Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and also an individual who has spent a great deal of time in Central America and Latin America studying this issue.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment that would cut off assistance for U.S. programs in Mexico, and let us make it clear that Mexico is the country we are talking about today, no other. The amendment is based on the wrong assumption that U.S. foreign assistance to Mexico is only in Mexico's national interests. I am here to say that the funding in this amendment prohibits the United States' national interest, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''. President Bush and his Office of National Drug Control Policy are fully supportive of the assistance we provide in this bill for the country of Mexico. The bulk of that assistance takes the form of international narcotics and law enforcement, roughly around $40 million. There is another $11 million in ESF funds that support democracy and the rule-of-law programs. Around $22 million supports child survival and development programs. All of these resources are central to the U.S. national interest. This amendment could directly cut off $40 million in resources that are essential for our counternarcotics assistance, law enforcement assistance, and border securities. We do not, in other words, with this amendment, gain any kind of leverage over the country of Mexico. I highlight the fact that this assistance is more for us than Mexico because the objective of this assistance is to increase U.S. national and border security, something I am acutely aware of, living along the border. Cutting off these funds would be very shortsighted and would serve to hurt U.S. interests, not the interests of Mexico. For decades, the U.S.-Mexico relationship was one of acrimony, distrust, and a lack of good working relationship to meet the challenges of the enormous border relationship between our two countries. Only with the passage of NAFTA, 10 years ago, were we able to write a new chapter in U.S.-Mexico relations. We started down a path of deeper cooperation in order to spur development in Mexico, secure our shared borders, and fight the flow of illegal drugs across our territories. Passage of this amendment could have a devastating impact on that effort to stop the flow of drugs. I would point out that Mexico has offered tremendous cooperation in improving border security and counterterrorism efforts. Let me cite just a couple of things. During the threat to aviation security at the end of 2003, Mexico worked closely with the U.S. Government canceling some flights, Air Mexico flights to Los Angeles and stepping up passenger screening. They stopped those flights in direct response to our request. At the commencement of the war in Iraq, the Government of Mexico implemented a plan and its military assumed a higher state of alert for potential targets of international terrorism, including key infrastructure sites and centers of tourism. Third, multilaterally, Mexico is party to all 12 United States conventions and protocols against terrorism and has hosted several conferences on security. I believe this amendment would undermine the spirit of cooperation and the degree of cooperation that we have achieved, and I do not think this amendment reflects the priorities of the national interest of the United States. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think this is the wrong time to send the signal to the world that the United States Congress does not fully support President Bush in his fight against terrorism and narcotics in this hemisphere. I believe that the current mix of the ``hard side'' versus the ``soft side'' of programs in Colombia has been vital to our success. The aerial spraying eradication program enjoys strong public support in Colombia. Part of the support is due to the fact that we are offering alternatives to farmers who used to cultivate coca and poppy. Illicit cultivation is not now their only option. The soft-side programs promoting alternatives is even more effective in Colombia due to the realization if they do not stop cultivation and take advantage of legal opportunities, their coca or poppy will be sprayed and they will not have anything available to them. The carrot- and-stick incentive structure has proven to be very effective in Colombia. I think we have gotten the mix right. The political will of the Uribe government is part of the reason for our success. However, Colombia has provided more than just political will. In the last 3 years, it has doubled its portion of the GDP that is devoted to public security and democracy. The narco-terrorists they face are smart, well financed, and ruthless. Therefore, both the government of Colombia and the United States must keep up the pressure to end narco-terrorism in Colombia. Our government has been a strong supporter of Colombia, and President Bush has confirmed to President Uribe our firm commitment to support Colombia in its efforts to combat narco-terrorism. Secretary Rice has also confirmed this commitment during a recent visit to Colombia. We need to consolidate the many successes of Plan Colombia. There has been almost a 33 percent reduction in coca cultivation in Colombia since 2001 and a 72 percent drop in poppy cultivation. We need to ensure that this trend continues. Our goals in Colombia are to eliminate narco-terrorism, promote respect for human rights, create economic alternatives and opportunities, respect for the rule of law, and achieving peace. Democracy is flourishing in this important ally and terrorism is being defeated. We cannot afford to lose the momentum. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do rise to say that I think that the issue that has been raised by the gentleman from California is a very important one, and we do accept this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. The report language does not specifically raise the topic raised by the gentleman from Washington. I am certainly glad that he has taken this moment on the floor because of his interest in this issue, and I agree with him about the importance of our counternarcotics and law enforcement assistance in Mexico. He correctly points out that the bill includes $40 million in international narcotics and law enforcement assistance for the country of Mexico. Part of this represents a restoration of funding to last year's level. The President had only requested $30 million for this purpose in this year's bill. So I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Washington as we move forward with this bill with the Senate and in conference. We can work together to make sure that the issue of methamphetamine trafficking as it relates to Mexico is forthrightly addressed in the administration's request or in the final budget account. In representing a district right along the border, I understand fully the importance of this issue.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I share my colleague's abhorrence regarding the rule in Zimbabwe, and he has outlined it, I think, extraordinarily well. Through his mismanagement and outright oppression, he has driven Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of southern Africa, into the greatest source of instability in the region. I want to make it clear that no funding, no funding from this bill will be used to support Mr. Mugabe's government. The bill does include $15 million to help the people of Zimbabwe. I feel strongly that this assistance is critical and must be sustained. Over $11 million of this is for HIV/AIDS and other health programs. Most of the rest is used to help strengthen citizen groups and other organizations, so one day the people may have an effective voice against Mr. Mugabe and his cronies. Democratic change must be driven by the people. As we have seen in Georgia and Ukraine, our democracy programs can be effective in supporting that process. And, the people of Zimbabwe must not feel that the international community has given up on them. While I feel strongly that our assistance to the Zimbabwean people must be sustained, I will be happy to work with the gentleman to find ways to increase pressure on President Mugabe.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her kind remarks about my support for HIV/AIDS funding. It is a commitment that I share with the gentlewoman from California. I believe very strongly in the importance of this. In fact, when I became chairman of this subcommittee, I said there were three primary things that I wanted to do, and this was one of them. I think the gentlewoman is forgetting something, and that is there is funding in another appropriation bill for international AIDS, largely in CDC and NIH, in the Labor-HHS bill. When you add those amounts in, this year, we are at $3.2 billion total funding for HIV/AIDS and international programs, so we are above. If you take the $15 billion over 5 years that the President talked about, $3 billion would be a level funding. We started off below that. This year in the third year we are above it. We are not only on target to meet the $15 billion; we will be above that by the end of the fifth year. So we are moving clearly in that direction. And I believe that we are showing our commitment. We are $131 million this year above the amount requested by the President. We are $502 million above the amount that was appropriated in 2005. That is just in our particular appropriation bill. So I do share the gentlewoman's concerns about this, and I believe, however, that we are moving very strongly in that direction. And perhaps the gentlewoman from New York would like to add something.

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

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. My purpose in going through those numbers was simply to illustrate that we are meeting this commitment, not as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) suggested, not that it is enough. There is not enough. We are not doing enough. But I think we are meeting the commitment we did make. This is a pandemic of absolutely unprecedented proportions, and we need to be doing a lot more in Africa, in the Caribbean, in Southeast Asia, now in countries like China and in Russia where it is growing with great rapidity. So there is a lot more that needs to be done. I thank the gentlewoman for highlighting that and providing the clarion call today for this country and for the AIDS community around the world to respond to this need in this pandemic.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) that I am prepared to accept this amendment. I have concerns about a large cut in Ex-Im Bank expenses, but I certainly agree that the need in Mexico is very great to fight methamphetamines, and I certainly am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Our assistance to Egypt has been longstanding and Egypt remains an important ally in the Middle East. I would be among the first in this body to admit my concerns about Egypt's actions or sometimes their lack of actions when it comes to building programs of democracy in that country. And we have had a lot of discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee levels regarding ways to address these concerns. I accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to fence $100 million of our economic assistance to Egypt and to put an earmark around those or to fence it so they could be used specifically for democracy and education programs. That is the first time that we have ever done that in this earmark for Egypt. I think that sends a very strong message to Egypt. So this amendment, however well-intentioned, is not going to be constructive. The relationship that we have with Egypt goes back 2 decades. We should not forget that prior to the Camp David agreement Egypt and Israel engaged in several wars and Egypt was an ally of the Soviet Union. That changed when President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin negotiated a peace agreement in 1978 with the help of the United States. As part of that agreement and in an effort to bring stability and security to the region, the United States agreed to provide major economic and military assistance packages for both Israel and Egypt. Six years ago, the Committee on Appropriations under the leadership of my predecessor, former Congressman Sonny Callahan, initiated a policy to begin a phase-down of economic assistance for both Israel and Egypt. This resulted in a decision to phase out Israel's economic assistance by $120 million per year over 10 years, while increasing military assistance by $60 million. Egypt's economic assistance declines $40 million per year with no increase in military assistance. The agreement reached 6 years ago modifying the Camp David funding formula was agreed to by the parties involved, including the administration. An amendment that would help to impose a new funding regime, a new funding formula on this money, this carefully balanced money that goes to the partners in the Camp David accords, not as a result of any discussion or negotiations with them, but by unilateral action by this body, would undo the delicate balance of economic and military assistance and would be diplomatically disastrous for the United States. It would not be wise for Congress to disrupt any cooperation that exists between Israel and Egypt by cutting the military assistance to Egypt; and I can assure my colleagues, this is certainly not supported, though I do not speak for them, I feel quite certain in saying this is not supported by the Government of Israel.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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. 3057, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3057 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 341, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; the amendment printed in the Record and numbered 4; the amendment printed in the Record and numbered 6, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding Export-Import Bank loans for nuclear power plants in China, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; an amendment by Ms. Lee regarding excess property transfers to Haiti, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Ms. Lee regarding the U.S. fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; an amendment by Mr. Schiff regarding funding for the Human Rights and Democracy Fund; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative; an amendment by Mr. Beauprez regarding assistance to countries that refuse to extradite certain individuals; an amendment by Mr. Deal of Georgia regarding assistance to countries that refuse to extradite certain individuals; an amendment by Mr. Bonilla regarding an Inspector General at the Export-Import Bank; an amendment by Mr. Weiner or Mr. Ferguson regarding limiting funds for Saudi Arabia; an amendment by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire regarding limiting funds for Romania; an amendment by Mr. Otter regarding assistance to the Palestinian Authority; an amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding funding for pediatric HIV/AIDS centers; an amendment by Mr. Simpson regarding Export-Import Bank loans to China; an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding Federal employee participation in overseas conferences; an amendment by Ms. Waters regarding sense of Congress on Haiti elections; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding employment of minors in the military of other countries; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for Sudanese refugees in Chad; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for water security improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for children in developing nations; an amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California regarding IMET funding for Vietnam; an amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut; an amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding renewable energy; an amendment by Mr. Capuano regarding Darfur; and an amendment by Mr. Kolbe regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.