Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was at a meeting with President Bush at the White House and missed the vote on H. Res. 319, on Ordering the Previous Question providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2691, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be modified in the form I have sent to the desk.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for the exceptionally good work that they and their committee have done in bringing this Millennium Challenge Account legislation to the floor as part of this State Department authorization. It is one of the more important things that we have done in the last several years. The amendment that I have offered at the desk, the revision, would extend the number of countries eligible to apply for the Millennium Challenge Funding Account for a single year only of 2004. As drafted in my original amendment, it would have been for 2004, 2005 and 2006. The underlying bill is for 2006, so this would extend it for 1 year. I offer this amendment because I think it is critical for U.S. foreign policy and because I think this debate is more about the signals of good governance that we have in countries around the world. It is about investing in people and economic freedom. It is more about that than it is about money; and I am concerned about the signal that we are sending to a lot of countries around the world, the so-called lower middle income countries who are not going to be able to join this process of applying for the MCA in my view until too late if we do not include them now. That includes many countries in this hemisphere; and, as we know with the AIDS Initiative which the President has announced, it is almost exclusively limited to Africa. With the way this is drafted to now, it would be limited to mostly countries in Africa until at least the year 2006 and then limited to only 20 percent of the money after that. I think our hemisphere is being left behind, and I believe, from traveling down there very recently, I have found that people down there do feel this way about it. So the debate is not really about money. The issue of this development in the developing world has never really been about money. It is about the quality of political, economic and social governance. The amendment that I am offering today would make sure that the signals are sent out to more countries around the world that they, too, can participate in this. Because it is about whether or not they have shown the commitment to good governance as to whether or not they can apply. As the bill is structured, there are two pools of countries. Those with per capita incomes below $1,435 a year, that is in Tier 1 or the first pool; and the second tier are those between $1,435 and $2,995 per year. As drafted, the second tier would only become eligible to participate in the year 2006. The Tier 1 countries, those with incomes below $1,435, are eligible to qualify if they need 16 performance indicators envisioned by the President. They are ranked, and we will not go into the details of that. But how many countries in Tier 1 would qualify? Estimates range on the number of countries with below $1,435 in per capita incomes, but we might have as many as 80 or 90 countries being evaluated. How many countries in Tier 2 might? There are another 30 countries that might qualify as a result of that. That is what this is about, those second tier countries, some 30 in number, that otherwise would have to wait until 2006 before they can compete for even 20 percent of the resources included in this bill. What is the impact of this amendment? Immediately, in the first year only, a few countries in the Western Hemisphere are eligible to compete. Those are the Tier 1 countries. That would include in this hemisphere Nicaragua, Haiti, Guyana, Honduras, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay. That is only seven out of 80 or 90 countries around the world that might participate that come in our own hemisphere; and two of those, Ecuador and Paraguay, are likely to find themselves cut off because they are right at the edge, and if their income exceeds that, they would then drop out of being eligible to participate. So we might find only five countries in the entire Western Hemisphere that are able to participate. What kind of Latin American countries are going to be left behind if we do not have this amendment until at least 2006? Countries such as Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Jamaica, and Belize. Many of these countries have a tremendously low income level. Many of these countries are ones where a large percentage of those people in those countries are living below the $1 a day. Sixteen percent of the people in Guatemala live at less than $1 a day, and 23 percent in El Salvador live on less than $1 a day. This is the absolute bare minimum that the United Nations says represents the poverty level. These are countries that will not be eligible if they have the good governance, and many of these countries do, to participate in this program until the year 2006. I am just suggesting, give them some hope. Move them up 1 year and give them an opportunity to participate 1 year earlier. At that time, we will have more money, I am convinced, available to us to fund these programs than we do in this very first year, which is why I have limited it to only adding the year 2005. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I understand it, this will be acceptable to the committee. Let me just say, these are clarifying amendments that clarify the authority of both the Secretary of State and USAID to the Millennium Challenge Account and I think just helps make it clear the lines of authority.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not think it would be accurate to say that the administration does vigorously oppose this. They have not in any way indicated, certainly to me, that they would. I think it is important to note that in the legislation that was sent up by the administration, they did not have any cap, any 20 percent cap or any cap of any sort beginning in the year 2006 on the amount of funds. So it does not seem very reasonable that with a 20 percent cap they would be opposed to having that made available to countries in the year 2005 that come in the second tier. Let me just say in conclusion that I hope my colleagues will support this. Again, I want to say I have the greatest respect for the chairman and the ranking member and the others who oppose this, but I just think this is really about giving hope to other countries. Let us keep our eye on the ball, what the MCA is and what it is not. It is not a poverty program. We have USAID programs that are funded through my subcommittee that are about that. This is about governance. This is about giving hope to countries that have made a commitment, that have made a commitment to reducing corruption, that have made a commitment to transparency, that have made a commitment to the rule of law, that have made a commitment to titling property, that have made a commitment to actually having development that will work to sustain economic growth for their people. Let us give them some hope. Do not turn our back now on the Western Hemisphere. So much has been accomplished in the last 10 years. Give them hope. They are teetering on the edge at this moment. This is not the time now for us to turn our back on these countries. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment allowing these countries in tier 2 to be eligible only 1 year earlier than otherwise in the Hyde-Lantos amendment.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I take this time this evening to rise and say a few words about our late colleague, the beloved chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and before that the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. A few words might be the operative thing to say here this evening about Bob Stump because Bob Stump did not talk very often on the floor. In fact, in these 5 minutes I think I will say more words than I ever remember Bob Stump saying other than on a bill which he presented to the floor to the Congress of the United States. He may have been a man of few words, but he was not a man of little action; and he was not a man of little commitment. Many others have spoken either here on the floor or at the ceremony where his portrait was unveiled or his funeral service just a few days ago in Phoenix about many aspects of his life. I would like to talk for a moment about a couple of the personal things that I remember about Bob Stump. I knew him before he came to the Congress and long before I came to the Congress when he was the president of the Arizona State Senate. I did not serve with him in the Senate. I came to the Senate at the time that he left there to come to the United States Congress. But he served in that Senate with Sandra Day O'Connor who later became a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. They were on opposite sides. He was president of the Senate. She was the minority leader in the Arizona State Senate at that time. But they always had a great deal of respect for each other, and I think it was this respect that characterizes the way that everybody felt about Bob Stump through the years. He came to the Congress in 1976 and served here for 26 years. I think in the entire time that Bob Stump served in the Congress he had one press conference, and that was the press conference where he announced that he was switching from a Democrat to a Republican. When Bob moved from a seat on that side of the aisle to a seat on this side of the aisle, he really did not change at all. He was the same person that he had always been, a fiscal conservative, a hard-nosed individual who believed strongly in national defense and somebody who cared passionately about veterans. He, himself, was a veteran and he knew the sacrifices that veterans had made and he knew the commitment that this country had made to providing for health care for our veterans. And Bob Stump continued in his service here in the House of Representatives doing it with little fanfare. Bob Stump came to the office every morning at about 5 a.m., and he would open all the mail. He had his desk in his office like most of us had, but he also had a desk in the back room, and it was there that he spent most of the time, opening the mail, working with his staff. He did not have a lot of staff people, about half of the number most of us had. And yet he took care of his constituents. He always listened to them, always met with them, always found time to be available for them. And on weekends he faithfully went home to the district, and he faithfully went to his farm and worked the cotton crop on the farm. He looked after his constituents. They always felt that they could be in touch with Bob Stump. He never lost touch with his constituents. He was an unassuming person who asked for very little recognition or glory. He called everything exactly as he saw it. He never minced any words. When you asked Bob Stump about something, you knew exactly where he stood. But I think it is his commitment to veterans and a commitment to a strong national defense reflected in the work he did on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and later as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services that he will always be remembered for. He may not get his name etched in stone and, indeed, future generations of veterans and those who served in the armed services may never know his name, but they will be indebted to him. They will be indebted to him for the health care system we have for veterans and the quality of health care we provide in the veterans hospitals all over this country. So there will be many who will never have known his name, but they will be in great debt to him as those of us in the House of Representatives are in debt to him for his unfailingly hard work, his unassuming stance, his willingness to call it like it was, and his dedication and his commitment to this institution. We will miss Bob Stump, but we are grateful for the time that we had with him, and we are grateful for his service to his country and to the veterans of this Nation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the funeral of the Honorable Bob Stump in Phoenix, Arizona and missed votes on the following measures: 1. S. 858--To extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes (#312). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 2. H.R. 2474--To require that funds made available for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships be administered through the Congressional Hunger Center (#313). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 3. H.J. Res. 49--recognizing the important service to the Nation provided by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (#314). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 4. H. Con. Res. 49--expressing the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences (#315). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 5. H. Res. 199--calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes (#316). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 6. H. Res. 294--condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli people in their fight against terrorism (#317). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was unavoidably detained and missed votes on the following measures: 1. H. Res. 264--Expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Algeria on May 21, 2003 (#297). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 2. H. Res. 177--Commending the people of the Republic of Kenya for conducting free and fair elections, for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power in their government, and for the continued success of democracy in their nation since that transition (#298). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 3. H. Con. Res. 209--Commending the signing of the United States- Adriatic Charter, a charter of partnership among the United States, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia (#299). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' 4. H.R. 2465--Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2003 (#300). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the vote on the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2003 (H.R. 2350), I was present on the floor of the House of Representatives and did register my vote. However, due to a faulty voting card my vote was not counted. Had this malfunction not occurred, I would have voted ``aye'' on this vote (No. 261).

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me, and I want to say to all of you it is great to be here with you on this day. This is something of a bittersweet day, I know, for you as you leave an experience that is going to be an experience of a lifetime. I can tell you that from having been through it myself many years ago as a page, but it is also you are going to be returning home to your friends and your families, and that is always good, and you are not going to have to be rousted out of bed in the morning for early duty over here and you are not going to have late nights on the floor of the House for a while. So you can sit back at home and watch it on television for a little bit and enjoy it that way instead of having to participate in it every day. Over the years, you will come to understand just how important an experience this is for you, or at least I hope you will, and I think all of you will do that. First, I just want to say the job that you do for us is very important. I liken it to being the grease that helps to make the House of Representatives run every day from having squeaky wheels. It is the oil that makes the machine work correctly. You really do in a very quiet and silent way, kind of behind the scenes, you perform very important functions for us, and we are very grateful for that. Sometimes perhaps we do not say it often enough or we do not say it in the right way. So I just want to say thank you for the outstanding job that you do. It would not be possible to do the job of pages with other people handling those tasks. There is a very special reason that we have kept this program constituted the way it is, with young people coming from all walks of life, all parts of the United States, all kinds of communities, all backgrounds, all ethnic groups, that come here to get a sense of what the House of Representatives, what the Congress, what the United States Government is all about because in a very real sense, you go back to your communities, to your schools, to your families, to your fellow students as ambassadors, as ambassadors from the House of Representatives, as ambassadors from the United States Congress to tell them something about the institution that you have had an opportunity for a year not just to study but to live, to actually be a part of. So for this last year, you have really come to understand in ways perhaps that you do not even recognize right now because it is just absorbed to you but over the years you will understand things that you know now about the House of Representatives that other people do not understand and do not know about. The most important thing that I hope you will take away from this is that the people who serve here are good. The people who work in this place are good. The staff that work behind this desk, the staff that work in all of the buildings, that work in all of the offices, the staff that help you to go through this year, the Members who serve in the House of Representatives and the Members who serve in the United States Senate, sure there are bad eggs. There are always bad eggs someplace, but they are by and large good people. The most important thing is not that. It is the institution itself. The institution is much larger than the people who serve in this body. This morning we swore in a new Member. I think I heard the figure, the 9,883rd person in the history of the United States to serve in the House of Representatives. It is a great privilege for me to serve in the House, and I can guarantee that as I look out to faces here there are one or two, maybe more, of you who will someday be back here as Members of the House of Representatives. It is not the people that serve here. It is the institution itself that makes this country different from other countries. It is the concept of the rule of law. It is the concept of the history. It is the concept of the institution that makes our government work. In my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs I have a responsibility and an opportunity to travel to a lot of countries around the world, and sometimes I see countries that have great wealth, great natural resources, have everything going for them except they do not have the institutions. They do not have the rule of law. That is what makes the United States different. We should never just assume it is always there. It is something that has to be protected. It is something that has to be worked for every day. That is why I think this that you now have a responsibility as a former page to go back to your communities, to become active citizens in your communities, to help to participate in your community, to participate in the political process. You will do it in different ways. Most of you will never run for any office; but you will get involved, perhaps in a school community, in the school board. You will do one of these different things; and someday, yes, one of you will be in Congress. Maybe one of you will be President of the United States. I can look out here and see many that I think might fill that role. The important thing is that you stay involved in your community. The important thing is that you make a contribution to this great country so that your children and your grandchildren can someday sit on this floor and have the same experience. It does not just happen. It happens because Americans care enough to make it happen. You have cared enough to come here and to be a part of this, and we thank you for the job that you have done. We thank you for the commitment that you have made year long to this responsibility, to this work. And we thank you now as you go back to your communities. I wish you all the very best, and I hope I see the faces of many of you around here in the future. Thank you. Godspeed.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall 234 on H.J. Res. 4, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' but I meant to vote ``nay.'' Although I abhor desecration of our flag, I believe it is a form of political expression and dissent protected under the First Amendment. I would like the record to reflect that my intended vote was ``nay''

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Greenwood, Hoyer, and Johnson amendment to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, H.R. 760. For several years, Congress and the American people have endured a wrenching debate concerning abortions. Although I believe in a woman's right to determine her reproductive destiny, I do not support partial birth abortion. In fact, I am opposed to any post-viability abortion by whatever method, unless it is performed to save the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse consequences to her health. To date, congressional debate has centered on legislation that would federalize the regulation of abortion, a matter historically left to the discretion of the States. And, for the first time in medical history, it would ban a specific procedure, known medically as a dilation and extraction, D&X. I cannot support this legislation because of its uncompromising language banning this specific late term abortion method even in a case where a pregnancy goes tragically wrong and the woman's health is placed in serious peril. Recognizing the need for some answers in a debate that has generated more heat than light, I join my colleagues, Congressman Jim Greenwood, and Steny Hoyer, and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson in support of an amendment that would prohibit all late-term abortions, regardless of the method used to terminate the abortion. The Greenwood, Hoyer, and Johnson amendment applies to all abortions performed after ``viability'', defined as that time when a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. The amendment provides an exception only in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse consequences to her health. The Greenwood, Hoyer, and Johnson amendment correctly puts the emphasis on when abortions are performed, not how they are performed. This amendment does not try to put Congress in the inappropriate role of determining the correctness of one particular medical procedure. Instead, this amendment makes clear that throughout the course of a pregnancy, prior to viability, medical decisions regarding a woman's personal care and treatment must lie with the patient, her physician, and her family--not lawmakers in Washington. Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood, Hoyer, and Johnson amendment would prohibit all post-viability abortions even if the woman suddenly decided she no longer wanted the child or was emotionally unable to care for a child. I cannot and I will not justify a late-term abortion in these instances. However, when an abortion is medically necessary, I want every woman to have available to her the procedure that is the safest. I encourage all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to support this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs on the Committee on Appropriations to discuss this bill, H.R. 1298. It is our subcommittee that will be called upon to fund this authorization. The legislation has three critical elements that are important to the issue of funding: first, the requirement for the President to establish within 9 months a comprehensive 5-year strategy to combat AIDS; second, within the Department of State the establishment of a new coordinator of U.S. activity to combat HIV/AIDS; and, third, providing statutory authority and sufficient authorization for additional United States contributions to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. There are many other provisions, some of which appear unnecessary to this Member, others of which are clearly contradictory; but I want to address these three core provisions in the time that I have available. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their work in crafting legislation that could bring much-needed policy coherence and effective management to the outpouring of well-meaning but, frankly, scattershot Presidential and congressional initiatives designed to arrest the worldwide HIV/AIDS pandemic. I would ask the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the members of the Committee on International Relations to take into consideration several of our subcommittee's concerns as they move this bill toward enactment. First, as the proposed 5-year strategy will not be in place, at the earliest, until midway through the next fiscal year, the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2004 will have to reflect the strategies and use the delivery systems now in place. For that reason, I would caution against legislating the Uganda model on a global basis or limiting increased funding to only 14 countries before that strategy is in place or Congress has had an opportunity to review it. Second, the legislation under consideration today proposes to turn the role of the AIDS coordinator into a de facto agency administrator. I have serious reservations about giving someone who was designated a coordinator within the State Department the authority to make grants, operate in foreign countries, or to, in effect, replace the Global Health Bureau of USAID or the Centers for Disease Control. Why are we creating an entire new Federal bureaucracy to administer the program when one already exists? I also object to the language which would allow the coordinator to transfer money from prior-year appropriations or to establish a new account in the Treasury for which no funds have been appropriated. Third, I welcome the flexibility to continue funding for the Global Fund at or above the current level of almost $350 million. But in all candor, the budget resolution does not permit fiscal 2004 funding anywhere near the $1 billion authorized by this legislation. Thus, we are only creating false expectations about what our Committee on Appropriations might be able to do this year. Mr. Chairman, having spent much time over many years on the critical issues addressed by this bill, I am really pleased to see that the Congress is grappling with HIV/AIDS as an international issue. The legislation before us today is a helpful start, but much work remains to be done if we are to have effective implementation of programs to combat HIV/AIDS around the world.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have been through this debate earlier today. We had a definitive vote on the issue of whether or not we should eliminate these funds for Turkey. The case, I think, was made very effectively here on the floor of the House of Representatives about the importance of Turkey in this fight against Iraq, in this fight to protect our soldiers who are operating in northern Iraq. One of the points I did not get to make today, however, is about the fragility of the Turkish economy. It is very fragile. They have been battered for years by the oil sanctions. They have been battered by the costs of the number of refugees who have come in from Iraq into Turkey. They have been battered by the loss of tourism. They have been battered by the world recession. This is a country that has a huge amount, over $75 billion of public debt. There is no one that thinks that this $8 billion of loan guarantees that the funds we are talking about would buy for them can save them on its own; but it can buy them time until we can get past this conflict, until we can begin to make the economic reforms with the new government in that country, until we can get an agreement with the IMF and with the World Bank, until we can restructure some of those loans that they have. But that cannot happen, Mr. Chairman, unless we have these funds made available to Turkey. Taking 20 percent of it out means at least a reduction of $2 billion in those loan guarantees. This is important money. It is important for the security of our troops who are operating in northern Iraq, it is important for the resupply of them, it is important for the supply of the humanitarian assistance going into northern Iraq, and it is important to maintain the coalition that we find so important in fighting this struggle. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment as soundly as they defeated the previous amendment. We ought not to be reducing this money that is very important to maintaining our relationship with Turkey and maintaining Turkey's involvement in the war against terrorism and the war against Iraq. I urge a ``no'' vote.