Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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

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.

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. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I just want to put Members on notice, we have been very generous here in extending the 5-minute debate continually here. At some point we are going to have to insist that each Member get their 5 minutes and speak. But I will not object at this point. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California and the leadership that she has shown in this fight against HIV and AIDS, and I also want to say the same about the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the other member of our subcommittee. Both of them have been true leaders in this and, really, the conscience of the House in this matter. I wish I could agree with the amendment, but I think that we have a carefully balanced bill when it comes to our priorities, so I find myself in disagreement with this amendment. I think it is worth noting that the committee has recommended a generous increase for international health, and it has reduced the President's request for both of the accounts that this amendment would reduce even further. The amendment, while it may be well motivated, threatens the balance among competing interests, competing national interests that are found in this bill. Arriving at that balance with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, has not been easy; and I do not expect that all of the Members necessarily are going to agree with it. But once we upset that, once we demolish that balance, I do not think it is going to be easy to restore. Unlike last year, we cannot count on the other body to restore assistance to the Andean nations, nor can we count on the other body to restore further cuts we make in military assistance to Poland or to the Baltic States. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would also cut $22 million from the foreign military financing program. This is an account that is very large at $3.627 billion. But 94 percent of those funds in this year's bill are allocated for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. Only $177 million is available to the rest of the world. Let me repeat those two figures. This amendment cuts $22 million, and that is one-eighth of the military assistance to countries outside of the Middle East. Who is going to be affected by that? Will this cut be allocated against our friends in Poland, in Hungary, or the Czech Republic, those who have just joined NATO? It is inevitable that they are going to be affected by this. Last year we had a similar amendment, together with the Waters amendment, that eliminated all military assistance except to Israel and Egypt, and even reduced funding for those countries. It also eliminated our military assistance to the Baltic States. Members ignored warnings from the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) in their rush to support popular causes of the day. I know that many Americans of Baltic and Central European origin were concerned about the action taken by this body last year, because most of us heard from them. Those Americans recognized not just the symbolic importance but the material importance of the assistance we give to the Baltic States and to Poland and to Hungary. We should not make the same mistake again, in my view, of ignoring those concerns and the vital strategic interest we have in that region. With regard to HIV/AIDS, my own commitment and involvement in this issue I think is a matter of public record. Just last Friday I chaired a day-long panel here in the House of Representatives, four panels of experts and leaders who updated dozens of staff members and other Members of this body on the current situation with regard to the pandemic. That day-long seminar drove home very clearly to me the comments and remarks and the truth of what the gentlewoman from California has said. The crisis in HIV/AIDS has not abated. It is getting worse in the world. It requires more resources, a lot more resources. Our bill does provide those resources, above and beyond what was requested by the President, at the expense of other programs. My chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Agencies reflects the priority we are giving in this global fight against the scourge of AIDS. We have $474 million for HIV/AIDS, and we just added in a recent amendment another $18 million to that. Another $80 million was provided by the supplemental appropriations conference agreement that Congress sent to the President last Friday. Taking those two bills together, this bill and the supplemental that we just sent to the President, the House would increase AIDS funding by 76 percent in this year, from $315 million in fiscal year 2001 to $554 million in 2002, and my mental calculations here are not reflecting the $18 million we just added in with the adoption of the other amendment a few minutes ago. This increase, over 76 percent in HIV/AIDS funding, is what the committee has concluded that we can afford and effectively use within the allocation provided for this bill. I am uncertain whether another $60 million would be obligated and effectively used during the fiscal year 2002, but it would be spent eventually. I know the gentlewoman has put all of this money into the International Trust Fund, which I think, as the gentlewoman knows, at this point is still just on paper. We do not have it organized. So I would oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues not to adopt this amendment but to allow the subcommittee and committee's work in this area to stand.

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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McGovern amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I am reminded just a couple of days ago when we first took up this bill, last Thursday, that several Members came to the House floor to praise the bill. The manager on the other side of the aisle and I appreciated the compliments about bipartisanship and the balance that is reflected in the committee's recommendations. But approval of this amendment would weaken that hard-to-achieve bipartisanship. It would destroy the balance that is found in our bill. Let me explain why I think this is the case. First, as a Member who comes from southern Arizona and represents a border State and a border district, I know the importance of Latin America to the United States. I am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts is also personally familiar with Latin America and parts of it. I am sure he does not intend to shortchange development in Latin America, but that is what this amendment would do. Let me state a very simple fact: this amendment cuts development and humanitarian assistance for Latin America by $50 million, or more than 10 percent of the amount in this bill. Let me repeat and elaborate on what I just said: the McGovern amendment cuts development assistance to Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil. The McGovern amendment cuts human rights and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in Colombia. Yes, it would also cut some military assistance for Colombia. Read the last part of the amendment; page 25, line 7: ``After the dollar amount insert the following, reduce by $100 million.'' It does not read cut military assistance to Colombia by $100 million; it does not exempt economic assistance for the Andean region, assistance for Peru or Bolivia or funding for the Colombian National Police. Now, I have seen a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that makes those claims. In fact, it says, ``The amendment does not cut any economic assistance for the Andean region, assistance for Peru, Bolivia or funding for the Colombian National Police.'' This is incorrect. This is not true. This is a misstatement. This is not a fact. It is not correct. It simply is wrong. My conclusions reflect the text of the amendment that is before us. My assumption is that the executive branch will allocate reductions mandated by this amendment across all programs in the Andean Regional Initiative. It would be equally reasonable it assume that the executive branch would give priority to eradication and security assistance and make cuts in development and humanitarian assistance beyond what I assume. It is not reasonable to assume, I think, that the executive branch under this, the previous President or any President, is going to take all the money out of the Colombian Army. So it is reasonable it assume this money is going to come out of economic assistance. As much as the gentleman from Massachusetts may wish that it would come all out of the military assistance, the amendment does not say that. So it is incorrect for us to assume that that would be the case. In fact, we can assume quite correctly that it would come out of all of those. Of course, some support this amendment because they seek more funds to combat tuberculosis, and that is a noble cause. More deaths among women under 45 are caused by TB than by AIDS. It is the major immediate cause of death of those living with HIV-AIDS. The question is how rapidly can the Agency for International Development and its cooperating organizations ramp up what had been a relatively small program for TB. Only 3 years ago, AID was spending less than $15 million for TB. This year, we recommend $70 million. That is an almost five-fold increase. It is difficult to implement that in the short-term. This amendment would add another $50 million to that, bringing it to $120 million, or an eight-fold increase, 800 percent increase, over 4 years. Yes, the needs are there, but how quickly can we absorb that? How quickly can the infrastructure around the world absorb that? I am reminded of the efforts of Queen Elizabeth I to cure her subjects of tuberculosis, of those people who were within the Queen's touch. In the 17th century, a form of glandular TB known as the King's Evil caused horrific swelling from infected glands in the neck. Eventually it led to death. So wherever Queen Elizabeth went around her kingdom, persons infected with this form of TB would crowd around her, hoping the royal touch would cure them. Some days she touched hundreds of people, and was exhausted by the effort. I wish, I wish that the $50 million here for tuberculosis could make the difference hoped for by the sponsors of this amendment. However, like the royal touch of Queen Elizabeth, another $50 million for tuberculosis may raise indeed our spirits and make us feel good, but it is not going to affect tuberculosis for the current year. Unlike Queen Elizabeth's touch, however, this amendment will have adverse effects. It will cut development assistance in Latin America. It will signal to our neighbors that this country is disinterested in their security and in their development. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 107, line 10, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on International Relations is objecting to language in the bill that prevents authorization acts from earmarking previously appropriated funds. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on behalf of the committee is objecting to language that has been carried in this bill for 3 years. I believe that the authorization committee should set policy and funding ceilings, but they should not be allowed to earmark appropriated funds or mandate minimum funding levels, either before or after we have enacted appropriations bills. However, as a technical matter, it is correct that this language is legislative in nature, and I concede the point of order.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon's comments, and I agree that the AID's Office of Environment and Urban Programs is a cost-effective investment. In addition, I concur with his belief that a report of the nature he has described would be, I think, useful to us. I am happy to work with the gentleman from Oregon in extending the message to AID that we would like to see a greater investment in the Office of Program Funding, while at the same time maintaining or increasing the operating funds for the office.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, while I expect to change my position by the end of the debate, for the moment, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.

Mr. KOLBE. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would simply say that the amendment the gentleman described earlier was not in order. This amendment that he has refiled is simply a Buy America provision and does not refer to anything about people who are convicted. So with that understanding, that the refiled amendment is the one that we are considering here, I have no intention of objecting to it.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I do not intend to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I understand that the intention of the amendment is to limit the funds, to withhold them until there are two conditions, which the gentleman has described, two conditions met by the administration. There is no reason why the administration should not be willing to or able to meet these conditions. The gentleman is entitled to have a report, and the Members of Congress are entitled to have a report so that we know fully what happened in the tragic incident that the gentleman has described. Secondly, before there ever is a resumption of this shoot-down policy, there needs to be adequate safeguards to make sure that this kind of tragic accident cannot occur again. Let me take a moment of my time to discuss the merits of the United States program, assistance program in Peru, because I believe that cutting funds to Peru would be counterproductive in our drug eradication efforts and development assistance to our South American ally. I know that the administration is going to meet the conditions of the gentleman as soon as possible, but let me point out just last year this very bill included a provision limiting assistance to Peru until free and fair democratic elections took place. And they did, so I do not think it would be the intention of any Member of this body to respond now, after this important event has taken place in Peru, by responding and cutting off aid because of another incident that we are unhappy about. They met the conditions that we asked them to do, and I do not think that we would want to cut off the aid to Peru, which is now emerging so strongly as a democracy. Peru is the world's second largest producer of coca leaf and cocaine base. Peruvian traffickers transport the cocaine base to Colombia and Bolivia, where it is converted to cocaine. The alarming recent evidence of a surge in opium and poppy cultivation being established under the direction of Colombian traffickers should be a matter of concern to all of us. Peru is a prime candidate for spillover effects from Colombia as our eradication efforts in Colombia are successful. But still, for a fifth year in a row, Peruvian coca cultivation declined, an estimated decline of 70 percent since 1995. So the U.S.-Peruvian interdiction program and the manual coca eradication program that is continuing has been a major factor in this reduction. Our support of law enforcement efforts is complemented by an aggressive effort to establish an alternative development program for coca farmers in key coca growing areas to voluntarily reduce and eliminate coca cultivation. We are now seeing the private sector beginning to cooperate with the effort to create markets for new goods, primarily for coffee and for cacao. Commitments to coca reduction have increased significantly, with communities coming forward demanding to participate in the program. Over 500 communities in Peru have agreed to a reduction in coca production and coca cultivation, and for the first time leaders of one entire geographic region, the 77 municipalities in San Martin, have agreed to eliminate coca production. These are good news events that I described. This is progress that we are making; and, for that reason, I would think it would be a terrible mistake for us to cut off our program, our assistance to Peru altogether. But because I believe that the conditions the gentleman from Michigan has suggested need to be met before we resume this program, I am certainly willing to withhold that aid until they can meet those conditions, as I understand that they are prepared to do. For that reason, I would vote to accept this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise a little bit in bewilderment about this amendment, and certainly not because I am against the spirit of it. The amendment, as the gentleman from California, my good friend, has pointed out, would prohibit the U.S. contribution to the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. Given what has happened to us there, I certainly do not think any of us would be opposed to that. After what happened last May when the United Nations Economic and Social Commission voted the United States off the U.N. International Narcotics Control Board, I think we would see good reason not to make any further contributions to it. It is a deplorable event and one that I think has disappointed me, certainly as a representative of a border State where we have significant drug problems. We suffer along the border from the drug war and the trafficking that comes through our area. But, having said that, Mr. Chairman, the U.N. International Narcotics Control Board is not funded in the foreign operations bill. Let me say that again. There are no monies in this bill for the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. It is funded as a line item in the United Nations regular budget, which is funded under the Commerce- Justice-State appropriation bill in the amount of approximately $700,000. So it has no effect whatever. The amendment has no effect whatever on the U.N. International Narcotics Control Board. It is a little bit like saying or bringing this amendment up in the D.C. appropriations bill and saying, but it is not funded here, and saying, well, that is okay, but if it were funded, we just want to make the point. If that is what the gentleman is trying to do, if only it were funded here, we just want to make the point that we do not like it, all right. But let me make it very clear that this amendment I will not resist for the very simple reason that it does not have any impact whatever on the bill, but I just think that all the Members need to know this is not going to in any way impact the contributions we make to the International Narcotics Control Board. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2506 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 199 no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: (1), Pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate. (2), The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 4, 7, 30, 33, 38, 44, and 59, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes each. (3), The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 8, 11, 47, 50, 55, and 61, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes each. (4), The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5, 23, and 34, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes each. (5), The following amendments, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes each. The amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 32. The amendment by Representative Conyers of Michigan, that I have placed at the desk. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in this request, the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a designee, each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment), and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against the amendment numbered 44 and the amendment by Representative Conyers for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.