Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In contrast to what the two previous speakers said, I do not believe this has anything to do with marriage. Family law in our country is State law. One hundred thirteen or 117 jurisdictions in the United States have adopted similar provisions. Those States did not alter their definition of marriage when they allowed municipal jurisdictions in their States to audit these provisions. This does not have anything to do with the definition of marriage in family law. This has to do with whether or not the District of Columbia, like those 113 other government units and one-third of the Fortune 500 companies, is going to be allowed to permit its employees to extend, to include in their health coverage at 100 percent expense to the individual, to include a partner, a woman who is raising her child who has her mother living with her as the caretaker, to include that grandmother in the coverage; a disabled person, to include his caregiver or her caregiver in the coverage. That is what this is all about. It is not about the definition of marriage. And it is not expensive. Eighty-five percent of companies that offer these provisions do not experience additional costs according to the Society for Human Resources Management. This is about allowing the District of Columbia and its employees to purchase the insurance at their own expense. Let me reiterate that. One hundred percent of the cost at their own expense. Not the Federal Government, not the District of Columbia. The only expense for the District of Columbia is the cost implementing the law by maintaining a register of domestic partners. There is no subsidy that is involved in this. It applies to all potential familial partners. It is not just a gay partner, a lesbian partner; it is heterosexual, it is the disabled partner, it is the grandmother and the daughter that I mentioned earlier. It is all kinds of people, seniors who might be living together. The fact is that our traditional families have changed in American society. The family today is likely to include the arrangements mentioned earlier. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Show confidence in the District of Columbia; show respect for the individuals who are affected and defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the fine job that they have done on this bill. We have heard it from many people, but I think these plaudits are really due here for a very good job that they have done on this bill. I am rising to speak at this point because the time on the amendment that will be coming up later offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is very limited; and I want to give just a little bit of background, although it has already been covered to some extent. I do hope my colleagues will, when the time comes, oppose the Weldon amendment. By way of background, the District has had a health benefits law for domestic partners since 1992. We have heard it said here today, 113, 117 other jurisdictions around the country also have a similar provision, so this is hardly anything that is new or different. In fact, the District of Columbia provision is much, much more limited than that offered by most other governmental units. It would allow a partner, and it can be, as the gentleman from Florida noted, a grandmother and a mother together raising a child; it could be a disabled person with a care giver; it could be two heterosexual people living together; it could be a lesbian or gay couple living together, it allows the one of them who is employed by the District of Columbia to sign the other up for health benefits. I want to emphasize, this benefit is entirely, entirely, at the expense of the individual. No Federal or District of funds are used to subsidize the premiums for the domestic partner. Now, for the last 9 years, Congress has blocked that D.C. statute from being implemented. But as we have heard on the floor this morning, the state of the District is different from nine years earlier. The Control Board is about to expire. We have confidence in the local government. Now, if we are going to demonstrate that confidence, is this not a good place to start, by lifting this particular ban and saying to the District of Columbia that along with 113 other jurisdictions around the country, you can make these decisions about who among your employees can have health benefits? This is the time to lift this prohibition. Mr. Chairman, it is time to start bringing our country together. We should be uniting our country; we should be bringing people together. We do not need this kind of mean-spirited amendment that is being offered here today. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Weldon amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have two remaining speakers; but representing the committee position, I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for a good bipartisan bill. I rise in strong support of it. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today to discuss an inequity in the treatment of Americans who helped to win the Cold War. Unfortunately, an amendment that I would have offered to this bill was not made in order. This same bill last year included the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. This act provides compensation to employees and survivors of employees suffering from illnesses incurred from exposure to beryllium in the performance of duty in America's nuclear weapons program. Beryllium is a metal with structural and atomic characteristics that make it irreplaceable for many nuclear-related uses. Inhalation of beryllium dust, even at very low concentrations, can cause cancer and chronic beryllium disease, which gradually destroys lung function many years after exposure. Thousands of workers involved in producing nuclear weapons, materials and components have suffered disability and horrible deaths. Although beryllium has numerous commercial applications, the Departments of Energy and Defense have been the largest users. In the construction of our strategic nuclear arsenal, the Department of Energy had responsibility for the nuclear device, that is, the weapon, while the Department of Defense had responsibility for the delivery system, the missile, and the inertial guidance system which would deliver the device to target. Congress has recognized its responsibility and determined that we are responsible in accordance with the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Although it was passed with the best of intentions, the act is a travesty because it is not equitable. It applies only to the DOE. A worker with the exact same condition developed under the exact same circumstances but who worked for the Department of Defense is not covered. Why should one Department of the Government have different responsibilities and liabilities than another Department? If the Department of Energy has a responsibility to compensate its workers, then under the same circumstances the Department of Defense should have the same responsibility. I would not seek to greatly expand the scope of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, but I insist that those people working for the Department of Defense under the same relationship and same conditions as those working for the Department of Energy receive the same benefit. This inequitable treatment of people who did work on behalf of our national security must be addressed. These citizens who work on our national weapons program helped to win the Cold War, and they should not be punished unfairly only because they worked for one agency instead of another. I do not intend to give up on this matter. I and the people who are suffering from this disease are anxiously awaiting the Department of Defense's report on this subject, which is inexplicably late; and I will continue to pursue a legislative remedy for this injustice.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 11, the United States sustained, but heroically withstood, a terrorist attack of unprecedented magnitude. Make no mistake about it: this was not only an attack committed against this Nation as the leader of the free world, but was also an assault against all of humanity, against our very civilization as we know it. Today, the U.S. Congress will authorize the use of force to repel this attack on the people of the United States. As we take this step, we should be conscious of the magnitude of the undertaking. This is not a resolution expressing our outrage. It is nothing less than a declaration of war. Success will be measured by eradicating the individuals and the networks of those responsible for this act of war. Given the tactics that we know of terrorists, this task will be arduous and difficult, but we can and we must be victorious. To all those who cherish freedom and democracy around the world, let there be no doubt: your way of life, your aspirations for the future, the security of your family, have also been attacked. The devastation in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington is not limited to the United States. It stretches to your countries, to your streets, indeed to your homes. You too must stand and be counted in the fight against the perpetrators of this crime as well as threats from other terrorist acts. After this authorization, Congress and the President will need to re-visit the threat of terrorism. We will have to develop a new comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism at home and around the world. In that endeavor, we will prevail. Today's legislation marks the beginning of that effort. Mr. Speaker, in this effort, we will prevail, and today's legislation marks the beginning of that effort.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America was hit by an unspeakable tragedy--an act of unconscionable horror. I am uncomprehending, and I am saddened beyond depths I could have imagined, at the terrorist attacks that have been launched against the United States. My heart goes out to the families of all those who have been lost--airline passengers and crew, workers in office buildings, military personnel, rescue workers--too numerous to even estimate at this point. Yesterday, Americans from coast to coast and around the world stopped what they were doing and experienced shock, insecurity, and grief. Our country has not felt such horror or fear in its history. Cities, suburbs, and rural towns became ``still'' as news spread of the events unfolding in New York City, Washington, DC, and western Pennsylvania. As we relive yesterday's events, we will continue to be in shock. We will search for information about friends, family, and professional colleagues affected by this vicious attack. However, as we move beyond the shock, we must remain assured that America's institutions and government remain fully intact. Our democracy is stronger than a band of suicidal terrorists. We will survive this deplorable attack. In fact, we will grow stronger. While this attack has destroyed lives and infrastructure, it has not destroyed our foundation as a country. To the perpetrators of this act, I would state that you have not destroyed the spirit of America. You have not even shaken the foundation of this country. If anything, even as our nation grieves, its very foundation has been re-enforced with a sense of itself, its purpose, its freedoms,and the deeply felt civic connections among its citizens. In the morning hours, even as hundreds of thousands of people were immediately gripped by chaotic circumstances in Washington, DC, and New York, we knew that our faith in one another as citizens would sustain us through the events unfolding before our eyes. In the afternoon, as we watched the brave men and women of fire, police and medical professions carry out their duties, our confidence in civic institutions was re-assured and grew deeper. All day as public resources were mobilized to support the efforts of New York City, Washington, DC, and southwestern Pennsylvania, our trust and belief in the leadership provided by local, state, and federal officials grew stronger. My fellow Americans, after yesterday, that bond that binds us together as Americans, that bond that seems invisible or recessed in our daily lives, that bond that seems not to exist when we watch political or partisan differences being expressed, that bond became fully visible and tangible once again. All of us felt its presence and re-emergence as we struggled through yesterday. As we evacuated buildings. As we follow the news. As we took the metro or walked home. As we shared our sorrow with friends and family. To my colleagues and fellow Americans, I would say that it is through this bond--shared between ourselves, and indeed shared among all people who relish freedom and democracy--that we will tap our inner strength to overcome yesterday's event. Over the next several weeks, we will take stock of our loss. We will grieve for friends and loved ones. After that, we will re-build the physical infrastructure that was destroyed, and in so doing make sacred the memories of Americans lost. Our lives will go on--saddened by those lost--but unencumbered by fear of those who have neither the ability nor courage to truly threaten our freedom and way of life. As we move to respond internationally, we will assemble the facts to identify those responsible. And then we will act swiftly to punish those responsible, and we will protect U.S. national security interests in concert with our friends who share a commitment to actively combat terrorism. To America's friends and allies, we take comfort in your words of condolence and look forward to your support in the future. To the perpetrators of this crime against human life, you will be tracked down. You may wish to remember what Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the last major attack on U.S. soil at Pearl Harbor mused after that event: ``I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve.'' The United States will use every resource available to find you and to punish you. Cowardly acts of terror will not change the United States of America. You will not win.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank the gentleman again for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the leadership he has shown with his committee on so many trade issues this year. This is just one of them. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 51, which would extend normal trade relations to the nation of Vietnam. Let us begin, as I know the chairman has made clear earlier, what this is and what this is not. This is not a free trade agreement. It is a bilateral trade agreement, a trade agreement that allows us to trade on the same basis as we trade with all the other countries of the world except the very small handful with whom we do have a free trade agreement. Because Vietnam is a socialist or a Communist country, it comes under the banner of the Jackson-Vanik requirements, and still, with this passage, would require an annual Jackson-Vanik waiver from the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 this country embarked on a new path with the country of Vietnam. We chose to take a different direction toward better political, economic, and consular relations. In making that decision, we recognize the need to encourage the development of Vietnam as a prosperous country, and believed, as I believe today, that doing so would begin to bring about the fruition of democracy within that country. We understood how important it is to integrate our former adversary, with whom some of us in this body itself fought in a war in that country, to integrate that former adversary into the economic progress of Asia and ultimately into the global community. Since starting down the path, our policy, I believe, has reaped some very important benefits. It secured Vietnamese cooperation on achieving the fullest possible accounting of the POWs and MIAs from the Vietnam War. It has helped to contribute to regional stability. It has helped to open a new market for U.S. businesses and U.S. workers in the world's 13th most populous country. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago today I returned from a trip to Vietnam. It was my first time in that country in 10 years, in exactly the 10 years ago that I was there, and the 22 years before that that I had been there during the Vietnam War. I was struck with the tremendous changes that have taken place over the last 10 years. Ten years ago, we had no embassy in Hanoi. We had no consular office in Ho Chi Minh City. We had no American business presence. In fact, there was almost no foreign business presence anywhere in Vietnam at that time. Today we find the city of Ho Chi Minh, or Saigon, with five-star hotels, with very upscale restaurants and shops catering to foreign shoppers, high-rise buildings and a skyline that is beginning more to resemble Hong Kong or Bangkok than the somnolent Saigon many of us knew during the time of the Vietnam War when we served there 30-plus years ago. It is a different city. It is changing. I believe with this agreement we will accelerate that change. I believe that change will be to the good, both for the United States, but most importantly, for the people of Vietnam. Certainly the U.S.-Vietnam foreign policy relationship is one that is still maturing. We would all agree that we must continue to make progress in our relationship along several dimensions. But today, this legislation marks a very important milestone in the development of that relationship. Today we can support the extension of normal trade relations between our two countries. U.S. trade and economic ties with Vietnam can help the country see the benefits of developing a society that is based upon the rule of law. That faith in the rule of law can then serve as a foundation upon which further social and political development can be based. Mr. Speaker, no country can engage in trade with other countries, can engage in foreign relations, without ultimately having to come to terms with the rule of law. That is the most important aspect of this legislation. So to my colleagues in the House, I urge their support for this resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. I want to begin by thanking President Clinton, acknowledging his role in negotiating this agreement. I want to praise President Bush for bringing this agreement forward in a determined fashion. I really want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the gentleman from the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their bipartisan support in bringing this agreement forward. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is critical to the foreign policy of the United States. It is of enormous political significance to us. Jordan is a vital ally of ours in the Middle East. It has been in the past; and it continues to be a leader in this peace process, this Middle East peace process. Let there be no doubt, we have relied heavily on Jordan to play a constructive role in building peace in the region, and certainly the least we can do today is extend our hand in free trade. This role that Jordan has played is a very difficult one. It is located geographically between Iraq and Syria and the west bank of the Jordan. Over half of its population is of Palestinian descent. In short, it is in the heart of a region that is plagued by centuries of conflict. It lies on the edge of a potential conflict all along all of its borders. Despite this, it has had strong political leadership over the years that has taken repeatedly difficult steps towards peace, started by former King Hussein with a peace agreement between Jordan and Israel in 1994, and that continues today under the leadership of his son, King Abdullah II. We must implement this free trade agreement, not because of the economic benefits the U.S. may receive, although there are some. We must implement this agreement because it will help Jordan develop economically and become more prosperous. With the prosperity and the prospect for economic stability, we can help it continue to lead by example in a region where greater, stronger leadership is so desperately needed. Just a couple of months ago, I led a delegation of members of the Committee on Appropriations to Israel, Egypt, and to Jordan. In all of those countries, we appreciated the importance of trade as a driver of regional economic growth. Mr. Speaker, this is an important agreement. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is really the height of irresponsibility. It is the height of the ostrich saying, ``Let us put our heads in the sand.'' It is the height of the Alfred E. Newman, ``What, me worry,'' syndrome. It pretends we do not have a problem when everybody knows there is a problem, every American. If we talk to Americans out there, they know there is a problem with Social Security. Yet what we are hearing over here is, ``What? There is no problem. There is nothing we need to do here.'' I am glad, actually, that the gentleman from California has brought this amendment to us tonight, because at least it gives us a chance to call attention to the fact that we have a problem. I urge the Members of this body and I urge the American people to read this report, this interim report of the Commission, because it does talk about some of the problems. The simple fact is, we have a system right now that really is not sustainable in the long run. The gentleman from Florida said it very well: We have a cash flow problem that begins in 2016, a cash flow problem. That is a very real problem that we have to deal with 15 years from now, in 2016. Fifteen years ago I was finishing my first term in office. That was the middle of Ronald Reagan's second term. That was not that long ago. Fifteen years from now we begin to see a serious problem: How are we going to pay the benefits? Where are we going to borrow the money to make the cash, to cash in those bonds that the gentleman from Oregon was talking about, and to pay those benefits? If we do not do anything by the year 2020 that requires cuts to Federal spending to address Social Security's financial shortfalls, it would equal the combination of Head Start, WIC, the Departments of Education, Interior, Commerce, and the EPA. Either we cut that or borrow the money someplace else, or we raise the taxes, as the gentleman said. But let us not deny the fact that we have a problem. If tomorrow's shortfalls are faced today, if we had those problems right now, a two-earner couple with $50,000 in income would have to pay an additional $2,100 in taxes per year in the year 2030. I do not know about other Members, but I think these kinds of changes are really unacceptable. The gentleman said that we have a system, do not tinker with it. We have made 50 changes-plus in the history of Social Security with the system. Do not tell me it is not going to be changed. It is a political system. We are going to make changes to it. We are going to have to do something. Let us figure out what we can do that protects everybody. Let me just refer to the draft commission's report itself. I just want to read two simple paragraphs. One, the third conclusion they reached, ``The system is broken. Unless we move boldly and quickly, the promise of Social Security for future retirees cannot be met without eventual resort to benefit cuts, tax increases, or massive borrowing. The time to act is now.'' And then they go on to say this: ``If the problems spelled out in this interim report become a topic of national debate and receive the public's focus and scrutiny, that in itself will be a positive step forward. The greatest threat is in taking the course of least resistance, ignoring the challenge and doing nothing.'' Mr. Chairman, those who oppose the Commission's report have a responsibility to stand here now, tonight, and tell us what we should do, what their conclusion is. The answer is not to put our heads in the sand and pretend there is not a problem. We do have a problem with Social Security, but it can be fixed. It can be fixed in a way that guarantees that those who get Social Security benefits now are protected today, and those who get them in the future are protected, but the young people have an opportunity to know that they, too, will have some benefits and some Social Security and some retirement system in their future, as well.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this. I think, as the gentleman from Washington explained very well, this is an attempt to try to take a baseball bat and hit Ex-Im Bank over the head. I understand. We do that a lot around here. But it does not get at the substance of it. It does not really get at the issue that the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from West Virginia really want to address, because of course it does not deal with a specific loan to a specific entity at all. As the gentleman from Indiana has explained, it would take $18 million from the Export-Import Bank and transfer it to some other very worthy programs, like HIV/AIDS. It does so in the exact same amount as the Bank lent to the Benxi Iron and Steel Company in China. Let me just address for a moment what the impact of this amendment would be on the work that the Ex-Im Bank does. First of all, it needs to be noted that while the gentleman from Indiana referred to this as being still well above what the President had requested, this is the area that has taken the biggest decrease from last year in terms of what the President requested. The President asked for a 25 percent cut to the Ex-Im Bank, $229 million less than the 2001 level of $927 million. We provided for $118 million more than that, but it is still $107 million less than last year. So there is no question that this amendment will significantly cut in to the work that the Ex-Im Bank does. Fewer funds are in the Ex-Im Bank in their subsidy program this year, because if there are fewer funds, it relates directly to a lower volume of bank export financing. In fact, we cannot translate this and say this is $18 million, because the fact is this would result directly in $275 million less in Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees for next year. That is the result of taking this amount of money, $18 million of guarantees out, and what it translates into in terms of the impact on the Export- Import Bank. We already have exporters in this country that are hurting because of the very strong dollar. A strong dollar is good for us, good for the economy, but it really hurts when it comes to our exporters, and we are hurt in that area. Alan Greenspan just last week testified in the Senate that the U.S. economy still faces a number of weaknesses. The capital spending is lagging, and unequivocally this demonstrates the pain we are feeling in today's economy. So this is not the time to be cutting one of the few tools that we have to help to promote exports and to help export-related jobs, specifically export-related jobs in the gentleman's district, and export-related jobs in all the other districts around this country. Now, let me also point out the impact a $3 million cut to the Ex-Im Bank's administrative expenses would have. It disproportionately hurts small businesses. We have already recommended a level that is $2 million below what the President's request is. So this would cut into the technological upgrades that Ex-Im Bank is trying to do, and those are essential if we are going to process small business transactions, especially insurance transactions. So let me summarize by saying that the gentleman's amendment is going to cut the work of the Ex-Im Bank. It is not going to have anything to do with the particular loan the gentleman is concerned about; but it is going to cut out jobs in his district, it will cut out jobs in West Virginia, it will cut out jobs around the rest of the country, because companies that want to do business overseas will not be able to compete with the work that other countries are able to do and to subsidize their companies in those countries. So this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time, and I would urge we not do this.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the remarks that have been made here on the floor, most notably by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); and I associate myself fully with the remarks about the importance of providing disaster relief to India and South Asia and planning for this kind of thing in advance so the number of lives lost can be reduced so the damage can be reduced so that the recovery can be greatly speeded up. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has proposed an excellent idea. Mr. Chairman, let me say why I have my amendment here. First of all, we have $200 million in the disaster assistance account. Whether we add $1 million or $10 million more is not going to direct $1 more to India or South Asia. There are adequate monies in that fund to handle the disasters that are likely to occur during the course of the year. My second point is our report has language in it that urges them to give attention to this problem of disaster mitigation. I think the discussion we have had here today reinforces that. My substitute amendment, by adding the $1 million that is included in our report language into this account, makes it even more abundantly clear. Mr. Chairman, I think the substitute amendment avoids us getting into the issues such as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has pointed out, all of the issues where this money comes out of, and we will have those debates shortly, and still makes the point that we expect the Agency for International Development and the Disaster Assistance Program to look carefully at this issue of mitigation of disasters. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this to our attention and would hope that Members would be able to support our amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would use the word ``direct'' rather than ``allocate.'' We do not earmark. We have a direction that they make this money available, and they look carefully at the mitigation issues in South Asia. I believe it accomplishes exactly what the gentleman is asking us to do.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the comments that the gentlewoman from Texas has made and the substance of her amendment. I know what she is looking for, as she has said, is a full request for the Global Environment Facility. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think this matter is one that is going to continue to be discussed between the House and Senate. Historically, the other body has usually funded this at a higher level, and I know we are going to be reviewing this in conference. Certainly the issue is an important one, as recent debate worldwide and on the Kyoto matter just this last weekend has highlighted the importance of environmental issues; and having a body that looks at these issues and also one that helps to fund some of the projects dealing with the environment, I think that is very important. So I would just say to the gentlewoman that I believe that we will be reviewing this matter in the conference. I think she is probably going to be much happier when the conference report comes back as it relates to the Global Environment Facility.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 20, line 7 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition and to reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman from Virginia, who I have great admiration for and who I have traveled with on many occasions, including to Latin America. It is not a correct statement, though, to say that we have no money in our legislation. We have $100 million, and it is earmarked. It is a legal earmark. We have it set aside specifically for El Salvador. One can argue and make a case that that is not sufficient. We tried to balance the various priorities that we have. I know Members have heard that before. But I do not want that to go unchallenged here. I do not want Members to go away thinking that we have not provided anything for El Salvador. We have, indeed. We do have $100 million. He also made the statement that the money is there for the rest of it. I do not know where he is referring to, but since we know all of our allocation is used, if we want to put more money in, if we do not do it as an emergency, we cannot. If we do it as an emergency, it is there, from the American taxpayers, by borrowing or reducing the surplus. But it has to come from someplace. It comes from the American taxpayers. If we are talking about taking it out of our current bill, our current allocation, I would just note that it is entirely used, so we do have to take it from someplace else. I would say that, as we have heard here earlier, whatever the issue is, there are a lot of competing interests here. I just want to make it clear to my colleagues who might be listening to this debate that we do indeed have $100 million earmarked in the bill for reconstruction and for relief, disaster relief in El Salvador.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, before I make a point of order, and say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her comments and again would say that I am very sympathetic. The Salvadoran people are wonderful people. I have known many of them in my own community and had one of them who came as a refugee from Salvador as an intern working for me and is today one of my very close friends. They are wonderful people, and they deserve all the help we can give them; and I hope we will be able to give them support and even more support than perhaps is in this bill. But I would note that we do have the $100 million, and while $25 million may come from current assistance accounts, the rest is money that would be added. So I do think that we are making a good start in helping El Salvador. Point of Order

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who has worked so hard to better the lives of the Salvadoran people.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I make a point of order against the amendment. I would make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and, as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.