Reaffirming support of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and anticipating the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act) on November 4, 2003.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been an interesting discussion from the other side. But contrary to what the gentleman from Mississippi may have thought I would do, I do, indeed, rise in opposition to this amendment.

First of all, let me begin by saying I do not condone companies relocating overseas for tax purposes, but I will come back to that in a minute.

This is an interesting issue we are dealing with here today. We had this in the full committee not long ago as it related to outsourcing, but here we are talking about supporting U.S. exports and jobs. With this amendment, we are talking about punishing companies that are creating jobs here in the United States. We are going to punish them because they are creating jobs here.

Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. The gentleman from Vermont had 20 minutes. I am not going to use but a fraction of that, so I want to get my thoughts in here and do them all together here.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Why in the world are we talking about punishing companies that are creating high-paying export jobs, and giving that away to foreign competition by eliminating Export-Import Bank financing? But that is exactly what the amendment would do. It hurts workers in this country. It hurts the economy in this country.

And yes, of course, it hurts the shareholders in this country. But most of all it hurts the workers, because this only goes to companies that are exporting. We are talking about companies that are creating jobs here in this country in order to export.

Now, the gentleman named some companies in particular in his argument. Ingersoll-Rand I heard. I think we heard Nabors Industries, Noble Drilling Corporation, Weatherford International. But this amendment would prohibit any Ex-Im Bank loan or guarantee to any U.S. company, any U.S. company that is registered offshore.

Now, I do not have any percentage of how much U.S. Export-Import Bank loans would be affected by this amendment, but characterizing Ex-Im loans as corporate welfare and a giveaway from U.S. taxpayers is certainly not correct. I am not sure why the sponsors of this amendment do not recognize that exports means U.S. jobs. It is the exact opposite of outsourcing.

The fiscal year 2005 funding for the Ex-Im Bank would support U.S. exports valued at $12 billion. For every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Ex-Im's program, there have been historical returns, and this is not just this year, there have been historical returns of $15 in credit support for export transactions. Since Ex-Im Bank supports 85 percent of most transactions, this means that the actual export value is about 15 percent higher, raising the ratio to about $18 in total value of exports supported by every $1 we put into the Ex-Im program.

I do not think this is corporate welfare. The bank has an exceptional, I would say exceptional, repayment record, with losses running at 1.4 percent of disbursements over the 70-year history of the Ex-Im Bank. And while the Ex-Im Bank has done more and more each year for small businesses, even large companies cannot get private bank financing to go to some parts of the world or to compete with aggressive foreign financing.

While businesses may be able to exist without making that extra sale, Ex-Im Bank is here for that very reason, to keep U.S. exports strong, to hopefully grow them, and to help sustain U.S. jobs through exports. Eighty-six percent of the transactions of the Ex-Im Bank directly benefit small businesses, and that is because many small businesses benefit from the larger transactions of the bank.

Let me give a statistic that alone ought to cause Members to give pause about this amendment. Ex-Im Bank's top 13 users have over 35,000 suppliers in this country, most of which are small businesses. The reality is that small businesses benefit directly and indirectly from Ex-Im Bank-financed transactions.

By law, Ex-Im Bank finances only goods and services made here in the United States. Under this bill, if a U.S. company is cut off from using Ex-Im, the company would be confronted with either losing the export sale or being forced to use foreign financing and sourcing. In either case, the impact would be to reduce U.S. exports and jeopardize the jobs that are associated with those sales. Shutting off Ex-Im would remove one of the few government programs to help U.S. exporters and to keep export-related jobs here in the United States.

One more statistic. I have been able to find information on two of the companies that were mentioned.

Ingersoll-Rand has 28,000 employees here in the United States, not overseas. These are employees here in the U.S. Nabors Industries has 14,000 employees here in the United States. This amendment cuts off financing that helps to keep those jobs secure.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which I know is not an organization that perhaps my colleague on the other side would put too much stock in, but I think they made a very important point in the letter that they wrote about this a couple of days ago to the Speaker. They made this statement, and I quote:

Measures such as Representative Sanders' amendment are poor substitutes for needed reforms of the U.S. Tax Code's archaic international provisions which currently put our corporations at a competitive disadvantage internationally and provide great incentive for them to leave this country.

That brings me back to my final point that I said at the beginning. The real issue here is the archaic Tax Code that the United States has. We are not even talking about 20th century. We are talking about 19th century. We have a Tax Code that is so archaic, we are virtually the only country in the world that taxes all income whether or not it has anything to do with being produced here in the United States. So, of course, it encourages companies to go offshore, to locate offshore their corporate headquarters. They are still paying the taxes on everything they make here in the United States, Ingersoll-Rand, Nabors, all of those pay the taxes on all the income that is made here in the United States, but they do not want to pay the taxes on a subsidiary they may have in South Africa or a subsidiary they may have in Japan or elsewhere, and so they locate their corporate headquarters offshore. It is because of the archaic Tax Code that the United States continues to have.

That is what we really need to be doing. That is what we really need to be reforming, is the Tax Code. We are in the 21st century, not the 19th century. That would make us more competitive in the world. Why do we have DaimlerChrysler and not ChryslerDaimler? We have DaimlerChrysler because of the Tax Codes of the United States. In order to avoid paying taxes on production done in Germany, it was necessary for them to become DaimlerChrysler, not ChryslerDaimler. Otherwise, they would have been paying taxes on everything they produced, every car they produced in Germany.

That is why this is so important that we continue to have Ex-Im Bank. It is a crutch, if you will, but it is something that we can do to help U.S. corporations export, and it helps American workers keep their jobs. Ex-Im Bank only goes to corporations for doing business producing here in the United States.

I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to oppose this amendment. It hurts U.S. workers. It jeopardizes U.S. jobs. Now is not the time to further cut, to eliminate one of the few tools the U.S. Government has to support exports and export-related manufacturing jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for talking about this issue. As the gentlewoman knows, both the gentlewoman from New York and I feel very strongly about the Child Survival and Health Account and the good work that is done by this account in helping save children's lives and families and the poor people around the world. The vaccination programs, the health programs, the clinics, the education programs that are run through this are extraordinarily important.

I quite agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Everything we can do to increase the amount in this account is certainly something that we intend to do. I appreciate her bringing it to our attention. We will do everything that we can to try to increase this account.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I certainly will not take the 10 minutes. Let me just quickly make a couple of comments.

I appreciate the comments that have been made here by the gentleman from Georgia, the other gentleman from Georgia, and the gentleman from Indiana here. I share the outrage that people feel about somebody who is a murderer of a law enforcement officer in this country getting away to a country like Mexico and then being able to escape justice. That should not happen. We have extradition treaties with a number of countries; and almost all of them in many cases, I should say, since most other countries prohibit death penalties, they do prohibit extradition if death is an option as a penalty.

But this is a new wrinkle. This is a new wrinkle that was put in by the supreme court in Mexico, which ruled that if an individual faces life in prison without possibility of parole, that is equivalent, apparently is what the supreme court said, and I have not read the complete ruling. I am a little sympathetic to the government of Mexico, which I do not think anticipated this. They certainly did not suggest to us or to the State Department that they anticipated this ruling by the supreme court, and I think they are willing and trying to work with us to resolve that.

We want to see that all crimes that are committed on our soil are brought to justice. We want to see them brought to justice particularly when it is a law enforcement officer who is the victim of this kind of terrible crime. So I intend to work with the gentleman to encourage the State Department to make every possible effort in these cases.

But before I close, let me just make one other comment, that is, I think there is a danger here of mixing some apples and oranges here when we talk about this punishment of Mexico and then we talk about whether or not they are having any effect in solving the drug problem. I would point out that this bill also contains $731 million for the Andean Counter-Drug Initiative, that is, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador. Those are the countries where most of the raw materials for our drugs that are consumed in this country come from. But I am sure that the three gentlemen that have spoken here would not suggest we would today cut off that money because we have not been effective. That argument has been made by some on this floor, and I do not think it is a good argument. We should do that. The $40 million that we provide to INL, the international narcotics force that we have overseas, goes largely in Mexico to support the helicopter program, that is, to maintain and supply the helicopters that are used both in chasing down drug smugglers, that is, in small planes, and in eradication efforts.

So I think it is money that is probably well spent, and I would suggest it is not money we would really want to cut off here. And with that I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agree with the motivations of this amendment, but I absolutely have to oppose the substance of it. The reason I do so is because I think it is going to accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent of this amendment.

Proponents of this amendment are, as the gentleman suggested, upset at opposition the U.S. faced at the United Nations Security Council in getting an extension of a U.S. exemption under the jurisdiction of the ICC. We were successful for some time in getting that, but now it has failed because we have faced a public relations nightmare in the United Nations and elsewhere around the world.

Do we have a right to be angry and upset and outraged that we have not gotten this extension? Yes, I think we should be; and we should continue to press for an extension.

Many times this Chamber has supported the American Servicemembers Protections Act, and I have been among its strongest supporters. I believe it is crucial that the U.S. negotiate Article 98 agreements with as many countries as possible to prevent the possibility that they may be tried in an international criminal court, with little or no political accountability.

However, conditioning ESF assistance and cutting it off to nations that do not sign Article 98 agreements is not, in my opinion, the right response. It is a very, very heavy hand to the problem.

We have conditioned foreign assistance through FMF and IMF accounts to encourage countries to sign Article 98 agreements. The result of this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to cut off all aid to some of these countries: Jordan, at $250 million; Kenya, at $25 million; Lebanon, at $32 million; Ecuador, at $13 million; Cyprus, at $13.5 million.

I believe most of us believe trying to get a Cyprus agreement is very important. I think all of us believe that Jordan is extraordinarily important in our war against terrorism. But it would cut off our ESF assistance and I think it would do extraordinary damage to our relationship with Jordan. How are we going to explain to them what we are really trying to do in getting them to cooperate in the war on terrorism?

At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea. Nothing would make the opponents of the U.S. in the Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly happier than if we were to do that. They do not like us using foreign assistance to support U.S. strategic interests. So if we were to cut it off, it makes them happy on two accounts: It will have denied the U.S. the exemption in the first instance, and it will have reduced our influence around the world.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. If we accept it, the U.S. will be hamstringing itself, placing a straitjacket on its diplomatic tools, when we have a lot of U.S. national security objectives that must carry the same or equal weight as securing Article 98 agreements. I urge a ``no'' vote on this.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me, in conclusion, just say that the majority leader made the point that we should be protecting our servicemen, and he is absolutely correct. And he made the point that we have provisions in the law that says countries cannot get military financing or military support if they do not give us an exemption to Article 98. But he also pointed out that we have an exemption in there. We have an ability that the President can have a waive for those countries.

This takes it, as the majority leader said, another step to economic support, and there is no waiver in there. This

means one of our key allies, and I keep coming back to Jordan, because I think Jordan is absolutely one of our key allies in this fight against terrorism, that we would have to cut off all the economic assistance to Jordan, because, for whatever reason, they have seen it in a different way and they have chosen, at least at this point, not to give us this exemption. I do not see how that helps us in the war against terrorism.

I hope we will defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. Let me just say that the substance of the amendment really does not accomplish, as I think the gentlewoman knows, does not accomplish what she would hope to do, because if we read the amendment, it adds money in one spot and takes it out of the other spot. So it really has no impact at all on the amount of funding that would go to sub-Saharan Africa.

The gentlewoman wants to increase the amount of money from development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. I think by and large we do very well in this bill on sub-Saharan Africa. It is a balanced bill. I think we have some very good increases there. Many of the things that the gentlewoman talks about that I fully subscribe to about the need for greater water resources, for helping farming in those areas, those are the things that we support and that are done in our legislation.

But I think that this would not be the right amendment, since it simply does not do what the gentlewoman would try to accomplish. So I would hope that she would withdraw her amendment; if not, I hope that we will defeat this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just point out that the $5 million that goes into development assistance comes out of

ESF, which also does the same kinds of things. So the Economic Stabilization Fund does the same kinds of things. So it really is just transferring it from one hand to the other, doing the same kinds of programs.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am the only speaker on this side, so I will speak at the end.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full time, but I do rise in opposition to the pending amendment. It is the wrong amendment. Especially, it is the wrong amendment at the wrong time.

I am a little bit reminded of the earlier amendment that we had by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), where I rose to say the timing could not be worse for this sort of amendment, and I think in this case the timing is very bad for this amendment.

There is no question that elements of the Saudi government in the past have not been helpful to the United States in the global war on terrorism, but I do not think anyone can deny that, with the targeting of the Saudi Government by Osama bin Laden, it now knows and understands that it is a prime target of international terrorism as well.

The government of Saudi Arabia has greatly increased its efforts to root out

terrorism. It has greatly increased its cooperation in intelligence matters and others with the United States.

During the current fiscal year, the United States has been involved in training security services of Saudi Arabia to meet the threat to both them and to us, and that gets us to the heart of what we are talking about. By declaring them a terrorist state, we cut off the aid. The gentleman from New York has said, let us cut off every single dollar. Well, it is precious few dollars we provide here. It is $1 million in one account and $25,000 in another. A million dollars is spent through the Antiterrorism Assistance Program funded in this bill to provide courses in such areas as terrorist crime scene investigation, explosive incident countermeasures, investigation of terrorist organizations.

These are the things that our law enforcement specialties do and do very well, and we are in Saudi Arabia helping to train them or to bring them here in order to train them in just exactly these kinds of techniques, of how to go after a bomb investigation, how to do the counterintelligence kinds of work that has to be done.

It seems to me, given the targeting that has been done in Saudi Arabia of some Americans, as well as other European individuals and assets, that it is in our interest to have a Saudi Arabian police force, law enforcement agencies that are trained in these very special kinds of techniques.

I would argue that these small sums are well spent. The more that we can engage the security services of Saudi Arabia, the more that we can build a relationship between our antiterrorist organizations and those of the Saudi Government.

Now, the other amount that we provide is a very small sum of $25,000 through the International Military Education and Training Program, or IMET as it is called, to help train and increase military contacts with the Saudi military. Some would say, why not charge the Saudi government for this training? But, in fact, that is precisely what we do. By providing the relatively modest sum of $25,000, which allows for the training of one single officer in this country for one program, we allow them access to the program. The results in Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia has spent $13 million of its own funds here in the United States to train over 400 students at U.S. military schools. This is training that exposes Saudi officers to U.S. military doctrines, to training regimes, to assistance and most importantly, yes, to U.S. values.

In the global war on terrorism, now is not the time for us to turn away from the cooperation and the efforts that we are getting with the government of Saudi Arabia. Yes, albeit belatedly, but they have turned to us for assistance and cooperation, and I think we all understand we need all of the friends and allies that we can get.

This may not be the perfect ally. I would acknowledge freely that it is not. But I do think in these areas where this funding is involved we are getting some very substantial cooperation from the Saudis. To reduce or eliminate this funding by putting them on the list of terrorist states seems to be absolutely counterproductive to everything that we are trying to do.

I would acknowledge that the Saudi Arabian government has been remiss in the past in its commitment to combating terrorism, but I think, as I said a moment ago, that is changing, and I think we need to encourage that change, not discourage it.

The administration does strongly oppose this amendment, and I would ask that a letter from Assistant Secretary William Burns in opposition to this amendment be placed in the Record at this point.

United States

Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jim Kolbe,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export

Financing and Related Agencies, Committee on

Appropriations, House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is our understanding that the United

States House of Representatives is considering a provision to

the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and

Related Programs Appropriations bill which would add the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Section 507, the list of countries

prohibited from receiving direct assistance from the United

States.

Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to condemn the

September 2001 attacks and has worked closely with the United

States since then in the global war against terrorism. Since

the May 2003 al-Qaeda bombings in Riyadh, our cooperation

with Saudi law enforcement and intelligence agencies has been

increasingly effective and mutually beneficial. Saudi Arabia

is now taking aggressive steps to combat terrorists at home,

and to choke off financing for terrorist entities being

channeled through charities overseas.

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 counterterrorism 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 cooperation with Saudi Arabia on other

critical issues in the region, including the stabilization of

Iraq and the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace.

We would appreciate your support in defeating

Representative Weiner's amendment.

Sincerely,

William J. Burns,

Assistant Secretary of State.

The adoption of this amendment would only hearten those who seek to drive a wedge between the United States and Arab regimes that are cooperating with us on the war on terrorism, and for that reason alone, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Well, I think if one talks to U.S. law enforcement agencies they will find that we are getting cooperation. We are not getting as full cooperation as we would like, it is not perfect cooperation, but that could certainly be said of a lot of other countries that we are providing assistance to.

I think there is no doubt that we have been getting cooperation, particularly on sharing of intelligence information with the Saudi Arabian government. So I do believe that we are getting that kind of cooperation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for purposes of a colloquy.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for his comments here tonight and for the work that he has done with the inspectors general.

Let me just say that, as he pointed out, the inspector general here for what was then the CPA, or Coalition Provisional Authority, was created as part of the legislation last year which authorized the large expenditure in the supplemental for the rebuilding of Iraq. And what we have done in this legislation is not something new, but simply to move it over as we have moved all the funding, as we moved all the programs from CPA over to the State Department. We have moved this jurisdiction over there.

Now, the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct in saying his committee not only has jurisdiction but has done yeoman's work in providing oversight. The hearings they have held have, I think, effectively brought attention to the problems we have had, particularly with the contracting in our rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq. And I really appreciate the work his subcommittee has done. So my answer is an unequivocal, yes, to the gentleman from Virginia that we will work with him as we proceed with this bill to make sure that we build constructively on the existing agreement that we have.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me say I share the disappointment that the gentlewoman has that we have been unable to reach a resolution of this issue with regards to the funding and the use of funds by the UNFPA. I feel very strongly, as the gentlewoman does herself, that we should continue to invest in multilateral efforts to improve the health of women and families in the developing world. And that is exactly what the programs of UNFPA go for.

I have been a long-time supporter of family planning programs and specifically of the United Nations Family Planning Agency. I feel that the administration's position has hurt our efforts to support valuable life-saving programs. Nonetheless, that is a position that has been taken, and that is the reality of where we are.

As we take this bill to conference, however, if there continues to be no resolution of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA, I want the gentlewoman to know I will be happy to work with her in an effort to make sure that the increased resources that would not be available to UNFPA are set aside for bilateral family planning programs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order on the amendment. I will conclude the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is most unfortunate. We have just been handed this amendment. It is a completely new amendment, quite different than the one we had seen before. So we do not really know what the implications of this are. I am trying to read it and think it through.

I am inclined to accept this and deal with its ramifications in the full committee. Looking at it, let me say that it appears by saying relating to lobbying with appropriated monies, but not having any way of making that determination as to what that is, it does not have any real impact. Nonetheless, I understand the symbolism of this, and I am concerned about that in terms of our ally, Turkey. But I am prepared to accept this amendment at this time. And as I said, we will deal with its implications and ramifications at a later time.

Mr. Chairman I move to strike the last word. I do so for the purposes of yielding to the gentlewoman from New Mexico for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her statements and concern that she has expressed, along with the gentleman from Ohio, about the impact of tuberculosis worldwide. It is one of the world's worst killers, causing up to 2 million deaths every year.

Our foreign assistance has a strong emphasis on programs to fight this disease. Our bilateral TB programs lead the world in helping developing countries set up treatment and pharmaceutical management systems. Supporting the Global TB Drug Facility is another important component of our strategy. Through the GDF, the U.S. helps populations in need around the world gain access to life-saving tuberculosis drugs.

I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman from New Mexico and other colleagues on this important issue as we move into the conference, and I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to our attention.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I start, I want to acknowledge the very hard work and I believe a commitment of the chairman of this committee to the point that I am about to make, as well as the historic commitment of the ranking member, because I have worked with her over the years on this question of sustainable development, the opportunity for many who are undernourished and struck by famine to sustain themselves.

Many of my colleagues are aware of the relationship of my congressional district to Congressman Mickey Leland. Many of my colleagues knew of his passion and commitment to Ethiopia and the famines that occurred in the 1980s. In fact, Mickey Leland lost his life in 1989 when he died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain trying to carry food resources to the famine-stricken individuals in Ethiopia. Ethiopia, along with other sub-Saharan nations in Africa, have suffered famine now for many, many cycles since his tragic death.

What we see here is an example of a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa trying to survive. He is not asking for food; but as we look at this arid background, he is working with a sickle, if you will, dealing with lack of irrigation, all representing the crisis of famine in sub- Saharan Africa.

So each time we have a cycle of a drought, lack of water, what we will find is teams and teams of teeming groups of Ethiopians and others going to feeding stations simply to survive.

In my most recent visit to Ethiopia, the cycle of drought and famine were again very present. We went into many parts of the country and visited enormous, large sites of families who had left their farming sites because they could not farm, there was no water, there were no tools, and they were not able to survive. They simply were in sickness- infested feeding camps with volunteers and USAID workers and others doing the very best that they could; but they kept coming, because we have not been able to provide the necessary resources for sustainable development.

This amendment is small in nature, but it is $5 million being put into the development assistance to help those in sub-Saharan Africa. It is to help them with small-scale irrigation, water and drainage, postharvest storage, crop intensification, crop and livestock diversification, and rural infrastructure such as in the special program for food security of the food and agriculture organization of the United States.

It is shameful that we have not authorized the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 since 1987. So these dollars will simply help put life, water in the ground, irrigation resources, so that we can follow that old admonition that if we give a person a fish, they eat for a day; if we give them a rod, a fishing rod, they eat for a very long time.

We realize that through the FAO our distinguished colleague, Eva Clayton, has been working with the FAO now, and we realize that part of the problem is a lack of infrastructure. Constraints to agricultural development in Africa, says the President, and the continent's poor agriculture performance is water. Africa uses only 4 percent of its renewable water reserve for irrigation as compared to 17 percent in Asia. Only 7 percent of Africa's arable land is irrigated, against 37 percent in Asia. We need to have USAID have a separate and enhanced resource for food security. It is important to note that we can make a difference, and this amendment simply attempts to do so.

So I would ask my colleagues to take a hard look at this farmer in this picture. He represents and is symbolic of many others throughout the various countries in sub-Saharan Africa. My colleagues will find out that famine goes hand in hand with the drastic conditions of drought. Drought comes in a very frequent time frame in this area.

In speaking with the President of Ethiopia, speaking with USAID, they declared that Ethiopia, for example, only had $4 million set aside to help a farmer farm better, to get more enhanced farming skills and tools, to irrigate the water. So I believe that this mere attempt to respond to FAO, the works of Tony Hill, the chairman and president, and our colleague, Eva Clayton, and in the memory of Mickey Leland to realize that sustaining the farmers will help to stamp out hunger.

I would hope that we would be prepared to support such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by simply saying Ethiopia's famine threat continues to increase. I simply hope that we will find in our hearts the ability to support this amendment in order to save lives.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the current bill and to applaud Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey for their hard work and leadership in crafting an effective piece of legislation. However, in making appropriations for the entire Nation, it is virtually impossible to have a complete assessment or to profess a complete breadth of knowledge of the regions that need the most assistance--because this is an ever-changing issue.

I have an amendment at the desk. Again, I rise to support the current bill and offer an amendment that speaks to the problems of sustainable development and subsistence farming in Africa and other needy regions. I urge that $5 million be appropriated for agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa and taken from the Economic Support Fund found in Title II.

Funds requested in this amendment to be administered by USAID are clearly authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

This money would not only provide assistance to needy farmers and villages, but it would also strengthen infrastructure and encourage sustainable growth.

Mr. Chairman, developing and developed countries around the world are experiencing food shortages. There are an estimated 842 million undernourished persons, 798 million of which live in developing countries, 34 million of which live in countries in transition and 10 million of which live in industrialized countries.

Africa is undeniably the hardest hit of all continents, which claims 24 of the 34 countries experiencing food emergencies. The sub-Saharan African region, though, is facing the brunt of this crisis with some 207 million people in 1999-2001. That amounts to nearly 26 percent of the population facing inadequate access to nutritious food supplies.

Those living in poor, rural areas are the most vulnerable. They comprise 70 percent of the continent's population and are the most in need of agricultural development because their livelihoods are depending on agriculture.

Small farmers produce the food that feeds the men, women, babies, and the elders living in the small villages scattered across the arid landscape of Africa. If we neglect Africa's rural population, we neglect Africa's backbone. If we provide these farmers with the necessary resources to shore up inefficient and antiquated infrastructure we open the door to alleviating a host of other problems that plague almost \3/4\ of Africa's population.

My proposal would allow for the development of small-scale irrigation, water and drainage, post-harvest storage, crop intensification,

crop and livestock diversification, and rural infrastructure. Such improvements to infrastructure would encourage sustainable development and lead to a decrease in food shortage in the short and long run.

Right now, only 7 percent of arable land is irrigated, and groups like FAO is working with governments and U.N. and NGO partners to protect and restore agriculture-based livelihoods in crisis countries through the supply of essential inputs, including improved seeds, tools, fertilizer, veterinary medicines and vaccines, livestock feeds and irrigation, fishing and agro-processing equipment, as well as through crop and livestock pest and disease control campaigns, the immediate rehabilitation of essential agricultural infrastructure, and putting in place natural disaster prevention mechanisms.

In addition, members of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa have recognized the importance of the issues to be addressed by this proposal.

We must help these people whose lives depend on the fruits of subsistence farming. Furthermore, these farmers are severely under- trained and lack proper irrigation technologies and other resources to create more arable land options. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons stated above, I ask that my colleagues support the Jackson-Lee Amendment.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add the following for the Record:

background on ethiopia

Over 80 percent of Ethiopia's 57 million people live in

rural areas, where most of them are engaged in subsistence

farming or pastoralism. Altitudes in Ethiopia vary greatly.

The lowlands are characterized by dry, sometimes drought-

stricken, areas occupied mainly by nomadic or semi-nomadic

pastoralists. In the mid-altitude areas such crops as maize,

cotton, sorghum and legumes grow. The high-altitude areas are

most suited to wheat, barley and coffee cultivation. The

staple cereal crop in Ethiopia--teff--grows in mid- to high-

altitude areas as does chat which is grown for commercial as

well as domestic use. Ethiopia has the highest cattle

population in Africa, with large herds providing status to

their owners.

Since the 1970s, Ethiopia has been periodically struck by

drought, and many areas consistently suffer from erratic and

unpredictable rainfall. Pressure on the land is very high,

with an average landholding per household in mid- to high-

altitude areas of only about 0.2 to 0.6 hectares. Households

are typically large with an average of seven members. The use

of family planning is not yet widespread in the country, and

in rural areas, especially in Muslim communities, early

marriage is very common. Girls are often married or committed

to marriage at between eight and 12 years of age. Health

facilities are limited and sparse and many people die of

preventable diseases such as malaria, cholera and typhoid as

well as malnutrition.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this does place $5 million into developmental assistance, and I think that with the statement on the record, it makes it very clear that it can be used for sustainable development.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment is a simple one. It simply says that no money in this bill shall go to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To many of those watching this debate, they would be surprised to learn that any money goes to Saudi Arabia at all. It should not, and there are reasons it should not.

First of all, the Saudis are shielding known terrorists. This is not a theory of mine; this is a fact. Just yesterday, the person who was standing to the right of Osama bin Laden as he presented a chilling videotape shot after September 11 showed up at a Saudi airport and gave credit to the Saudi Government for taking him in and offering him amnesty for his crimes. ``Thank God, thank God,'' he said. ``I called the embassy and we were very well received.''

Saudi security forces allowed kidnappers to escape after killing 16 Westerners at a Khobar residential compound on May 29 of this year. Al Qaeda terrorists who kidnapped and killed American contractor Paul Johnson say they used official police uniforms and vehicles received from sympathetic Saudi police. Saudi Prince Abdullah responded with a 1-month amnesty for any terrorist who surrendered voluntarily.

In an October of last year interview in ``The Voice of Jihad,'' Abu Hajjer, an al Qaeda member ranking high on Saudi Arabia's most wanted list, commented with the following quote: ``It is true that we must use the country of Saudi Arabia, because it is the primary source of funds for most Jihad movements. It has some degree of security and freedom of movement.'' This is what members of al Qaeda say about Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis have famously also failed to crack down on terror. Last October when I offered a similar amendment, I heard some of the opponents say, oh, they are getting their act together. As of last month, not a single arrest or prosecution had come from the U.S.-Saudi Joint Terrorist Financing Task Force, which is supposed to cut down on the financing of terror coming out of Saudi; not a single one.

Since September 11, not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups has been publicly punished, despite Ambassador Bandar's assertion that Saudi Arabia would ``prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law.'' Since September 11, not a single one.

Last month's report by the Council of Foreign Relations on Terrorist Financing says: ``Saudi Arabia has not fully implemented its new laws and regulations and, because of that, opportunities for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persists.''

This is not some fringe element of Congress; this is the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Saudis finally are exploiting Wahabism. This is not even a question that the Saudis dispute. In March of 2002, an official Saudi magazine, Ain al-Yaqueen, wrote that the royal family wholly or partly funded some 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2,000 schools in countries without Muslim majorities to spread Wahabism.

So why is there any money in this bill going to the Saudis at all? Why is this amendment even necessary?

The most telling is from the President's own budget request. In the President's budget request, they explain why it is necessary to keep a small amount of money for the Saudis in our budget, with taxpayer dollars. Here is what it says. The modest amount of IMET funds requested permit the Saudi Government to purchase military training in the United States at a considerably lower cost than is charged countries that are not eligible. And get this: it says, the President, while Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure.

This is why the United States taxpayer is providing funds to Saudi Arabia. Well, they are not going to after tonight if we vote ``yes'' on the Crowley-Israel-Berkley-Weiner amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, and the hour is getting late and there are no further speakers on my side, I just want to once again clarify the record of the Saudis.

Every time we have this discussion in this Chamber, we hear about how the Saudis have changed their ways, that they finally decided they do not want to fund terror, they do not want to export terror, they do not want to be terrorists themselves, that if only we in the House of Representatives allow them a few more years of funding, a few more years chasing the fantasy that there are moderate friends in that region, that maybe things would turn around.

Well, the gentleman that is sitting here talking to Osama bin Laden shortly after September 11, it would be just great if somehow we can capture that guy, that guy who is laughing on the tape while Osama bin Laden took credit for the heinous acts of September 11.

Well, this is a picture from yesterday's newspaper at a Saudi Arabian airport of that fellow being wheeled into Saudi Arabia under an amnesty program by the Saudis.

If we think for a moment that U.S. authorities are going to have a chance to interview this person, think again. We learned from the explosion at the Khobar Towers years ago, when to this day the FBI has not been granted access to the crime scene, that we do not get Saudi cooperation. We learned from the Council of Foreign Relations, who just put out a report, that we do not get cooperation cutting down on the funding that the Saudis provide for terror.

So this person, the right hand to Osama bin Laden, is now somewhere in Saudi Arabia, our so-called ally that we with taxpayer dollars are funding in this bill.

Frankly, it is inexplicable. It is inexplicable. You can no longer live by the fantasy that somehow they are going to be helpful, that we are going to solve the problems of the Middle East if only we embrace the Saudis. We can no longer follow that fantasy thinking.

Every year when I bring this amendment up, I hear the same protests from the distinguished chairman and those that support the Saudi regime. They say, this is the wrong time, things are getting better, things are getting better. Sure it has been hundreds of years of exporting terrorism, but now it is getting better. We are right on the precipice. If only we give them a few more dollars in taxpayer funds, things will get a little bit better. It is not happening.

According to the United States Government, not a single arrest has come as a result of this vaunted U.S.-Saudi task force on the financing of terrorism; and this person, who is no doubt involved in the attacks of my city on September 11, the attacks in Pennsylvania and here in Washington, is now in the possession of what he calls his family in Saudi Arabia.

It is not a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence that, according to the State Department, more than half of every single dollar for terrorists comes from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence, because that is what the Saudi government is all about.

What is remarkable is that we keep going along with it. We provide funding, we embrace them, and we do not seem to learn.

Let us make this the year that we finally say not a single taxpayer dollar will go to Saudi Arabia in this bill. Let us take the explanation in the budget request that this will allow them to save money on military training, because, ``While Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure.''

It is hard to even read with a straight face. Vote yes on the Weiner- Crowley-Israel-Berkley amendment. Finally end funding of U.S. tax dollars to Saudi Arabia.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is for the purpose of a question. The gentleman talked about how the cooperation helps us in the war on terror. The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report recently that said that we are not getting that cooperation. The FBI has said that they are not getting cooperation in investigating crimes against U.S. citizens. Where does the gentleman derive the idea that we are getting cooperation with this money?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment, and I am a coauthor of it, mentioned that it has a broad spectrum of individuals supporting it. He mentioned progressives and liberals and conservatives and moderates, but he forgot the libertarians.

Libertarians support this as well and for a precise reason. A free market libertarian does not believe in welfare for anybody, let alone the rich, and it is particularly gnawing to see the subsidies go to the very wealthy.

I am in strong support of this amendment, but, like the gentleman from California, I do not support this for the purpose of collecting more taxes, but I do think it is a message to us here that if we do not revise our tax system and our regulatory system we will prompt more and more business to leave this country.

So there are two issues here, but corporate welfare and subsidies should have no part in this. There is no room for it. It is wrong.

Also, the beneficiaries outside the corporations we should not forget either, because the biggest country that benefits from this is China. Why do we subsidize China? People who receive the goods get a benefit as well as the people who get to sell the goods get a benefit? China is on the books right now currently with $5.9 billion in outstanding loans. They receive more than anybody else. So there is something wrong with a system like that.

There are two economic points that I want to make on this. When we do this and we allow tax credit and special deals for some corporations, we assume, and we will hear this in the defense of the Ex-Im Bank, and say look at the good that we do. But what they fail to ask is, where did it come from, who was denied the credit? The fact that we do not finance it does not mean it would not happen. It would happen.

What it does is it distorts the market and causes people to do the wrong thing, and some individuals do not get the credit is obviously the case, but what we need to do is to have a much more oriented free market. When we direct it this way, even those companies may do more than they ordinarily would, and that participates in the economic bubble that occurs, of course, for other reasons as well. Then there has to be corrections. But if one is in a powerful position in a place where they can qualify, and 80 percent of this goes to the very, very large companies, although there are a lot of companies that receive the big bucks, and big countries like China.

This is corporate welfare. It should be defeated; and, ultimately, if we believe in liberty and freedom, we ought to get rid of the Export- Import Bank.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I appreciate the opportunity to spend 5 minutes on an issue that I wanted to bring up in the form of an amendment, and that deals with the $300 million that will be going to Pakistan. And I call this to attention because I think it is a very unwise expenditure. But I want to make my case for this in the context of overall foreign policy.

Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this.

The advice of the Founders was that we should be more balanced in our approach and not favoring special nations, not giving money or weapons or getting involved in any alliances with the different nations of the world and we would all be better off for it.

I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send $300 million under this policy to Pakistan.

We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really

going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us.

There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars, and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or vice versa.

We have helped people who have been arch enemies for years. Take Greece and Turkey. We helped both sides. But not only do we help both sides of a lot of these fights that have been going on for a long time, we literally help our enemies. Just think of the support we gave Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and just think of our alliance with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when we did provide him with a lot of destructive weapons. That type of policy does not add up. It does not make a lot of sense. It is not in our best interests, and my suggestion here is hopefully somewhere along the way, we will take a serious look at this and redirect our foreign policy.

But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world.

In the past we have been arch enemies of Libya, but now we have decided they will be our friends. And I am not against that in particular, but I am against giving them subsidies and helping them out.

There is such a difference between neutrality and friendship and that of giving weapons and arms and promoting antagonisms.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Speaker, this April marks the 89th anniversary of the cataclysmic events that occurred in the Turkish Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, where 1.5 million Armenians were killed and over a half million survivors were forcibly deported into exile.

On Sunday, I had the privilege to participate in a service at the Armenian Church of Our Savior in Worcester, Massachusetts, where in the presence of 19 survivors, the community of Worcester paid homage to the martyrs and survivors of the Armenian Genocide and their descendents.

Mr. Speaker, last May, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported out House Resolution 193. We have been waiting for nearly 1 year now for the Speaker of the House to schedule this bill for a debate and for a vote, and I would urge at this time that the Speaker schedule this bill as quickly as possible so that the House of Representatives may join those nations and those scholars who affirm the Genocide Convention and recognize the Armenian Genocide and Holocaust as genocides of the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record comments I made at the Armenian Church of Our Savior this past Sunday.

I would very much like to thank Father Terzian and the

community of faith of the Armenian Church of Our Savior for

inviting me once again to this commemoration. It is one of

the great privileges of my office to participate in this

annual day of remembrance of the martyrs and survivors of the

Armenian Genocide.

It is a privilege to be in the company of our city's mayor,

the Honorable Tim Murray, and in the company of Councilor

Petty, Representative Leary, Representative Fresolo, Senator

Moore, Senator Glodis, and Selectman Montocalvo. And I am

very much looking forward to the pleasure of hearing the

Worcester Chorale perform after their five-month break, under

the continuing leadership of Maestro Petrossian.

It is also a pleasure for me to share the podium with

Nathaniel Mencow, who is so well known for his work as a

historian, and who has worked for so long for the recognition

of the heroic service of his brother, First Lieutenant

William Martin Mencow, who gave his life in defense of

freedom during World War II.

But I am most privileged and most honored to be here in the

presence of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, their

descendents, and the descendents of those who perished in the

genocide.

This April marks the 89th anniversary of the cataclysmic

events that occurred in the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and

1923, where one-and-a-half million Armenians were killed and

over half-a-million survivors were exiled.

Our city has been especially blessed by the presence and

contributions of a large and vital Armenian community. Each

year we come to this church to recognize, honor and remember

that this rich heritage is, in part, a sad inheritance paid

with the blood of millions of innocent men, women and

children.

I know that most of you are aware that legislation has been

introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives which

reaffirms U.S. support for the Genocide Convention, calls

upon the president and the U.S. government to work to prevent

future genocides, and recognizes the Armenian Genocide.

This bill, H. Res. 193, has 110 bipartisan cosponsors and

was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee last May.

It has been waiting for nearly one year now for the Speaker

of the House, Dennis Hastert, to put it on the schedule of

the House for debate and vote.

I am always amazed that there are those in Congress who

view this bill as controversial. They are influenced, in

part, by those voices who continue to deny that the Armenian

Genocide or the Holocaust, which is also cited in this bill,

ever happened. The Turkish government, for example, claims

that the Armenian Genocide does not meet the definition of

genocide, despite the fact that the father of the Genocide

Convention, human rights pioneer Rafael Lemkin, specifically

cited the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide as the two

clear instances of genocidal crimes covered by the

Convention.

Contrary to the Turkish government's claims, legal

scholars, historians, human rights organizations, journalists

and the majority of political leaders around the world firmly

believe and assert that the 1915 mass slaughter of Armenians

fits the legal definition of genocide.

Israel Charney, the noted genocide and Holocaust scholar

and the editor of the respected Encyclopedia of Genocide, has

written extensively about the psychology of genocide denial.

He has stressed that to deny the countless deaths of a known

event of genocide is to celebrate those deaths and to send a

signal that the power that brought about this destruction is

still in force and can be used again when opportunity

permits. To seek to erase agonizing memories--to assert that

those memories are false--is to

openly mock the feelings and sensibilities of the victims and

their descendents--to once again victimize the victims.

This is why it is so important to recognize--openly and

freely, officially and informally, every single day--the

events of the Armenian Genocide.

America, along with the rest of the world, is famous for

using the words ``never again,'' when speaking about the

Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust carried out by Nazi

Germany. Unfortunately, ``never again'' happens over and over

again--in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Kosovo, and now in present-

day Sudan.

It has been a blessing to me in my work that when genocide

threatens any people, anywhere in the world, the Armenian-

American community has always worked to bring these events to

my attention and to the attention of U.S. and international

policy-makers. The Armenian-American community has always

joined with other organizations to educate the public about

present-day horrors and to organize relief and support for

victims and survivors.

In this way, through these works, the tragedy of the

Armenian Genocide is transformed into a legacy of life, of

hope, of survival and resistance.

So, I come here today not only to remember and honor the

martyrs, survivors and descendants of the Armenian Genocide,

but to honor and celebrate this community, which has given

back so much to this city and our country.

Please let me thank you--each and every one of you--for

allowing me to share this day with you.