Jim Kolbe

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the vote on agreeing to the Rogers (MI) amendment to H.R. 4548, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (#293). I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct, and that is why we should not delay that.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, as I did the other day in the committee. Let me say, first of all, as the gentleman from Virginia has indicated, this is about a 2-year delay in awarding the contract. So when the gentleman from Arkansas asks how are you going to explain to American soldiers coming back, I am going to tell them it is about their security, it is about getting a contract out there so we can get this program in place. It is about security, and that is what this issue is really about. The gentleman also talked about honor and integrity. Yes, it is about honor and integrity. We happen to enter into lawful agreements with other countries, it is called the World Trade Organization, they are called trade agreements, and we are the biggest beneficiaries of the government procurement part of those agreements. The United States has a huge trade surplus in the services sector thanks in part to U.S. firms winning government procurement overseeas. What the gentlewoman is talking about on this amendment is cutting off our nose to spite ourselves, because, of course, there would be retaliation against U.S. firms and workers who export services overseas. Is the gentlewoman suggesting that Daimler-Chrysler should not be allowed to bid on any contracts here in the United States? Similarly, should we not want to be able to bid on contracts for building an airport in Paris or in Tokyo or some other place? Of course we want to. We have to abide by our agreements, and you do not just do it by doing it this way. Let me just say about the issue of Accenture itself, all this talk about the taxes here. Those charges are erroneous. The effective rate of taxation paid by Accenture is 34.8 percent. The other companies that bid on this pay much less taxes. In fact, Lockheed Martin paid 31.3 percent effective tax, and Computer Sciences Corporation, the other bidder on this, paid 28 percent. So this is a company paying its taxes in the United States on the business it does here in the United States. That is what this really is all about. All the work is being done in this country; all the jobs are going to be here; and all the taxes are going to be paid on the business here. This is one of those things that comes up on the floor every once in a while, where people want to feel good, beat their breast, go home to their constituents. But it is bad public policy, it is terrible public policy, it violates all of our agreements, it is bad policy; and we ought to defeat this bill.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I do rise in support of this rule and against the argument that has been made by the gentlewoman from Connecticut and to some extent by the gentleman from Wisconsin, which is that we should defeat the previous question in order to amend the rule because the Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment which was added in the committee by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. That amendment should not be made in order. It is not in order on this bill. It is a sweeping amendment that would change the entire tax laws of the United States. It would change all of our rules and regulations that we are required to adhere to under the World Trade Organization, and it ought to be thoroughly debated and vetted in the proper venue, in the Committee on Appropriations, and not on the floor of this House as an amendment. So it is indeed correct that it is not made in order and should be stricken. But let me talk just a moment about the substance of this. The idea here is that somehow that Accenture should not be allowed to bid on the US-VISIT program. The idea is that Accenture is avoiding paying U.S. taxes and has some sort of unfair competitive advantage, but that is simply not true. Neither the employees of Accenture are avoiding paying taxes, nor is the company avoiding paying any taxes on any of its obligations or any of its profits that are made here in the United States. The company pays its taxes on all of its U.S.-generated income. In fact, its effective tax rate for the year 2004 is 34.8 percent. Now, the national average for all corporations is 19 percent. The tax rate for its two major competitors for this bid were Lockheed Martin and Computer Sciences Corporation and their tax rates were 31.3 percent and 28 percent respectively. That is based on their last 10-K filing. So it is simply false to say that this is a company that is not paying its taxes. It does not receive any tax advantage by having its ultimate parent incorporated in Bermuda. So here we have a company that is actually paying higher taxes than its competitors who bid on this. It is paying much higher taxes than the average corporate rate. So it is simply not true to say that Accenture is trying to avoid paying taxes. The second assumption that is wrong in this argument is that Accenture has done a corporate inversion. That is that they incorporated, they went to Bermuda in order to avoid paying this taxes. It is not a corporate inversion. It did not move its place of incorporation from the U.S. to Bermuda with the intent of avoiding paying U.S. taxes. If has never been a U.S.-based corporation and it has never operated under a U.S. parent corporation. In fact, the General Accounting Office in the report that it did in October 2002 about corporate inversions did not even list Accenture as a government contractor that undertook a corporate inversion. Finally, there is the faulty assumption that only the U.S. companies should provide products and services to the Federal Government. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further, more wrong-headed than that. We rely, we are a service based economy, and we rely very heavily on being able to bid and open up contracts in other countries. We have worked in the World Trade Organizations in all the trade negotiations in order to try to make sure that we had good provisions in there for procurement, government procurement contracts. This would just invite the kind of retaliation that would say that our corporations, our major contractors cannot bid on an airport being built in Tokyo or a major oil contract in Saudi Arabia. It invites that kind of retaliation because it says that we are not going to abide by our own World Trade Organizations rules. I would say in closing, Mr. Chairman, this amendment that was added in the Committee on Appropriations is the simply paying politics application with the award of this contract. It is based on faulty assumptions to score some political points. Any delay in implementing contracts puts the American people at risk. It would further delay a vitally important contract to us, and I urge that we approve the previous question and approve this rule.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I rise to express great concern about this bill. At first glance, it would seem to support objectives that we could all get behind, on both sides of the aisle. After all, who could object to assisting orphans--especially those who have had their lives torn apart by HIV/AIDS? In fact, I have little problem with the provisions of the bill if taken separately. School food programs, HIV/AIDS treatment, training-- these are all promising approaches for helping some of the most needy people in the world. My concern is with how this bill would achieve these worthy objectives. As Chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I have had the privilege of managing legislation to support a variety of HIV/AIDS programs. Last August, this House approved roughly $1.6 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, and I believe we took the right approach by insisting that these funds be spent in a focused, accountable way. The Global AIDS Coordinator has been working to establish clear indicators for the use of his funds, and I'm encouraged by his progress. This bill would walk back much of this progress. It mixes authorities that already exist, such as providing AIDS treatment for orphans, with new, overly broad authorities. If passed, this bill would open the Global AIDS Coordinator's funds to any school fee waiver program and any school food program--even if there is no AIDS component. Instead of a focused, results-driven AIDS program, as we have now, the Global AIDS Initiative would become just another development assistance program-- business as usual. In addition, this bill would establish a new OVC coordinator at USAID--a new coordinator whose authorities are poorly defined and whose relationship to the Global AIDS Coordinator is confusing at best. These kids do not need additional bureaucracy to get help. Finally, this bill authorizes contributions to UNICEF for a program to reduce the costs of going to school in developing countries. I have received several letters from Members of Congress requesting $250 million for such a program. It's important to understand that UNICEF would probably simply transfer funds to foreign governments to offset the loss of fees they would normally receive from students. Thus we would be creating a new program of cash assistance for foreign governments--not something we ought to do unless we know a lot about what we would get for our cash, and what accountability we would receive from foreign governments. The Administration did not request this money, and we do not have it. We cannot expect UNICEF to absorb such a directive, and it's frankly unfair to authorize a program that we know cannot be funded. Serious revisions need to be made to this legislation. I do not support it in its current form.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's passing gives this nation an opportunity to reflect on the can-do attitude that he exuded and the greatness of the American people that he believed in. He was the essential American, a President born in mid-America, instilled with solid Midwestern values. He had a deep love affair with the American people, and they with him. Like Franklin Roosevelt, he was an American icon, and like Roosevelt, he had an uncanny ability to connect and communicate with common people. Today we salute four tenets of President Reagan's legacy: economic growth, deregulation, peace through strength, and patriotism though a return of the American dream. The father of Reaganomics launched the boldest economic plan since FDR that promoted lower taxes, sound money, and less regulation. Reagan unveiled a ``program for economic recovery'' to a Joint Session of Congress calling for a $41.4 billion in tax cuts--the largest in history. Reagan was an advocate for deregulation and free trade pacts. He worked to tear down barriers to enterprise and encourage a spirit of self enterprise. His commitment to deregulation was evident when in 1981 he took decisive action to carry out this promise to fire 13,000 air traffic controllers for an illegal strike. After years of crumbling defense spending, President Reagan increased defense spending 35 percent during two terms and promoted peace through strength. He called the Soviet Union for what it was--an evil empire-- and by standing firm against it hastened the end of the Cold War and the return of Russia to the family of nations. Influenced by his humble beginnings, Reagan's patriotism and optimistic spirit exemplified the American dream. He restored America's ``can do'' creed. We will always remember the words of his farewell address, when he said those of his generation ``were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.'' He never trimmed his sails or compromised his values. We will remember him as a president who understood the balance between pragmatism and partisanship. We will remember him as the great communicator who united Americans toward common goals. But most of all we will remember him as a great president who brought honor and respect to the Office of President. I join with all Americans in expressing our sympathy to Nancy Reagan and his family for the loss of this great American.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to delete the provision that would delay the BRAC process for 2 years. Some people say if you are for that you must not have any military bases in your district. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Fort Huachuca, the 162nd Fighter Wing of the Arizona Air National Guard which is the largest air guard unit in the United States, and the Western Army Aviation Training site near Marana. But I support the BRAC process in 2005 because I think the BRAC is good public policy. A delay in BRAC postpones a savings that would be gained from shuttering unneeded facilities. Clearly, we are wasting money on unneeded capacity. BRAC rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, and 1993, 1995 closed 97 major installations, reducing DOD infrastructure by 21 percent. But we have reduced the size of the military by 36 percent and DOD maintains it still has more than 23 percent excess infrastructure. Maintaining excess bases is very expensive. Closing unneeded bases produces long-term savings. It is a key component in the military transformation, and it reshapes the military to respond to new global missions. BRAC is good public policy. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote in favor of the underlying bill. I oppose any delay to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process and support the amendment offered by Representative Mark Kennedy of Minnesota. H.R. 4200 is an excellent bill. I commend Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, the Members of the committee and the staff on both sides of the aisle. I am, however, opposed to the provision in H.R. 4200 that delays the BRAC process for two years. We should not endanger H.R. 4200 to a possible Administration veto by retaining this provision. Some people may think I must not have any bases in my district if I support BRAC. Nothing could be further from the truth. My district is home to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base; Fort Huachuca; the 162nd Fighter Wing of the Arizona Air National Guard at Tucson Airport (the Nation's largest Air National Guard unit); and the Western Army Aviation Training Site near Marana. These bases are operationally interdependent with other Arizona bases, including Luke Air Force Base, Yuma Proving Grounds, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Arizona bases provide over 83,000 jobs and contribute over $5.6 billion annually to the State's economy. Yet, I support the BRAC process in 2005 because BRAC is good public policy. A delay in BRAC postpones the savings to be gained from shuttering unneeded facilities. The Department of Defense (DoD) estimates that the 2005 BRAC round will yield net savings of $21 billion over 10 years and $3.6 billion annually thereafter. A GAO study of BRAC dated just three days ago states, ``We believe the potential for significant savings exist,'' and ``We found no bases to question the [Defense] Secretary's certification of the need for an additional BRAC round. . . .'' These savings can be better spent elsewhere; for example, increasing soldiers' pay, improving health care for military families, modernizing equipment, or fixing buildings on the bases that are not closed. Clearly, DoD is wasting money on unneeded capacity. BRAC rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 closed 97 major installations, reducing DoD infrastructure by 21 percent. At the same time, however, the size of our military has declined by 36 percent. DoD maintains it still has approximately 23 percent excess infrastructure. Maintaining these excess bases is very expensive. We criticize DoD constantly for not being as efficient as a private sector corporation, but delaying BRAC would not allow the department of perform the most essential business management action of shedding unnecessary infrastructure. Closing unneeded bases produces long term savings. Previous BRAC rounds generated net savings--that is, savings after accounting for the cost of closure--of about $16.7 billion through fiscal year 2001 and about $6.6 billion in annual recurring savings expected thereafter. Failure to close unneeded facilities wastes taxpayer dollars and impedes DoD's efforts to allocate resources in the most effective manner. BRAC is a key component of transformation and is essential to reshape the military to respond to new global missions. BRAC helps realize significant savings by cutting excess infrastructure and enables the armed forces to maximize opportunities to train, deploy and fight jointly. Yesterday I received a copy of a letter supporting the 2005 BRAC round signed by the chairman and each of the joint chiefs of the military services. Some people argue we should not close bases while we are fighting a war and while we are uncertain of future force structure changes. I disagree. Excess bases are not needed for the war on terrorism; in fact, they waste scarce dollars needed for our battle against terrorists. Furthermore, the BRAC process will fully consider potential force structure growth, ``surge capacity,'' and repositioning of forces stationed overseas. In closing, I wish to impress upon my colleagues that delaying BRAC is not good public policy. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote in favor of the underlying bill.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 3722. Mr. Speaker, if enacted, The Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments will turn our hospital caregivers into ``de facto'' border patrol agents for the Federal government. The measure would require hospitals to take biometric ``identifiers''--fingerprints or digital photographs--of any patient whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and send that information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in order to receive funding for the uncompensated costs of providing emergency care to undocumented immigrants. Hospitals are already understaffed and they do not have the resources needed to collect this information while trying to administer emergency care. This bill would discourage illegal aliens from seeking treatment for possibly contagious diseases for fear of being deported. In close-knit communities, such as many border areas, disease can spread quickly. This would lead to a potential health crisis in areas throughout the country--especially the southwest. Illegal immigrants are in the United States as a direct result of the government's inability to control our borders, and our hospitals are bearing the brunt by not being reimbursed. Controlling immigration is a Federal responsibility--not the responsibility of doctors and nurses trying to administer care. Border Patrol agents are not taking illegal immigrants into custody who need medical treatment to avoid paying for the care. Federal agencies should be responsible for what is a Federal problem. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone who comes to their emergency rooms, without regard to race, creed, color, financial ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status. H.R. 3722 goes directly against EMTALA by forcing hospitals to guess which patients they believe are illegal immigrants, take down information about their immigration status, employer and address, and report to the Department of Homeland Security. It would burden hospital workers with a staggering amount of administrative work and subject them to charges of discrimination for singling out certain individuals for identification. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is creating regulations to keep hospitals accountable for how they are reimbursed for treating illegal aliens. Those regulations are due in September. Passing this legislation would directly preclude CMS--the agency that knows best how to handle this situation. If it is deemed these regulations are not adequate, we should revisit this debate. Do not turn doctors and nurses into police officers. Oppose H.R. 3722.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I missed the vote on Agreeing to the Amendment to the Stark of California Substitute Amendment to H.R. 4279, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements (No. 161). I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today, I missed the vote on H.R. 3926, the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act (No. 76). I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was escorting the Under Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in my Congressional District and missed votes on the following measures: (1) H. Res. 551--thanking C-SPAN for its service to the House of Representatives on the 25th anniversary of its first coverage of the proceedings of the House (No. 58). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' (2) H.R. 3733--Myron V. George Post Office (No. 59). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' (3) H. Res. 433--Honoring the life and legacy of Luis A. Ferre (No. 60). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on the Baldwin of Wisconsin substitute amendment to S. 1920 (No. 8). I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Congressional Record a tribute to Charles D. ``Chuck'' Anderson, Raytheon's Vice President, Air-to-Air Missiles in Tucson, Arizona who is retiring after over 40 years of dedicated and faithful service to the defense of our great Nation. From the time Chuck was a boy, his patriotic fervor and love of country formed the foundation for all he has accomplished to date. In the 1950s, when the face and ambitions of our American youth began to change, Chuck chose the difficult path and served with the California National Guard as a paratooper. After his National Guard tour, Chuck selected the toughest, most disciplined course of study earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and Physics from California State Polytechnic University in 1961. In 1972, he received a Master of Science degree in Systems Engineering at the University of Southern California. Chuck, the man, is more than just America's premier designer and builder of our most capable weapons. He is a true patriot and champion for the American dream. When asked to perform in the hustle and bustle of Corporate America, with the ever present hunger for profits and earnings, Chuck always asked one question first, ``Is this good for the Warfighter . . . will this save American lives on the battlefield?'' By that creed he lives his life, both professionally and personally. During his quarterly, ``All Hands'' Leadership meetings, Chuck always ended his session with a 30 minute discussion on what it means to be an American. Love of Country, Love of Freedom were always the major themes of his closing comments. This theme in particular, defines Chuck Anderson and serves as the driving force behind this American Patriot. Apart from his role as America's ``Missileman,'' Chuck took an active leadership role in one of this country's premier Leadership Learning Laboratories, The Boy Scouts of America. As an Adult Leader, Chuck imparted his wealth of lifetime experiences, patriotism, and charismatic leadership to this unique group of American youth. The leaders of tomorrow will long remember Chuck's lessons of life, pursuit of excellence, and responsibility. When he was not paying back to the country he loves, Chuck took time to revel in his two greatest hobbies: flying antique model airplanes and listening to American Rock and Roll. In fact, his knowledge of Rock and Roll is so great, Chuck continues to author numerous missives titled, ``This Date in Rock and Roll History.'' Chuck Anderson is one of the select few that has consistently given and sacrificed for all that is good for America . . . and the generations of youth he has touched and continues to touch will pass on their strong character and moral fiber for generations to come so that our country remains a beacon of freedom and leadership throughout the world. I am certain that my colleagues will join me in wishing Chuck and his wife Carolyn all the best as they venture into the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs bill which is incorporated as Division D in this Consolidated Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations section significantly furthers our foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic interests abroad. It is a bill that is innovative and provides increased resources to combat the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. It also creates a new paradigm for foreign assistance, the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The conference report before the House provides $17.235 billion for foreign operations. This is $115 million more the House bill which passed last July, but nearly $1.2 billion below the amount contained in the Senate-passed bill. Therefore, with this tight allocation, we have made some tough choices and set priorities. For HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, this conference agreement provides $2.4 billion. When combined with the amounts in the Labor/HHS bill, that is $805 million more than fiscal year 2003, $362 million above the President's request and $325 million more than the House- passed bill. It provides $400 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, and includes language that gives other donors an incentive to contribute. This bill strongly supports our new AIDS coordinator, Ambassador Randy Tobias, and provides for one additional country outside Africa and the Caribbean to be added to the HIV/AIDS Initiative. This agreement both creates and appropriates funds for the new Millennium Challenge Corporation. The consolidated appropriations bill provides $1 billion for this exciting, new and innovative model to provide foreign assistance, one that seeks to give a boost to poor nations to enable them to break out of the cycle of poverty. Many have talked about the need to change the way U.S. foreign assistance is provided. President Bush came forward with leadership and vision, and this bill makes that vision a reality. The MCC is a key component of President Bush's new compact for global development, which links greater contributions from developed nations to greater responsibility from developing nations. There are a number of important programs and initiatives supported by this foreign operations conference report, too numerous to delineate in the time allotted to me. They include funds for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, Development Assistance, the Eastern Europe and Baltic States, and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. There are a number of structural changes and process improvements in the bill. These changes support the role of Congress in reviewing foreign assistance. There are a number of management improvements in agencies like USAID which help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. This conference agreement on foreign assistance presents a very good bill which is an important component of this consolidated measure. It does not do everything that we have been asked to do by the administration and others in Congress, but we have necessarily made reductions and sought efficiencies. It is a conference agreement that all Members should support. Finally, I want to mention two members of our staff who worked very hard on this bill, along with our outstanding committee staff. Rob Blair served on the detail from the Department of State, and Sean Mulvaney of my staff took the lead in developing the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge its support. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs bill, which is incorporated as Division D of this Consolidated Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations section significantly furthers our foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic interests abroad. It is a bill that is innovative and provides increased resources to combat the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. It also creates a new paradigm for foreign assistance, the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The conference agreement before this house provides $17.235 billion for Foreign Operations. This is $115 million more than the House bill which passed last July, but $1.167 billion below the amount contained in the Senate passed bill. Within that tight allocation, we have made some tough choices and set priorities. For HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, this conference agreement provides $2.4 billion. When combined with the amounts in Labor/HHS that is $805 million more than FY2003, $362 million above the President's budget request, and $325.7 million more than the House passed bill. That this bill provides $400 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria and includes language that gives other donors an incentive to contribute. This bill strongly supports our new AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Randy Tobias, and provides for one additional country outside Africa and the Caribbean to be added to the HIV/AIDS Initiative. This agreement both creates and appropriates funds for the new Millennium Challenge Corporation. The consolidated appropriations bill provides $1 billion for this exciting, new and innovative model to provide foreign assistance--one that seeks to give a boost to enable them to break out of the cycle of poverty. Many have talked about the need to change the way that U.S. foreign assistance is provided. President Bush came forward with leadership and vision, and this bill makes that vision a reality. The MCC--as it is known for short--is a key component of President Bush's ``new compact for global development,'' which links greater contributions from developed nations to greater responsibility from developing nations. New resources will flow to those low-income countries that possess a demonstrated commitment to good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their own people. In eligible countries, the new MCC will target investments to overcome the greatest obstacles to economic growth and reduce poverty. The MCC departs from traditional foreign assistance and draws on lessons learned about development over the past 50 years; First, that aid is more likely to result in successful sustainable economic development in countries that are pursuing sound political, economic and social policies; Second, that development plans supported by a broad range of stakeholders, and for which countries have primary responsibility, engender country ownership and are more likely to succeed; And, finally, that integrating oversight and evaluation into the design of activities boosts aid effectiveness. I wish to commend the leadership of Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos and the House International Relations Committee, and their Senate Foreign Relations Committee counterparts for their strong support for this initiative. There are a number of important programs and initiatives supported by this foreign operations conference report. Let me name just a few: The agreement includes $2.132 billion for the economic support fund. Included is $480 million for Israel, $575 million for Egypt, and $250 million for Jordan. The agreement provides $241 million for International Narcotics control and law enforcement, and an additional $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug Intitiative--$71 million more than the Senate bill. The agreement provides $1.835 billion for the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, and $1.385 billion for Development Assistance. The conference report includes $445 million for assistance to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, and $587 million for assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. This is one area where reductions have been made as this agreement provides $245 million less for these nations than the FY2003 bill. The conference agreement provides $353.5 million for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining, an increase of $49.1 million over 2003. The conference agreement provides $4.450.1 billion for Military Assistance programs. This represents an increase of $221.3 million above FY2003. We have provided $2.160 billion in military assistance for Israel, $1.3 billion for Egypt and $206 million for Jordan. We have fully funded the budget request for international military education and training at $91.7 million. The conference agreement provides $1.713 billion for multilateral economic assistance, an increase of $223.2 million above FY2003. Included in the agreement is $321.7 million for international organizations and programs, and $913.2 million for the international development association. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of structural changes and process improvements in the agreement. These changes support the role of Congress in reviewing foreign assistance. There are a number of management improvements in agencies like USAID, which help ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well spent. We have endeavored to accommodate requests from colleagues, though, as always, we have strived to keep foreign assistance free of earmarks. However, I acknowledge that when faced with a Senate bill that included over 200 amendments, this task becomes increasingly more challenging. Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement on foreign assistance presents a very good bill. It is a very important component of this overall consolidated measure. It does not do everything we have been asked by the administration and others in the Congress. We have necessarily made reductions and sought efficiencies. It is a conference agreement that I think all members of this body should support. It represents a bipartisan bill that supports our President and Nation. Before closing, I would like to mention two members of our staff who worked very hard on this bill, along with our outstanding committee staff. Rob Blair served on detail from the Department of State and put in some outstanding work for us on the HIV/AIDS and global health issues. He left our subcommittee as detailee only a few days ago and already he is sorely missed. And, I would be remiss if I did not mention Sean Mulvaney of my staff who took the lead on the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and authored the legislation in Title VI of this agreement. As he consistently demonstrates on such issues as trade and international economics, Sean brings a personal commitment and intellectual rigor and honesty to his job. This overall agreement is a better product based on Sean's professionalism and expertise. I would, of course, also like to thank my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey; and the minority staff, Mark Murray and Joe Weinstein; and our subcommittee's staff, Charlie Flickner, Alice Hogans, Scott Gudes and Lori Maes. Mr. Speaker, in closing this is an important piece of legislation, with many priority initiatives of the President and the Congress. I hope that our colleagues in the other body will not delay further the delivery of these important programs, such as the effort to save the lives of those infected with HIV and AIDS. I urge adoption of the conference report.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for managing this bill on the floor this afternoon and the Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this bill forward, also the Committee on Resources represented today by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) on the minority side. Both have worked to bring this bill to the floor, and I thank them for the support they have given to this. I do rise in support of H.R. 421, Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2003. The bill has been explained by both the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall); and I will not go into more detail except to say that, of course, it does reauthorize for a period of years and provides funding for that same period of years for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, which is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. As we all know, Morris Udall was a beloved Member of this body for many years and devoted much of his life to natural resources and to environmental issues and to environmental conflict resolution. So I can think of nothing more appropriate than this organization and this institute which works to resolve these conflicts to have it named after Morris Udall. The institute has been around since 1998 as an impartial, nonpartisan institution which provides professional expertise and services and resources to parties that are involved in environmental disputes. It assists in resolving those environmental and natural resources issues, public lands conflicts that involve the Federal Government and other governmental agencies. And it deals with conflicts on a nationwide basis. In 5 years of operation the institute has been involved in more than 300 conflict resolution cases and projects. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) referred to 100; but on an informal basis, they have been involved in at least a couple hundred more other than that. It does, as we have already heard, authorize $4 million, $1 million of which would be for a participation fund which would assist the stakeholders, communities' agricultural interests, resources users, tribes that are involved in environmental disputes with the Federal Government. And it would help them participate in alternative conflict resolution processes. The funds are intended to continue general services and provide assistance to the Federal and State agencies and tribal governments. Mr. Speaker, this institute has already more than paid for itself. Literally countless numbers of disputes have been resolved in a way that have saved taxpayers millions of dollars by resolving them quickly and resolving them in a way that avoided litigation. The institute does work, and the reason it can do the work that it does is because its work is accepted by both sides, by all sides. It works in a nonpartisan fashion. If works in a fashion which brings the sides together to resolve the dispute. It is a model for what we should be using to resolve environmental disputes. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on S.J. Res. 18, Commending the Inspector General for their efforts to prevent and detect waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement during the past 25 years (No. 621). I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I appreciate the comments we have heard here today. The expression of concern about the HIV/AIDS pandemic is one that I share and I think all Members of the House share. I would just note that we are concerned not only about this HIV/AIDS pandemic which is already ravaging the continent of Africa, but we are very concerned about the growing scourge in South Asia, in India, in Central Asia, and in China and in Russia. These are countries where the epidemic is just beginning to take off. We have an opportunity to do something there about preventing it from becoming that much worse. So I would hope that as we go through with the efforts to fight this disease that we focus not just on where it is already taking such a heavy toll but in preventing it from taking a very heavy toll in other places. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2800) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the motion of my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), deserves a few comments from me here this morning. I also would like to see more resources applied to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as the other diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis that are included in our infectious diseases account and in the Global Fund. I think all of us would like to see that happen. I certainly voted for the $3 billion authorization that passed this House earlier. I also spoke during our debate on our bill and said that I believe the amount that we had in there was a reasonable amount of money, that could be expended during the course of the coming fiscal year. I still believe that to be the case. But if we can find ways to put this money into existing programs or other programs and make sure that it works given the constraints that we have, and I think we need to acknowledge the constraints that we have, for example, on the Global Fund of contributing no more than one-third of the total dollars that are made available to that fund, if we can do that, given the constraints that we have, then I am in favor of it. For that reason, I do not oppose this motion to instruct the conferees. But whether or not the conference provides $1.426 billion, as passed by the House, or $1.726 billion as passed by the Senate, in other words a $300 million difference there, if it is something in between, depends in my view, on three factors: The first is the allocation that the foreign operations conference will have under the Congressional Budget Resolution. The second, of course, will be the competing priorities that we have when we go to conference. There is going to be a priority of some for more money for maternal health. There is going to be a priority for more money for education. Some will argue for the creation of jobs in the United States through export promotion. The third factor that I think will be critical in determining exactly how much we finally are able to allocate to fighting this HIV/AIDS pandemic is the funding that not only the Foreign Operations appropriation conference gets, but the Labor HHS appropriations conference. Because they also have money in there that goes to the Global Fund and to fight this disease. Each of them contain differing House and Senate levels for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and malaria and for other bilateral programs. So this is not as though we are operating entirely within the confines of the Foreign Operations bill, but rather we also have to know what is going to be done by our sister subcommittee that handles Labor and Health and Human Services. Given those three factors, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful, however, that we will be able to add to the amount of dollars that we have now allocated for HIV/AIDS. And I look forward to working with my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and other members of the conference committee both from the House and Senate to resolve this issue in a way that will give us the maximum funds available to fight this pandemic, which is not only a moral issue for most of us here in the Congress, but I think also a matter of national security for the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2800, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.