Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2800) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a good friend, who has worked very closely with me, and I appreciate our extremely cooperative relationship. I also want to thank the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I appreciate the leadership he provides to this committee.

And I want to say at the outset that while Chairman Kolbe and I may differ fundamentally on the adequacy of our allocation he certainly accommodated most of my priorities, and I believe we have a bill that indeed is worthy of Members' support, despite the fact that we had to cut $1.7 billion from the President's request, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

The bill contains $17.1 billion, which is an increase of $900 million over last year, and I generally agree with my chairman on the spending levels recommended for specific accounts within the reduced allocation. We did work together closely to ensure that in the face of devastating cuts we at least level funded Child Survival and Health accounts and increased education as a priority area. We provided funding for reconstruction in Afghanistan, an issue on which the chairman and I have collaborated often in the last year. The bill also funds fully our commitments in the Middle East, a powerful statement at such a critical time in the peace process. And there are many more very positive aspects I will discuss further in a moment.

I do have some concerns as well. At the $17 billion spending level, we as a country will devote less than 1 percent of our GDP to foreign assistance. Actual spending in 2003 for foreign aid will total over $23 billion, including $7.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for war-related needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. That additional spending sped through Congress without a hint of controversy because it was judged vital to our national security. As the conflict and reconstruction continue in Iraq on parallel tracks, there is a good chance we will need more, and Members should know that there are no funds in this bill to address Iraq reconstruction needs. This means that those additional needs will be addressed in a supplemental, which will undoubtedly also contain billions to fund the defense-related costs of the war and which will again be requested by the President as emergency spending.

I do believe that our response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic is underfunded and should be dealt with as the emergency it is now. In response to the President's extraordinary initiative on HIV/AIDS, Congress overwhelmingly passed and the President signed a bill authorizing $3 billion for fiscal year 2004. While in Africa 2 weeks ago, the President repeatedly touted this $15 billion 5-year plan, and he and his advisers called on Congress to fund it. This created the impression that we the Congress were the obstacle to providing $3 billion, despite the fact that the President himself only requested $2 billion in appropriations.

Now, while I am pleased that this bill provides $1.43 billion for HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, we supported the $3 billion authorization on this floor in this Congress, and now the bill has come due. I believe it is disingenuous for us to make promises we have no intention of keeping, and so I offered an amendment at full committee to provide an additional $1 billion for HIV/AIDS as emergency spending. I asked that this amendment be made in order under the rule so every Member of Congress would have the opportunity to fulfill our pledge, but it was not. It is truly a disgrace, in my judgment, that we will not have the opportunity to take this vote today.

Additional resources for Africa are also vitally needed. Everyone is aware of the long history of devastating and destabilizing humanitarian and political crises on that continent. And although this bill will slightly increase resources for Africa above last year, it merely begins to address the ongoing tragedies there. Unfortunately, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to add emergency resources for Africa was also not made in order.

The sad fact is that we as a Nation have neglected the problems of Africa for decades; chronic poverty, the spread of infectious disease, and lack of good governance remain. And despite all the efforts we have undertaken so far across many Congresses and administrations, we must no longer shy away from addressing these problems with sufficient resources and political will.

It serves no one when the current presidential initiatives are touted as ultimate answers for these tragedies. Both the Millennium Challenge Account, MCA, and the HIV initiative hold the promise of getting increased resources to Africa, but the actual effects they will have remain unclear.

I support the conceptual approach embodied in the proposal to establish a Millennium Challenge Account, however, budget realities we face this year, and will likely face next year, make it highly unlikely that the promise made by the President that the $10 billion intended for the MCA will be additive to current levels of foreign assistance will be kept. Much of the bipartisan support in Congress for the MCA is based on the fact that it is supposed to help the poorest countries of the world and that MCA resources will add to amounts currently spent on foreign assistance. Cuts to discretionary spending in this year's budget resolution, combined with unrealistically low budget requests for many domestic programs, have translated into cuts in this bill of $1.7 billion. This situation is likely to worsen in fiscal year 2005. The President cannot expect Congress to support full funding of the MCA initiative if other vital programs in the foreign operations bill have to be cut.

The bill contains $800 million for the MCA, largely at the insistence of the White House; the Senate bill contains $1 billion for MCA; and the White House is still pushing for the full $1.3 billion requested. It is highly likely that the final allocation for the foreign operations bill will be $1 billion to $1.5 billion below the President's request. Now, in plain English, this means that other accounts in the bill will be cut severely if MCA is fully funded.

Members should also know that only 3 of 11 potentially qualifying countries for MCA resources in 2004 are in Africa. In 2005, of the 12 countries most likely to qualify, again, only 3 are in Africa. In all, after $2 billion over 3 years is provided to the MCA, only a small number are African countries are likely to have benefitted.

I have taken the time in my opening remarks to address this situation because this initiative marks the beginning of a shift in how we in Congress effect foreign aid programming. As we provide more resources for MCA, our ability to direct funds to specific purposes, such as health and education, will diminish significantly. My support for this initiative going forward will thus depend on whether resources going to it are truly additive and whether Congress maintains some measure of control and oversight over country eligibility and program planning.

I am especially proud, and I want to personally thank the gentleman from Arizona for the $350 million in the bill for basic education, which is $100 million above last year's level. In addition, we require a detailed report on how the administration will organize and implement our expanded efforts in basic

education. Virtually everyone I speak to agrees that providing more and more focused resources for basic education throughout the world is one of the best possible ways we can combat the extremism and hopelessness that breed terrorism. I again want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for working with me on what I think is a very critical issue.

The bill also provides an increase in resources for Treasury technical assistance which will help countries that are major source and transit points for terrorist financing close the gaping holes in their financial systems that let this funding slip through.

However, the fact that we took care of administration priorities such as the Millennium Challenge Account and AIDS required that we make some hard choices. As a result, some programs will suffer. There is no funding recommended for debt relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cuts in economic support funds, Eastern Europe, the New Independent States, and development assistance translate into probable cuts to many countries and a limited capacity to restore misguided cuts proposed by the administration to others, including Cyprus, East Timor, Armenia, Ukraine, and Russia.

Mr. Chairman, as a final note, I want to make a few comments about the importance of this bill we consider on the floor today. I have always viewed foreign assistance as one of the three pillars of national security, along with defense and diplomacy. I believe the value of foreign assistance in spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom around the world and in eliminating the poverty that causes widespread instability in developing regions cannot be underestimated. However, except for a handful of notable instances directly linked to front-page current events, it has been difficult to ensure adequate funding for foreign aid priorities. Despite the new Presidential initiatives in this bill, and again I want to congratulate the President on these initiatives, this year, unfortunately, is no different. We still require far more resources than have been made available. I look forward to working with my colleagues in future years to ensure our priorities are adequately funded.

In closing, I once again want to emphasize that I appreciate the close working relationship I have enjoyed with the gentleman from Arizona. He is a distinguished chairman, he is committed to this bill, and it truly has been a pleasure for me to work with our chairman. Considering the obstacles we faced, the product we present today is very good. I look forward to working with him as we move the process forward. I would also like to thank our able staff, Mark Murray, Charlie Flickner, Alice Grant, Scott Gudes, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, Sean Mulvaney, Beth Tritter, and Joe Weinstein, for their hard work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of our committee who has made sure that we focus on our priorities every day he is there.

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut for the purposes of offering a motion.

Preferential Motion Offered By Ms. DeLauro

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present, at long last I should say, present H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. In almost all the instances that we will see here today, this is a joint recommendation, which means that there are compromises that are made on both sides; and it is one of which I am very proud.

I am very proud to have worked with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my colleague, the ranking member from the minority side. Working with her has been absolutely a joy. She has been wonderful in her spirit of trying to find a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. It is in that spirit, I believe, that this bill is presented today; and I want to thank her and her staff for the tireless work that they have done on this bill.

I might add, I want to thank the staff that surrounds me here, led by the able Clerk of our subcommittee, Charlie Flickner, and my personal staff for the extraordinary work that they have done to get us to where we are today.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's recommendation for fiscal year 2004 foreign assistance and export financing funding is $17.1 billion. That is $1.7 billion below the administration's request. We worked to accommodate as many of the Members' interests as possible, while keeping in mind the broader national and international situation.

In the papers, on TV, in the streets, we are faced daily with the ramification of the issues that are covered by this bill. This bill provides vital funding to fight wars against disease and drugs, for building peace and democracy, and for building economic prosperity around the world.

The President's trip to Africa a few weeks ago highlighted the opportunity we have this year to embark on a bold new direction in international assistance. During his trip, the President championed initiatives to address two of the greatest problems facing our world today, persistent poverty and HIV/AIDS. The Millennium Challenge Account and the emergency plans for AIDS relief are the most innovative programs that we have seen in decades that reshape foreign assistance.

The Millennium Challenge Account will provide an incentive for countries to build a political and economic infrastructure which leads to long-term development, which leads to sustainable development, which leads to the improvement in the lives of the citizens of the countries involved.

The AIDS initiative will bring medicine and care and hope to millions of people. The very promise of care and treatment has already brought hope to millions.

These initiatives may be innovative new approaches, but the work of our subcommittee has not changed. We must distribute the resources that are allotted to us, resources that are never quite enough, across a wide range of competing priorities. We have to make difficult choices among deserving programs, and we are charged with ensuring that taxpayer money is spent wisely and efficiently. We all must remember that effective programs require a firm foundation and good management.

This year we have once again provided more funds than the President requests for HIV/AIDS, for its prevention, treatment, care and support. Our bill recommends $1.43 billion for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Add to that the $645 million that was recommended by the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies and that the House approved last week, this body now proposes to spend nearly $2.1 billion for these three diseases, an amount that more than meets the President's request of $2.04 billion.

This $2 billion represents the first installment of $15 billion to be spent against these three diseases over the next 5 years. Let me make that crystal clear. This administration and this subcommittee and, I believe, this Congress are fully committed to spending $15 billion on prevention and life-saving treatments for those afflicted with AIDS around the world. This $2 billion that is in these two bills, last week and here today on the floor, is only our first installment in that program.

Now, the Millennium Challenge Account is a new component of our bill this year. I fully support the MCA. I am excited about it. I believe it can make our investments in developing assistance more effective and more sustainable. Our bill recommends $800 billion for the MCA, or Millennium Challenge Account, and we believe that is the amount that can be effectively spent in fiscal year 2004.

Of course, in future years more resources are going to be needed to fight HIV/AIDS and to support the initiatives of the MCA. I have confidence that the Congress will meet the 5-year pledge for AIDS and that additional funds will be forthcoming to support the creative delivery of foreign assistance through the MCA in years ahead. But it is the very size of the task facing us over the coming years that counsels patience today. Our recommendations for the HIV/AIDS initiative and for the MCA are the first steps in two very ambitious, very innovative, and very new programs. With this $2 billion the House provides for AIDS this coming year, agencies can build a solid framework to support the $13 billion that will follow. With our $800 million for the Millennium Challenge Account, we will have a structure that can effectively and wisely use the added $5 billion in development assistance that the President has pledged to put on top of existing development assistance. But our recommendation is not so extravagant, Mr. Chairman, that money will lay waiting to be spent, gathering pressure that might lead to waste and to unwise expenditures, eroding public confidence in these two initiatives.

Some of our colleagues are pressing to take even more, to move money into AIDS from the MCA for other programs. Such an approach, Mr. Chairman, would, in my opinion, be an unwise one. What we have provided for the President's new HIV/AIDS initiative is prudent, when we consider that the coordinator, who has been named for these programs in the State Department, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. Taking more money from the MCA would signal a lack of confidence in the approach of the MCA. We should instead be recognizing the President for his vision, and $800 million to launch this program is an appropriate level.

The final priority I want to mention in this bill is funding for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. This funding accounts for nearly $5 billion of the total. Let me add that the major refugee account and the key military assistance accounts, so vital in our war against terrorism and to protect our national security, are all fully funded.

Of course, the funding priorities I have laid out for my colleagues add up to more than the increase in our budget allocation. So the subcommittee has gone to great lengths to avoid reducing appropriations in order to make room for the AIDS emergency plan and the Millennium Challenge Account, and for the admirable commitment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to improving basic education globally. Within Child Survival and Health, we have succeeded in holding the levels for Child Survival and Maternal Health, for Vulnerable Children, for Family Planning and Reproductive Health, and our unrestricted grant to UNICEF at last year's level.

Our funding for international funding institutions, the Economic Support Fund, which is used by the State Department and the President to support economic development assistance around the world, and two of the President's lesser initiatives, has been reduced or eliminated to accommodate the initiatives within the allocation that was given to us.

Separately, I would note that there is no money in this bill for the reconstruction in Iraq. None has been requested by the administration. Although many of us expect and many of us heard yesterday from Ambassador Bremer that more money may well be required shortly, we will await a Presidential decision on this matter.

In closing, let me say, and I say this with some confidence, that this is a good bill, one which I believe that all Members can be proud of and which I hope will have the support of all the Members of this body. It is fiscally responsible. It is within the subcommittee's budget allocation. It is a bill that helps to lay the groundwork for the important work that is ahead of us as we launch these major initiatives in development assistance and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. It is a bill that meets our challenges overseas and impacts the national security of this Nation. I urge the Members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, who, I must say, along with his staff, has been so supportive of our efforts in getting us to the floor at this stage. I am very grateful for his confidence and his support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), an absolutely invaluable member of our subcommittee, extraordinarily knowledgeable and has really contributed to the work of this subcommittee.

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

Much time has passed since the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) spoke; but I did want to make one comment about her remarks, and I appreciate her support for the bill. She made a comment about how the level of funding in this bill is significantly less than last year. We need to remember that this is just about $1 billion more than the previous year's regular appropriation bill for foreign assistance. If we are going to consider apples to apples, that is what we need to consider.

We have no idea what level of a supplemental appropriation request we might receive from the President that might be transmitted during the coming year for foreign assistance; but if we are going to consider the regularly funded, basic programs, apples to apples, we need to remind ourselves that we are $1 billion above where we were last year. This is the second largest increase of any subcommittee's allocation. Only the Subcommittee on Homeland Security has a bigger increase than this subcommittee received for its allocation.

So we have been, I think, generously treated; and I think our programs are well funded.

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