Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I want to rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to commend the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for the work that they have done in advancing this bill, which will benefit both America and Vietnam for years to come. And I want to especially pay tribute to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee for his long service in this Congress and for the work that he has done over the years in the area of trade, which has made such advances for better relations between the United States and other countries and improved the lot of people in other countries as well as the lot of workers and citizens here at home in the United States. His service will be greatly missed in the next Congress. Permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam is the next logical step in our partnership with that country. Back in 1995, with my support and that of many others on both sides of the aisle, we embarked on a new path of political progress with Vietnam. We restored political relations and we restored economic relations. We recognized how important it was to integrate a former adversary into the global economy. Then in December of 2001, we passed a bilateral trade agreement that has spurred economic growth for all parties. By the end of 2005, two- way trade between the United States and Vietnam had reached nearly $8 billion, a huge increase from the base it started at just a few years earlier. Now, with the passage of this legislation, with the adoption of permanent normal trade relations, we will magnify those benefits and we will allow the United States and Vietnam to work as partners in the World Trade Organization. The impact for our Nation will be especially dramatic in the services sector. The bill will provide more open access in telecommunications, financial services, and energy services. This is crucial, absolutely crucial, for jobs here at home in the United States. Eighty percent of the American workforce is in the service sector. At the same time, this legislation is about more than just economics, and I think that those on both sides of the aisle recognize this fact. Permanent normal trade relations will promote additional domestic reforms in Vietnam. By increasing transparency in that country's trade practices, this bill will contribute to greater transparency in all areas of government. From the first time that I visited Vietnam after my service in the conflict there, more than 15 years ago, to today we have seen enormous changes take place in the political structure of Vietnam. And as a Vietnam veteran, I find this especially heartwarming and especially important. We are working and we must continue to work on behalf of development and of good governance in Vietnam. This legislation shows us that Vietnam's best interests can align with the interests of this country as well, and this is what free trade is all about. This is what free trade does for two countries, and this is why this bill has bipartisan support, and it is why it will pass, why it should pass, today. I can only hope that in the next Congress my colleagues will take the same commonsense approach to other trade bills that will be considered and that they will have the courage to embrace a free trade agenda which will benefit Americans and people around the world alike.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 483, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 492, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 494, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5016, the Las Cienegas Enhancement Act. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo of the Resources Committee and Chairman Walden of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee for their leadership and support of this measure. The land exchange in this legislation releases an urban parcel of federal land in the path of development, and it puts into federal hands an outlying area important for its natural beauty and proximity to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and the Coronado National Forest. It will provide hunters and visitors much-needed road access to the Whetstone Mountains, a ``sky island'' that is being surrounded by development. This exchange proposal has been developed through a 4-year consultative process. The exchange has the support of the Governor of Arizona, the City Manager of Tucson, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, conservationists and private landowners. The Pima County Board of Supervisors also supports the bill for helping protect open space in the Cienega Valley. The two parcels of land proposed in exchange are located near Tucson in the eastern half of Pima County. The Bureau of Land Management parcel is a federal inholding of 1,280 acres located near Corona de Tucson, a community on the urbanized fringe of greater Tucson. The private parcel offered for exchange consists of 2,707 acres of upland Sonoran desert adjacent to the Coronado National Forest and close to both the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, which are administered by Pima County. Land appraisals will follow statutory procedures and be subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior. Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill stands as a shining example of what can be achieved when local community groups and the BLM work together to maximize both the recreation and conservation goals of our federal lands, allowing the enhancement and protection of our lands, rivers, creeks, and wildlife that enrich our lives in the West. In sum, I am pleased to offer this bill as a capstone to my resource conservation efforts during 11 terms in Congress.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second consecutive week to remind the House that the time has passed for half measures on immigration reform. None of the bills we debate today will secure our border unless they are coupled with a more comprehensive approach. Some of them are good bills and should be part of wider legislation to secure the border and make our immigration system work. But on their own, these proposals fall short because they only look at the enforcement side of the equation. Put them together with the bill we passed last week, add the enforcement-only package we passed in December, and throw in any other enforcement measures that you like and I promise you that all of them, collectively, won't win the fight against illegal immigration. Without a total fix--one that gets at the root of the problem--we will continue to see people finding a way to get into the United States in pursuit of jobs and a better way of life. Fences won't stop them. And stopgap measures by this body will not stop them. The Senate majority leader has said that there isn't even time to take up all these half-measures in the other chamber; it is highly doubtful that any of these will become law. Mr. Speaker, let us put away these half measures and go to conference with the Senate on the bill this chamber passed--H.R. 4437--and the bill the Senate passed--S. 2611. We need a comprehensive fix to the problem and that means dealing with all parts of it, not just criminal aliens and the end of ``catch and release.'' Those are all part of the solution, but on their own, they fall short. Without a guest worker program and a recognition of the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in our midst, we will only exacerbate the problem. So what are we really debating here? Nothing. We've sent a bill to the Senate, and they've sent a bill back to us. The time for playing games is past. The American people want action--they want a solution that works. Let's negotiate with the Senate and find a comprehensive solution that will secure our borders once and for all. Let us reject these piecemeal bills and do what's right for the American people; let us go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4437 and S. 2611.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 448, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall no. 449, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 450, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 447, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from New York for his consideration as well. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Nine months ago, we were on this floor passing half measures to deal with the problem. Now we are back to dealing with it in quarter measures. We don't need these kinds of approaches. We know what the problems are. We don't need to have the faux hearings all over the country that we had this summer to tell us what the problems are. The time has come to reject these kinds of partial measures, more of the same that we have been doing, and get at the root of the problem. And the root of the problem, as we well know, is the job magnet that exists in this country, that pulls migrants in, that makes them willing to do the jobs that most Americans are not willing to do, hard, back- breaking work out in the hot sun. Fences are not going to stop these people from coming. They are determined to come here. They have been coming against all odds, and they are going to continue to come. Furthermore, half of all the people who are in this country illegally came here on a legal visa. This doesn't do anything to deal with that, it doesn't do anything to deal with the people who come from other than across our southern border, and it doesn't really deal with that. We need to have a comprehensive fix to the problem. I know people are tired of hearing that word, ``comprehensive,'' but tell me a better word to describe something that deals with all of the parts of the problem and that that is what we don't have here. Not just fencing, not just sensors, not just UAVs. Those are important. Those are part of the problem. And I have no difficulty with the idea of a fence, but we need to have it as something more than just on its own. By itself, this falls very short. We have got to have a guest worker program. We have got to have a realistic, honest assessment and solution to the 12 million people who are in this country now in an undocumented status. Unless we do that, we only exacerbate the problem. Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that any terrorist has come across our southern border. None. And that was testified to time and again this summer. So if we are really concerned about terrorists, we ought to be much more concerned about our northern border, where there are many more miles of unprotected border without camera sensors, without fencing. And it is also a country where we know there are terrorist cells that exist there. So we know that the problem exists up there. So what are we really debating here? We are really not debating anything that is of substance. This is a feel-good piece of legislation. We have sent the bill to the Senate. They have sent the bill back to us. This is simply a rerun of what we have done before. Chairman King said a moment ago that we can't do everything, we ought to do something. Well, sometimes the half measures are actually things that make things worse. What we need to do, and we know that we can get more than this, all we have to do is be willing to walk 100 yards across the Capitol to the other side and negotiate, to start talking with them about a comprehensive solution, something that will secure our borders once and for all. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we reject this piecemeal, this rerun bill, and do what is right for the American people. Let's go to conference with the Senate.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I am pleased today to rise in strong support of this agreement, the Oman Free Trade Agreement. With the Doha Round of multilateral talks teetering on the brink of collapse, we need more than ever to pursue a bilateral trade agenda that makes some real gains for American workers and American consumers who, after all, are one and the same. That is precisely what the Oman Free Trade Agreement does. The Oman FTA is quite simply a win-win. In 2005, trade between the United States and Oman exceeded $1 billion. The U.S. exported $594 million in goods alone to Oman last year. While some will stand here today, beat their breasts and claim that we are going to lose jobs with this trade agreement, nothing could be further from the truth. I ask Members to think back to economics 101. Exporting goods creates jobs here at home, and importing goods will create jobs. Consumer and industrial goods will be 100 percent duty free on day one of the trade agreement's entry into force. There will be significant gains in the agriculture and service sectors. These are the kinds of tangible changes we want and we need to bring home to our constituents. Liberalization of trade in services is sometimes overlooked, but it is absolutely essential to keeping our economy competitive. The services sector represents 75 percent of our country's economic output and it is 80 percent of our workforce. U.S. firms have a strong advantage in the services sector, and it becomes even stronger as we add each country like Oman to an FTA. But the economic gains are relatively small compared to the impact that a trade agreement with Oman will have in keeping Americans safe. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended a comprehensive strategy to defeat terrorism, that includes economic policies, that encourages development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families. As a result of this recommendation, the administration authorized negotiations with Oman as part of the plan to create a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013. This is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this free trade agreement. Oman leads the Persian Gulf in establishing trade and other ties with Israel. It has eliminated all aspects of its boycott with Israel and when Oman acceded to the WTO in 2000, it did not request an exemption for Israel that would allow it to maintain a boycott. This is a rare exception in a tough neighborhood. I ask my colleagues today to join me in showing our commitment to Oman, is a steadfast ally in a region of the world where we need all the friends we can get. Vote for the Oman Free Trade Pact.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many of my colleagues today in opposing the President's veto of H.R. 810. I do so reluctantly. I think the overriding of a veto of any President should be undertaken with caution, but in this case I believe it is necessary. When the House considered this bill last year, our debate focused on the ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research. Those dilemmas are real, and they've been thoroughly addressed in the bill we passed. What hasn't been noted enough, however, is the importance this bill has for American innovation. The President himself has written--quote-- ``Through America's investments in science and technology, we have revolutionized our economy and changed the world for the better. Groundbreaking ideas generated by innovative minds in the private and public sectors have paid enormous dividends--improving the lives and livelihoods of generations of Americans.'' These words are true--and to his credit, the President has backed them up with his American Competitiveness Initiative, a set of proposals that every Member in this House has embraced. So I ask my colleagues: what field will prove more crucial to American competitiveness, to human well-being, to economic growth, than the biological sciences? And what area of research holds more promise in the biological sciences than stem cells? Over the past two decades, three-quarters of the researchers who have won the Nobel Prize in medicine have studied or taught in the United States. Can we really expect to retain the global leadership if we can't even pass a bill, a thoughtful, bipartisan bill, that assures the moral study of embryonic stem cells? ``Assures.'' I use the word deliberately, because no other nation will meet, let alone exceed, the ethical guidelines and constraints embodied in Castle-DeGette. Each of us knows that. The sooner we pass this bill into law, the sooner America becomes the hub for this research, the sooner our ethical standards become the de facto standards governing stem cell science around the world. So Castle-DeGette isn't just about taking the scientific lead on embryonic stem cells, it is about taking the moral lead, setting an ethical standard for research that will take place whether this bill becomes law or not. I urge my colleagues to override this veto.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the proposed constitutional amendment before us today illustrates exactly why those who wrote the Constitution of the United States went to such extraordinary lengths to ensure that it was a long and arduous task to amend it. The procedure to pass a constitutional amendment was designed specifically to compel the Nation and its leaders to carefully consider the significant and profound implications such a change could bring. This issue simply fails to meet the threshold of what the Framers called a ``great and extraordinary occasion.'' But of even greater significance is the issue of individual rights. This proposed amendment would be the first time we would amend that document to restrict human freedoms, rather than to protect and expand them. Let's be honest. This bill has been brought to the House floor by the leadership solely because of election-year politics. The very process by which this bill comes up is an affront to this institution. Like previous attempts, it was not considered by any committee of the House, it was not brought to the floor by the chairman of that committee, rather it was brought by the leadership, who decided to take it upon themselves to do the work of the committees and their chairmen. Moreover, this same legislation was considered in the Senate, where it didn't even receive a majority vote, much less the required two- thirds for a constitutional amendment. Why then are we rushing to judgment here today? What is the compelling reason to consider this now? Sixteen States have passed constitutional amendments that would define marriage in their own States as being between a man and a woman. Others, including my own State, are considering such amendments this year. While I may disagree with the voters in my State or any State in adopting such an amendment to their constitution, that is their prerogative, and State constitutions are where they should be considered. For better than 200 years, family law has been exclusively the domain of the States. That is where it should remain. Vice President Cheney said exactly this, and I agree with him. The chief crafter of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, former Representative Bob Barr, said as much, and I agree with him. Marriage and divorce, inheritance and adoption, child custody, these are matters correctly left to the States. It does not belong in the Constitution of the United States. But that is the genius of our Federal system, to allow States to find solutions to issues such as family law which work uniquely for them. The States can pass their own laws, and many have. We should not be in the business of passing a constitutional amendment to make this point. And we certainly should not be tampering with the Constitution to address an ongoing societal dialogue on, admittedly, a very difficult subject. Amending the Constitution is, thankfully, a difficult task. That cumbersome process has saved us from making ill-advised changes during these past 215 years. It will save us now from this ill-advised action. We have not used the amending process to limit the rights of citizens. From the first amendment to the 14th, the original Framers and the Congress that followed have sought to expand, to protect the rights of citizens. This would be a unique amendment in that it takes away rights from one group while specifically conferring them upon another. Try to find another provision in the Constitution that does this. You will look in vain. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and those after should be about protecting and expanding freedoms. This proposed amendment to our Constitution is about discrimination. It is about fear. It is unnecessary. It is unwarranted, and it should be soundly defeated.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the amendment, not to speak against Amtrak, but really where these funds would come from. As the previous speaker under Mr. Knollenberg's time, Mr. Culberson said it comes out of our border security infrastructure. Much of that is right in the heart of Arizona. The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry and the San Luis Port of Entry are located on the Arizona-Mexico border, not in my district, but in the area and will enhance security while promoting economic development and improving the quality of life in the border region. The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry. It is the principal commercial crossing on the southern border during much of the year. It processes half of all the winter fruits and vegetables entering the United States. It was built in the 1970s, and it was never built to handle the volume of traffic it now receives. During the peak season, it is absolutely overwhelmed. Trucks line up for hours and miles and miles and miles into Mexico waiting to cross. In addition the post-9/11 requirements of the Bioterrorism Act and other security measures have added to the congestion of the port. This is a project that would be cut under this amendment. The second project is the construction of the new port of entry at San Luis, and that is the highest priority on the southern border and President's requested $42 million. I urge that we defeat this amendment because of where the funds are being taken from. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the funding it would remove from the bill would be terribly detrimental to our border security infrastructure, at precisely the time when we are finally turning our attention towards fixing our border and stopping illegal immigration. The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry and San Luis Port of Entry are located on the Arizona-Mexico border and will enhance security while promoting economic development and improving the quality of life in the border region and across the country. The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry to expand the port and enhance border security. Mariposa is one of the principal commercial crossings on the southern border; it processes half of the winter fruits and vegetables entering the United States. Built in the 1970's, Mariposa was never intended to handle the volume of traffic it now receives. During the peak season, it is overwhelmed, as trucks line up for miles and wait many hours to cross. In addition, the new post 9/11 requirements under the Bioterrorism Act and other security measures have added to the congestion at the port. U.S. Customs and Border Protection therefore placed this project high on its list of priorities and the President requested $9 million for design funds in his budget. That funding is in this bill and would be cut by this amendment. The second project is the construction of a new Port of Entry at San Luis. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has also listed this project as its highest priority on the southern border and the President requested $42 million for design funds in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget. Clearly, these vital projects must not be cut precisely when we are trying to fix our broken borders. In light of our heightened security needs, particularly at our southern border, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. There was no question that almost all of us in the page program would not have survived the mentorship. I promised not to tell you those kinds of things. Fortunately, it is on your last day anyhow, so you are probably not going to find time to do too many of those things today. The gentleman from Illinois was talking about the celebrity sightings. Some people would think there are celebrities enough here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and with all the joint sessions that we have. But I remember not too long ago when I had that actor. What's his name? Oh, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie down in my office down below here on the first floor just below the Chamber here. When I finished the meeting and came out, there were a bunch of secretaries and few pages there with their cameras, and I thought, wonderful, they want pictures of me. But no, none of them were interested at all in having a picture with me. It was this actor and actress that were there. So I guess we know that really Members of Congress are pretty second- rate when it comes to celebrity sightings, and sometimes maybe we are just a little bit of chopped liver. But I do want to say to you that this experience obviously is one that you may not realize it now, but you are going to carry away with you some very important things, some things that will change your life in ways that you probably cannot even imagine right now. It does not mean that all of you are going into politics, because probably only a handful of you might. As a matter of fact, in my graduating class at the page school, we went all the way through high school in those days. In my graduating class, I am the only one that ultimately stayed in elective politics. But there, it does not matter. This experience will make a difference to you. It will make a difference not only in your school and make a difference not only in the way you look on things and events in the world, but hopefully will make you more of a citizen of the world and a citizen of the United States, and I think this is the important thing. Many people ask us why do we continue this program. Let us face it. We could do this a lot easier with a lot less expense if we just contracted out and hired some people to serve as messengers, but year after year, the Congress of the United States supports this program for young men and women, and through the course of the more than 150, or really almost 200 years, several thousand young men and women like you have come through this program and had this experience because we think it makes a difference, and we think that your experience becomes the experience of the future leaders of the United States. So I hope that whatever you do when you go back, you will think about this program, and, of course, you will think about your friends, the friendships you have made here and you will maintain those friendships and you will come back for your reunions. You always come back for the first year reunion, 5-year reunion, 10-year reunion. It is wonderful to have these friendships, but you will also remember what you learned here and you will incorporate into your daily lives and into the thinking of whatever you do, if you are in business, if you become a physician, if you become a lawyer, if you become a teacher. All of these things will be valuable to you. So you have had a rare, rare experience, and I hope that you can appreciate that. But I want to say now in closing how much we appreciate what you do. You make our lives just a little bit easier every day. You are the grease that makes the wheel go round without squeaking quite so much, and sometimes we take it for granted and we do not realize how much of a difference that you make in our lives and the work of this body. So it is my great privilege to be here to say thank you to you for the wonderful job that you have done for us, and I hope that I will see many of you in the years ahead, that we will stay in touch and I will follow your career, your successful careers in business, but most important, in your lives with your families and with the people that you interact with. God bless you all and God bless America.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. And I get the chance tonight at your quasi-graduation, your finishing exercise, tonight to say a few more words to you so I will save most of the thoughts I have, which probably are not terribly profound anyhow, until this evening. I did want to be here on the floor. I think it is appropriate, as a matter of fact, that this is the last time I will speak to you and the last vote that you got to see was on Congressman Kolbe's appropriations bill for foreign operations. So you can say the last set of votes the last day was spent on the floor with Congressman Kolbe in the debate on the bill that he was responsible for. It has been a great pleasure. It gives me an added sentimental value to this occasion. I think most of you know that I have a special relationship with the page program that stems from the fact that I started as a page. Albeit as some of you know it was over on that other side in that other body over there, but you will forgive me for that. At that time it was really run as one single program. I have to say that the page experience, as you can probably tell from where I am standing today, is one of those things, those experiences that had a profound change on my life. But having started here as a page, I promised Peggy and Miss Ivester and the others that I would not tell you all the stories about the things that I did, that we did as a page. So I promised not to tell you the story about how we hauled the English teacher's Volkswagon bug up the steps of the Library of Congress and planted it in the middle of the platform up there. And I promised not to tell you about the story of how we faked the suicide of one of the pages jumping from the balcony and there was a page spread out down below.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5522, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to move to strike the last word and give a 5-minute speech, but I sense a sense of urgency here. So, Mr. Chairman, I simply move the committee do now rise and report the bill. And I thank the Members for their comments. But let me say, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I take the time in opposition, and I will spend even less time than the gentleman from Colorado did as we both go out the door here, and we will follow each other out the door of this distinguished body. I want to say to him that I would say the same thing about him, the kind words he said about me. He has had very distinguished service here in this body, and he is a person that is known for his integrity and his commitment to principles. One of those commitments is the holding down spending, and it is something that all of us could heed from time to time. However, having said that, I would oppose this amendment for the obvious reasons, but I think that we have a carefully crafted bill and a $213 million across-the-board cut from every account would have some devastating impacts in certain areas. For that reason, as much as I respect the gentleman from Colorado, I would oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I think this amendment would be defeated unanimously if people understood what it is really about. It is not about big oil companies. It is not about supporting big oil companies. It is about supporting usually small suppliers, small U.S. manufacturers that work in the large, huge energy industry around the world. So I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. We are looking at one of the largest projects, in fact it is the largest infrastructure project in the world today at Saklan Island. The reserves there are larger than the North Slope. They are larger than the Gulf of Mexico. These are huge possible reserves. Now, if we are concerned about energy in this country, if we are concerned about oil and gas in this country and having enough gasoline to run our cars, we ought to be concerned about developing this. And if we are concerned about making sure we have environmental protections for a project like this, we want to have some participation in this project, and that is exactly what the funding from OPEC and Ex-Im Bank allows us to do to have that kind of participation. The gentleman made some comment about even though it is not the Saklan project about PEMEX, but there again PEMEX in Mexico, that is the state-owned oil industry in Mexico. There is nothing in here about supporting PEMEX. It is about supporting American business contractors, American manufacturers that export to PEMEX, that sell pipe, that sell drill equipment, that sell rigs, that sell all kinds of things. It is about keeping jobs here in the United States. That is what this is about and that is what it is about with the Saklan Island project as well. This is absolutely not the right way to go. And, again, if we want to have some participation in this, if we want to make sure that this project is done the right way, we want to be sure that Export-Import Bank is involved with supporting those small suppliers that he was not talking about, supporting those contractors, those business people, because that helps us to participate in this. It is really not so much about the big company, the ExxonMobil and the Kelloggs. It is about companies like Solar Turbines Incorporated, about S & P Steel Products. This is why we have the Ex-Im Bank to support these kinds of exports to other countries, to support jobs here in the United States. That is exactly what the Export-Import Bank is about, jobs here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the right way to proceed, and I hope that my colleagues will soundly defeated this amendment. If you are concerned about energy, if you are concerned about gas prices, and you want to develop in a reasonable way reserves of energy overseas and if you want to support American manufacturers and American jobs, defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, I appreciate again the good work that she has done in this area, and certainly in our subcommittee, she has asked for some consideration in the conference for language, and certainly we will want to consider that. I do appreciate that. If the gentlewoman is prepared to withdraw the amendment, I would not have to insist on my point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.