Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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

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.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear about this. The gentleman has said himself that it is not a great deal of money that is involved. This is not at all about the money. This is about a statement that the gentleman is proposing making, and that statement is that we would add our ally, Saudi Arabia, to a list of outlaw nations: North Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. Those are the nations that are now on the terrorist list. That would add Saudi Arabia to that list. It would prohibit any assistance to Saudi Arabia, antiterrorism assistance, which is all that we really give, military assistance, virtually anything. So I strongly oppose this amendment. We have serious differences with Saudi Arabia. We have serious concerns about how good Saudi Arabia has been in pursuing terrorists since 9/11, but let us not make any mistake about it. Overall, Saudi Arabia has been a good friend to the United States. It was certainly above all other countries in the Gulf War a decade and more ago. It was the strongest supporter of the United States and made assistance available, its soil, its air bases available to us. It has supported U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iran. They are a major partner in the current peace efforts in the Middle East, and they were there with President Bush, with King Abdullah, with Prime Minister Sharon, with Prime Minister Abbas, and President Mubarak in the Sinai. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have benefited significantly from the cooperation that we have had with Saudi Arabia in providing information, intelligence on different individuals and organizations that we know to be terrorist organizations in the Middle East; and I would note that since September 11 of 2001, the Saudis have arrested over 400 terrorist suspects. Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman, has been itself a victim of terrorism, as we are. It has been a victim of terrorism as it has been an ally in the war on terrorism. They suffered very destructive bombing attacks on May 12. They have uncovered a plot to detonate a bomb in Mecca, the holiest of cities in Islam. The Saudis recently killed three chief al Qaeda operatives. Saudi Arabia, as we know, has been a pillar of stability in the international oil and financial markets. It is a customer of U.S. goods and services. We exported $4.8 billion in goods and services in 2002, including $267 million in agriculture and food exports and $2.8 billion in machinery and transportation equipment. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this is not about money. This is a matter of Saudi military officials who are trained in the United States military and operate U.S.-made weapons systems. The relationship between our militaries are very close. This amendment would prohibit, absolutely prohibit antiterrorism assistance which the U.S. is now providing to Saudi Arabia and is absolutely essential as we struggle to try and defeat this terrorist threat in the Middle East. The amendment, I would reiterate again, proposes to treat Saudi Arabia instead as a state like those five that I mentioned earlier that we have designated as outlaw states, as terrorist states: North Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, Cuba. To do so, Mr. Chairman, is simply wrong. Adoption of this amendment would be bad policy. It would do irreparable harm to U.S. relations in the Arab world and the Middle East. We just received a letter from Assistant Secretary of State Burns who, of course, has responsibility for the Middle East; and I would like to quote just one paragraph from this letter which was sent this evening to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and myself and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This third paragraph says the following: ``The administration strongly opposes efforts to add the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to this list of state sponsors of terrorism and urges that the House reject the amendment offered by Representative Weiner, which would severely undermine our counter-terrorism cooperation with Saudi Arabia at precisely the moment when it is moving to a new level of effectiveness. This amendment would also undermine our important interests in cooperating with Saudi Arabia on other critical issues in the region, including the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace.'' Mr. Chairman, we know how delicate the road map for peace is in the Middle East. This is not just a peripheral issue. It is very much involved with that, and I would urge my colleagues to think with their heads and not with their hearts and reject this amendment.

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. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The administration has requested $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI as it is called, in this fiscal year 2004. We have provided full funding for that request, and I think it is absolutely critical to sustaining our success in Colombia and to protecting Colombia's neighbors from a spillover effect. We have had this debate, Mr. Chairman, in past years and in past years we could not say with a great deal of confidence that we are having any real progress. But let me make one basic fact which I think is very, very clear, and that is that our efforts in Colombia are making a huge difference. As this chart shows here, by almost any measure, and this is from August to June of 2001 and 2002 to the year 2002 and 2003, by almost any measure the insurgents killed in action, up 28 percent. Insurgents captured, up 108 percent. Insurgents deserting, 106 percent. Terrorists attacks, down 47 percent. Tax on the economic infrastructure, down 54 percent. Murders, down 16 percent. This is all in the course of one year of time. So we have had a tremendous impact. This administration that exists down there in Colombia today is one that is very committed to making a difference and making things happen. Poppy cultivation is spreading. As you can see, a very dramatic increase in the amount of thousands of hectares being sprayed and a resultant decline in the amount of cultivation of poppy. And similarly here, if we look at coca cultivation, even here, even a more dramatic increase over the last 3 years, and now we are beginning to see the results, for the first time ever a significant reduction in the amount of the actual coca production here and cultivation. These are the direct results, the direct results of the U.S. assisted eradication program. We have also requested $110 million, the President's request, for the foreign military financing for Colombia. This is not blanket military assistance for Colombia, but it is designed to improve the quality of very focused support for specialized units in the Colombian ministry. Mr. Chairman, the former ambassador to Colombia has spoken very eloquently about this and very forcefully to us. She has told us that if we are ever going to be able to ratchet down, to change the mix of how aid in Colombia and eradication programs are working in Colombia, if we are ever going to get the United States out of there and allow the Colombians to do the job, the foreign military sales are absolutely important, critical, so that the Colombians can have not only the training but have the hardware that is required in order to do that. The problems that face Colombia are very complex. They are economic. They are social. They are military, and they are very much linked, of course, to the social problem we have in this country of drug use and drug consumption. There is not going to be any rapid or easy fix to this problem. We have discovered that over the years. But the nonexistent government presence and the law enforcement capability in lawless areas of the country are key to Colombia's social and economic problems, and we are making a big difference there. We have just been told by the Columbian ambassador to the United States, in virtually every single case there is now presence in each of the provinces and each of the counties, as we would call them here, in this country of military and police presence, whereas scores had no presence just a couple of years ago. So we are making a huge difference there. It is in our interests to support this request to Colombia. I cannot think of a worse time when we have a President in Colombia that is absolutely committed to making a difference and to protecting human rights. When we have an opportunity to make a real difference in this country, it would be the worst time for us to be cutting these funds. Mr. Chairman, I would urge, strongly urge, even if the gentleman suggests that it is not a major cut in the amount of funding, it would be the wrong signal to be sending to the Columbian people who are very supportive of President Uribe in his efforts to destroy the FARC, his efforts to counterattack against the FARC and the paramilitary and to end the production of coca and opium in the area. I urge defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The administration has requested $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI as it is called, in fiscal year 2004. We have provided full funding for that request, and I think it is absolutely critical to sustaining our success in Colombia and to protecting Colombia's neighbors from a spillover effect. We have had this debate, Mr. Chairman, in past years. And in past years we could not say with a great deal of confidence that we were experiencing real progress. But let me state one basic fact which I think is very, very clear. Our efforts in Colombia are making a real difference. As this chart shows here, and this is from August to June of 2001 and 2002 to the year 2002 and 2003, by almost any measure the insurgents killed in action is up 28 percent. Insurgents captured, up 108 percent. Insurgents deserting, 106 percent. Terrorists attacks, down 47 percent. Tax on the economic infrastructure, down 54 percent. Murders, down 16 percent. This is all over the course of one year of time. We have seen a tremendous impact. Colombian President Uribe's administration is one that is very committed to making a difference and making things happen. Poppy cultivation was spreading. As you can see, there have been a very dramatic increase in the number of hectares being eradicated and a resultant decline in the amount of cultivation of poppy. Similarly, if we look at coca cultivation, there is an even more dramatic increase over the last 3 years in eradication efforts. Now we are beginning to see the results. For the first time in 5 years, we see a significant reduction in the amount of the actual coca production and cultivation. These are the direct results, the direct results of the U.S. assisted eradication program. The President also requested $110 million, for foreign military financing assistance for Colombia. This is not blanket military assistance for Colombia, but it is designed to improve the quality of very focused support for specialized units in the Colombian military. Mr. Chairman, the former U.S. ambassador to Colombia has spoken very eloquently about this and very forcefully to us about the President's regret. She has told us that if we are ever going to be able to ratchet down our assistance to Colombia, and if we are ever going to turn over the program to the Colombians and allow the Colombians to do the job, then the foreign military sales are absolutely important. It is critical so that Colombians can have not only the training but have the hardware that is required in order to be successful. The problems that face Colombia are very complex. They are economic. They are social. They are law enforcement and they are very much linked. There is not going to be any rapid or easy fix to this problem. We have discovered that over the years, the nonexistent government presence and the lack of law enforcement capability in lawless areas of the country are key to Colombia's social and economic problems. The U.S. assistance is helping to make a big difference. We have just been told by the Columbian ambassador to the United States, in virtually every single province there is now a military and police presence, whereas scores had no presence just a couple of years ago. Let me repeat, U.S. assistance is making a huge difference in Colombia. It is in our interests to support the President's request to Colombia. I cannot think of a worse time to cut our assistance when we have a President in Colombia that is absolutely committed to making a difference and to protecting human rights. We have an opportunity to make a real difference in this country, therefore it would be the worst time for the Congress to be voting to cut these funds. Mr. Chairman, even if the gentleman suggests that this is not a major cut to the level of funding, it would be the wrong signal to be sending to the Colombian people who are very supportive of President Uribe in his efforts to destroy the FARC, his efforts to counterattack against the FARC and the paramilitary and to end the production of coca and opium in the area. I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this perfecting amendment simply clarifies the responsibilities of the new AIDS coordinator that has been added by legislation adopted by the Congress and signed into law by the President. I believe it is acceptable to the minority. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her comment.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes given the hour of the evening here, and I will not debate the merits of this except to say that at this moment with what we are doing in the Middle East with the peace process and the roadmap, this would be a very inappropriate amendment at this time. Point of Order

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will just make my point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change existing law, constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. That rule states in part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . . . '' It imposes additional duties. This does impose additional duties, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and I appreciate very much his fiscal responsibility. He has been a watchdog of fiscal prudence in this House and we need Members like that. But I really do believe that this appropriations bill is a fiscally responsible bill. Not only have we stayed with the allocation but we are at a level that is $1.8 billion less than the President's request. That is 10 percent less than the President's requested in this area in this account. So we have made some choices in order to fund some, but not all of the President's priorities. I would note that we have provided less in our bill than the President requested in 24 accounts. We have only provided more funds than the President requested in four accounts in the bill. We have had some significant discussion about those tonight like the HIV/AIDS account. But in 24 of the accounts we have under what the President actually requested. I know that $171 million seems like a lot of money to most folks in America. When we around here deal with the kind of dollars we deal with and some of the size of the appropriations bills we deal with, $171 million may not seem like a lot, but it is when you come to the context of foreign assistance. In fact, it is more than the entire sum of assistance programs for all but a very small number of countries that are included in our bill. Mr. Chairman, I would say while I appreciate what the gentleman is attempting to do I think it is the wrong approach and I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about this account. I would just like to note that we have recommended $335 million. That is an increase of $31 million in what is called the NADR, the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs. The gentleman's asked for a specific sub-account within there of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. He has asked for money to be additionally placed in there, and I would just note that we have provided an increase of $5.1 million. That is a 34 percent increase in that account there. So I think we have done very well, and I would also note that this particular State Department discretionary fund has not had the best record of expeditiously obligating funds. I would just say the problem we have had is one that the gentleman has correctly identified, or maybe not has correctly identified, but is certainly one of the allocations that we have available to us. As I mentioned on the previous amendment, we have an allocation of a full billion dollars less than what is available to the Senate, and I would hope that when we are in conference if we have additional funds available to us to be able to work with the gentleman to increase the funding for this; and with that, Mr. Chairman, if that is satisfactory, if the gentleman would like to respond to that, I would yield to him for the purpose of commenting on that.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 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. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind comments, but I would have to say there has been no person in this House who has been a better advocate, a stronger advocate, a more forceful and articulate advocate of trade and the advantages it brings to American workers and American consumers than the person who just spoke, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. I was delighted to see my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) saying he supports the rule as well. He spoke about some of the concerns he has. These concerns are ones of process, concern that there is not the ability to amend these bills on the floor. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was, of course, the debate that we had on Trade Promotion Authority, what we used to call Fast Track. That is not the issue here today. The issue here today is the substance of these two agreements, and the substance of these two agreements is indeed very good. This a momentous occasion in our trade policy. Passage of these two trade agreements is the first time in a decade we have been able to use what we used to call Fast Track, now called Trade Promotion Authority, to get agreements. It will once again mean that the United States is aggressively pursuing its national interest, breaking down trade barriers and building a world of free trade. I commend the leadership of the administration and the Congress, both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle, for bringing us to this point. I have a special reason for feeling very emotional about the Chile Free Trade Agreement. Eight years ago, in 1995, just shortly after NAFTA went into effect, the Speaker of the House asked me to go to Chile and talk to them about trade. I went there and I said I had a good deal of confidence that then President Clinton would seek Trade Promotion Authority, Fast Track Authority, and Congress would give it to him. Of course we know that that did not happen. And it was not until just last year that Trade Promotion Authority was granted the President. Now we are finally back on track. There has been so many dashed hopes in Chile, so much anticipation of what this could mean for them, and finally we are bringing it to fruition. Since the launching of these negotiations it has been a period of great unease in Chile, of anticipation as we struggled to secure TPA. All of Latin America has been watching the progression of Trade Promotion Authority, and now this agreement with Chile. For them it is the litmus test to verify that the U.S. would not renege on its commitment to the Western Hemisphere, and today Congress fulfills that commitment by moving forward. If we are to nurture fragile democracies in the region, if we are to foster development, development that actually leads to sustained better economic conditions for people in the region, as well as for Americans and consumers and workers in this country, we have to lead by example. We have to lead by bringing free trade to the region. Chile is that first step. It is an agreement that is in our economic, our foreign policy, our national security interest. More than 85 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will immediately become duty free upon ratification, with most remaining tariffs eliminated within 4 years. Chile is offering new access for U.S. financial service companies, telecommunications, express delivery services, and professional service advisers. For Singapore, this is the first free trade agreement with an East Asian country. Singapore has expressed its early and unequivocal support for the United States and its war on terrorism following the events of September 11. Their support has been unwavering since that time. And when it comes to business and commercial interests, Singapore is the biggest customer we have in Southeast Asia. We now have investments in that city state that total $23 billion, and our exports to Singapore are $18 billion. So there is no doubt that the Singapore Free Trade Agreement is in the broad U.S. national interest. It will enhance our mutual interest in a stable, prosperous ASEAN and East Asia. I believe these agreements will stand as models for other bilateral trade agreements and their regions and in multilateral forms. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the passage of legislation implementing these important agreements.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present, at long last I should say, present H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. In almost all the instances that we will see here today, this is a joint recommendation, which means that there are compromises that are made on both sides; and it is one of which I am very proud. I am very proud to have worked with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my colleague, the ranking member from the minority side. Working with her has been absolutely a joy. She has been wonderful in her spirit of trying to find a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. It is in that spirit, I believe, that this bill is presented today; and I want to thank her and her staff for the tireless work that they have done on this bill. I might add, I want to thank the staff that surrounds me here, led by the able Clerk of our subcommittee, Charlie Flickner, and my personal staff for the extraordinary work that they have done to get us to where we are today. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's recommendation for fiscal year 2004 foreign assistance and export financing funding is $17.1 billion. That is $1.7 billion below the administration's request. We worked to accommodate as many of the Members' interests as possible, while keeping in mind the broader national and international situation. In the papers, on TV, in the streets, we are faced daily with the ramification of the issues that are covered by this bill. This bill provides vital funding to fight wars against disease and drugs, for building peace and democracy, and for building economic prosperity around the world. The President's trip to Africa a few weeks ago highlighted the opportunity we have this year to embark on a bold new direction in international assistance. During his trip, the President championed initiatives to address two of the greatest problems facing our world today, persistent poverty and HIV/AIDS. The Millennium Challenge Account and the emergency plans for AIDS relief are the most innovative programs that we have seen in decades that reshape foreign assistance. The Millennium Challenge Account will provide an incentive for countries to build a political and economic infrastructure which leads to long-term development, which leads to sustainable development, which leads to the improvement in the lives of the citizens of the countries involved. The AIDS initiative will bring medicine and care and hope to millions of people. The very promise of care and treatment has already brought hope to millions. These initiatives may be innovative new approaches, but the work of our subcommittee has not changed. We must distribute the resources that are allotted to us, resources that are never quite enough, across a wide range of competing priorities. We have to make difficult choices among deserving programs, and we are charged with ensuring that taxpayer money is spent wisely and efficiently. We all must remember that effective programs require a firm foundation and good management. This year we have once again provided more funds than the President requests for HIV/AIDS, for its prevention, treatment, care and support. Our bill recommends $1.43 billion for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Add to that the $645 million that was recommended by the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies and that the House approved last week, this body now proposes to spend nearly $2.1 billion for these three diseases, an amount that more than meets the President's request of $2.04 billion. This $2 billion represents the first installment of $15 billion to be spent against these three diseases over the next 5 years. Let me make that crystal clear. This administration and this subcommittee and, I believe, this Congress are fully committed to spending $15 billion on prevention and life-saving treatments for those afflicted with AIDS around the world. This $2 billion that is in these two bills, last week and here today on the floor, is only our first installment in that program. Now, the Millennium Challenge Account is a new component of our bill this year. I fully support the MCA. I am excited about it. I believe it can make our investments in developing assistance more effective and more sustainable. Our bill recommends $800 billion for the MCA, or Millennium Challenge Account, and we believe that is the amount that can be effectively spent in fiscal year 2004. Of course, in future years more resources are going to be needed to fight HIV/AIDS and to support the initiatives of the MCA. I have confidence that the Congress will meet the 5-year pledge for AIDS and that additional funds will be forthcoming to support the creative delivery of foreign assistance through the MCA in years ahead. But it is the very size of the task facing us over the coming years that counsels patience today. Our recommendations for the HIV/AIDS initiative and for the MCA are the first steps in two very ambitious, very innovative, and very new programs. With this $2 billion the House provides for AIDS this coming year, agencies can build a solid framework to support the $13 billion that will follow. With our $800 million for the Millennium Challenge Account, we will have a structure that can effectively and wisely use the added $5 billion in development assistance that the President has pledged to put on top of existing development assistance. But our recommendation is not so extravagant, Mr. Chairman, that money will lay waiting to be spent, gathering pressure that might lead to waste and to unwise expenditures, eroding public confidence in these two initiatives. Some of our colleagues are pressing to take even more, to move money into AIDS from the MCA for other programs. Such an approach, Mr. Chairman, would, in my opinion, be an unwise one. What we have provided for the President's new HIV/AIDS initiative is prudent, when we consider that the coordinator, who has been named for these programs in the State Department, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. Taking more money from the MCA would signal a lack of confidence in the approach of the MCA. We should instead be recognizing the President for his vision, and $800 million to launch this program is an appropriate level. The final priority I want to mention in this bill is funding for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. This funding accounts for nearly $5 billion of the total. Let me add that the major refugee account and the key military assistance accounts, so vital in our war against terrorism and to protect our national security, are all fully funded. Of course, the funding priorities I have laid out for my colleagues add up to more than the increase in our budget allocation. So the subcommittee has gone to great lengths to avoid reducing appropriations in order to make room for the AIDS emergency plan and the Millennium Challenge Account, and for the admirable commitment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to improving basic education globally. Within Child Survival and Health, we have succeeded in holding the levels for Child Survival and Maternal Health, for Vulnerable Children, for Family Planning and Reproductive Health, and our unrestricted grant to UNICEF at last year's level. Our funding for international funding institutions, the Economic Support Fund, which is used by the State Department and the President to support economic development assistance around the world, and two of the President's lesser initiatives, has been reduced or eliminated to accommodate the initiatives within the allocation that was given to us. Separately, I would note that there is no money in this bill for the reconstruction in Iraq. None has been requested by the administration. Although many of us expect and many of us heard yesterday from Ambassador Bremer that more money may well be required shortly, we will await a Presidential decision on this matter. In closing, let me say, and I say this with some confidence, that this is a good bill, one which I believe that all Members can be proud of and which I hope will have the support of all the Members of this body. It is fiscally responsible. It is within the subcommittee's budget allocation. It is a bill that helps to lay the groundwork for the important work that is ahead of us as we launch these major initiatives in development assistance and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. It is a bill that meets our challenges overseas and impacts the national security of this Nation. I urge the Members to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, who, I must say, along with his staff, has been so supportive of our efforts in getting us to the floor at this stage. I am very grateful for his confidence and his support.

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 H.R. 2800, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers in general debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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