Jim Kolbe

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.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since I think my time is limited at this point, I would just say that it is in litigation, but it is not exactly the first time that the Congress of the United States has stepped in when there has been litigation to try to resolve something. This is litigation that has absolutely no end in sight; none. There is no prospect of this litigation ever coming to a resolution; there is no prospect of ever resolving this issue. We are trying to put some parameters around it so that we can get an historical accounting for the people who really need it. I urge this amendment be defeated.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let us begin by acknowledging that this is not a partisan issue. We have had Interior secretaries under Democrat administrations and under Republican administrations that have struggled with this that have been subject to court orders and contempt of court and employees in both administrations. This has been an extraordinarily difficult issue. Let us put a little perspective on this. Let us understand what is involved with this. It was 1996 when five plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the Department of Treasury and Interior on behalf of themselves and 300,000 individual Indian money accountholders. It is called the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit for breach of trust in handling Indian funds. Now, it is not as though the subcommittee and the House of Representatives and the Congress have not recognized the problem. Over the years, we have appropriated $45 million for the trust fund accounting system, $43 million for the trust asset accounting management system, $22 million for data cleanup, and $20 million for a transaction-by-transaction historical accounting of the named plaintiffs and their predecessors to serve as a benchmark to determine future funding requirements for this type of activity. This amount, about $130 million, is in addition to all of the other things that we are doing on a day-to-day basis in the operations of the trust account. Meanwhile, we have had the courts making and the plaintiffs making life very difficult for employees. They have had contempt of court motions filed against them. They are being advised to purchase their own personal liability insurance. As a result, many of them have recused themselves and they were not able to get employees to work on this accounting system. It is becoming an almost impossible situation for everybody within the department. We need to get this thing resolved. Now, the reason we have this limitation, this historical accounting limitation, is because it would do all accounts that were opened as of December 31, 2000, going back as far as January 1985. That is virtually the vast majority of them. We are talking about going back to infinity in time to the very beginning of time, and we are talking about something that is almost impossible to do, and it is estimated that it would cost about $2.4 billion, $2.4 billion to do the accounting. It is extraordinarily expensive, but it is not going to yield the desired results because of the missing data that we have. So what we are talking about is trying to narrow this down to something that is reasonable that we can actually accomplish. If we were required to undertake an extensive historical accounting, we would have to divert funds from other high priority Indian programs and it is going to have a disastrous effect on Native Americans. We are likely to spend, even with this limited amount, we are likely to spend $200 million over the next several years. Mr. Chairman, in my view, what we are trying to do is the responsible thing, to act in a responsible way to make sure that we can get this historical accounting done for the vast majority of the Native Americans who deserve to have this done. One of the things we need to make sure that we do is to release the Ernst & Young report that has been held up by the Court; the Court has denied its being released. It has been denied by the Court. We need to do that so we could see what we would have in the way of historical accounting for the numbers of people that would be affected. We need to give some compensation to employees for their litigation expenses. We need to have new members of the Special Trustee Advisory Board and, I think, ultimately, we need to limit this historical accounting to the 300,000 individual accounts.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed a vote on approving the Journal. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote (No. 253).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I really want to commend both my colleagues from south Florida for their efforts today to talk to the American people about an issue that I think is so vitally important. In fact, I do not think there is anything long run, long term that is more important for us to be talking about than how we are going to preserve and protect and save Social Security, which I think is undeniably the most important, the most successful anti-poverty program we have ever had for senior citizens in this country. The gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, has pointed out very well exactly the problems that we face; and we see them on these charts that are here. Several of us in this body have recognized this problem for several years now and have been working to try to make sure that we can find solutions to the problem. Since 1995 when I formed the Public Pension Reform Caucus here in Congress with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), we then began the process of slowly working through different options. Since 1999 we have had two bills that we have proposed in the Congress of the United States that I believe go a long way towards dealing in a very rational, sensible way with the problems that Social Security faces. So I think it is clear that there are Members of Congress that understand the fiscal and demographic pressures that are facing Social Security and that want to engage in a constructive dialogue on reform. Again, some of the charts that we saw here from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) show very clearly what the demographics show us and the problem that we have, the fiscal shortfall that we are going to have with Social Security. Unfortunately, there are some Members who want to use Social Security for their own partisan political advantage in an election year. Scaring seniors about Social Security might do wonders in the polls for some Members, but I do not think the politics of fear should be acceptable to the American people; and frankly, I do not think it is acceptable. I think instinctively the American people do sense, do understand that Social Security is in trouble today. If we ask young people, and by overwhelming majorities, younger people know that Social Security, as it is currently constituted, cannot be there for them when they get ready to retire; and so simply doing nothing is really not an option. There are legitimate differences of opinion on how best to tackle the looming financial deficit in Social Security. There are a number of different ways that we might fix Social Security, and I think we need to honestly debate all of the different approaches that are out there. We heard one of them described by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). There is the Kolbe-Stenholm plan. But one thing for certain is not an option and that is complete inaction. Let me just review again a little bit of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) laid out for us here today, and that is, some of the financial problems that the Social Security trust fund faces in the coming years. The trust fund, as my colleague correctly pointed out, it is a trust fund in name only. It has in it only the IOUs of the government, that is, the IOUs for the trust fund, nonnegotiable government instruments. That trust fund faces an enormous unfunded liability under current law. It is not because of anybody robbing the trust fund. It is not because of anybody taking the money and doing anything with it. It is the very simple fact that the demographics of people living longer, growing older, a larger older population and a smaller working population, people starting their families later, having fewer children, the demographics of those who pay the taxes for Social Security to support those who receive the Social Security benefits simply do not work in the long run. The result is that we have promised to pay, as this shows, $25 trillion more in benefits than we have promised to collect right now in payroll taxes. I will repeat that number. We are looking at a $25 trillion, trillion, not million, not millions, trillion, shortfall in the Social Security trust fund in the gap between what we are going to collect in taxes and what we have promised to pay out in benefits over the next generation or two. It is just 15 years from now that Social Security will for the first time begin to run annual cash deficits, and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) pointed out, since seniors expect not a piece of paper but a check that is negotiable, we have to convert these IOUs into cash. That means the government has to start to borrow money or we raise taxes. We raise taxes or we borrow money in order to pay those benefits. That is when the deficit, in just 15 short years, becomes a very serious problem. Now, 15 years is not that far from now; 15 years before was not that long ago. Fifteen years ago we were just at the end of Ronald Reagan's administration. I was here in the House of Representatives. Fifteen years from now, most of the people that are listening to this or here on the floor will still be either retired or the young people that we see here on the floor will be in the middle of the early part of their working years. They will be paying these taxes and wondering what has happened to the Social Security system, why am I paying these taxes when it is clear there is not going to be anything there to pay the tax for me. By the year 2030, the annual deficit in Social Security in one single program alone will reach $630 billion; and in that one single program, we will be running an annual deficit in Social Security of $630 billion. That means the government is going to have to borrow $630 billion in addition to the payroll taxes it is collecting just to pay the benefits that it has promised to pay for retirees at that point. Between years 2017 and 2041, the Federal Government will need to raise almost $4 trillion in new money to redeem the Treasury bills held in the Social Security trust fund. Just to give my colleagues an idea of the magnitude of what this means, how could we make up that deficit, how could we make up that shortfall? Well, we could do so by cutting some government programs. If we cut out all the spending, all the spending that the Federal Government does on Head Start, the WIC program which supports women and infant children; all the money we spend in education programs at the Federal level; all the money we spend in the Interior Department to support our public lands and parks, national parks and monuments here in Washington, D.C.; all the money we spend for veterans programs, including health care for veterans; and all the money that we spend in commerce, to support NOAA and trade promotion, everything else that the Commerce Department does; all the money we spend for environmental protection, EPA; and all the money we spend on space in NASA, if we cut out all of that, all of that, we still would not be making up the shortfall that we would experience each year by the time we get to the year 2040 of the deficit that we will be experiencing in Social Security. So the options are pretty bleak unless we do something now, unless we begin to face up to the realities of this problem now. The government is going to be forced to increase taxes on American workers or businesses, or they are going to have to make deep cutbacks in other programs to free up funds to meet our Social Security obligation; or of course, there is the option which none of us believe is an option at all, and that would be to cut Social Security benefits for the people when we have already promised it to them. So the choices we can make are some tough ones. We can either make the tough choices today to deal honestly with the challenges that the Social Security system poses to us, or we can leave a fiscal time bomb for future generations and truly put the benefits at risk. That is why, Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship and candor have to be at the heart of what we are going to do about Social Security. This debate, as we have just heard from the previous speaker, is often characterized as an either/or choice between two ideological poles. Either we have the status quo or we have privatization. Defenders, of course, of the status quo argue that any reform that includes a market-based component is going to undermine the current safety net features and expose workers to dangerous risks; and the other side, the advocates of full privatization, suggest that creation of a privately managed personal account is painlessly going to solve the challenges, but forget that Social Security provides more than just retirement income. It provides for disability insurance for the needs of other special populations. So if we take those two extremes of do absolutely nothing and just privatize the whole system, I think we are looking at two extremes that really do not solve the problem at all. They may make for good, albeit myopic, rhetoric. They may help at election time, but they do not acknowledge the virtues that we have of something that is in the middle. The real solution to Social Security has to be to fuse the best of the traditional program with some market- based options, because it is possible, it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to establish personal accounts for younger Americans, not for people who are already retired, not for people like me who are nearing retirement, but for younger people who will have time to invest in those personal accounts, who will have time to see those accounts grow. It is possible to establish those personal accounts, personal accounts of which they have individual ownership, of which they have control of the retirement income, of which they have flexibility to decide how to invest that and to change it as they get closer to retirement. That can strengthen and improve the vital safety net protections that the Social Security system has to provide. So none of the reform plans that I know about are anything that approaches privatization. It is simply the wrong word. It is used as a scare word, and when we hear that, just remember that it is being used as a scare word. Privatization is the wrong description. It is the wrong word; but we ought to frankly stop bickering about the label of privatization. We are suggesting that workers be given a degree of flex. That is what we are really talking about, flexibility with how they invest a small portion of their Social Security payroll taxes, giving workers some flexibility to make some choices about their investments. We are not talking about dismantling Social Security. We are talking about investment flexibility. We are talking about ownership. We are talking about individuals having some control over their retirement options. The directors of the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and many other policy experts have all testified in front of various committees of Congress and the President that we must make some tough choices to return Social Security to solid financial footing. So, Mr. Speaker, what needs to happen if we are going to have this debate, which is so important to the survival of this program, we need to acknowledge there is no magic bullet. There is no free lunch, no free lunch solution that is going to allow us to provide 100 percent of promised benefits without trade-offs somewhere else. But I do say that personal accounts can help make the task a lot easier for policymakers, and it can limit the impact that the deficit that we are talking about and the problems we see will have on future beneficiaries. It would give them some hope by giving them an investment that they are going to have some return in their Social Security retirement that right now they cannot look forward to seeing as we look down the road to the year 2070, to 2050, when people today just starting out in the workforce will be retiring. Including individual accounts, personal accounts in the reform plan does not require deeper benefit reductions than would otherwise be required. Let me repeat that. Does not require deeper benefit reductions than would otherwise be required. But neither does it mean that no changes, no reductions for future beneficiaries is going to be unnecessary. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have never claimed that the reform plan that we have put on the table is perfect. Members can go through the plan that I have introduced with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and select items that they want to criticize. We went too far here, not far enough there. However, we need to examine plans in their entirety. How would the plans affect the future retirement income, the Federal budget, and the health of the American economy. If Members determine that the acceptability of reform based on adherence to simplistic pledges, a pledge of no personal accounts or a pledge of no changes to benefit levels, or a pledge of no increase in taxes, then we are never going to reach bipartisan consensus on how we fix Social Security and how we pass legislation that will actually accomplish that. Keeping Social Security intact for those who depend on it today, and for those young people who are just starting out in life today and have some expectation that they should have something from this system, it is a commitment that none of us should ignore, and we need to find a way to bridge the gap between these generations. But the fact is the Social Security system that we have today is vastly underfunded, and it will impose staggering financial burdens on younger workers and future generations of workers if we leave it completely unchanged. Mr. Speaker, it is time to move past the demagoguery which has overwhelmed the Social Security debate in the past, and work together to provide a secure retirement for all Americans. I believe the discussion we are having today that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) has initiated is a good discussion. I believe it is important that we begin this discussion today, and I commend the gentleman for having this Special Order and giving us an opportunity to talk about Social Security, the importance of Social Security, that we attach to Social Security for people who are retired today, and the importance of Social Security for young people who will depend on this system in the future. Both the current retirees and those who are working but will retire in the future, need to know that the system holds promise for them. I hope that this debate, this discussion today, will begin the process that we need to have in this country of having a national debate on how we fix it; but let us leave no doubt about one thing: Social Security does require fixing. Doing nothing is not the option.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed a vote on a motion to adjourn. Had I voted, I would have voted ``no'' on this vote--No. 213.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I have not looked out on this many youthful and good-looking people on the floor of the House of Representatives since I have been here. It is nice to see this crowd here today. I got my start as a page through the times that I have had a chance to talk to you. Of course I served in that other body on the other side of the Capitol called the Senate, and perhaps I can be forgiven for that. But I know what a profound difference it made to me, that experience; and I know that this experience is going to have a big effect on you. It is going to change your lives. Now, you look and say, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) comes back as a Congressman, it means we can all be Congressmen or Congresswomen. Yes, you could be; but you will not be. And that is all right, because no matter what you do, this experience is going to have a real impact on your lives. I can guarantee you that. My class of 1960 includes Don Anderson, our former Clerk of the House, and Ron Lasch, who was our floor assistant here on the Republican side. We get together every 5 years, once every 5 years, and I know from the times that we come back together, the impact that this experience has had on the lives of those once-young men and women, then it was all young men, and how it has changed their lives as they have continued with whatever they have done, whether in government or business or professions. This is an experience that you will be able to take with you to wherever you go. Although there is no doubt about it, we could do the wonderful work that you do, the important work that you do for the House of Representatives, there are many ways that it could be done, probably some which would be less expensive and less headaches for the Page Board and others, but we would be missing something. We would be missing an opportunity to create these ambassadors back to your communities about what government is all about. You join now a very select group, which numbers in the few thousands of people in the entire United States who have ever had this experience; and you will go back to your schools and communities, and then you will go to your colleges and your businesses and your families, and you will be able to share with them what government is really like, the kinds of people that serve in government, the kind of work that goes on here. I think, hopefully, by and large you have learned they are good people who care, who really want to make a difference for the American people. We hope that will inspire you to want to do the same no matter what line of work you go into, that you will want to do the same. That is really what this program is all about, that you come here, you learn from it and take home with you something that is very important, and you become ambassadors for a better government, a better society back in your own communities. As has been pointed out by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), you came and you experienced something that no other class has ever experienced, and we hope none will ever again, the incredible attack on America that took place on September 11. What I shall always remember about this class of pages is your constancy, your willingness to stay and stick with this job. After September 11, school groups canceled their visits here, business groups canceled their visits, tourists declined to come; but you stayed on. You stayed on in this job because you knew what we were doing here was important. You knew the work of the House of Representatives was important and that in your own way the job that you were doing was important. We are especially thankful to this class for what you have done, the role that you have played. We just know when you leave here you will go back to your communities, and you will be able to tell them a little bit about what the government of the United States means, and you will pass this along to your children, to the next generation. So from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to each and every one of you for the good service that you have given, the friendship that you have extended to the Members, and I look forward to seeing you come back often and seeing you around the House of Representatives; and someday I am sure we will see some of you in the House of Representatives. Good luck and Godspeed.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during the votes of the following measures considered on May 15, 2002: 1. Final passage of H. Res. 420, allowing the House to consider a report from the Rules Committee on the same day it is presented to the House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' (#164). 2. On ordering the previous question for H. Res. 422, allowing the House to consider H.R. 4737 to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families and improve access to quality child care. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' (#165). 3. Final passage of H. Res. 422, allowing the House to consider H.R. 4737 to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families and improve access to quality child care. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' (#166).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I have listened for the last day, day and a half, to the arguments on this floor, the finger- pointing and the charges that have gone back and forth. ``They are more fiscally irresponsible.'' ``No, they started before.'' ``They want to raise the debt ceiling.'' ``They did it before.'' We have raided the trust fund, and they did it before that. It is back and forth with these charges. None of this has been very productive to the legislation that is before us tonight. None of it is productive at all. We all acknowledge that this Nation is at war against terrorism, and we all acknowledge this supplemental appropriation is needed. We all acknowledge that our troops in the field need to have this done. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of substantive and real amendments to be considered to this bill that are relevant to the war on terrorism, that are relevant to American foreign policy, and I would just say to my colleagues, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would hope we could allow this debate to move forward, that we could allow the Clerk to read. We had started, made a good and honest effort a few minutes ago, to get a start on that. I would hope that we could move forward, begin to read and consider some of the amendments for which there is a legitimate reason for us to debate and consider these amendments that are part of this bill. I say that with all due respect to my good friend on the other side and all of my friends on both sides of the aisle who have very deep feelings about this legislation and the things that were added to it. I am part of a very tiny minority on this side of the aisle that did not support the rule yesterday. But this is where we are at. This is the bill we have got. It is an important bill, and there are important amendments, and I just hope that this body can now proceed with actually considering some of these so that the American people and our American soldiers, men and women in uniform, will know that we are dealing with the business at hand that affects them in fighting this war on terrorism.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am making that plea to people on my side of the aisle as well, that we do that and move forward here, I hope, with reading the bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the majority has no objection to this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, just simply to say that the majority is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to make a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order against the amendment. I simply want to say while I oppose the substance of the amendment and a point of order could be made because it considers 2 separate provisions, I will not object to that so that we can have the debate at this time on the entire issue, a very important issue, and that is the issue of the war on terrorism in Colombia and our Plan Colombia down there. So I withdraw my reservation, and I am pleased to proceed with the debate.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that no one has suggested tonight that Members of this body are not patriotic. This is a healthy debate, and this is a good debate. It is one that we need to have. I want to say in response to one point made by my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I think it is a red herring to compare the language in this bill to the Gulf of Tonkin. We are talking about keeping the same number of troops, not expanding the number of troops, and not expanding their authority. To suggest that we can make a distinction between a shot that is fired from a drug trafficker or a terrorist is ridiculous. When a helicopter takes off and goes into a firefight, how can they determine whether the bullet coming at them is from a drug trafficker or a counterterrorist? That is all we are acknowledging here is that we cannot make that distinction.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Let me begin by saying what the amendment does. It strikes 2 provisions, and the reason we agreed to the unanimous consent is because it strikes one section dealing with the Defense Department and one much later dealing with the State Department, so a point of order could have been made against this amendment. The McGovern amendment strikes the same language both in Defense and in the State Department chapters that permits the administration to allow U.S. assistance for Colombia to be used in a war against terrorism, not just simply against narco- trafficking. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by observing that this amendment does undermine a bipartisan compromise that this committee worked very hard to obtain regarding broadened authority for U.S. assistance in Colombia. Similar language with a good deal more conditions is also contained in the Senate bill, so this amendment would negate not only a bipartisan, but a bicameral agreement that has been reached. The amendment would preclude the U.S. from supporting Colombia's counterterrorism efforts. When the Clinton administration began to seek support for Plan Colombia from Congress about 3 years ago, 1 argument was that the revenues from the narcotics industry were increasing the ability of the FARC, the ELN and the AUC, the guerrilla groups and the terrorist groups that operate in Colombia, to destabilize Colombia. Now, 3 years later, with Plan Colombia under way, the groups are, unfortunately, stronger than ever, eradication has not kept up with new plantings, and Colombia is facing a more unstable future than it was before. It is time for a change in American policy. The existing authorities to spend U.S. assistance are narrowly written, too narrowly written, to allow U.S. assets and U.S. trained forces only to be used in counternarcotics activities. I have been to Colombia twice since Plan Colombia was approved, and to me it is patently obvious that we are operating with restrictions that are much too narrow. The lines between counternarcotics and counterterrorism are not clear anymore; I do not think they ever were. They are certainly not clear today. In today's environment, with terrorists attacking the U.S. and U.S. citizens abroad, this imaginary line between counternarcotics and counterterrorism ought not to be maintained. With many of my colleagues, I tried to convince the administration a few months ago that by not approaching Congress to clarify the authorities under which the U.S. would provide assistance, they would jeopardize congressional support for U.S. assistance to Colombia. This came after the Colombian Government, President Pastrana, had announced that they were abandoning their plans to try to achieve peace because the many attempts to negotiate with the guerillas had come to naught, and they were going to pursue a military response. And I urged this administration, that if they were going to change U.S. policy, they should come and seek that approval from Congress, and that is exactly what they have done. This is a counterterrorism supplemental, and I commend the administration for requesting in the supplemental the language that we have in it today to allow counternarcotics assets to be used to fight terrorism. Starting with the President's request, the committee arrived at a bipartisan compromise. And let me tell my colleagues a couple of things it does not do. The bill language does not extend through 2003, which was requested by the President. We are going to get into a markup of the 2003 appropriations bills in not too many weeks, so we decided to address 2003 in the fiscal year 2003, as I think we ought to. We have included report language that states our intent to use this bipartisan approach in the fiscal year 2003 bill, so we are making clear we probably will do so; and we can have this debate again in a few months if we need to have it, and that debate will take place after the elections and perhaps even after the inauguration of the new President. We want to see what the new Colombian administration will do after it is inaugurated in August. Further, the committee deletes the broad ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' provision, which was requested by the President. It was the conclusion by the committee that the authority is simply not needed by the Department of State at this time, given the existing authorities within the international narcotics and law enforcement account. And all existing human rights provisions, the caps on U.S. personnel in Colombia and the prohibitions on visas to individuals with terrorist links, are maintained. With these conditions in place, with no large increase in the resources requested or provided to the Colombian military, this change in policy is not a major expansion of the U.S. role in Colombia's civil strife. It is a realistic approach to the situation in Colombia to combat terrorists using existing assets. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations had a hearing on U.S. assistance for Colombia in March. At that hearing the Under Secretary of State said on the record that the broader use of authorities would primarily make available U.S.-owned helicopters for counterterrorism purposes. Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to retain the compromise language that is in this bill that has been reached on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol building.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Thomas Chestnut, a resident of Tucson, Arizona. Recently, Tom was named Small Business Person of the Year for the State of Arizona by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Tom formed Chestnut Construction in 1990, starting with three employees. That year, the company had $886,000 in revenue. Today, Chestnut Construction is one of the largest and most respected general commercial contracting firms in southern Arizona, with 44 employees and more than $55 million in revenue. Tom believes in commitment and loyalty to his staff, clients, subcontractors, and vendors. The majority of Tom's employees hired in the first few years of business are with the company today. His first contracted client is still one of Tom's most valuable customers. As his company has profited, Tom has added more benefits for his employees. Today, Chestnut Construction provides its employees with healthcare, life and disability insurance, profit sharing, vacation, and bonuses that are uncommon in the construction industry or many other small businesses. Benefits even include the free use of a company-owned cabin. Beyond treating its own employees very well, Chestnut Construction gets top marks for a hands-on approach in the performance of construction projects. Outsiders see that the company has a team attitude in their accomplishments. Tom's philosophy is to work with the subcontractors and vendors, treat them well, pay them on time and build loyalty. It has resulted in a reputation of being fair and equitable in all aspects of his business. About 85 percent of Chestnut's work comes from repeat clients, and almost all advertising is word of mouth. The concept of building a better community has double meaning for this construction company. Tom strongly urges employees to get involved in the community. Last year, donations to charitable organizations in cash, in-kind contributions and donated labor were above $60,000. Since 1996, Chestnut Construction has won 10 awards in southern Arizona, including such categories as general contractor of the year, community service, and best place to work. Tom's philosophy has resulted in his being elected the founding chairman of the Arizona Builders' Alliance and the only general contractor ever honored with three Cornerstone Awards, which signify teamwork, quality of product, on-time delivery and dedication to the community. I congratulate Thomas Chestnut on his Small Business Person of the Year award, and I applaud his hard work, his steadfast dedication to his profession and commitment to his community.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act (H.J. Res. 87). I believe that Americans must come to grips with their obsessive fear of nuclear energy. Nuclear power supplies 20 percent of our nation's electricity, but no nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. in approximately 30 years. That means our generation of electricity is increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. By contrast, France uses nuclear power for most of its electricity requirements. Even Japan, the only nation to be attacked with nuclear weapons, uses nuclear power for more of its energy needs than the United States. Greater reliance on nuclear power--and I believe it is safe--would free us from our dependence on OPEC products. However, we must also address the safe transportation and disposal of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act approves the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. We need to have a single, consolidated site that can be appropriately secured. Currently, temporary nuclear waste sites are scattered all over the country. More than 161 million people currently live within 75 miles of a temporary nuclear waste site, and these sites are near major waterway. In addition, 40 percent of the U.S. Navy's ships and submarines are nuclear powered. We simply need to bring all this nuclear waste into one repository that is designed to permanently store this material safely for thousands of years. The site at Yucca Mountain is designed to do just that. I urge Members to support this joint resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Farm Security Act conference report (H.R. 2646). I appreciate the work of the Agriculture Committee to bring a bill to the floor, but this effort falls short of real reform for our farm programs and seriously infringes on our trade policy. I supported the Freedom to Farm Act in 1995. It set us on a path-- slow but steady--toward removing the heavy and costly hand of government in managing crop programs. Subsidies were to become a thing of the past. Unfortunately, this bill reverses that course. It sets us on a path toward increased and never-ending taxpayer subsidies of basic commodities. In addition, this legislation is incompatible with our commitments to the World Trade Organization, and I am not alone in this opinion. Let me read some excerpts from a Congressional Research Service report that was issued just a few days ago: The 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture commits member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to discipline their domestic agricultural support programs . . . The goal of the Agreement is to ``establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system'' through a series of reforms that also require WTO members to lower barriers to agricultural imports and to reduce their farm export subsidies. The [Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture] was unprecedented in that it was the first time (after seven previous trade rounds) that countries promised to make substantial changes in their domestic agricultural policies to facilitate more open trade. The report further states: WTO members bring to the new negotiating round a divergence of viewpoints on how to handle domestic farm supports. These range from countries that will seek continuing and deeper reductions in farm subsidies, to those that are likely to defend their internal subsidies as necessary for various national policy reasons. Meanwhile, Congress is now widely expected to adopt a new farm bill that would provide billions of dollars in new farm subsidies annually (i.e., above current service policy projections). These new subsidies, and their potential to perpetuate market distortions, undermine the U.S. argument in the Doha round that the world's agricultural subsidies should be further disciplined, critics argue. A number of foreign officials, and some U.S. analysts, have pointedly noted that the likely new U.S. farm policy raises questions about the sincerity of the U.S. negotiating position. We should not be undermining our negotitating efforts at the WTO, and this conference report will unfortunately do just that. Further, I am extremely disappointed that this final agreement requires mandatory country of origin labeling for meat, fruits, vegetables, fish, and peanuts. In order to meet the threshold of being labeled a ``USA product,'' it must be born, raised and processed in the United States. This is ridiculous. I grew up on a ranch in southern Arizona, and my family bought calves in Mexico to be raised and sold on our ranch. So I guess if I bought a small calf in Mexico and raised him for 5 years on my ranch in the United States, he would still never be a ``U.S. calf.'' Even immigrants coming to the United States are allowed to obtain U.S. citizenship after 5 years, but no such luck for a calf. He would be treated like a future U.S. President under the Constitution. If you're not born here, you can't become President. And if a calf is born in Mexico--even if his mother is a ``U.S. cow'' that went through a cut border fence to have her calf in Mexico and returned a few days later-- this calf will never be able to be labeled as a ``USA product.'' Is this what our national policy should be? I find this outrageous and am surprised that something like this is on the road to becoming law. It was my hope that we would be able to fashion a new farm policy that helps the farmers, increases conservation efforts, reduces the price of food for the American people, and fulfills our obligations to our trading partners around the world. Unfortunately, the conference report before us today does not accomplish these goals.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 2002, I was on the House Floor but inadvertently failed to vote during passage of H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote (#110).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill that this rule offers for consideration, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. I appreciate the work of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules to bring a bill to the floor, but I think this effort falls seriously short of the real reform that is needed. Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us today simply rearranges the boxes on the existing organization chart of the INS. It separates two divergent functions within the INS, immigration service and benefits. But it does not do much more than already exists. Instead of having the two functions joined at the top by the INS Commissioner who reports to the Attorney General, they are joined at the top by an Associate Attorney General who reports to the Attorney General. My colleagues may be interested in knowing that on November 4 of last year, the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner announced that under their own reorganization plan, ``clear and separate chains of command for the agency's service function and enforcement function are created.'' So, this bill would add nothing to what has already been done administratively. The bill also purports to give each function its own budget and its own dedicated employees. As a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary that has responsibility for the INS and Department of Justice budget, I can tell my colleagues that for some time now we have already separated the budget of the service and the enforcement functions of the INS. So nothing new is accomplished here, either. It is no surprise that the Department of Justice is now supporting this bill because it does not impose any changes on them. The only difference that I can see is that we will change the INS Commissioner's title to Associate Attorney General. The same people at the INS will be doing the same things they are doing today and the same things they were doing prior to September 11. What would have been different if this proposed bill had been law prior to September 11? The same people will be patrolling our borders and reporting to the same sector chiefs. The same people will be issuing visas and adjudicating immigration claims. But to implement the supposed reform is going to cost the American taxpayers an additional $1.1 billion. Why? Because it would eliminate $1 billion of revenues that immigrants pay now through fees that are used for border enforcement or drug interdiction. We would have to replace it with general revenue funds. Mr. Speaker, the irony today is that there is a proposal for real INS reform. It was submitted to Congress 5 years ago. It was the recommendation of the commission chaired by the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. I would have liked to offer the commission's recommendation as an amendment, but this rule does not permit that. The commission's proposal has been vetted and studied for years, 5 years by the commission and at least 5-years that it has been before Congress. These recommendations, my amendment, would fundamentally restructure INS by recognizing three core immigration functions and rationalizing them into three specific departments with expertise in these areas. Let me read just a couple of excerpts from a letter written by Robert Hill and Bruce Morrison, a Republican and Democrat, who cochaired the Jordan Commission Working Group on Structural Reform of the INS: ``Coordination of functions would be better under H.R. 4108,'' that was the bill I have introduced that now I propose to offer as an amendment. ``Coordination of functions would be better under H.R. 4108 than under the Judiciary Committee bill. Under the committee bill, administration of immigration benefits would continue to be split between Justice, Labor, and State, as under current law. All the fragmentation found by the commission would continue. Your bill addresses this problem with its consolidation of benefits adjudication in the State Department . . .'' Quoting further, ``Immigration law enforcement belongs in the Justice Department . . . The Justice Department is the wrong place for adjudicating immigration benefits.'' Mr. Speaker, I would place in the Record at this point the rest of this letter. April 18, 2002. Hon. Jim Kolbe, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Kolbe: As former members of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (the ``Jordan Commission''), we are writing to express our views on the INS Reorganization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4108), which you introduced on April 9, 2002. We understand that your bill encompasses the Jordan Commission's recommendations for comprehensive restructuring of responsibility for immigration functions within the government. We also understand that you may seek to offer your bill as a substitute for the well-intentioned, but more limited reforms contained in H.R. 3231 reported by the House Judiciary Committee. In this context, we offer some suggestions on why the more complete separation of agency responsibilities reflected by your bill received support from the Commission. We continue to believe that this more fundamental reform is far preferable. From 1992 to 1997, we served together as members of the Jordan Commission and co-chaired its working group on management reform, which developed the recommendations on restructuring reported to Congress on September 30, 1997. We come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Bob Hill served as an appointee of President Reagan in the White House, the State Department and the Justice Department. Bruce Morrison was a Democratic Member of Congress and served in the Clinton Administration. We have both had extensive experience representing clients in immigration matters. On this issue, our experience leads us to consensus, much as it did for the diverse membership of the Commission. The Jordan Commission reached its recommendation for restructuring after years of extensive investigation. We held more than 40 public hearings, consultations and round-table discussions with government officials and outside experts, as well as recent immigrants and refugees themselves. In every forum there was serious, ongoing discussion of the problems confronting the government agencies responsible for administering the immigration system as well as those confronting the individuals, employers, and practitioners subjected to it. Based on this input, we set criteria for evaluating competing restructuring proposals. These included: (1) consolidation and streamlining of government operations; (2) unambiguous allocation of responsibility and accountability for core functions; (3) effective separation of law enforcement and benefits adjudication; (4) maximum utilization of existing strengths and elimination of weaknesses or redundancies; and (5) enhancement of policy formulation, implementation and coordination. Immigration law enforcement belongs in the Justice Department. Everyone agrees that the enforcement of our immigration laws--at the border and within the country-- should be handled by a separate bureau within the Justice Department. We all seek to have this enforcement carried out with the kind of professional standards and effectiveness we have long associated with the Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. INS enforcement activities, while given high priority within the agency, have never had the status within Justice that comes to other law enforcement functions. This should change. The Justice Department is the wrong place for adjudicating immigration benefits. The main distinction between the Committee bill and yours is the placement of the second major INS function--adjudication of benefit applications. The Commission considered and rejected the idea of keeping this function in the Justice Department. Although initially Justice was viewed by most members as the presumptive choice, they were ultimately persuaded otherwise. The reasons were the fundamental objection to locating the enforcement and benefits functions in one agency, and that the Justice Department did not have the capacity to take on the State Department's international visa functions. Some argued that the two functions are complementary and must be coordinated by a single government official. But we saw that as little different from the INS structure that has so clearly failed. Instead we concluded that the very qualities of approach and status that make Justice the right home for immigration enforcement make it the wrong place for benefits adjudication. In fact, the general rule in the federal government is for serious violations of law regarding federal benefits and programs to be handled by law enforcement agencies, not the agency administering the benefit. The State Department is the best place to locate the benefits function. The need to take benefits administration out of Justice was an easier choice for the Commission than the choice of a new location. But closer examination pointed strongly to State. That Department has the greatest institutional capacity and presence, as well as professional capabilities to undertake the work of establishing and administering a consolidated worldwide adjudication system. It issues more than half a million immigrant visas and more than seven million nonimmigrant visas each year to applicants around the world. It issues millions of passports to American citizens through its existing passport offices in fifteen U.S. cities. It determines citizenship claims of foreign residents and registers the births of U.S. citizens overseas. And, at the National Visa Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, it annually processes three-quarters of a million immigrant cases and the annual diversity visa ``lottery.'' Placing immigration benefit administration at the State Department would strengthen both the function and the Department. Many advocates favor a separate agency or department to oversee a consolidated immigration function. The Commission rejected that idea both as impractical and as continuing the role conflicts between extending benefits and pursing lawbreakers. But one concern of those advocates--the need for a leading voice on immigration policy--is answered by the State Department. Migration issues are international in character and they require understanding and cooperation among many nations. State can and should play the key role in the broad questions of migration policy, as it now does in refugee matters. As one of the four most powerful cabinet departments in the government, its influence at the White House can elevate immigration policy issues on any Administration's policy agenda. And the strong interests of U.S. families and companies in immigration policy will give the State Department an involvement with domestic constituents that can only help its policy and political strength. Coordination of functions would be better under H.R. 4108 than under the Judiciary Committee bill. Under the Committee bill, administration of immigration benefits would continue to be split between Justice, Labor, and State, as under current law. All the fragmentation found by the Commission would continue. Your bill addresses this problem with its consolidation of benefits adjudication in the State Department. When respondents in proceedings before the Justice Department have benefit claims, they will be as well protected by seeking State Department processing, as they will be going to another office at Justice. In over four years since the Commission's final report to Congress, we have both observed the continuing deterioration of a system collapsing under its own weight. We have also had time to reflect upon the proposals we made for revitalizing that system. Those proposals are not perfect, but we remain persuaded that they provide the best option for effective reform available particularly in the wake of September 11. For that reason, we are both pleased to support your bill, H.R. 4108 and offer our assistance in anyway you believe will be of help in your efforts to enact it into law. Sincerely, Bruce A. Morrison, Morrison Public Affairs Group. Robert Charles Hill, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn.

Mr. KOLBE. Southern Arizona, which I represent, knows firsthand that the INS has failed to fulfill its duties. The people of Arizona have to deal with the consequences, such as treating injured illegal immigrants, environmental degradation, and the strain on law enforcement. I simply cannot go back to my State, to the people of southern Arizona and say that we have reformed the INS with this bill because, sadly, it just does not do it. It is an illusion of reform. We need to go back to committee. We need to consider real reform for the INS. Unfortunately, this bill just does not do it.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Amendments Act, H.R. 2509, to authorize the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce currency, postage stamps, and other security documents at the request of foreign governments, and security documents at the request of the individual States of the United States on a reimbursable basis. The U.S. Mint already has similar authority. This legislation makes sense. We need to modernize our legal tender and H.R. 2509 is a positive step in this direction. I introduced legislation to comprehensively modernize our money system--the Legal Tender Modernization Act (H.R. 2528). We need to modernize our money to improve the convenience and effectiveness of its daily use. Legal tender should not add to market inefficiencies. I believe it is better to spend taxpayer money on education, health care, national security, and other important national needs rather than on an inefficient legal tender system. The Legal Tender Modernization Act essentially accomplishes five objectives. It establishes a five year commemorative $2 bill program similar to the 50 state quarter program, requires cash sales to be rounded up or down to the nearest five cent increment to reduce the circulation of the penny, authorizes the Department of Treasury to produce currency for foreign governments, as does H.R. 3509, clarifies that seigniorage (the difference between the face value of money and the cost to produce it) is part of the federal budget, and makes permanent current law prohibiting the redesign of the $1 bill. Since there has been so much attention given to this issue, let me explain in more detail the rounding system I am proposing to reduce the use of the penny. The penny would continue to be legal tender, but would not be necessary in cash transactions. The total value of any cash transaction would be rounded up or down so that no pennies would be required. Again, let me stress that the rounding would be applied to the total transaction costs, after taxes, and only for cash transactions. Here's how it would work: If the final amount contains 1 or 2 cents, the amount would be rounded to 0 cents. If the final amount contains 3, 4, 6, or 7 cents, the amount would be rounded to 5 cents. If the final amount contains 8 or 9 cents, the amount would be rounded to 10 cents. Rounding will not occur if the total amount is 2 cents or less or if the payment is made by a negotiable instrument, electronic fund transfer, money order, or credit card. Also, the rounding occurs after discounts and taxes so state or municipalities will receive the exact amount of any tax imposed. This system favors neither the consumer nor the retailer because the probability of rounding up or down is 50 percent either way. For example, if you wanted to purchase some frozen lemonade mix that costs 98 cents, you would pay $1.00. However, if you chose to buy two frozen lemonade mixes for $1.96, you would pay $1.95. The calculation becomes more complicated by factoring in any taxes on the final sales amount. And if you are shopping at a grocery store, you must factor in the weight of produce and recognize that some items are taxable and others are non-taxable. As you can see, there would be no way for businesses to establish a pricing structure so that they could make an extra 2 cents on every transaction or that would cause price increases. It is important to note also that a similar rounding technique is used at overseas US military bases and in Australia and New Zealand, and gasoline is priced in nine-tenths of a cent and rounded up. The rounding system has several advantages. First, it would save the taxpayer money. The penny has very low or no profit margin for the Mint. In fact, the General Accounting Office reported in 1997 that the penny is unprofitable. Secondly, it would save businesses and customers money by reducing transaction time (some estimate up to 2.5 seconds/ transaction) and time spent waiting in lines, reducing the need for rolled coins (there are costs associated with wrapping and transporting pennies), and reducing errors when employees spend time counting pennies. It is past time for our legal tender system to be improved, and I understand concerns about changing this system. Change is always met with resistance. New area codes were not welcomed by people, but I think a greater good is achieved by allowing our telecommunications infrastructure to address growth. Changing or introducing new coinage or currency is no different. In 1914, England went from a coin to a note, even though the public opinion did not support this change. Canada went the other direction from a note to a coin against the wishes of the public, but the public now accepts this coin. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It mvoes us one step closer to a comprehensive modernization of our legal tender.