Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman very much. This government, our government, has the prime duty given by the Founding Fathers to provide for our common defense. If we fail in that duty, we fail all other duties inherited by a free people. And I think that is the essential point that I want to make here. This is about honoring the promises that we have already made.

Mr. KIRK. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Our districts abut and it does prove that there is some common wisdom that comes from America's heartland.

Mr. KIRK. As our special operators/warriors will no doubt note, our government has the primary duty given by the Founding Fathers to provide for our common defense; but if we fail, then all of our other duties are failed. In the last century, we, Republicans and Democrats, Americans, added a second mission to our Federal Government. And that was to provide for the retirement security of Americans who worked hard and became members of what we now call ``The Greatest Generation'' that saved the world from fascism. These commitments to protect our families and older Americans call on most of the resources of the Federal Government. If we cannot afford to meet those commitments, we fail the most fundamental bond between Americans and their government. These commitments are on such a massive scale and duration that it calls on us all to be fiscal conservatives. We know that the Federal Government cannot do everything, but it can and must meet the duties of national and retirement security wealth. In our history, we have not built a perfect record of balanced budgets. This chart shows some of the history, and you see for a lot of our history we have not had a balanced budget, deep deficits obviously during World War II and parts of the Cold War. Most of our deficits early in our history dealt with whether the country was at war or at peace, but the deficits of later years have something entirely different at fault. In the 19th century, this Congress faced entirely the opposite problem. We had a high tariff against foreign goods, and that hurt our economy, but built up a massive Federal surplus. In the 20th century, we built up massive debts, but they were largely to fight and win the world wars. Our debts consumed a fifth of the Nation's income, but I think they were absolutely necessary to secure victories in 1918 and 1945. The Korean War, the mounting cost of the Cold War and the Vietnam War did push the Federal Government into the red. These costs were staggering and seemed never ending until the Cold War was ended on America's terms in 1991. Our national security duties faded, but only briefly until forced by other challenges in Kuwait and Haiti and Bosnia and Kosovo. But these challenges hid a growing structural change in the way our government spent the taxpayers' funds. Imagine a rain barrel. Water inside represents Federal tax dollars. A pipe above the rain barrel brings in more water, Federal tax receipts. If we raise taxes, the pipe gets bigger and more water goes into the barrel. If we cut taxes, we narrow that pipe. Around this mythical barrel are 13 ladles. These ladles represent the 13 regular appropriations bills. These bills are used to fund the traditional part of the Federal Government. Each part of our government from the FBI to the FAA to the FDA is supplied out of these 13 bills. For most of our government's history, these 13 bills, represented by the 13 ladles around our barrel, were how we funded Washington; but in the 20th century, we invented entitlement programs, programs making beneficiaries entitled to Federal spending, for example, Americans over 65 entitled to health care under Medicare. The best way to think about these entitlement programs is to imagine they are holes drilled in the bottom of the barrel. Expand an entitlement program, as we did giving a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and you widen the hole in the bottom of the barrel. The analogy of our rain barrel with holes drilled in its side leads us to a clear picture of what is happening to the Federal budget. We are spending more money through automatic spending of entitlements than we are through the regular appropriations bills, the ladles I talked about. We are spending a lot more through entitlements. Our budget this year will total $2.5 trillion. Only $820 billion, roughly one-third of the budget, will be spent under the regular appropriations bills of the Congress. Two-thirds of our budget will be spent in automatic spending through entitlement programs. Our entitlement programs increase their spending even when we do not improve benefits. That is because the number of people entitled to these programs is rising. Today, roughly 35 million Americans have most of their health care paid by Medicare, but America's baby boomers are aging, and since the first baby boomer was born in 1946, they become eligible for Social Security and Medicare in just 5 years. The number of people eligible will rise from 35 million to over 70 million. This increase in beneficiaries puts an enormous strain on our budget. Americans should know that our government uses different accounting rules than a private company. If a company promises a pension to one of its employees, it must show the cost of that promise for the entire life of the retiree on the company's books. But that is not how the Federal Government works. We only calculate the cost of our pension promises for the next year, and we estimate the cost of our promises over 5 years. This method of government accounting leaves much of our financial position in the dark, where Americans cannot learn what is being done on our behalf. If you were an accountant for the Federal Government and you accounted for our finances the way any family-owned business in America does, then it would show that our government is $30 trillion in the red. Many politicians, like one of those that just spoke on the floor this evening, talked about the surplus of the 1990s. The surplus existed only on paper. It did not stand up to analysis. Every dollar of the so- called 1990 surplus and more was needed to honor the promises that have already been made by our government. So where do we go from here? First, we begin where I began by looking at the two basic commitments of our Federal Government, that we provide for the national defense and we provide for retirement security. National defense in time of terror is not cheap. Our victory in Afghanistan was won by a seaborne Army against a country with no coastline. Such victories are possible, but not inexpensive. In the post-September 11 world, we could not guarantee that every terrorist in the United States had been caught, and therefore, we were forced to defend the homeland at great cost. For example, an airport screening machine costs $2 million and O'Hare Airport needed 50, requiring $100 million to secure just one of the Nation's 4,000 airports. Like our grandmothers and -fathers of World War II, we had to protect our families, even with borrowed money. That was necessary in the edgy days after September 11, but now it is time to return to a bottom line so that we can ensure that our capacity for honoring those most basic commitments can be met. This House must review a budget to meet our most important obligations while returning our finances to balance. The Congress will consider several budgets this week, from both sides of the political aisle. I have my preferences, but we stand here tonight to make a more basic point, above partisan rhetoric in a presidential year. Process matters as much as policy. We have a choice between adopting a budget and not. If we do not adopt a budget, the record of the Congress is clear that we will spend much more than otherwise. Our history shows that we spend less with a budget plan than without. Ironically, any budget plan is more fiscally responsible than no budget plan. This sets a bipartisan imperative that, in the end, the common good is served when we come together on a revenue and spending budget plan. My second point on process is even more obvious. We must not only adopt a budget, we must enforce it. Far too often, Congress has made tough decisions on a budget and then waived its restrictions in end-of- year legislation or additional supplemental appropriations bills. This week, Congress will debate a budget and will debate all sorts of specific numbers on defense and veterans and the Environmental Protection Agency and the like, but once we adopt a budget, we must make a change. We must make sure that we add tools to both the executive and legislative branches to make it easier to enforce the budget we have already passed. Here in Congress, we have subdivisions between Democrats and Republicans; and Democrats are further subdivided into liberal progressives, main line and conservative Blue Dog factions. Republicans are also divided between conservative study group Republicans and moderate Main Street Republicans. I am a member of the moderate Main Street Republican group, and the problem of balancing our budget is so important that we have not let divisions divide our rank and file. Republican moderates and conservatives joined together to talk about and put forward 12 consensus principles to reduce spending. These principles were drafted into legislation. One bill, H.R. 3925, was authored by myself, cosponsored by 17 of my colleagues. My learned colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) authored the other major piece of legislation on this with 80 cosponsors. We set forth some basic principles: that budgets should be enforceable in law; that if we are estimated to miss our targets, then we should have automatic spending reductions to reassure taxpayers and markets that what our budget said it would do it will actually do. We should not put in superfluous numbers that are ignored by the political process, but numbers that count, and those are a number for the Committee on Appropriations, a number for entitlement programs and especially that rainy day fund number. We know that this country will go through hurricanes and floods and fires. We even know some of the national security challenges we will face. We need to plan for that now so that we can control our budget. Our budgets presented to us now under the old pro-spending rules automatically include an inflation adjustment that hides spending increases. We need to show the American people exactly how much we spent last year and how much we are going to spend next year without any inflation adjustments. We need to also block spending outside the budget, with pay-as-you-go rules, to make sure that anyone proposing a program which costs more is forced to actually have a way of actually cutting another program to pay for their increase. We must make sure that we cut pork barrel spending programs by learning the lessons from the Supreme Court and from the military base closing legislation to allow the President to send up a list of rescissions that can be presented for a clean up-or-down vote in the people's House to make sure that we can knock out pork barrel spending included in large bills by powerful Members of Congress. We need to show the government's full debts and liabilities to make sure the American people know that right now we stand $31 trillion in debt and we cannot afford to add any more new programs or new spending. We must clearly show the debt owed to our public, and most importantly, for the rules of the Congress, they need to be the actual rules that cannot be waived. I am very happy to be joined here not just by my colleague from Wisconsin, but also my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who has led on this and helped us come to a broad-based conclusion on how we fund bipartisan reform to make sure that when we pass a budget we actually stick to it. First, I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, some tough choices were made. The overall budget, outside of the Department of Defense, froze Federal spending. Some will say that is a cut, but actually the same level of financing was provided that we did last year as a part of fiscal discipline.

Mr. KIRK. Is that a cut?

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to look at this budget plan coming up, and people may differ with the details of the budget, but my understanding is this budget cuts the deficit as a percentage of GNP by half. We may want a more aggressive action by the Committee on the Budget; but in a time of national security crisis with so many Americans in uniform still on the field, we have some pressing national security needs that we need to make sure that we meet our obligations to Americans in uniform. So this budget sends us in the right direction, but we only meet that right direction if we actually enforce the budget that we put in place. The series of reforms that we put in in H.R. 3925, or other pieces of legislation, reform legislation, I think are essential to make sure that we assure markets and taxpayers that we actually mean what we say, that we hit our targets that we have told everybody in the budget resolution that we are going to do, and so that people take the word of Congress very directly. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for joining me. This will be a very hot debate in Congress with regard to the specifics of the budget; but the debate is not over, and we have not completed our full mission until we have actually also passed reforms to make sure that it is much easier and not harder to enforce the budget which has actually been adopted by the Congress.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I will say that the gentleman is an absolute leader on human rights around the world, and on that we completely agree.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the gentleman from New Hampshire's (Mr. Bradley) place at this time.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today we have received tantalizing reports that Pakistani authorities may be close to arresting Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri. We do not know if this is true, but we do know that hundreds of American men and women in uniform are currently risking their lives as part of Operation Mountain Storm to arrest high-level terrorists in the critical border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This border region was the safe haven for the world's most wanted man. Osama bin Laden lived there for many years since his first visit to the region during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This January, I conducted a mission to this region to review the operations of the State Department's terrorist rewards program. This program was highly successful in helping the arrest of key international criminals important to the United States. The program led to the arrest, capture, or death of two-thirds of U.N. war criminals in Bosnia. It led to the arrest, prosecution, and execution of Mir Aimal Kasi who killed many Americans outside the CIA gate in Virginia. By the way, Mr. Kasi was arrested in the very region of Pakistan receiving so much attention today. The program also led to the arrest and death of Uday and Qusay Hussein, the two Hussein brothers, sons of Saddam Hussein. As a congressional staffer, I drafted the bill that lifted the rewards program from 5 to $25 million and allowed its use against U.N. war criminals. Based on my January mission to Afghanistan and Pakistan, we found the need for more reforms. We asked to raise the award for Osama bin Laden's arrest to $50 million and to make the payment of cash rewards more flexible so that in rural communities we could provide trucks or farm implements that could be a much more motivating factor with rural families. In the frontier autonomous tribal region that we are focusing so heavily on today, we face a population largely illiterate, very poor and speaking the Wasari tribal language. In making these reforms, we need the State Department to do media surveys and use more radio and TV, which is much more appropriate to communicating with large, illiterate communities. These ideas would all combine with one other idea: Osama bin Laden has slowly been changing his source of financing. He used to depend on Wahabi donations, his personal fortune and donations from Europe, but those sources of funding have largely dried up under a series of United Nations legal orders. Today, Osama bin Laden stands as one of the world's number one sellers of heroin. Haji Bashir Noorzai of Canada provides him with 2,000 kilograms of heroin every 8 weeks, giving bin Laden from that source alone $28 million a year. In mid-December, the United States Navy arrested three dhows in the Arabian Gulf that contained methamphetamine, hashish, and heroin worth $10 million, an attempt by bin Laden to move from the Pakistani market where he gets $2,000 per kilogram of heroin to the United Arab Emirates where he would get $10,000 per kilogram. Osama bin Laden has more money access to his fortune than ever before, and these ideas need to be incorporated into our new bill, H.R. 3782, the Counter-Terrorist and Narco-Terrorist Rewards Program Act. That act just passed the House of Representatives an hour ago by a vote of 414 to 0, a monument to bipartisan cooperation on a critical national security issue of the United States. The passage of this bill was needed, and it is needed more than ever because of the news coming from Operation Mountain Storm. We need to thank the uniformed men and women of Combined Task Force 180 and the men and women of U.S. embassies in Islamabad and Kabul and other government agencies that are today risking their lives this very hour for the arrest of some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. I also want to recognize our allies in this battle, the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Musharraf of Pakistan is riding a tiger tonight, but he has made the bold step to move against al Qaeda, regardless of the political risk. He and his Special Forces team are key, key parts of this allied victory against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, we may or may not have good news tonight, but we can already thank the hundreds of Americans in uniform and out of uniform who are so far from home today, but are doing our government's most dangerous and important work.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for this legislation. This bill comes to the House as U.S. Armed Forces today go into battle as part of Operation Mountain Storm. Operation Mountain Storm is an allied military operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan designed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. This bill provides immediate aid and assistance to those critical operations now ongoing in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan and the frontier autonomous tribal area of Pakistan. This bill comes in part from a mission I conducted to Pakistan's frontier in January. Joined by Michele Lang, Jon Scharfen, John Mackey, David Fite and Lieutenant Kevin Fernandez, we found a great need to reenergize the State Department's Rewards Program in Pakistan. The Rewards Program has a long and successful history. As a staffer, I drafted reforms which lifted the rewards from $5 million to $25 million, and made the arrest of U.N. war criminals eligible for the reward. We arrested or killed two-thirds of war criminals in the Balkans using this legislation. We also arrested Aimal Khan Kasi in Pakistan using the authorities of this bill. Kansi killed several Americans outside of the CIA gate. He was arrested, tried, and executed for those trials. Today this bill makes a crucial link between drug dealing and terrorism. We found that one Afghan is providing 2,000 kilograms a month of heroin to Osama bin Laden. At the Pakistani price, that provides bin Laden with an annual income of $38 million to fund his terror operations. This bill makes the link between funding terror and funding drug profits, and we want to make sure that we cut off Osama bin Laden's new supply of cash, which is coming not from donations, but from the sale of heroin. The bottom line, Osama bin Laden in the frontier autonomous region of Pakistan has become one of the world's number one sellers of heroin. This bill makes that link very clearly, and lifts the reward for the arrest of Osama bin Laden to $50 million. It also makes one other key reform. In many of these areas, most of the people are illiterate and could not even read a reward poster or one of the matchbook covers used to arrest Aimal Kasi. This bill allows the State Department to be more flexible in publicizing the reward effort, and it allows the State Department to use noncash rewards which in a rural community can be much more effective. Beyond a $25 million or $50 million reward, the provision of a truck or feed or farm animals can make all the difference for a rural community which seeks to provide information on the arrest of Osama bin Laden. This bill makes it much more flexible and much more capable. I urge its adoption and thank the committee for moving it so quickly to the floor as Operation Mountain Storm is ongoing.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize National Peace Corps Week which is being celebrated March 1-7 around the country. National Peace Corps Week recognizes the important role the Peace Corps has played over the last 43 years and reaffirms our country's commitment to the mission of the Peace Corps, as vital today as it was over 40 years ago. The first Peace Corps volunteers were sent to Ghana in 1961. Since then, over 170,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have served in 137 countries to promote the Peace Corps' mission of world peace and friendship. Last year, the number of individuals applying to serve in the Peace Corps rose by 10 percent. These Americans are eager to serve their nation by acting as teachers, business advisors, information technology consultants, and youth and agriculture workers. These Volunteers transfer life-changing knowledge and skills that are valued by the people of other nations. Currently, more than 7,500 Volunteers are serving in 71 countries around the world--this is the highest number of Volunteers in the field in 28 years. Today's Peace Corps is more vital than ever, stepping into new countries like East Timor, working in emerging and essential areas and committing more than 1,000 new Volunteers as a part of President Bush's HIV/AIDS Act of 2003. Peace Corps Volunteers continue to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities. National Peace Corps Week recognizes all Peace Corps Volunteers, past and present. I would specifically like to recognize the forty volunteers from my congressional district who are currently serving around the globe. These people and all Peace Corps Volunteers have my gratitude for committing two years of their life to their country and to the spread of democracy through the goals of the Peace Corps.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, after decades of intercommunal violence between Turkey and Greece, there is now hope for peace on Cyprus. On February 3, President Bush met with U.N. Secretary-General Annan to restart the peace process. Following talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders on February 13, Annan announced the resumption of negotiations, saying, ``I really believe that, after 40 years, a settlement is at last in reach.'' Since February 19, the two sides have been discussing a U.N. peace plan in Cyprus. Despite predictably difficult negotiations, the Annan blueprint is secure. If there is no agreement by the two parties by March 22, Turkey and Greece will join the negotiations to broker a deal. If there is still no agreement by March 29, Annan will ``fill in the blanks,'' and Greek and Turkish Cypriots will then vote on this plan in separate referenda in April. If all goes well, a reunited Cyprus will enter the European Union on May 1. Having long supported peace efforts in Cyprus, the United States must now extend a helping hand to the Cypriots as they confront the difficulties of implementing an agreement. In 1984, Congress authorized President Reagan's $250 million Cyprus Peace and Reconstruction Fund. The money was not provided because we did not reach a settlement. Europe is home to the last ``Berlin-style'' wall in Cyprus. Let us make this the year that it comes down forever.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, with a $500 billion deficit, it is clear that Congress must cut spending and reform our budget process. Like our predecessors in the 1980s, we must come together not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans to share equally in the cuts so that the Federal budget is brought back into balance. We all support a balanced budget. It is the right thing to do, and it is also the moral thing to do. Our Founding Fathers created the Federal Government as a limited institution whose mission was clearly defined. Some things the Federal Government was to do well. Many things were left up to the States. When the Federal budget is out of balance, it calls into question our ability to sustain core Federal functions: defense, Federal law enforcement, and the retirement security of Americans under Social Security and Medicare. I believe the Federal Government should fulfill its current promises to Americans currently in uniform and retirees before making any additional promises. Service in Congress is about making tough choices. For too long we have said, You get yours, I get mine and the kids get the bill. This must end. Recently, Republican moderates and conservatives joined together on 12 budget principles. The Moderate Tuesday Group and the Conservative Action Team agreed on a surprising list of definitive budget proposals that will bring our budget back into balance even faster than the White House has proposed. What are these principles? First, that we have automatic spending reductions if spending exceeds the amount in the congressional budget resolution. If we find that there is an uncontrolled debt above that which is set by Congress, we will have across-the-board spending cuts for all discretionary and mandatory accounts except Social Security and Medicare. Second, we have numbers in the budget that are enforceable. The current budget identifies 20 separate budget functions that are not enforced. They should be replaced with enforceable, one-page budget numbers that set four levels of spending: mandatory spending, spending on defense and homeland security, nondefense discretionary spending, and emergency spending. Next, we should budget for emergency spending. Emergency spending requests should be included in a budget rainy-day account. Our budget should also have the force of law. The current budget resolution, which is not signed into law by the President, should be reformed into a joint budget resolution that is signed into law and enforceable under our code. Next, we should have the protection of earned benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, so that the automatic cuts do not fall on our retirees who worked hard, played by the rules, and are depending on the support of this core Federal function. Next, we should show spending increases clearly. Under our current baseline budgeting, we automatically include inflation adjustments for Federal programs. This should be replaced by a straightforward comparison of last year's spending compared to proposed new spending. Our seventh principle would block spending outside the budget. We need to update the pay-as-you-go rules in the budget that would allow a point of order to lie so that any Member could prevent consideration of a proposal that did not also include offsetting cuts to pay for itself. Our eighth principle is that we would review government programs and set up another Grace Commission, which worked so effectively in the 1980s, to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. Our ninth proposal is to have an enhanced rescission power by the President so that he could identify critical programs, probably pork barrel programs, that he did not support spending on, send up a package to the Congress, which would then ensure a rapid up or down vote on the President's spending rescission proposal. Our 10th proposal is to have a clear presentation of the government's full debts and liabilities. The Federal Government must account for its full share of accrued costs of covering pensions, retired pay, and other health benefits so we make sure that we know exactly financially where we stand. Our 11th principle is that we should have a clear presentation of the debt owed to the public. An intergovernmental debt should be separated from other public debt in disclosures. And our final, 12th, principle is that we need to enforce the rules of Congress. Points of order raised against proposals intended to lift the uncontrolled deficit or to waive these restrictions should be unwaiverable as several other provisions in our rules allow. This would help us control the deficit. It would help us bring this problem together, and now it is our job to reach across the aisle to make this a bipartisan proposal.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 30 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak in the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. King) stead.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the Congress and the President are preparing for a major debate on reducing air pollution. In this debate, partisans for and against greater environmental protection are both right. And they are both wrong. The environmental community is correct in highlighting the growing danger of mercury pollution. Once considered an ``average'' pollutant, the EPA's Children Health Protection Advisory Committee warned last month that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in humans. Just one-twenty-fifth of a teaspoon of mercury can contaminate a 25- acre lake. Blood tested from Illinois pregnant women showed that they averaged 14 times the naturally occurring level of mercury in their blood. Coal-burning power plants that have not yet been required to reduce their mercury emissions are the major source of this pollution. The Federal Government already requires all municipal incinerators and other sources of air pollution to scrub their emissions to remove most mercury. Raw political power and threatened litigation have delayed such requirements for coal-fired plants. Enough of the delays. We need to clean up mercury pollution today. In eastern States, downwind from the rest of the Nation, mercury levels in the water are rising. The National Wildlife Federation recently released a study showing that the rainwater falling on suburban Chicago communities contained three times the naturally occurring level of mercury. With higher levels of mercury poisoning than other regions of the country, New England and the Great Lakes are becoming mercury ``hot spots.'' This poses a threat to the Great Lakes, a critical ecosystem that is the source of drinking water for over 20 million Americans. The scientific debate about the danger of mercury poisoning is now over. The real question is, how quickly can we reduce such pollution? When the Clean Air Act was written, there was little thought to how best to control pollution. The act imposed a rigid set of 1970s controls on each source of pollution, with many opportunities for polluters to challenge any action by the government in court. The worst example of what followed is the Federal Superfund cleanup program. Today, over half of all Superfund environmental cleanup dollars have been spent paying lawyers and not protecting the environment. There is a better method. In the 1980s, the program to reduce acid rain was based not on endless court litigation, but on a system of tradeable credits that restrict the total output of pollution in a way that is more flexible than the litigious old regulatory system. The acid rain pollution credit trading system is a great success, leading to more environmental cleanup and less courtroom cost. This system cuts acid rain pollution in a way that is faster and cheaper than the old regulatory approach. President Bush proposes using such a system based on acid rain to also reduce mercury pollution. His approach could be effective but needs two major amendments by environmentalists here in the Congress. First, the President's proposal allows more mercury pollution under a trading system than the old regulatory approach. Trading credits can be allowed but Congress must reduce the supply of tradeable credits to dramatically cut mercury pollution to levels at or below which would have been allowed under the old system. Second, a flexible system also carries a danger for areas already contaminated with mercury. If credits to emit mercury can be purchased in an already polluted area, a trading system could worsen mercury hot spots that already exist. Congress should clearly define mercury hot spots, and we should allow emissions credits to be sent outside such a zone but not to be purchased to contaminate inside. These two changes, restricting the supply of mercury emissions credits and higher environmental protection for mercury hot spot zones, could make a program modeled after the acid rain program work to reduce mercury pollution in our country. This is the kind of bipartisan approach that takes the best aspects of both sides to focus taxpayer dollars on cutting pollution rather than killing time in court. Whatever the outcome of this debate, one thing should be agreed by bipartisan majorities in the Congress: the days of unregulated pollution from coal-burning power plants should be over. Period. The science is now clear and convincing that mercury pollution from such emissions represents a clear and present danger to the mothers and children of North America.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, for nearly 50 years, the Republic of Tunisia has thrived as an independent, prosperous nation in a region often synonymous with instability. Tunisia's political, social, and economic success can be partially attributed to the continued positive leadership of His Excellency President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming President Ben Ali to the United States and to Washington, D.C. on February 17th. President Ben Ali has worked tirelessly to ensure a free society, greater democratic openness, and complete respect for human rights in Tunisia. Over the last two decades, Tunisia has shown tremendous development, reducing poverty, bolstering educational standards, and strengthening economic growth. Tunisia's flourishing economy offers great hope for African and Middle Eastern countries, while she also continues to play an increasingly important role in the politics of the international community. One of Tunisia's most valuable assets has been its continued willingness to support a Middle East peace process. Despite being surrounded by nations engulfed in political turmoil, Tunisia continues to take an active role in combating international unrest. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing President Ben Ali during his visit as a critical figure in the enhancement of positive global relations with the Middle East.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Botanic Garden is a renowned scientific research facility located in my congressional district and they have made a number of major breakthroughs at their headquarters. Following a 7-year effort, our Garden developed a new flower called the ``Orange Meadowbrite.'' It is the first orange-blooming coneflower ever produced in cultivation. The new Orange Meadowbrite will have benefits far beyond the aesthetic. The ``green sector'' of the Illinois economy employs more people than the traditional agricultural commodities sector. Horticulture employs over 150,000 people with an annual payroll exceeding $1.7 billion. With the fair market value of all assets directly associated with horticulture at over $2.9 billion, the development of this new flower will benefit many Illinois families. We want to especially congratulate Dr. Jim Ault, Director of Ornamental Plant Research at the Garden. He is the father of the Orange Meadowbrite whose scientific name is Echinacea, ``Arts Pride,'' in honor of Art Nolan, Jr., a long-time benefactor of the Garden's research program. We here in the Congress want to honor Chicagoland Grows, the Chicago Botanic Garden, and especially Dr. Ault for adding a new and beautiful flower to America's garden.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Pakistan's frontier where Osama bin Laden is likely hiding. We describe bin Laden as a terrorist. While that label applies, I think we can be more accurate. He has become a narco-terrorist. During my mission, I learned that bin Laden's source of donated funds has been reduced. In response, bin Laden has become one of Pakistan's top heroin dealers. Kandahar trafficker Haji Bashir Noorzai provides 1,000 kilograms of heroin each month to bin Laden's organization. That provides al Qaeda with $24 million a year to fund his attacks against the West. If we are to catch bin Laden and to wrap up his organization, we must attack his new source of income, heroin. This triggers a change in the policy of the international coalition fighting al Qaeda. We should make this change. We should raise the rewards for catching bin Laden and attack his heroin organization. There are at least three major drug trafficking organizations now operating in Afghanistan, all with links to Pakistan: The Taliban, the HIG and bin Laden's al Qaeda. Last week, coalition forces made their first effort and hit a major drug lab in eastern Afghanistan that captured $100 million worth of heroin that could have supported terror against the West. Next week, I will be offering legislation to increase the rewards for the capture of terrorists but to also expand the rewards program to involve the rewards program in capturing narco-terrorists, and also to loosen up that rewards program so that we can provide valuable commodities which speak much more directly to the rural families in Pakistan and Afghanistan, providing, for example, motorcycles, farm implements or trucks for the capture of these well-known terrorists. The terrorists are changing their source of financing and the United States needs to change its strategy to dry up that financing.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, if we relied solely on what is reported on the air and in print, we might believe that soldiers--particularly reservists--enjoy little or no support for their Iraqi mission here at home. I am honored to report that this is not the case by recognizing the Chicago law firm of Bell, Boyd and Lloyd for their outstanding commitment to their junior partner, Captain Todd Pentecost, commanding officer of the 933rd Military Police company of the Illinois Army National Guard serving in Iraq. . Jack McCarthy, the firm's chairman, rallied Todd's fellow workers in support of this young soldier who has a wife and year-old daughter at home in Bartlett, Illinois. In addition to continuing his salary and benefits, Bell, Boyd and Lloyd sent 29 boxes of gifts to Todd and his unit for the holidays. When Todd left for duty in Iraq last February, the firm committed to send packages from home every week. The boxes that just arrived for Todd and his unit include books, magazines, videos, DVD's, snacks and personal items. Best of all, 200 of Todd's fellow soldiers will receive a card of their own for 60 minutes of long distance calling time. Three weeks ago three boxes were shipped that included a Christmas tree, decorations, cards, pens and stationery for their personal use. I applaud the partners of Bell, Boyd and Lloyd for their efforts, not only during this season, but for their caring and compassion throughout the year. Their support of the brave citizen soldiers serving in Iraq deserves recognition. The support of our troops almost always goes unnoticed. I noticed. Many of my colleagues also noticed and we offer our sincerest thanks to Captain Pentecost, his wife, and their supporters at Bell, Boyd and Lloyd.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, let me read a quote. ``Americans are losing the victory. The troops returning home are worried. `We've lost the peace,' men tell you. Before the landings, liberation meant to be freed of tyranny. Now it stands in the minds of civilians for one thing, looting. Never has American prestige been lower. `Have you no statesmen in America?' they ask.'' This sounds like a report from Iraq. It is not. These words were written 57 years ago about the American occupation of Germany. Appearing in the January 7, 1946, edition of Life magazine, John Dos Passos wrote, ``We have swept away Hitlerism but Europeans now feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.'' Under subtitles like ``U.S. administration a poor third'' and ``the skeptical French press,'' Life magazine warned that the U.S. occupation in Europe had failed. Luckily, President Truman did not listen. He knew the failed peace after World War I doomed a second generation of Americans to fight in Europe's killing fields. Truman did not do popular things. He ordered the U.S. Army to remain in Europe, and despite George Washington's advice against alliances, he signed our first military alliance with NATO. He also launched the most expensive foreign aid program in our history, $105 billion for the Marshall Plan. He did this to avoid sending a third generation of Americans to fight in Europe, and he succeeded. We now have fought two wars in Iraq. How many more should we fight? The failed peace of Desert Storm guaranteed a second Iraqi war. We have already now sent two generations of Americans to Iraq. I think we should make sure that we do not send a third. We need to finish this job so that young Americans a decade from now do not have to refight this war. Despite the current media reports that sound just like the 1946 Life magazine report, we need to follow the example of Harry Truman. We need to do this job right so that our sons and daughters are not condemned to a third Persian Gulf War. How much would my colleagues pay to avoid a third war in Iraq? Avoiding such a war is worth our effort tonight as we pass this bill to finish the job. Let me say one note of personal privilege. No one knows more about the defense and foreign policy of our country than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I really want to highlight their leadership and personally thank them for following the maxim, ``partisanship should end at the water's edge.''

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in welcoming our distinguished guest, President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan, to the United States. Mr. Chen Shui-bian was elected president of the Republic of China on Taiwan on March 20, 2000. Since his election, he has shown true leadership in improving Taiwan's economy, instituting further democratic reform, and strengthening Taiwan's role in the international community. I am confident that President Chen will further strengthen Taiwan's strong ties with the United States. Taiwan has been a key ally in our efforts against global terrorism, and has pledged assistance to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq. I also trust that President Chen will soon begin a dialogue with the leaders of the People's Republic of China with the interests of the 23 million people of Taiwan in mind. Taiwan is a sovereign nation and must make its own decisions about its future without coercion from the People's Republic. I applaud President Chen's insistence on his people ``walking their own road, their own Taiwan road.'' President Chen is a dynamic leader with a vision for Taiwan's future, and I join my colleagues in wholeheartedly welcoming him from one democracy to another.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2003. Every American knows that the face of health care has changed dramatically over the past decades. This is no less true for military and veterans' health care. This legislation is vital because it will improve, renovate, and update patient care facilities at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. More important, this legislation demonstrates the continued support of Congress for our nation's veterans by providing the best health service facilities possible. My district is home to the North Chicago VA Medical Center. On June 19, 2001, the VA released its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) study. The CARES study developed four options to improve veterans' heath care in the Chicago area, each of which recommended the preservation of services offered at North Chicago. The CARES study also recommended increasing the level the cooperation between North Chicago VA and the Navy's Great Lakes Naval Hospital. H.R. 1720 will assist the VA in cases where the department enters into resource sharing agreements with the DoD. H.R. 1720 is critical to this mission because the legislation includes a modest adjustment of the definition of what constitutes a ``major'' construction project. This legislation will raise the threshold for ``major'' construction projects to $6 million, and thus allow cooperative sharing agreements between the VA and DoD continue moving forward with minor projects without being subjected to burdensome bureaucratic time tables. Avoiding delays and moving forward with capital improvements to VA health care facilities will save valuable resources and time, which will continue the quality of services offered our Nation's active and veteran population. In the case of the North Chicago VA Medical Center and Great Lakes Naval Hospital, integration of the two medical facilities is practical and urgent. These facilities both sit underutilized and less than a mile away from each other. Combining these two facilities, state of the art, Federal health care center will maximize the use of tax dollars, enhance the training opportunities for young naval medical corps personnel, and, most important, bring the health care we promised our service men and veteran population into the 21st century. Changing the definition of ``major'' construction may allow the VA to move forward with plans to redesign and construct operating rooms and the emergency room at North Chicago. I would like to thank the chief sponsor of this bill Representative Rob Simmons, and Chairman Chris Smith of the VA Committee for their work and dedication to America's veterans. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1720 will allow the VA to continue moving forward by providing our Nation's veterans, and in some cases our active duty personnel, with new improved health care facilities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to raise my voice in opposition to what Prime Minister Mahathir said. He is a racist, a bigot, and an anti-Semite who represents his country very poorly, a country which depends on international trade. Madam Speaker, let me read some of the names of Malaysian companies who depend on U.S. trade. It is these companies whose livelihoods are now threatened by the remarks of their own Prime Minister: Telekom Malaysia, Maxis, Celcom, Digi, Time dotCom, Jaring, Celcom Berhad, Mimos Berhad, and Proton, all of whose business in the United States is now threatened by the remarks of the Malaysian Prime Minister. If the Malaysian Prime Minister continues, he threatens Malaysian jobs in Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Seremban, Ioph and Kuching. It is something that he should think very clearly about, understanding that so many people in his country depend on trade with the United States. We have been very disappointed by this speech and very disappointed also by the reaction of one of our friends in the Middle East, Egypt, and the comments of their foreign minister, who, when he read Prime Minister Mahathir's statement, said, ``I saw nothing controversial in the statement.'' Now, we are subjecting Malaysian exporters to a withering analysis, and their dependence on the U.S. market is now in jeopardy. I would hope that the Government of Egypt would think twice before that same kind of analysis applies to their own exports. For us here, the message should go forth to the Malaysian Government: Your exports are now at risk, and jobs which depend on the U.S. market are in jeopardy. Continue down this road, and you continue down a road of unemployment for Malaysian jobs.