Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Flake amendment regarding the GEDAC Packaged Gas Engine-Driven Heat Pump Development. I appreciate the attention that my fellow Arizonan has brought to the issue of so-called ``earmarks.'' I share his passion for limited, responsible government. We have seen instances in which inappropriate or even corrupt projects have been funded in appropriation, authorization and tax bills and we must ensure that all of the bills we pass--appropriations bills, authorization bills and tax bills--fund only projects that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the GEDAC Heat Pump project is a project that deserves our support and will help us to find solutions to our country's energy and water needs. Specifically, this project will allow for the continued development of natural gas-based heat pump technology that saving both energy and water resources. When completed, this will be the first small packaged system available in the United States. The technology is broadly applicable throughout the country, and it provides a number of benefits, including greater energy efficiency and water savings. The technology will not only save energy but will save water, which is important to Arizona. If successful, it could displace central station power generation which uses approximately a gallon of water per kilowatt generated. It is in line with the President's efforts to address climate change by developing technologies that having significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It also is in line with the President's efforts to utilize domestic energy resources. None of the money in this particular project goes to private industry. Every dime of it goes to the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL has a sophisticated facility for testing that private industry cannot afford to replicate every time it has a new idea. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern that we fund only those projects that can withstand serious scrutiny. But this project stands up to scrutiny and deserves our support. I urge a no vote on the Flake amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the following votes because I was traveling on a congressional delegation to Egypt: S. 1235, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act, as amended (No. 177). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 3858, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (No. 178). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the following votes because I was traveling with President Bush to Arizona: H. Res. 818, on ordering the previous question, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes (#160). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 818, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes (#161). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H. Res. 795, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006 (#162). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Weiner of New York amendment (#163). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H.R. 5386, on agreeing to Poe of Texas amendments (en bloc) (#164). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Pallone of New Jersey amendment (#165). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Beauprez of Colorado amendment (#166). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Hinchey of New York amendment (#167). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Chabot of Ohio amendment (#168). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Iran Freedom Support Act. We are at a crucial point in U.S. relations with Iran. The U.S. must insist that they stop the nuclear programs, respect international regulations, and end harboring of any terrorist or terrorist funding organizations. I support my colleagues in taking up this piece of legislation. I urge a yes vote. However, I believe a few changes and improvements to the legislation need to be made before it is sent to the President. One concern is that section 202 of this bill sanctions companies in the countries who are working with us to oppose Iran's nuclear program. These sanctions have a potential to split our allies, aiding Iran, something I'm sure supporters of this bill would not want to do. Congress and the President should have a united front against Iran and enacting legislation that threatens that unity is not in our best interests. Additionally, Title II urges managers of U.S. pension plans to divest stocks of companies that report investments in Iran's energy sector. These provisions could negatively affect the smooth functioning of U.S. capital markets and the savings and investment flows that are essential to economic growth. We must send Iran a strong signal with a united front. I urge passage of this bill because we must address the very real threat of the nuclear arms race in the Middle East stemming from Iran's irresponsible actions. The current regime in Iran must be held accountable for its threatening behavior even as we support a transition to democracy and tolerance in Iran.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4916 authorizing a replenishment of the Enterprise Fund for the Americas. The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) was created in 1993 as part of the `Enterprise for the Americas' initiative to provide technical assistance in Latin American and Caribbean countries to stimulate innovation and economic growth. The objective of the fund is to use grants and investments to develop micro enterprises, build worker skills, strengthen environmental management and improve the functions of financial markets. I'm pleased to be able to say that the Multilateral Investment Fund has been a model of reform and transparency for other multilateral banks of reform and transparency. The Fund has aggressively embraced transparency in it's work. It is on the front line of change in a development sector where indictments of ineffectiveness are most often heard. Experience demonstrates that private sector development agencies can be a powerful and transformative development tool. In Poland and across central Europe these types of funds have helped build small and medium size businesses, created jobs, changed the economic environment and helped establish a middle class. Given the rapidly deteriorating political condition in Latin America, we need every arrow in our quiver if we are to demonstrate to countries in our hemisphere the inherent value of open market--both political and economic. In the preceding 4 years, Congress provided almost $72 million for the MIF. Although the U.S. has pledged $150 million over the next six years for MIF II, meeting that commitment will depend on budget constraints and shifting spending priorities. There are many competing needs in the fiscal year 2007 budget and it will be no different In following budget years. It is, however, worth noting that our pledge has leveraged thus far an additional $352 million from 36 other countries. We need to be innovative in our development work if we are to increase trade and build small and medium size businesses. The Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment Fund helps to achieve these goals. I support this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the full committee for yielding to me for purposes of this colloquy. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I particularly thank him for his longstanding effort on behalf of West African nations and the people of West Africa, and certainly Liberia. I share his concern about a long lasting peace for Liberia, as I know all in this body do, and we also share the concern that Charles Taylor represents a threat to everything that the United States is trying to accomplish through its aid efforts and its commitment of troops to bring about peace and stability in Liberia. I will tell the gentleman as this process unfolds, the committee has been and will continue to closely monitor developments with Charles Taylor. I think I have some good news I can bring to the gentleman. Just before this series of votes, Mrs. Lowey, my ranking member, and I completed a meeting with President Sirleaf, who, of course, addressed this body yesterday. We asked this question specifically, will there be an extradition request? I asked it three times, and got the same answer three times, that it has been done. She used the word ``done'' three times. So the request for extradition has been done. We believe and she has said that he needs to be brought to justice in an appropriate court. So the request to the President of Liberia has been made. She went on to tell us that President Olusegun is now consulting with African leaders from the African Union and the Economic Community of West African Countries, ECOWAS, to make sure that the extradition will not in any way destabilize the very fragile peace that now exists there. Once that is done, we would expect to see this accomplished. The request for extradition has been done, and we will continue to remain engaged and watch this very, very closely, as this process of the supplemental unfolds.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the Chairman of the committee, for his work in bringing this supplemental appropriations bill to the floor. He has really done an outstanding job of, I think, balancing the different interests that are involved here. I want to take my time, Mr. Chairman, Members, to speak a bit about that part of the bill that deals with the foreign assistance funds. That is Chapter 3 of H.R. 4939. The Foreign Operations portion of the fiscal year 2006 supplemental is $2.08 billion. That amount is $140 million, or 6.7 percent less than the request of the administration of $2.2 billion. Now, here is how we arrived at this lesser figure. First, we eliminated funding requested by the President that is not for the current fiscal year. That is $74 million. We eliminated funding that was requested for non-emergency costs. That is $99 million. And we reduced costs by rescinding previously appropriated funds of $17 million that are not needed because of changed circumstances. Let me talk for a minute about specific regions and countries. First, Iraq. The bill provides new budget authority of $1.67 billion for Iraq, or two-thirds of the amount in foreign assistance is going to Iraq. But that is a reduction of $58 million from what the President requested. This reduction represents the amount requested for fiscal year 2007 costs for the U.S. Agency for International Development. As I said a moment ago, we concluded that this 2006 supplemental bill should not be used to pre-fund expenses of the next fiscal year. In addition, the supplemental transfers $185 million from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund appropriation to augment the new funds provided in this supplemental. These are still unobligated funds that are appropriately applied to the purposes of this legislation. And that brings the total available to Iraq of $1.85 billion. Many Members are greatly concerned about Darfur and our efforts to stave off genocidal warfare in that region of Africa. Though a fraction of the amount requested for Iraq, our bill attempts to accomplish this. It contains $201 million, fully funding the President's request for Darfur programs. This includes $123 million for the African Union Mission in Sudan, or called AMIS, for peacekeeping activities. The administration has assured us that this $123 million will finance the entire U.S. fiscal year 2006 contribution. Also included in this amount is $11.7 million for refugee assistance and $66.3 million in nonfood assistance in the International Disaster and Famine Assistance Account. The plight of displaced persons in Darfur remains critical and is pathetic. The supplemental bill provides new budget authority of only $8.4 million for Afghanistan. This is a reduction of $54 million from the request but does not constitute a lessening of our commitment to this emerging democracy. Rather, it represents, first, the amount requested, $16 million, for fiscal year 2007 funds for USAID. It reduces that amount. Second, it eliminates the amount requested for non-emergency requirements of $38 million. The $8.4 million fully funds the request for emergency replacement of an electric turbine generator and assistance for migration and refugee requirements. My colleagues should know that the Secretary of State has not yet met the requirements of the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act which requires a certification that the Government of Afghanistan is fully cooperating with U.S.-financed efforts to eradicate poppy cultivation. It did not seem prudent at this juncture to appropriate any non- emergency funds for Afghanistan until that certification can be made. The legislation includes $10 million in the Democracy Fund appropriation for the promotion of democracy, governance, human rights, independent media and the rule of law programs in Iran. This is a reduction of $55 million from the requested amount. However, $50 million of that is for broadcasting efforts and is addressed in Chapter 6 of this bill, the jurisdiction of Mr. Wolf's subcommittee. For Liberia, the bill includes a total of $63.8 million. $13.8 million of that amount would be used to cover the extraordinary costs of refugees returning to Liberia, and $50 million will provide assistance for economic and project support. Now let me turn to the issues that are not specific dollar amounts. One of these is a general provision, Section 3012, not in Chapter 3 of the bill. It deals with assistance to the Palestinian Authority. I want to be clear. This bill includes no new, no additional funding for the Palestinian territories, and the President's supplemental request included no such funding. However, the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill did include $150 million to support the Palestinian people and build the capacity of the Abbas-led government. Since the fiscal year 2006 bill was passed, as my colleagues know, Hamas won a majority of the Palestinian legislature in the recent elections. The provision included in this bill before us today reconfirms and reemphasizes congressional oversight of our foreign assistance programs to this troubled region. It directs that no fiscal year 2006 or prior year funding can be used to support the Palestinian Authority or a successor entity until the government fulfills the requirements of the so-called Quartet Statement. It also suspends U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority until the administration completes its review of the entire assistance program. To be clear, this provision will not halt, nor should it halt, humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. We can and we must hold the elected leadership in the Palestinian territories to account for their messages of violence. But we should not punish the people of the territories for asserting themselves peacefully and democratically against corruption in their quest for a better life. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this supplemental. The foreign operations funding contained in Chapter 3 has been scrubbed so that only emergency requirements remain, and that is $140 million reduction from the President's request.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me paraphrase the words that Mr. Obey said a few minutes ago. Rather than holy pictures, I would say this provision of the bill is a little bit like sprinkling holy water over the issue. It has no effect. Dubai has already announced that they are going to sell their interests. The deal already went through. There is no effect of this provision in actually blocking the sale. This is making everybody feel good, that they can thump their chest and say we are doing something really tough here. There are three good arguments, Mr. Chairman, as to why we should not be doing this. First, it diverts our attention from the real issue. The real issue, is we don't have good port security. In fact, our port security is terrible. It is very poor. This diverts us from really dealing with the issue that we do not inspect more than 2 percent of all containers. We do not really have a system for tracking containers and we do not know the origin of these containers. Containers start in one place in Malaysia and go to Singapore and then go to Vancouver, and then by train to Chicago. We have no idea where it originated and what might have been put into the container. We do not have the information. We have bad port security. And Congress has a responsibility for the oversight and to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security is doing the job it should be doing. This diverts our attention from this issue and, allows everybody to feel good about what they are doing. It has no effect, none, on port security, or on the security of the United States. The second reason why this is bad, it is damaging, as has been indicated by the gentleman from Virginia, it is damaging to our relationship with the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates, Dubai, is the largest port in the world outside of the United States for U.S. warships. This last year 56 warships docked in the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, the same port that is managed by this company, and 590 supply vessels. All supplies that go to Iraq go through this port. Now we are inviting trouble. If Dubai decides that they want to retaliate against the United States, we will be up a creek without a paddle when it comes to getting our supplies into Iraq. And then, the third reason, it sends the wrong signal to investors around the world. It says to investors around the world that we are not really a reliable trading partner or a reliable investment partner. It says to them, that, the United States has rules that they are supposed to follow, and then they throw them overboard. This has been confirmed to me in at least one email that I have received from somebody who is an investor in Singapore. It said that many of his clients are reconsidering some of their investments in the United States, investments that create jobs for American workers in this country, because we do not have a reliable policy. This is good politics but bad policy, and this provision should be removed from the bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from New York is going to withdraw his amendment, and I will not take more than a few seconds here. I want to make only one point to other Members here. What the gentleman is proposing is certainly something that is humanitarian, and we certainly agree with his efforts to try to do everything we can to restore order to the very troubled nation of Haiti. But I think it is important to understand that knowing these elections were coming in the 2006 appropriations bill, the foreign assistance amount included in there is $194 million. In addition, the President is requesting in FY 2007 $163 million. Almost none of the $194 million in the FY 2006 bill has been obligated, so there is no possibility that we are going to need these additional funds. In other words, this is not an emergency at this point. If additional funds are needed, we could easily add them in to the 2007 bill, but we have almost all of the $194 million appropriated in 2006 that are still available for obligations to help this country get on its feet.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I am prepared, as the gentleman from Connecticut has already indicated, to accept this amendment. The Community Action Program, to which this is directed, has been a proven and effective way to build community-based democracy in Iraq and linkages between community and provincial governance, and I think it has worked very well. The experience that we have had in Iraq has really been very much in favor of what we have been trying to do there. These funds ensure the continuation of that Community Action Program through the fiscal year 2006, and I commit to the gentleman that we are going to consider further appropriations for this proven program in the regular appropriations bill for 2007. For that reason, I am happy to accept this amendment and hope that we can move forward.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Yes. If there is a scenario in which funding for activities in the foreign operations appropriations bill are funded for a period of time under a continuing resolution, I believe the funds would be available, on a pro-rated basis, to continue the CAP program until regular appropriations were enacted.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Indiana has indicated, this amendment he has offered here does represent a compromise that we have worked out so I do rise to say that we support this amendment. Let me say I do agree with my colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York, in many of comments that she made. It is correct that when President Uribe, for whom I have the greatest respect and believe he has been one of the truly great leaders of Colombia in recent decades, I think when President Uribe came to visit with us, he did not give us any indication that this was the money that he was seeking, that he needed additional funds for. However, having said that, I believe this is an important aspect of our efforts to interdict drugs coming to Central America and Mexico, and then on into the United States. For us it is the frontline of our war against drugs, and for that reason I do think that this amount which represents a reasonable compromise and does not damage our other programs from which the funds are taken in Iraq, for that reason, I think it is one that can be supported. Mr. Chairman, I would support this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, and I know some of my colleagues may question why that would be the case, but I think there is a very good and sound reason for that, and I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will listen to this. As Members will know, our committee has supported $290 million for the African Union for the AMIS fund. That is the African Military in Sudan support fund. $123 million, that is in this bill. I have been to the Darfur region twice in the last 18 months, and I have seen the very difficult conditions under which this African Union force is working, and I have been pushing the State Department to come up with a strategy as to what would be the future for the A.U. fund. So, with all of the support that the subcommittee has shown so far for this effort, why are we opposing this additional funding? Well, the Members may come from both sides of the aisle to the floor and claim that this funding is critical to saving lives in Darfur, but the simple fact is that this will not do that. It does nothing of the kind. In fact, it could actually be counterproductive. Let me explain why I say that. There is now an agreement between all the parties, the African Union, the administration and the United Nations, that the African Union force we call AMIS, A-M-I-S, should transition to a United Nations force. Just this last Friday, the African Union announced its support for such a transition and extended the mandate of the AMIS force until the end of this fiscal year. I have their communique in my hand here suggesting that it will be extended and then there would be a transition to a United Nations force. The administration's request, which is fully funded in the bill before us, will fulfill the U.S. contribution to maintain the AMIS force until that time. If we were to adopt these additional funds, we are basically saying that we do not agree with the idea that this force should be transitioned to a United Nations force. We are saying we want to add additional funds to keep it an African Union fund and not transition it to a United Nations force. That, Mr. Chairman, would be a mistake. Because there is no question the African Union has made it clear they cannot expand the force. They are willing to extend it for the time being until it can be transitioned to the United Nations force, but they have no capability and no intention of expanding the force. So to put these additional moneys in here to expand the force simply says that we are opposed to transitioning it to a United Nations force where we could have the proper size and the proper forces attached to this. So that is why I say this amendment actually would be counterproductive to what the gentleman from Massachusetts seeks to do. It is for that reason that I cannot support the message that we would send with this amendment. If the situation in Darfur is not resolved by the end of the year, this force should be transitioned to the United Nations force where we have seen over and over again it has the capability of dealing with this kind of peacekeeping operation, from Bosnia to other places around the world. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. They will not be voting against the AMIS, the African Military in Sudan, the A.U. force, that is there. They will instead, by rejecting this amendment, they will be voting for a coordinated effort to truly bring stability to the troubled region of Darfur; and, for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor will last long after her distinguished service on the Supreme Court. Not only does she have the distinction of being the first woman to serve on the court, but for more than twenty years she has helped to shape the legal landscape of this country with her thoughtful, carefully crafted decisions and her votes which have put her firmly in the center of American jurisprudence--exactly where the American people find themselves. I have a special affection for Sandra Day O'Connor because we share so much in our background. We both grew up on a cattle ranch in southern Arizona. We both attended Stanford University. We both served in the Arizona Senate. When she served on the bench in Arizona and I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, we both toiled through a two year process of reforming the criminal code in our state. Wherever and however our paths have crossed, I always admired her achievements, her wit and her wisdom. On a personal level, I have known Justice O'Connor and her husband for many years and have admired their wonderful relationship and their family. I know they look forward to getting reconnected and I wish John and Sandra all the happiness possible in the remaining years they share together.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to a dedicated public servant at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Dr. K. Larry Storrs is retiring from CRS after more than 30 years of service to Congress and the Nation. This length of public service is not only a credit to Dr. Storrs, but also a demonstration of the dedication that he and many others at the Congressional Research Service bring to support our work in Congress. Hailing from the small farm town of American Fork, Utah, Dr. Storrs first became interested in politics and public policy through his participation in debate and student government in high school and college. For 2\1/2\ years he was a missionary in Brazil, beginning his life-long involvement with Latin America. After returning from Brazil, he completed his undergraduate studies at Brigham Young University majoring in political science and won a fellowship funded by the National Defense Education Act to support his doctoral studies in government and Latin American studies at Cornell University. Newly married, he returned to Brazil in the mid-1960s to research his dissertation on Brazil's foreign policy. Before joining the Library of Congress, Dr. Storrs taught for 8 years at Vassar College and the George Washington University, focusing on Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations. His love of teaching ensured that he would continue teaching part-time during his public service career, including at George Washington University, American University, the Foreign Service Institute, and National Defense University. He has continued to teach me and many other Members of Congress about Latin America. Dr. Storrs began work with CRS in 1975 as analyst in Latin American affairs and was later promoted to specialist. During his career, he has written almost 400 memoranda and reports for Members of Congress and congressional committees, organized numerous seminars, and provided thousands of briefings to congressional staff on Latin American policy issues. Until the late 1970s, Dr. Storrs worked primarily on issues in U.S. relations with Chile and Panama. On Chile, he helped support the hearings on the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in foreign policy. He also provided extensive support to the Senate during the Panama Canal Treaties debate and to both houses during consideration of the legislation creating the Panama Canal Commission that operated the Canal until the end of 1999. In the 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Storrs wrote extensively on several controversial issues related to Central America and the Caribbean: congressional conditions on military aid to El Salvador and Guatemala; congressional prohibitions on covert assistance to the contras in Nicaragua; the recommendations of the bipartisan Kissinger Commission on Central America; and enactment of the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Beginning in the early 1990s, Dr. Storrs's research focused more on Brazil and Mexico within the context of U.S. initiatives to promote free trade in Latin America. On Mexico, he dealt with issues relating to congressional passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, congressional concerns with political stability and a guerrilla insurgency in 1994, and a large financial assistance package for Mexico in 1995. He also worked extensively on congressional initiatives to strengthen regional and bilateral drug control programs with Mexico. For well over a decade Larry has provided extensive support to the annual U.S.-Mexico Isnterparliamentary Group meetings, and he has accompanied the U.S. delegation for the past 7 years. Larry Storrs is a fine example of those many dedicated staff of the Congressional Research Service who help inform Congress as it deliberates important public policy issues. His gracious demeanor and considerable expertise on Latin America made him an invaluable asset to Congress for many years. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our deep appreciation to Larry for his service, and wish him the very best in future endeavors. I doubt he will really retire from teaching. Good teachers never do. There will always be someone lucky enough to learn from Dr. Storrs. We wish you the best, Larry!

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 17, and 18, 2005, I missed the following votes due to previous commitments in my Congressional district: S. 1932, On Motion to Instruct Conferees, Budget Reconciliation, 2006 (#652). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H.R. 4437, On Passage of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (#661). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H. RES. 623, On Agreeing to the Resolution providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules (#663). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 2520, Suspend the Rules and Agree to the Senate Amendment, Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act (#664). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 1815, On Agreeing to the Conference Report, National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06 (#665). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H. RES. 639, On Agreeing to the Resolution waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2863, Department of Defense Appropriations, FY 2006 (#666). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 2863, On the motion to recommit conference report with instructions for the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes (#668). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.'' H.R. 2863, On Agreeing to the Conference Report for the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes (#669). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' S. 1932, On Agreeing to the Conference Report for Budget Reconciliation, 2006 (#670). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. This bill is fundamentally flawed. By taking an approach that implements only enforcement measures, and does not look comprehensively at the problem, we will only worsen our current situation and do nothing to solve our immigration problems. I support border enforcement. In my State of Arizona, we have increased the number of Border Patrol agents by tenfold, quintupled the immigration enforcement budget, and overhauled the arsenal of high-tech equipment along the border. But we have learned a hard lesson in Arizona: No matter how much we increase our enforcement, still the illegal migrants kept coming, at the same rate or faster than they had come in previous years. In fact, during that period, the probability of catching illegal immigrants along the U.S.-Mexico border actually fell to an all-time low of 5 percent in 2002. The border buildup did not stop the flow; it merely shifted it to more dangerous areas, where apprehensions are more difficult and death more likely. This bill would continue that failed policy, by seeking only enforcement provisions, without creating a realistic, legal channel for workers to come here and help grow our economy. The only way to truly solve the problem is to include a legal channel for willing American employers to connect with willing foreign workers where no U.S. citizens are available or willing to fill the job. Otherwise, immigrants will continue to pour over our borders in search of jobs and a better way of life. At the same time, we must also create a tough but workable way to bring out of the shadows the millions of people who currently live in our country without documentation. We must say to those who break our laws that they will pay a stiff fine and they must go behind everyone else that wants to become a proud citizen of this country. Anything less than this will undermine our national security at a time when Americans are demanding to know who is living within our borders. Some have called the payment of large fines and other penalties ``amnesty.'' But I say that it is this bill's unrealistic, unworkable approach that amounts to amnesty. That's true because under this bill undocumented people living here will remain in the country with nothing happening to them. This bill ignores the problem. I think most members know this. But we are going to continue this charade, continue trying to fool the American people, continue pretending we are doing something to prevent illegal immigration. Without real, workable provisions, the American people will rightly be even more angry over our duplicitous shell game. Enhanced enforcement is an integral part of improving our Nation's security. But, enforcement alone without other reforms has not and will not secure the border. Mr. Chairman, simply stated, we should defeat this bad bill and bring back to the House a real bill, a comprehensive bill that tackles all the pieces of the immigration puzzle.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4437. This is not a theoretical exercise for me. No congressional district in the United States suffers more from the degradations of illegal immigration than mine. For years now, we have had the largest number of apprehensions in the country. In fact, more people cross the border illegally in the border-patrolled Tucson sector than all, all of the other border States combined. The strain on law enforcement, on education, on health care, and on social services is severe. It is real and it hurts. No, Mr. Speaker, in my part of the country we know what illegal immigration means. So I will listen today with a mixture of anger and amusement to all the things said here today by the experts who, for more than a decade, have paid no attention to the complaints and cries of alarm to those of us along the border. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does nothing to solve the real problems of immigration. In fact, it is worse than nothing. It is worse than nothing because it tries to fool the public. It pulls the wool over their eyes. It pretends we are doing something to secure our border, when in fact we are doing nothing except throwing words and money at the problem. Anyone who really cares about a solution to our immigration woes knows that border enforcement is one prong of a three-part solution. The first is enforcement, border enforcement and employer enforcement. Second, you have to have some means of allowing those who want to work and are willing to work come into the United States legally to work on a temporary basis. And, third, you have to deal with the 10, 11, 12 million people illegally in this country now. Now, that is the reality. But the bill brought before us today is an amnesty bill. That is our dark little secret, the unspoken truth that no one wants to talk about. Why do I say that? Because if you are really for enforcement, you have to get those 11 million people out of the country. We have to round them up, apprehend them, and ship them back home. But this bill does not do that. It ignores the problem. The committee knows that. The leadership knows that. We are going down this path, continuing this charade, continuing to lie to the American people, continuing to pretend we are doing something to prevent illegal immigration. The real question, Mr. Speaker, is when will this body have a serious dialogue about immigration issues? When will we engage each other and the American people on this difficult problem? We can only hope someday soon. But not today, Mr. Speaker. Not today. Not with this bill. Not with this rule.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on November 16, I missed the vote H. Con. Res. 268, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (#594). I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H. Res. 571, and to urge my colleagues--in the strongest possible terms-- to vote against this resolution. As with other members who have risen here today, I also served in our military. I'm a veteran of the United States Navy, and served one year in the Vietnam War on swift boats. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not stand before you tonight and suggest that past military service is a requirement for one to have a credible opinion on this important issue. All Americans have a right to be heard on this matter--and should be heard. Mr. Speaker, with all my heart and with all my mind, I believe that to pull our troops from Iraq immediately would send a clear and unmistakable message to every potential enemy worldwide that the United States has no backbone, no willingness to see a tough struggle through to the end. It would be a message to our allies that the United States does not honor its commitments. And it would send a message to the families of every member of the armed forces selflessly serving to defend our liberties, especially those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice that their service, their sacrifice, has been in vain. Look to our past history: In the face of relentless opposition from abroad and ever here at home, the United States honored its commitments to Germany, Japan, and South Korea after World War II and the Korean War. Today they are our strongest allies. On the other hand, Osama bin Laden himself wrote that evidence of the United States' weakness could be found in our departures from Vietnam, Beirut, and Mogadishu. ``The United States is a paper tiger,'' he was saying. ``Smack them in the face and they run.'' To pull our troops from Iraq immediately would be an abrogation of our responsibilities in the world. History will not define this great nation by our decision to enter Iraq--it will define us by how we leave Iraq. Whether or not you supported the decision to go to war against Iraq in the first place, we have an obligation to leave Iraq a safer, freer country than it was under Sadam Hussein. Spreading freedom and liberty is not something America has ever avoided, nor should it. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on November 17, I missed the vote on H.R. 500, Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of the 5 naval Avenger torpedo bombers of Flight 19 and the naval Mariner rescue sent to search for Flight 19 (#597). I intended to vote ``aye.''