consideration of the bill as a States' rights issue. I had an amendment, that was not made in order, which would have reinstated the current Hyde language that makes Medicaid abortions available in circumstances involving life of the mother, rape, or incest. But, it would relieve the States of any financial participation in cases of rape or incest if they choose not to fund them. Last year, there were all of two Medicaid-funded abortions in the entire country in cases of rape and incest. This amendment was a fair compromise for Members who support States' rights, but who recognize that poor women who are pregnant as a result of a heinous crime like rape or incest should not be discriminated against in the process. Unfortunately, Members of this body will not have the chance to vote on the Kolbe-Pryce-Fowler amendment. I therefore will sponsor with Congresswomen Lowey and Morella a motion to strike this language-- though I would have preferred my reasonable alternative. Third, the bill zeros out critical money for family planning services--though we have an opportunity to restore this when we take up the Greenwood amendment. Finally, this bill includes a measure which provides for much needed Federal grant reform. I strongly support the substance of this measure which will curb Federal subsidies for political advocacy groups. I have serious reservations, however, about attaching this very complicated and large bill to an appropriations bill without the benefit of hearings or a markup in the authorizing committee. I wish that I could stand here today and tell you I support this bill. It is in line with the budget resolution. It reduces overall spending by $6.8 billion over current funding levels and terminates 176 overlapping programs--helping to move us toward a balanced budget by 2002. The bill also increases funding for the National Institutes of Health, cuts the bureaucracy at the Department of Health and Human Services, maintains funding for community and migrant health centers and increases Pell grant levels. It reforms labor and OSHA rules that are in need of reform. Coming out of the subcommittee it was a good bill. Unfortunately, with the changes made in the full committee, the bad outweighs the good in this bill and I must oppose it.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr.Chairman, I rise in support of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill before us today. I especially want to commend Chairman Rogers for his excellent work through difficult budgetary and personal times. Despite the hurdles, the chairman and subcommittee have brought to the House a bill worthy of support. Downsizing Government means making choices among spending priorities, and this bill does just that by channeling funds to programs that are in the taxpayers' interest. While I don't agree with every single funding decision, on balance this is a responsible bill with which I am proud to be associated. This bill takes a giant step toward addressing the issue of border enforcement. Even with an outright rejection of the administration's ill-conceived border crossing fee, H.R. 2076 provides funding to put an additional 1,400 Border Patrol agents and inspectors on the front lines of the border. Overall funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is increased by 20 percent which will help border communities like those I represent. The bill also provides $500 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program that reimburses States for the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens. The General Accounting Office estimates that the nationwide costs incurred by States for this could exceed $650 million. This appropriation takes a huge step towards addressing that problem. The committee also recommends to the INS that they participate in a pilot program designed to increase cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies at ports-of-entry. I am convinced this pilot program will prove that ports can be run more efficiently, thus better facilitating trade and commerce along the border. This increase in funding is justified. We must recognize that illegal immigration is a national problem, not a State problem. This Congress must reaffirm its commitment to States and local communities because they are the ones who must contend with failed illegal immigration policies of the past. To turn our backs on that responsibility would be wrong. The recent tragedy in Oklahoma City is a horrific reminder of violence in our society, but sadly, it occurs all too often--if not as dramatically--in communities across this land. So, I'm supportive of the actions this bill takes to combat crime. The Federal Government does not have all the answers when it comes to combating the crime we are most concerned about. I do not believe the Congress should try to manage State and local law enforcement agencies. Rather, we need to support measures that empower local law enforcement--H.R. 2076 does just that. This legislation gives maximum flexibility to local law enforcement officials to administer $2 billion for law enforcement and prevention programs instead of mandating that money be used for specific purposes. The bill will allow local officials to use funds to put more police on the streets, purchase needed equipment, fund youth prevention programs, provide drug court programs, or other urgent needs, according to the priorities determined by 39,000 State and local entities--not Washington. Additionally, H.R. 2076 provides nearly $500 million for the Byrne Grant Program that has been used very effectively by local law enforcement. In my own district, very successful law enforcement alliances have succeeded because of the availability of Byrne Grant moneys. Let me shift gears for a moment to address what this bill does with funding for the Commerce Department. I support the restructuring of the Commerce Department. Over the years, this agency has become the dumping ground for every new function of the Federal Government that didn't fit someplace else. While this bill does not dismantle the Commerce Department, it cuts it by nearly 20 percent--a clear signal to Congress to reorder its functions. I will support amendments to this legislation making further cuts in certain areas of Commerce, and will soon introduce with others a version of how dismantling the Department might be accomplished. I am pleased the committee funded the Small Business Administration's microloan program which has helped create hundreds of jobs in Arizona at little or not cost to the Government. Organizations like Project PPEP help to effectively administer these startup loans in areas where this type of assistance is effectively used and where loan defaults are almost nonexistent. The bill provides resources for the State Department to continue its vital functions across the globe. While H.R. 2076 does cut funding 9 percent below last year's spending levels, [[Page E 1540]] the cuts are fair and sensible. Contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations are kept in check while affording the executive branch maximum flexibility and the legislative branch maximum oversight. The bill closely resembles the provisions of the American Overseas Interests Act passed by the House earlier this year. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation that is both fiscally responsible and attentive to the needs of the American people.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member for the work that both they and their staffs have done. Let me highlight a couple of points that I would like to make about the bill. First, from my area of representing a border area, I am very pleased with the funding that we have in here for immigration enforcement officers and the outright rejection of a border crossing fee. That is an issue that has raised its ugly head in the other body and is continuing to do so. I hope with our action here, and in the Senate appropriations, that we will lay that issue to rest. I am very pleased with the emphasis that we place in this legislation on the flexibility for local and State law enforcement. I think it is extraordinarily important that we given that kind of flexibility. I would have preferred to see great cuts in the Commerce Department. There are some areas that I think we should have cut more deeply, but that issue is going to be one that we are going to be dealing with as we get into the authorization issue of what we do with the Commerce Department. Finally, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this bill is good evidence of a shrinking pot of discretionary funding that is available. I congratulate the chairman, the staff, and the other Members for the job that they have done in putting together a reasonable bill under the circumstances.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, by now it is apparent that the United States- China bilateral relationship is in the worst shape it has been in at least a decade and continues in a downward spiral. The Chinese--in the throes of a prolonged leadership transition--have done little to stem the deterioration. The prolonged detention of Harry Wu, an American citizen, is unwarranted and all of us condemn it. With our vote on this bill today, we have an opportunity to send a strong message to the Chinese that such actions are repugnant to the American commitment to human rights and our sense of justice. Thus, I enthusiastically urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2058. This bill, the China Policy of 1995, condemns the actions of the Chinese Government on issues such as its continued violation of internationally-recognized standards of human rights and nuclear nonproliferation as well as its discriminatory and unfair trade practices. It directs the administration to pursue intensified diplomatic initiatives to persuade China to alter its policies. Just as important, and unlike the annual efforts to revoke China's most-favored-nation trade status, this bill does not jeopardize our political and economic relationship in a way that could well prove counterproductive for both nations and undermine our ability to cooperate with China on critical national security issues, such as nuclear proliferation issues in North Korea. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. It is important that we let Beijing know its abhorrent human rights, nuclear proliferation, and trade actions will not go unnoticed. However, at the same time, we must also help those within China intensify the pressure now building for political and social change. I believe that we can accomplish this and promote human rights in China by engaging them increasingly in trade and economic relations. This policy requires extension of MFN. That is not a contradiction of terms or of policy. The best foreign policy tools available to us to encourage political reform abroad are policies that promote capitalism and economic opportunity. Such policies are powerful levers for political change precisely because they are powerful levers for economic change. That is a policy that has worked successfully in such diverse countries as South Africa, Korea, Taiwan, and Chile. Our foreign policy toward China should embrace tools of reform and change--not condition them. These are precisely the tools we can use to promote the evolution of Chinese society so that its people can press for political reform from within. They are the tools to stimulate Chinese society to adopt a more pluralistic and democratic political process. That, in turn, will inevitably lead to a greater respect for human rights and personal liberty. There are examples previously mentioned that support this proposition. One concrete result of economic liberalization in China is the way that it has spawned a parallel civil justice system based on the rule of law, rather than rule by law. While some may question whether increasing the number of lawyers in China is true reform, I would argue that it is if the contract law that develops and other legal reforms lead to parallel development of law that protects human rights. Will it? None of us can say with certainty, but history suggests that it will. Revocation of trade with China would almost certainly retard--not promote--the cause of human rights in China. United States economic sanctions would harm the emerging Chinese private sector and the dynamic market-oriented provinces in southern China, which depend on trade. This would weaken the very forces in Chinese society pressing hardest for reforms. We must not undermine the brave efforts of reform- minded Chinese who have come to depend on economic opportunity as a means of ultimately achieving political freedom in China. Lasting reform in China can only be driven from within. We must continue to work toward that end. The United States-China relationship is very complex. There is no country on this globe that has brought more fascination or caused greater aggravation to Americans than China, but none of us doubt the potential for good in this world that will flow from improved political and economic relations. Today, we agonize over how we can promote human rights in China, advance peace in Asia, and protect our own national security interests in that region. But, in this debate, let us not lose sight of the common goals which should unite all of us. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2058.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the problem with the Sanders amendment is that it really deals with the symptom. It is not a cure. It is a little bit like going to your doctor and saying you have got a hangnail, a sore toe, and he says, we are going to take your leg off above the knee. That really is not the answer to the problem, and that is certainly what we are doing here. Trying to take away the Economic Stabilization Fund or the operation of the Economic Stabilization Fund is certainly not the answer. I know it is argued that this is sending a message, we are trying to send a signal here, but this is not the right one. What I think this has demonstrated is that the institutions that we have are not working very well. The institutions that were developed at the time of Bretton Wood a generation and more ago are not working very well. The Economic Stabilization Fund was used in this instance, basically, as it was intended to be used, in a much larger degree than I think anybody had ever anticipated that it would. Should we in Congress have more control over that? Should we exercise more authority over that? That can reasonably be argued. But I think it cannot be argued, at least it has not in [[Page H 7223]] any court been argued, that it was not within the law that Congress had passed. And I think what is abundantly clear is that the institutions we have today are not working in this age of electronic fund transfers where in a nanosecond money can be transferred around the world a dozen different times. Now, we have heard here on the floor a lot about bailing out big Wall Street investors. That is not the case. What is different about this financial crisis in Mexico that has never been replicated, we have never seen before in the world, is this is the first mutual fund crisis that we have seen. Literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of investors are involved through mutual funds. It is not the case as it was in 1982 where one could go to the bank and say to the banks, ``You deal with this problem in Mexico.'' So finally, Mr. Chairman, the question is, Is this working? Well, the jury is out; that has been said already here. But what is the alternative? Clearly what we are seeing in Mexico with the Mexico peso crisis was greater instability in financial markets all over the world from places as remote as South Africa, Thailand, and of course in our own hemisphere, in Argentina. A very critical problem was developing in Argentina. We needed, the world needed, to act, and we did not act unilaterally in this regard because our allies were involved in this as well. We acted, and we acted correctly. The solutions are not good, none of them were good at the time, but under the circumstances it is my view that it was the right choice. Now it is time for us, in a cool, detached way for the Banking Committee and the other relevant committees of this Congress, to take a look at what should be the long- term solution. But, Mr. Chairman, the Sanders amendment is not the answer, and I hope this body will vote ``no.''

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comment that the gentleman has made. The National Trust has, indeed, even before our subcommittee's action, had started work on a 5-year plan for eliminating Federal funding, and what we are doing is insisting we are going to speed it up slightly, and that it will be done in the course of 2 years. I think that is a rather considerable change, and I think it is an orderly way to eliminate the Federal funding for the National Trust.