Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I understand the Parliamentarian has made a decision that this would be in order, and, therefore, I would withdraw my reservation. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure what the gentlewoman is attempting to accomplish here, what the purpose of offering this amendment is. The only funds that would be affected by this, the only funds that we have in the bill that affect refugees is that we provide for the UNHCR, that is, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. I think it is quite apparent that when it comes to Darfur and the Sudan, the UNHCR would not support any kind of program of resettlement of refugees that had been, not displaced, but they are refugees that go from one place to another. Refugees that fled from Sudan into Chad, they would not support any program of resettling them back in Sudan if there were not a comprehensive peace settlement that would allow them to be resettled. The effect of the gentlewoman's amendment would be to stop assistance for such an important program if there was to be a peace settlement that was to be achieved and everybody in Darfur and Sudan were to agree on it. I cannot believe that is what the gentlewoman really intends, because what she would be doing is taking a terrible human tragedy and simply compounding it and making it a much worse human tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentlewoman would reconsider this amendment, because I do not believe that its intent is what she intends to do. Let me just make it clear, it would limit all money going to UNHCR for resettlement if there were a peace agreement in Darfur. If there were a peace agreement, we would want nothing more than to be able to return those refugees from Chad back to Darfur. I cannot believe that is what the gentlewoman intended. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am completed with my remarks and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time, if the gentlewoman is prepared to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I understand then what the gentlewoman from Texas is suggesting. Certainly, none of us would want to require forced repatriation of people from Chad back to Sudan. That is certainly not what any of us would want. But this amendment, as it is drafted, would be overly broad and would simply not allow us to do any kind of program that would help to resettle refugees that have fled from Darfur to return them to their homes, and I know that is not what the gentlewoman desires. So, therefore, I agree with the point she is making, and we are certainly willing to work with her when we get to conference and the statement of manager's intentions in conference to work on language that will make it clear that we would oppose any kind of forcible repatriation of refugees from one country to the other. If that is acceptable, I would hope the gentlewoman would then withdraw this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from New York would continue to yield to me, the House report for the House bill is completed, but in conference, yes, we could work on language in conference.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today already cuts the President's request, and the gentleman from Colorado has mentioned this; it cuts the President's request by $2.6 billion. That is 11 percent, and that is the largest cut in terms of any of the appropriation bills that we have had on the floor or will have on the floor this year. We have cut all of the fat I think, and then some, from this bill. I am sure everybody can find something that they do not like, but there are a lot of programs that I think are very valuable that did not get funded in this because of the 11 percent cut over the President's request that we had, certainly things that the President thought were important and should be done. I think if my colleagues were to peruse the bill, they would see that there is a $1.4 billion dollar cut from the President's account for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. That has been a priority of the President and mine in this bill. We have cut all of the new programs that the President requested. We zeroed out the Global Environmental Facility. We withheld 25 percent of the funds from the World Bank and conditioned funds of the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS until detailed reforms are met. So this is a fiscally conservative bill of which I am very proud, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, first, I withdraw the reservation of the point of order. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about the human rights situation in Vietnam. I share those concerns, and I believe our foreign policy should stress its importance. I can assure the gentlewoman that improved relations between the United States and Vietnam, particularly in the area of military relations, will not ignore our objectives for improved human rights protection in that country. However, I do not wish to make engagement through IMET contingent on a specific action by the Vietnamese. I think it could have very well the opposite effect if we were to do that. One purpose of IMET funds is to provide English language instruction to the Vietnamese military. In a fundamental way, it thus serves as a tool to give the Vietnamese military exposure to U.S. instructors, to professionalism, to progressive ideas, and to the role of the military in civil society. IMET would promote mutual understanding and provide an additional context for the Vietnamese to understand how important it is for the United States to see improvements in human rights. Besides providing this context for understanding, I believe that IMET for Vietnam will help us address transnational issues such as counterterrorism and counternarcotics and contribute to greater security and regional stability in Southeast Asia. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue and look forward to working with her in the future on this.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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

Mr. KOLBE. It is a few more than 19, too.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 23, I introduced H.R. 3051, the Pima County Land Adjustment Act. At introduction I inadvertently did not indicate Representative Raul Grijalva as an original cosponsor. Representative Grijalva made significant contributions during the authoring of this legislation and played an integral role throughout the process. Although the House rules do not permit Representative Grijalva's name to be shown as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3051, I wish to clarify that he rightly deserves this recognition. I would like to express my sincerest apologies to Representative Grijalva and his staff for this inadvertent oversight.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. It is my understanding that this provision, the reason that the gentleman has not had a lot of time to receive this information is that it is a very new ruling from the Department of Education that these charter schools heretofore have been given funding because they are serving low-income students, special-needs students, and suddenly they have decided that they are not eligible for that funding. All we do is suspend that funding until there is an attempt to deal with this in the legislation.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman has said, and obviously the committee always reserves the right in conference to make a change to something as this; and if, indeed, information came out that demonstrated that it should be changed, I would certainly concur with that. So I do appreciate what the gentleman has just said.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman said. Perhaps the comments that will follow will clarify that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which is offered by the entire Arizona delegation. I will consume very little time on this because others have greater knowledge about it. This amendment will ensure that all certified charter schools will continue to be eligible to receive special education and low-income funding. This year, the Department of Education made a sudden determination that charter schools operated by for-profit organizations are not public schools and are, therefore, ineligible for Federal special education funding under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and title I low-income students. Charter schools across the U.S. are U.S. public schools. They operate with taxpayer dollars and abide by the same laws as traditional schools. Federal laws let States decide the qualifications for public schools. The Kolbe-Flake-Shadegg-Hayworth amendment would set aside the Education Department's determination and allow appropriated funds to continue to serve low-income students and special-needs students who are schooled at charter schools. This has special significance for Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment. It is anti-public health. It undermines current law, and it deserves to be defeated, just as it was defeated last year. Hospitals and trauma care facilities are required by Federal law to treat anyone who comes into an emergency room, including undocumented immigrants. If hospitals are not reimbursed for this treatment, their very existence is in danger. That threatens the health of everyone. Yet that is exactly what this amendment would do. It would deny reimbursement to hospitals for care that the government requires them to provide. This is especially dangerous for Americans who live along the border. Let me provide an example. The Tucson Medical Center in my home State of Arizona, a crucial level 1 trauma facility, shut its doors on its trauma facility because of uncompensated care. Now there is only one trauma center serving all of Tucson, with a population of nearly 1 million people. I understand that the sponsor of this amendment does not live close to the border, and it may be hard for him to sympathize with those who do. So let me be clear. This amendment is an attack on our communities. It will shut down hospitals simply because of the Federal Government's inability to secure our border. It will punish Americans by denying them access to care. Again, the Federal Government mandates that hospitals treat anyone in need of emergency care. If the sponsors of this amendment oppose this, then they should try to change EMTALA, the emergency medical treatment law, that requires that hospitals provide this treatment, change it so they are not required to treat undocumented aliens. Until then, the Federal Government is responsible for funding its mandates. So let there be no mistake about this amendment: it will close hospitals, it will close health clinics for Americans who live along the border, and it will result in an unfunded mandate. I am appalled by this proposal. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and vote for hospitals that care for Americans living along our border. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.