Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much time. As we conclude this debate, I think it is important that we understand what this debate is not. I will not debate the merits. I made it clear earlier that on the merits, the substance of this, I think this is bad public policy. I think it is extraordinarily important that every Member that votes on this understand what this amendment is about or, more to the point, what it is not about. I just heard a moment ago the gentleman from California talking about how this would prevent the transfer of any lands until, and then he went on to say, until the tribes have entered into such an agreement dealing with the collection of taxes. Mr. Chairman, that had to do with an amendment that was stricken on a point of order. This amendment, this amendment that we are considering right now says only that the Secretary may not use any funds in this act to carry out purposes, provisions of the act to acquire through relinquishment, gift, exchange or assignment any interest in lands or surface rights to lands outside of existing Indian reservations. Mr. Chairman, it does not have anything to do with the issue that we have all been talking about, myself included, about taxes, about whether it is fair that tribes should collect taxes, pay taxes for sales to non-Indians on their reservations. It does not have anything to do with that. It says only that the Secretary may not acquire, do anything, spend any money to acquire any land to put it into trust status. For whatever reason it is being done, no money may be spent.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am aware that it is only one of the various provisions, but that one provision does not have to do with just taxes. It does not have anything to do with taxes. It is only one provision for bringing them in but it is also one that is extraordinarily important and would limit, could have severe limitations on the ability of the Secretary to bring lands into tribal trust status. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should reject this amendment. I understand why the gentleman has proposed the amendment, because it was the only way that it could be brought to the floor, but it is too broad. It does not do what it is intended to do. It goes far beyond that and prevents the Secretary from bringing any land under tribal trust status at any point. I believe that that is a mistake. I would urge Members of this body to reject this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman offer what was known as amendment No. 2? I was not clear. I had an amendment that I thought he was offering and when it got read, it was something different.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this is a great day for this House and for the citizens of the United States. Today we take a giant step in providing the tax relief that Americans so desperately need and deserve. Today we are about to let people keep more of their income to spend as they want--not as the Federal Government wants. This is the right thing to do. Taxpayers deserve to enjoy more of the fruits of their labors. The Federal Government has become too greedy, continually increasing the burden on our citizens so Washington can distribute taxpayer earnings to other groups in society. Today we begin to reverse that condition. Even so, we still have a long way to go. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with many provisions of this bill. But two stand out as especially important for working Americans. The child tax credit and the education incentives. These provisions actually put money back in the pockets of ordinary, middle income people and help them provide for their children's education. Taxpayers with children get to take $500 per child off their total tax liability. Think of what that means to a young family struggling to get ahead and give their children opportunities. This bill gives families who send their children to college or other post secondary institutions a chance to keep more of their earnings to help with those higher education expenses. It provides a tax credit, up to $1,500 for each student, for half of the tuition and related expenses during the first 2 years of college or vocational training. It provides a $10,000 deduction per student per year for expenses through State prepaid tuition plans or education investment accounts. Further, it allows families to make penalty-free withdrawals from any IRA to cover the cost of education after high school Think what a relief this will be for hardworking families struggling to make sure their kids get an education. Mr. Chairman, I wish we could be voting on bigger tax cuts. I wish the capital gains tax had been cut more. I wish we had abolished the estate tax. I wish we had given more relief in many areas. But I am very happy with this major step forward. I am going to consider it a substantial down payment on a commitment we made to the American people 4 years ago when we promised to downsize Government, balance the budget, and cut taxes. We must continue to work in this House and in this Congress to totally deliver that promise in the next few years.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 79, the resolution calling for the United States to revoke the so-called most-favored-nation status with China. I oppose it so we can send a message to that nation about American principles and American values. I agree with the proponents of this resolution, let's send a message. Let us send a message to China, let us send a message about hope, let us send a message about freedom and democracy, let us send a message about prosperity, individual liberty, and the rules of law. I strongly support institutions and organizations that promote American values abroad. I always have. I do so because I think America can be a shining example to the world, and I think these groups send powerful messages about America. When our people work abroad, they carry with them the best of what America has to offer, principles of fairness, of individual responsibilities and individual choice. Those are embodied with American businesses and organizations when they work abroad. This is the best way for America to carry its message. Let us not isolate ourselves. But do not listen just to my words. Listen to those of others who have argued that a vote for MFN is a vote for religious freedom in China. Listen to these words of Reverend Sirico, a Paulist priest in China. Quote: Sanctions won't bring freedom for religious expression in China. They can only further isolate China and close off avenues for greater Western influence. A vote for MFN is a vote for the people of Hong Kong. Listen to the words of Chris Patten, Governor of Hong Kong: Unconditional most-favored-nation trade status is unequivocally the most valuable insurance America can present to Hong Kong during the handover period. A vote for MFN is the best hope for democracy. Listen to these words of Nick Liang, a former student leader in Tiananmen: The spirit of the Tiananmen Movement is not one of confrontation, not one of hatred, not one of containment, but of engagement. As one of the students from Tiananmen carrying on this spirit, I support MFN trade status, which is a very primary and effective vehicle of engagement. Mr. Speaker, let me end with this quote by Daniel Su, an evangelical minister who spoke privately to some of us last week, and his words rang in my ears then and they ring here today. He was talking about why this debate and the motives of those, who support or oppose MFN. Either way, we should not question those motives. They are honorable, but Daniel Su also urged opponents of MFN to think about the consequences of their opposition. He said these words: To sacrifice ourselves for a principle is heroic. To sacrifice others for that same principle is insensitive. Mr. Speaker, let us not sacrifice the Chinese people on our principles. Let us support MFN. Oppose this resolution. This past January 1 led a 22-member, bipartisan congressional delegation on a factfinding mission to Hong Kong and China to see first hand the impact that the United States policy of engagement is having on the Chinese economy and the Chinese people. I was truly astounded to see all the positive changes that have occurred since my first visit to that country in 1994, and I returned more committed than ever to our policy of economic and political engagement. The changes we witnessed in China reflect many of the changes we have seen grip other Asian nations. Over the past decade, economic liberalization has generated powerful currents of democracy and freedom that have rippled throughout Asia. These currents have reshaped the socioeconomic landscape of the region. Economic growth, driven by United States policies of free markets, free trade, and peaceful dialog among nations, has allowed countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to emerge as prosperous industrialized nations. Invariably, economic growth in these nations has led to expansion of individual freedom and liberty. Today, these countries have developed into true democracies characterized by political pluralism, functioning independent political parties, and greater respect for the rights of the individual. Admittedly, these changes did not occur overnight. They were part of a long-term, evolutionary process. I believe we are seeing the same forces of change at work today in China. I am convinced that if we remain steadfast in our policy of engagement, with confidence that American values of freedom and democracy will ultimately prevail over the tyranny of repression and the economic stagnation that accompany state controlled economies, we will ultimately see the same economic and political transformation in China that we have seen in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Two decades ago, virtually every aspect of Chinese society was under state control. Today, more than half of China's output is generated by private enterprise. The development of a strong, vibrant, private sector--particularly in southern China--continues to weaken centralized control. This, I think, continues to represent the best hope for political freedom to spring full-blown in China. Economic liberalization and growth of trade and economic links with the United States over the past two decades already have enhanced freedom for the Chinese people. That is undeniable. Millions of Chinese citizens are now employed in non-state enterprises, and they have the basic freedom to select their own employment and to change jobs when they are dissatisfied with working conditions or wages. This environment is the direct result of our policy of engagement. Clearly, civil liberties and personal space have increased over the past two decades as the Chinese economy has improved. In my view, the ongoing process of political reform in China would be severely compromised if we were to erect barriers to trade and economic exchange between our two countries. This is reason enough to support renewal of China's most-favored-nation trading status. But there are other reasons. In just a few weeks the world will watch as Hong Kong undergoes the peaceful transfer of sovereignty from Britain to China. If we pass the resolution of disapproval in the House of Representatives on the very eve of this transfer, what message will we send to the world and the people of Hong Kong? That America wants to turn its back on them, break economic and political ties with that region, and abandon its citizens at the precise hour of their greatest need? I do not think that is what the United States stands for. I also fear that passing the resolution of disapproval in the House will result in a backlash against American goods and American values. It would be nothing less than a unilateral declaration of political and economic war, providing just cause to hard-line elements in the Chinese Government who advocate more state control and less foreign influence. I fear the result will be the exile of groups associated with the United States who promote western values. Groups such as the International Republican Institute, which works to develop the rule of law in China and strengthen the nascent village democracy movement, would be discredited. Missionary organizations, like the Evangelical Fellowship, would no longer be welcome. We would be extinguishing some of the brightest rays of hope to the Chinese people, ultimately hurting the very people we are trying to help. Maintaining normal trading relations with China does not mean that we can't also speak frankly and firmly to the Chinese Government about issues and values important to us. There are opportunities where we can and should let our concerns about human rights, trade, and nuclear proliferation be known. I have certainly done so in my meetings with top Chinese leaders. But if we disengage, if we pull back our most effective resources, what incentive will those Chinese leaders have to listen to, or care about, what we have to say? I certainly think there is more that we can do. For example, I favor bringing China into the World Trade Organization on commercially viable terms. I think doing so would oblige the Chinese leadership to implement difficult domestic economic reforms while providing the United States with a strong multilateral vehicle for dealing with issues such as market access in China. I also favor accelerating and funding efforts to work with the Chinese to promote the rule of law and encourage and support the village election process. In fact, I am currently working with Representatives John Porter of Illinois and David Dreier of California to examine just such an approach. But one thing is clear. The United States must remain a major influence in Asia. We must strengthen our relations with our allies and maintain a strong military presence in the region. And we must be clear and consistent in our message to the Chinese Government. This annual debate over whether we will continue our political and economic relations with China destructive and counterproductive. It hampers our ability to formulate a comprehensive and effective policy toward the region. And I think it is time for it to end. Thus, I strongly urge my congressional colleagues to renew MFN status for China. History has shown that economic growth is the most effective catalyst for political change. The principles of freedom and individual liberty embodied in economic liberalization will ultimately prevail-- but only if we have the political courage to allow them to flourish.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 54, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. In both 1990 and 1995, Congress debated and voted down proposed constitutional amendments to ban flag burning; yet once again, with a Federal budget that is far from being balanced, with entitlement programs in desperate need of reform, and with an overwhelming Federal tax burden on American citizens, we are again on the floor debating this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am a patriotic American. I am a proud American. I am a Navy combat veteran. I know the deep patriotic feeling that the flag elicits, especially when I am in a foreign country, when I stand to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of our congressional day or at a rally, or when I see a flag neatly folded into a triangle and presented to a grieving family. I also have feelings of disgust and outrage when I see on TV people desecrating the flag. But I still do not support this amendment. In the past two years, I have supported two constitutional amendments--one to require Congress to balance the budget, the other to limit terms of Members of Congress. These amendments would have fundamentally altered the focus of our national Government and changed the way Congress conducts its business. This amendment does not do either. In fact, there is not a crisis of disrespect for the American flag, like with the Federal budget. In fact, the Congressional Research Service reports that there were all of 10 incidents of flag burning in 1996. We can count on the fingers of two hands the incidents of flag burning since the Supreme Court ruled that such behavior--despicable though it may be--is constitutionally protected. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, there are many questions associated with this amendment. Are partial reproductions of flags covered by the intent of the amendment? What about the popular American flag clothing that can be found in department stores in every mall in this country? We honor our flag with our behavior every day. We show our respect in large ways and in small ways. But this body could do nothing more fundamental to honor our country--and its symbols--than by restoring fiscal responsibility to this Government. So let us get on with the business we were sent here to do. Let us balance the budget, let us return responsibilities to the States, let us empower the American people. We do not need to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration to show that we love and respect this great symbol of America. Mr. Speaker, we can't legislate patriotism and we can't legislate love of the American flag. We can honor our country and our flag by carrying out our responsibilities to our great Nation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague and I would say my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford], because he is a very thoughtful Member. However, I disagree with him strongly on the issue of whether or not we should make this kind of cut in our State Department authorization. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate if the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, gentleman from Kentucky, who is also the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department, were down here speaking on this. I do not presume to speak for him. But having worked with him for the last 10 years on this issue, I think I have some understanding, as I know the gentleman has an even greater understanding, of the needs in foreign policy. I would like to focus on one reason that the gentleman from South Carolina gave in support of his amendment. He gave as his fourth reason that the amount of money we are spending in foreign policy does not reflect the reality of the world since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I would say it is exactly contrary to that. It is precisely because of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is precisely because of the end of the cold war, that our requirements, our foreign policy responsibilities, have grown apace. The United States still continues to be the only country in the world that is a diplomatic superpower, a military superpower, an economic superpower, and a political superpower. That gives us, whether we like it or not, very substantial responsibilities that we as a country must continue to discharge. We know this is not a less dangerous world that we live in today simply because of the end of the cold war. Indeed, we find that in many regions of the world conflicts and problems that had heretofore been kept under the surface by an overarching superpower conflict, have now risen to the surface and pose potential dangers to the United States and to the rest of the world. These are problems that pose potential dangers to the security of the world and to peace in various regions of the world. Not long ago I took a congressional delegation to China. I mention that because during our visit we went to our Embassy in Beijing. One of the things that this amendment would do would be to cut the funds that are available for renovation and repair of Embassies. We are talking about the U.S. mission in what is the largest country of the world from a population standpoint, the third largest country of the world in terms of its gross domestic product, its economy, and the country with the largest trade deficit that the United States has. In Beijing, our Embassy is woefully inadequate; it is desperately in need of repair; it is leaking through the roof; it has inadequate plumbing and inadequate electricity. Frankly, it does not enhance the credibility of the United States, the largest country of the world, the major power in that region, to be in such a woefully inadequate facility. That sends a message that I believe is the wrong kind of message. But it is more than just the Embassy renovations we are talking about in this proposed cut. What about the Embassy security? We have Embassies all over the world that desperately need to be upgraded from a security standpoint. We are committed to increasing the amount of broadcasting in Radio Free Asia. We are committed to doing more, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, in refugee protection; and an area that I am concerned about, environmental protections along the United States-Mexico border. Commitments that we made as part of the North American Free-Trade Agreement would be substantially cut as a result of this amendment. We would be cutting our efforts to try to establish an Embassy in Jerusalem, our efforts to eliminate child labor all over the world. These are just some of the issues that would be affected by this cut. The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that we have a funding need that is driven in very large part by currency exchange rates. That is one of the things the gentleman from South Carolina did not focus on when he talked about the rising cost of the State Department. Frequently, the cost is beyond our control. Currency exchange rates drive the amount of money we have to spend overseas. It has nothing to do with the actual dollars that we would be appropriating if all those dollars were being spent here at home. But they're not. We have to pay our foreign nationals in their currency. We have to buy food in that currency. We have to pay for repairs in that currency. So we are driven by factors that are often outside the control of the subcommittee, as the chairman well knows, when we appropriate funds in our subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to not support this amendment. It simply is not the right time to be sending a signal to the rest of the world that we are going to reduce our involvement, that we are going to reduce our commitment to American foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I thank her for taking this time for those who serve here to take a moment out of our day at the end of this week and at the end of a year of experience for our pages to thank them. Normally we stand in the well of this House here and we address our colleagues who are out here in front of us. But this evening we stand here and address the pages who stand behind the rail over there and have served us so well and, I might add, the pages who sit behind me over here at the documentarian's table. To all of these pages, let me say that we thank you. We thank you for the service that you have given, we thank you for the confidence that you give us in the future of our country. I began, as I think most of the pages know, I began my own service in public service, my own service in Government nearly 40 years ago when I came here as a page. In those days the program was quite different and I came as a sophomore in high school and stayed through my senior year. I know from that experience what a difference it has made in my life, how it has fundamentally changed my own life. When I think back on the class of 1960, two of whom in addition to myself have served this House so ably, Donn Anderson, the Clerk of the House, Ron Lasch, who is the Republican floor assistant over on our side. And I think of the others who have not chosen to participate in the Congress of the United States but participate in their own communities and participate in our public life in other ways. So what the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said is so very true, that no matter where you go, no matter what career, no matter what profession you follow, no matter where life takes you, this experience will always be a profoundly important one for you. I cannot make any other prediction for you, but I can guarantee you that, 40 years from now, you will look back on this experience and say that it has been an extraordinarily important one for you. There are many people who have said that the page program is unnecessary, that it is too difficult, that we really ought to change it, that we ought to not have high school students, that we ought to have regular employees doing the work. We have resisted that through the years. I think there has been strong support in this House of Representatives to keep the page program as it is for young men and women who come to us from all over the country, from all walks of life, all communities, from every kind of ethnic and economic background because of what they represent and because of what they stand for as the future of our country and for the hope that they give us and the message that they take back to their communities. So you are a part. The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] has said, now, of the history of this House of Representatives and your service is not forgotten. We have a lot of people who make the flow and the work in this House go well. It takes a lot of people for an organization this big to carry on its daily activities. It may seem to you sometimes that your work has not been that important, but collectively and together it is a vital cog of the machinery of the House of Representatives that makes this place function smoothly, not always so smoothly but usually smoothly, to function smoothly and to function well. I think that each and every one of us has enjoyed the opportunity over the course of this last year or, for some of you, the last 5 months to get to know you, to get to understand your hopes and your dreams, your aspirations. Through you we also understand just a little bit better about the young people of America, about the hopes for our country and for ourselves. So we thank you for the service that you have given us and we thank you even more for what you represent for this country. Speaking personally, I want to say I wish you all very well. I know that you are going to go back to your schools and your communities and I predict each and every one of you is going to be a great and wonderful success with your life. We hope we have contributed to a little bit of your understanding and we hope that when you go home to your schools next year, to your communities this summer, and you hear somebody say about how bad government is and they express the cynicism that I know you have heard before and we will all hear again, that you will say, stand up and say, but there are a lot of good people that are involved and there are a lot of people that work hard, a lot of people that care. And this is what the process is all about and this is what democracy, this is what liberty, this is what our freedoms are all about. You are a part of that and we thank you for that service. Godspeed.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are finally considering the conference report to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Our Nation has faced an unusual array of natural disasters recently and the bulk of the money in this bill is earmarked for recovery efforts. It is my hope that the President will sign this legislation so that Americans impacted by these disasters can continue the process of rebuilding their lives. Mr. Speaker, as the author of a provision in the conference report that extends the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, I want to clarify one aspect of the settlement agreement. Section 6003 of the conference report to H.R. 1469 contains a section allowing the United States, and subsequently, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, to take over the operation of the Black River Pump Station from Phelps Dodge Corp. This section also provides for the lease of 14,000 acre feet per year of the tribe's Central Arizona Project [CAP] water to Phelps Dodge Corp. for a term of up to 50 years, with a right of renewal based upon a finding by the Secretary of the Interior. The language is clear, understandable, and supported by Department of Interior officials, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Phelps Dodge Corp. But to avoid any confusion regarding the intent of the provision, I want to further clarify the language relating to the $5 million lease payment which Phelps Dodge is required to make to the tribe at the beginning of the initial lease term. This sum constitutes a one-time prepayment for the first 4166 acre feet of water which will be delivered in each year during the 50 year term of the lease. In effect, Phelps Dodge Corp. will be paying the tribe in advance for the delivery of 208,300 acre feet of CAP water, that will be delivered under the lease at the rate of 4166 acre feet per year over the 50 year initial lease period. The remaining water to be delivered each year under the lease will be paid for by Phelps Dodge Corp. as provided in the legislation. Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this provision.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. I think it is an exceptional bill. It provides an international solution to an international problem, the regulation of tuna fishing in the open seas. It is a good bill. It reflects a compromise among many competing interests. In recent years tuna fishermen have developed new, innovative methods which enable them to capture tuna without ensnaring dolphins at the same time. In addition, tough new monitoring procedures have been instituted and international oversight responsibilities strengthened. Over time these procedures have been increasingly internationalized, most recently through permanent binding procedures set forth in the Declaration of Panama. By implementing the Panama Declaration, H.R. 408 brings us along to the next step in this evolutionary process. It provides incentives needed for other nations to remain in compliance by providing those nations who abide by the agreement with access to an important export market. Make no mistake about it, these market incentives are absolutely critical to the continued success of the program. Mr. Chairman, we do not have to endanger the future of our tuna stocks and needlessly put sea turtles and other species at risk, jeopardize the continued viability of a successful dolphin protection program, and renege on our international obligations to save an extremely small number of dolphins. That is absolutely senseless, especially when we have the technology to protect these species and protect dolphins. I urge Members' support of H.R. 408. But first, I think we need to put a little historical perspective on this debate, Mr. Chairman. In the mid-1970's dolphin mortality rates were clearly at unacceptable levels. Over 500,000 dolphins were killed each year in pursuit of tuna stocks. In response to this unacceptable loss of life, 5 years ago the United States placed an embargo on the importation of any tuna caught using primitive encirclement measures. It locks in the reforms of the Panama Declaration, reiterates our support of the International Dolphin Conservation Program [IDCP], and strengthens compliance procedures. The procedures required under the Panama Declaration are costly: on- board observers on all tuna boats, individual boat licensing, and use of nets and divers to ensure the safety of the dolphin population. Without the U.S. market as an incentive, these nations are bound to revert to destructive fishing practices of the past, and we'll end up with dolphin kill ratios as high as we had in the 1970's and 1980's. If we don't act today and enact this legislation, we will turn back on treaty obligations negotiated in good faith and discourage fishermen from other countries from using safer fishing methods. But this bill does more than protect dolphins. It provides an effective method to conserve the total marine ecosystem in the eastern Pacific. The fishing practices encouraged by some groups would result in an unreasonably excessive by-catch of a number of different species, including endangered sea turtles, sharks, billfish, and large numbers of tuna and other fish species. In fact, the fishing procedures advocated by some opponents to this bill are likely to endanger the long-term health of tuna stocks themselves as these procedures tend to capture a large amount of immature tuna. We can do both. And, this bill does both. We have the technology to preserve the marine ecosystem and protect the dolphin. Let's do it. Let's implement this bill. Let's keep the dolphin, and the marine ecosystem, safe. I urge support of H.R. 408.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 1377, the Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement, known as the SAVER Act. I applaud the work of my colleagues of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations, the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Fawell, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, the ranking member. With this critical piece of legislation we have taken the first step in providing the American people with the information they need to have to prepare for their retirement years. There is a critical need to look at the low level of retirement savings in the United States today. The story is dramatic. Between 1951 and 1980, the United States' national savings rates was fairly stable, ranging from 7 to 10 percent. However, since the 1980's, the rate of savings in the United States has dropped to a low of 3 percent. This number reflects the decline in personal family savings, which includes pension accumulations, business savings, and also in the level of savings of the Federal Government. The simple truth is, as Americans, we are just not saving enough for our retirement. Based on the current economic and demographic trends facing Social Security, it is unlikely that that program can be sustained in its present form without modifying either the benefits or the contributions. Growth in the elderly population in the United States, already very rapid because of increasing life expectancy and declining fertility rates, will accelerate when the baby boom generation reaches retirement age in 2010. Social Security has been a very successful program over the years, but it provides few Americans with adequate retirement income, and it is likely to play an even more limited role in the retirement picture in the future. According to the Department of Labor, the average worker will need about 70 percent of his preretirement income to maintain his standard of living after retirement, but Social Security will not provide that level of retirement income. Social Security pays the average worker only about 40 percent of preretirement income and only about 27 percent for workers that earn over $60,000 or more. Over 2 years ago I became concerned about this and I became involved, in an effort to address the long-term viability of the Social Security program, by forming the house public pension reform caucus. The caucus has begun to explore reform options to address the many economic and demographic problems of the Social Security Program. It is the goal of the caucus to ensure that future generations, including those of our children and grandchildren, are not strapped with a bankrupt system prior to their retirement. We must encourage Americans to supplement their Social Security income with pension plans and personal savings. These investments will help individuals plan for a more comfortable retirement. In order to encourage individuals to increase their savings and take greater responsibility for their futures, workers must be educated about the various retirement savings choices and investment strategies regarding their retirement future, and that is why I stand here in support of H.R. 1377, the SAVER Act. This legislation initiates a number of projects to help educate American workers about retirement savings options. It creates a national summit on retirement savings in conjunction with the White House and the private sector. The summit will convene on three occasions, in 1998, 2001, and 2005. The SAVER Act also directs the Department of Labor to maintain an ongoing program of education and outreach to help workers understand these options and prepare wisely for their retirement. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this valuable education effort and vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1377.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, May 22, 1997, the Speaker be authorized to entertain a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 956, the Drug-Free Community Act.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, to say that I am happy to be here speaking on a budget plan that will lead to a balanced budget is an understatement. Mr. Chairman, this is a good day for the American people. I am pleased to be a Member of the 105th Congress which is about to achieve something for which many of us have fought for a very, very long time. I salute Chairman Kasich and Chairman Domenici and all those involved in these very difficult negotiations. This plan will first and foremost allow for tax relief for all taxpayers in America. There is no doubt that our citizens pay too much for government and keep too little of their earnings for themselves. Hard working people should be allowed to make their own choices about how to spend their hard earned dollars instead of giving them to Federal bureaucrats to spend. I know that the Ways and Means Committee will be working out the details of that tax relief in the next month or so, but I am very optimistic that there will be real capital gains tax reform and estate tax reform. These two taxes are onerous and counter productive. Relief in these areas will create economic growth which will mean more good jobs and less reliance on government programs. And I am equally pleased that we will be able to improve the lives of families with children by allowing them a $500 per child tax credit. That $500 for each child will mean a lot to families who have many, many uses for that money which they won't have to send to the IRS. Securing Medicare for the next several years is another very important step for the citizens of southern Arizona. This important medical insurance program for senior citizens is on the brink of bankruptcy. With the reforms contained in this plan, we can be sure that Medicare will be kept solvent and available to our parents and grandparents and maybe even to some of us. Mr. Chairman, is this a perfect plan? Quite honestly, it is not. Would I have preferred more tax relief for our citizens? Yes, I certainly would have. Families without children could use tax relief. Small businesses could use tax relief. Everyone could benefit from lower taxes. Would I have preferred more savings in many programs? I definitely believe there are ways we could have held down discretionary spending levels. But we will have an opportunity to work out some of these differences as we take the steps necessary to turn this plan into legislative reality. But, Mr. Chairman, this is a big step for a Congress and a President that only a short time ago shut down the Government about our disagreements over these issues. Let's take this step and use the accrued benefits as a foundation for future efforts. For future efforts will be needed. As good as this budget plan is, it will not solve the problem in the long term. We already know that in a very few years we will find ourselves in another very difficult situation when we deal with the reality of a Social Security Trust Fund emptying as baby boomers begin to retire. All the revenues from FICA taxes and the trust fund itself will actually be spent for Social Security recipients instead of masking the deficit as it does today. And the Medicare Trust Fund also will need further work as these new recipients start drawing benefits. Mr. Chairman, the problems we will inevitably face in the years ahead are just some of the reasons I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. This is an excellent opportunity to help the people we represent get out from under the burden of over-taxation and overspending. We need the foundation we are building now for the work we must do later. We must not let the excellent slip away while we await the perfect.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1469. I want to speak on the same contentious issue that the gentleman from Massachusetts spoke, about section 601, which at least in part caused the rule to fail yesterday. This provision would open up the bidding process in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing for the supply of paper, not the supply of currency, the supply of paper which is used in making the currency. Currently, and for the last 117 years, there has been only one supplier of that paper for the currency in the United States. We will have a full debate on this later when we get into the bill, and there will be a motion to strike this particular provision. And that is appropriate, because then we can have a debate on this issue. I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. The chairman said earlier that there has been a lot of misinformation out there. He's right. I think there has been a lot of misinformation. The underlying bill that the gentleman from Massachusetts referred was authored by his predecessor, our late beloved colleague, Mr. Conte. It is Public Law 100-202, section 622. Section 622 of that law says that currency paper must be made by an American-owned company and it must be made in the United States. Neither of those provisions are being changed in section 601 of this bill. So this has nothing to do with ``Buy American'' provisions, which require that a product be made in the United States. That requirement applies here, and it must be an American-owned company as well. What this amendment would do is clarify something that we adopted last year, I might add, in recent language in our appropriation bill. What it would do is clarify that when Congress said American-owned, what it meant is that it had to be 50 percent or more U.S. ownership. That ought to be an acceptable definition of American- owned. We think that there ought to be more than one company that is permitted to bid on supplying paper. The gentleman spoke about 57 companies to which the bid had been sent to. He did not say 57 were going to respond. Only one ever gets to submit a bid, and that's because of the way it is structured right now. We have had no competition in this process for the last 117 years, none whatever. And the fact of the matter is that I think, as the debate will bring out later here today, there is some real question about the current supplier of paper as to the amount of money they have been making, the amount of their profit and whether or not this is a reasonable profit given the fact that there is the possibility of having real competition here. We will be talking about that more. Let me make it clear, this does not change the underlying procurement law at all, does not change the provision that it has to be made in America, does not change the provision that it has to be an American- owned company. One other thing I want to point out. It was said earlier that there had been no hearings. Here are some of the hearings that have been held in 1995, 1996, and 1997 on this subject. So there has been a lot of hearings held on this particular subject. We will get a change to refer to those hearings later. We will talk about the capitalization subsidy. All of that can be thoroughly discussed in this debate. I do not want anybody to be misled about this. We are not talking about foreign companies supplying our paper. We are talking about American companies doing it and making it here in America.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to be heard on point of order. I am very surprised at the ranking member's position here, since this had been worked out with him earlier.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, as I did before, that this has been worked out with all the parties in question on the minority and majority side of the authorizing and Committee on Appropriations, and is supported by the Department of the Interior as an extension of this water settlement. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a copy of my complete statement. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to several of my colleagues for their assistance in ensuring that my amendment is considered today. Specifically, I want to thank Chairman Livington, Ranking Minority Member Obey, the chairman and ranking member of the Resources Committee--Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, and the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee--Mr. Regula and Mr. Yates. The amendment that I am offering pertains to the San Carlos Apache Water Rights Settlement Act--Public Law 102-575. Simply put, the amendment extends the Settlement Act. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that all my amendment does is extend the Act. This extension provides additional time for the implementation of many of the important provisions in the Act. Before I describe the provisions contained in my amendment, I would like to provide a few facts about the Settlement Act. The San Carlos Apache Water Rights Settlement Act was signed into law by President Bush on October 30, 1992. The bill settled significant reserved water rights claims, and provided for expedited resolution of any Fifth Amendment taking claim against the United States by certain Arizona entities relating to one of the water sources allocated to the Tribe by the bill. In addition to preserving reserved water rights, the bill authorized a $38 million federal appropriation (which has been appropriated) and a $3 million state contribution (which has also been appropriated). The $41 million settlement is currently accruing interest and is intended to be used by the San Carlos Apache Tribe for economic development. However, the money is not currently available to the Tribe because several contingencies included in the legislation have yet to be satisfied. I am offering this amendment because the Settlement Act is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1997. Negotiations between the Tribe, the Department of Interior, and several of the Arizona entities which are parties to the Settlement are ongoing. In fact, Mr. David Hayes, Counselor to Secretary Babbitt and the lead negotiator, met this Monday with representatives of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Phelps Dodge Corporation. The negotiations concluded at 4:30 am, and significant progress was made in resolving outstanding issues between these two parties. But the reality is that a final Settlement agreement before the June 30, 1997 expiration date is not possible. Mr. Chairman, my amendment extends the Settlement Act until March 31, 1999. Should a final agreement be reached prior to the March date, the Act is automatically extended until December 31, 1999. This extension is necessary because any final agreement must be submitted to the Superior Court system of Arizona for approval. The amendment also extends the Tribe's Central Arizona Project [CAP] water lease authority to three adjoining counties: Gila, Graham and Greenlee. In addition, the Gila Valley Irrigation District and the Franklin Irrigation District would be added as parties to the Act as long as none of the existing parties to the Act objects. Lastly, and perhaps most important, my amendment clarifies the right-of-way issue as it pertains to the Black River pump station and Eagle Creek--which are both located on the San Carlos Apache reservation. Specifically, section 5 of the amendment directs the United States through the Bureau of Reclamation to operate and maintain the Black River facilities and to enter into a contract with Phelps Dodge for delivery of water. In return for delivery of water, Phelps Dodge Corporation will pay $20,000 per month, in addition to the $5000 per month power line right-of-way fee they are to be assessed. Mr. Chairman, the provisions contained in my amendment are the result of hotly debated, and at times, contentious negotiations. These have been trying times for all the parties to the Settlement. But, we have come to a point in the negotiations where we have the framework for a final agreement. Adoption of my amendment will ensure that all the parties to the Settlement Act will have 20 more months to negotiate a final agreement. Otherwise, the Act will expire, the Tribe will lose $41 million earmarked for economic development, and this issue will be mired in litigation for years. I have letters supporting my amendment from the Tribe, Phelps Dodge Corporation, and the Department of Interior--as trustee for the Tribe. My amendment is also supported by all the other parties to the Settlement Act and the entire Arizona Congressional delegation. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to go back to line 4 to reoffer the amendment that I offered before.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say it obviously does have this problem. This had been worked out with the chairman of the committee, with the ranking member; with the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the ranking member of the Committee on Resources; the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Appropriations Committee, and the ranking member, and is supported by the Department of the Interior as an extension of an Indian water settlement that is vitally needed in order to keep the progress and the negotiations going. If the gentleman is going to persist, he obviously would be correct in his position.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rulemaking in order the fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I must oppose it because this rule does not protect section 601 of the committee-passed bill. For nearly 117 years, Crane & Co. has been awarded the contract to provide the Bureau of Engraving and Printing its currency paper. I certainly do not hold Crane & Co. at fault for that. However, in fiscal year 1988, a provision of law was added that required the Department of Treasury to purchase currency paper only from American-owned firms and that the paper be manufactured in the United States. The report language accompanying the fiscal year 1988 continuing resolution stated that the company must be 90 percent owned by American citizens--a provision that essentially guaranteed that the family-owned Crane & Co. in Dalton, MA, would be the only company that could, under interpretation of this report language, compete for the currency paper contract. This provision would not allow American-owned companies that are public to compete because it is possible there may be greater than 10 percent foreign interest in the stock. During the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 hearing cycles, the Treasury Subcommittee heard from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing that the 1988 report language limited competition for the procurement of paper and increased costs to the taxpayer. So, in report language which accompanied the fiscal year 1996 appropriation for Treasury, Congress promoted competition for the procurement of currency paper by clarifying that American-owned should include companies that are over 50 percent American-owned. However, the Treasury Department, in a clear attempt to politicize this issue, caved into Massachusetts interests and determined that 1996 report language does not supersede 1988 report language. I ask my colleagues to think about the implications of this Treasury General Counsel decision which says subsequent report language cannot alter earlier report language--a decision that states when Congress gives agencies direction through report language, the administration does not have to abide by that direction. Thus, we find it necessary to include section 601 of this bill to enforce the 1996 congressional intent through binding bill language. I am outraged that this rule does not protect section 601 and will allow only one company to compete for the procurement of currency paper. All American-owned companies--not just Crane & Co. My colleagues should know that the Treasury Department Inspector General has been conducting an audit of contracts between Crane & Co. and the BEP for over 5 years. Not until this week did Crane open up its financial books to the IG who is trying to determine if the taxpayer is getting the best value on procurement of currency paper. We have reason to believe that the profit margin for Crane & Co. is as high as 20 percent--far exceeding the normal rate for Government contracts. In 1996, Crane & Co. agreed to a $9.7 million settlement with the BEP over unallowable costs which it had charged against previous contracts. This settlement--by itself--should be proof that competition is needed to ensure the best price to taxpayers. There are more reasons why section 601 should be protected in this rule, but I am confident that this matter will ultimately be resolved in favor of competition between American-owned businesses, and in favor of taxpayers. I want my colleagues to know that, although this issue seems to have died with the supplemental, it won't be dead for long. I fully intend to pursue open competition among American-owned companies for the production of our Nation's currency and I will not stop until I have succeeded.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate one of Arizona's finest pharmacists and professors, Dr. John E. Murphy. In particular, I am proud to announce that Dr. Murphy has been voted president-elect of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists [ASHP] and will be installed at the society's 54th annual meeting in Minneapolis this June. ASHP is the 30,000-member national professional association representing pharmacists who practice in hospitals, health maintenance organizations, long-term care facilities, home-care agencies, and other components of health care systems. The society has extensive publishing and educational programs designed to help members improve their delivery of pharmaceutical care, and it is a national accrediting organization for pharmacy residency and pharmacy technician training programs. A resident of my congressional district, Dr. Murphy is professor and head of the Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science at the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy. He earned his bachelor of science and Phar.D. degrees at the University of Florida and later served as a member of the faculty and as director of residencies at Mercer University School of Pharmacy in Georgia. His extensive involvement with ASHP includes having served as an ASHP board member, chair of the ASHP Pharmacokinetics Specialty Practice Group, and member of the ASHP Information Network for Students. In addition, he has been the president of the Georgia Society of Hospital Pharmacists and has participated on many committees of the Georgia and Arizona societies. As Dr. Murphy has said, ``Dramatic changes in health care delivery are creating exciting opportunities for pharmacists.'' I am confident that he will guide ASHP with strong and innovative leadership for the sake of all Americans receiving pharmaceutical care. I congratulate Dr. Murphy and wish him well as he takes on his new position with ASHP.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce was founded as the Tucson Grocer's Association on October 31, 1896, by six civic-minded businessmen with the purpose to unite the business interests of Tucson, or of Tucson trade, and oppose anything tending to their injury. Since that time, the chamber has evolved into the largest Chamber of Commerce in Arizona, representing over 3,000 businesses and 75,000 employees. Over the past 100 years, the chamber has worked steadfastly to further the interests of Tucson and Arizona. I would like to take this opportunity to mention some of their achievements. The chamber worked faithfully to help Arizona achieve statehood. When a lavish reception for the Senate Committee exploring statehood apparently failed to impress, chamber leaders traveled to Washington to press the case personally. In the early part of this century, the chamber organized and financed the first municipal airport in the United States and later helped establish what was to become Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Sixty-seven years later, the chamber was also among the organizations working to successfully keep Davis-Monthan open as a security asset for the entire Nation. In response to the growing need for the treatment of tubercular patients, particularly veterans of World War I, the chamber sent representatives to Washington to lobby for a veterans hospital and then raised the money from its own membership to pay for the building supplies. The chamber also borrowed the money to purchase the land where the current veterans hospital is established. The chamber spearheaded and often financed infrastructure projects for the development of the community including schools, roads, and water projects. The chamber donated the land to lure the U.S. Magnetic Laboratory to the desert, beginning a trend that has resulted in Tucson becoming a world recognized center for optics. Since its inception, the chamber has been active in encouraging trade with our southern neighbor, Mexico. The organization lobbied Mexico City directly in the late 1800's, to establish a customs house, and it recently lobbied our State Department to successfully retain the U.S. consulate in Hermosillo--a critical link for trade and services for both countries. The Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce continues to benefit southern Arizona in many other ways. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the chamber on its first 100 years of work and wish the organization well in achieving its goals for the next century.

Mr. KOLBE of Arizona

Mr. KOLBE of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, our forbearers believed it was their duty to work together for the common good so that each might have the opportunity to enjoy the full fruits of liberty. Tucson's own Angel Charity for Children epitomizes that commitment to the principle of personal compassion that has made America great. Truly, there can be no greater reward than the satisfaction that comes from helping our neighbors in need to help themselves. For 15 years, Angel Charity volunteers have identified and met the critical needs of children, and their families, in our community. Goodness knows there has been no shortage of worthwhile projects that have needed Angel Charity's support. To this charity's credit, it has purposefully sought out a different organization each year for which to raise funds. And Angel Charity's gifts keep on giving. By concentrating on brick- and-mortar projects, the organization has enabled beneficiaries to concentrate their resources on programs that meet the physical, emotional, and developmental needs of children. The increased public exposure each beneficiary receives through association with Angel Charity is incalculable. The fact that Angel Charity has raised more than $9 million to date for Tucson's children is truly astounding. Their success is testimony to the truth that those who give freely are twice blessed.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I feel a little bit like a proud parent today as I rise to congratulate Coach Lute Olsen and the University of Arizona Wildcats on winning the NCAA national basketball championship. This marvelous achievement really was unprecedented. Never before has a collegiate basketball team defeated three No. 1 seeds in an NCAA tournament, in fact the three most successful basketball programs in the country. Pundits said it was impossible. To be victorious Arizona had to find a way to win six games in a row, something this team had not done all season. In fact, during the regular season the Wildcats lost nearly as many games as Kansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky combined. But throughout the season the Arizona Wildcats exhibited a strength of character that was truly inspiring. They prove that a good team can benefit as much, if not more, from losing as from winning. As Mike Bibby, Arizona sensational freshman point guard, told reporters, ``I like playing against All Americans because it helps me learn,'' or as forward Michael Dickerson said, ``We don't feel we're anybody's underdogs. We have players who can match up with anybody. We did it by believing in each other.'' Indeed, at one point during the tournament Mike Bibby found himself at the free throw stripe with the game on the line. Yet after making the shots that sealed the victory, Bibby was quick to credit his teammate and freshman reserve Josh Pastner with helping him perfect his free throwing technique. Bibby wanted the world to know that although Josh Pastner did not log a minute of playing time during the tournament, the Arizona Wildcats could not have won the championship without him. So congratulations, University of Arizona. Go, Wildcats.