Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I will use only a small part of the allotted time. Let me just first say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) that I really respect his support for veterans. I know it comes from his heart, and I know how strongly he feels about it and how hard he has worked on behalf of veterans everywhere in the United States, and I truly do respect that. The gentleman from New York has talked about this from the veterans standpoint. Let me just say about where this money would be taken from, and that is from the nearly $2.5 billion that is set aside for the Iraq relief and reconstruction. I think even the gentleman from Texas would concede that the amount that we have provided for Iraq relief and reconstruction is probably only a small part of what is ultimately going to be required. It is certainly not enough to do the job entirely. So, Mr. Chairman, I would rise in opposition to this amendment because I think it does significantly devastate or reduce the ability of our forces on the ground and our relief and reconstruction teams on the ground to do the job that they need to do for relief and reconstruction by reducing this amount. This is not the place, not the time for us to start whittling away at that account. If anything, we are going to need to come back and add to it later, and for that reason I would oppose this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to talk about this amendment which does affect both the defense chapter of this supplemental as well as the foreign assistance chapter. The supplemental bill before the House today has the same level as the President's request for funding for Colombia in the Foreign Assistance Chapter. It includes $37 million foreign military financing and $34 million from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The McGovern amendment would cut $27 million from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and $34 million from the funds in the Department of Defense Chapter. It leaves in the foreign military financing assistance and $7 million of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. Let me begin by saying about my opposition to the amendment that the funding in supplemental legislation for Colombia is subject to all of the restrictions and conditions that exist under current law. These funds are not exempt from those conditions. The funds are subject to human rights certifications. They are subject to coca spraying conditions, conditions on the use of U.S. helicopters, the rules of engagement, and there is more. In fact, let me emphasize to my colleagues that there is no provision in the foreign assistance legislation that is subject to more conditions than these funds, with the possible exception of those funds provided for the West Bank and Gaza. I apparently do not need to remind the subcommittee that Colombia is South America's oldest democracy, but it is a country that is torn by decades of civil strife. It has endemic violence, corruption, deep socioeconomic inequities, weak institutions, and a serious economic recession, all exacerbated by the illicit drug production and trafficking. Drug profits play the motivating factor in inciting the terrorism that is killing 3,500 Colombian citizens every year. It is in the national interest of the United States to promote better stability in Colombia by helping it address these longstanding problems and confronting the socially corrosive drug industry. But for the first time since becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, I have some good news to share with my colleagues. Our eradication efforts with President Uribe's administration and with his assistance are making a difference in Colombia. The last half of 2002 and the first half of 2003 marks a turning point in the struggle by the United States and Colombia against narcotrafficking and terrorism. We have made significant progress; but as a result, the narcoterrorist groups have become desperate. President Uribe and his senior administration officials, in office only since August of 2002, have demonstrated the will and the ability to fight narcotrafficking and terrorism at their roots. Therefore, the terrorists are now targeting him and other officials for assassination. Funding in this supplemental will provide much-needed security upgrades for official facilities and training for Colombian security personnel to reduce the threat of assassinations. I would urge my colleagues to recognize the situation in Colombia, to recognize that U.S. national interest in a stable Colombia is important, to recognize that we are making a difference. Reducing U.S. support at this time would send the wrong message to the FARC and to the paramilitaries. I urge my colleagues to oppose the McGovern amendment. (Mrs. LOWEY was given permission to include a statement at this point in the Record.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the distinguished chairman of the full committee. I understand that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) does intend to withdraw this amendment at the conclusion of this debate, but I do not think the remarks that were made with regard to Pakistan should stand without some comment, without some kind of rebuttal. I do understand and I do desire, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) have spoken so eloquently about the conflict in South Asia between Pakistan and India, I desire as much as they do to have a satisfactory resolution to this conflict, to see that Kashmir no longer divides these two countries and provides a source of conflict of two nuclear superpowers on the Asian subcontinent. But this is not about an amendment about favoring Pakistan over India. This is an amendment about Pakistan, and Pakistan is one of the most critical front-line states in this global war against terrorism. It has paid a very high price, including the lives of its soldiers because of its decision to side with the United States in the fight against the al Qaeda and terrorism. Their cooperation on terrorism has been excellent. Our nations have coordinated to apprehend nearly 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, including the operational commander, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the September 11 conspirator, Ramzi bin al-Sheibh. Mr. Chairman, this is not blood money. Some have talked about that with relation to some of the other countries for which money is being provided. This is not money to get their support in the war against Iraq. This is funds to help Pakistan help us prosecute the war against terrorism. The $175 million in foreign military financing in the committee's recommendations is going to increase Pakistan's capability to apprehend and disable terrorists hiding and operating on its own territory. In the regular 2003 appropriation bill, we included money for fixed and rotary wing transport, including C-130s and Cobra/Huey helicopters. This supplemental provides urgent items needed to counter al Qaeda and Taliban pockets in the border area with Afghanistan. Key equipment identified for counterterror operations during the most recent bilateral defense consultation discussions last fall include ground radars and communications equipment. Surveillance systems are needed for the border, and communications can improve with interoperability between our forces and those of Pakistan. The supplemental will also provide for procurement of 10 OH-58 D helicopter reconnaissance systems to interdict the terrorists and to provide for drug interdiction. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by repeating what I said a moment ago. This is not about giving something to Pakistan because they have been supportive of us. This money is being given to help prosecute the war against terrorism. That is our war, and Pakistan is deeply engaged in that war, as has been evidenced by the seizures of people that we have made along the border. We need their continued involvement, and we need their support; and this amendment ought not to be adopted.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have been through this debate earlier today. We had a definitive vote on the issue of whether or not we should eliminate these funds for Turkey. The case, I think, was made very effectively here on the floor of the House of Representatives about the importance of Turkey in this fight against Iraq, in this fight to protect our soldiers who are operating in northern Iraq. One of the points I did not get to make today, however, is about the fragility of the Turkish economy. It is very fragile. They have been battered for years by the oil sanctions. They have been battered by the costs of the number of refugees who have come in from Iraq into Turkey. They have been battered by the loss of tourism. They have been battered by the world recession. This is a country that has a huge amount, over $75 billion of public debt. There is no one that thinks that this $8 billion of loan guarantees that the funds we are talking about would buy for them can save them on its own; but it can buy them time until we can get past this conflict, until we can begin to make the economic reforms with the new government in that country, until we can get an agreement with the IMF and with the World Bank, until we can restructure some of those loans that they have. But that cannot happen, Mr. Chairman, unless we have these funds made available to Turkey. Taking 20 percent of it out means at least a reduction of $2 billion in those loan guarantees. This is important money. It is important for the security of our troops who are operating in northern Iraq, it is important for the resupply of them, it is important for the supply of the humanitarian assistance going into northern Iraq, and it is important to maintain the coalition that we find so important in fighting this struggle. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment as soundly as they defeated the previous amendment. We ought not to be reducing this money that is very important to maintaining our relationship with Turkey and maintaining Turkey's involvement in the war against terrorism and the war against Iraq. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I think they summarize precisely my point, which is really this is not about India. It is about Pakistan and having them continue to be involved in the war against terrorism. And I agree with him that India remains a great democracy in the region.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the work they have done to get this supplemental bill to the floor as expeditiously as possible, in as good shape as it is, and with as little controversy as we have seen. There is certainly some disagreement. Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental total $7.4 billion. That is 2 percent, $184 million, less than was requested by the President. We have fulfilled the administration's funding request for Iraq and for the countries supporting the war on terrorism. Let me start by outlining where we do concur with the President's request. The most urgent requirement in the foreign operations chapter is assistance for Iraq's people. One-third of the foreign operations chapter is for relief and reconstruction in Iraq. We have provided every penny the President requested, plus an additional $40 million. Therefore, we are asking the House to approve $2.5 billion for a new Iraq relief and reconstruction fund. The Department of State, USAID, and the Treasury and Health and Human Resources Department could receive direct apportionments from the fund; but it does not go to the Department of Defense, which already, I think most of us would agree, has its hands full with winning the war and providing security in Iraq. The immediate focus of the new fund would be provision of clean water, food, and care for displaced and vulnerable people. Soon thereafter, repairs of the degraded electricity and communications, health, and education systems would get under way. We anticipate that other donors and international organizations would eventually take over much of that work. The remaining funding in this chapter is to be provided for countries supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the broader war against terrorism. The committee has provided all of the funding that was requested for Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, and the rest of the 22 countries that are included in this supplemental. While I understand there are many amendments that today will be aimed at cutting funds to one or more of these countries, I would like to emphasize that the President requested these funds to help the United States fight this war in Iraq. He is our Commander in Chief, and I ask my colleagues not to remove the tools he needs to win this war. That includes funding for our diplomatic efforts as well as our military operations. The foreign operations chapter includes $9 million for loan guarantees to Israel, which are to be issued over the next 3 years. This is very similar to the multiyear loan guarantee package that we provided to Israel in 1992. These guarantees will bolster the nation's credit rating and help Israel implement the critical budget and economic reforms. They may also support the renewed peace process after the end of the conflict in Iraq. Additionally, the foreign operations chapter includes $2.3 billion for the economic support fund. This total provides $700 million for Jordan. Jordan is particularly dependent on Iraqi oil. There is $300 million for Egypt which may be used for loan guarantees, not to exceed $2 billion, and $127 million is provided for Afghanistan to continue efforts to support security and economic development in that Nation. Also, $100 million is provided for a new Islamic partnership and outreach program. Additionally, there is permissive language that allows the President to use up to $1 billion for Turkey that could subsidize some $8.5 billion of loan guarantees. The language of this bill requires the Secretary of State to assure Congress that Turkey is cooperating with the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including facilitation of humanitarian assistance to Iraq, before authorizing the loan guarantees. There is going to be a lot of discussion about this issue today, so let me just say now that Turkey is a longtime ally of the United States. It is a key front-line state in the war on terrorism. It is a democratic Muslim nation that is part of most of the Middle East and southern Europe. Obviously, it is a nation that has been significantly impacted by the conflict in Iraq, and it had significant economic problems before the conflict. As Deputy Secretary Armitage said in testimony before our subcommittee, ``It would be the greatest of ironies if we spend all this energy, blood, and treasure and were successful in Iraq, only to turn around and see a longtime ally, Turkey, go bottom up because of economic weakness.'' The last part of the foreign operations chapter includes $2.1 billion for foreign military financing as requested, which improves defense capabilities of America's friends and allies. There is $406 million that is provided to Jordan to meet border security requirements to upgrade air bases, and $170 million is for training and equipping the new Afghan army. Finally, within this section the FMF account includes $1 billion to help Israel strengthen its military and civil defenses. There are programs for which we did not provide the full President's request. Chief among these is the U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex Emergencies. The President asked for $150 million for this new emergency fund, but we believe that this request should be considered within the context of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations and authorization processes. As I said in our hearing last week with Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, in my view it is not appropriate to use the Iraq supplemental as a cover to assert agency jurisdiction or to implement untried concepts. The amount not provided for this new emergency fund was distributed among the international disaster assistance and emergency refugee accounts and the new Iraq relief and reconstruction fund. Mr. Chairman, this is a brief summary of the recommendations contained within the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental. I believe the committee has developed a responsible product, and I ask for the support of the House.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the preceding speaker said, the gentleman who offers this amendment is somebody that I have the highest respect for. He is a true patriot, and no way would I impugn his motives. I just think the basis of this amendment is fundamentally wrong. As I said the other day in the committee, this is one of those tough votes where I think we as Members have an obligation to not let our emotions run away with us but to do what is the right thing in order to prosecute the war and to carry out our national security and diplomatic objectives. If I may I would like to provide a little bit of background. The bill language, as it is presented on the floor today, permits us to provide to Turkey, through permissive legislative language, $1 billion in economic support funds to Turkey which could be used by Turkey in turn to buy down the cost of private sector loans, that is, the credit subsidy that would sustain about $8.5 billion of loan guarantees. The committee recommends this bill language but requires that the Secretary of State determine and notify Congress that Turkey is cooperating with the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the facilitation of humanitarian assistance. So this money does not get spent until that certification is made by the President. The President, the administration, and the committee support the assistance in this bill because a strong and economically viable and a democratic Turkey is a model in the Middle East, and it is essential to U.S. strategic interests. Turkey has been an ally of ours for the last half century. During the Korean War, the Turks were with us and suffered the highest per capita casualties of any partner in the Korean War coalition. They were with us in Vietnam. They were with us in 1991 in the Gulf War. They have been with us in Afghanistan. They helped us in Bosnia. They have been very helpful in the war against terrorism. They have hosted Operation Northern Watch. That is the enforcement of the no-fly zone in the northern part of Iraq for the last 12 years. They are a member in good standing of the NATO alliance. Turkey is also a democratic nation. It is one of the few Muslim nations that has built economic and military ties with Israel. Ankara has viewed this relation as important, as does Israel. After the conflict with Iraq ends, we will clearly need Turkey to play an important role in the Middle East peace process. Obviously, the Turks have not done everything that we would have wished and may have been expected in Operation Iraqi Freedom; but we need to remember that they are a democracy, and sometimes democracies can be messy, as we certainly know in our own body here. The Turkish parliament did not support the executive by some three votes. They fell short of the absolute majority they needed to have; but in fairness, 90 percent of the population has been opposed to this war, and so it was an act of some courage for this new parliament, 80 percent of whom were new at the time they voted, to cast the votes they did; and as The Washington Post pointed out recently, the United States contributed to part of the problem with its own diplomatic errors leading up to the vote that took place. Foreign affairs is, in part I think, understanding about being sensitive to other nations' views. We need to remember that Turkey does border Iraq, as well as Syria and Iran. We need to understand that the Iraq conflict and Kurdish issues are extraordinarily important domestic issues in this multiethnic nation. The refugee flows from Iraq in 1991 tragically led to a wave of terrorism that resulted in 30,000 Turkish deaths, and we can be sure that was very much on the minds of these people at the time they cast the votes that they did. While they did not allow U.S. combat troops to cross into Iraq from Turkish territory, they are now supporting us in a number of important ways with intelligence support, with overflights by combat aircraft and missiles, the basing of helicopters in southeastern Turkey for medical evacuations, by allowing resupply of our troops by opening a northern front, and emergency landings of U.S. combat aircraft, and with humanitarian assistance that is now flowing regularly across the border into Iraq. We have been firmly opposed to having Turkish military intervention in Iraq. The assistance in the supplemental provides an incentive for Turkish restraint. Should Turkey move into Iraq, the President would be able to withhold the funds in this bill. Just yesterday, Secretary of State Powell completed talks in Turkey. He obtained formal Turkish agreement to allow overland supply of fuel, water and food to our forces in northern Iraq. The Secretary worked on repairing relations. He secured Turkish agreement on the flow of humanitarian supplies. Mr. Chairman, for us to cast a positive vote on this amendment right now undercuts not only the President's diplomatic efforts but, yes, sadly undercuts our military forces in northern Iraq; and, Mr. Chairman, we should not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes on the following measures: 1. Final Passage of H.R. 522--Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003 (No. 98). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' 2. Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 743--Social Security Protection Act of 2003 (No. 99). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the conference report. This omnibus act includes the fiscal year 2003 appropriations act for foreign operations, exporting financing, and related programs. As chairman of the Subcommittee, I'm pleased we'll finally enact into law important funding provisions and policy language that the Appropriations Committee considered last fall. It is vital that the Congress maintain a partnership with the Administration, both in funding for foreign assistance and in the development of the policy that accompanies and guides that assistance. Failure to enact foreign aid appropriations bills in a timely manner erodes and compromises the constitutional role of Congress in both these important areas. The foreign operations division of this conference report totals $16.3 billion in discretionary budget authority. It is $250 million below the level approved last year by the House Appropriations Committee, $130 million below the Senate level, and $171 million below the President's request. However, despite these reductions we have managed to fund important initiatives in funding for HIV/AIDS, assistance for Afghanistan, and in the War on Terrorism. Assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in the foreign operations division of this conference report totals $800 million. That compares to $475 million in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations act. As part of this funding, $250 million is a contribution to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, bringing the total United States contribution to date to $725 million. In the two years since I became chairman of the subcommittee, we've raised funding to combat HIV/AIDS from $300 million to $800 million, an increase of over 250 percent. I know everyone would like more, and the President recommends major increases in future budgets. However, I think we can take some satisfaction in the way this Congress has responded to the needs in this area. The conference report also includes the recommendation from the House bill that provides a minimum funding level for Afghanistan of $295.5 million. The President's budget stated that final funding levels for Afghanistan were yet to be determined, but I believe it is necessary to maintain an emphasis on reconstruction of the physical infrastructure as well as building institutions of democracy in Afghanistan. For that reason funding in this bill for disaster assistance and refugee assistance is increased above the levels recommended by the President. Total refugee assistance in this conference report is $813 million, compared to the President's request of $720 million. Many members of the House wrote to us last year to support as high a level as possible for refugee assistance, and we have responded. We also have a new focus in this conference report on economic growth, including trade capacity building, basic education, and clean water. We include bill language providing that not less $452,000,000 should be provided for trade capacity building in the developing world. This is an issue close to my heart, because I believe that without the ability to participate in the international trading system, developing countries will be left behind in the global economy. We also maintain and enhance assistance for our allies in the War on Terrorism. Israel will receive almost $2.8 billion in assistance, including an increase of $60 million in military assistance. Jordan will receive $250 million in economic assistance, an increase of $100 million. In addition, Jordan will receive $198 million in military assistance, an increase of $123 million. Anti-terrorism training for the security forces of our allies will increase from $38 million to $64 million. I am disappointed we were not able to fund $200 million for additional anti-terrorism assistance for Israel as I recommended twice last year--once in the supplemental and once in the regular fiscal year 2003 bill. In this conference agreement, we were forced to reduce the overall level of the House bill by $250 million, and the Senate bill did not contain this funding. Therefore it was impossible to accommodate this increase without damaging cuts to other programs. However, it is my expectation we will be addressing this matter as part of the supplemental appropriations request we should be receiving from the Administration in the next month. It should come as no surprise to learn that we do not continue funding for the heavy fuel oil costs of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO, since North Korea has abrogated the Agreed Framework. This results in a reduction of $70 million from the President's request. This conference report continues assistance to Eastern Europe and to Eurasia through out regional accounts. Funding for the Former Soviet Union and Eurasia is provided at a level of $760 million while assistance for Eastern Europe is funded at $525 million. However, we include language similar to that contained in the House bill prohibiting funding for the Government of Urkraine unless the President certifies that it has not provided arms to Iraq. We do not want to reward governments that are aiding Saddam Hussein. We also retain important language initiatives from the House bill, including language that tightens oversight on both the West Bank and Gaza assistance program of AID and on our funding to the United National Relief and Works Agency. In neither case do we prevent funding for the important humanitarian work done by these agencies; we only ask for oversight by the USAID Inspector General in the case of the West Bank and Gaza Program, and a report by the GAO on whether current law is being followed by the State Department in providing assistance to the UN Relief and Works Agency. After long negotiations with the Senate, the Committee came to a compromise on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The conference report funds this account at a level of $700 million, which is $75 million more than last year and $31 million less than the request. The conference report includes a permissive transfer of $31 million from the regular International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account from this or previous Acts, therefore if the authority is exercised, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative will be fully funded. While I am a strong advocate of properly managed United States foreign assistance programs, the Committee learned last year that some foreign governments have assessed taxes against our aid programs. This is unacceptable, and we owe it to the American people to ensure that tax dollars intended for programs to help people are not transferred to the treasuries of foreign governments. Therefore, we include language from the House bill mandating that the Department of State take definite action to halt this practice. We further require that any tax that is collected and not properly reimbursed to the United States government will be deducted at a level of 200 percent from the aid that would be provided to that country in fiscal year 2004. Half of these funds will be returned in a rebate to the Treasury, thereby providing the first ``tax relief'' Congress will consider this year. Finally, we have recommended language for the U.N. Population Fund that almost no one likes, but which almost everyone is prepared to live with. This bill respects the concerns of the majority in the House who insist that U.S. funds going to the UNFPA are contingent on that organization's commitment, action, and adherence to a policy of opposing coercive abortions in China in compliance with the so-called ``Kemp-Kasten'' amendment. I have also tried to recognize our common belief that it is imperative that U.S. maintain and continue to project positive leadership in international affairs in a way that helps us secure our very broad foreign policy interests. That is why both the fiscal year 2002 funds of $34 million, and $34 million in fiscal year 2003 will be available to UNFPA if they are in compliance with Kemp- Kasten. Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted only the most important provisions of the foreign operations appropriations act. I think we have done a good job responding to the President's needs in this area while protecting programs important to the Congress. I strongly support this conference report and urge its adoption.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a venerable Arizona institution that celebrates this month its 100th anniversary as the nation's oldest multi-purpose reclamation project. I speak of the Salt River Project, an organization with nearly 800,000 electric customers and responsibilities for supplying water to some 1.5 million people in the Phoenix metro area. While my own Congressional District 8 spans areas outside of SRP's service territory, one cannot live long in Arizona without learning something of the history of this unique public power and water utility. Founded on February 7, 1903, SRP marked the formalization of hopes for transforming a fierce desert into a productive agricultural area. Eight months earlier, the Reclamation Act of 1902 had been signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt. Critics maintained the act would be a boondoggle, saddling the federal government with useless burdens. But Roosevelt and his supporters were optimists and had faith in the American spirit of determination. The fruits of their convictions were borne out. A federal reclamation loan was approved to help SRP and central Arizona's landowners build a great water storage system to supplement the area's small and unreliable system of ditches and canals. By 1911, using horses, hawsers and hand-tools, workers had completed Roosevelt Dam--then the largest masonry dam in the world. With new and dependable sources of water, farms flourished. Local towns and cities grew. More dams were built. And, by the 1930s, SRP with state enabling legislation entered into the power business to ensure repayment of its federal loan obligations. Today, SRP ranks among the largest public power providers in the nation and an authority on water management. And, at the core of the company's culture is the same durable spirit of community partnership and involvement that was there a century ago. Mr. Speaker, I offer best wishes to the Salt River Project as it moves ahead in its second hundred years of service--a century certain to bring many new benefits and progress.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the community of Tucson, Arizona, I would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Robert D. Jensen, a pioneer in the community college movement who has led Pima County Community College District as Chancellor for the past eight years. As he retires, it is fitting that Tucson thanks him for the leadership and vision he displayed at local, state and national levels. He has left a legacy that will benefit our children and grandchildren for generations to come. A Tucson Citizen editorial paid tribute to this ``highly visible community leader, working for higher education funding and ensuring that Pima Community College is a key cog in the community. Jensen has concentrated on making the college a truly local institution, responsive to local educational and job-market needs. He will be badly missed.'' While in Tucson, Bob Jensen brought Pima Community College to the workforce development and economic development tables through business, government and education partnerships. He served on the board of directors for the Tucson Airport Authority, the Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC), the United Way, the Arizona Town Hall Board and the Carondelet Foundation. He was appointed to the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education, and is on the national boards of the American Council on International Intercultural Education, Community Colleges for International Development, and the American Association of Community Colleges where he chaired its Executive Committee on Public Policy/ Government Relations. He is recognized by his colleagues for his leadership in advancing the level of professionalism in educational administration and for his passion and dedication to enabling students to achieve success. He has worked tirelessly to make a college education accessible to all and to expand community college resources within the city of Tucson. He has mentored several generations of people who are now in executive administrative positions throughout America's community colleges. He co-authored the Insider's Guide to Community College Administration, a primer on issues facing campus leaders. He faced tough issues head-on, tackling each with generosity, creativity, and wisdom. Dr. Jensen has served as a chief executive officer in higher education for 25 years of his 41-year career. His leadership at four community colleges in California and Arizona includes a broad range of expertise and experience in administration/management, curriculum, instruction, planning, institutional research, professional development and community outreach. Bob Jensen earned a bachelor's degree in business/administration/ accounting and a master's in education/English/literature from Linfield College in Oregon. He began teaching in 1962, but returned to college on a National Graduate Fellowship to earn his doctorate in community college administration from Washington State University. Jensen served in numerous positions at Mt. Hood Community College in Gresham, Oregon; as Deputy Chancellor at Los Rios Community College District in Sacramento; President of the District's American River College; Chancellor of Rancho Santiago Community College District in Santa Ana; Chancellor of the Contra Costa Community College District in Martinez, California; and, finally, as Chancellor of Pima County Community College District in Tucson, Arizona. A sampling of awards and honors accorded to Dr. Jensen include Pacific Regional Chief Executive Officer Award from the Association of Community College Trustees; National Pacesetter by the National Council for Marketing and Public Relations, CEO of the Year by the National Council for Research Planning. In addition he was honored by the national community college honor society, Phi Theta Kappa, with its Shirley B. Gordon Award of Distinction for executive leadership, and by the Tucson PTK chapter, Alpha Beta Chi, with its lifetime achievement award, renamed the Robert D. Jensen Award. Pima County Workforce Development recognized him for his achievement in the development of a well trained work force, he received several Community Services Award from the League of United Latin American Citizens and was honored for his work in advocating equal access and affirmative action by a conference of black educators (SAAMP). He also received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges; and received the Annual Leadership Award for serving the Mexican American Community from SER/Jobs for Progress. None of this would have been possible without the loving support of his wife, Jan, and his four daughters--Marjorie, Becky, Shelly, and Megan, as well as the indomitable high spirit and energy he inherited from his mother, Dorothy. The light of his life, his first grandchild, Jake, will no doubt give him great joy in retirement. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to pay tribute to one of the great leaders in the community college movement in the United States.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Punch Woods, the retiring Executive Director of the Tucson Community Food Bank who has served his community in this important role for the past 25 years. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine what Tucson would be like without the contributions Punch has made to helping people who are hungry and needy. Just as important, however, has been his work to raise the awareness of the rest of the community, who do not suffer from hunger, of what it means to those who do. An entire generation of school children has grown up in southern Arizona bringing cans of food to school, to their Girl Scout meetings and even to birthday parties because of Punch's efforts. Now, many of them are parents themselves and are raising their kids to do the same. I've had the privilege of serving on the Community Food Bank Board for some 20 years now. I don't know if I have contributed much to the work of the Food Bank over the years, but I know how much it has personally benefited to me. It has been so rewarding to be associated with an organization that is both compassionate and practical and to understand these are not mutually exclusive terms. We always say that we wish the Community Food Bank didn't have to be in business, and that is true. But hunger and poverty are--sadly--facts of life in our community today, and it is heartening to know that the Community Food Bank has been there to serve our families and neighbors in need with an ever-increasing array of services. The very fact that Punch and I--one Democrat and one Republican--could work so well together to tackle the problems of hunger in our community is proof that there is no partisanship in these issues. But none of this could happen without his vision, dedication, determination and the personal sacrifices that he has made over the years. Mr. Speaker, the Tucson Community Food Bank will not only survive but will grow even stronger because of the base that Punch Woods has built for it.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to provide for continuing appropriations for the United States Government through January 31 of this year with the exception, of course, of the Defense and Military Construction bills that we have already passed and have had enacted into law. Like a lot of my colleagues and certainly other members of the Committee on Appropriations, I have been frustrated that we were not able during the regular course of events last year and even into the beginning of the next fiscal year, but still during the course of the 107th Congress, that we have found ourselves unable to complete work on the appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2003. And so we find ourselves here in the 108th Congress, a new Congress, a new body, new committees, new personnel, faced with still doing almost all of the appropriation bills for 2003. I am not into the blame game of pointing the fingers as to where the responsibility for this lies. I think that one can look at the political facts that caused us all, neither side, to want to complete the work during the calendar year 2002. And so we find ourselves here in 2003, at the beginning of a new Congress, a new calendar year, and in the second quarter of this fiscal year with the appropriation bills still unfinished. I have high hopes that the new Congress, the 108th Congress, can move speedily to complete this work. But it cannot be done unless we give authorization to the government to continue its work, all the agencies of the Federal Government that have appropriations to continue their work past this coming weekend and to the end of this month. While we are gone from Washington in the next couple of weeks, the Senate will be taking up these appropriation bills. The plan is that they will add them to our continuing resolution and we will have an opportunity to go to conference and discuss them there. Whatever one thinks of the process, I think one has to look at the end result, which is to try to get the appropriation bills done for 2003 so that we can get into the regular appropriation bills for 2004, and I think all of us understand that there is going to be a supplemental appropriation bill as well coming up in the next couple of months to deal with the military and political crisis that we find ourselves dealing with in the Middle East and South Asia. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this body would support this continuing resolution, that we would adopt it, and that we would get on with the work of adopting the bills for 2003 before the end of this month and that we can do the regular work of fiscal year 2004 in the next year.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to offer my condolences to the family and friends of James (Jim) C. Benfield, who passed away on November 2, 2002. I would ask for unanimous consent that his obituary appearing in the Washington Post on November 3 be included in the Record. For over 12 years, I have worked closely with Jim on an issue that I have spearheaded, and I have been consistently impressed with his selfless and tireless advocacy. His ability to organize diverse grassroots coalitions and deal honestly with me and my colleagues impressed me beyond words. His efforts and ethics will be remembered and we will long recognize the trails he blazed on behalf of his clients, his community, and the underprivileged that he served in his spare time. I have had a picture that Jim took hanging in my office for many years. It is a photo of the Statute of Freedom being lifted from the Capitol dome as that she could be refurbished. What an appropriate subject. Jim loved and appreciated the institution she oversees. He strived to see issues and seek solutions from an elevated viewpoint like she does. Moreover, he embraced everyone like she symbolically does. I will miss my friend Jim. Please join me in expressing the condolences of the House to his family. [lsqb]From the Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2002[rsqb] James C. Benfield, 59; Organizer, Activist (By Richard Pearson) James C. Benfield, 59, a lobbyist since about 1980 who was chief financial officer and a partner at Bracy Tucker Brown, the Washington government and public affairs consulting concern, died of a brain tumor Nov. 2 at his home in Takoma Park. Mr. Benfield, an authority on grass-roots organizing and advocacy, had corporate clients and was often involved in consumer issues, as well as causes including coinage, daylight savings time reform and help for the poor. He had done work for such clients as the Continental Group, the Clorox Co. and McDonald's. But he made headlines locally for his advocacy efforts, often as a volunteer, managing the Daylight Savings Time Coalition, which he founded, and directing the Coin Coalition and the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance. Mr. Benfield, who joined what became Bracy Tucker in 1980, was a master at organizing coalitions. In his successful efforts to extend daylight savings time in April, he trumpeted the belief that daylight savings, with its longer hours of afternoon daylight, extended hours of outdoor activity. This helped him secure the support of associations representing amateur softball, barbecue makers, convenience stores, service station dealers, chain restaurants and sporting goods. His efforts to reform coinage featured drives to replace the dollar bill with a dollar coin, which he pointed out would save the government more than $450 million annually because coins last longer than bills. It helped lead to the Sacagawea dollar coin. Groups that came on board for that campaign included vending businesses and mass transit and amusement park associations. Another of his great efforts was the Home Energy Assistance Campaign he started in 1993. It now helps 4.3 million households and has secured annual congressional appropriations of $2 billion. His partners in this effort included the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Over the years, Mr. Benfield explained his views on these issues on ABC's ``Good Morning America,'' CNN's ``Larry King Live'' and on National Public Radio. He wrote for The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Des Moines Register. He also lectured at Harvard University and conducted workshops for the Energy Department. Mr. Benfield, who was born in Philadelphia, was a 1965 economics graduate of Drake University in Iowa. He was an Army photographer in South Korea in 1967 and 1968. He came to the Washington area in the 1970s. Before becoming a professional lobbyist, he held a variety of jobs. In fact, the collection of jobs he held led to a 1977 profile in The Post. The jobs included public relations director of the National Symphony Orchestra, freelance photographer, and apartment manager and part-time janitor. He also had managed a local chamber music group, had played classical guitar at restaurants and had given guitar lessons. He assisted the homeless, both with contributions and helping to obtain government aid and secure medical care. He worked with area churches to raise corporate aid for the homeless. The Post wrote about his efforts to raise funds for a sick street musician and after the musician's death, to place a plaque on the wall where he most often performed. His neighbors remembered him as the guy who hosted community Fourth of July picnics that included the firing of a Civil War canon and pruning trees along railroad rights of way. He also improved a muddy shortcut that commuters took to the local Metro by laying a bed of garbage can lid-size stones. He also was known for always giving a hand, forever taking people into his home who had suffered a tragedy. His first marriage ended in divorce. Survivors include his wife of 17 years, Susan Storing Benfield, and two children, Anna Corinne Benfield and Michael Storing Benfield, all of Takoma Park; his mother, Corinne Benfield of Lombard, Ill.; and a sister.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for their courtesies shown to me and my staff in the preparation of this bill and the consideration of it in the committee. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4967 will end years of frustration for colleges and universities, frustration made worse by the terrorist attacks of September 11. The Border Commuter Student Act is simple in its purpose. It is to allow U.S. border colleges to teach Mexican and Canadian citizens who live near the border. It creates a new nonimmigrant classification for Mexicans and Canadians who want to commute each day to U.S. college or school. The study can be full-time or part-time. The people of Mexico and Canada who live and work in their home country but who want to attend a night class, such as business English for Mexicans, in the United States should be allowed to do this. Every day citizens of Mexico and Canada cross back and forth to shop, to do business, to visit relatives. They should also be able to further their education. On that, I think most of us agree. Current law provides for two student nonimmigration categories. The F1 category is for academic studies and the M1 category is for nonacademic or vocational studies. These categories by law require that a student be enrolled full-time; but here is the loophole, or I should say the gaping hole, for commuting students. A person can enter the United States only to study full-time; and if they enter for business or for pleasure, the law explicitly states that they cannot be enrolled in a study. For decades, it has been the policy of the INS that these border commuter students were required to attend class full-time; however, it was loosely enforced prior to September 11, 2001. The INS recently pushed this law to its limit by allowing border commuter students to enter the United States to study on a reduced course load as long as they are a ``qualified full-time student.'' I commend the INS for expanding the number of students that can enter the U.S. as full-time students to include these quasi-full-time students. Although the INS did what they could under the law that limits students entering the country to full-time status, this simply is not enough. We need to clarify the law so that there is no misunderstanding, no room for misinterpretation, and no room for further changes by future administrations to this policy. We need to give these colleges and students the confidence that a future INS commissioner is not going to change policy midstream in someone's studies. The Border Commuter Student Act creates a new classification for Mexicans and Canadians to enter the United States. In other words, it provides additional options for the citizens of our neighboring countries to enter the U.S. It does not allow foreign children to attend public elementary or high schools; and it ensures national security by continuing the requirement that all foreign students be entered into the student tracking system; and that, Mr. Speaker, is very important. It is in the interest of the United States to allow our neighbors to take courses in English and history and mathematics and philosophy or business or nursing or any other kind of vocation or profession at our Nation's colleges and schools along the border. In addition, it is in the interest of Mexico and Canada to allow their citizens access to an expanded area of educational opportunities. I am very proud today that the House of Representatives is doing its part to help these schools and these students. I believe our neighbors to the south and the north deserve special treatment and the Border Commuter Student Act adds another option to enter the United States for Canadians and Mexicans who live along the border. The bipartisan bill was voted out of the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously. It is supported by the administration, by the Mexican Government, the Canadian Government, the U.S.-Mexico Counties Coalition, the Arizona-Mexico Commission, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the Career College Association, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the University of Phoenix system, University of Texas system, and Texas Tech. Mr. Speaker, this is, as the gentlewoman said earlier, good legislation. It is balanced legislation. It corrects a flaw we have had in our immigration law for some time, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5316 is the culmination of a year and a half of work by parents and volunteers who wanted to save the camps that serve under-privileged children and disabled adults. The Forest Service is in the midst of pricing off forest lands, the very camps that serve these children and adults. Government should not be making a profit on disadvantaged children. We should charge these camps a modest fee that pays for the paperwork and maybe a little extra if the camps use a lot of land. But not $71,000 per year, which could happen in at least one instance if this bill is not enacted. If we, the Congress, cannot change a law that requires the Forest Service to charge exorbitant use fees on youth camps and camps for disabled adults, fees that almost certainly will lead to the camps closing down their operations, then what laws should we pass? This bill before us today reforms and improves the fee structure used by the Forest Service for non-profit recreational camps--camps operated by organizations such as the Girl Scouts and church groups. Blame should not be attached to ``Scrooge-like'' Forest Service officials. Let's face it; the re-calculation of fees is required by a law enacted by Congress. But the result is the same. Fees will dramatically increase for camps across the nation. In one case in Tucson, Arizona, the fee would go from $4,500 to $71,000 per year. The Tucson Citizen put it well in a recent editorial: With so many arms of government raising fees on just about every service known to taxpayers, one might start to wonder how their general tax dollars are being spent . . . Ever vigilant for new revenue-raising opportunities, the Forest Service then proposed raising the rents on national forest land that is used by nonprofit organizations for summer camps. Targeted cash cows include the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, religious and men's groups. The Forest Service pulled that one off by borrowing a trick from local governments loathe to commit political suicide by raising tax rates. They accomplish the same thing, however, by reappraising the value of land, making it subject to higher taxes under the old rates once it's deemed more valuable. We must establish a new, common-sense fee system that is rational and will allow camps to remain on forest lands while providing a fair return to the American taxpayer. Surely, there can be no better use of Federal land than by under-privileged children and disabled adults. The National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act will establish a new fee system based on acreage used by the camps, providing incentives to make the most efficient use of the Federal lands. To prevent large spikes in fees, the camp's fee would be 5%--a reasonable rate of return to the U.S. Government--of the value of the land based on rural land values, not developable land values. Therein lies the key. We are not going to turn these camp sites inside our beautiful national forests into suburban housing tracts. So, why should the fee be based on a value of the land which will never be realized, rather than the only alternative use to a camp site, which is agricultural uses? The land value we propose to use is a statistic calculated by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). NASS is not part of the Forest Service, thus ensuring it is independent and appraises the value fairly. The NASS valuation is based on previous sales of farmlands. This is a departure from the current methodology, where valuation is determined by future probable sale prices of land for development. Further, the land value is a 5-year rolling average of agriculture lands by County, thereby taking into account geographical differences and the need to even out large fluctuations in fees over time. This legislation also provides two discounts to the base fee to maximize the number of under-privileged children and disabled adults who attend camp. There is a 100% reduction proportionate to the number of participants who are physically disabled or children at risk, and there is a discount of 60% to recognize the benefits to the community of organizational camps serving certain character-building youth programs. But even worthy organizations operating camp sites should pay the administrative cost of a permit. So, there is a minimum fee required that represents, on a regional forest basis, the average cost to the Forest Service to administer the permit. This fee is expected to be approximately $300 to $500 per year. Our Federal lands are an important resource for our Nation. It's only right that we should give priority to children to learn, play, and enjoy these areas. We want them to grow up appreciating outdoors and environmental values, and to have a childhood filled with positive wilderness experiences. This bill benefits camps of all types in every corner of America. There are 320 camps in 25 States and Puerto Rico affected by this bill--from Arizona and California in the west, to Minnesota in the north, Florida and Tennessee in the south, and New Hampshire in New England. This bill is supported by the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, various church groups, and the Forest Service. Even the Forest Service agrees that the current law is not fair. The administration supports this bill. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, USDA Under Secretary Mark Rey wrote: The Administration supports H.R. 5316 and your efforts to revise the existing Forest Service organizational camp permit fee structure. . . The Forest Service became concerned last year when it learned that some camp permit fees in Arizona would increase substantially as a result of the new appraisals and fee calculations required under the current system. Such increases would create significant financial burdens for many permit holders and could cause a number of sponsoring organizations to terminate and close their camps. These fee increases and possible camp closures are unacceptable to the Forest Service, just as they are to you. . . Enactment of H.R. 5316 would provide sponsoring organizations and the Forest Service the mechanism to set and adjust the fee in a manner that would continue these important, long-term relationships that provide immeasurable benefits to America's youth. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not express my thanks and appreciation to the many folks in Tucson, Arizona, who have advised me and my staff on this fee structure change. Dillard Broderick from the Church of Latter Day Saints has been an especially strong, stable force in the effort to Save the Camps. Gail Gurney from the Sahuaro Girl Scout Council has worked tirelessly to do whatever was necessary to help. Lou Salute from the Boy Scouts, David English from Southern Pines Baptist Camp, Bob Lofgren from Amphitheater Men's Club, and Lori Block from St. Mark's Presbyterian Church round out the phenomenal people who volunteer part of their lives to help children and want nothing more than to give back to the community. I am proud that the House of Representatives is doing its part to help these kids, their parents, and the volunteers. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, the resolution to give the President authority to use force against Iraq, if necessary, to protect our vital national security interests and to enforce the multiple resolutions of the United Nations calling for disarmament of that country. I do not cast this vote lightly, as I know the President does not commit American forces to battle lightly. I have served in the Armed Forces of this country, and I have been in combat in Vietnam. I pray that no young American man or woman will ever have to go to war again. But if we are to avoid war, we must be prepared to wage it. Iraq is a clear threat to this Nation and to all peaceable nations in the world. Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant, whose cruel and evil acts against his own people would make Joseph Stalin proud. But it is the threat he poses to other nations and other peoples that demands action now by this Congress and by this Nation. He has previously invaded and subjugated other countries. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and those of neighboring Iran. He has launched missiles against other Middle East countries. He has brutalized and starved and murdered minorities and opponents, real and imagined, in his own country. He has defied the United Nations demands that he submit to inspectors and disarm his ghastly weapons of mass murder. He has supported elements of terrorism operating around the world. For 10 years, the civilized world has maintained a policy of containment for Iraq that includes economic sanctions, no-fly zones, diplomatic isolation, and a credible military presence in the region. While it has contained Iraqi aggression to this date, it is no longer sufficient. Now we must be prepared to take stronger action. In his speech Monday evening, President Bush made a persuasive argument for immediate steps to destroy the deadly weapons Saddam Hussein possesses. I will support this resolution, which gives the President authority to use force to accomplish that goal. We all hope conflict can be avoided, but there should be no doubt in the minds of any here today or any in the world that the best hope of avoiding conflict is for the United States and the United Nations to adopt strong, unequivocal positions, making crystal clear our intentions to destroy those deadly weapons. There must be no crack in our resolve that allows Saddam Hussein to slip through. There must be no glimmer of equivocation that can give rise to further delay on his part. If war is to be avoided, he must disarm, and he must disarm now. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, I am very conscious of the responsibilities we and other nations in our coalition will assume in the aftermath of conflict. We must be prepared for large movement of refugees, particularly if Saddam Hussein uses chemical and biological weapons against populated areas. We must be prepared to treat victims of his cruel crimes. We must be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to those who need it. In the longer term, we will also need to be prepared to deal with the reconstruction of Iraq, physically and politically. The former will be easier, for this is a country with revenues that can be generated from oil and with an infrastructure that is excellent by developing-country standards. Providing transition to a democracy will be more difficult. This is a country ruled by a tyrant that has brooked no dissent for a generation. It lacks the most rudimentary institutions that can be used to create a pluralistic, multi-ethnic democratic form of government. Achieving this will require a sustained, long-term commitment on our part, as well as from other nations in Europe, in Asia, and most important, in the region surrounding Iraq. This commitment, if sustained, could have benefits far beyond Iraq's borders and far beyond the events that bring about a new regime. Democracy in Iraq could speed a settlement of the terrible Israeli- Palestinian conflict. It could convince other countries in the region that transition to democracy is possible without cataclysmic political upheaval. No one should imagine this will be easy. No one must doubt the difficulties that lie ahead of us, the dangers that lurk at every corner. But if we are prepared to assume the responsibility for the future of Iraq in war, we must also be willing to shoulder that burden in the peace that follows. My colleagues in this House, not one of us relishes this moment. The burden falls heaviest on the President, but it also falls on our shoulders as we prepare to authorize the use of force. Our men and women in uniform will be put in harm's way. And if there is to be a war, civilians will die. But the consequences of not acting are much graver, far worse. The prospect of Saddam Hussein having more weapons of death to use is too real, the possibilities of loss of life numbering in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands too monstrous to contemplate. We act with great reluctance, but this Congress will act. We seek peace, but Saddam Hussein must know this President, this Congress, this Nation, will not flinch when called upon to protect our national interests. We will vote to give the President the authority he needs to wage war that we might secure peace.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde, for successfully managing this important piece of legislation. For many years it has proven difficult to reach the stage of final congressional approval of a freestanding State Department authorization act, but in his first term as Chairman he has managed to do just that. I also congratulate him for including authorizations of appropriations for a number of accounts within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, where I serve as Chairman. Funding is authorized for the International Military Education and Training account, the Foreign Military Financing account, the account for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs, and the account for Migration and Refugee Assistance. In the case of the last account, let me say that the Appropriations Committee has recommended a funding level for refugee assistance that is $95 million above the President's request, or a total of $800 million. This is due in large part because of the strong interest shown by Chairman Hyde and the International Relations Committee in providing adequate funds to assist overseas refugees. This is but one example of the ways in which the authorization committee and the Appropriations Committee can work together for the public good. The conference report also follows the lead of the Appropriations Committee in authorizing an additional $200 million in anti-terrorism assistance for Israel, as well as authorizing on-going assistance for Israel and Egypt. However, I did not want this conference report to pass without expressing my strong concern about section 1224, which restricts assistance for Lebanon. This provision would reduce assistance for Lebanon by $10 million on an annual basis unless the armed forces of Lebanon have been deployed to the border between Israel and Lebanon, and unless the Government of Lebanon is effectively asserting its authority in that area. Like all Americans, I strongly condemn terrorist attacks that have been launched from Lebanese territory by Hizballah. If I thought this provision would save one life, I would strongly support it. However, Lebanon is currently not in control of its own destiny, and cannot control much of its own territory, due to the presence of a foreign occupying power. That power is Syria, and it is Syria that has tolerated and encouraged terrorism against Israel. The effect of this language could be to cut the Lebanon assistance program from $35 million to $25 million. Very little of our assistance is provided to the Government; the cut will primarily affect assistance to American educational institutions in Lebanon such as the American University in Beirut and the Lebanese American University. The cut will also adversely impact the other major American program in Lebanon, which promotes community development in villages and towns throughout that country. It is designed to empower local communities by providing assistance for small-scale infrastructure, such as community centers and water systems, and for micro-enterprise activities. It also allows the United States to offer social and economic benefits to impoverished Lebanese citizens, rather than forcing them to rely on the social services that terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah may offer. In that sense, the provision is counterproductive and will have precisely the opposite effect of that intended by its author. I hope we can revisit this issue very soon. If we don't, I think we will all regret the fact that this conference report will have diminished the ability of the United States to contribute to a positive future for the people of Lebanon.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to congratulate the employees and management of Phelps Dodge Sierrita in Green Valley, Arizona. They are one of the eight mining operations to recently receive the prestigious annual “Sentinels of Safety” award in recognition of their outstanding safety records during 2001. Begun in 1925 by then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, this award is highly sought after and is the oldest established award for occupational safety. I commend Phelps Dodge Sierrita for their efforts to work safely each and every day. It is an award that is not easily won. Mining operations that receive the award achieve the highest number of employee work-hours without an injury that resulted in lost time from work. What this translates to is that a company must compile at least 30,000 employee work-hours during the year without a lost-time injury or fatality. Phelps Dodge Sierrita recorded a staggering 453,936 consecutive employee hours well beyond the minimum required to receive the award. They are a stellar example to us all.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield for a question to the majority leader, and I know the gentlewoman's interest. I just filed a few minutes ago the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Programs bill which had passed the committee last week and the subcommittee the week before. While there are certainly differences of opinion on it, it is a bipartisan product; and I wonder if the gentleman can give us any indication when that bill might come to the floor.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Homeland Security Act. The Select Committee on Homeland Security and the other Committees, recognizing the gravity of this matter, have moved swiftly to bring this legislation to the Floor. But they have given adequate consideration for the many different points of view about the legislation. One of the guiding principles of the Select Committee is that there should be no greater priority than defending the promise of America and that individual liberty and personal safety come before bureaucratic regulations, rules and red tape. I could not agree more. I represent the people of southeastern Arizona, an area of the country that borders Mexico and has considerable experience with border security needs. We have been struggling for years to reform and improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal law enforcement efforts along the southwest border. During the debate on reorganizing the INS earlier this year, I hoped to offer my legislation implementing the Jordan Commission's recommendation to separate the two divergent functions within the INS-- immigration services and benefits, but I was not provided the opportunity to offer this substitute. The bill before us today does include this fundamental restructuring the INS by placing enforcement functions within the new Department of Homeland Security and leaving the immigration services functions in a different Cabinet-level department--the Department of Justice. Although I would go further by consolidating all the immigration services that are shared by the Department of Justice and the Department of State, this bill does most of what I proposed and is needed to make our immigration system work. Some have argued in the past that the two functions--enforcement and services--are complementary and must be coordinated by a single government official. But this concept was tried for decades through a failed experiment known as the INS, and has caused great harm to America. We cannot make the same mistake again. The price is too high as we wage our war on terrorism. As we create this new Cabinet department, we must give the highest priority to ensuring that the responsibilities given to the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation are not assigned based simply on the current structure of the affected bureaucracies. The various agents and inspectors at a port-of-entry today, such as Customs officials, INS officials, Transportation officials, and Agriculture officials, should all be ``Homeland Security officials'' with the same management, same uniform, same communication and information networks, and the same policies and guidelines. We should not maintain the current bureaucracies separately within the new Bureau for Border and Transportation Security. It is essential that all these border functions be fully consolidated under the same, seamless management structure. Of course, the consolidation of the many agencies along the border will take time, but the bill before us today moves us significantly towards this vision. Finally, I am pleased that the Select Committee on Homeland Security's recommendation would keep the statutory authority for revenue collecting with the Department of Treasury, while transferring law enforcement and trade responsibilities exercised by the existing Customs Service to the Department of Homeland Security. However, we must not diminish the capability of the Customs Service to carry out its diverse missions. Trade responsibilities of Customs should be separated from the enforcement activities. Activities that should remain at the Department of Treasury or be shifted to the U.S. Trade Representative's office include: rulings; legal determinations and guidelines relating to classification and value of merchandise; and the responsibility for identifying and planning for major trade issues. Trade is a critical component of the U.S. economy. The flow of imports and exports contribute enormously to our economic growth as well as that of the global economy. We should not assign purely commercial decision making responsibilities to the new Homeland Security Department. It will have neither the mission nor the core competency to perform that role adequately. Nonetheless, it should be obvious that the Department of Homeland Security will perform a host of front line enforcement responsibilities that in fact will intersect with commercial or trade related spheres. This is a delicate balancing act, and we're not quite there with this bill. This legislation to create a new Homeland Security Department comes as close to solving our illegal immigration border woes as could be done without a comprehensive overhaul of our immigration policies. I enthusiastically support this bill. I believe it will have a positive impact on southern Arizona and the entire nation in the years to come. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this by conference agreement on trade promotion authority. We have traveled a long and difficult road to arrive at this moment. For 8 years, American leadership and national interests have been sitting on the sidelines. During this time, American companies and workers have stood by while we have watched our competitors from other countries gain advantages through trade agreements from other countries at our expense because the President of our country did not have the authority to negotiate agreements of our own. At last we are bringing a positive trade agenda for the American economy for our consumers, workers, families, farmers. I want to suggest three reasons why trade promotion authority needs to be promoted and supported. First, it is an economic growth incentive. During the decade of the 1990s, trade has accounted for more than a quarter of domestic economic growth. Today more than ever, we need the engine of economic growth if we are going to continue. Second, trade promotion authority is critical to job creation. In manufacturing, one of every five jobs comes from trade. In the services sector, U.S. exported $295 billion in exports, $180 billion more than was imported. This bill will create job opportunities for American workers in all kinds of industries, while at the same time it helps those who might lose their jobs with trade adjustment assistance. Third, trade promotion authority will improve our standard of living. President Bush's remark that free trade has increased the standard of living for a family of 4 by as much as $2,000 through the combined effect of higher wages and lower consumer prices. All of those reasons show how trade promotion is in our national economic interest. But it is also in our foreign policy interests. It is a key tool for encouraging economic growth abroad. The reason we pursue a strong global economy as a key planking of our foreign policy is because successful economic growth abroad helps us achieve our humanitarian and national security policy objectives. Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves our consideration and support. I urge Members to vote ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the leadership that they have provided in crafting this bill and bringing it at long last to the floor for much-needed supplemental appropriations to continue the war against terrorism, the enduring freedom fight. I want to address my remarks to that part that addresses foreign operations that are in this conference report. First, the numbers, the figures themselves. The funding in this chapter includes a spending level of $1,818,000,000. But there are rescissions in there of $269 million, meaning there is a net spending level in foreign operations of $1,549,000,000. That is $48.5 million below where we were when we passed this bill in the House, $3.5 million above where it was in the Senate. So much for the overall numbers. A few of the specific things that are in there. We have $200 million in here for the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the world, particularly in Africa and Eurasia. This has been in both the House and Senate bills. While this number was not in the initial request to the President, as I think everybody knows, the President has endorsed this and spoken specifically about the programs that he will use this money for. And I believe, as he does, that it is vitally important that we continue to make progress in combating the worldwide scourge against AIDS. In addition, there is another figure in there that was not in the President's original request and that is $200 million for antiterrorism assistance for the state of Israel and $50 million for humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people. Not to the PLA, the Authority, the Palestine Authority, but rather $50 million for humanitarian assistance to Palestinians themselves. We believe this also is very important, given the fight that has been going on over there. We need to express our support for Israel's fight against terrorism. We need to say to the Palestinian people, we are there to support you when you are trying to rebuild your country, when you are trying to provide for the well-being of your people. We will not support the government that you have in place now. I think the President has made clear that we have need to see a new government, a new direction of that government before we can have serious negotiations with them. But I think this is the right approach to it. The negotiations with the Senate on the assistance for Colombia were very tough, but in the end the House language prevailed. It allows the administration to expand its assistance to the government of Colombia for the war against terrorism and narco-traffickers. It includes some of the provisions that the Senate wanted to make sure that we are not going to be involved in combat operations. Regarding Afghanistan, we have added funding to both the House and the Senate bills to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Afghanistan. There is up to 384 million that could be available under this conference report to help rebuild in Afghanistan. Let me end on two final points here. Regarding the United Nations' Population Funds, or UNPF, as it is called, the conference work does not address this issue. I am disappointed with the administration's decision that has come down since this conference report was adopted, and I expect that in our 2003 appropriations bill we are going to address this issue and try to ensure that funding for this very important organization is included. Most of the funding in the chapter is dedicated to assisting our allies in the war on terrorism. At this last minute the Office of Management and Budget proposed removal of hundreds of millions of dollars requested by the President for assistance to our allies. I am puzzled, I am disappointed that OMB made such a proposal, and I do not think they reflected what either the President or the Secretary of the State or the Secretary of Defense had in this regard. But I am pleased overall with the bill that we have now, I think it is a good bill and, Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.