Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Since 1990, I have voted in opposition to a Constitutional amendment banning flag desecration or flag burning. I find flag desecration disgraceful, and I get as angry as anyone does when I see or hear about such things. But, I do not believe we should amend the U.S. Constitution to deal with this matter. Not once during the 15 years I have voted on this amendment to the Constitution has a crisis occurred with people burning flags. As a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, I know well the sacrifices that have been made by many generations of Americans to protect our freedom. We, as Americans, should honor our flag. It is a symbol of our freedom. I am immensely gratified when I see all the flags flying in the face of terrorist attacks and in support of our troops fighting overseas. They make me very proud. However, I am not at all comfortable with changing the Bill of Rights that guarantees our freedoms. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of expression including dissent. Individual freedom and opportunity have built our nation into the strongest on earth where liberties are enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects free speech and allows us to openly debate any issue in this country. As vile as flag desecration may be, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is political speech and, therefore, protected under the First Amendment. I remain committed to preserving freedom and opportunity. In the true spirit of America, freedom must be maintained for those with whom we agree and, yes, those with whom we disagree. I believe we, as individuals, should honor the flag as a symbol of that freedom. Applying government coercion to prevent flag desecration actually chips away at that freedom of expression. Old Glory can withstand a few exhibitionists looking for attention. We don't have to jeopardize our freedoms to protect it. It is a symbol of what protects us.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). I think I share the frustrations that a lot of Members feel about the United Nations and some of the reforms, but this is a meat ax approach to it. It is ironic that in the next 24 or 48 hours we are going to be considering on this floor legislation to reform the United Nations, and I think that legislation is the proper approach to this problem. It requires that certain steps be taken and that our United Nations representative make sure that those steps are being taken in the United Nations. Cutting off our dues, which is a legal responsibility, an agreement that we enter into with the United Nations, that each country does, to pay its share of the dues would be a little bit like my saying, well, I am for tax reform so, in the meantime, I am not going to pay my taxes. I think we have an obligation to pay our dues to the United Nations and pursue the reforms. I would also add that there has been some significant improvements already in the United Nations' operations. I would hope we would reject this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I do rise in support of this amendment, cognizant as I am of the arguments we have just heard against it and the source of the funding, and on recognizing the importance of science. I do not think there is a more important priority than we have right now than this law enforcement. My district in southeastern Arizona shares about 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. The communities along this border suffer the brunt of our failed national immigration policies. Last year Border Patrol apprehensions within one county, Cochise County, Arizona, alone, were more than 240,000 persons. The entire county has a population of 124,000 people. It is not difficult to imagine the strain on local resources caused by the incredible traffic of people trying to enter this country illegally through this relatively small section of the border. Local law enforcement must protect communities against increasingly dangerous traffickers; detention facilities must hold criminal aliens that cannot be held in Federal facilities. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, better known as SCAAP, provides reimbursements to State and local governments for part of the cost of incarcerating foreign nationals who are criminal aliens. The amendment offered by my colleague from California and me would increase the amount of funding for this critical program by $50 million. I would point out that every dollar we do not appropriate here is a dollar that is not spent by local law enforcement in the streets on law enforcement because they are having to spend it on prosecutions or incarceration costs. Border security clearly is a Federal responsibility, and from fiscal year 1996 through 2002, Congress appropriated over $500 million per year for SCAAP. But over the past few years, the funding has dropped dramatically, placing greater burdens on local communities, when the population of the criminal aliens is only increasing. I appreciate the constraints placed on my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) with the very limited allocation that he has. I strongly believe, however, that Congress has to place a high priority on border security, and we must assist States and communities who are suffering the brunt of this burden. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Dreier-Kolbe amendment and then the underlying bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I want to associate myself with his remarks, and I appreciate his leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution calling for the U.S. withdrawal from the World Trade Organization. The WTO is the most important international organization that governs world trade. Decisions are made by the member countries. The WTO has 148 members and 31 observer governments, many of those, most of those are applicants for membership. Its members represent over 95 percent of world trade. Trade agreements administered by the WTO cover a broad range of goods and services trade and apply to virtually all government practices that directly relate to trade; for example, tariffs, subsidies, government procurement, and trade-related intellectual property rights. U.S. membership and leadership in the World Trade Organization is essential. It is definitely in our national and our political and our economic interests to continue to be a member. Our membership translates into real economic growth in this country, as the gentleman from Florida very correctly said. During the 10 years of U.S. participation in the WTO, international trade and investment have been important forces driving our impressive economic growth. Over that period, trade accounted for one-quarter of all U.S. economic growth and supported an estimated 12 million jobs. Furthermore, trade promotes economic competition, which keeps inflation low. Now, let me take just one moment to rebut an all-too-often made allegation against U.S. membership in the WTO, namely, that membership is a violation of U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. WTO dispute panels cannot overturn or change U.S. Federal, State, or local laws. They have no authority to change a U.S. law or to require the United States or any State or local government to change its laws or decisions. Only the Federal or State governments can change a Federal or State law. If a U.S. law is inconsistent with the WTO, our trading partners may withdraw trade benefits of equivalent effect. However, under trade agreement rules, the United States retains complete sovereignty in its decision of how to respond to any panel decision against it. That was made abundantly clear the last several years as Congress grappled with changes to our corporate tax structures for foreign sales corporations, or FSC, to accommodate commitments we have made to our trading partners. Only Congress could make those changes to the law as we grapple, and we grappled, with that. Those who falsely portray the WTO as a violation of U.S. sovereignty are ones who simply want an unfettered ability to preserve or create more protectionism. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to continue the U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me. And it is true, I have a very special affection for the page program. I think many of you know it is because I was a page. That is how I got started. Most of you also know the dirty little secret that it was as a Senate page, that I was over on the other side there. That is okay. I was still in the page program. It was a very special moment in my life to have spent the time that I did here, 3 years. In those days, you could come anytime in your high school years and stay as long as your sponsor would let you stay, as long as you could keep up your grades so that you did not flunk out and leave, and you got to stay around here. I did, and I graduated from the page school. So I know what a difference it has made in my life. I guess you could say here I am today, I cannot say that the page program propelled me to Congress itself. The vast majority of you will not ever serve in government at all or in elected office perhaps, but I think some of you will. There is no question about that. Some of you will, and you will be very successful at all the things you do. But whether or not you go into government, whether or not you run for office or you enter some other kind of position in the government or go into business or a profession, I think you will find that this experience will stand you in very, very, very good stead. You will find that not only does it give you kind of a sense of understanding of the government, which is going to impact your life. It does not matter what line of work you go into. Government is going to impact your life, and you are going to have a better understanding than the majority of people because you will have been there and watched it and/or observed for a semester or two semesters. It gives you a sense of camaraderie or sense of independence at an earlier age than most young people get a chance to be as independent. It gives you a sense of discipline. You learn a lot of discipline skills. You do not have a parent there at night to study, to do the things that you need to do. I think that the most interesting thing about the page program as I have observed it over the 20 years, 21 years now I have been here in Congress, and a number of those I served as the predecessor to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) as the chairman of the page board, and it was certainly one of the more enjoyable experiences that I have had here in Congress, what I observed is that each class of pages has its own personality and develops its own personality. So I am not sure exactly how I would describe the personality of this class except I would say maybe I do not know you very well. I would say it is a little more serious than some of the other classes I have seen, a little more reserved, more serious. Maybe that is good. That does not mean it is all bad. I know it is probably not that way back in the dorm in the evenings and not that way on the weekends with you, but I do think this is a class that has had a great deal of seriousness, watched a great deal of things happen here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I think you deserve a great appreciation for that. There have been classes, of course, that preceded you just 2 or 3 years ago that experienced the incredible experience of 9/11, of going through that horrific Tuesday morning with so many others of us here. Each page class has its own kind of experiences that it has, but I just want you to know that you are not only appreciated for what you do, but in a very real sense we could not do this job if it were not for you. You really are the grease that make the place just run a little bit more smoothly. You are what make us all feel just a little bit better. There are other people that could do the job. There is no question about it. We could hire people to do this job. And yet, with a considerable effort and even expense because of maintaining a school, maintaining a dormitory and all the things that have to be done, the question is often asked in the Congress, I have to tell you, and certainly by some constituents, why do we do this and keep this program? I think the answer is right here in front of me. Because of all of you and because of what we see here and because of what you have learned from this and what you have been able to do with this and what I know you will do with this and how I know this experience will and can be a life-changing experience. Every year in the summer of another group, we can give 70, 75 people to have this kind of experience. It is a very extraordinary experience for you, and I think we have changed your lives and you will go out and touch a lot of other lives, older people, younger people and your peers as well, as you go through life. So, again, we thank you for the wonderful job that you have done. We want to say farewell but not really farewell. We expect to see you back often and hear from you. You have always watched as the former pages come into the cloakrooms and onto the floor when we are not in session, and so you will be among those. It will be a very special experience for you to be able to come back and observe the younger pages that are here in the following years. So thank you for the wonderful service you have given us. I want to wish you all very well in your final year of school and the year of school that goes beyond that, because I know all of you are going to be successful in whatever you do. Godspeed. Thank you.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in suppor of Mrs. DeLauro's amendment to strike part of Section 757 of Title VII of the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006. In 1966, the Arizona Cotton Growers Association and the Arizona Cotton Planting Seed Distributors deeded a piece of property located at 4135 East Broadway Road in Phoenix To USDA for $1.00 to help with the construction of the Western Cotton Research Center. With the construction of a new facility for the research center at the University of Arizona'a Maricopa Agricultural Center, the research and its staff will move within the next two years, leaving this property behind. I think it is appropriate that this property, which abuts the headquarters of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association, revert back to that group, since they deeded this property to USDA originally for only $1.00. I fully support removing the language allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to sell the Wester Cotton Research Center, Phoenix, Arizona and crediting the net proceeds of that sale as offsetting collections to the ARS Buildings and Facilities account.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in strong support of H.R. 810. Over the past two decades, three-quarters of the scientists who have won the Nobel Prize in medicine have studied or taught in the United States. And this is not a coincidence. Our Nation has created an environment that values innovation and discovery, especially in biological sciences. H.R. 810 will help America continue to lead in this crucial field. Of course, there is more at stake in this debate than America's global standing. Stem cell research holds extraordinary potential to save lives and alleviate human suffering. I had a father who suffered from Parkinson's, a mother who passed away with Alzheimer's. And I am all the more convinced that we must pursue this research vigorously, because I believe it does have potential to yield results. I would argue that H.R. 810 is worthy of our support not just for what it allows but for what it restricts. The bill requires that embryos be in excess of clinical need. It does not permit financial compensation for those embryos, and it requires the donor's written, informed consent. This legislation appeals to hope, but it insists on caution as well. H.R. 810 is as thoughtful as it is ambitious. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, I missed the vote on agreeing to the Terry amendment to H.R. 2361, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006 (#193). I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee on this, his maiden effort, to bring a major supplemental appropriation to the floor as chairman, and I congratulate him for the leadership that he has shown in bringing this so swiftly to this floor. I do rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268. Before I address the funding that is the responsibility of my subcommittee, I want to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill, border security funding. The securing of our Nation's borders to prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my State of Arizona has got to be a top priority for the Federal Government. The people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. Arizona and other border States can no longer serve as the back door for this country's broken immigration system. By adding the funding that we do in this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and southern borders are protected. Regarding the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee chapter of this legislation, the conference report includes $2.53 billion in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee, which I chair. While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me say once again I strongly support the objectives of the President that he seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami-devastated areas of Asia. I believe that this conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these objectives. The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the House-passed levels are additional funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine. The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the administration's request. And the conference level is $1.086 billion, or $347 million over what the House had recommended. This increase over the House level supports some 2006 requirements, which is, I believe, a cost-effective approach to the 2006 budget process. The House provided no funding for the administration's $400 million Solidarity Initiative. The Senate provide a total of $225.5 million, $200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 million, merging the two funds into one appropriation, and places these funds within Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This arrangement provides for regular order congressional review of the Department's plans for these funds. The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine, and these funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections. I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. This agreement will provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and provide the State Department with programs and projects to support these positive influences. Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. However, Congress has the responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and we take that responsibility seriously with reporting requirements, and we will continue vigorous oversight of these programs. The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that these decisions we make directly put the lives of Americans at risk. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268. I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005. Before I address the funding in my subcommittee, I wanted to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill--border security funding. The securing of our nation's borders to prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my state of Arizona must be a top priority for the federal government. The people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. Arizona and other border states can no longer serve as the backdoor for this country's broken immigration system. By adding this funding we are taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and southern borders are protected. I am pleased that my colleagues on the conference committee agreed to provide $635 million for Border Security to hire an additional 500 Border Patrol Agents, 50 additional criminal investigators, 168 Immigration Enforcement Agents and Deportation Officers, and to fund 1,950 additional detention beds. The bill also includes my amendment to strengthen the REAL ID Act to address the technology, equipment, and personnel needs improving security within the U.S., requiring Department of Homeland Security to carry out an improved ground surveillance program, and requiring DHS to improve interagency communication. Regarding the Foreign Operations Subcommittee chapter, the conference agreement includes $2.532 billion, in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations subcommittee of which I am Chairman. This amount is $685 million over the House level, $251 million less than the Senate level, and $1.4 billion less than the Administration's request. While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me say once again that I strongly support the objectives the President seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami devastated areas of Asia. I believe that, with the understanding that we need to reduce our federal deficit, this conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these objectives. The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the House passed-level are: additional funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine. The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction, represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the Administration's request. The conference level is $1.086 billion, $347 million over the House recommendation. The increase over the House level supports some 2006 requirements--a cost effective approach to the 2006 budget process--such as $101.4 million for two additional power plants, $8.4 million for a water pipeline, $72 million for additional roads and infrastructure, and $43 million for economic governance. The House provided no funding for the Administration's $400 million ``Solidarity Initiative.'' The Solidarity Initiative request of $400 million for two $200 million Funds to be used by the Secretary of State, as she determines, was to offset the costs of those countries that have dedicated troops to the Global War on Terror as well as economic support to other nations that have provided support. The Senate provided a total of $225.5 million--$200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 million, merging the two Funds into one appropriation and places these funds within the Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This arrangement provides for regular order Congressional review of the Department's plans for these funds. This will provide sufficient oversight of a substantial amount of money for the Global War on Terror. The House provided $33.7 million for support to Ukraine. The Senate provided the Administration's request of $60 million. The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine. These funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections. I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. U.S. leadership can have positive, democratic influence in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Belarus, and Ukraine. This agreement will provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and provide State Department with programs and projects to support these positive influences. Finally, the conference agreement provides $656 million for assistance to the victims of the tsunami and earthquakes of last December and March. Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. However, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and I know my colleagues take that responsibility seriously. We have included financial reporting requirements for all funds in the Foreign Operations chapter. For Afghanistan counternarcotics and West Bank Gaza programs, we have included additional auditing requirements. As Chairman, I pledge to continue vigorous oversight of these programs. The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that decisions we make as Members of Congress directly puts the lives of Americans at risk. Already, men and women from probably every district represented today have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help to build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding, and I thank him for taking this hour of time here this evening to talk about this issue. It is one which is of such great importance, not just for the current generation, not just for those who have retired, but for the next generation, for those who will retire in the future. I listened to him earlier talking about some of the elements of this problem. I think he has outlined them very well. The problem with Social Security is relatively simple, or the problem that we have with the current system of Social Security is relatively easy to define. And that is that we have people living longer, we have more retirees, and we have fewer people coming into the workforce to pay for them. That chart that the gentleman has up there, I think shows it so very well. At one time, in 1950, we had 16 people working for every person that was retired. Today it is a little over three people, and in a few years, a couple of decades, it will be two working people for everyone who is retired. That means two working people at each month have to pay sufficient taxes to cover the benefit that one single person is going to receive from Social Security. It is not sustainable over the long term, and it cannot go on in that fashion. So we need to do something about it. And I think the gentleman is right for coming to the floor tonight to suggest that this Congress needs to deal with it. I am really surprised and somewhat frustrated and chagrined at some of my colleagues on the other side who simply say there is not a problem, we do not need to deal with this, we are not going to try to fix this thing, we do not have to fix this thing now, we can do it sometime in the future. Every year that we delay this becomes more costly. As the gentleman noted, I started introducing a bill 7 years ago with Congressman Stenholm, now with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), and our plan is still the only bipartisan bill which has been introduced in Congress. And when we began with that legislation, we had certain costs to it, but each time, each Congress that we have reintroduced it, we, of course, have had to adjust, and we are closer now to the dates of when revenues will be less than the benefits being paid out, and that just makes it more costly to fix. It is not very far away. In fact, in one sense a really critical date comes in just about 2 fiscal years, in the year 2008, and that is when the revenues actually start to decline. At that point we are going to have to be doing more borrowing because Social Security is going to be covering a bit less of the deficit that we have right now in the general operating part of the budget. But the critical year really is in 2017 where the lines cross, which the chart that he has in front of him there shows. At that point, the benefits being paid out exceed the revenues which are coming in, the taxes that are being paid in. So Social Security has to go to those bonds that it has. The President went the other day to Parkersburg, West Virginia, to take a look at that, and I think we all know what he saw there. A couple of filing cabinets with a lot of paper in it. There is nothing really in the trust fund. There never has been anything in the trust fund. It is not as though somebody robbed it. It is as though it was never created to be that way. The money has simply always gone straight into the Treasury and has been used to cover other operating expenses with the promise that some day the government would redeem those IOUs and use those to pay the benefits. When we start redeeming those, it is going to be very costly because we are going to have to be doing borrowing, as the gentleman knows very well. That is why this is such a critical problem and why we really need to deal with this issue now and not wait, and I really commend the gentleman for coming to the floor to talk about this. I am going to listen for a few more minutes, and then I would like to participate again because I think I have some thoughts about the ways in which we go about fixing this because there is a fairly limited number of ways in which we can go about fixing it. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding again. First of all, I think we have succeeded in one very large way, and that is that the American people, as the gentleman pointed out, do now understand there is a problem. He goes to a town hall; I go to a town hall. He talks to people, and people understand there is a problem. Polling data shows that 80 percent of Americans now think there is a significant problem with Social Security, and Congress needs to fix it. So they are expecting us to do that, and I think the fact that he has come to the floor that there are a lot of proposals, mine, a number of other proposals that are on the floor that have been suggested. The one that I have with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), I might add, is a bipartisan approach to it. But I think that people do understand there is a problem and that we need to fix it, because as the gentleman pointed out, if we do not do anything, those IOUs, even the borrowing from the IOUs run out at a certain point, and that is somewhere, we believe, about 2041 is what the projections are today; and when that happens, if we have sat here all these years and done absolutely nothing, there would be an immediate 26 percent cut in benefits. The gentleman probably will not be in Congress. I know I will not be in Congress at that point. He might be around for a while longer. But at that point there would be a political revolution in our land if we had not done anything at that point. So it behooves us to fix it now while we have a chance to do it when it is not as costly, and I think that is what the gentleman has pointed out here tonight, and I appreciate his talking about this.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has made a very important point, one that we need to stress, because there are a lot of people all over the place in various groups that are not interested in seeing this problem fixed. They have been trying to scare a lot of seniors, and it is wrong to do that because none of the plans, not one of the plans that are on the table suggest that there is going to be any change in the benefits for those who are retired today or for those who are near retirement. So I think it is very important, as the gentleman said, that his 84- year-old mother understand, and all our other senior citizens understand, that we are really not talking about changing any benefits for them. We are talking about the next generation. We are talking about their grandchildren, how could we fix it for their grandchildren so that their grandchildren will be able to say that there is something in the Social Security system that is going to be there for me. A person who is retiring today has less than a 1 percent return on all the taxes they have paid over the years up to retirement in terms of what they are going to get out of it between now and their expected death. A person who is coming into the workforce today at the age of 21 will have a negative rate of return. In other words, they will lose money based on what they are going to pay in taxes versus what they are going to get in benefits. So it is a bleak system for young people, and we need to do something to strengthen it for them.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield once more, we can take that issue off the table, then, that we are not really talking about changing the retirement benefits for those who are retired today or near retirement so we can clear that off the table. Then we need to turn to the issue of what is it we need to do to strengthen Social Security and how do we do it, how do we accomplish that? I do not think the gentleman has his chart down there, but there are really only three things that we can do with Social Security. One is we can raise taxes, we can cut the benefits, or we can increase the rate of return on what one has in the account in their investment. So it is one of those three things that we can do, and that brings me to what I want to talk about, if I might, why personal accounts are important. I am not going to talk specifically about my legislation tonight, but I want to talk about what is a key cornerstone, I think, of most of the plans that are out there, and that is the personal account. Why are personal accounts important? Because personal accounts, frankly, they do not fix the solvency of Social Security; they do not fix it. You have to do other things to make sure that Social Security is solvent. But the personal account is that link to the next generation. It is the promise to the next generation of young people that there will be something in the Social Security plan that will make sure they do not have a negative rate of return. Because if you have a personal account that grows, that can actually grow, you are going to have a better retirement than you would have otherwise. So the personal account is absolutely important. It is important both economically and politically. Economically, to ensure that the young people have a better rate of return, have a retirement that will yield them, really yield them something, bring them something. But politically it is important because it is necessary if we are going to shore up the support for Social Security among young people. Those who are opposed to doing anything about this are very shortsighted, in that they are risking losing political support for a plan that we all know is very, very important. The longer it goes on and the rate of return is less and less for people, there will be less support for Social Security. We need to do something to fix that, and that is why personal accounts are so important. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, after eight years of intense Congressional scrutiny and debate, this long-overdue legislation is now close to becoming law. I will vote in favor of this legislation, just as I have supported similar bills in the past, and I encourage my colleagues to pass S. 256 without amendments so it can go directly to the President for his signature. Without a doubt, bankruptcy reform is needed. Under current law, it is far too easy for debtors with significant cash resources to declare bankruptcy and walk away from their debts, even when they have the ability to pay a substantial portion of those debts. Bankruptcies cost the rest of us American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Why? Because commercial institutions have to pass their losses on to everyone else in the form of higher prices and higher interest rates. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act is a well- balanced measure that will permit people with real financial need to get a fresh start, but lessen the burden placed on other working Americans who now must support people who are taking advantage of the system. This bankruptcy reform bill will force those who have the ability to repay their debts to do so. At the same time, it provides safeguards such as child and spousal protections, debtor education, and mandatory credit counseling before someone files for bankruptcy. The bill also makes common-sense revisions to homestead exemptions to reduce the ability of a wealthy individual shielding his money in an extravagant home just prior to filing bankruptcy. Put simply, this legislation helps restore the fundamental concept of personal responsibility in the bankruptcy system. I urge my colleagues to adopt.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the gentleman on this, his first bill to be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. I think it is indicative of the good work that he and his staff are doing. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the funding of programs that are under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that I chair, that is, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. It totals $2.7 billion. However, approximately $1 billion of that is offset with a cut to previously appropriated funds. The remaining $1.75 billion is provided as emergency spending and includes $656 million for tsunami recovery. The committee's overall recommendation for all the programs under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs is $1.2 billion less than the President requested. However, with the $1 billion offset, less than half of the President's request will impact the Federal deficit. Let me say once again that I do strongly support the objectives that the President seeks to achieve with this request as it relates to Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Ukraine and the tsunami-devastated areas of Asia. But I did tell Chairman Lewis that I would scrutinize this request, and the result of that scrutiny is what is before the Members today. We have assigned the highest priority to programs that can be implemented and executed during 2005 and that are not likely to be funded by other donors. The resulting recommendation is a balanced approach to supporting the President's request and provides much-needed emergency appropriations to further the fight against terror and provide disaster assistance. Let me explain further the recommendation for the programs under the foreign operations jurisdiction. We broke the President's request down into three different categories. The first includes programs that are true emergencies, such as replenishment of funds that were reprogrammed previously for tsunami disaster assistance and poppy eradication in Afghanistan, funds for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and in Asia, and funds to train Afghan police, funds that are necessary to improve conditions that would enable us to bring our troops home as soon as possible. Total emergency spending under this first category is $1.75 billion, as I already indicated. The second category of funds includes those programs requested by the President that we have determined to not be an emergency, but are important to U.S. leadership abroad. Additionally, this category includes reconstruction resources to stabilize and improve conditions in Afghanistan and the Middle East which support our efforts to bring our troops home, funds to support the democratic movement and government in Ukraine, and funds for programs in the West Bank and Gaza. We have provided $995 million in this second category of nonemergency spending and have offset these funds with the rescission of prior foreign assistance appropriations, specifically funds that were appropriated for Turkey in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental bill. I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Our leadership can have positive influence in both the West Bank and Gaza, in Ukraine, in Indonesia and Sri Lanka and, of course, in Afghanistan. I saw a press report recently from Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, that showed that the backing for Osama bin Laden had dropped from 58 percent in 2003 to 23 percent today. I believe part of that is due to the efficiency and the generosity of U.S. relief efforts after the December tsunami. As chairman of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee, I am repeatedly reminded of how much we as a nation do each year to provide disaster assistance and relief. It is encouraging to know that at least one important Muslim country has started to take notice. Finally, the last category includes programs requested by the administration that we determined were less urgent and could be considered in the 2006 budget process. This category totals $1.2 billion in funding and includes fiscal year 2006 operating costs of our programs overseas and large construction projects that can either wait for consideration or would have a possible revenue stream, making them ideal projects for World Bank and Asian Development Bank funding. These programs total $616 million for Afghanistan, $200 million for the new Global War on Terror Partners Fund, the new $200 million Solidarity Fund, and $45 million in debt relief for countries affected by the December tsunami. Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. It is also a responsibility to our future. We must not be faced 20 years in the future with the knowledge that we looked at the opportunities of a Taliban-free Afghan government, a democracy-oriented government in the Ukraine, a Middle East craving freedom and representative government, only to turn away and leave them to their own meager means with no U.S. influence. Mr. Chairman, I urge that this legislation be adopted. I believe that this is a good bill and a well written one.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify one point the gentleman from Massachusetts made about the $8.8 billion, and I just think we Members need to understand we are talking about funds that came not from the United States taxpayers, but those $8.8 billion are funds from the Iraqi fund, which was Iraqi dinars that had been collected as a result of oil sales. It was a chaotic situation at the end of the war, as we all know, and ministries had collapsed. There was no communication. There were no accounting systems. The bureaucrats had not functioned for years. It was very difficult, at the very best, to know how to handle those in the very best way. It was really a choice of whether or not we were going to get the projects done as quickly as possible and get the country functioning again. So I think, to me, the choice was fairly clear. I just want to make people understand we are not talking about U.S. dollars when we talk about the 8.8.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) knows, I spoke in committee against this amendment which was then part of a larger amendment and these two were combined at that point. I made the point that I was not at all sure that this additional money was needed in Darfur, Sudan in light of the amount of money that is already in the 2005 bill and the amount of money that is in the supplemental for this region. However, I understand the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) feels very strongly about this. He and I traveled together to the Darfur region. We saw the terrible, terrible suffering that the people there are going through. We are in complete agreement on our need to take every step that we can to provide not only for a peaceful solution in the area, but also to provide for humanitarian relief for the people who live in that region, and therefore I am prepared today with concurrence of the chairman of the committee to accept this en bloc amendment, and we will take a very good look at this in the conference with the Senate and see where we are at that point. We will be a little bit further down the road and have some time to get a better handle on this at that point. I again want to commend the gentleman for his commitment, his dedication, his passion in offering this amendment today.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, can the gentlewoman clarify which amendment we are talking about here?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the reading of two amendments. Which one are we on here at this point? Are we on the one that is $3 million or the one that was the larger one that I heard read first?