Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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 would make a point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore finds itself in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. That rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' It gives affirmative direction, in effect. In this legislation this proposed amount does do that. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 which the gentlewoman from Texas has offered. The amendment offered, once again, invokes a textual ``double- negative.'' As a result, it constitutes an affirmative direction or statement of affirmative intent which would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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, I offer an amendment.

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. 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, this is an amendment which deals with the operating procedures for USAID and simply clarifies some of those procedures. I believe it is acceptable to the minority for this amendment to be agreed to, and I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

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, I would insist on my point of order.

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 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 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. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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, 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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the simple comment that it is an emergency designation and that changes existing law.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes, although I do not expect to use it, but I want to make sure I protect 1 minute at the end there. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who is a good friend of mine and somebody whom I have the greatest respect for, I realize that what we are talking about here is something that on one level sounds very good. Who in the world is not in favor of opening our markets? Who in the world is not in favor of protecting us against copyright invasion? Who is not in favor of rights for American investors at least as good as foreign investors have? Who in the world would not be for good labor standards that do not allow for exploitation of child labor or forced labor? All of those things, of course, we are for. But we have to look at the specific words of the amendments that is being offered here, Mr. Chairman. It is not just nice rhetoric we are talking about. We are talking about an amendment that is being proposed to a piece of legislation that is being proposed to be enacted into law. So let us look at it. It says none of the funds, none of the funds, made available to the United States Trade Representative, none of the funds in here, which is well over $24 million this year, none of the funds made available to the U.S. Trade Representative may be used in negotiating a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas or a Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFT agreement, that does not protect against piracy of copyright. Well and good. Who determines that? How does it get determined? How do we know if we are making sufficient progress during the negotiations to know whether or not we could be expending any funds that does not open markets for the United States agricultural products and high technology and other manufactured products. Does that mean that only if it opens markets for our products? Does it mean it cannot open our doors for products from other countries coming into the United States? Is this supposed to be just under this? Is USTR supposed to assume it has to be a one-way trade agreement that is to be negotiated, that provides for greater rights for foreign investors? What are greater rights? What does that mean? Cannot provide for greater rights for foreign investors than U.S.? Do we have to compare each tax law? How do we compare the tax laws as opposed to our own tax laws? How are they supposed to know? The point of all of this, Mr. Chairman, the point that I am trying to make here, is that what we are talking about here is a negotiating process. We are talking about the U.S. Trade Representative entering into a negotiation. And when you enter into negotiations, you cannot prejudge and say that at the outset it has to be better than it was before in all agricultural products. It has to provide for more protection for U.S. investors than for other investors. And how are they supposed to know day by day during this negotiation whether they are allowed to expend funds? It is a completely unworkable kind of amendment that is being offered here today. So just on the surface of this amendment it is something that could not really possibly work. The bottom line is we all want to have protection for investors, protection for copyrights, open access to markets in other countries. But we are also talking about some of the least developed countries, certainly, in this hemisphere, some of the lesser-developed countries in the world. And part of what we want to do with these trade agreements is give them an opportunity to have economic growth, give them an opportunity to hope for the future, give them a hand up, not a hand out, hold our hand out to them with open trade, with open markets; not to keep giving them more assistance that only robs them of the ability to send their markets, send their products to our markets. That, Mr. Chairman, is what we are talking about with these free trade agreements. I am reminded finally of how the head of the international labor organizations at one time with the group of members of this body was being questioned about labor rights and what kind of labor rights should exist in other countries; and he finally said, We want jobs, of course, we want good jobs in these Latin American countries, but first we have to have the job before we can talk about how we protect that job, before we can talk about having worker protections and building on that and making those jobs better and providing for more rights for our workers. First, we have to have the jobs. That is what we are talk about with CAFTA and the FTAA. We are talking about providing these jobs for people there, giving them a chance, giving them hope for the future. Let us not rob them of that hope. Let us not do the Central American Free Trade Agreement; let us not do the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas with an amendment like this. Tomorrow we will make our points of order on the issue itself as to whether this amendment should be in order. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time except for the 1 minute that remains.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Michigan. At the appropriate time, I will make the point of order as to why I believe that this amendment is not in order. As I understand it, just so we are clear as to how we are going to proceed here this evening, our intention is for the two of us or others who may want to debate to use the time, and reserve, each of us, 1 minute of debate for tomorrow, and I will make the point of order at that time and we will address the issue at that time. But aside from the issue of the parliamentary procedure that is involved here as to whether this amendment is in order and, as I said, I will address that at the appropriate time, I do have strong objections to the content of this amendment. I have a lot of respect, a tremendous amount of respect for the gentleman from Michigan. I appreciate both the intellect and the passion that he brings to the subject of trade and its discussions. He and I worked together, sometimes on opposite sides, on trade issues in this Chamber over the years. On any given day, when there is a trade panel discussion, whether it is here in the Capitol or some place downtown, he and I are usually paired together as discussers. But as many of my colleagues may know, we do possess very different views about trade policy. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for the crafting of this particular amendment. With it I think he has shown a great deal of legislative brilliance and some policy ingenuity as well. But I have to say the net result is quite mischievous. The gentleman, through his amendment, seeks to have his cake and then to eat it as well. Or on another plane, it attempts, this amendment attempts to be all things to all people. It purports to satisfy all constituencies: expertise in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, U.S. producers of intellectual property through copyright protection, antiglobalization environmental organizations focused on investment issues, and even labor organizations focused on labor rights. In the context of trade negotiations, it sets very high hurdles or high marks on the pole vault poles that the U.S. trade negotiators must meet in order to get over that hurdle. It cherry-picks the very best USTR has been able to negotiate so far in other free trade agreements with other countries. And, in this case, it picks on the two that are here in our hemisphere. It says that the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, both under active consideration and active negotiation, should emulate the copyright provisions from the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement. On the agriculture, manufacturing and market access, the amendment says that CAFTA and the FTAA should replicate the outcomes of the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. On the issue of investor rights, it creatively interprets how Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, which has been adopted by this body and enacted into law, it creatively interprets how TPA was written to meet its own ends. Lastly, it would seek to make Jordan, the Jordan agreement a model for future agreements on the issue of labor rights. Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, this amendment really aims to be all things to all people. But when we get below the surface, we have to realize that this amendment is a poison pill, a poison pill that dooms the hope of Hondurans and Equadorans, El Salvadorans, and all others in this hemisphere for more market access, for the opportunity to trade with the United States. The aim of this amendment is nothing less than to sink the negotiations on the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and that would be a disaster. It would be a disaster for the U.S. economy. It would be a disaster for our foreign policy, which has made such a strong commitment to these countries, to give them the access that they do not now have. It would be a disaster for the future development of democracy in the Western Hemisphere. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, every agreement is unique. We can be sure that USTR will get the best possible deal for U.S. workers, for exporters, and for importers. We can be sure that the U.S. Government will seek to get the best deal for consumers and for America's working families. But, Mr. Chairman, we cannot prejudge the outcome like this gentleman attempts to do with his amendment by directing it in advance. Every negotiation, every trade negotiation that we have ever had is different; but we all expect that in the end the agreements that are negotiated by USTR will improve the status quo for free trade in the Western Hemisphere and with the Central American countries. That is our goal for CAFTA and for the FTAA. This agreement, by seeking to put a straitjacket around the USTR as to how they would negotiate that agreement, would assure that in the end we have no such agreement. It is as simple as that. For that reason on substance, this amendment should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.