Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his participation in this discussion here tonight. Just moving forward a little bit, and I do want to respond to what my colleague said, it reminds me of some experiences I have had. I have been, as I mentioned, talking about this for a lot of years. And I go into high school audiences, where there are seniors that are old enough to kind of understand the issues involved here, or go into college classes and I ask the same questions every time: How many of you think Social Security will be there when you get ready to retire? I almost never have a single hand that goes up. Never a single hand. So they do sense that there is a problem with it. And they are exactly right, because the numbers we just ran through, Social Security will not be there for them in the same way that it is today. There is no possible way when they get ready to retire that Social Security will be there in the same form. Something will have changed about it. Their benefits will have been reduced, taxes will be increased, or we will come to some other conclusion about a way to reform Social Security. So they understand what the issue is. And I think, generally speaking, the American people are coming to understand that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman once again.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for his comments, and I hope he will continue to engage in this discussion here tonight. I do want to take a few moments to talk about this particular chart up here because I think it expresses better than anything I could say verbally what the nature of the problem is that we are facing. Going back, thinking back to the last chart where we talked about how the fewer numbers of people are paying the taxes to support the beneficiaries, the people getting the benefits, this illustrates exactly what that means in terms of the cash that is coming into the Social Security trust fund. The reforms, the changes that were made in 1983 went a long way towards fixing Social Security in the short and the median term; but for the long term, it just kicked the problem down the road. It did not make a permanent fix to it. It just postponed the day of reckoning, postponed the day of reckoning because it increased the taxes. And gradually we are in the process now of raising the retirement age. It made some other things. So since the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have been collecting more in revenues from Social Security tax than we have been paying out in benefits. That means the Social Security trust fund has been reaping this windfall, if you will. It has had this extra money which we all know really is one arm of the Federal Government that is the Social Security trust fund taking the money and then turning around and loaning it to the Federal Government for part of the operations of the Federal Government. It is really paying part of the deficit, if you will, the operations of the rest of the government. Now, the trust fund gets some IOUs and some Treasury bills in its name in there, and those are earning some interest. But here is what we have got right now. There are more benefits coming in. But as you can see here this black part up here which is the revenues exceeding the benefits being paid out, it takes a downturn here in just 3 years. Now, that is the first critical date we need to focus on, the year 2008. It is in the year 2008 where the revenues start to decline and the excess revenues start to decline. And so the deficit, instead of masking more of the deficit each year, it will start masking less and less of the deficit each year. So we will be doing more borrowing in order to cover the rest of the deficit. Then, in the year 2018, you can see where these lines cross and the black turns to red. That is where the benefits being paid out exceed the revenues; the taxes that are actually being collected. So the Social Security trust fund has to go back to the Treasury, they have to go and cash in those IOUs they are holding, which means that the Federal Government has to give them cash and replace that borrowing with massive amounts of borrowing over here to cover the deficit. At that point, they not only have the annual amounts they are covering for each month to cover the benefits, but they also are going to have to be covering the replacement of the IOUs. So the deficit really starts to balloon at that point. And within just a very few short years, up to 2018, the deficit being caused by the Social Security Trust Fund cashing in those IOUs is in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We are going to be faced with a Titanic, a major, a simply major problem that we are going to have to confront at that point. How much do we borrow? How can we keep on borrowing those amounts of money, just to cover the shortfall in Social Security? And this is not saying anything about the shortfall in Medicare or the other kinds of entitlement programs that we have. We are talking just about Social Security. It is going to be a massive shortfall that we are facing. That is why it behooves us to start thinking about this now. Now, the third and last date that is currently projected is the year 2042. That is when the IOUs are gone. They have cashed in all the IOUs. Somehow we have managed to borrow the money from the Chinese or Japanese or the Germans, or whoever, to replace that borrowing, and we have managed to get the cash to pay the benefits. But in 2042, the IOUs are gone. There is nothing more for the trust fund to go out and use, except the money that is coming in each month. At that point, assuming we have done nothing, as some people I have heard tonight over on this side suggest that we do, do absolutely nothing, if we do absolutely nothing, at that point the Social Security benefits would be cut by 27 percent. Now, is there anybody listening this evening, and my colleague can answer this for himself, is there anybody that really thinks politically, with all the retirees we will have in the year 2042, we could realistically say, gee, your benefits just got cut 27 percent this month. Take it or leave it. That is it. Obviously, that cannot happen and will not happen, which is why we have to think now about how we will fix this so that it is strengthened for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman again.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I take the time this evening to rise on a subject that we have just heard a great deal about this last hour, and I certainly invite my colleagues from the Democratic side to stay around. I would be happy to yield part of my time to them so maybe we could begin this dialogue that we heard about in the last hour that is much needed here because I do believe that we do need to have a dialogue. I have actually been conducting a dialogue on this for a long time. 10 years ago, 10 years ago this spring, Congressman Charlie Stenholm of Texas and I formed the Public Pension Reform Caucus in the House of Representatives to begin to educate members of the House and the American public and staff here in the House about some of the issues, the looming issues of Social Security. Ten years ago it was as obvious as it is today or perhaps today it is even more obvious, but it was obvious even then because of the demographics that we were facing a problem with Social Security. And we thought that it was time for us to start addressing and to talk about what ought to be done. So tonight we are here to talk about strengthening Social Security. I heard the word ``gutting'' Social Security used by the other side a few minutes ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be more like gutting Social Security than to do absolutely nothing. That truly is the way to hollow out Social Security and say to the next generation and the generations that follow that there will not be Social Security. But there is a way that we can strengthen Social Security, make sure that that benefit is there for the women and children that we heard about here, for the low-income person, for the retiree that does not have much else. We can make sure that it is there. We can do it by coming together, reasoning together and making some suggestions and ideas, coming up with ideas about how we can strengthen Social Security, how we can protect it for the future, how we can protect it for current retirees and how we can make sure that the next generations of retirees have a Social Security benefit. Now, it is not certainly just our side on the aisle that has been talking about this. We seem to agree on this idea that there is a problem. And even before we began this discussion this year on this, I am delighted to see that there are previous high-ranking Democrats that have been talking about this. President Clinton in 1998 talked about Social Security and said that, Of all of these achievements, the economic achievements, and our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our younger generation, all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. That is 7 years ago. President Clinton identified that there was a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. He did not say Social Security was in danger of going away. He did not say Social Security was in danger of being gutted. He said there was a fiscal crisis, and that is exactly what we face today. It was a cash-flow crisis. Senator Hillary Clinton while she was still first lady, she said that one of the most critical challenges of our time is preserving and strengthening Social Security for future generations. That is exactly what we are talking about here tonight. We are talking about how can we make sure that Social Security is preserved for those who need it today, how can we make sure it is strengthened for those who will need it in the next generations. That is precisely what we are talking about. Now, we will look a little bit at some of the dimensions of the problem as to why we do have a problem. And by the way, problem, crisis: there is a lot of talk around here. It is not a crisis. In fact, we are hearing it is not a problem at all. Obviously, President Clinton did not agree with that. Obviously, Senator Clinton did not agree with that. I have never used the term ``crisis,'' but it is a problem. You know what happens when you have a problem and you do not do something about it: it becomes a crisis. If you ignore it, the problem becomes a crisis. It is not a crisis today, but we can see the crisis looming in the future. And I can tell you from having introduced the only bipartisan and the only comprehensive Social Security reform bill for these last 8 years, that Former Congressman Stenholm and I introduced and the current Congressman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), and I have introduced it this year, still a bipartisan bill that covers every detail of strengthening Social Security. I can tell you that if you do not work on strengthening and if you do not work on fixing it now, it becomes more difficult in the future. Every 2 years when we introduce our bill in the next Congress, we have to go back, of course, and recalculate the figures for the fact that 2 years have passed by, the demographics have changed a bit, and it becomes more difficult. It becomes more expensive. It becomes more costly. It becomes harder for the next generation, and it becomes harder for the current generations. What is the problem? What is the basic problem that we have in Social Security? It is a problem of demographics, that people are living longer. We have more people who are retiring. They are living a longer life. And at the other end we have families that are smaller. They are being started later. And so we have fewer people coming into the workforce. I have heard here this evening the talk about how this is a social insurance program. It is social insurance. It is social insurance, but the insurance program, the insurance that we have here is a contract between generations because Social Security, and let us make no mistake about this. If we do nothing else this evening, I hope we can convey one thought: Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. Taxes are collected today that are paid out in benefits at the end of the month. The contract is between generations, that when the next generation gets ready to retire that there will be somebody there to pay their benefits. Let me go through this chart and let me yield to my distinguished colleague here because this is the fundamental problem that we face. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying their taxes for every single person that was receiving Social Security benefits, 16 people working, for every one receiving their benefits. Today there is only 3, 3\1/3\ people working for every one that is receiving their benefits. When the younger workers retire in 20 years, that is not so young actually, but when people start retiring in 20 years, there will only be two workers that are going to be paying for the taxes for every single beneficiary. That is two people are going to have to pay their taxes each month to equal the benefit that is going to one retiree. That is a huge tax that people are going to have to pay. The reason is quite simple, as we just said. All the baby boomers begin retiring in the year 2008, and then we have those people living a lot longer, and a smaller number of people coming into the workforce to cover those taxes. That is the essence of the problem that we have got. That is why working together here, Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle here, we need to work together to find a way to strengthen Social Security, to make sure that it is strengthened for the next generation, that we preserve it for the current retirees, but that the young people will have some hope that there will be something there for them. I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has worked very hard on this issue. I know he has conducted some town halls, which I want to talk about some that I have done recently; and I would like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman here, and I think they are on point. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. It really does not serve anyone very well to have the kind of harsh rhetoric that we have been hearing about this issue. It is too important to carry on in that kind of a partisan nature. I remember sitting on this floor when the President of the United States, President Bill Clinton, talked about Social Security reform in 1998 and standing and applauding when he had the courage to get up there and talk about it. In fact, the President then followed up with only one major effort, out-reach effort that he did, and he happened to do it in my congressional district. I flew with him on Air Force One to Tucson in order to talk about this issue, and I was struck by the amazing grasp of the detail that President Clinton had about the nature of the problem that we were facing. It is exactly the things that we have been talking about and that we will continue to talk about and that President Bush is talking about today. We have a problem. We need to find a way to fix it. We need to find a way to strengthen Social Security so it will be there for the next generations as well as for current retirees. So we are not talking about taking it away. These kinds of scare tactics, they are not only bogus but they are disheartening as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) said, but they are also very destructive. They do not help us find a solution. And if ever we needed to have a bipartisan reach-out to find the solution to this problem, it is on this issue. The American people are watching us to see whether Congress really can reach out to find some way to fix this.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman again for his comments. The gentleman is a bit younger than I am. I am afraid I got ahead of the baby boomers on this.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage and tribute to Rafik Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon who was brutally assassinated and just recently laid to rest. Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 91 recognizing and celebrating his life of dedicated public service. His public as well as private contributions to his country were enormous. I commend all the members of Congress who worked quickly to develop this resolution, particularly members such as Mr. LaHood and Mr. Issa. I am sure the people of the United States and the people of Lebanon will miss Mr. Hariri greatly. Yet again, the Middle East has incurred a tragic loss of a world class leader who stood for peace and a better way of life for all the people of Lebanon. As we ask questions about his death and pursue the perpetuators of this act of terror, let us forever be inspired by how he led his life and made this world a better place.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself of such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for indulging me with this amendment. This amendment was legislation which was introduced by several of us that represent border districts last year as a freestanding bill. It is now incorporated here in this bill, or parts of it at least are incorporated in this bill. I think it is entirely consistent with the goals of H.R. 418, because a key component of securing our borders is increasing technology and communication along the border regions. H.R. 418 is a bill about securing our homeland, and this amendment is a perfect complement to the vision of this very important legislation offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. Arizona has become a doormat for illegal immigrants. They pour across our porous border every day. In fact, there are more apprehensions of illegal immigrants in Arizona than the entire rest of the border combined. Many portions of the Arizona border are large and unpopulated desolate desert areas. They are hard to patrol and difficult to monitor. In these areas and all along the border it is essential to advance ground technologies in order to officially understand and stop those who come through this back door to our Nation. My amendment to H.R. 418 requires the Department of Homeland Security, working through the field offices of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, to get the technology, the equipment and the personnel needed to address security of our borders. Furthermore, the amendment requires that the Department of Homeland Security carry out ground surveillance programs that will improve border security. While the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 designed a plan to enhance ground surveillance on the northern border, a similar program was not designed for the southern border. Improvements to ground technologies are absolutely essential in the large expanses of desert and unpopulated lands along the southern border. Finally, this amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to improve communications and information sharing with Federal, State and Tribal government agencies. The various agencies with jurisdiction over the southern border must be able to communicate. This is particularly a problem in Arizona, because more than half of the entire border is covered by Tribal organizations, Tribal units, sovereign Tribal nations who are not generally covered by most of the Federal legislation we have on telecommunication sharing. Having customs agents unable to communicate with border patrol agents or with the policemen from the Tohono O'Odham Nation around the same port of entry is really quite ridiculous. This portion of the amendment addresses problems with the use of incompatible communications technologies and requires that the Department of Homeland Security rectify this situation. The amendment builds on the sentiment, it builds on the intention of H.R. 418, and through its enhancement of homeland security helps to ensure the safety and defense of our Nation. I think it will be a step, perhaps a small step, but one of the very important steps along our southern border to helping improve the technology and our ability to secure that southern border. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 418. Many of these protections that are contained in this legislation are long overdue. They are necessary to protect our homeland. In particular, I am supportive of the provisions that deal with enhancing our driver's licenses by providing for some uniformity in the standards used to issue those driver's licenses and for finishing the border fence in southern California. We ought not to let some vague problem of the environment keep us from finishing this important part of our border security. But that is one step in the process of border security. I am serious about the problem of border security. I represent a district that has more apprehensions of illegal immigrants than any other district on the southern border, in fact, more apprehensions than all the other districts combined. As someone working hard for a long time to help secure our border, I can confidently say the most effective and efficient way to deal with this is to have comprehensive immigration reform. The President of the United States has recognized this. We need to create an avenue for those not crossing for malicious reasons to be funneled through the ports-of-entry along the border. That will allow us to deal with the real problem. Mr. Chairman, I urge us to support H.R. 418, and then turn our attention to comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, which is included as Division D of this consolidated appropriations legislation. This conference agreement provides important funding for programs designed to support the global war on terrorism, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and to support the national interests of the United States. It provides new funding of $93 million to help address the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, including $75 million to support an African Union security force to help end the violence that is plaguing the people of Darfur. This portion of the conference report contains $19.7 billion in new discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005, excluding $93 million in emergency spending to meet the very real emergency in Darfur. This is still $1.6 billion below the President's request, but represents an increase of $318 million above the level passed by the House. The primary reason for the increase is a conference decision to fund the President's highest priority in this bill, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, at a level of $1.5 billion. We had many challenges in dealing with the Senate bill and reaching a final agreement, but I think we were successful in crafting a bill that is balanced and promotes United States foreign policy objectives. The Millennium Challenge Corporation will be an important innovation in the way we deliver foreign assistance. It will reinforce and reward efforts in developing countries to strive for poverty reduction by emphasizing a country's commitment to fighting corruption and investing in its people. It was our appropriation bill last year that incorporated the authorization creating the MCC. The President can continue to count on me as a strong supporter. In addition, we provide important military assistance and counter narcotics funding for our allies in the global war on terrorism, including: an increase of $350 million, for a total of $400 million, to train and equip the new Afghan National Army; an increase of $90 million for law enforcement and counter narcotics programs in Afghanistan, to help reduce record opium harvests; a new base program of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan to help us in hunting terrorists along the Afghan border; and an increase of $73 million, for a total of $2.22 billion, for our closest alley in the Middle East, the State of Israel. The conference agreement includes full funding for these increases, both through new budget authority and, in the case of Pakistan, the use of $150 million in transfer authority. In addition, the conference agreement includes $2.3 billion for combating HIV/AIDS and related diseases, an increase of $690 million over last year and $93 million over the President's request. Together with $624 million recommended by the Subcommittee on Labor/HHS, over $2.9 billion will be available for HIV/AIDS programs in fiscal year 2005. The conference agreement includes a contribution of $338 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The figure for the Global Fund has gotten a lot of attention, and I want to set the record straight. The $338 million that the conference included in $238 million over the President's request. I hope everyone keeps in mind that in order to meet our budget target we had to cut $1.6 billion from the President's request for foreign assistance. Given such a challenge, I'm personally very satisfied that we are able to find bicameral, bipartisan support for such a significant contribution. My colleagues should know that the U.S. contribution is limited by law to one-third of all contributions to the Global Fund. Because other countries, particularly some European countries, did not step up to the plate last year, $88 million of our money intended for the Global fund could not be spent. We've included bill language to direct those funds back to the Global Fund; otherwise they would not be available for that purpose. When the challenge of AIDS is so large, we must put every dollar to work. Finally, the Fund has grown tremendously in its three years. It currently has over 200 grants under management for billions of dollars. The funding included in the conference agreement provides enough-- again, assuming other countries contribute their share--to cover the ongoing and renewal costs of these grants. The Fund needs to take the next several months to make sure it's strong enough to fulfill its mandate efficiently and transparently. The conference agreement includes guidance for steps the Fund should take, such as making sure funds are disbursed only on the basis of proven results. This conference agreement also provides $950 million for other health activities aside from HIV/AIDS. This amounts to an increase of $130 million over the President's request and a $31 million increase over last year. The conference agreement also provides $404 million in assistance for Sudan, including Darfur. I visited Darfur a few months ago with Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and we returned convinced that no long-term solution can be found for that troubled region without security. The African Union observers and protection mission in Darfur is a step in the right direction, and $75 million of this assistance is specifically intended to support and sustain that mission. Our bill is explicit in providing that no funds from these accounts can be made available for the government of Sudan in Khartoum until it acts in good faith to find a lasting peace in Darfur. The rest of the funding will remain available for humanitarian assistance for the people of Sudan. We continue an emphasis in agreement on helping developing countries build their capacity to participate in the international trading system. The conference agreement provides $507 million for trade capacity building, the same amount as last year. It also includes $20 million specifically intended to help the countries of Central America develop the labor and environmental standards that will help facilitate implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which I hope Congress can make a reality in the coming session. The conference agreement also responds to emerging needs, such as the provision of $85 million in assistance for Haiti. This legislation also funds the export finance agencies that help promote U.S. investment overseas and create jobs in the United States export sectors. It provides over $250 million for these agencies, including the Export- Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency, which is offset by $311 million in collections. The narcotics industry has become a source of funding for terrorists, especially in countries like Colombia and Afghanistan. As part of the war on terror, the conference agreement fully funds the President's request for the Andean Counterdrug initiative at a level of $731 million, for anti-narcotics, interdiction, development programs, and rule of law and institution building programs in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. Under the general anti-narcotics account, the conference report fully funds anti-narcotics and law enforcement programs in Afghanistan at a level of $90 million, and in Mexico at a level of $40 million. To support continuing United States leadership in the world for providing humanitarian responses to refugee crises, the conference agreement provides $800 million for refugee programs, $50 million more than the President's request. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe this balanced conference agreement provides important support for our most critical national security needs while substantially increasing funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It also enhances our support for our overseas development assistance and humanitarian assistance activities. It meets the high priority needs of the President in these areas, and accommodates Congressional concerns as well. It is a conference agreement that I think all members of this body should support. Before I yield, Mr. Speaker, I want provide special thanks to my full committee chairman, Bill Young of Florida, for his help and support to the Foreign Operations Subcommittee over the past 6 years. He is leaving as committee chairman, but remains a valued member of our committee, and I look forward to working with him closely in the future. I also want to pay tribute to the ranking minority member of the full committee, Mr. Obey, and my ranking minority member, Nita Lowey. They both have been extremely helpful in this process, and I very much appreciate the House Foreign Operations bill, and in reaching a conference agreement. I also appreciate all the members of the Subcommittee who contributed so much to this final agreement.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4818) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to comment on the gentlewoman's remarks that just preceded me, my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I quite agree with her that we need the money for Darfur and we need the money to make sure that we can have a peace settlement in that region, and that we can have forces there that can enforce that peace. But as she pointed out, the authority for that exists already in law. And while we can spend tonight beating up on the administration for not exercising it, they have the ability to do that, and I think they will exercise that at the appropriate time. No legislation, no action by this Congress is needed in order for them to do that. Mr. Chairman, I want to take my moment here to rise and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for introducing this supplemental legislation and to rise in support of the international disaster assistance in the Caribbean. While the vast majority of the funds in the bill are intended to assist American citizens who have been affected by recent hurricanes and tropical storms, there is $100 million that is set aside here in order to help our neighbors in the islands of the Caribbean. Several of these nations were devastated by wind, rain and flooding due to these hurricanes, particularly in Haiti, Grenada, the Bahamas, and Jamaica. Approximately 3,000 people in Haiti are either confirmed dead or reported missing due to flooding caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne. In addition, Hurricane Ivan destroyed nine out of 10 homes on the island of Grenada. The United States has already responded with $18 million in humanitarian assistance to those in the region that have been affected by these storms. But the scope of the destruction is very significant and additional resources are necessary. I am pleased the administration responded positively to our recommendation that $100 million was needed, and amended the initial request of $50 million. I support this assistance. I urge passage of this legislation. Even as we respond at home to the needs of our people in this country, I think Americans remain generous in their response to people who are devastated by hurricanes and disasters in other countries, including our neighboring Caribbean countries. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I wish I could seek time from my side of the aisle to speak today for basic human rights. Unfortunately, the misguided effort to enshrine family law into the Constitution of the United States comes from this side of the aisle. So I am grateful to the minority for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the very process by which this bill is brought before us today is an affront to this institution. It was not considered by any committee of the House. It is not brought to the floor by the chairman of that committee. Rather, it is brought by the Republican leadership, who decided to take upon themselves to do the work of the committees and their chairmen. Moreover, this very same legislation was considered in the Senate and did not even achieve a majority vote, much less the required two-thirds for a constitutional amendment. Why then are we rushing to judgment here today? What is the compelling reason to consider this now? Eleven States have proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot this November which would define marriage in their own States as being between a man and a woman. While I might disagree with the actions of the voters in my State or any State considering such an amendment to their constitution, that is their prerogative. For better than 200 years, family law has exclusively been the domain of the States. And that is where it should remain. Vice President Cheney said exactly this, and I agree with him. The chief crafter of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, former Representative Bob Barr, has said as much. And I agree with him. Marriage and divorce, inheritance and adoption, child custody, these are matters which correctly belong with our States. It certainly does not belong in the Constitution of the United States. Many of the States considering amendments to their own constitutions would permit their legislatures to enact provisions for civil unions between two people of the same sex. This amendment would prohibit that. But that is the genius of our federal system. To allow States to find solutions to issues such as family law which work uniquely for them. Amending the Constitution is, thankfully, a difficult task. That cumbersome process has saved us from making ill-advised changes during these past 215 years. It will save us from ourselves again this day. Never in our history have we used the amending process to limit the rights of citizens. From the first amendment to the fourteenth, the framers and the Congresses which followed have sought to expand and protect the rights of citizens. This would be a unique amendment in that it takes away rights from one group while specifically conferring it upon another. Try to find another provision in the Constitution that does this. They will look in vain. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and those before it should be about protecting rights and expanding rights. This proposed amendment to our Constitution is about discrimination. It is unnecessary. It is unwarranted. It should be soundly defeated.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do rise in support of House Joint Resolution 107 to provide continuing resolutions for the operations of the United States Government. A number of sections in this continuing resolution do apply to the foreign operations appropriations and many of these items have a direct bearing in our war on terrorism. Section 117 allows Pakistan, our vital ally in the war on terror, to continue to be eligible for U.S. assistance during the period of the CR. As we know, Pakistan's active participation in the war on terror is critical to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Section 119 allows the Millennium Challenge Corporation to offer a limited assistance to those countries that meet some of the criteria for MCC assistance but cannot yet get over the threshold of the criteria that is required for that. The administration is working more slowly than I think a lot of us would like to establish which countries would be eligible for this additional special assistance. Section 123 allows the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to follow through on transactions to promote the private sector and greater employment opportunities for Iraqis during the period of the CR. Ideally, these transactions will help create some of the preconditions for stability as Iraq moves towards elections in January. The heart, Mr. Speaker, is section 133. This will enable the Secretary of State to rebalance the assistance in the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund with a significantly greater amount, $1.8 billion, going to train and equip Iraq's security forces. The legislated change is necessary because the supplemental enacted last November allocated funding for specific sectors with flexibility for transfers between sectors. This sectoral allocation was intended to provide transparency and to improve oversight of the use of the funds. However, due to circumstances that have developed on the ground, the flexibility in current law is insufficient to allow the State Department to provide significantly greater funding for security and employment activities, and I think we all understand that security must be the top priority. Section 134 provides the Agency for International Development with the authority to use $90 million from within already appropriated amounts for the costs of operating its assistance programs in Iraq. Effective implementation of these programs is important if we are to help Iraq's economic and political systems evolve. Finally, section 135 allows the U.S. to continue its leadership in pushing for reduction of Iraq's debt. It provides former Secretary of State James Baker with the tools for upcoming debt negotiations in the Paris Club this fall. It would enable the U.S. to forgive nearly $4 billion of debt owed by Iraq, thus spurring vastly greater amounts of debt forgiveness by Iraq's other creditors. This section also makes the modest technical changes to allow the Secretary of State to take responsibility for future reports to Congress on Iraq's reconstruction and to enable greater congressional oversight over the use of agency administrative expenses in Iraq. On balance, I think this is a good bill and provides some important considerations to keep the foreign policy of the United States moving forward. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). As my colleagues are aware, or should be aware, this is yet another chapter or maybe another page in the book on the implementation of the NAFTA agreement. NAFTA carries two major provisions when it comes to trucking transportation: one on market access for transportation services, the other relates to cross border investment in the transportation sector. All three countries that are party to NAFTA, Canada, Mexico and the United States, have successfully implemented the provisions on crossborder investment. It is only the United States that has not implemented its commitment for full border market access in transportation services. For years now the U.S. has fudged, has reneged on this provision of the NAFTA agreement due to spurious claims and lawsuits linked to purported safety and environmental concerns. That was recognized as being spurious by the United States Supreme Court when in an absolute unanimous decision they threw the lawsuits out and said, get on with it, move on, allowing the U.S. now to fulfill its NAFTA obligations, all the while achieving high levels of safety in environmental protection that our citizens expect. Let us review a few facts of this debate. The Department of Transportation is not planning to exempt any Mexican trucks from the underlying motor vehicle standards. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) implied that that was the case, that we are talking about the standards. We are not talking about the case for vehicle safety. All Mexican carriers have to certify that their vehicles comply with the core safety standards in order to receive operating authority. The amendment of the gentleman and the line of argument that he is using is referring to a grace period that is for labeling of trucks that are manufactured 10 or more years ago. It is important for Members to understand that the mere possession of the label or not has nothing to do with actual vehicle safety. All trucks, all trucks, if they have the label or if they do not have the label have to be in compliance with the actual safety standards themselves. Let me say this a little differently and be more specific. All Mexican trucks will need to meet what are known as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, or the FMCSR requirements, in order to operate in the United States. All trucks, it does not matter when they were manufactured, all trucks have to meet those standards in order to operate in the United States. Regardless of whether or not they have a label certifying their manufacturing standard at the time of their production, these trucks are going to be held to a higher, more inclusive standard than is mandated on their operators. Furthermore, these standards measure how their trucks are operating today. That is a far more relevant fact than what it was when they were manufactured 2, 5, or 10 years ago. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Ten years ago the United States made a commitment to free trade, and it included the transportation sector. If this amendment passes, it once again represents the United States turning its back on its trading partners. It once again says we are really not reliable. When it comes down to it, we will find ways to avoid complying with it. I would hope my colleagues will say meeting our legal commitments makes a difference and is something that is important. Members should understand that this amendment shrouds itself in the name of consumer protection, but it is really all about protectionism. We should not pass on the high cost of protectionism to the U.S. consumers once again. Failure to provide market access in this sector means that U.S. consumers using transportation services in North America needlessly pay the high cost of protectionism benefiting a small, but highly mobilized, interest group. I think we know what we are talking about here. We are talking about one special interest group, the Teamsters. For Members who are focused on making sure that the U.S. remains competitive and generates jobs, we need to know that failure of our commitments means that U.S. manufacturers and farmers are going to be hurt. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This issue is not about highway safety. It is not about consumer safety. It is not about the environment. Pure and simple, this amendment is about protectionism.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I just want to respond to a couple of things that were said here today. This does not have anything, let me repeat it, this does not have anything to do with the safety standards of the trucks that are traveling on the roads inside the borders of the United States. It does not have anything to do with the safety standards of those trucks. It has to do with the labeling. It has to do with when they were manufactured 10 years ago these trucks were assembled, they are usually U.S. trucks, they are assembled perhaps in Mexico or Canada, but they were not being assembled for use in the U.S. market so they do not have the label. It is hard now to go back and get that. To come into the United States, every single standard that is required of the truck here in the United States has to be met by that truck coming in from Mexico. Antilock brakes, all the different things that are required of trucks here, all those have to be proven, and they have to be on there and exactly in the same way. This simply has to do with a labeling requirement at the time of assembly of that truck, and in many cases when it took place 10 years ago, that label is not readily available. So they have to go back to the manufacturer and get all the information that is required. The gentleman said there were 5,000 people killed last year by truck- auto accidents, and I am sure he is correct about that. How many of those people were killed by an uninspected truck coming into the United States from Mexico? How many of those were killed by that? Accidents occur, but they are not going to occur in any greater number because we have trucks coming in from Mexico that are going to be thoroughly inspected, are going to meet all of the requirements, are going to meet everything that is required on any truck that is operating on the roads in the United States, and the operator has to meet the same kinds of standards. Let me just make it clear that we are meeting the same kinds of standards. The trucking standards are not being changed. We are talking only about a labeling issue. This is a bogus amendment. It is a protectionism amendment. It is designed to keep Mexican trucks out of the United States. It has nothing to do with safety.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and I returned from a 4-day trip to the Sudan, including mostly into the Darfur region in West Sudan. We visited the camps where the displaced persons are. We visited North Darfur, which is an area under control by the Sudanese Liberation Movement, the rebel groups. I am here to report to my colleagues today that unfortunately the attacks on the people of Darfur are continuing by the Janjaweed, that is the militia that has been armed by the government and sent on these missions to destroy and to kill the people there, increasing the huge numbers of displaced persons who are fleeing into these camps. The conditions in these camps are absolutely intolerable. They are living in positive squalor. The world's humanitarian community is responding in a very positive way, but the conditions continue to grow worse. What is needed is greater security. What is needed is a greater commitment by the African Union to send troops to provide that kind of security. What is needed is a commitment by the Sudanese government to end the Janjaweed attacks and to allow the humanitarian community to provide the relief that is necessary and to provide the security also so that these people can return to their homes.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment. This language that is included in the Transportation-Treasury bill regarding the matricula consular card is a classic case of confusion about an issue. Let me take my time for a moment here to tell my colleagues what this is not about. This is not about giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This is not about giving social services to any illegal aliens. This is not about allowing any other illegal aliens to enter this country. It is not about an I.D. card that may be used to obtain any government service. In fact, what the language does, in effect, is limit the ability of the Federal Government, the language that is in the bill now, that was adopted in committee, limits the ability of the Federal Government to track the money of people who are in this country. We do not even know who they are. At least we ought to know something about where their money is going. Now, if this legislation were adopted with this language in it, the Treasury Department would be prohibited from issuing any regulations about identification to the banks, because the language specifically does not speak about any particular document and, therefore, the matricula consular card could be included in it and, therefore, they could not issue any kind of documentation about it. The administration is not confused about this. There has been a lot of talk today about this. I have been hearing this going around here, that, oh, really and truly the FBI and the Justice Department supports this. Well, they do not support this. They have sent a letter which makes it very clear that the Justice Department does not support the language that is in the bill. They support the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment. Secretary Snow made that very clear when we debated this in the Committee on Appropriations. They do not support adding such language that prohibits the use of the matricula consular card, because it is one form of identification that we do not have. This is not a Department of Homeland Security issue. This is a Department of Treasury issue that has to do with private banks identifying people so that they can open bank accounts. And DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has not said anything about whether these cards should be used for banking purposes or not. Treasury does not use a list of particular documents. They set the standard for what the verification ought to be. The standard accommodates local conditions as well as innovations of verification techniques. And the government ought not to be in the business of saying yes to this document, no to that document, because any document can be forged or counterfeited. What we need to do is set standards for verification of those documents, and banks need to have some kind of standard for that. They look to this as one more piece of documentation they can use. Police departments like it very much because it is one more piece of documentation they can use when they pick up somebody and the person does not have a driver's license, for example. It is an added piece of identification that can help to identify an individual. This decision ought to be left to the Committee on Financial Services, if we are going to get into the business at all of trying to micromanage the regulation being written by the Treasury Department. The real argument is over whether we are going to have a secure form of ID. Should we be in the position of saying no to private institutions? If banks are to be secure, I urge us to vote in favor of the Oxley-Frank amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday and this morning, I was in my Congressional district for the primary election and missed the vote on the following measures: (1) On agreeing to H.R. 4381, the Harvey and Bernice Jones Post Office Building Designation Act (No. 422). I intended to vote ``aye.'' (2) On agreeing to H.R. 4556, the General William Carey Lee Post Office Building Designation Act (No. 423). I intended to vote ``aye.'' (3) On agreeing to H. Res. 754, On ordering the previous question providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5006) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes (No. 424). I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I come to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. Once again, what we are looking at here is something that tries to deal with the symptoms of illegal immigration. It does not actually deal with the problem that we have of illegal immigration. But in this case we are really not talking about going after illegal immigrants at all. We are going after hospitals. We are going after health care providers. We are going after the people that are providing the health care, that are providing emergency services for these people, and we are saying we are going to punish those particular people. This is an antihospital amendment. There is no other way to describe it. It is just an antihospital amendment. If this amendment passes, we are punishing the overburdened and undercompensated hospitals, which I happen to have a lot of them in my district because we have a lot of the illegal immigration in Arizona. And so the costs in Arizona are tremendous. This is targeted directly against the hospitals in places like Arizona and along the border there. If the Federal Government mandates that hospitals treat those that are brought to their doors, and they do, then the problem is you need to reform that law, EMTALA as it is called. If you want to deal with the problem, reform that. Otherwise the Federal Government needs to be responsible for the mandate that it has created by saying that hospitals must serve anybody who shows up in their emergency room, must serve them. That is the way it probably should be, in my opinion. I do not think we want hospitals saying, we are going to turn you away, and we are going to deal with this other person. But if you want to reform it, that is where you need to reform it. We have hospitals in my district that are going bankrupt. They cannot offer medical services because they are not being reimbursed. One of our two major hospitals in Tucson has closed their trauma one center largely because the other hospital is overburdened with trauma one care right now, and it is largely because of this problem, and this, of course, would put an even greater burden on them and hurt them even more. They are disappearing through no fault of their own. They are complying with the law. They are dealing with the care for people that need this care. This is the wrong approach. I urge rejection of this amendment.