Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997. It is time that we grant private sector employees one of the benefits that many public sector employees have enjoyed for a long time. I congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this bill to the floor for our consideration. Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns I hear most often, in this era of the dual income family, is being able to balance children's needs with those of the job. For too long, employers who want to be flexible have been hamstrung by rules made for a bygone era. Finally, we are about to offer the tools to make life better for those families. This bill would allow a working mother to bank sufficient overtime hours in a compensatory time account to accompany the Girl Scout troop on their weekend camping trip which leaves immediately after school on Friday. She could bank enough hours to take time off to meet with the teacher about her daughter's progress. And certainly there could be hours to use to take care of the inevitable orthodontist appointments and doctors' appointments. She wouldn't have to take time off from work without pay to attend to these needs. But for those men and women who would benefit more from additional cash, receiving overtime pay at the rate of 1\1/2\ hours for every hour worked would remain the standard. No one would be forced to take time off instead of taking overtime pay. Compensatory time is a modification to the overtime for pay rule that must be agreeable to both employee and employer. Employers don't have to offer compensatory time and employees don't have to accept compensatory time instead of overtime pay. Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine why some people try to make this sound like a bad deal for employees. The Acting Secretary of Labor states: ``Any comp time legislation must effectively and satisfactorily address three fundamental principles: real choice for employees; real protection against employer abuse; and preservation of basic worker rights including the 40-hour workweek.'' And this bill meets all of those criteria. Obviously, it offers real choice for employees, because employees may choose whether or not to accept compensatory time if it is offered. Currently, there is no choice. The bill clearly protects against abuse. It states specifically that an employer may not intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee for the purpose of interfering with the right to choose compensatory time or payment of monetary overtime and it sets out penalties, payable to the employee. And finally it preserves, and enhances, basic worker rights including the 40-hour workweek. It actually allows private sector employees the same rights available to those represented by unions or who work in the public sector. It does not affect, in any way, the 40-hour workweek. Further, it does not infringe on union powers because it does not apply to those workplaces represented by a union. All those benefits are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Incidentally, compensatory time is one of the most commonly negotiated benefits for union employees. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1. This is a bill for our working families. To again quote the Acting Secretary of Labor: ``Workers--not employers--must be able to decide how best to meet the current needs of their families.'' It is a bill I am proud to support.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about House Joint Resolution 58. While I will not support it on final passage, I do intend to vote for the Hastert amendment to it. Let me begin by saying that I have grave concerns about the whole decertification process and whether we should be acting to decertify any country. But I do think that the Hastert amendment represents a real compromise. It is a good-faith effort to try to make the process work better. It stays decertification for 90 days, and it gives the United States and Mexican Governments and diplomatic people time to work on resolving some of the common problems we have. I am not very optimistic about reaching agreement on those, given the glare of this amendment--of this bill--by putting people under the gun. But I do think it is a much better solution than full and immediate decertification. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this Congress and everyone in this country wants the same thing. We want the eradication of the poison of narcotics and the scourge of them in our society. And I think everybody agrees we are losing this battle. In the last 4 years we have seen drug use double. We have seen that happen after a 12-year decline in drug use by adolescents. Over the past 3 years, 227 agent positions have been eliminated by the administration from the Drug Enforcement Agency. That is 227 fewer agents at a time when drug use among our youth is increasing. I represent a district in Arizona along the border. Because we share this common border with Mexico, we see it; we are right on the front lines of this drug war. I can tell the Members from experience, we need more DEA agents, not less. We have to get the support we need on the front lines, and we need it today. Yes, there is a problem of cooperation with Mexico. We saw that the Mexican drug czar, Gutierrez-Rebollo, was arrested recently. It shows the deep roots of corruption in Mexico. We want to see more progress in this area. But I do not think decertification is the solution. In fact, it is a big part of the problem. Rather than enhancing international cooperation with our neighbors, the process has a boomerang effect. It results in a further deterioration in our international relations. Like it or not, deterioration of our bilateral relations spills over into cooperation or lack of cooperation in a number of other areas, including drug control. I think the Hastert amendment, while representing a compromise, is likely to prove this out when we come to negotiations on these specific issues. The conditions placed on Mexico puts them in an almost impossible political situation. If progress is made in the six specified areas, it will be seen in Mexico as kowtowing to the will of the United States. Such a perception puts all reform-minded politicians in Mexico in a box. Even if they want to meet the conditions, it will be politically impossible for them to do so, and remember they have elections in just 90 days there. Mexico is a proud country. Some might even say it is a nationalistic country. There is a saying in Mexico: Every time the United States sneezes, Mexico gets the flu. There is no question that today's vote is going to have an impact on Mexico and our cooperative efforts to stop narcotics trafficking. Let me tell the Members, I think it is going to have an adverse impact. That is why, in the end, I will vote against the bill on final passage.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I wanted to speak about a provision that was included in the subcommittee's version of the fiscal year 1997 Interior Appropriations bill--H.R. 3662--but is not incorporated in the fiscal year 1997 omnibus appropriations package. More specifically, I'm talking about Section 317 of H.R. 3662. Section 317 authorized and approved the U.S. Forest Service's approval of alternative site 2 as the location for the Large Binocular Telescope atop Mount Graham in southern Arizona. I asked that this provision be removed from the bill, and I'd like to explain why. I offered an identical amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Section 335 of the bill amended Public Law 100-696, the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 [AICA] by permitting the use of a location as Alternative Site 2 on Emerald Peak on Mt. Graham for the construction of the Large Binocular Telescope. The Large Binocular Telescope [LBT], is the last of the first three telescopes authorized by the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act. The language in Section 335 was quite simple. It stated that the use of Alternative site 2 ``is hereby authorized and approved and shall be deemed to be consistent with and permissible under'' the Arizona- Idaho Conservation Act of 1988. Section 335 was made part of the act to ensure that the Mt. Graham International Observatory project could proceed to build and begin operation of the LBT at the earliest possible time, without further delays from litigation or other delaying tactics which were employed in the past and continue to this date. Those involved in the field of astronomy know that the LBT is a vital part of the observatory and its completion has been delayed far too long by those who have sought to stop this important project. As I stated on the floor of the House of Representatives when the Omnibus Recissions and Appropriations Act was being debated, the purpose of section 335 was ``to clarify, once and for all, that the alternative site for the Large Binocular Telescope falls within the parameters established by Congress for the Mt. Graham telescopes'' and that passage of this provision would close ``this unfortunate chapter of the Mt. Graham Observatory.'' It embodied the intent of Congress that, hereafter, opponents of the observatory would not be able to contend successfully that alternative site 2 was not covered by AICA's exemptions from otherwise applicable laws. As is clear on its face, the purpose of section 335 was to change substantive law by amending AICA to bring alternative site 2 fully within its protections. Despite the clarity of section 335, opponents of the Mt. Graham Observatory challenged the provision in court, claiming that it was not the intent of Congress to amend AICA to permit the construction of the LBT on alternative site 2 and also contending that any such amendment was unconstitutional. On June 17, 1996 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision rejecting those claims. The court found that the operative provision of the section consisted of ``terms of present and future'' effect. The court concluded that section 335 ``specifies that the selection of--alternative site 2-- falls within the authorization of AICA.'' The court also found that section 335 ``is a change in AICA, which Congress is entitled to make.'' Clearly, it was the intent of Congress that section 335 of the Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134) effect a permanent change in AICA. Congress wanted to ensure the prompt construction and operation of the LBT, by its nature a permanent structure, as a part of the Mt. Graham International Observatory. Unequivocally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision validated our congressional action. Mr. Speaker, as the author of section 335 of Public Law 104-134, I can state with great conviction that the courts have interpreted congressional intent accurately and succinctly. Section 335 was intended to effect a permanent change in the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988. Because this amendment to AICA has been accomplished and has been interpreted by the courts in a way which is consistent with congressional intent, I do not believe any further legislative clarification is needed. Therefore, in view of the fact that AICA has been amended and need not be amended again, it is no longer necessary to include Section 317 of H.R. 3662 in the 1997 omnibus appropriations bill. This is why I asked Senator Gorton to remove this provision from the Senate version of the 1997 Interior Appropriations bill and why I requested that House Subcommittee Chairman Regula not include the Mt. Graham measure in any further appropriations bill. Hopefully, Congress will not have any further need to clarify its intent regarding the Mt. Graham International Observatory project.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the annual Partners for Democracy Dinner in my hometown of Tucson, AZ. The dinner was hosted by the Tucson chapter of the America-Israel Friendship League in honor of David L. McPherson. The America-Israel Friendship League, Inc. [AIFL] is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization committed to maintaining and strengthening the mutually supportive relationship between the people of the United States and Israel. It was founded in 1971 by a group of distinguished Americans with a vision-to preserve America's best interests in the Middle East. They saw the need to instill in Americans an appreciation for the fact that Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East and America's most reliable ally in that area of the world. They knew that the friendship between these two countries could be deepened through the understanding generated by people-to-people educational and cultural programming. The AIFL serves as the catalyst to bring people together from diverse backgrounds. The AIFL's activities reach out to Americans of all faiths, ethnic backgrounds, age groups, and political persuasions. Through missions, seminars, lectures, exchanges, and much more, AIFL helps participants explore and discuss the issues and concerns surrounding the relationship between the United States and Israel. Program participants become involved long after their individual program has ended. In essence, they become ambassadors who carry the message of friendship and goodwill from one generation to the next. From their experiences emerge a belief in the very real possibility of future peace. While at the dinner, I had the pleasure of listening to a speech by an extremely insightful, young woman, Saleela Salahuddin, on the ways of the Israeli people. Saleela Salahuddin was the 1995 Youth Ambassador to Israel. I was very moved by this speech, and I am honored to share it with you: Tonight, I bring you greetings from Maya, who was my host sister in Netanya, Israel, and Roy, who was my host brother in Arad, Israel. As Sabras, proud natives of Israel, they are two bright youths of the admirable community of democracy which defines the nation. Thanks to AIFL, I was enriched by their modernism, patriotic idealism, and the optimism for the future. ``Everyone in Israel goes there,'' said Maya. ``It's a life-changing experience.'' She was talking about the Wailing Wall. Less than two hours later, I was standing in front of it, remembering her words and realizing how true they were. There was a combined quality of awe and appreciation when visiting the holy site on the holy day of Shabbat. I approached the wall slowly, briefly pausing by a small wicker basket that held many brightly colored scarves. I took one out and covered my hair, following the example of a few women who had gone ahead of me. When I laid my hand on the Wailing Wall, I felt it's coolness as well as its strength. The large stones sit atop one another with the assurity that defines millennia of heritage. I was experiencing one of the most transforming moments of my life. I realize that as an American Muslim, I was undoubtedly the first person in my family of many generations to be at this very sacred place. The universality of it all struck me. To my right, a young woman wearing blue jeans prayed; to my left, an old woman in a long black dress devotedly swayed in rhythm with her reading from the Torah. And there I was, standing in the middle, praying with them and understanding the ``change'' that Maya had spoken of. The diversity and unity of the situation, young and old, Jewish and Muslim, left a very strong impact on me. I added a prayer that I had written on a tiny piece of paper to the many that were inserted into cracks in the ancient wall. In it, I had written a message hoping for peace and democracy to prosper in our world. This moment shall always be with me, and my message shall forever remain in the Wailing Wall. On behalf of myself, Maya, and Roy, I bid you Shalom.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4134. Congressman Gallegly has raised a very important issue that Congress has too long ignored: who is responsible for educating children who illegally reside in our country? But, the bill still raises some issues that, if never addressed, could be counterproductive. I will discuss those in a moment. The real issue at hand is that illegal immigration imposes a giant unfunded mandate on States and local school districts. Failure to stem illegal immigration is a failure of the Federal Government. But the consequences of failure are paid by State and local governments. Teachers and administrators in Tucson's public schools have told me that as many as 40 percent of pupils in certain schools are illegal immigrants. California estimates the annual cost of educating illegal immigrants in that State alone at $1.8 billion. I'm sure State legislatures and school boards impacted by illegal immigration could find better uses for their taxpayers' hard earned dollars than spending money to educate kids here illegally. Now this bill will not throw any kids out of school immediately, and some States may choose never to avail themselves of its provisions. Rather, this bill allows States to decide for themselves whether to provide free public education benefits to illegal immigrants who are not already enrolled in public schools. Further, it allows illegal immigrants already in the school system to receive a free public education through the highest grade in their current school level-- although only if they remain within the same school district. To the bill's credit, it does not force the States to adopt a particular course. States could choose to continue to educate illegal immigrants for free, charge them nonresident tuition--but not deny them an education. However, we must work to ensure that some of the unanswered questions in H.R. 4134 are resolved. For example, will school districts be required to notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service about students and their families who are illegally in the United States-- effectively making school districts into immigration police? What are the legal consequences if they do? Or if they don't? Will there be a uniform way that citizenship is determined for elementary students in each State? How about secondary students where it may not be common to give proof of birth to enroll? How will schools deal with fraudulent documentation and will they be held liable for admitting students with false identification? Will there be a different standard for special needs children? I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues and with our Nation's State and local officials to resolve these issues that cannot be ignored. I would add that ideally, the immigration and national interest bill which the House just passed and which I hope President Clinton will sign, should render H.R. 4134 unnecessary. It takes some big steps to address the problem of illegal immigration by keeping illegal immigrants and their families out of the United States--not by surrendering the battle at our borders and moving enforcement to the classrooms of America.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I found this article by Mr. David Dunford in the Tucson Citizen to provide an illuminating analysis of the United States policy toward Saudi Arabia. I commend it to your attention: [From the Tucson Citizen, June 28, 1996] United States Asks Too Much of Saudis, Who Sacrifice Peace at Home (By David J. Dunford) Tuesday's terrorist bombing in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans and wounded hundreds of others, forces us to focus again on our critical relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is critical because Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer and the United States is the world's largest oil consumer. It is critical because Saudi Arabia is the most important of the Arabian peninsula monarchies and provides the major platform from which we project our military forces to defend against Iraqi and Iranian threats to our interests. Since the successful end of the 1990-91 Gulf War, our policy toward this part of the world has been on automatic pilot. We look to Saudi Arabia to take a forthright stand in favor of the Middle East peace process and we look to Saudi Arabia to provide assistance to the Palestinians and the Bosnians which our Congress refuses to provide. We also look to Saudi Arabia to buy our civilian and military airplanes and our telecommunications equipment. Although we pledged in 1990 that as soon as the crisis was over, we would leave, almost six years later we still have 5,000 U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government pays their expenses. What we have failed to recognize is that Saudi Arabia has changed and, as a result, the Saudi monarchy may no longer be able to respond to the multiple demands that we place on it. Gone are the days when Saudi Arabia had $150 billion in foreign exchange reserves and the ability to buy social peace by providing employment and subsidized government services for all. Saudi Arabia today, with its rapid population growth, educated but underemployed youth, and chronic budget deficits, provides fertile ground for Islamic militants. While we may not know for some time who was responsible for Tuesday's bombing, it is likely that it was related to the bombing of the American military advisory compound in Riyadh in November, which killed five Americans. The message the militants seek to send by this latest terrorist act is that the Saudi government's beheading last month of four of their number convicted of involvement in the November incident has not weakened their strength or resolve. Ironically, it may well be that some of the militants are so-called ``Afghans''--Arabs who trained to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in a program supported by both the Saudi and U.S. governments. The militants oppose modernization, Westernization and Arab reconciliation with Israel. They are particularly indignant that, despite tens of billions of dollars spent on sophisticated weaponry, the Saudi government was forced in 1990 to rely on ``infidel'' troops to defend their land, which includes the two holiest places in Islam-- Mecca and Medina. The first step in fixing our Saudi policy is to confirm an ambassador and send him to Riyadh. King Fahd's recent illness and his decision to relinquish power temporarily to Crown Prince Abdullah have raised uncertainty about who is really in charge. It is particularly important to have an ambassador on the ground to monitor this situation. During my four years as deputy ambassador in Saudi Arabia, I was acting ambassador for 15 months. Since I left more than four years ago, there has been an ambassador in Riyadh for less than half of that time. It should hardly surprises us that there was no ambassador on the ground when the truck bomb exploded on Tuesday. Second, we should reduce our reliance on Saudi help financing our national security policy and we should be more judicious about pressing the Saudis to take public positions that incur the wrath of a substantial percentage of Saudi citizens. The Saudi government needs a reprieve to turn its attention to domestic economic and political priorities. Third, we need to devise an end game for our Iraq policy. We must not withdraw our forces in Saudi Arabia under the duress of terrorism but, at the same time, policy drift is not a good reason to leave them there indefinitely. Finally, we need to be more proactive in our encouragement of needed economic and political change in Saudi Arabia and in neighboring monarchies. Change is hard and Gulf rulers will not always welcome our injection of internal issues into diplomatic exchanges. That should not deter us. Their survival and the maintenance of our vital interests in the region depend on orderly change.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act and in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. I think this is an exceptional bill providing an international solution to an international problem, and that is the regulation of tuna fishing in the open seas. It is a good bill and reflects a good compromise among a lot of competing interests. But, I think we need to start by putting it in historical perspective. In the mid-1970's, dolphin mortality rates were clearly at unacceptable levels. Over 500,000 dolphins were being killed each year in pursuit of tuna stocks. So in response to this unacceptable loss of life among the dolphin population, 5 years ago the United States placed an embargo on the importation of tuna caught using primitive encirclement measures. But as has been pointed out in this debate, in recent years tuna fishermen have developed new and innovative methods which enable them to capture tuna without ensnaring dolphins at the same time. We have tough new monitoring procedures that have been instituted and international oversight responsibility has been strengthened. Over time, these procedures have become increasingly internationalized, first through voluntary compliance with the La Jolla Agreement, then through permanent binding procedures set forth in the Panama Declaration. By implementing the Panama Declaration, H.R. 2823 brings us along in the next step as the gentleman from Maryland has suggested, the next step in this evolutionary process. It locks in the reforms of the Panama Declaration and strengthens compliance procedures. The bill also provides incentives needed for other nations to remain in compliance by providing those nations who abide by the agreement with access to their most important tuna market, the United States. It was this issue with Mexico and my work with the United States- Mexico Interparliamentary Conference that brought me first to this issue. Make no mistake about it, these market incentives are absolutely critical to the continued success of the program. 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. But let us be blunt. Without the U.S. market as an incentive, these nations are certain to revert to destructive fishing practices of the past and just export to the markets that they can, and we will end up with dolphin kill ratios as high as we had in the 1970's and 1980's. If we do not act today and enact this legislation without amendment, what we have left is a dolphin-safe label but no dolphins. As has been pointed out, this bill does more than protect dolphins. It provides an effective method to conserve total marine ecosystem in the eastern Pacific. The fishing practices encouraged by proposed alternative legislation result in an unreasonably excessive bycatch 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 the opponents to this bill are likely to endanger the long-term health of tuna stocks themselves. We need this bill. We can do it. We can have tuna fishing, and we can protect dolphins. We have the technology to preserve the marine ecosystem and protect the dolphin. Let us do it. Let us implement the legislation of the Panama Declaration. Keep the dolphin and the marine ecosystem safe. I urge support for the bill and opposition to the Studds amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3820, the Campaign Finance Reform Act. This bill fixes most of the commonly mentioned problems we see in funding campaign activities. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that this bill would require that at least half of our campaign funds would have to come from within our own district. This change alone makes the bill worth voting for. How often do we hear about special interests inside the beltway buying elections for an incumbent? This reform means that if your own constituents do not like you well enough to contribute, you will not have resources to get your message out. And along that line, the bill cuts the influence of PAC's dramatically. Not only is their maximum contribution cut in half, but the candidate cannot even take the reduced amount if it would put him or her over the 50 percent threshold. This changes the balance of power between PAC's and individuals. On the other hand, the bill strengthens political parties, including the local parties. And we all know that real reform begins at the local level. By increasing the amounts that local parties can contribute to the candidate, the candidate will be listening more closely to the folks at home, not to the big national PAC's. Finally, this bill makes it possible for a candidate of modest means to run even if he or she is facing a very wealthy opponent or an incumbent with an intimidating war chest. The parties and PAC's are allowed, under these circumstances, to increase their contributions to level the playing field. I am at a loss to understand why Common Cause would say that anyone who votes for this bill is a ``Protector of Corruption.'' If I remember correctly, they want taxpayers to fund campaigns, a situation that would require an individual to subsidize a candidate for whom he or she would not vote. I think that is corrupt. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a true reform bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I was pleased to welcome to Washington several constituents from my district. They were representing Tucson Electric Power [TEP]. They came to Washington to receive the Edison Electric Institute's Common Goals Award for Community Responsibility/Special Needs, presented in recognition of TEP's work in helping to establish the southern Arizona anti-DUI task force. The delegation was led by, TEP Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Charles E. Bayless, who received the award from EEI President Thomas R. Kuhn in a ceremony on Capitol Hill that included more than 200 friends and colleagues. Other members of the TEP delegation who have worked on this project and attended include, George W. Miraben, Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Public Affairs; Jay Gonzales, Manager of Public Affairs; Betsy Bolding, Director, Consumer Affairs; and Sharon Foltz, Director, Community Relations. In his acceptance of the award, Mr. Bayless spoke about the double tragedy that caused TEP to launch the campaign. Two company linemen were killed while on duty, but in separate accidents, by two drunk drivers. As a result of these dual tragedies, TEP, in cooperation with 18 law enforcement jurisdictions, helped organizes the southern Arizona anti-DUI task force. Due in part to this program, alcohol-related traffic problems have plunged 60 percent in the Tucson area. This year's high school graduation and prom season was free of DUI incidents for the first time in 20 years. While we all mourn the loss of the two TEP employees and fellow Tucson citizens, we congratulate TEP and the law enforcement agencies of southern Arizona on making something positive out of the tragedy by taking the initiative against drunk driving. This effort is not only making a difference in Tucson, AZ, it is touching the lives of every one of us. I congratulate TEP on winning the Edison Electric Institute's Common Goals Award and salute them for their community involvement.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any Member in opposition, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] be allowed to take the 5 minutes.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering on behalf of the entire Arizona congressional delegation reduces the FY 1997 funding level of the Central Arizona Project [CAP] by $20,573,000. If adopted, my amendment would bring the FY97 appropriation for the CAP from the $76.6 million recommended in the bill to $56,073,000. That's about a 27% cut in this project alone, and a nearly 5% cut in the total Bureau of Reclamation construction budget. Mr. Chairman, most members would agree this is a tad unusual: to cut your own construction project! So they may wonder why I'm proposing this reduction, particularly as Federal commitments to Energy and Water programs are dwindling and funding for worthwhile and important projects is difficult to obtain. But the truth is simple--we don't need all of this money! Of course, I'm extremely grateful to Chairman John Myers and Ranking Minority Member Tim Bevill for being such stalwart supporters of this project over the years. But, the fact is we are nearing the completion of this monumental project, and we just don't need the money that the Bureau is trying to spend on this project. This amendment does not imply that the CAP has diminished in importance. This simply is not the case. Bringing a stable water supply from the mainstream of the Colorado River into central and southern Arizona is, very simply, the sustenance that has allowed Arizona to thrive. The Ancient Ones--the Hohokams--knew that the area could not survive without a dependable source of water. Their disappearance 800 years ago is associated with their inability to have an assured water supply during a long-term sustained drought. However, with the help of Congress and the vision of some great leaders from my own State of Arizona, we have accomplished what past civilizations could not. The Central Arizona Project provides the water that has become our lifeblood. Its value is being proved, even as I speak, as it delivers water to thirsty Arizona during the worst drought in 100 years. That doesn't mean, however, that we have to gild the lily. We don't have to add things to the project that have nothing to do with delivering water to central Arizona. But that is exactly what the Bureau has proposed doing in their budget request this year. As I stated earlier, the CAP is nearing completion; in fact, it has been declared ``complete'' and operation turned over to its ongoing manager, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District [CAWCD]. It has thus become possible to scale back the Federal Government's financial commitment to minor parts of the CAP's budget without having any negative impact on the overall project. Working with the management and board of CAWCD, I have identified several programs within the CAP whose funding can be reduced for fiscal year 1997. The following list identifies the specific projects/activities, provides a brief description of the work to be performed, lists the projects location in the Bureau of Reclamation's Budget Justifications for fiscal year 1997, and the total amount of the reduction that I'm proposing. Again, the total amount of the reductions that I am proposing to the CAP's fiscal year 1997 budget is $20,573,000. (1) Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: Siphon Repairs, PF-2B, page 5, line 5, $1,616,000. (2) Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: other repairs, PF-2B, page 5, line 12, $1,509,000. (3) Modified Roosevelt Dam: noncontract costs, PF-2B, page 14, line 15, $4,465,000. (4) Other project costs: Water allocations non-contract costs, PF-2B, page 33, line 9, $500,000. OPC O&M during construction, PF-2B, page 33, line 15, $350,000. Curation Facilities, PF-2B, page 34, line 3, $750,000. Native Fish Protection, PF-2B, page 34, line 13, $2,775,000. Native Fish--noncontract costs, PF-2B, page 34, line 14, $332,000. (5) Environmental Enhancement: Major contracts, PF-2B, page 35, line 6, $2,200,000. Noncontract costs, PF-2B, page 35, line 7, $801,000. (6) New Waddell Dam: Roadrunner Campground, PF-2B, page 10, line 2, $1,470,000. New Recreation Enhancement Contracts, PF-2B, page 10, lines 3, 4, 5, & 6, $1,550,000. Non-contact costs, PF-2B, page 10, line 1, $2,255,000. Total reduction in fiscal year 1997 cap budget--$20,573,000. Mr. Chairman, in some cases these programs do not need to be funded at all, and others require no funding in fiscal year 1997. For instance, $1.6 million was requested for siphon work, but the Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) completed siphon work on September 30, 1993. Furthermore, the Bureau has declined to perform any siphon repairs that may be needed. If this issue is ever resolved and the Bureau agrees to initiate and do the work on the siphons in need of repair, then we can provide them with money in fiscal year 1998. But the Bureau has not made any indications that they are willing to undertake this work. Another example of unneeded federal funding is the $1.5 million earmarked for Reach 11 dike repairs. The Bureau has already completed Reach 11 dike repairs and has no need of any more money for work related to those repairs. Staff costs earmarked for modified Roosevelt Dam are in a similar situation; $4.5 million was included for staff costs. Modified Roosevelt Dam, however, is now complete and a notice of ``substantial completion'' will be issued by the Bureau this fall. And that is an exorbitant cost to finish up this project. The same can be said for over the $5 million recommended for recreational related activities at New Waddell Dam. Although recreational activities enhance one's overall outdoor experience, they aren't integral to the delivery of Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona, and they certainly shouldn't be paid by taxpayers elsewhere in our nation. If a case can be made that these appealing, yet ancillary activities, should be funded, then we can review this information and consider funding them in fiscal year 1998. The list I have prepared is replete with similar situations. That is why these programs have been targeted for funding reductions. The Bureau in responding to my amendment allege that cuts of the order that I have proposed would jeopardize other CAP features and delay work on several projects. The Bureau also states that the proposed reductions would cause a delay in funding ``*** work on the Pascua Yaqui and San Carlos Indian Distribution Systems ***'' and delay the ``Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Self Governance contract''. To further illustrate their concern the Bureau claims that they would have to ``reassign'' $5.3 million that has been earmarked for the GRIC contract to other activities. This not so veiled threat is gamesmanship, at best, and I categorically and completely refute the Bureau's contentions. First of all, my amendment does not have any impact on work related to the Indian Distribution System account. Funding for work related to this vital project is contained in a separate line item within the CAP budget and one which my amendment leaves untouched. I firmly believe that Federal commitments made to tribal leaders should be fulfilled. Secondly, the Bureau's threat to reprogram monies set-aside for the GRIC contract are hollow. Final reprogramming authority is vested with Congress and more specifically the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. I don't think this Congress will be a willing partner in any effort to renege on a long-standing commitment to the Gila River Indian Community. Lastly, I am amazed that in an era of downsizing the Bureau of Reclamation is fighting tooth and nail to keep from trimming their bureaucracy. I am convinced that my amendment will not negatively impact ongoing projects which are vital to the CAP. In fact, I have a letter from the general manager of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the governing body of the CAP, endorsing my amendment. In the letter the general manager reiterates that the reduction proposed by my amendment will not impact CAWCD's ability to manage the Central Arizona Project, and that CAWCD agrees with the level of reductions that are being proposed. Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win-win for all of us. American taxpayers don't have to put up the front money for unnecessary work on this project; CAP water users don't have to pay higher property taxes to repay parts of a project that are unneeded; and Bureau personnel and resources can be released for other important projects. Mr. Chairman, this Nation is facing a $5.2 trillion debt, and this Congress is working diligently to reduce our annual deficit. The Central Arizona Water Conservation District and the residents of Arizona are prepared to do our part to assist in this endeavor. My amendment trims over $20 million from the Central Arizona Project's budget in fiscal year 1997. I ask that my colleagues support this cost saving amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this cost-saving amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support. The Senators concur with that, and they will be offering the same reduction over on the Senate side.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 3814, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. We are nearing the end of our appropriations work on the floor of the House but we have saved one of the more important bills here for the end. I especially want to commend Chairman Rogers for his excellent work through a very difficult fiscal climate. Despite the hurdles, the chairman and subcommittee, I think, brought to the floor of the House a bill worthy of support. I also want to thank and applaud the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking minority member, for the bipartisan and cooperative spirit that he has adopted in working on this bill. Downsizing Government does mean making choices in spending priorities and this bill does that. It does it by channeling funds to programs that we think are in the taxpayers' interest. I do not agree, of course, with every single decision that is made here but on balance this is a good bill, a responsible bill, and one that I am proud to be associated with. This bill takes a giant step toward addressing the issue of border enforcement, something that is very important to those of us along the southwest border. It provides funding to put an additional 1,100 Border Patrol agents and inspectors on the front lines of the border. Overall it provides $2.8 billion for the enforcement of our immigration laws. Funding is also provided for 2,700 more detention cells to ensure that we can hold for deportation illegal aliens in the United States. That is 2,000 more beds than have been requested by the administration. The bill provides $500 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program that reimburses States for the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens. The General Accounting Office estimates that the nationwide cost incurred by States for this could exceed $650 million. This appropriation takes a huge step toward addressing that problem. Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that illegal immigration is a national problem, that it is not just a State problem. This Congress must reaffirm its commitments to States and local communities because they are the ones that must contend with the failed immigration policies of the past. To turn our back on that would be wrong. The Federal Government does not have all the answers when it comes to combating the crime we are most concerned about. I do not believe the Congress should try to manage State and local law enforcement agencies. Rather, we need to support measures that empower local law enforcement--H.R. 3814 does just that. This legislation gives maximum flexibility to local law enforcement officials to administer $571 million for law enforcement and prevention programs instead of mandating that money be used for specific purposes. The bill will allow local officials to use funds to put more police on the streets, purchase needed equipment, fund youth prevention programs, provide drug court programs, or other urgent needs, according to the priorities determined by 39,000 State and local entities--not Washington. Additionally, this bill provides nearly $500 million for the Byrne grant program that has been used very effectively by local law enforcement. In my own district, very successful law enforcement alliances have succeeded because of the availability of Byrne grant moneys. Let me shift gears for a moment to address what this bill does with funding for the Commerce Department. I support restructuring the Commerce Department. Over the years, this agency has become the dumping ground for every new function of the Federal Government that didn't fit someplace else. While this bill does not dismantle the Commerce Department, it cuts it by nearly 17 percent for fiscal year 1995 levels--a clear signal to Congress to reorder its functions. I will support amendments to this legislation making further cuts in certain areas of Commerce. I am pleased the committee funded the Small Business Administration's microloan program which has helped create hundreds of jobs in Arizona at little or no cost to the Government. Organizations like Project PPEP help to effectively administer these startup loans in areas where this type of assistance is effectively used and where loan defaults are almost nonexistent. The bill provides resources for the State Department to continue its vital functions across the globe. H.R. 3814 does cut funding just below last year's spending levels. Contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations are kept in check while affording the executive branch maximum flexibility and the legislative branch maximum oversight. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation that is both fiscally responsible and attentive to the needs of the American people.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if proceedings resume on the three postponed questions on agreeing to motions to suspend the rules immediately after an electronic vote on the question of passing H.R. 3845, then the Speaker may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on each of the postponed questions.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, we are able to come to the floor today and offer the American people a meaningful welfare reform proposal because of the work done by my colleagues Representatives Castle and Tanner. I have remained committed to changing the welfare system as we know it and worked with Representatives Castle and Tanner to continue the welfare debate. Their efforts continued the discussions between the majority and minority in the House, the administration, and the Governors to find a workable welfare compromise. I am pleased that the Republican majority have incorporated many of the suggestions included in the Castle-Tanner proposal. Therefore, I will join my fellow colleagues in support of H.R. 3734 as offered by the Republican majority. Madam Chairman, this bill answers the American people's demands to reform the current welfare program and addresses many of the concerns of the bipartisan Castle-Tanner group, the Governors and the administration. Over the past 18 months, this Congress has set out to truly reform the welfare program, and twice our efforts have been stopped by two Presidential vetoes. Madam Chairman, the American people recognize that the current welfare system is a failure. It traps welfare recipients in a cycle of dependency, and undermines the values of work and family that form the foundation of communities. The welfare state has created a world where children have no hope for tomorrow. Welfare cannot be a way of life for women and children. This bill provides women with the support to become working members of our society through the job training and child support programs. This bill restores power and flexibility to the States through the cash welfare and child care block grants. States will be given maximum flexibility to reform welfare, to develop income-support programs, and move families into the work force. We all agree the program must be changed, however some of my colleagues are saying the changes we are making is going to cut welfare programs, and that is simply untrue. Madam Chairman, over the last 6 years the Federal Government has spent over $441 billion on welfare programs. Through the next 6 years, through 2002 our welfare bill proposes to spend $578 billion. It is not cutting spending in the welfare bill that will be sent to the President, it increases it by $137 billion. This is not a cut to welfare. We should support this bill. This bill ends the long-term dependency of the welfare program and encourages self-sufficiency through imposing tougher work requirements. This bill guarantees that welfare becomes a helping hand and not a lifetime handout by imposing a 5-year lifetime limit for collecting AFDC. This bill is a common-sense effort to restore the basic values of work and restore the American dream for those currently in the welfare system. This bill restores power and flexibility to the States, confirming our commitment to give the decisionmaking, money, and influence back to the States and get Washington bureaucrats out of your pockets. Through the cash welfare and child care block grants States will be given the maximum flexibility to reform welfare, develop income-support programs, and move families into the work force. Washington's answers have not ended the war on poverty. We have found that the best welfare solutions come from those closet to the problems--not from bureaucrats in Washington. It is time to get the Washington bureaucrats out of the welfare system. We all agree the program must be changed, however, some of my colleagues are saying these changes will cut funding to welfare programs--this is completely untrue. Madame Chairman, over the last 6 years the Federal Government has spent $441.3 billion on welfare programs, including aid to families with dependent children [AFDC], child care, child support enforcement, food stamps, and child support. Over the next 6 years, through 2002, our welfare bill will spend $578.3 billion. Our bill is not cutting spending in the welfare bill that will be sent to the President. In actuality, over the next 6 years, even after reform, welfare spending will increase by $137 billion. Let me say this again, the Federal Government will spend an additional $137 billion on welfare over the next 6 years. This is not a funding cut to the welfare program. Madame Chairman, we are presenting to the President a meaningful welfare plan that incorporates changes requested by the governors and the bipartisan Castle-Tanner group. It is bipartisan effort and I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this welfare proposal and I encourage President Clinton to move beyond his words of support and sign our bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I also rise on a point of order, a different point of order. I make a point of order against the amendment on the grounds that it cites clause 5(b) of rule XXI of the House, and ask that I be heard.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, clause 5(b) of rule XXI states that no amendment that includes a tax or a tariff measure may be considered in the House of Representatives to a bill that is reported from any committee that does not have jurisdiction. This amendment clearly contains a tariff measure. It is a tariff measure in the form of prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to enforce policies, regulations, rules, relating to trade relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The primary role of the Customs Service in regulating trade relations with China, in fact almost its only one, is to collect customs duties on imports from China. Therefore, this amendment has a direct and inevitable, let me repeat, inevitable effect on tariff revenues. To be somewhat more specific, first, Customs is the only Government agency directly responsible for collecting tariffs on imported products. Nobody else can do that. Second, the only source of funding for the Customs Service is through the appropriation bill. That is the act we are considering here today. Third, the United States currently engages in trade with China that involves dutiable goods. Nobody contests that. Fourth, the operation of this amendment would clearly affect and in some way would arrest the flow of goods. That is, when the Customs Service becomes aware of any imports from China of products using prison, slave, or child labor, even though they have no legal authority, perhaps, to deny them entry into the United States, when they become aware of it, then all funding relating to trade relations between the United States and China would cease. That means Customs has no ability, no funding, therefore no ability, to collect tariff revenues which are now being collected under current law due on the importation of goods that come from the People's Republic of China. That is why I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment has an inevitable, a direct, and irrefutable effect on revenues. Therefore, consequently, the amendment is a tariff measure subject to a point of order made under rule XXI, clause 5(b). In light of the fact the measure was not reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction on tariff measures, I believe this point of order applies, and I would urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. If I might respond, Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the amendment that the gentlewoman from Ohio has offered is different, considerably different, I might say, than the one that was the subject of the unanimous-consent agreement yesterday. However, the point of order that I made was made against that amendment that was offered here today, not against the one that was being offered yesterday. I believe my point of order still applies, most particularly because prison slave and child labor are undefined here. Therefore, child labor is not subject to the legislation which the gentlewoman referred to. Therefore, if the simple statement is made, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] pointed out earlier that something is subject to this, then it would be made known, and therefore all funding would cease immediately to the Customs Service for its work in China. Therefore that would have an effect on tariffs. It is inevitable. It must have an effect. That is the whole point of the gentlewoman's amendment, to have that kind of effect. Therefore, it would have that effect. It has not been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, and rule XXI clause 5(b) does apply.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced legislation that would help alleviate the enormous $4.5 billion backlog of capital needs in America's national parks. I believe this is a problem that demands the immediate attention of Congress, even as we seek to balance the Federal budget and struggle to reduce the Nation's staggering $5.2 trillion debt. Congress has increased funding for national parks in fiscal year 1997, but the need is growing much faster. Park utilization is rising rapidly, and infrastructure needs replacement. We cannot expect appropriated funds to meet all of these needs. The time has come for us to explore more creative solutions to this vexing problem. One thing Congress can do is to make it possible for substantial funds to be raised in the private sector for parks. The bill I am introducing today does just that. It provides an innovative mechanism for the public to invest directly in the preservation and enhancement of our national parks. Specifically, my bill enables private, nonprofit organizations associated with the National Park Service to issue taxable capital development bonds that would be paid for by park entrance fees, that are not to exceed $2 per visitor. Money collected in a particular park will be used to secure bonds that fund improvements in that park. I think the preceding statement is the cornerstone of this legislation and it bears repeating. Money collected in a particular park will be used to secure bonds that fund improvements in that park. Any national park with capital needs in excess of $5 million will be eligible to participate in the revenue bonds program. I believe park officials will enthusiastically embrace this program, and the Director of the National Park Service has already informed me that he is excited about the prospects of this legislation. After all, the needs are real, immediate, and nationwide. Moreover, my bill offers a practical solution to a serious dilemma. Rangers at Grand Canyon National Park, for example, are obliged to live in squalid conditions because funds have not been available to build sufficient housing. Saguaro National Park has an estimated $10 million backlog in infrastructure needs, while Rocky Mountain National Park has deferred $50 million in needed improvements. Yellowstone National Park has had to close a major campground and two museums for lack of funds, and this year, Great Smoky Mountains National Park shut down 10 campgrounds and adjoining picnic areas. The national cemetery at Vicksburg National Military Park has been forced to defer $6 million in restoration and stabilization work, while Shenandoah National Park reports a $12 million backlog in facility maintenance. My legislation is similar to a bill recently introduced by my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator John McCain. It allows private, nonprofit groups to enter into partnership agreements with individual parks and the Secretary of the Interior, to act as authorized organizations for the benefit of the parks they serve. These organizations will work with park superintendents to prepare lists of capital improvement projects that are to be financed by taxable capital development bonds. These nonprofit groups, also, would be authorized to issue and manage such bonds on behalf of the parks. My bill adds a stipulation that no part of the bond proceeds, except interest, may be used to defray administrative costs. Bond holders and the visiting public will be assured that every dollar raised will actually be spent on in-park improvements. Also, the bill will allow memoranda of agreement between nonprofit entities and the National Park Service to be modified in the event funding priorities change. Perhaps most importantly, bonds issued by the nonprofit associations will be backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government in the event that Congress should remove the authority to assess the $2 entrance fee. Mr. Speaker, in these fiscally austere times, we simply must become more creative in finding ways to address the needs of our National Park System. The concept of issuing revenue bonds to fund capital improvements is not new. Private industry, municipalities, and other sectors of local government have used revenue bonds for decades and with great success. We can successfully apply this approach to fund capital development needs in our national parks, as well. My bill also encourages real, beneficial partnerships between the Federal Government and the private sector. Many groups, like the National Park Foundation, the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the nearly 70 cooperating associations that presently serve the National Park Service, already provide invaluable financial support to the National Park Service. Their success proves that public-private partnerships can and do in fact work for the benefit of our public institutions. My legislation will greatly expand the ability of these organizations to aid the parks we cherish, and I believe they are ready and eager to rise to the challenge. Some have suggested that we should allow corporations to become commercial sponsors of the National Park Service. Indeed, legislation to this effect has been introduced in the Senate, and some park supporters have voiced qualified support for the proposal. But I, for one, take a dim view of the prospect that we should commercialize America's crown jewels--our precious national parks--in order to save them. Mr. Speaker, my friend Senator John McCain recently noted that ``Americans are eager to invest in our Nation's natural heritage.'' I agree. The American people don't want to see their national parks succumb to the ravages of time and use. But neither are they willing to see the integrity of the parks compromised by commercial exploitation. Let's give the National Park Service the same financial opportunities that our schools and community water systems currently possess--the ability to utilize capital development bonds. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have already heard that this really is not about education. We are all committed to education. There are philosophical differences as to whether or not the education can best be paid for at the Federal level or at the State and local level. I think most of us on our side of the aisle believe this is a local responsibility. We can have programs that are better, more efficient, better funded, better for children if they are run locally and funded locally. But that is not really the issue that is involved here because we have increased spending. If we put all the spending of State, Federal and local spending together, we have increased dramatically. Over the last 40 years, even when we take inflation into account, we have more than doubled the per capita spending. Can anybody in this body look at the statistics and say we are getting more for the dollars that we are spending on education? I doubt it. So the issue really is whether or not we are going to spend more to provide for Federal bureaucracies. That is really what we are talking about, keeping the bureaucracies in place who run these Federal programs that amount to only 5 percent of the total education dollars. Now, I know this is a little bit inside baseball, but the gimmick that is being used here is very clever, and I think my colleagues need to know about it. It is really a very clever device, because what they are doing is, rather than take the money out of any other account, reduce spending in any other place, because that might mean some pain in some other areas, in health care, or in higher education or in job training or something else, so rather than do that, we are going to forward fund. That is, we are going to take the money out of certain accounts and we are going to put it into the accounts in fiscal year 1998. This is another year, not the year for which we are appropriating, but we will make it available on October 1 during the school year, October 1, 1997. Now, the people on the other side have claimed, well, this has really already been done by the Committee on the Budget, and it is true. In the case of title I we did some of this forward funding. Why did we end up having to do that? Because the President last year on this bill said he would veto it if all the money he wanted for title I was not in the bill, and we could not take it out of any other place, so we had no choice but to forward fund that. It is certainly not a practice that anybody should want to continue. It is certainly not a practice that anybody thinks we ought to replicate and make widespread in the Federal budget, because as the gentleman who spoke before me suggested, when we start doing this with one part of the budget, we can do it with all the parts of the budget. Why not forward fund defense or the Commerce Department and law enforcement, and so forth? And we will just keep borrowing it and putting it all into the next year's budget. We will take this year's and put it into the next year's budget. Obviously, each year the problem becomes bigger as we try to deal with this problem. This is a bad process. We should not follow this process. We should not do this any further. We should reject this idea. We should stick to the budget resolution that we have adopted. We should not play these kinds of games and use these gimmicks. This amendment should be soundly rejected.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education, for the very hard work he has done, he and his staff, on this bill, putting together a very tough bill under very tough circumstances. Mr. Chairman, I think they put together a very workable appropriation for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, ensuring that the medical needs and the education needs of the young and the old are met, and that we feed not only the body but the mind and the soul. But I stand here today mostly not in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, but as a member of the Committee on the Budget where some of these overall priorities are being established, because this bill that we are looking at today incorporates the goals and the promises that the Republican Congress made to provide our children with a better future. Mr. Chairman, simply stated, the best thing we can do for our children is to balance the budget. If we do not get runaway Federal spending under control, we are not going to have any money for college loans in the future; we will not have money for Head Start; we are not going to have any money for children's health programs. Through all of our history, each succeeding generation has always enjoyed the promise of having a better life and standard of living for themselves than the previous generation, but compare what Government spending has been between 1962 and 1997. This chart here shows the amount of money that was spent on discretionary nondefense spending in 1962 was enormous, more than half of the total Federal budget, and when we add the other part of the yellow in there, almost all of the budget was in discretionary spending. Look at how that has dropped by the year 1997, so discretionary nondefense spending is down here to a much smaller part of the pie. Whereas it was once 50 percent, today it is less than 20 percent on those same kinds of programs. The kinds of programs that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and his subcommittee have to deal with are being squeezed down by the entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Social Security. They are consuming an ever larger portion of the total Federal expenditure. When in 1962 they consumed 25 percent of Federal expenditures, today by comparison they consume 50 percent of those expenditures. We made, in the Committee on the Budget, a promise to cut Federal spending, to decrease taxes, to balance the budget. With a balanced budget we are going to give families lower car payments. We are going to give them lower student loans and lower house payments for their mortgages, and therefore they will have more money in their pocket. Once again, if we do not balance the budget, the people we are hurting are our children and our grandchildren. The President and some of those on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that the budget resolution in this appropriation bill is going to strip away valuable services, including education and health care for the elderly, women and children. This is simply not true. Under the budget conference agreement, and this bill fulfills that agreement, spending for education and job training increases from $47.8 billion in 1996 to $50.4 billion in 2002. That is a $3 billion increase. Anybody outside Washington, Mr. Chairman, understands that that kind of spending, a $3 billion increase, is just that, it is an increase. So we are not talking about cuts. We are talking about increases. It is the other side that wants to talk about cuts. We know that money does not necessarily mean better education. We have a lot more bureaucracy in Washington with the Department of Education, when we do not have better education, not necessarily. So we need to be sure that we target the money that we do have available to those things that are absolutely vital and absolutely critical. This bill does that in health and human services, in education. I strongly urge that we support the passage of this legislation.