Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agree with the motivations of this amendment, but I absolutely have to oppose the substance of it. The reason I do so is because I think it is going to accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent of this amendment. Proponents of this amendment are, as the gentleman suggested, upset at opposition the U.S. faced at the United Nations Security Council in getting an extension of a U.S. exemption under the jurisdiction of the ICC. We were successful for some time in getting that, but now it has failed because we have faced a public relations nightmare in the United Nations and elsewhere around the world. Do we have a right to be angry and upset and outraged that we have not gotten this extension? Yes, I think we should be; and we should continue to press for an extension. Many times this Chamber has supported the American Servicemembers Protections Act, and I have been among its strongest supporters. I believe it is crucial that the U.S. negotiate Article 98 agreements with as many countries as possible to prevent the possibility that they may be tried in an international criminal court, with little or no political accountability. However, conditioning ESF assistance and cutting it off to nations that do not sign Article 98 agreements is not, in my opinion, the right response. It is a very, very heavy hand to the problem. We have conditioned foreign assistance through FMF and IMF accounts to encourage countries to sign Article 98 agreements. The result of this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to cut off all aid to some of these countries: Jordan, at $250 million; Kenya, at $25 million; Lebanon, at $32 million; Ecuador, at $13 million; Cyprus, at $13.5 million. I believe most of us believe trying to get a Cyprus agreement is very important. I think all of us believe that Jordan is extraordinarily important in our war against terrorism. But it would cut off our ESF assistance and I think it would do extraordinary damage to our relationship with Jordan. How are we going to explain to them what we are really trying to do in getting them to cooperate in the war on terrorism? At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea. Nothing would make the opponents of the U.S. in the Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly happier than if we were to do that. They do not like us using foreign assistance to support U.S. strategic interests. So if we were to cut it off, it makes them happy on two accounts: It will have denied the U.S. the exemption in the first instance, and it will have reduced our influence around the world. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. If we accept it, the U.S. will be hamstringing itself, placing a straitjacket on its diplomatic tools, when we have a lot of U.S. national security objectives that must carry the same or equal weight as securing Article 98 agreements. I urge a ``no'' vote on this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me, in conclusion, just say that the majority leader made the point that we should be protecting our servicemen, and he is absolutely correct. And he made the point that we have provisions in the law that says countries cannot get military financing or military support if they do not give us an exemption to Article 98. But he also pointed out that we have an exemption in there. We have an ability that the President can have a waive for those countries. This takes it, as the majority leader said, another step to economic support, and there is no waiver in there. This means one of our key allies, and I keep coming back to Jordan, because I think Jordan is absolutely one of our key allies in this fight against terrorism, that we would have to cut off all the economic assistance to Jordan, because, for whatever reason, they have seen it in a different way and they have chosen, at least at this point, not to give us this exemption. I do not see how that helps us in the war against terrorism. I hope we will defeat the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. Let me just say that the substance of the amendment really does not accomplish, as I think the gentlewoman knows, does not accomplish what she would hope to do, because if we read the amendment, it adds money in one spot and takes it out of the other spot. So it really has no impact at all on the amount of funding that would go to sub-Saharan Africa. The gentlewoman wants to increase the amount of money from development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. I think by and large we do very well in this bill on sub-Saharan Africa. It is a balanced bill. I think we have some very good increases there. Many of the things that the gentlewoman talks about that I fully subscribe to about the need for greater water resources, for helping farming in those areas, those are the things that we support and that are done in our legislation. But I think that this would not be the right amendment, since it simply does not do what the gentlewoman would try to accomplish. So I would hope that she would withdraw her amendment; if not, I hope that we will defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been an interesting discussion from the other side. But contrary to what the gentleman from Mississippi may have thought I would do, I do, indeed, rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, let me begin by saying I do not condone companies relocating overseas for tax purposes, but I will come back to that in a minute. This is an interesting issue we are dealing with here today. We had this in the full committee not long ago as it related to outsourcing, but here we are talking about supporting U.S. exports and jobs. With this amendment, we are talking about punishing companies that are creating jobs here in the United States. We are going to punish them because they are creating jobs here. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. The gentleman from Vermont had 20 minutes. I am not going to use but a fraction of that, so I want to get my thoughts in here and do them all together here. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why in the world are we talking about punishing companies that are creating high-paying export jobs, and giving that away to foreign competition by eliminating Export-Import Bank financing? But that is exactly what the amendment would do. It hurts workers in this country. It hurts the economy in this country. And yes, of course, it hurts the shareholders in this country. But most of all it hurts the workers, because this only goes to companies that are exporting. We are talking about companies that are creating jobs here in this country in order to export. Now, the gentleman named some companies in particular in his argument. Ingersoll-Rand I heard. I think we heard Nabors Industries, Noble Drilling Corporation, Weatherford International. But this amendment would prohibit any Ex-Im Bank loan or guarantee to any U.S. company, any U.S. company that is registered offshore. Now, I do not have any percentage of how much U.S. Export-Import Bank loans would be affected by this amendment, but characterizing Ex-Im loans as corporate welfare and a giveaway from U.S. taxpayers is certainly not correct. I am not sure why the sponsors of this amendment do not recognize that exports means U.S. jobs. It is the exact opposite of outsourcing. The fiscal year 2005 funding for the Ex-Im Bank would support U.S. exports valued at $12 billion. For every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Ex-Im's program, there have been historical returns, and this is not just this year, there have been historical returns of $15 in credit support for export transactions. Since Ex-Im Bank supports 85 percent of most transactions, this means that the actual export value is about 15 percent higher, raising the ratio to about $18 in total value of exports supported by every $1 we put into the Ex-Im program. I do not think this is corporate welfare. The bank has an exceptional, I would say exceptional, repayment record, with losses running at 1.4 percent of disbursements over the 70-year history of the Ex-Im Bank. And while the Ex-Im Bank has done more and more each year for small businesses, even large companies cannot get private bank financing to go to some parts of the world or to compete with aggressive foreign financing. While businesses may be able to exist without making that extra sale, Ex-Im Bank is here for that very reason, to keep U.S. exports strong, to hopefully grow them, and to help sustain U.S. jobs through exports. Eighty-six percent of the transactions of the Ex-Im Bank directly benefit small businesses, and that is because many small businesses benefit from the larger transactions of the bank. Let me give a statistic that alone ought to cause Members to give pause about this amendment. Ex-Im Bank's top 13 users have over 35,000 suppliers in this country, most of which are small businesses. The reality is that small businesses benefit directly and indirectly from Ex-Im Bank-financed transactions. By law, Ex-Im Bank finances only goods and services made here in the United States. Under this bill, if a U.S. company is cut off from using Ex-Im, the company would be confronted with either losing the export sale or being forced to use foreign financing and sourcing. In either case, the impact would be to reduce U.S. exports and jeopardize the jobs that are associated with those sales. Shutting off Ex-Im would remove one of the few government programs to help U.S. exporters and to keep export-related jobs here in the United States. One more statistic. I have been able to find information on two of the companies that were mentioned. Ingersoll-Rand has 28,000 employees here in the United States, not overseas. These are employees here in the U.S. Nabors Industries has 14,000 employees here in the United States. This amendment cuts off financing that helps to keep those jobs secure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which I know is not an organization that perhaps my colleague on the other side would put too much stock in, but I think they made a very important point in the letter that they wrote about this a couple of days ago to the Speaker. They made this statement, and I quote: Measures such as Representative Sanders' amendment are poor substitutes for needed reforms of the U.S. Tax Code's archaic international provisions which currently put our corporations at a competitive disadvantage internationally and provide great incentive for them to leave this country. That brings me back to my final point that I said at the beginning. The real issue here is the archaic Tax Code that the United States has. We are not even talking about 20th century. We are talking about 19th century. We have a Tax Code that is so archaic, we are virtually the only country in the world that taxes all income whether or not it has anything to do with being produced here in the United States. So, of course, it encourages companies to go offshore, to locate offshore their corporate headquarters. They are still paying the taxes on everything they make here in the United States, Ingersoll-Rand, Nabors, all of those pay the taxes on all the income that is made here in the United States, but they do not want to pay the taxes on a subsidiary they may have in South Africa or a subsidiary they may have in Japan or elsewhere, and so they locate their corporate headquarters offshore. It is because of the archaic Tax Code that the United States continues to have. That is what we really need to be doing. That is what we really need to be reforming, is the Tax Code. We are in the 21st century, not the 19th century. That would make us more competitive in the world. Why do we have DaimlerChrysler and not ChryslerDaimler? We have DaimlerChrysler because of the Tax Codes of the United States. In order to avoid paying taxes on production done in Germany, it was necessary for them to become DaimlerChrysler, not ChryslerDaimler. Otherwise, they would have been paying taxes on everything they produced, every car they produced in Germany. That is why this is so important that we continue to have Ex-Im Bank. It is a crutch, if you will, but it is something that we can do to help U.S. corporations export, and it helps American workers keep their jobs. Ex-Im Bank only goes to corporations for doing business producing here in the United States. I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to oppose this amendment. It hurts U.S. workers. It jeopardizes U.S. jobs. Now is not the time to further cut, to eliminate one of the few tools the U.S. Government has to support exports and export-related manufacturing jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on 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, and I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for talking about this issue. As the gentlewoman knows, both the gentlewoman from New York and I feel very strongly about the Child Survival and Health Account and the good work that is done by this account in helping save children's lives and families and the poor people around the world. The vaccination programs, the health programs, the clinics, the education programs that are run through this are extraordinarily important. I quite agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Everything we can do to increase the amount in this account is certainly something that we intend to do. I appreciate her bringing it to our attention. We will do everything that we can to try to increase this account.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his dedication to environmental issues and raising the funding for the Global Environmental Facility today. As my colleague knows, the bill before the House today is bipartisan, as the gentlewoman has indicated, and of course that means that we do not get everything we want here. Given the priorities of the President, the priorities of both sides of the House, we did cut funding for the Global Environmental Facility by $13 million from the President's request. But we did fund the entire regularly scheduled contribution of $107.5 million to the GEF so that we do not go further into arrears. Just so my colleague understands that the GEF was not the one that was targeted specifically. The International Development Association, or IDA, which we just discussed in the last amendment, the concessional arm of the World Bank was cut $211 million from the administration's request. So I appreciate my colleague raising the issue, and I appreciate his withdrawing the amendment and the bipartisan spirit within which the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked during the course of the year, and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, briefly.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do so for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), another distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to present to the House today the funding recommendations of the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs. The bill provides important funding for programs designed to support the global war on terrorism, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and to support the national interests of the United States. In the wake of September 11, 2001, such funding for our critical friends and allies is more important than ever. The committee recommends a total of $19,385,645,000 in new discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005. This represents a reduction of $1.932 billion from the President's budget request. On the other hand, the bill before us is $1.905 billion above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level when we exclude the supplemental appropriations. If supplemental appropriations are included, the recommendation represents a decrease of $19.287 billion over the 2004 level. Having gotten those numbers out of the way, let me just say it is important that we know that this bill was developed in a bipartisan way, and I want to pay special tribute and give credit to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking minority member, for the fine work that she has done on this bill and for engaging in a process that resulted in basic agreement on the components of this package, even if funding compromises happen to be found on both sides. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the way the House of Representatives ought to work, and I think the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked in a bipartisan fashion. In preparing this legislation, we have three overriding priorities: first, supporting our allies on the war on terrorism; second, responding to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; and, third, supporting innovative approaches to foreign assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Let me summarize how this recommendation responds to those challenges. First, the President's budget request included important military assistance and counternarcotics increases for our allies in the global war on terrorism. That includes an increase of $350 million to equip the new Afghan National Army; an increase of $90 million for law enforcement and counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan; a new base program of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan as they assist us in hunting terrorists along the Afghan border; an increase of $46 million for a total of $66 million for Poland, a major ally in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and an increase of $73 million, for a total of $2.22 billion for the State of Israel, which is our closest ally in the Middle East. The committee recommendation includes full funding for these increases both through new budget authority and, in the case of Pakistan, use of $150 million of transfer authority. The second priority in the President's budget request is one that we also met with an increase of $593 million to combat HIV/AIDS and related diseases, for a total of $2.2 billion. The committee recommendation fully meets that funding level. It includes a grant of $400 million for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, subject to conditions that improve the fund's accountability and efficiency. Together with the money that we expect that the House Labor Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee will include, that will mean over $2.8 billion will be available for HIV/AIDS programs around the world in fiscal year 2005. The Global AIDS Initiative is making treatment and care available to a record number of people affected by the disease. In 2003, only 50,000 people in the developing world had access to the drugs that dramatically reduced the impact of AIDS and extend life for years. By next summer, 200,000 people will have access to these drugs; and over the next several years, millions of infected people will be treated through the use of the Nevirapine for pregnant women. The third priority, of course, in the President's budget was a request for a $1.5 billion increase for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for a total of $2.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, given our allocation, we could not recommend full funding for this initiative, important though it is and though I am very personally committed to it. However, to demonstrate our commitment to this important foreign assistance reform effort and to respond positively to the President's proposal, the recommendation does include $1.250 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. That is an increase of $256 million over last year. As chairman, I have made the MCC a priority in this bill. I believe in the President's vision of a new form of development assistance where a country's commitment to fighting corruption, its commitment to reform, and its commitment to investing in its people is complemented by an assistance package from the United States, negotiated by the country in the form of a signed compact. We included the authorization that created the MCC in last year's appropriation bill, and the President can continue to count on me as a strong supporter. In preparing this bill, we were also faced with decreases in some areas of the budget, including some key non-HIV/AIDS health programs, and in the development assistance account. We have restored those reductions and, in the case of development assistance, added funds for basic education. I believe our development assistance program is a key component of our national security strategy, and it is critical to a positive U.S. image in foreign countries. Including funding for HIV/AIDS, this bill makes available $3.079 billion for health programs overall, and that is an increase of $600 million over last year's House-passed bill. Of this total, over $332 million will be made available to fight TB and malaria. These funds help to continue the global fight against malaria, which kills one person every 30 seconds, most of them African children. USAID implements a comprehensive approach against this disease supporting the purchase and distribution of malaria medicines, a search for a vaccine, and strong prevention efforts. Basic education has become a signature issue for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey); so I will let her describe the details of our recommendation in that regard. Suffice it to say that I fully support her efforts to provide more educational opportunities to the impoverished youth of the world, especially women and children. This bill recommends $400 million for basic education activities. That is an increase from $326 million in fiscal year 2004. Report language accompanying the bill requires the Secretary of State to articulate an interagency strategy on the use of those funds so that we have a coherent, coordinated effort that can produce meaningful results in reducing illiteracy. The bill also supports USAID's work to support microenterprise lending. Report language accompanying the bill references the fiscal year 2004 authorization ceiling of $200 million as the program level the committee expects in fiscal year 2005. It is also important that USAID continue to use the traditional providers of microenterprise lending and not rely excessively on contractors for implementing this program. We continue an emphasis in our bill on helping developing countries build their capacity to participate in the international trading system. We have $517 million in the bill for trade capacity building, and that is the same amount as the House passed version last year. Fiscal year 2005 is the final year of the President's Water for the Poor Initiative, announced in August, 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. In all likelihood, we will exceed the 3-year goal of spending $970 million on water projects. Report language urges the President to direct $50 million to water programs in Africa with $9 million targeted to programs in East Africa. The committee continues its strong support for women's programs, provides that not less than $15 million in development assistance shall be made available to improve women's leadership capacity in recipient countries. This is an increase from the $11 million that we provided last year. In addition, from our Afghanistan assistance program, we set a goal of $60 million in fiscal year 2005 for programs for women and girls. The committee recommendation also responds to emerging needs, such as the provision of an additional $50 million for assistance for Haiti. Following up on my amendment to the Defense appropriation bill that included $95 million in supplemental assistance for the victims of the violence in the Darfur region of Sudan, we recommend $311 million in this bill for humanitarian assistance for Sudan and for the refugees affected by that conflict. Although there are no funds for Iraq in this bill, we continue our oversight responsibilities by mandating the continuation of an independent inspector general to audit the Iraq Reconstruction program. Without new authority, the inspector general will go out of business on December 28 of this year, 6 months after the Coalition Provisional Authority was disbanded. Section 573 of the bill provides for continued operations of the CPA Inspector General's Office operating under the supervision of the Secretary of State and providing that the $75 million previously appropriated for the IG is to be made available only to the IG for his continued audit and investigative work in Iraq. We also provide the administration the authority they need to reduce Iraq's debt to our government so that the United States can negotiate an international debt reduction for Iraq. The sooner Iraq has financial stability, the sooner the government of Iraq can fund its own security and reconstruction needs. No new funds are provided for this purpose. Any funding for debt relief will come from previously appropriated funds. The bill fully funds the President's request for export finance agencies to promote U.S. investment overseas and create jobs in United States export sectors. The bill provides $317 million for those agencies, which include the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency. About $311 million of that $317 million is offset by collections. Mr. Chairman, the United States leads the international fight against coca and poppy cultivation overseas. The narcotics industry has become a source of funding for terrorists, as well as, of course, a source of drugs worldwide. As part of the war on terror, the committee fully funds the President's request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at a level of $731 million for antinarcotics, interdiction, for development programs, and rule-of-law and institution-building programs in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. Under the general anti-narcotics account, the bill fully funds anti- narcotics and law enforcement programs in Afghanistan at a level of $90 million, in Mexico at $40 million, and supports an existing program in Pakistan at $32 million. To support continuing United States leadership in the world for humanitarian responses to refugee crises, we include $776 million for refugee programs, and that is $26 million more than the President requested. We have $19 million, $1.5 million more than the request, for the Department of Treasury, to provide technical advisors to developing countries throughout the world. The committee includes full funding of $20 million for the President's request for debt relief for countries who qualify under the Tropical Forestry Conservation Act and $75 million for multilateral debt relief for the poorest nations that receive assistance from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or the HIPC, trust fund. The committee supports contributions to the Multilateral Development Bank and includes $1.3 billion for such contributions. While the committee was not able to fund the World Bank incentive fund or all the arrears requested by the budget because of the budgetary restraints I mentioned earlier, we have provided full funding of the regularly scheduled contributions to these banks. Finally, the committee has provided $323 million for voluntary contributions to international organizations and programs, a level $19 million more than the request. It includes $125 million to the United Nations Childrens Fund, or UNICEF, an increase of $5 million for this important organization. We also have $107 million for the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP, and $7 million for the Fund for Victims of Torture. A total of $25 million is available through the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, under the same ``Kemp-Kasten'' restrictions as exist in current law. We have had to reduce this bill by $1.9 billion from the President's request, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, we did not or could not provide funding for a number of new and expanded initiatives requested by the President or brought to the committee's attention by committee members, other Members of Congress and outside groups. The major reductions to the President's budget include, as I have already mentioned, a cut of $1.25 billion to the request for the Millennium Challenge Corporation; a reduction of $224 million for the World Bank Group, including the International Development Association; and a cut of $95 million in debt relief. There are other reductions to the President's request, but we tried to retain the base funding for most of the programs. I believe this balanced bill provides important support for our most critical national security needs, while substantially increasing funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It enhances our support for overseas development assistance and humanitarian assistance. It meets the high priorities of the President in these areas and accommodates congressional concerns as well. As I have said, this bill was developed in a very bipartisan manner and should have broad support in the House. I urge a yes vote on this bill. Before I yield the floor, I want to call the attention of the House to two matters that were inadvertently left out of the committee report. One matter involves the Surgical Implant Generation Network, based in Richland, Washington, which is the only organization in the world that provides, free of charge, an ongoing supply of training and orthopedic materials to surgeons in developing countries who repair fractures of the very poor. The second matter involves the Vishnevskaya Rostropovich Foundation, a charitable organization based in Washington, D.C., that conducts a mass children's vaccination initiative in the Russian Federation. I would urge the United States Agency for International Development to give strong consideration to funding proposals for these funding organizations. Mr. Chairman, I include the following charts for the Record. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.007 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), who has also been a great member of this committee. I have had the opportunity to travel with him on a number of occasions and he has contributed greatly to the drafting of this bill.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), one of the very distinguished members of the subcommittee who has made some very significant contributions to this bill and has been one of our most valuable members through the years.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4818 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I think this is a good rule, it is an open rule, it is a fair rule. I think it is one in which we can carry on a good, healthy debate about foreign policy and our foreign assistance programs, and I hope this body will support it and we can do it quickly and hopefully get on to consideration of the bill very soon.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Let me begin by saying to the gentleman from Illinois that I want to congratulate him and thank him for his leadership in the area of trade. Through the years, there has been no one in this House that has been a more stalwart proponent of opening markets abroad and in the U.S. to trade, and I think that his leadership has done a great deal to improve the lives of Americans. So I congratulate him on bringing this agreement to the floor. I do rise in strong support of this agreement with Australia. I think it is worth noting that this is the first free trade agreement we have had with an industrialized nation in 17 years. It is an important trade agreement. It is one that demonstrates how U.S. leadership in international economic policy is continuing to expand free trade on a worldwide basis. The amount of trade between the United States and Australia is substantial--$29 billion--which makes it the ninth largest trading partner of the United States: $19 billion of that amount reflects trade in agricultural and industrial production, and $9 billion, the fastest growing part, is the trade in services. Our exports to Australia include transportation equipment, notably aircraft and engine parts, telecommunications equipment, measuring instruments, internal combustion engines, and computers and all the components that go into those computers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. It is an agreement that is critically important for consumers here, for our families, and for workers here in the United States. Free trade with Australia helps to keep inflation rates low. It provides opportunities for a better quality of life for the U.S. worker and families through lower prices of imported goods. We are pursuing this agreement in our national economic interests. But, without doubt, it also serves our national security and our foreign policy interests as well. Let us make no mistake about it, and the gentlewoman from Ohio alluded to this: Australia has been a friend; it has been an ally in this war against terrorism. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, this ally has provided some 1,550 soldiers and military equipment to support the U.S.-led coalition to combat terrorism. Australia has contributed generously to the coalition effort to disarm Iraq by sending to Iraq fighter jets, transport aircraft and ships, reconnaissance forces, and dive team members. So I want to commend Ambassador Zoellick and the team at USTR and the administration for successfully negotiating what I think is an important free trade agreement. It is not perfect. Members like myself would have wished to have increased market access for Australian exports of sugar. But, nonetheless, this is a good agreement and a significant accomplishment, and I urge my fellow Members to vote ``yes'' on this agreement.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have been listening with interest to what I think is a very spirited and good debate that we have had, but I do rise in opposition to H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003. At this point, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, for the passion which he comes to the floor with and in which he expresses his views here. I know he holds these views very dearly and with great sincerity, and I do understand and respect the motivation for supporting human rights in Vietnam and other countries around the world. It is critically important we serve as a champion of human rights, just as we are in the case of Sudan, where tomorrow evening I and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) will go in an effort to try to take a look and to bring the attention of the world to the human rights violations which are taking place there today. However, I would point out that, even as we act as a champion of human rights around the world, that does not provide us carte blanche to undertake bad policy. In 1995, we embarked on a new path with Vietnam. Many opposed that at the time. I supported it. I thought it was the right thing to do. We chose to take a direction towards better political, economic, and consular relations. In making that decision, we recognized the need to encourage the development of Vietnam as a prosperous country and to encourage Vietnam to move on a path towards greater protection of human rights. We understood how important it was to integrate our former adversary into Asia's economic progress and ultimately into the global community. Since we have started down that path, I think we have reaped important benefits. It secured Vietnam's cooperation on achieving the fullest possible accounting of the POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War era. It has helped to contribute to regional stability in Southeast Asia, and it has helped to open a new market for U.S. workers to the world's 13th most populous country. Certainly the United States-Vietnam foreign policy relationship is one that still has many rocky moments to it. It is one that is still maturing. In some areas, we are certainly disappointed with the progress or lack of progress that the Vietnam government has made. I share the concerns about the human rights record, but I think this bill may actually retard our efforts in this regard, rather than accelerate them or help them. While the House has passed this bill, or legislation similar to it, it has not passed the other body before; and just because it has passed the House before does not mean it is the right thing to do here today. The relationship has changed. It has changed in a way where passage and enactment of this bill could be harmful to the relationship of our two countries. The bill's unprecedented definition of nonhumanitarian assistance is problematic in many ways, in ways that I am cognizant of as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. For example, it would purport to reach some aspects of assistance provided under the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief. Vietnam, as I think my colleagues know, was recently designated as the 15th focus country under the President's plan, the only one outside of the Caribbean and of Africa. Generally, I think this human rights act is a blunt instrument. I believe it will risk inhibiting progress in bilateral trade and affect cooperation on issues of importance to the United States, issues that are vitally important to us right now, counterterrorism, the POW-MIA accounting, which is ongoing, and HIV/AIDS; and I do not mean just the actual process of providing drugs but the technical assistance that could be affected by this. Also counternarcotics, which is vitally important for us, and refugee processing and resettlement. I know there is a waiver authority in this bill, but to use that as an argument is simply to say that the bill has no meaning, so I do not think the sponsors really intend that to be the case. In short, I think the imposition of unilateral sanctions is not going to lead to an improved human rights record and might actually harm the United States' efforts in our fight against HIV/AIDS, which is accelerating very rapidly in Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I certainly thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this matter to the attention of the body with this motion to instruct. Both the House and the Senate bills have the same amount of $95 million, an additional amount beyond what is contained in the foreign operations bill for the humanitarian relief and the implementation of the peace settlement in Sudan. So the motion to instruct here today is simply a way for us to call attention to an enormous problem, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois for doing that. There is no question that we have a great emergency that has been emerging over time over the last several months in Darfur. I think many of us had hoped that the kind of genocide that took place in Rwanda a few years ago, 10 years ago, was behind us and that we would not see that happen again, but here we are a decade later, and once again with impunity a government has allowed this kind of terrible tragedy to ensue and this kind of genocide to take place in western Sudan. The world needs to understand this, the world needs to know about what is going on, and the world needs to speak out. Those of us who have that responsibility as lawmakers, as policymakers in the Congress, in the Executive Branch, in world bodies such as the United Nations, in capitals around the world, need to be speaking out about this issue, and this is an opportunity for us to do that. As the gentleman from Illinois suggested, later this week we will be going to Sudan, to the Darfur region, in order to try to see firsthand the relief efforts that are taking place there. We will also see the efforts to try to stop the ongoing attacks against the people in Darfur by the renegade groups that continue to cause the great death and destruction of property, the loss of lives, the loss of communities, the increase in the misplaced people, and displaced people around the region. All of this can only stop if we provide the kind of assistance that is needed in that region and if the world calls on the Sudan government to provide protection for the people living in that region so that these kind of unwarranted attacks do not take place. There has been just an enormous amount of brutality that has taken place over there, rapes, murders, killing, people that have lost their homes, lost their livelihoods, people that are starving to death. We in this world, in this Congress, need to take note of that; and we need to call an end to that. So I am really pleased that the chairman of this committee has accepted the amendment which has the $95 million, which will be the first money that will be made available because this legislation is likely to be the first enacted into law.

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