Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

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

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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 Washington.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her comments and for bringing this matter to our attention and to say that I am in complete agreement with what she has said. I believe that Congress has to work with USAID to help assess the problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina and work to develop a solution. I also just want to say that our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, as was noted, have been working on this issue for many years. They have met with heads of state. They have met with other high officials in Bosnia and elsewhere in the region in attempts to get infants eligible for adoption, and I think they have had some very notable success. I will continue to work very closely with Chairman Young and his wife on this matter as well and work with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and other Members who have this interest. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KOLBE

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. Mr. Chairman, I 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. That rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does do that and therefore, I believe, is not in order. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a very distinguished senior member of the Committee on International Relations, and probably the leading expert in the House of Representatives on Central America and on Latin America. His devotion to that region is tremendous.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who has been an outstanding person working on drug interdiction issues and the task force on that. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her interest and her involvement in this issue. I am also concerned, as is the ranking member, when Ethiopia is cited for human rights violations. And I can assure the gentlewoman from Texas that we will continue to monitor the situation in that country.

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