Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, although a point of order could be made against this amendment, I think it certainly does no harm to restate what is clearly the position of the United States, so I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I just want to say before I make my point of order that, once again, I appreciate the amendment of the gentlewoman. The one she was talking about, I had it in front of me before. Our bill has nothing in any way, shape, or form, or touches, impinges, deals with in any way, shape, or form on an independent commission to study the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ours is a foreign assistance bill; it has nothing to do with a commission here in the United States. So it would be absolutely impossible that we would have anything in here that would prohibit this. point of order

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is creative, but the amendment offered by the gentlewoman invokes a textual ``double-negative.'' As a result, it constitutes an affirmative direction or statement of affirmative intent in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, just to simply respond to the gentlewoman. I would simply say, obviously, nothing in our bill does prohibit this. I would say this is out of the scope of our bill, but the gentlewoman is correct that we do not attempt to do that. But I do insist on the point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. That was what I intended to say. Is it the gentleman's intention then to withdraw it at that point?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. The amendment does add a limitation to a general appropriation bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, such amendments are not in order during the reading of a general appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, the rule states in part: ``Except as provided in paragraph (d), an amendment proposing a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation shall not be in order during consideration of a general appropriation bill.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation and is not specifically contained or authorized in existing law, has been offered during the reading and therefore is in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, while I regret very much that this is being done because at least in one instance these objections here are for something that is very vital, I concede the point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I again concede the point of order. This is a piece of legislation that was added to clarify and improve the language and we have worked it out previously, but now apparently it is not acceptable. I concede the point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He certainly has identified an area of great concern, and one that clearly does need to be dealt with. The growing urbanization that exists in the world makes these issues of the cities a major problem. Certainly I would agree that clean water and the environment is something that we need to be focused on and that USAID needs to be focused on. So I would agree completely with the gentleman's concerns here that this is an area that USAID needs to give greater attention to.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I thought it was the intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) to withdraw the amendment at the end, but as I understand it he intends to go ahead with this.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, many statements have been made on the floor about this amendment. Unfortunately, very little of them have been accurate. Let me read the amendment, since it is less than two full lines. ``Page 40, line 24. After the first dollar amount insert the following (reduce by $600,000).'' Mr. Chairman, this does not reduce the funding for Indonesia. It would take only $600,000 out of the international military education and training account. It is a cut to the general appropriations account. And it is correctly drafted this way, because to put other kinds of restrictions in it would not have been in order. So I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that this is not an amendment which in any way directly affects Indonesia at all. The language that has been stated here on the floor might, but the amendment itself has no impact itself on Indonesia. As to the issue of the tragic killing of U.S. citizens in Indonesia, our report in fact does deal with this on page 46 where we outline in some considerable detail the problems and make note with this sentence, Mr. Chairman: ``Most disturbing, the committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has not found Indonesian officials to be particularly cooperative.'' So we have made note of this. We are very concerned about it. But certainly attacking IMET as the way to get at this would be the absolute contrary way to do so. IMET is about exposing foreign military officers and enlisted personnel to civilian control, to respect for human rights, to the rule of law. It is, as its very title suggests, about education and training. And as we know from the programs that exist, human rights and civil rights, respect for human rights and respect for civil rights is a very major component of this training. If you want to reform the Indonesian military, then cutting off IMET is exactly the opposite of what one ought to do. At some point we ought to be increasing IMET for Indonesia, and perhaps indeed that is what may happen. But I would also note, before I close, that our legislation does not permit or does not provide for any foreign military sales to Indonesia, and so that is specifically prohibited. But I am happy that this amendment does not in any way affect the IMET funding specifically for Indonesia. It represents what is less than a six-tenths of 1 percent cut in the total amount. And while I am a strong supporter of IMET, because I believe that it does exactly what we want to do, and we have adequate proof of this around the world, that it exposes military officers in other countries to human rights, to civil rights, to the values that we believe are important in this country, and because of that I strongly support it, but I am not prepared at this hour of the evening to quibble about what is less than a six-tenths of 1 percent cut in this funding. And so, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As noted, this is accepted. This is proposed by both the chairman of the authorizing committee and the ranking member, and I accept it and I strongly support it.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, as I said a moment ago, there is an earmark for Russia. There is not earmarks for other countries, but there is a sum of money which is available to be spent in these countries, and it is certainly anticipated that programs in the Ukraine that do support democracy would be supported by that account. We just simply do not earmark the specific amount for any of the countries in the bill, whether we are talking about Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the other countries. There is no specific amount.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the concerns that she has expressed here about the Inter-American Foundation. I do support the valuable work of the foundation and the fact that it promotes entrepreneurship, self-reliance, democratic principles, as well as the economic progress for the poor in Latin America and the Caribbean region. The committee funded the Inter-American Foundation at the President's requested level, as the gentlewoman noted. The funding level is not higher in this bill because of the low budget allocation that the subcommittee received, a level that is $1 million lower than the Senate subcommittee has to work with, and it is certainly not intended to show anything but full support for the Inter-American Foundation. I recognize that it is important that the Inter-American Foundation experiences steady funding to ensure the viability of the crucial program that the gentlewoman has discussed. If the subcommittee receives a higher budget allocation in conference, I will certainly work to support an increased funding level for this program.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would be quite brief here and if there are no other speakers on this, I would make my point of order at the end. I would make the point to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), first of all, for whom I have a great deal of respect for and particularly admire the commitment she has made to the democracy in the Ukraine and the support for freedom and democracy in that struggling country, I would make the following point to her, that although there is a specific earmark in our bill for programs in Russia, that is because we believe very strongly in the struggling democracy programs there that need to have very specific support. There is not, and I will just say that the gentlewoman's chart is in error, there is not a zero amount for Ukraine. There is an amount for the former Soviet Republics, for Eastern Europe. We just do not earmark a specific amount for the Ukraine as we do not earmark for other countries.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. Maloney. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I correct myself. The gentlewoman is correct. Armenia and Russia do have earmarks. point of order

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Much time has passed since the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) spoke; but I did want to make one comment about her remarks, and I appreciate her support for the bill. She made a comment about how the level of funding in this bill is significantly less than last year. We need to remember that this is just about $1 billion more than the previous year's regular appropriation bill for foreign assistance. If we are going to consider apples to apples, that is what we need to consider. We have no idea what level of a supplemental appropriation request we might receive from the President that might be transmitted during the coming year for foreign assistance; but if we are going to consider the regularly funded, basic programs, apples to apples, we need to remind ourselves that we are $1 billion above where we were last year. This is the second largest increase of any subcommittee's allocation. Only the Subcommittee on Homeland Security has a bigger increase than this subcommittee received for its allocation. So we have been, I think, generously treated; and I think our programs are well funded. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding just a brief moment. We have had a number of speakers in a row on the other side speaking in support of the Kilpatrick amendment, which I appreciate, and I appreciate the passion and the arguments that have been made; but I do not want to allow some of the statements that have been made to go without at least understanding that there is another point of view here, that the facts are at least a little bit different. The statement was made that this Congress has not been living up to the commitment that was made by the President in terms of funding for HIV/AIDS. If we are looking at the funding in this bill this year, we are more than meeting the President's request for funding for HIV/AIDS; and indeed in almost every single year since 1987, the Congress has exceeded the President's request for money to combat the international HIV/AIDS problem. We are again exceeding that amount this year that the President has requested. It is not the amount that is in the authorization bill; but let me say it one more time, a plane does not take off at 30,000 feet. It does not take off at 500 miles an hour. It takes off more slowly. It gains altitude and it gains speed. This program, this new initiative of the President needs some time to get up and running. We are doing everything that I believe should be done this year. Is it enough? No, it is not enough; but it is what we can do and what is reasonable to do, given the state of the problem. Let me just remind folks that in the last decade the enacted levels of funding for HIV/AIDS, the international HIV/AIDS has increased 2,525 percent. Let me repeat that, a 2,525 percent increase in funding in the last decade. In the last year, the amount of money enacted by Congress was 46 percent over the previous year in HIV/AIDS funding. In 2002, it was 40 percent over the previous year, and in 2001, it was 40 percent over the previous year. There are not many programs that have received such an increase. This year we are looking at a new way of delivering some of this assistance, and it will take some time to make sure that is up and running and running correctly; but, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to my colleagues that we are doing the responsible thing. We recognize, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, Americans all recognize the moral obligation we have to fight this pandemic around the world, not just in Africa, but in our own continent; not just in Africa, but in Asia; not just in Africa, but in Eastern Europe. This is a pandemic that is worldwide. We need to be sure that we have the resources to fight HIV/AIDS, and I believe that this bill does provide these funds, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.