Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The administration has requested $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI as it is called, in this fiscal year 2004. We have provided full funding for that request, and I think it is absolutely critical to sustaining our success in Colombia and to protecting Colombia's neighbors from a spillover effect.

We have had this debate, Mr. Chairman, in past years and in past years we could not say with a great deal of confidence that we are having any real progress. But let me make one basic fact which I think is very, very clear, and that is that our efforts in Colombia are making a huge difference. As this chart shows here, by almost any measure, and this is from August to June of 2001 and 2002 to the year 2002 and 2003, by almost any measure the insurgents killed in action, up 28 percent. Insurgents captured, up 108 percent. Insurgents deserting, 106 percent. Terrorists attacks, down 47 percent. Tax on the economic infrastructure, down 54 percent. Murders, down 16 percent. This is all in the course of one year of time. So we have had a tremendous impact.

This administration that exists down there in Colombia today is one that is very committed to making a difference and making things happen. Poppy cultivation is spreading. As you can see, a very dramatic increase in the amount of thousands of hectares being sprayed and a resultant decline in the amount of cultivation of poppy. And similarly here, if we look at coca cultivation, even here, even a more dramatic increase over the last 3 years, and now we are beginning to see the results, for the first time ever a significant reduction in the amount of the actual coca production here and cultivation. These are the direct results, the direct results of the U.S. assisted eradication program.

We have also requested $110 million, the President's request, for the foreign military financing for Colombia. This is not blanket military assistance for Colombia, but it is designed to improve the quality of very focused support for specialized units in the Colombian ministry.

Mr. Chairman, the former ambassador to Colombia has spoken very eloquently about this and very forcefully to us. She has told us that if we are ever going to be able to ratchet down, to change the mix of how aid in Colombia and eradication programs are working in Colombia, if we are ever going to get the United States out of there and allow the Colombians to do the job, the foreign military sales are absolutely important, critical, so that the Colombians can have not only the training but have the hardware that is required in order to do that.

The problems that face Colombia are very complex. They are economic. They are social. They are military, and they are very much linked, of course, to the social problem we have in this country of drug use and drug consumption.

There is not going to be any rapid or easy fix to this problem. We have discovered that over the years. But the nonexistent government presence and the law enforcement capability in lawless areas of the country are key to Colombia's social and economic problems, and we are making a big difference there. We have just been told by the Columbian ambassador to the United States, in virtually every single case there is now presence in each of the provinces and each of the counties, as we would call them here, in this country of military and police presence, whereas scores had no presence just a couple of years ago. So we are making a huge difference there.

It is in our interests to support this request to Colombia. I cannot think of a worse time when we have a President in Colombia that is absolutely committed to making a difference and to protecting human rights. When we have an opportunity to make a real difference in this country, it would be the worst time for us to be cutting these funds.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge, strongly urge, even if the gentleman suggests that it is not a major cut in the amount of funding, it would be the wrong signal to be sending to the Columbian people who are very supportive of President Uribe in his efforts to destroy the FARC, his efforts to counterattack against the FARC and the paramilitary and to end the production of coca and opium in the area.

I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The administration has requested $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI as it is called, in fiscal year 2004. We have provided full funding for that request, and I think it is absolutely critical to sustaining our success in Colombia and to protecting Colombia's neighbors from a spillover effect.

We have had this debate, Mr. Chairman, in past years. And in past years we could not say with a great deal of confidence that we were experiencing real progress. But let me state one basic fact which I think is very, very clear. Our efforts in Colombia are making a real difference. As this chart shows here, and this is from August to June of 2001 and 2002 to the year 2002 and 2003, by almost any measure the insurgents killed in action is up 28 percent. Insurgents captured, up 108 percent. Insurgents deserting, 106 percent. Terrorists attacks, down 47 percent. Tax on the economic infrastructure, down 54 percent. Murders, down 16 percent. This is all over the course of one year of time. We have seen a tremendous impact.

Colombian President Uribe's administration is one that is very committed to making a difference and making things happen. Poppy cultivation was spreading. As you can see, there have been a very dramatic increase in the number of hectares being eradicated and a resultant decline in the amount of cultivation of poppy. Similarly, if we look at coca cultivation, there is an even more dramatic increase over the last 3 years in eradication efforts. Now we are beginning to see the results. For the first time in 5 years, we see a significant reduction in the amount of the actual coca production and cultivation. These are the direct results, the direct results of the U.S. assisted eradication program.

The President also requested $110 million, for foreign military financing assistance for Colombia. This is not blanket military assistance for Colombia, but it is designed to improve the quality of very focused support for specialized units in the Colombian military.

Mr. Chairman, the former U.S. ambassador to Colombia has spoken very eloquently about this and very forcefully to us about the President's regret. She has told us that if we are ever going to be able to ratchet down our assistance to Colombia, and if we are ever going to turn over the program to the Colombians and allow the Colombians to do the job, then the foreign military sales are absolutely important. It is critical so that Colombians can have not only the training but have the hardware that is required in order to be successful.

The problems that face Colombia are very complex. They are economic. They are social. They are law enforcement and they are very much linked.

There is not going to be any rapid or easy fix to this problem. We have discovered that over the years, the nonexistent government presence and the lack of law enforcement capability in lawless areas of the country are key to Colombia's social and economic problems. The U.S. assistance is helping to make a big difference. We have just been told by the Columbian ambassador to the United States, in virtually every single province there is now a military and police presence, whereas scores had no presence just a couple of years ago. Let me repeat, U.S. assistance is making a huge difference in Colombia.

It is in our interests to support the President's request to Colombia. I cannot think of a worse time to cut our assistance when we have a President in Colombia that is absolutely committed to making a difference and to protecting human rights. We have an opportunity to make a real difference in this country, therefore it would be the worst time for the Congress to be voting to cut these funds.

Mr. Chairman, even if the gentleman suggests that this is not a major cut to the level of funding, it would be the wrong signal to be sending to the Colombian people who are very supportive of President Uribe in his efforts to destroy the FARC, his efforts to counterattack against the FARC and the paramilitary and to end the production of coca and opium in the area.

I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this perfecting amendment simply clarifies the responsibilities of the new AIDS coordinator that has been added by legislation adopted by the Congress and signed into law by the President. I believe it is acceptable to the minority.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her comment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from California, who is an outstanding member of the Committee on International Relations.

We have provided separate accounts for Iraq, for the former Soviet Union

and to the nations formerly in the Warsaw Pact. As the gentleman correctly notes, we have not yet funded an account for Afghanistan. The amendment that the gentleman has put in the Record is difficult to follow, but I believe the gentleman has described its operation accurately. I will work with the gentleman and the committee to fund this account in conference this year at the authorized level or more, though I cannot commit to the precise accounts within the bill from which we will draw the funds required.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He certainly has identified an area of great concern, and one that clearly does need to be dealt with.

The growing urbanization that exists in the world makes these issues of the cities a major problem. Certainly I would agree that clean water and the environment is something that we need to be focused on and that USAID needs to be focused on.

So I would agree completely with the gentleman's concerns here that this is an area that USAID needs to give greater attention to.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. Maloney. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman does correctly read the language as it appears in the report. This language that you seek to clarify was offered by the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I do agree with the ranking member that the heavily affected areas that she describes should be considered on a priority basis.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the concerns that she has expressed here about the Inter-American Foundation. I do support the valuable work of the foundation and the fact that it promotes entrepreneurship, self-reliance, democratic principles, as well as the economic progress for the poor in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

The committee funded the Inter-American Foundation at the President's requested level, as the gentlewoman noted. The funding level is not higher in this bill because of the low budget allocation that the subcommittee received, a level that is $1 million lower than the Senate subcommittee has to work with, and it is certainly not intended to show anything but full support for the Inter-American Foundation.

I recognize that it is important that the Inter-American Foundation experiences steady funding to ensure the viability of the crucial program that the gentlewoman has discussed. If the subcommittee receives a higher budget allocation in conference, I will certainly work to support an increased funding level for this program.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would be quite brief here and if there are no other speakers on this, I would make my point of order at the end.

I would make the point to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), first of all, for whom I have a great deal of respect for and particularly admire the commitment she has made to the democracy in the Ukraine and the support for freedom and democracy in that struggling country, I would make the following point to her, that although there is a specific earmark in our bill for programs in Russia, that is because we believe very strongly in the struggling democracy programs there that need to have very specific support. There is not, and I will just say that the gentlewoman's chart is in error, there is not a zero amount for Ukraine. There is an amount for the former Soviet Republics, for Eastern Europe. We just do not earmark a specific amount for the Ukraine as we do not earmark for other countries.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, as I said a moment ago, there is an earmark for Russia. There is not earmarks for other countries, but there is a sum of money which is available to be spent in these countries, and it is certainly anticipated that programs in the Ukraine that do support democracy would be supported by that account.

We just simply do not earmark the specific amount for any of the countries in the bill, whether we are talking about Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the other countries. There is no specific amount.

Mr. Chairman, I correct myself. The gentlewoman is correct. Armenia and Russia do have earmarks.

point of order

Mr. Chairman, I would make a point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore finds itself in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

That rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.''

It gives affirmative direction, in effect. In this legislation this proposed amount does do that.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I thought it was the intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) to withdraw the amendment at the end, but as I understand it he intends to go ahead with this.

That was what I intended to say. Is it the gentleman's intention then to withdraw it at that point?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about this account. I would just like to note that we have recommended $335 million. That is an increase of $31 million in what is called the NADR, the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs.

The gentleman's asked for a specific sub-account within there of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. He has asked for money to be additionally placed in there, and I would just note that we have provided an increase of $5.1 million. That is a 34 percent increase in that account there.

So I think we have done very well, and I would also note that this particular State Department discretionary fund has not had the best record of expeditiously obligating funds. I would just say the problem we have had is one that the gentleman has correctly identified, or maybe not has correctly identified, but is certainly one of the allocations that we have available to us.

As I mentioned on the previous amendment, we have an allocation of a full billion dollars less than what is available to the Senate, and I would hope that when we are in conference if we have additional funds available to us to be able to work with the gentleman to increase the funding for this; and with that, Mr. Chairman, if that is satisfactory, if the gentleman would like to respond to that, I would yield to him for the purpose of commenting on that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I would be pleased to respond.

I appreciate the effort that my friend from New Jersey has made to bring this issue to our attention. Clearly, it has been United States policy to recognize this nation as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and I know that our State Department did not intend to change this policy through this article 98 agreement, which was intended to deal with another set of issues regarding the protection of American service personnel overseas, an issue which is important to many of us in this body.

Clearly, this issue of the nation's name is an issue of contention in that the northern region of Greece also goes by Macedonia. I can tell the gentleman that we will raise this issue with the Department of State, and we will see if our colleagues in the Senate would agree to a restatement of current policy in the Statement of Managers that accompanies the fiscal year 2004 conference agreement.

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

Mr. Chairman, many statements have been made on the floor about this amendment. Unfortunately, very little of them have been accurate. Let me read the amendment, since it is less than two full lines. ``Page 40, line 24. After the first dollar amount insert the following (reduce by $600,000).''

Mr. Chairman, this does not reduce the funding for Indonesia. It would take only $600,000 out of the international military education and training account. It is a cut to the general appropriations account. And it is correctly drafted this way, because to put other kinds of restrictions in it would not have been in order.

So I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that this is not an amendment which in any way directly affects Indonesia at all. The language that has been stated here on the floor might, but the amendment itself has no impact itself on Indonesia.

As to the issue of the tragic killing of U.S. citizens in Indonesia, our report in fact does deal with this on page 46 where we outline in some considerable detail the problems and make note with this sentence, Mr. Chairman: ``Most disturbing, the committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has not found Indonesian officials to be particularly cooperative.'' So we have made note of this. We are very concerned about it.

But certainly attacking IMET as the way to get at this would be the absolute contrary way to do so. IMET is about exposing foreign military officers and enlisted personnel to civilian control, to respect for human rights, to the rule of law. It is, as its very title suggests, about education and training. And as we know from the programs that exist, human rights and civil rights, respect for human rights and respect for civil rights is a very major component of this training. If you want to reform the Indonesian military, then cutting off IMET is exactly the opposite of what one ought to do. At some point we ought to be increasing IMET for Indonesia, and perhaps indeed that is what may happen.

But I would also note, before I close, that our legislation does not permit or does not provide for any foreign military sales to Indonesia, and so that is specifically prohibited. But I am happy that this amendment does not in any way affect the IMET funding specifically for Indonesia. It represents what is less than a six-tenths of 1 percent cut in the total amount. And while I am a strong supporter of IMET, because I believe that it does exactly what we want to do, and we have adequate proof of this around the world, that it exposes military officers in other countries to human rights, to civil rights, to the values that we believe are important in this country, and because of that I strongly support it, but I am not prepared at this hour of the evening to quibble about what is less than a six-tenths of 1 percent cut in this funding.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. The amendment does add a limitation to a general appropriation bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, such amendments are not in order during the reading of a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, the rule states in part:

``Except as provided in paragraph (d), an amendment proposing a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation shall not be in order during consideration of a general appropriation bill.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation and is not specifically contained or authorized in existing law, has been offered during the reading and therefore is in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, while I regret very much that this is being done because at least in one instance these objections here are for something that is very vital, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard to state, while I will concede the point of order, that I find this really astonishing. One of the more difficult things we have had in Iraq has been the issue of competitiveness of contracts, and I hope the gentleman is aware that what he is doing is he is saying he is against competition of contracts in Iraq, and that is exactly what this language has done. We have had a lot of controversy about that. I am glad to see that the chairman of the committee has arrived here to defend his position, but I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I again concede the point of order. This is a piece of legislation that was added to clarify and improve the language and we have worked it out previously, but now apparently it is not acceptable. I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes given the hour of the evening here, and I will not debate the merits of this except to say that at this moment with what we are doing in the Middle East with the peace process and the roadmap, this would be a very inappropriate amendment at this time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I will just make my point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change existing law, constitutes legislation in 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 . . . '' It imposes additional duties. This does impose additional duties, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

As noted, this is accepted. This is proposed by both the chairman of the

authorizing committee and the ranking member, and I accept it and I strongly support it.

Mr. Chairman, although a point of order could be made against this amendment, I think it certainly does no harm to restate what is clearly the position of the United States, so I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is creative, but the amendment offered by the gentlewoman invokes a textual ``double-negative.'' As a result, it constitutes an affirmative direction or statement of affirmative intent in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, just to simply respond to the gentlewoman. I would simply say, obviously, nothing in our bill does prohibit this. I would say this is out of the scope of our bill, but the gentlewoman is correct that we do not attempt to do that. But I do insist on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I just want to say before I make my point of order that, once again, I appreciate the amendment of the gentlewoman. The one she was talking about, I had it in front of me before. Our bill has nothing in any way, shape, or form, or touches, impinges, deals with in any way, shape, or form on an independent commission to study the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ours is a foreign assistance bill; it has nothing to do with a commission here in the United States. So it would be absolutely impossible that we would have anything in here that would prohibit this.

point of order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the amendment which the gentlewoman from Texas has offered.

The amendment offered, once again, invokes a textual ``double- negative.''

As a result, it constitutes an affirmative direction or statement of affirmative intent which would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which deals with the operating procedures for USAID and simply clarifies some of those procedures. I believe it is acceptable to the minority for this amendment to be agreed to, and I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment. I have been scratching my head trying to look at this thing. I noticed as it was purported or given to the desk there, it refers to the bill that we had yesterday. So this is another bill that it was dealing with.

Our bill has nothing to do with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, whatever; so I do not know what the application of this is at all to our bill. But, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this, and we will consider to try and digest it and understand it and deal with it appropriately in the conference.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and I appreciate very much his fiscal responsibility. He has been a

watchdog of fiscal prudence in this House and we need Members like that. But I really do believe that this appropriations bill is a fiscally responsible bill. Not only have we stayed with the allocation but we are at a level that is $1.8 billion less than the President's request. That is 10 percent less than the President's requested in this area in this account. So we have made some choices in order to fund some, but not all of the President's priorities.

I would note that we have provided less in our bill than the President requested in 24 accounts. We have only provided more funds than the President requested in four accounts in the bill. We have had some significant discussion about those tonight like the HIV/AIDS account. But in 24 of the accounts we have under what the President actually requested.

I know that $171 million seems like a lot of money to most folks in America. When we around here deal with the kind of dollars we deal with and some of the size of the appropriations bills we deal with, $171 million may not seem like a lot, but it is when you come to the context of foreign assistance. In fact, it is more than the entire sum of assistance programs for all but a very small number of countries that are included in our bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would say while I appreciate what the gentleman is attempting to do I think it is the wrong approach and I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear about this. The gentleman has said himself that it is not a great deal of money that is involved. This is not at all about the money. This is about a statement that the gentleman is proposing making, and that statement is that we would add our ally, Saudi Arabia, to a list of outlaw nations: North

Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. Those are the nations that are now on the terrorist list. That would add Saudi Arabia to that list. It would prohibit any assistance to Saudi Arabia, antiterrorism assistance, which is all that we really give, military assistance, virtually anything. So I strongly oppose this amendment.

We have serious differences with Saudi Arabia. We have serious concerns about how good Saudi Arabia has been in pursuing terrorists since 9/11, but let us not make any mistake about it. Overall, Saudi Arabia has been a good friend to the United States. It was certainly above all other countries in the Gulf War a decade and more ago. It was the strongest supporter of the United States and made assistance available, its soil, its air bases available to us. It has supported U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iran. They are a major partner in the current peace efforts in the Middle East, and they were there with President Bush, with King Abdullah, with Prime Minister Sharon, with Prime Minister Abbas, and President Mubarak in the Sinai.

Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have benefited significantly from the cooperation that we have had with Saudi Arabia in providing information, intelligence on different individuals and organizations that we know to be terrorist organizations in the Middle East; and I would note that since September 11 of 2001, the Saudis have arrested over 400 terrorist suspects.

Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman, has been itself a victim of terrorism, as we are. It has been a victim of terrorism as it has been an ally in the war on terrorism. They suffered very destructive bombing attacks on May 12. They have uncovered a plot to detonate a bomb in Mecca, the holiest of cities in Islam. The Saudis recently killed three chief al Qaeda operatives.

Saudi Arabia, as we know, has been a pillar of stability in the international oil and financial markets. It is a customer of U.S. goods and services. We exported $4.8 billion in goods and services in 2002, including $267 million in agriculture and food exports and $2.8 billion in machinery and transportation equipment.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this is not about money. This is a matter of Saudi military officials who are trained in the United States military and operate U.S.-made weapons systems. The relationship between our militaries are very close. This amendment would prohibit, absolutely prohibit antiterrorism assistance which the U.S. is now providing to Saudi Arabia and is absolutely essential as we struggle to try and defeat this terrorist threat in the Middle East.

The amendment, I would reiterate again, proposes to treat Saudi Arabia instead as a state like those five that I mentioned earlier that we have designated as outlaw states, as terrorist states: North Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, Cuba. To do so, Mr. Chairman, is simply wrong.

Adoption of this amendment would be bad policy. It would do irreparable harm to U.S. relations in the Arab world and the Middle East.

We just received a letter from Assistant Secretary of State Burns who, of course, has responsibility for the Middle East; and I would like to quote just one paragraph from this letter which was sent this evening to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and myself and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

This third paragraph says the following: ``The administration strongly opposes efforts to add the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to this list of state sponsors of terrorism and urges that the House reject the amendment offered by Representative Weiner, which would severely undermine our counter-terrorism cooperation with Saudi Arabia at precisely the moment when it is moving to a new level of effectiveness. This amendment would also undermine our important interests in cooperating with Saudi Arabia on other critical issues in the region, including the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace.''

Mr. Chairman, we know how delicate the road map for peace is in the Middle East. This is not just a peripheral issue. It is very much involved with that, and I would urge my colleagues to think with their heads and not with their hearts and reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the reading of the legislation, I would like to raise a discussion about the famine in Ethiopia, particularly as it relates to the funding that is listed under International Development.

Let me just say that over the years, my office has worked with the Ethiopian community on the recurring famine in the Eritrea and Ethiopia region. The predecessor to this seat, Congressman Mickey Leland, lost his life in Ethiopia over a famine that occurred in 1989.

One of the concerns that I have with respect to this focus is the recurring aspect of the famine. I was intending to offer an amendment that is subject to a point of order that would increase the technical assistance regarding the need to enhance the skills that Ethiopia has to avoid the recurring, if you will, the recurring famine, and to be able to train the Ethiopian government to respond preemptively, if you will, in a preventive manner to the recurring famines that happen to occur.

So my concern, and the point of my amendment, which I will not offer and which I simply want to acknowledge on the record, is to ensure that the funds that we use are funds that can also not only work in accordance with the need of the present famine, but are we doing anything to invest in resources, in water needs, in wells, in order to be prepared for the recurring famine.

It is well known that in this region this drought occurs on a regular cycle. And the question remains as to whether or not, and I know the ranking member and the chairman are certainly well in tune with the idea of the recurring droughts, it concerns my constituents that it appears that we are without assistance in terms of training individuals to be preventive as opposed to being reactive.

So in order to not delay this point with respect to an amendment that has a point of order, to the ranking member, the discussion that I am having is that my concern with the funding is that Ethiopia has had a recurring drought over the last 3 decades, and that recurring drought has seen a major loss of life. My question is whether the assistance that we are giving helps provide preventive measures to be able to respond to the recurring drought as opposed to reactive measures. I wanted to raise that point on the record. I wanted to acknowledge what is obvious, that people are dying; and as well, I might inquire of the gentlewoman from New York as to whether or not in this section, whether there is technical assistance provided to those nations that are suffering from drought in this foreign development provision.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman. There are a number of companies here in the United States

that deal with water development, well development; and many of them I have had discussions with. I know that AID is engaged with them. But I would like to think that there could be a major, sort of Marshall Plan that really collaboratively deals with this ongoing problem of this continuing drought that causes such enormous loss of life, and I would hope that our monies could be used in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I would have provided this amendment to H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for FY 2004, requesting that none of the funding allocated in this Appropriation Act shall inhibit any technical assistance to Ethiopia and other famine-stricken regions in Africa. I will discuss this amendment, however, I believe that further work with AID will be as necessary as I presented.

A comprehensive, multifaceted effort to address issues of hunger- relief in Ethiopia and other regions at risk of famine must be in place because it is estimated that between 11 and 14 million people could go hungry within the coming months.

Ethiopia's poverty-stricken economy is based on agriculture, which accounts for approximately half of its gross domestic product (GDP), 85 percent of its exports, and 80 percent of its total employment. The agricultural sector suffers from frequent drought and poor cultivation practices, and as many as 4.6 million people require annual food assistance. The present environmental conditions in Ethiopia are creating a scenario in which thousands are suffering daily from hunger and malnutrition. Approximately 15 percent of Ethiopia's October- November 2002 harvest was destroyed due to severe drought conditions. This agricultural disaster resulted in the failure of root and other green vegetables upon which many Ethiopians rely for sustenance. Due to this loss in crop yield, families that depend on subsistence farming not only lack food needed to survive, but also the seeds needed for replanting the following year.

As a result of the poor environmental conditions, livestock in addition to crops are suffering as well. With mortality rates steadily rising, livestock populations fortunate enough to survive are suffering from lowered body weight, thus causing reduced traction, power and milk production; this only further exacerbates the impending food shortage. With the combination of plummeting livestock prices and raging cereal prices, poorer households are facing an even worse predicament in obtaining food. In addition to food shortages, access to safe, clean drinking water continues to be an area of enormous concern. On any given day, less than 20 percent of Ethiopia's population has access to safe drinking water. These conditions are devastating the country and more needs to be done to address this plight of hunger in the region.

I cannot emphasize enough the impact that famine is having on the young people of Ethiopia. According to one estimate, six children die of drought-related conditions daily in Ethiopia. Many of them have collapsed from disease or dehydration after walking for days with their families in search of nourishment. Thousands are fleeing remote villages where wells have dried up and agencies have yet to establish secure food stations.

As horrific as the famine situation is in Ethiopia, there are a number of other countries facing a similar plight. The United Nations warns that as many as 16 million people are at risk of starvation in 10 countries across East and Central Africa, from Burundi to Eritrea on the Red Sea. Countries like Ethiopia are forced to rely greatly on foreign aid and debt relief to push the economy forward.

Mr. Chairman, given the conditions which I have outlined I feel that it is imperative that we ensure that none of the funding allocated in this Appropriation Act shall limit the provision of any added technical assistance to Ethiopia and other countries suffering from conditions of famine. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and support the unimpeded flow of funds to famine-stricken nations in Africa.

Amendment to H.R. 2800, as Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following:

technical assistance for improved means of crop production and water

purification in famine stricken areas of africa

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I say thank you to the ranking member and the chairman of this committee and will try to give a very brief scenario on why I am recommending and presenting this amendment. I would hope that the chairman would see the necessity or the value of a waiver of the point of order because I think that there is value in this amendment, and that is the utilization of more women in the peace negotiating process, both in the Middle East and in Africa.

It is clear that there are many incidents of conflict around the world. In a recent visit that I made to Oslo, Norway, participating in the Global Peace Initiative of Women, Religious and Spiritual Leaders, there was a gathering of women from Palestine and from Israel. At the beginning of the meeting, there seemed to be no opportunity for a meeting of the minds; and yet as we proceeded, we found that because women understood the loss of life, disruptiveness to families and the overall horror of war, that more often than not they were able to come together around the preservation of family and the raising of children.

Women leaders are frequently, however, left out of international peace efforts. In fact, I am told there is a United Nations Peace Commission that has not yet had women members appointed to it.

My amendment will simply prohibit any funding being utilized to prohibit any agencies that may be interested in encouraging the international participation of women in international peace efforts. This will ensure that the input and wisdom of women are utilized in our efforts to achieve a world peace.

As we watch the horror of many conflicts around the world, as we watch the crisis in Liberia, knowing the value of the work and the understanding of African women on issues dealing with Rwanda, the Congo and other places, I would hope that as we proceed in foreign policy that we will utilize our good advocacies to encourage the United Nations to appoint members to the United Nations Peace Commission for Women and that we too would encourage the utilization of women in the international peace process.

Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004, and I ask the Rules Committee to make my amendment in order.

This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to prohibit projects in which agencies promote the participation of women in international peace efforts, specifically peace efforts in Africa, and the Middle East.''

I recently visited Oslo, Norway and participated in The Global Peace Initiative of Women Religious & Spiritual Leaders. This uplifting initiative gathered leading women from across the globe to discuss the peace efforts across the globe and in particular in the Middle East. At this initiative Israeli and Palestinian women sat at the same table and discussed the mutual horror of seeing their children killed in

armed conflicts and senseless acts of violence. There were often differences between these women, but invariably all women wanted the violence to end and for peace and harmony to stand in its place.

Women leaders are frequently left out of international peace efforts. My amendment will simply prohibit funding for any project that seeks to include women from international peace efforts. This will ensure that the input and the wisdom of women are utilized in our efforts to achieve world peace.

Mr. Chairman, as we all watch in horror as American soldiers are killed in Iraq and civil unrest erupts in Liberia, it is clear that we need new methods to promote world peace. It is important to include women in those efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, the chairman makes a very valid point on the double negative, and we worked very hard to try to structure this as a limitation.

Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say this: I would hope that the distinguished chairman would waive the point of order. But, in any event, I would hope the distinguished chairman might offer in some way a comment on the value of women being utilized in the peace process. We did work very hard to try to structure this without a point of order, but clearly wanted to ensure that no funds in the appropriations bill would be used to prevent any of our agencies who would be so encouraged to use women in the peace process.

Mr. Chairman, I do wish to pose a question before I address my amendment, if I could, to the ranking member of the committee.

Previously, I had mentioned the importance of involving women in the international peace process. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from New York on the question of women in the international peace process. I had mentioned that the United Nations had a peace commission established for the purpose of appointing women to that commission. It has not been implemented, to my knowledge. But my general question is the value of encouraging and utilizing women in international peace negotiations around the world.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am gratified by the response I have gotten from the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations; and I am very pleased that we might be able to work on that.

The amendment that I wish to discuss very briefly is in the backdrop or on the eve of the announcement of the 9/11 commission's report dealing with the horrific tragedy of 9/11.

It seems somewhat questioning that this body would not want to support the creation of a commission to deal with the weapons of mass destruction, simply finding out the truth. I do realize that, as we speak, there is an ongoing investigation by the intelligence committees, I believe both in the House and the other body; but it is true that soldiers now are still dying, even after the war was declared over in Iraq. It is also true that the American people deserve the truth, and that the question dealing with the purchase of uranium from Africa in the State of the Union address by the President is not the only question on the issue of intelligence gathering.

All of the world's eyes were on Secretary of State Powell's presentation before the United Nations utilized to encourage the United Nations Security Council to vote for, if you will, a preemptive attack against Iraq on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. I believe this is not a question of ``gotcha,'' it is not a question of one-upmanship, it is not a question of partisanship. It is simply a question of telling the truth to the American people.

There were commissions and investigatory bodies that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the incident into the China satellite question, Watergate, Whitewater, if you will. All of these warranted investigations by this government.

It seems to me less than disingenuous to be able to deny the right of the American people to find out the entire truth about the decision to use a preemptive strike against Iraq on the basis that the United States of America was about to be under imminent attack.

This debate on a commission has nothing to do with the wrongness of Saddam Hussein and the collective opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despotic and horrific leader.

This is nothing to do with the idea of whether or not our brave young men and women are willing to put themselves on the front line to defend this Nation. All it has to do with is for this body to recognize the importance of an independent commission.

I would say that this commission should not be implemented until the completion of the work of the intelligence committees of both bodies and then, ultimately, when a final report should be rendered. But I do believe that it is extremely important that we have a submission on the weapons of mass destruction and their existence and the paper trail, if you will, and who said what, and what oversight there was with respect to the whole question of the attack on Iraq. There was no declaration of war under the United States Constitution article I, section 8; and because of that, I believe the American people are owed a thorough and full investigation on this question.

Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, and I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to support this amendment.

This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to prohibit the establishment of an independent commission to study the basis of the determination of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including any written or oral statements as to the recent purchase by Iraq of uranium in Africa.''

This is a simple limiting amendment that will ensure that no funds are utilized to prevent the Members of this Congress and the American people from learning the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This amendment prevents the use of funds to prohibit or impede congressional efforts to learn the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the accuracy of United States intelligence sources on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The events that give rise to this amendment have been well documented. On January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address. In that address President Bush said that Saddam Hussein attempted to buy uranium in Africa. The intelligence report that President Bush relied on to make that allegation was proven to be fraudulent. There were also credible indications that the Bush administration had reason to know the intelligence report was fraudulent before the State of the Union Address was delivered.

All of these allegations raise questions, and show the need for an investigation into U.S. intelligence methods and the use of that intelligence report by the Bush administration. This amendment ensures that no funds will be spent to create unnecessary obstacles that prevent such an investigation from taking place. Specifically, this amendment ensures that no funds will be used to prevent the establishment of an independent commission to study the allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the credibility of U.S. intelligence reports, and the Bush administration's use of those intelligence reports. These issues affect every American citizen and it is important to every Member of Congress's constituents that the truth be known.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important for learning the truth about the justifications for which the United States went to war. As of yesterday at 5 p.m., over 150 brave young American men and women have lost their lives fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. These courageous soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice to bring peace to the people of Iraq and the world. It is important that we learn before another soldier loses his or her life if our justifications for war were accurate. My amendment will prevent funds from being used to prevent a full inquiry. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would. I had hoped the esteemed gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) would waive the point of order in his discussion. However, let me say that the clarification on the record was very helpful, that nothing in this bill would prohibit the establishment of a commission investigating the weapons of mass destruction. I would argue on the basis only of hoping or wishing or asking that the chairman waive the point of order so that this amendment could go forward to be sure that there is no such language to prohibit the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction investigatory commission.

But I will only say that if that is not the case, then I will yield back to the distinguished Chairman, saying that the clarification has been made.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides $574 million for Colombia. The amendment would cut $75 million from that total. And the reason I support it, although I have great respect for the chairman's position, is because I have fundamental questions about the direction in which our Colombia policy is headed.

As my colleagues may know, the United States' commitment to Colombia has shifted in the last year from being exclusively focused on drugs towards an open-ended, long-term commitment to aid the Columbian government in its war against guerillas and terrorists.

The response to that shift in the United States' policy has been more violence directed at U.S. personnel, including kidnappings, hostages being taken and planes being shot down.

Next year marks the end of the original 5-year Plan Colombia, and as we near that time we find that coca production in the region has increased

rather than decreased, violence continues unabated, more Colombians are internally displaced.

The human rights situation is worse. No viable alternative development scheme is in place, and drug dealing paramilitary organizations control much of the country. Meanwhile, the amount of United States assistance to Colombia has increased every year to over half a billion requested next year. Plans underway in the administration will lead to an even broader commitment to Colombia to assist in this civil war in the name of fighting terrorism.

According to the GAO, the administration has not developed estimates of future program costs, defined their future roles in Colombia, identified a proposed end state, or determined how they plan to achieve it.

During the original debate on Plan Colombia, critics said we were descending a slippery slope. Well, we are hurtling down that slope with no end in sight. Last year, in the context of agreeing to broaden the authority for U.S. programs beyond drugs, the new government of Colombia agreed to adopt major reforms within the military and to significantly increase security expenditures from its own budget. While it appears that the Colombians increase their security budget in 2002 and 2003, the United States has no firm commitment that the increased level will continue in 2004 and beyond. In the meantime, the costs of simply maintaining the aircraft and equipment we already have there now exceeds $230 million per year. The best you can say about reforms within the military is that they are a work in progress.

I support Colombia. I want to help Colombia. But we do not help Colombia by continuing an unbalanced policy, looking the other way on human rights problems and continue collusion with paramilitary organizations and paying the maintenance bill for their helicopters while failing to insist on a viable development scheme for rural areas.

Passage of this amendment will not cut off aid to Colombia. It will send a strong signal to the administration that they need to make some policy changes, clarify the length and terms of our commitment and present Congress with an exit strategy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the chairman's amendment; however, I do have a few comments. This amendment clarifies some of the authorities in the bill with respect to the HIV/AIDS coordinator, while preserving the underlying language in the bill setting up the framework for HIV/AIDS programs. While the President is intent on ensuring that all AIDS funding pass through the new coordinator's office, there are some in Congress who would question the wisdom of such a requirement. Both the Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control have years of experience programming funds spent to combat HIV/AIDS. At the moment it is unclear what function the new coordinator will serve. If the office attempts to micromanage HIV programs as opposed to coordinate them among Federal agencies, there will potentially be serious delays in program implementation. This bill gives the coordinator adequate authority and also ensures that the appropriate agency controls program funds.

Everyone is anxious to make progress in this fight, but we have to be careful that we do not create a bureaucratic mess in the name of coordination. This amendment removes a limitation that would have focused the resources of the coordinator's operation, and it is my expectation, as we move forward to create this new bureaucracy, that Congress will exercise its oversight prerogatives on the use of such funds.

Again, I do have do not object to the chairman's amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman for his important work in this area. I know that we have talked quite a bit about the importance of focusing on urban areas and creating a sense of civility in the areas by working on transportation and health and orderliness in our communities. I look forward to working with the gentleman. I appreciate his assistance in helping us craft important language in the reports of this bill, and I know that working together and working with AID, we can increase the intensity of their commitment to this project.

I look forward to working with the Chair and the gentleman in the next year.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to the floor. This condition is so devastating, I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. We need to get more comfortable with the fact that the problem exists, and we must play a role in solving it. I am glad we are discussing it on the floor today.

A recent report commissioned by UNFPA has recognized obstetric fistula as a condition that is both preventable and treatable. Obstetric fistulas are virtually unknown in places where early pregnancy is discouraged, young women are educated, family planning is accessible and medical care is provided at childbirth. Women with fistulas are living indicators of failed maternal health systems.

I am proud that the committee report accompanying this bill urges the Agency for International Development to initiate programs in the areas most heavily affected by fistula. We must work hard to encourage USAID to take on this issue.

The United States has consistently taken the lead on fighting HIV- AIDS, and I believe we should do the same for obstetric fistula. We know the difference that a trained physician can make through prevention and treatment. We need more trained doctors, organized education efforts for women and families and basic medical equipment in the countries affected by fistula to eradicate this terrible condition.

These are the types of assistance that USAID can and should be providing, and I thank the gentlewoman again for raising this issue.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I share her concern. What does the gentlewoman from New York recommend?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with that formulation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention. The chairman and I are very sensitive to the conditions which the gentlewoman describes. Yes, there is assistance that is being provided by AID. We would like to further discuss it with the gentlewoman and work with the gentlewoman to see if that assistance could be intensified.

I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my Chair in thanking the member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for her commitment to Ukraine. I know of her important work in developing agriculture initiatives there and understanding how important agriculture is to Ukraine. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention. I can assure the gentlewoman that the Ukraine, as always, will get a significant amount of money to continue the important work that the gentlewoman and others have been doing in Ukraine.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

I applaud the gentleman for offering this amendment and for giving us the opportunity to have an open discussion about recent events in Indonesia. Last August, two U.S. citizens and one Indonesian were killed in an ambush in Papua, Indonesia, and eight other Americans were wounded. This incident took place in an area under the nominal control of an American company and the victims were their employees.

While the Indonesian military has sought to blame indigenous rebel movements for this act of terror, all signs point to the direct involvement of the Indonesian military. The FBI has been dispatched several times to assist in the investigation. The cooperation of the Indonesian military authorities has been sporadic at times and at times nonexistent.

The debate on whether to allow military training for Indonesia has gone on for over 10 years now. Last year, over my objections, Congress allowed for the resumption of full IMET training for the first time since 1992. Let us examine the Indonesians' response to this action:

One, continued lack of cooperation with the FBI investigation into the killings in Papua;

Two, an active media campaign to discredit the FBI's initial conclusions that the Indonesian military was most likely involved in this incident;

Three, a horrific military crack down in Aceh which has resulted in hundreds of civilians killed, executions, rape, numerous schools burned, and thousands forced into military camps;

The shutting out of foreign journalists and human rights organizations from Aceh;

A similar campaign in Papua, targeting mostly Christian and Melanesian populations;

A continuing mockery of justice in cases involving the abuses in East Timor in 1999;

And efforts by the Indonesian Army to slow or hinder U.S. anti- terrorism assistance for the Indonesian police.

In short, Indonesia has not shown any inclination to work more closely with us and to change policies which they know are objectionable. If anything, their behavior indicates that they have chosen to use this as an opportunity to defy the United States.

This amendment cuts $600,000 requested for Indonesian IMET and will send a strong signal to the Indonesians. Allowing unrestricted IMET demonstrates to the Indonesians that they cannot afford to ignore State Department and congressional calls for military reform, real cooperation in the war on terrorism and an end to violence and corruption.

I urge support of the Hefley amendment.

I rise to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman has any idea what the effect of this point of order is. This authority to allow for the rescheduling of bilateral agriculture debt has been carried in the foreign operations bill for at least 5 years. If it is removed, the administration will be unable to pursue bilateral debt rescheduling. This authority is a crucial tool in helping poor countries. It has been used recently to help critical allies in the war on terrorism, such as Pakistan and Indonesia.

We also just used the authority to help the Democratic Republic of Congo with the horrible mess they are in. We did not fund the $300 million request to forgive their debt. The least we can do is reschedule their debt. So I am mystified as to why the gentleman would raise this point of order.

I might ask whether he knows of any plans in the Committee on Agriculture to enact a bill containing this authority. I would like to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman again if he is against competition in awarding contracts in Iraq. I am trying to figure out what he is trying to do with the point of order.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman for bringing this important issue to the floor today. During this time of great hope in the Middle East peace process, it is critical that we take a step back to recognize that the roots of tolerance and coexistence must be planted in our young people early in order for peace to truly take hold.

I have long shared the gentleman's concern about the danger of anti- Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-Western propaganda in the Arab world. Nowhere is this propaganda more insidious than in school textbooks, where it has the capacity to poison the minds of the children who should be the region's best hope for peace.

One of the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East has been the consistent refusal of Arab regimes to prepare their people for coexistence with Israel. Instead, they have used the Palestinian- Israeli conflict as a pressure valve for their citizens to vent frustrations that otherwise might be directed at the ruling regimes themselves. It has been in many of these leaders' best interests to perpetuate the stereotypes and canards that make peaceful coexistence impossible. If we are ever to realize our goal of a peaceful Middle East this practice must end. The amendment the gentleman raises today raises this point, and I think it is one that needs to be made by Congress and heeded by Israel's Arab neighbors.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman, because I think this is an absolutely critical point to be made. In countries where women are more involved, where there are more women in government, there clearly is a greater effort towards peace, towards collaboration to avoiding the horrors of war. So I want to applaud the gentlewoman for her initiative and for her focus on women and peace, and I do hope that we can work together to ensure that these kinds of efforts around the world are supported. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment which would cut funding below the already inadequate allocation we have for this bill. Foreign assistance is a critical component of our national security strategy, and it would be a mistake to cut it further.

I would like to take a moment to mention just a few of the vital parts of this bill that will suffer if the gentleman's amendment is adopted.

The Middle East is at a critical juncture right now, and as we work towards peace and stability in that region, our support is absolutely essential to the process. I believe it would be a grave error to cut this funding.

We are all well aware of the devastation HIV/AIDS has caused, is causing, and will cause for years to come. Our only answer is to fight, and we cannot possibly do that with reduced funds.

The funding we are providing now is not enough, and the gentleman's amendment will cut it further.

I am especially proud of the funding this bill provides for basic education. Education is the basis of economic growth in developing societies. This amendment would curtail our ability to provide more of the world's poorest children with the opportunity for a better life. There are many other issues which I could raise, but I think the point is clear. Right now we need more resources in this bill, not less, and I would like to remind the gentleman that the President requested $18.8 billion for foreign aid. This House provided $17.1 billion, so we are already below the President's request.

So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that for far too long the Saudi Government looked the other way as the roots of global terrorism drew stronger and stronger within its borders. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. U.S. troops and nationals have repeatedly been attacked by terrorists on Saudi soil. Saudi Arabia has been identified time and time again as a major source and transit point for terrorist financing. Enough is enough.

We simply cannot stand by silently as Saudi Arabia continues to poison the minds of its children with anti-Israel and anti-Western canards; as it continues to legitimize Yasser Arafat even as Abu Mazen tries to lead his people on the path toward peace; as it allows telethons on its airwaves raising funds for families of suicide bombers. This amendment will not solve all of these problems, but it will send the message that Congress has had enough.

It is time for Saudi Arabia to show some leadership, to take the first step to reform its education system, to reflect the realities of the peace process it professes to support. It is time for Saudi Arabia to strengthen the transparency and accountability of its financial systems to close the loopholes that let terrorist financing slip through and to stop passing off as charity payments to terrorists and their organizations.

It is time for Saudi Arabia to live up to its commitments to bolster the newly elected Palestinian leadership instead of continuing to strengthen the old guard that remains fixated on using terror as a negotiating tactic.

However, I do have some serious concerns about the effects this amendment could have on U.S.-Saudi cooperation to apprehend terrorist suspects and stop the flow of financing to terrorist organizations. It could also slow or stop the flow of Saudi intelligence to our own law enforcement agencies and may stymie State Department plans to help the Saudis professionalize their counterterrorism efforts by opening a training facility in that country.

I agree that we must be clear about our dissatisfaction with Saudi Arabia, but I am very concerned that this amendment may hurt our efforts to fight terrorism more than it will hurt the Saudis.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the fine work they have done on this bill under difficult circumstances with many challenges.

After September 11, President Bush, I think, articulated our national policy very well by saying that nations are either for us in the war on terrorism or against us. I supported the President then, and I believe we must be tireless in pursuit of terrorists and those who sponsor terrorism overseas.

I rise today because I believe we need to make a change in this bill to fully live up to that promise. I suspect that most of my colleagues know the record of Saudi Arabia; but today I will be offering an amendment that strikes what is arguably, and agreed, a very small amount of money in this bill for Saudi Arabia and says that under this bill there shall be none for that country.

For many of my colleagues and for many Americans, it is intuitive why we

would take this action. They would probably be surprised to learn that even a small amount of funding is going to that nation. We know, for example, as a matter of fact, that Saudi Arabia, far from being a force for peace in the Middle East, has been systematically exporting terrorism. Testimony heard in this Congress said that more than 50 percent of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia despite increasing calls from President Bush to the kingdom to halt that funding. The Saudi Arabian government reportedly pays $5,333 to each family of what they call martyrs killed trying to murder Israelis. And in the spring of 2002, U.S. troops in Sarajevo found in the office of the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia documents that proved Saudi funding of the Hamas terrorist group to enable it to produce a short-range missile called the Qassam. We also know that increasingly it has become clear that there are Saudi connections to 9/11. Far from being a force to help us crack down on those that committed this crime, we all know, frankly, that it took the Saudis more than a month to even freeze Osama bin Laden's assets to fund his terrorist network.

A known Saudi intelligence agent, Omar al-Bayoumi, hosted two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, during the summer of 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the two men in Los Angeles and directed them to a Muslim community in San Diego and even wrote a check for their apartment deposits. The wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States transferred $15,000 in 1998 and then $2,000 a month to a Saudi resident, Osama Bassnan. During the same period, Mr. Bassnan and another man apparently were receiving Saudi financial support providing financial support for two of the hijackers on September 11.

I would also say that it is very clear that on many occasions when the Saudi Arabian government had a chance to offer true help to the United States of America, they have not done it. We know their record in the investigation after the 1996 Khobar bombing attack. Assistant FBI Director Robert Bryant said at the time that the Saudi government had prevented the FBI investigators from interviewing any civilians who witnessed or may have been involved in the Khobar Towers bombing.

In 1995, the Saudi government prevented us, the United States, from apprehending a Hezbollah leader by preventing us from intercepting a plane that he was on.

Some will argue here today, and I have heard it frankly continuously over the course of the last decade, that now the Saudi Arabia that we see is a different one, they have changed, they have come around. Now they really, really want to help us. In fact, the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Burns, writes a letter today to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) talking about how Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to condemn the September 11 attack. Is that not just terrific given how closely tied they were to that attack itself?

I do not need to remind anyone here that 15 of the 19 bombers of my city, attackers that killed over 2,800 people, were Saudis. I do not need to tell you how they have been exporting terrorism to the Middle East again and again and are doing it today. But yet we still hear from the State Department, maybe if we give them one more chance. Well, I agree. Let us give them one more chance. Let us give them more than that. But there should not be one dime of U.S. aid going for any reason to Saudi Arabia.

So what is in this bill? I believe it is a very small amount, perhaps the chairman could tell me, I think it is $25,000. That is all. What does that money do? It defrays the cost for Saudi intelligence officers to come here and work with our officers in our academies and in our intelligence-gathering community. That is terrific. Let us keep doing that. Let us try to bring them around. But let us not be fooled. Let them pay their own freight for that until they start to act like a nation that truly is going to work to end terrorism rather than to spread it.

It is a shame that we should be providing any funding here. I defy any of my colleagues to come to this floor and articulate a record, even William Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, arguing so fervently against this amendment, I do not know what the French for chutzpah is, has it that Saudi Arabia has been helpful on issues, including the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace. I would ask the chairman and just inform the House that if he insists on the point of order, I plan to offer the exact same language that the full section has at the appropriate place in the bill, or we can make this the sum and substance of my presentation.

Point of Order

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this is not in fact a limiting amendment. The language that limits is already in the bill. It says none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this act shall be obligated or expended, that is limiting language I have read so far, to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Syria, and then it goes on to say ``provided.'' I am not adding any more limitations than the committee has already added. All I am doing is adding another nation that comes under that limitation. The limiting language, I would argue, is already in the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the last of the amendments. Let me conclude by offering my thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for some very fine work.

For those Members who heard the recitation of the amendment and heard that none of the funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria, you might say, how could there possibly be any controversy in that?

Frankly, the question is should Saudi Arabia be included in that list? And I think, frankly, like the previous two speakers, the argument is not why should money be struck, the argument should always be made why should we be providing funding?

You are going to hear from opponents of this amendment that, well, the Secretary of State and the Department of State feel sure, certain, that after years and years of Saudi Arabia exporting terrorism, after clear links to September 11, after connections with them exploiting Wahabism, after efforts continually stymied by the United States to get the Saudis to stop this behavior, we still should provide them some funding because maybe, just maybe they will get better later on.

We have this desire, and it is a fervent one, to find a player in the Middle East that will turn out to be a true ally. We have it in Israel and perhaps some at the State Department believe they have it in Saudi Arabia. But the record is simply different. The record shows that over 50 percent of the funding for Hamas comes from Saudi Arabia. The record shows that the Saudi Arabian government provides cash awards of over $5,000 for terrorists in Israel.

The record shows that terrorists who recently massacred 38 civilians on a Tel Aviv highway were found to be armed with rifles bearing Saudi army markings and serial numbers.

We know, of course, in recent months, thanks to some of the fine work of our Intelligence Community that there are strong connections between the Saudi government and what happened on September 11. We all know that 15 of the 19 bombers came from Saudi Arabia. But we have now also learned that the wife of the Saudi ambassador was providing cash grants to two of the suicide bombers in the months leading up. We now know that a Saudi intelligence agent had been hosting 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. We also know as a matter of fact, absolute fact, for more than a month after September 11, the Saudi government refused to freeze Osama bin Laden's accounts where so many of his assets were kept.

Yet the Department of State sent a letter today saying that Saudi Arabia is one of the first countries to condemn the September 11 attacks.

We have to learn the lesson about Saudi Arabia. We cannot watch what they say. They do a brilliant job saying things to us, millions of dollars in lobbyists each year. We will go home tonight and there will be ads on our TV here in Washington what a great country Saudi Arabia is, all while they fund terrorism. No one needs to be told that in our districts back home. It is something that we all understand.

The audacity of Mr. Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, to say that my amendment might undermine Saudi Arabia's cooperation in dealing with Israeli-Palestinian peace. They are the foremost, number one funder of terrorist bombings in Israel.

I have one final point. Why are we giving money to one of the richest nations on Earth for anything? It is simply insane. So this is actually a very easy vote and I would encourage my colleague, the chairman, to accept this amendment. All it does is does what is intuitive to all of us. Let us judge nations by how they act.

If the Saudis do turn over a new leaf, if they stop saying the right thing when they come visit Crawford and then going and do fund-raisers for suicide bombers on television, then maybe we can come back later and decide whether we want to give some of our taxpayer dollars to the perhaps richest nation on God's Earth.

To do it today is simply wrong. We have to begin to learn the lessons of some of these nations in the Middle East. They are simply duplicitous. This is our opportunity, and I would point out to my colleagues, this is our opportunity to tell the Saudi Arabian government we expect a change in behavior.

This is our only opportunity to tell our colleagues at the State Department, stop looking for the unicorn, start looking at reality; and the reality is that the Government of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that we all know oppresses its people, we all know that is among the exporters of the worst types of Muslim teaching that encourages the death of Christians and Jews, let us tell them with this small message that we are not going to have it anymore.

For those of my colleagues who think there are hundreds and billions and millions of dollars in the bill, it is $105,000 in two programs. The two programs are to permit the Saudi government to purchase military training in the United States, something I am sure they can afford, and to provide IMET to Saudi Arabia to ensure continued high level of Saudi attendance at those military things.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I are offering an amendment to make modest reductions in military aid for Colombia, and to transfer those funds to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund for programs that combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.

H.R. 2800 provides $4.3 billion in foreign military financing, of which $110 million is slated to go to the Colombian military. Our amendment reduces that amount by $35 million.

The Andean Counterdrug Initiative is fully funded at $731 million, with at least $159 million in military aid for the Colombian armed forces. Our amendment reduces that total by just $40 million.

These are modest reductions but, if approved, they will send a powerful message that Congress believes respect for human rights is essential, that impunity for high-ranking military officers who commit human rights abuses must end, and that Congress requires a more defined U.S. plan and exit strategy in Colombia.

This amendment will also do a great deal of good.

I commend the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for increasing funding for HIV/AIDS, but the total is still about $1 billion less than the $3 billion authorized, the amount the President recently promised to African leaders. Mr. Chairman, $75 million is a modest amount, but every dollar counts in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases. $75 million could ensure that 250,000 more people with HIV/AIDS could receive drug treatment for an entire year. Think of it. This amendment could literally save the lives of a quarter of a million people over the course of the next year.

Now, I know some of my colleagues are saying, but we cannot pull out of Colombia. Well, let me be perfectly clear. No one believes more strongly than I do that the United States must stay engaged in Colombia. I will never advocate that we walk away from Colombia. But I have serious questions about the direction of U.S. policy, the goals that have yet to be defined for our military involvement there, and how we define success or failure in Colombia.

The committee has stated that U.S. policy in Colombia stands at a crossroads, and I agree. In the past 4 years, we have sent over $3.1 billion to Colombia, 80 percent in military and security assistance. On July 16, the Colombian government announced it will soon present ``Plan Colombia-Phase II'' and seek substantial U.S. aid increases for 2006 and beyond.

Meanwhile, coca production in the Andes has actually increased since Plan Colombia began, rising from 185,000 hectares in 2000 to 205,400 hectares in 2002, according to the State Department.

Colombia's small drop in coca production last year did not even bring its levels back down to where they were in 2000. And Colombia's decrease is offset by shifting production back to Bolivia and Peru. That does not seem to be progress to me.

Further, according to the Justice Department, the availability of cocaine in the United States actually increased in 2002. So let us not spin ourselves into thinking our policy is working.

Despite human rights conditions placed on U.S. military aid to Colombia, our aid continues to flow uninterrupted. We keep writing huge checks, even though every reputable human rights organization in the world concludes that the Colombian armed forces directly collaborate with paramilitary forces. These are the same paramilitary forces responsible for the majority of human rights abuses against civilians. These are the same paramilitary forces on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. These are the same paramilitary forces that President Uribe's own hand-picked commission determined control at least 40 percent of the drug trade in Colombia and receive 80 percent of their funding from drug profits.

Meanwhile, over the past year, human rights crimes by official Colombian military police have increased, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia.

Regions where the Colombia military is most present and active are precisely the areas where official human rights abuses and political violence have most sharply escalated, according to the Colombian government's own Inspector General.

Colombia's Attorney General has dismissed prosecutors who are in charge of investigating the most serious cases of human rights crimes committed by high-ranking military officers, closing those cases, and ignoring others.

Instead, the Attorney General is opening new investigations against Catholic bishops, human rights defenders and community leaders. Impunity is not only alive and well in Colombia, it is better protected than ever.

Mr. Chairman, when the United States bankrolls a foreign military, then we have a special obligation not to be indifferent to its human rights record. We have a special responsibility because this is a reflection on us, but this Congress has been sending a very disturbing message to the Colombia military; namely, if you perform poorly, if you violate the human rights of your own people, do not worry, we will lower our standards on human rights.

We can do better. These modest reductions in military aid will not undercut Colombia's fight against the brutal FARC guerillas, but it could end up being the most significant message sent by this Congress in support of human rights and democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Skelton amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Let me just go over a few facts here.

Fact: If the McGovern-Skelton amendment passes, we still have $195.3 million in hard military aid for the Colombian military in this bill.

Fact: That $195.3 million joins the $120.5 million in the military aid under the Defense appropriations bill that passed this House on July 8.

So fact: If the McGovern-Skelton amendment is approved, this House will still provide a minimum of $315.8 million in military aid to the Colombian military.

I want to say to my colleagues the important fact is not how much acreage is sprayed, it is how much coca is grown. And the fact is despite this policy coca production in the Andean region has increased since Plan Colombia was enacted in 2000. Those are not my statistics. Those are the statistics by the United States State Department.

Fact: While coca cultivation in Colombia dropped 15 percent last year, coca levels in Colombia are still higher than they were in 2000.

Fact: The modest drop in coca production in Colombia is completely offset by shifting coca cultivation back to Bolivia and Peru. Is that progress? Is that success? All of us want to protect our constituents from these illegal drugs, but the bottom line is this is not doing it.

Fact: U.S. counterdrug efforts in Colombia and the Andes have had absolutely no apparent impact on the availability or use of cocaine here in the United States. This is according to the January, 2003 National Drug Threat Assessment.

Fact: If we want to stop drug production abroad, then invest in drug treatment and prevention right here at home.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the cosponsor of this amendment, raised, I think, a very important issue about the fact that more is being expected of our military personnel in Colombia than of the Colombian military personnel themselves. President Uribe has said that he has introduced a law to change the recruitment criteria so that people who have high school degrees or are from wealthy families in Colombia are not automatically exempt from serving in the military, but such a law has been introduced every year since the 1990s. President Uribe has not made it a priority. His priorities are part of a national referendum this fall, and changing the recruitment law is not one of them. I mean we need to see a little action, not just talk.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) talked about how important it is that the government of Colombia is making progress in trying to work out a truce with the paramilitaries, but the fact of the matter is almost every human rights group in the world is concerned about what is happening because the Colombian government Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo confirmed the fears of human rights advocates that paramilitaries involved in horrific crimes will get a free pass. I quote him: ``For those who have committed crimes against humanity, we are looking for punishment that is not jail . . . ''

Another concern with the paramilitaries is that the demobilized paramilitaries could go straight into the peasant soldier program, thus in effect legalizing paramilitaries without screening out the worst offenders or even significant retraining. There is no clear end in sight, no exit strategy as we get more and more involved in Colombia.

In November of 2001, there were 220 U.S. private contractors in Colombia carrying out military and counterdrug operations. Today there are 308. In November, 2001, we had 117 U.S. military presence in Colombia; today we have 358. The $75 million that we seek to transfer, this modest amount, to the HIV/AIDS tuberculosis and malaria accounts I hope will be used in Colombia. I hope much of it will be used to help the people of Colombia who have suffered so much. Speakers on the other side have talked about all the important development initiatives that are going on there. I support those. I wish that more of our aid to Colombia was in the form of development assistance and not so much of it in the form of military aid.

Let me finally close by saying we talk a lot about human rights in this Chamber, and we talk about human rights in Iraq, we talk about human rights in Iran, we talk about human rights in China, every other place in the world. We need to talk about human rights in Colombia. And anybody who has been to Colombia who has been outside the U.S. embassy, who has been outside President Uribe's palace, who has been outside the U.S. military headquarters there will see firsthand that that country is experiencing a very difficult time right now, and it is not just because of the FARC guerillas which have one of the most brutal records, but it is also because of the impunity that continues to exist in that country and the fact that the Colombian military still has yet to sever its ties with the paramilitaries. Vote for the McGovern- Skelton amendment.