Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think the gentleman's heart is definitely in the right place, and I appreciate what he is doing here. But let me say my opposition is based largely on the choice of the offsets here: cutting $10 million which is the entire appropriation for the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, known as MIGA, and $10 million from the Asian Development Fund. I know it is not exactly popular on this floor to rise and talk about multilateral development banks and what they do, but I feel the need here today to speak out for a moment about it. I find the proposed transfer from the Asian Development Fund to increase funding levels for bilateral tuberculosis activities very strange and puzzling indeed. The Asian Development Fund is an organization that provides highly concessional financing for the poorest people in Asia. In 2002, Asian Development Fund activities will include child nutrition, immunization activities, education interventions and other basic needs. Also, the Asian Development Fund is a strong supporter of tuberculosis reduction projects and considers DOTS a highly effective program. This is actively supported throughout the Asian Development Bank's health activities. Therefore, I think the amendment robs multilateral tuberculosis activities to pay for bilateral ones. I want to point out to those that might support the gentleman's amendment that a reduction in the U.S. contribution here will trigger a clause in the Asian Development Fund agreement that encourages other donors to default if the U.S. does not pay its agreed-upon contribution. So the overall impact of this on the poorest of the poor people of Asia is going to be exponentially much, much greater than the gentleman from Ohio realizes or I think thought of at the time he proposed this amendment. Let me speak for a moment about the proposed reduction to the World's Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, or MIGA as it is known. As many of my colleagues realize, private investment flows to developing countries now drown out, they completely cut off all the official development assistance from the U.S. and the rest of the donor community. If we can help the poorest nations, who are often the very riskiest of the investments that we have, gain access to private capital, then they have a better opportunity to raise their own standard of living. MIGA, through its provision of political risk insurance and coverage of foreign exchange risks, is one of the tools that facilitate private sector activity in the world where it would otherwise not occur, in the poorest of nations with the least access to capital. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I urge my colleagues to oppose the Brown amendment and at the same time commend him for what he is attempting to do and for the cause that he works for. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I seek to control the time in opposition.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order on this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say about this issue, I understand the concerns that people have, and it is one that I share. We want to make sure that war criminals are brought to justice. We want to make sure that we move in Serbia to help develop democracy in that region. These are not mutually exclusive, by any means. But sometimes the orbits may come into conflict. We have two provisions in our bill relating to war criminals. Section 582 is a variation of last year's provision affecting Serbia. Section 578 is a streamlined replacement for the so-called Lautenburg amendment that applies to all countries in the Balkans. That language, and I was just reading it the other day, it is pages and pages and pages in the bill that was so complicated it was just routinely waived. The committee recommendation this year I think is much more straightforward. Regarding Serbia, last year's language prohibited most assistance to Serbia after March 31 of 2001 unless the President can certify, among other things, that Yugoslavia was cooperating with the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Such a certification was made last year. We have received requests to continue and even to strengthen the language this year. Our recommendation continues the language largely unchanged from last year. I am not enthusiastic about doing that. We need to help the people of Serbia and the reformers in that country and the long struggle they have been facing to reform their society. Punishing them for not fulfilling every aspect of The Hague Tribunal's directives may not, and I think is not, positive in the long run. We want to help the democratic governments in the Balkans. We are not trying to hurt them. We are not trying to stunt their democratic growth. The Hague Tribunal is part of an effort to promote democratic governments. We cannot sacrifice the future of democratic governments to the procedural niceties, however, of the tribunal. They need to work together. They need to go hand in hand. The tribunal needs to do its stuff, but the countries are not always going to find it possible to comply with every single thing that the tribunal might ask them. But I think it is worth noting, as every Member of this body is well aware, that President Milosevic, the key war criminal we were insisting that Serbia send to the tribunal, has been sent to The Hague. That has caused an enormous political difficulty for the government in Serbia. Let us not underestimate the great difficulties the Serbian Government, both at the provincial level as well as at the national, the federation level, has had in dealing with this problem. We also recognize that Croatia needs to send additional war criminals to The Hague. By bowing to international pressures, particularly pressure from the United States, the new democratic governments in the regions are facing tremendous risks, as we have been seeing with the political upheaval that has followed the transfer of President Milosevic to The Hague. So in our strong desire to have full compliance with the tribunal, I hope we do not end up hurting the very governments that we are trying to help. So for that reason, I think this is bad legislation, a bad approach to the problem. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time and also the point of order.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I make a point of order on the amendment.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just very briefly in closing note, as the gentleman from Ohio said, we are moving in the right direction. In fact, I think we are moving very much in the right direction. Two years ago this program, the tuberculosis program, had $15 million allocated for it. This last year it was $60 million. This year it is $70 million. The supplemental appropriation bill that we have adds even more to it than that. In the regular appropriations, that is almost a fivefold increase in 2 years' time for this one single program. Is it needed? Yes, it clearly is needed. We are certainly moving in the right direction. The gentleman's amendment, while I sympathize with it, I think is just wrong in where it takes the money from. I think to take it out of these particular programs that will mean no lending to the very poorest of the poor in that account I think is wrong. I would urge my colleagues for that reason to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on 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.'' The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. This is a sense of Congress, clearly states a legislative position, and therefore violates that part of the rule. And I would ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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 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 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 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.

Mr. KOLBE. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I also reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not really in opposition to what the gentleman is certainly attempting to do. Let me just say that the gentleman has very eloquently laid out the case I think for microlending programs. I have had an opportunity, as I know the gentleman has, to see a number of these programs very recently, and before that found some very heartwarming stories in Uganda when I was there a few years ago of some of our micro-credit programs we have in that country. I think one of the arguments that is frequently lost in our debate about health issues, is how important economic growth is to addressing some of the health issues that we have been talking about here at great length today. A country cannot have a health system, infrastructure, hospitals, nurses, midwives, or clean water if it does not have economic growth. Micro-credit is a jump-start. It is what we can use to get economic growth going. I think it is a very, very important part of our assistance program; and I am very, very much in support of that program. I also think it is worth noting when we talk about health that micro- credit can be very important in communities that have been ravaged by HIV and AIDS, because in those communities frequently the only thing that is available, not large investments, not large amounts of capital, the only thing available for those people to survive and sustain themselves are small projects, craft projects very often, and those can only be done with this kind of micro-credit. So I think the gentleman from Indiana is absolutely correct. I think that what the gentleman is attempting to do here is the right thing to do, and I have continued to urge and will continue to urge USAID to put as much emphasis as possible on this program, because I am very supportive of it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points quickly in response to what has been said here today. There is $38 million that comes out of the economic assistance for the Andean countries. Forty-seven percent of the money that we have in that account goes to economic assistance. Half of it goes to economic assistance. So you are cutting the money from that. You cannot just say you are cutting it from military. You are cutting it from the justice programs. You are cutting it from the poverty programs. You are cutting it from the alternative economic assistance programs. Most of our programs have been consolidated to the Andean initiative, those in Latin America. If you take those out, there is only $146 million total for the entire region that is left in all other programs of assistance. So you are cutting drastically into those programs. Lastly let me say a few words with regard to the trust fund. In this bill, we have $100 million in the trust fund. There is $100 million that we appropriated the other day that is in the supplemental. And, there is $100 million that will be included in the Labor HHS. In total, for the trust fund, we have $300 million. This amendment would increase it to $360 million. I say we are doing everything we can in the area of the international trust fund for AIDS and the other diseases.

Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will be brief. Let me just say that I think the arguments have been laid out by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the arguments against this. I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas; and his position on these matters. He is very consistent on these kinds of amendments. I do appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I find myself conflicted in the sense that I am a free trader and I oppose many of the things that many of my colleagues around here do endorse. However, in this case, the case of the Export- Import Bank, I do not go as far as the gentleman from Texas. The reason for not doing so I think is fairly simple. As the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, in a perfect world, in a perfect world we would not have an Export-Import Bank. The Europeans and the Japanese and all the other countries would not have the kinds of export subsidies that they have. But the world is not perfect. The world of trade between countries is not perfect. There is taxation, there are regulations, there are export subsidies, there are a whole variety of things that go into making it a totally imperfect world. So in this imperfect world, we have to deal with the reality of what we have. I believe that the Export-Import Bank helps us, helps particularly our small- and medium-sized businesses, not only the very large who ones who do get some of the money. They are not the ones who would not have access. They would have access. But it is the small and medium businesses that I think are very important to the United States, and it is very important particularly to smaller communities around the country that they are able to have access to this export financing credit that enables them to make a sale overseas, to close the deal. The final thing that closes the deal is this Export-Import Bank subsidy. It enables them to do that where they would not otherwise be able to do it. Many of the other countries in the world use their aid very much as tied aid, and we have gotten away from that. But the idea that you would have a specific loan given only if it buys a product from that country, we have tried to get away from doing that with our economic assistance, and I am glad to see that we have. The export financing, however, is absolutely critical for our companies that try to do this business overseas and are dealing in the imperfect world out there. So I think it is very important that we keep that. Abolishing it completely, as the gentleman from Texas would have us do, abolishing that completely and taking away all of our ability to do that I think would simply be the wrong thing for us to do. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and for us to continue to reform the Export-Import Bank, to continue to reform the whole process worldwide so we can rely less on these kinds of subsidies.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in the brief time that is remaining, I would just say I would challenge the figure that the gentleman has used as to whether that kind of job loss is a direct result of giving loans to the companies in question. But there is no doubt that cutting out Ex-Im all together, by cutting out the loans that they do, does result in a loss of sales and that does result in a loss of jobs.

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

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.