Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 3019. This bill brings to an end the fiscal year 1996 budget and appropriations cycle and in doing so cuts $23 billion over last year's levels and stays within our budget caps. Although I supported greater cuts in some areas, I am pleased that Republicans stuck to their guns and insisted that the downpayment on the 7-year balanced budget be made. I am especially pleased that the Mount Graham provision remained in the bill. The Kolbe amendment is quite simple and will not have any adverse impact on the environment. The provision reaffirms Ninth Circuit Court Judge Hall's and U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano's contention that the alternative site chosen by the Forest Service for the Large Binocular Telescope is in compliance with the authorizing legislation passed by Congress in 1988. Now that this issue is behind us, I anxiously await the beginning of construction of the world's largest ground based telescope. Nonetheless, I am frustrated by the inclusion of moneys for the Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] Program--the administration's bald attempt to tell State and local governments what they need to fight violent crime. Additionally, I oppose the continued funding for Goals 2000 even though Opportunity to Learn Standards and the National Education Standards and Improvement Council were eliminated. Even more frustrating is the continuation of the direct lending program that will transfer lending authority for college loans from the private sector to the bureaucratic Education Department. We have learned important lessons about this administration throughout the course of negotiating this bill. First, it is the administration--not Congress--that doesn't understand the art of compromise. I liken their negotiating skills to those of the losing team in backyard football--when up against a crushing offensive, they simply move the goalpost back a few yards. Congressional negotiators were often told an agreement had been reached and by the next morning, the resolved issues were back on the table--always with new items of disagreement. I know my friend Chairman Regula had this happen to him numerous times. The second lesson we have learned is that the administration talks about a balanced budget, but in reality they are unwilling to take the necessary steps to actually achieve one. As difficult as they were to negotiate with on discretionary programs, I am very concerned that as long as Congress has to deal with this administration, there is no hope of ever tackling the big budgetary issues that must be resolved in our mandatory programs. But this conference report does take an important step toward balancing the budget by cutting discretionary spending. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg]. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me begin by saying congratulations to my colleagues. We do not hear too often this kind of policy debate that completely crosses party lines and really is on a policy issue. I think everyone is to be commended for really getting into this policy debate here. Let me make it clear where I stand on this. I do rise in strong opposition to the so-called Truth in Budgeting Act, H.R. 842. The title of it certainly sounds great, but the fact of the matter is it is a device for increasing the already huge $5 trillion national debt that we have. The title of it is misleading and the result is it is going to be very costly. It does something that we already do too much, and that is have a shell game, with that chart that we saw here earlier by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations with over half of all Federal spending off budget. This simply moves another piece of it off budget so it is not amenable to the changes that Congress would make through the appropriation process each year. It is a shell game. We call it taking it off budget, but in plain English, it means the spending is going to be exempt from the rules that apply to other Federal spending. In essence, we are creating yet another new entitlement program that just grows and grows without regard to the already overblown Federal deficit. The result would be that transportation simply does not get the same scrutiny as education, defense, a lot of our national parks do when it comes to prioritizing and controlling Federal spending. Because of that, I think it is inevitable that this kind of spending rises ever faster. To balance the budget, then all other parts of the budget have to take an even harder hit, that is, the increasingly shrinking part of the discretionary pie of spending, so we have to increase taxes. And I think we all know that is not acceptable. The fact of the matter is that Washington has spent more from the highway trust fund than it has received in earmarked tax in 12 of the last 15 years. In 1994 alone, the Federal Government collected $18 billion into the trust fund but it spent $22 billion on trust fund programs. The real issue here is whether or not we should be returning these programs to the States anyhow, whether we should set the standards and return them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of my constituents from Tucson, some healthy, some with diabetes, multiple sclerosis, or asthma, and many who have a child that has health problems. It is for these people that we will vote on reform of the health insurance market. Our current health insurance market provides too little protection for individuals and families with significant health problems and makes it to difficult for employers--particularly small employers--to obtain adequate health coverage for their employees. Mr. Speaker we need to ask ourselves what will the health Care Availability and Affordability Act do for the American people: The bill will allow workers to move from job to job. The bill will allow workers who lose their job to maintain their health care insurance, and The bill will allow workers to maintain their health care insurance if they move to a company that does not offer health care services. What will the Health Care Availability and Affordability Act do for business community: The bill will allow small business to join together under the auspices of ERISA to purchase insurance coverage or to cover their employees under self-insured multiple employer health plans. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious how this will help the American people. Smaller companies will have the opportunities to pool together to purchase health care insurance, therefore, increasing the access of health care services to small business employees while reducing the cost of insurance premiums. It put small and large business in the same playing field. Mr. Speaker, the Health Care Availability and Affordability Act, in addition to making health insurance more available and portable, addresses a even more pressing issue the affordability of health care services. The bill will raise the health insurance deductible percent age from 30 to 50 percent for the self-employed. The bill will allow individuals to include long-term care services as part of their health care expenditures Federal income tax deduction, and most importantly the bill will allow individuals covered by a high deductible health insurance plan or their employer to make a tax deductible contribution to a medicare savings account. Mr. Speaker, the working families of this country have demanded changes to the health insurance market, and we have provided the mechanism, in the Health Care Availability and Affordability Act, that will give the American people what they need. Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``aye'' on the Health Care Availability and Affordability Act.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995. This is an extraordinary important bill that improves our Nation's immigration policy. Clearly, Congress has a responsibility to formulate sound and comprehensive policies governing immigration--legal and illegal. The need to re-examine our immigration policy has been long overdue. Over the past few days this bill has been considered on the floor, a vigorous national debate has ensued on this complex and controversial issue. Frankly, there are still provisions in this bill that concern me--some remaining, some added by floor amendments--but in balance, H.R. 2202 makes needed reforms which I will speak about in a moment. Like nearly every American, I am concerned about the problems of illegal immigration. Over 1.8 million undocumented aliens enter the United States each year. We must stem this flow, both for economic and security reasons. Terrorism is a growing and legitimate law enforcement concern, and illegal entry is frequently the way they get into our country. Similarly, the economic cost of illegal immigrants is undeniable. Limiting the flow of illegal aliens through improved enforcement is part of the solution. As a member of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, I have consistently supported giving the responsible Federal agencies sufficient resources to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. We still have work to do in this area, and I will continue to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as with the members of the Appropriations Committee, to make sure that we have sufficient manpower along the border to deal with flow of undocumented aliens. H.R. 2202 includes provisions to improve border crossing identification cards by making them less susceptible to counterfeiting. In addition, it includes provisions to deter document fraud and alien smuggling, and streamlines procedures for the inspection, apprehension, detention, adjudication, and removal of inadmissible and deportable aliens. But there must also be a long-term solution that encourages democracy and economic growth in countries that send illegal immigrants to our borders--especially Central and South America. Job opportunities in those countries is the strongest incentive to keep potential immigrants there. Thus, in addition to strong enforcement of our immigration laws and imposing sanctions on those who hire illegal aliens, we must seek mutually beneficial trade relationships that can stimulate economies in Central and South America. This is one of the many reasons I support the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. It is in our own self- interest to help Mexico build an economy that can create the nearly one million new jobs required each year to keep ahead of population growth. Only in that way can we provide an incentive for Mexicans to stay at home--and a disincentive to come to the United States. With respect to legal immigration reform, this bill addresses the abuse of claims for political asylum. These are currently 300,000 pending claims, and that number is growing by 12,000 each month. Of course, there can be legitimate claims of political asylum, but our current system allows for six opportunities of appeal when a claim is denied. This is excessive and unacceptable. H.R. 2202 makes much needed changes to this asylum process. The asylum reform provision in the bill would require aliens to file an application for asylum within 180 days of entering the United States. Those filing after the deadline would not be eligible for asylum. This is a reasonable and important reform because it encourages aliens to apply for asylum without delay and makes their presence known to immigration authorities. The bill provides that an alien who qualifies as a political refugee will be granted asylum unless the person is discovered to have a prior history of persecuting other persons, has been convicted of a felony or other serious crime prior to his arrival, is regarded as a danger to national security, or is inadmissible on terrorist grounds. It provides that asylum protection for an alien may be terminated if the person is no longer a refugee, can be moved to another country where he will be granted asylum or other temporary protection, voluntarily returns to his native country with the intent to stay, or has changed his or her nationality to a country which will grant asylum. Although I favor maintaining numbers of legal immigrants admitted to the United States annually at current levels, I did not support the Chrysler/Brownback amendment to strip legal immigration reforms from the bill. There is a tie between legal and illegal immigration reform that cannot be disputed and should not be separated. Changes in illegal immigration policy will have an effect on legal immigration and vice versa. Although these provisions should have been kept together, I support final passage of H.R. 2202. It is imperative that we move forward, send this bill to conference with the Senate, and send President Clinton a comprehensive and responsible immigration reform bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make my colleagues aware of a phenomenal program for youth that has had a huge impact in Casa Grade, AZ--Teen Court. This is a program that can and should be replicated across the country. The American Legion Auxiliary's National President's Special Project, Teen Court, was the community service project that Fred A. Humphreys Unit 8 member LaVerne Rowe adopted. She called and received information from the Odessa, TX, Teen Court coordinator. Then she contacted Pinal County Juvenile Court Judge William O'Neil--a former first grade student of hers--and arranged for him to meet with members of Casa Grande 2000, a group organized to address community concerns about education and youth issues, to discuss the merits of bringing a Teen Court to Casa Grande. The response was overwhelming and Teen Court was on the road to becoming a reality. Mrs. Rowe took the next step by conducting initial interviews of Teen Court coordinator candidates. Judge O'Neil and Frank Sanders, director of Juvenile Court Services in Pinal County, ultimately chose Michelle Kmetz out of five finalists. Since October 5, 1994, Ms. Kmetz has done an outstanding job of making Teen Court a success in Casa Grande. Let me take a moment to say that it is very encouraging to see the American Legion take such an interest in our youth and work to make an investment in the future of our country. I would ask that the following newspaper articles be included in the Record. I urge my colleagues to read them and take this message back home. Our youth are worth it. [From the Casa Grande (AZ) Dispatch, Oct. 13, 1994] Pinal Teen Court Subjects Offenders to Jury of Their Casa Grande Peers (By Shannon L. Pantelis) The promise of trial by a jury of peers will now extend to some juvenile offenders in Casa Grande. Teen Court made its Pinal County debut Wednesday night. The new program is available to first- and second-time offenders, ages 9 to 17. Eligible offenses include shoplifting, criminal damage, theft, assault, disorderly conduct, alcohol and traffic violations. Michelle Kmetz, a probation officer with Pinal County Juvenile Court Services who was hired to coordinate the program, said it uses what is sometimes a negative influence to make a positive difference. ``The premise that I believe in is that peer pressure works both ways,'' she said. ``It can be both negative and positive. ``We know peer pressure works negatively, we see that every day. Now it's time to turn it around to work for us.'' Patterned after a typical adult trial, Teen Court is an official legal proceeding and the sentences are enforceable. Presiding Pinal County Juvenile Court Judge William O'Neil and Casa Grande City Judge Judy Ferguson will take turns trying the cases. The defendant must admit guilt and agree to accept whatever ``constructive'' sentence is determined by a group of six jurors. The defendant's attorney pleads the case, while the prosecutor argues the crime. Meanwhile the clerk and bailiffs are busy doing their jobs of keeping order. The difference in Teen Court is that all involved--except the judge--are teens themselves. The attorneys aren't high-paid counselors with law degrees hanging on posh office walls. The bailiffs might be worrying about homework or a math quiz the next day. The juries eventually will have past-offenders serving part of their sentence on the panel, trying other kids. The current jury, attorneys, bailiffs and clerks are all Casa Grande Union High School juniors and seniors who volunteered to take part in the program. The program is meant to take some of the intimidation and alienation out of the courtroom, while giving teens a chance to take responsibility for their actions and those of their peers. ``It is time that another generation started making decisions for themselves,'' O'Neil said about the concept of his Pinal County Juvenile Court Services program. Last week the crew went through a mock trial in front of family, friends and people involved in bringing Teen Court to Casa Grande. It will be the last time anyone outside of the participants will be allowed to see Teen Court in action, except the parents of those on trial. Confidentiality is stressed to participants. Before each case, the clerk swears in everyone in the courtroom, committing them to silence about everything and everyone involved in the trial. Defendants and Teen Court participants are forbidden to discuss the proceedings, testimony or sentences outside the courtroom. Parents and friends are included in the gag order. At the mock trial, teens trained as Teen Court attorneys acted as defendants, acting out real cases. Sentences are meant to be constructive, not just punitive. Community service hours, tutoring, Teen Court jury duty, letters of apology, attending workshops or paying a fine or damages are among the jury's options. Many of the Teen Court participants are interested in law careers themselves. Kmetz said that when she chose the kids to participate in the first semester of Teen Court, she did not exclude teens who had been in trouble themselves. She said she was most impressed with one applicant's answer when she asked why he wanted to be a part of Teen Court. ``It's about time we (teens) got a chance to bring honor back to our name,'' she said he responded. ``That's what it's all about, giving them the chance to prove themselves and make it,'' she said. [From the Casa Grande (AZ) Dispatch, Oct. 13, 1994] Judge Couldn't Refuse William O'Neil did not really have much choice about Teen Court. Even now as the presiding Pinal County juvenile court judge, he still listens to his teacher. ``When my first-grade teacher called me to tell me about this, she said this was something we needed and have to have,'' he said starting Teen Court. Retired teacher LaVerne Rowe had heard about the program, which was started in Texas several years ago. She told her now-influential pupil and told him to get going with it. At the same time, the education-support group Casa Grande 2000 was learning about Teen Court and trying to get the program started in Casa Grande. Once the two groups got together, it was only months before Teen Court was a reality in Casa Grande. O'Neil said the program was on his five-year plan of programs to implement. He said his schedule was pushed up about 4 years at the urging of Rowe and the interest of Casa Grande 2000. With at least 3,000 juveniles being referred to Pinal County Juvenile Court Services each year, alternatives were needed. Juvenile Court Services Director Frank Sanders said the area is in a ``state of crisis.'' ``Business is booming'' he said about the juvenile justice system. He said the Teen Court program in Casa Grande, which is expected to eventually expand to other areas in the county, was funded through the Arizona Supreme Court. The $40,000 went toward hiring director Michelle Kmetz, training and contracting with Project Hope's Project YES, which will be used to run the community service hours ordered. The Casa Grande Teen Court has been patterned closely on a similar program that has been working in Globe for about six years.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about the importance of overriding the President's veto of the Interior appropriations bill. I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the negotiations that went on with this administration, because I think it is an important illustration of the problem we are facing on the entire budget. Back in September, before these bills had finished their work in the House and the Senate, there was a discussion between staff and between the chairmen with the administration about some of their key funding priorities. Here is what they said about some of them. Here is what the conference did. On the Bureau of Indian Affairs, something that affects my State tremendously, the administration said they needed a minimum of $110 million more, and we ended up giving $135 million more, $111 to the Senate level for the BIA and we added $25 million to the Indian Health Service. So we added more than the administration said was necessary in order to meet their objections to that. In the Department of Energy, this is a department where the administration's idea of conservation is chartering jets for Hazel O'Leary to fly to South Africa, in the Department of Energy they said the Energy Information Administration needed to be much closer to the House funding level. We added $7.5 million. We split the difference between the Senate and the House. It is a compromise which all appropriation bills represent, as they have in the past, as they do this year. In the Forest Service they said they needed to increase the stewardship incentive program to double the Senate level. We did not double the Senate level. But we provided $4.5 million, whereas the House had not originally provided that. Then some of the key legislative appropriation items, they said they needed to have the House mining patent moratorium. Yes, we went back and forth on that and twice in this House took this issue to the floor here. But it is in there. So it is an item that the President said that he needed to have in there. Tongass, I will not discuss that. It has been discussed enough here on the floor. It is a compromise between the two positions. The California Desert, the administration said they needed to have the National Park Service in charge, that the House language would not work. We modified the language so that the park service can use planning and use of seasonal employees. The Bureau of Land Management will operate it in its coming fiscal year while they are developing the plan for management of it. The administration said they needed Senate language on AmeriCorps, and it has the Senate language on AmeriCorps. The administration said it needed to have the grazing reform moratorium for a maximum of 90 days and it retains the moratorium for a maximum of 90 days. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that we can support. It is one that represents a compromise between the interests. It is one that represents an opportunity to fund the vital agencies of this Government, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes, to put Federal employees back to work, to open the national parks. Let me take my remaining time to say one word about the issue that has been raised about Mount Graham because there too is a good example of the kind of back and forth that this administration has done over the last 6 years. For last 6 years the Justice Department of three administrations has defended the position of this Congress and of the administration to build those telescopes on Mount Graham in a way that protected the red squirrel and allowed science to go forward. To say no now to that after we had passed it and made it very clear that that is what we intended to do is to say no simultaneously to protecting the squirrel, to protecting the environment, to the endangered species and to say no to good science. That is the kind of thing that we have seen here today, the kind of hypocrisy that we have heard about. I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, let us stop the rhetoric, misstatements, and half-truths. The current budget crisis this Nation is facing is not because Congress failed to do its job. We passed a bill. It is because the President chose to veto the Interior appropriations bill, the VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill, and the Commerce, Justice, State bill, and because Democratic Senators are filibustering the Labor, HHS bill. Again, let me reiterate why certain Federal employees have been furloughed and why others are performing their duties without pay; it is because the President has decided that it is more important for him to engage in partisan politics than to allow Federal employees to go back to work. Today, we are going to have the opportunity to override the President's veto of the Interior appropriations bill. If we are successful, this $12.1 billion appropriations measure will reopen our museums, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, put back to work those dedicated employees at the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as get the needed money to our Nation's Indian communities. The President's shutdown of the Federal Government does not have to continue. In fact, if you want to find out what kind of impact his shutdown is having, I would encourage all of my colleagues to visit one of the 23 tribal communities in Arizona. They have been devastated by the President's veto of this important bill. Recently, the proud and noble Chairman of the Hopi Tribe announced that he may have to release the inmates in the tribe's jail because they do not have the money to heat the facility. I might add that these funds are included in this Interior appropriations bill. Again, we do not have to allow this type of suffering to continue. The President's veto message was based solely upon polls conducted by his political advisers. The President realized that most Americans are concerned about the environment, and justifiably so. But he has taken this posturing to an extreme and in the process hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans are suffering the consequences. I will speak more about this later. Let us do what all Americans want us to do: Let us allow them to go back to work. Overriding the President's veto of this bill will accomplish this and a lot more.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the stock market plummeted by over 100 points. That is the biggest drop in nearly 4 years on a single day. I do not think we need to ask why. Investors, market analysts, traders, economists and, yes, common folks that buy and sell stocks are telling us why. They are worried that for the first time that this budget impasse is going to continue. They thought we were going to have a 7- year balanced budget. They thought at the end we would get that. But now they see the intransigence of this President; that we may not actually get a 7-year balanced budget, and they know what that means. It means that we are talking about higher interest rates. It is the American family that will suffer. They will be paying more for their automobile. They will be paying more for their children's education. They will be paying more for their mortgage because we cannot get a 7- year balanced budget. We cannot do what we have to do in order to get interest rates down so that American families can thrive; and so that, yes, those CEO's somebody was talking about earlier can make jobs for Americans. That is what this budget is all about. It is for our future. It is for our children's future and we should do it now.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today, we asked to vote on three measures regarding the deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. Ten days ago, I joined 14 of my colleagues from the House and Senate on a factfinding trip to Bosnia and Herzogovenia, Serbia, and Croatia. I did so because I wanted to fully understand the implications of the United States being involved in the Balkans. We meet with the Presidents of the Yugoslav Republic, Croatia, and Bosnia, the United States Army, and NATO Commanders, as well as U.N. military authorities. And we all saw images in Sarejevo I'm sure we'll never forget. The devastation is staggering beyond comprehension around Sarajevo-- the host of the 1984 Winter Olympics. Once a city of 500,000, its population, it has been reduced in half. Virtually every building is damaged. Electricity, water, sewer, and other basic services are sporadic. Most troubling, however, is the human toll--many thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict and there are perhaps as many as 3 million Balkan refugees scattered across Europe. They are the innocent victims of this conflict. It was obvious to all on our trip that life will never be the same for those who live in this troubled region of the world. Now, the President has made a decision to send 20,000 Americans to Bosnia to join with other NATO Forces in implementing the peace agreement. I think the policy that led to this decision was wrong. But the question of whether we should have gone there is largely moot. It now matters only that we succeed. This raises the question of how we should define success. I believe that success should be defined as minimizing casualties to U.S. troops and ensuring the peace we enforce for 12 months can endure beyond that period. Regarding the safety of our troops, I am convinced our military is capable of protecting themselves and enforcing peace while they are there. Make no mistake, this is a tough assignment and it carries with it the dangers inherent to any military operation in a potentially hostile environment. However, our troops are well-trained, their mission is well-defined, and they have the requisite firepower and clear rules of engagement to protect themselves. Morale is high and I am confident they are well-prepared for the mission ahead. I remain, however, doubtful about the prospects for long-term peace in the region. The NATO Forces have established a self-imposed 1-year deadline for the departure of troops. It hardly seems plausible that a 1-year respite in the fighting will be sufficient to secure the lasting peace contemplated by the Dayton Agreement and coveted by the people of that war-torn region. It has been my consistent view that a stable military balance is essential to achieve lasting peace in the Balkans. That means, in my view, during the next year, the Bosnian military must be armed and trained in the use of weapons. If the deployment of American peacekeepers is inconsistent with an active effort to arm the Bosnians--by whomever--as some of our allies and some in Congress assert, then American peacekeepers should not be deployed because lasting peace cannot be achieved because of the extreme military imbalance that exists today. We must have a commitment from our allies on this issue in advance or this mission will almost certainly be doomed to failure. It is impossible to imagine the Bosnian Republic living in harmony without a sufficiently armed and trained Bosnian military force. I am disappointed that, in the House of Representatives, we have not had the opportunity to consider initiatives to compel the administration to extract such a commitment from our allies. Furthermore, I see little in the peace accord to address the monumental problem of the nearly 3 million refugees who have been displaced from their homes. While the agreement calls for these people to return to their homes and villages in territories controlled by former enemies, it provides no guarantees of security for them. If the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats cannot return to their homes with assurances of safety, it is a virtual certainty that they will remain refugees, with all the attendant problems such a massive population displacement will cause. It could easily lead to a situation similar to that which has plagued Israel and Palestine for over 40 years. Despite my reservations about the wisdom of the President's decision to deploy United States forces to Bosnia, now that the decision to deploy them has been made, I am committed to providing full support to our troops. I will vote now, and in the future, to provide them with whatever resources are deemed necessary to allow them to accomplish their mission. Certainly, the brave men and women serving in our Armed Forces deserve no less.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me time. I rise in strong support for this resolution. It reaffirms what we said before that we wanted, and that is to have a balanced budget in 7 years, by the year 2002. My colleagues might say, why do we need to do that? We voted on that a long time ago. We voted on that more than a month ago. But ever since we voted for that, the administration and the people down at the White House have been trying to move the goal post. They have been saying, well, we can come close to it or we want to use a little different figures. This President signed a law. He signed a law saying he would negotiate. He would negotiate to balance the budget in 7 years. And that is all we are saying that we want to do here tonight. Everything else is on the table. We have said that continuously. All the other issues are on the table. The only thing not on the table is that we are going to balance the budget by the year 2002, 7 years, and we are going to do it using real numbers. No gimmicks, no games. We are going to do it using real numbers scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Let us get on with it so that we can get people back to work, we can get the American people a balanced budget, which is what they want, by the end of this year.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Interior appropriations conference report. This $12.1 billion appropriations bill is the result of a lot of hard work, and yes, a lot of compromise. As we know, this bill has been recommitted twice because of concerns that have been expressed regarding two of the provisions that have already been mentioned here today, the mining patent moratorium and statutory language regarding the Tongass National Forest. But those two issues have been resolved after a lot of tough negotiations. Now it is time we pass this important legislation and send it to the President. Putting together a workable budget for the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, and numerous other independent agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction has not been an easy one. There have been a lot of roadblocks. Some of them have been legitimate, some of them frivolous. But here we are with a conference report that is fair, it is fiscally conservative, and I think it represents an excellent starting point for the 7-year journey toward a balanced budget that both the Congress and the President have now committed themselves to doing. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the committee, has informed us of the various provisions that are in this bill. I just want to reemphasize a couple of them. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research functions, our commitment to the health and educational needs of Native Americans. The conference report also ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public parks and, our crown jewels, our National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, this bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the National Park Service. This is going to prove invaluable to the management of America's parks. Contrary to some published reports, the subcommittee never, never considered or even contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks. I have spoken previously about some of the projects and programs in this report. A couple, though, deserve to be highlighted again. An important and much needed initiative is the recreational fee demonstration program. This innovative program will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the opportunity to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land management agencies to charge and utilize onsite recreational use and access fees. The conference report directs each agency to establish up to 50 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. The best aspect of this program is that the bulk of the fees that are collected stay at the site which collects them. Allowing 80 percent of the fees that are collected to be used in that particular park is a way to give park managers an incentive to collect fees and make visitor driven improvements. Another important aspect of this conference report is the level of funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Is it as much as the House initially provided? No. Compromises did have to be made. I think the level of funding proposed in this report is fair and it goes a long way to providing the necessary infrastructure services our tribal communities depend upon. Under this bill, the BIA will receive $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1996. This represents an additional $25 million we added during the third conference for the tribal priority allocation program. It will now have $653 million in fiscal year 1996. That is $111 million above what the Senate had proposed. Conferees also added another $25 million to the Indian Health Service Account, bringing their 1996 funding level to $1.747 billion. In addition to the preceding, the conference report contains a provision which is vitally important to the astrophysical community and certainly to the State of Arizona. This provision will allow the Mt. Graham Observatory project to continue construction of the world's largest ground-based telescope, the large binocular telescope. This legislative clarification was needed because of constant and often frivolous lawsuits that have beset the project, even though Congress spoke clearly on this matter when it passed the Arizona-Idaho Wilderness Act in 1988, authorizing the construction of these three telescopes. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Gorton, and all my colleagues on the conference committee for supporting this effort. Mr. Speaker, the conference report provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards of these lands, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. Let us stop the demagoguing and political posturing. It is a good bill, it is one that merits our support. Let us send it to the President. Support this conference report and let us defeat any motion to recommit.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation increases the earnings limit of $30,000 by 2002. It is fair legislation. It is fair to the long-term solvency of the Social Security trust fund by offsetting costs within the program. And, most importantly, it is fair to working seniors, allowing seniors to continue to work without being denied their Social Security benefits. It is ludicrous that seniors in the work force are subject to this impractical and outdated procedure. Our seniors deserve more. It is time for Congress to vote for changes to this arachic practice of reducing Social Security benefits for seniors that continue to work after the age of 65. We are robbing seniors of their right to support themselves and live with dignity. In many instances seniors stay in the work force out of necessity, not choice, and should be allowed to earn more without losing a portion of their earned Social Security benefits. The earnings test harms those individuals who do not have supplemental pension income for their retirement and need to work. Therefore, we are penalizing seniors who are trying to be self sufficient rather than rewarding beneficiaries who continue to work. The Social Security earnings limit sends a message to the elderly community that we do not respect their ability to contribute in the work force after retirement. It is time to give seniors back their dignity. This Congress has already taken the first step with the passage of the Medicare Preservation Act which strengthens and protects the Medicare System and allows seniors access to the same type of health care services as offered to all Americans. By increasing the earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002 seniors will be able to hold up their heads as they continue to work without fear of losing their earned Social Security benefits.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the World War II veterans who served this country in the 390th Bombardment Group (H). During this 50th anniversary year of the end of World War II, it is fitting and appropriate to pay tribute to the 390th which flew 301 bombing missions in B-17's against the German war machine. The veterans of the 390th have established a permanent memorial to and for those who made the supreme sacrifice and to all men who had served in the group during World War II. The memorial is a museum and is the source and location of the heritage, history, and honor of the 390th and the men who so proudly served in it. The 390th Memorial Museum is located in Tucson, AZ on the grounds of the third largest air museum in the United States--the Pima Air and Space Museum. The 390th museum contains the beautifully restored B-17G ``I'll be Around'', an 11- by 23-foot mural of ``Top Cover for the J Group'' which is probably the most recognized picture of World War II. It also contains an honor wall, a gallery of crews, art and aircraft models, and many different items of memorabilia. The Joseph A. Moller Library, in the museum, contains over 79,000 pages of 390th combat history, over 9,000 photographs and is a research center for the air campaign of Central Europe. After intensive training in the United States, the group was battle ready and sent to its base at Framlingham, England. On August 12, 1943, it flew its first operational mission bombing an instrument factory in Bonn, Germany. During this period, 145 aircraft were missing in action. Overall, the 390th used up over 200 Flying Fortresses counting those battle damaged aircraft returning to England but immediately declared as salvage. At war's end, 88 aircraft were returned to the United States. The 390th earned two Presidential Unit Citations for conspicuous battle action over Regensburg and Schweinfurt in August and October, 1943. On October 10, 1943, on a mission targeted at Munster, Germany, the 390th was credited with destroying 62 enemy fighters in air-to-air combat. This was the highest kill rate in a single day for any bomber or fighter group in the European Theater of Operations. That day, the group dispatched 18 aircraft and 8 of them were officially listed as missing in action. In their 301 missions the 390th was credited with the destruction of 377 enemy aircraft, 57 probably destroyed, and 77 damaged. The price paid for these achievements was not small. Some 1,400 personnel of the 390th were killed in action. Only 15 of the 35 original combat crews, those which trained as part of the group in the States and launched the combat career of the 390th in the European Theater of Operations, finished their tours of operations--the others were missing in action. The museum is a memorial to the men of the 390th and those who made the supreme sacrifice. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is vitally important that we remember the sacrifices made by our veterans and those who today serve our country in the military. It is equally important that we remind future generations of the sacrifices made by our Nation's veterans.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the message of the President and the bill be referred to the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and also of the conference report which underlies it. I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for the work that he has done, his staff, and the others that worked on this legislation. We have been advised by the administration that this is likely a candidate for veto. The reasons given are the Cops on the Beat program, the advanced technology program, and the funding levels for peacekeeping. Mr. Speaker, I would note that this is a responsible, a fiscally responsible piece of legislation. Let me just highlight some of the things in here that I think make this appropriation bill worthwhile, this conference report. First is the important funds it does provide for law enforcement, in law enforcement grants, to States, nearly $2 billion to State and local law enforcement agencies, giving some flexibility. No, it does not force the Cops on the Beat program. It does not put us in the mind set of saying it has to be this kind of program. But if that is the program the States and local government want to continue, they can continue this with the grants program. They have the flexibility to do the kinds of programs that they think are best. For my State and many others, there is a large amount of funds in here to provide for reimbursing States for incarcerating illegal aliens. That is a responsibility of the Federal Government, a failure of the Federal Government to enforce immigration laws, and States should be reimbursed for incarceration of illegal aliens in their State and local prisons and jails. There is funding for 1,000 new border agents so we can control our borders. There is 400 new land inspectors for the Immigration and Naturalization Service in here that helps to facilitate the flow of legitimate goods and services and of individuals across the border. There are important restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation. We begin the process of phasing out the Federal funding for that program and returning this responsibility to States and local governments. There is important funding for the International Trade Commission, and one that does not get a lot of attention, the State Department, which I think is a vital part of our diplomatic service and our foreign policy. The State Department does not get a lot of attention around this place, but it is vitally important. I just had the privilege this weekend of taking a trip to Bosnia, to Serbia, to Croatia. I have seen the dedicated service our foreign service people give overseas. They are a vital link in our foreign policy. They also provide vital services for Americans overseas. This bill goes a long way to providing the adequate funding so that they can continue those vital services. No, it is not as much as anybody would like. But I think it is an important step to making sure that our diplomatic functions and our foreign policy is carried out. This is a responsible bill. It has the right spending priorities. It gives the direction that this Congress should give to States and local governments to provide the flexibility to carry out the law enforcement programs, to provide for the Commerce Department, the vital functions that Commerce now does, and to make sure we have our foreign policy intact through the funding of the State Department. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule and on the conference report.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, we heard a previous speaker on the other side describe this budget as being bullying, heard it described as extreme. I do not know what is extreme about giving the average American family a savings of $2,558, which is what the most conservative projections of economists say that you would get of savings of interest costs on a car loan, savings of interest costs on a car loan, savings of interests costs on a student loan and, of course, tremendous savings of interest on a mortgage loan. I do not know anything that is extreme about giving American families that kind of savings. I do not know anything that is bullying. I think that is helping American families. Nor do I find anything extreme about a budget that goes from the current amount of $9.5 billion we spent in the last 7 years to $12 billion. That is an increase, a gigantic increase in spending. The difference of course is found in the third column. If we do nothing, if we follow what the President would have us do, it would go up even more. And that is the difference between balancing the budget and saddling American families, saddling children, saddling our next generation with even more debt, borrowing from them today to pay for more debt tomorrow. A child that is born today is going to pay $179,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the national debt over the course of his or her lifetime. That is before they pay any of the debt. That is before they get anything from student loans or from health care grants or anything else. That is just to pay the debt, the interest on the national debt. The President's spokesman did get it right when he said one thing, he said, this is not about numbers. This is much more philosophical than that. This is much more deeper than that. This is about a different vision of where America goes. And I agree. it is a different vision. We believe it is the vision of America as one where individuals have responsibility and have opportunities. The vision of the other side seems to be to keep the status quo, keep saddling the American family, keep saddling the next generation with more debt. We cannot go on doing that. The President said he would veto this, but I hope that this President will change his mind when he looks at this and not veto this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act. What we are doing is of enormous significance. We look at all this squabbling and ask: Does this make any difference? This is the ninth shutdown of Government in 12 years, but you probably don't remember any of them. So why is this different? Those shutdowns were over how much we were going to grow programs. Democrats in Congress would say increase a program by 10 percent and a Republican President would say, I can only give you 5 percent. So, split the difference at 7\1/2\ percent. This is different. We are not talking about the difference between 5 and 10 percent, but eliminating programs and agencies and reducing Government's hold on Americans through its grip on their wallet. This is a revolution that is under way. And revolutions are messy. The Government shutdown and impasse on the spending bills are just the tip of the iceberg. But it is an important tip. The President tried to tell the American people he couldn't sign a stopgap spending bill because it had extra things on it--Medicare premiums for example. So we sent him a clean continuing resolution last night. Nothing on it. Nothing. Just one provision that commits the President to negotiating--not even reaching agreement on a 7-year balanced budget-- just to negotiate. This President has said, as recently as 2 months ago, that he favored a balanced budget in 7 years. During the campaign he said he could balance the budget in 5 years. In fact, he has publicly stated that it could be balanced in 10 years, 9 years, and 8 years. By saying he would veto the continuing resolution, the President has said he cannot, will not, agree to a balanced budget now, next year, 7 years, 10 years--ever. This rhetoric has been going on for years. The press reported it again yesterday: The President said, ``Yes, I'm for a balanced budget, but we can't cut Medicare, we can't savage programs for the poor, we can't abandon welfare recipients, and we can't change job training programs''. In other words, I'll talk about a balanced budget, but I just can't bring myself to doing anything about it. Well, this morning, we are going to do something. We have on the floor, as I speak, a bill that utterly transforms the way we think about government. This Balanced Budget Act preserves Medicare. In fact under this proposal it's going up per person from $4,800 to $6,700 in 2002, or 40 percent. It is a lie to say we are cutting Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act gives control of Medicaid to the States--a concept that has proven to work with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. It gives States the authority to implement welfare reform; it eliminates all farm subsidies in 7 years; it abolishes the Commerce Department and scales back others; and it eliminates more than 100 Federal programs. Our Balanced Budget Act also gives each family earning less than $110,000 per year a $500 per child tax credit. That's hardly a tax break for the rich. That's a break from many, many middle-class Americans. And let's look at the benefits of a balanced budget. Interest rates would go down, making it easier for Americans to purchase homes, cars, major appliances, and so on. That would spur economic growth, and our children and grandchildren would no longer be saddled with this enormous deficit. More than 80 percent of the American people have said they want a balanced budget, and we have delivered one. We have done it for our children because we have borrowed long enough from our children. Now it's time for the President to stand behind his words with actions and join us--not fight us--in this effort. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hobson's introduction mentioned that I am a member of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations. That is true. I think that has given me a very interesting perspective on this whole struggle that has been going on here now for so many days and weeks. I rise in strong support of this continuing resolution which puts Federal workers back to work and, even more importantly, commits the President and Congress to working for a balanced budget in the next 7 years. We could have had this agreement last week. In fact, what we are voting on today is not really any different than what we passed and sent to the President last week. At that time we said we would do just exactly what we are doing now, adopting an agreement for a 7-year balanced budget with no preconditions. But it was not to be for political reasons last week. Now we are here and that is water over the dam. It is time for us to move forward. What is important about this agreement is that we have an absolute rock-solid commitment to have a balanced budget in 7 years. That is not 9 years. That is not 8 years. That is not 5 years. That is not 10 years. That is 7 years. We have an absolute agreement that that is what we are going to negotiate. And it is not just a goal. It is not just would-it-not-be-nice. It is not a want to have. It is an absolute. It is in a contract with the American people. It is a contract between the White House and the Congress that we will negotiate to have this balanced budget in the next 7 years. And it will be certified by the organization that the President, in his State of the Union Address in 1993, said that he wanted because it was the more conservative, it was the better of the two organizations; that is, the Congressional Budget Office. So it will be certified and the numbers will be conservative. If it's so conservative, and it turns out we can do it faster than that, great. If we can have more economic growth, great. But I think it is important for us to understand that all of this is just a preliminary. This is the first round in a 10-round championship boxing match. This is the preliminaries if you will, if we want to use a nicer way to look at it, the preliminaries of lovemaking. We are engaged in a long marathon, a long struggle. This is only the beginning. Passing this continuing resolution does not get us to the balanced budget. This is just the beginning. This is simply the beginning of the process that we must go with in order to achieve a balanced budget, a commitment to the American people, to our children, to the next generation. We are telling them that we will not continue borrowing from them. And we know the benefits of that, the benefits of lower interest rates, the benefits of [[Page H 13370]] greater economic growth. Those benefits will be with us, and with them, for decades. Now is not the time to flinch. We must go forward. We must achieve a balanced budget and that is what the debate in the next several weeks will be all about.