College Student Credit Card Protection Act

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order on the amendment and I would allow Mr. Crowley to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 32, line 20 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman from Oregon has described this precisely. We all recognize that methamphetamine is a terrible problem. I represent a border district in a border State; we have a terrible problem with that with Mexico. The gentlewoman has described this amendment accurately, in that while it increases and decreases the same time, it does not change the structure of any of the accounts or any of the programs; and, therefore, I am willing to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman. There are few things in this hemisphere that are more important for us than the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. In our effort to try and fight drugs abroad we can fight drugs here at home.

The gentleman has suggested this money would go to the International Refugee and Migration account, and we believe we have funded that in a fair and reasonable way and will have accounted for the needs of that account.

Let me tell you why my concern is more not that we couldn't use more money in ERMA; my concern here is taking this money out of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. Let me tell you why I think this is the wrong thing to do at this time.

We have rewarded in this bill good performers and taken action against those who have not done so well. As I described in my opening statement, we have restructured the accounts that go to Colombia. They are an important strategic partner in the region, and our bill recognizes that by normalizing how we fund Colombia. We move funds for the Colombia Alternative Development programs to the ESF account and to the other accounts; we have moved funds for Colombia rule of law to the INCLE account, the narcotics account. These are the accounts we use to fund similar activities for all of our other strategic partners.

So we have basically said to Colombia, you have graduated. It is time for you to become a strategic partner and for our funding of foreign assistance to fall into normal categories.

I firmly believe that, contrary to what the gentleman said, that Colombia stands as the most successful model of democracy in this region. It is not without its problems, but I think it has made enormous and positive strides in recent years. With our support it has been transformed into a much more secure democratic and economically prosperous country.

So why do I say that? How do I measure the success that we have had? Well, we have got more than 200,000 acres of legal crops that have been planted, 64,000 farm families provided legal farming options, coca eradication through spraying has gone from 47,000 hectares of the first year of Plan Colombian to 138,000 last year, and manual eradication also increased substantially. An additional 1,600 hectares of poppies were eradicated in the year 2005. We have regained Colombian sovereignty over most of the air space, and that has led to a 56 percent decrease in suspected trafficker flights. The drug flow by air to the United States has dropped by about 7 percent. Kidnappings are down 51 percent. Homicides are down 13 percent. All 1,098 Colombian municipalities have a permanent government presence. These are just some of the measures of the things that we have done that I think are very significant.

The bill from which this would take funds also rewards Peru by increasing the funds allocated it by $10.5 million. And I did this because we have decreased over the years the funds to Peru and we have experienced the balloon effect of having drug production move from one part of the region to another part, and that is why we have proposed a $7 million increase to Peru's interdiction and eradication program. The last thing in the world we should be doing right now is making a reduction in these overall accounts.

On the other hand, we have reduced some of the funds provided to Bolivia. We have reduced the President's request by 44 percent. Of course, that request was drafted very early in this year before the problems that we are seeing with the current government in Bolivia have occurred. There, the eradication efforts have gone absolutely the wrong direction, from an historic high in 1999 of 17,000 hectares of coca eradicated, to a goal in 2006 of only 5,000; and they are not on track to even meet that very reduced goal in Bolivia.

And so those are just some of the reasons why we are, as I said, trying to reward those who are doing the right thing in the region, but also make sure that our money is not used inappropriately in countries that are not doing the right thing.

So these are just some of the reasons why I think that this amendment would be absolutely the wrong signal at the wrong time and could be the best possible message that we could send to drug traffickers to reduce this Andean counterdrug initiative by the amount that the amendment calls for. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one of the members of the Drug Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to what the gentlewoman from Illinois said.

First of all, with regard to the accounts. It is true that the total amount in here for Colombia is above where the President requested. But in the ACI, that is absolutely not true.

I would just remind the gentlewoman from Illinois that the amount we have in this bill is $384 million. If you cut another $30 million, you would be at $354. The President requested $506 million for the ACI account. So the gentlewoman is absolutely incorrect in stating the amount that goes for the ACI. She just had her figures incorrect because she wasn't aware, I think, of the restructuring that we have done of this account.

Now, I want to just respond to what she was saying about the failures that we have had. I would stipulate to the gentlewoman from Illinois that our eradication programs have not been as good as we would like. She is wrong about the interdiction. We are having success with the interdiction. And we are having success with the interdiction because we have a president down there that is committed to making it work, committed to making Colombians more secure, and committed to providing people with economic well-being in the country.

Now, do bad things happen still? Yes. There are still too many homicides and there are still too many kidnappings. Sadly, we know our own troops have sometimes strayed and done things wrong. We know in our own cities that police departments sometimes stray and do things that are not right. But things are getting better in Colombia. There is more security in Colombia. There are fewer homicides. There are fewer kidnappings. The presence of the government in municipalities, of police in municipalities has increased. Roads are open and commerce is moving again in the country.

What a time to send a signal to them that we are going to cut them; that we

are going to say you are not successful. What we have done in this bill is to restructure the accounts so that much of the aid now flows through traditional accounts of the Economic Support Fund, the Development Assistance, the INCLE funds, and those kinds of accounts. And we are saying to Colombia, you are a strategic partner. We believe that you are succeeding and we are going to put the aid, as we do with other countries, in these kinds of categories.

But this is not the time to be cutting the funding for drug interdiction. And I hope this body will reject this amendment very soundly.

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

Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who has certainly been at the forefront of this issue.

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I just want to respond to one thing that the gentlewoman said before I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas. I just want to respond to what she said about the Migration and Refugee account and Darfur. She made a reference to the fact that food rations in Darfur might be cut in half. We have provided in the fiscal year 2006, the current year's bill, we have $320 million for Darfur for food programs. When the United Nations said they might still have to cut the rations in half, the President, out of Public Law 480, pledged another $200 million. That is $520 million that the United States has pledged for food in Darfur. You know what the next largest country is? Libya at $4 million.

So I hardly think the United States has been delinquent in the amount of money that we have provided in Darfur.

Meanwhile, we have problems in our own hemisphere and we have problems on our own streets. We have problems in our schools and in our families with drugs that run rampant in our society. We do have an obligation to ourselves to try to prevent that from happening. We have a partner in Colombia that is attempting to do that.

This amendment is a signal to that partner that we do not believe his country should be a partner in our attack on drugs in this country. This would be the wrong thing for us to do at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

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

I want to just correct, for the record, a couple of comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin made for whom I have the greatest respect. He talked about a $107 million cut in these accounts. Let me just make it clear what we are really talking about. There is an $82 million reduction in the migration refugee assistance account. That $82 million, however, has nothing to do with refugees abroad. That is for admissions to the United States. And the numbers, 55,000 persons that are coming in, are exactly the same as last year. So we are continuing the program exactly as we have it.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I am trying to explain what it is.

It is not the money, however, that goes to assist refugees overseas. It is admissions.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point that I am trying to make is that it is the processing of refugees inside of United States. We are not talking about people who are in camps overseas, who might not have food, might not have sanitation. That is not what is being cut.

The other account that is being cut $25 million is the ERMA account. And that is because they have a carryover of about 15 million. The 30 million that we have provided here brings them up to 45 million, and that is the average of what they have spent. It is an emergency drawdown account and they have spent that amount each year. So we are adequately covering the migration, the refugee and migration issues in our bill.

I yield once more to the gentleman.

And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that yes, we are looking at it on the whole, and I believe that on the whole we are adequately covering these accounts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if you will close on your side and yield back, I will close on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take the time, but I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a thorough debate on this. I will be very quick in my close here simply to say this is the wrong policy and the wrong message at the wrong time. This is not what we need to be doing with Colombia. This is not what we need to be doing on drug interdiction. We need to be saying to this country which has stood strong, to this country which has been courageous in its efforts to provide security for its own citizens, to provide for drug eradication, to provide for drug interdiction, we need to say to this country, to its leadership, to its president who was just elected by the largest margin in modern history in Colombia, we need to say to them, we stand with you. We support you in your efforts, because what you are doing in Colombia is on behalf also of the American citizens in the United States that we can save our children from drugs. This is not the time to send the signal that we do not believe that Colombia is doing what it needs to be doing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 60, line 18 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I would concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 11 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I would concede the point of order and that these funds for the Reagan/Fascell Democracy fellows program would be stricken.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 87, line 13 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I concede the point of order with regard to the private enterprise development fund in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 91, line 17 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 121, line 15 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order against this language requested by the administration.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 127, line 24 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order against that language dealing with separation pay for the Peace Corps.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 136, line 5 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order against this legislation, strongly desired by the administration regarding OPIC and Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose this.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from North Carolina has explained, his amendment seeks to strike the waiver provision that we have in section 581 of this bill. That section limits the availability, as he has described, of assistance to foreign countries that refuse to extradite to the United States any individual accused in the United States of killing a law enforcement officer. Certainly, as he has said, we want to pursue to the farthest ends of this Earth anybody that is accused of killing a law enforcement officer here in the United States.

The provision does also include authority for the Secretary to provide assistance if she certifies to the Committee on Appropriations that the application of the restriction to a country or countries is contrary to the national interests of the United States.

Now, I acknowledge that that language was not in the bill when we passed it last year. It was added in conference. So what we brought to the floor this year is exactly the language that was enacted into law last year, but the provision that he seeks to strike was language that was not included in the House-passed bill last year.

And given that understanding, that what his amendment would do is to simply return the language in this bill to that that we passed on the floor of the House last year, given that understanding, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as he has explained what his amendment would do, and as we did with the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Carolina we would return this particular provision back to the same as the House adopted last year.

And with that understanding, I am certainly willing to accept this. The gentleman has also said that he will not offer the other amendment which does expand the authorities. He has asked us to consider that. We certainly can consider that in the conference committee.

But, as long as we are returning this to the provisions added last year, I would certainly ask that we leave it as it was last year, and not expand the authority either here on the floor.

With that understanding, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 146, line 21 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a longstanding and actually a very complex trademark dispute between Gallup Organization and Gallup International. It has been the subject of legal action in a number of countries, the courts of a number of foreign countries.

USAID says that they are complying with the law, that they are following the law. In fact, Ambassador Tobias recently instructed his staff to take numerous steps to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

He asked that, first, they develop contracting and procurement procedures to ensure the strict adherence to intellectual property rights be integral when evaluating prospective contractors and grantees.

Second, that they review current contracts and grants in question, which will be terminated if violations are discovered. And, third, for any product or material that is found to bear a counterfeit Gallup trademark, review it for proper disposition under relevant laws and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, they are very much involved in this, and are taking very direct and concrete steps to deal with that. However, having said that, I support certainly the concept that is behind this amendment. I would urge that we accept this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

Well, here we go. This is an old debate. It is an old amendment. Times have changed, but for some people things do not change. The school that is being described here, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, we call it WHINSEC, is a Department of Defense education facility that Congress established in the year 2001. It replaces, as the gentleman has correctly pointed out, it replaces the School of Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Now, WHINSEC provides future civilian as well as military and law enforcement, that is police officers, including U.S. military officers, professional education that helps support our democratic principles in this hemisphere. WHINSEC does that, promotes those democratic values and the respect for human rights and the knowledge and

understanding of U.S. customs and tradition through the time that the officers spend there and through the curriculum that is developed there. The courses build strong relationships between the participating nations, helping to ensure peace and stability throughout the hemisphere.

This is a school that is open. Anyone can visit the campus, tour the building where the courses are taught, sit in classes, talk to the students and faculty. People are invited in as lecturers from outside. A large part of the curriculum in this program is devoted to human rights and to values. It seems to me that if what we really want in this hemisphere is a military in different countries that shares those values that we hold, that are dear to us, that we should be doing more, not less, of this, more training of these people.

Has anybody ever graduated from the School of the Americas in the past that turned out to be bad? Yes, of course. But I can tell you that far more have turned out to be people, honorable officers, who have upheld democracy, upheld democratic values, upheld the civil rights of the citizens in their countries than vice versa.

So what we are doing now with WHINSEC as it is revised and restructured, the curriculum for the program, we are doing a great deal more to help to train officers who share our values and who have a contact, a relationship with U.S. military officers so that when there is a problem that occurs in these countries, somebody that is a colonel in the Pentagon and served at WHINSEC with some colonel in a Latin American country, they can get on the phone and discuss and describe the problems that exist there. These kinds of relationships are important, and they cannot be done if you do not have face-to-face contact, if you do not have time the people spend together getting to know each other and talking about issues and learning about values, and that is the importance of WHINSEC.

This is a program like IMET that I believe in very strongly that ought to be expanded, not a program that we should be talking about cutting.

There is not an example that the gentleman I believe can cite of anybody at WHINSEC who has committed any crimes back in their country. It has two important missions, to teach future leaders and to foster cooperation between our country and those of Latin America. It offers 24 discrete courses. They are from 3 to 49 weeks long, and all are teaching U.S. military doctrine according to U.S. laws and our values. In fact, in every single one of the courses, at least 10 percent of the instruction is devoted directly to democracy and human rights issues. Students come from throughout the Western Hemisphere, even from Canada, as well as the United States; and it is the relationships that are developed there that are so important in the future, in years that pass, that come later when we need to have the contacts with these countries.

So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has expressed, I simply do not believe that the evidence bears it out. I simply do not believe that what this organization is doing is wrong. In fact, it is doing everything that we would want an organization to do in terms of training military officers of the future in Latin America to share the values that we have in this United States. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) where the school at Fort Benning is located.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me just close. I think we have had a thorough debate on this.

As I said, this is an issue that we have debated over and over again, and I think time and time again it has been shown that this program of training military and police officers in Latin

America is one that is good, good for democracy, good for human rights, good for U.S. relationships with these countries in Latin America and Central America.

This is a program that is good for the United States. It is a program that is good for the countries that are involved. This is a program that, if anything, ought to be expanded. We should be doing more of this, more transfer of values from the United States to the people of these countries of the law enforcement and military of these countries is what we ought to want to be doing.

Bad things can happen either way. In 1992, Hugo Chavez conducted, he was not graduate of this, conducted a coup against the democratically- elected government in Venezuela. Are we to conclude from that, that if only he had gone to the School of the Americas, that everything would have been well? Probably not, but by the same token, one can hardly conclude that because somebody has gone to the School of the Americas and still ends up doing something that is bad, that overall it is bad for the United States or for their country or for the human rights or the citizens of that country because it is not.

It is a good program. It is a program that spreads democracy in the Western hemisphere. It is the kind of program we should be supporting, not the kind of program that we should be opposing, and I hope that my colleagues will soundly defeat this amendment as they have done in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman. She proposes, as she said, to reduce the funding to Mexico for the International Narcotics Control Law Enforcement account that we call INCLE, from $40 million to $39 million. It is only a $1 million reduction, but it is symbolic, and I understand that; but as a symbol I think it runs counter to what we have been asking the Mexican Government to do, and that is to help us seal the border with regard to drug trafficking coming across the border.

I have the privilege of chairing the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Group,

and we met this year in Mexico, legislators, Members of Congress from both the United States and Mexico meeting there. We were struck, I think every member of the U.S. delegation was struck, by the degree of cooperation that we are seeing now from Mexico, particularly the Mexican policymakers, the congress, in struggling against the drug trafficking, and, actually, they have been very good on that for several years; but now the efforts they are making to help try and seal the border, it is certainly the most cooperation that we have seen in the last 20 years.

In fact, the Mexican congress has adopted unanimously a joint resolution expressing their commitment to helping resolve and expressing their acknowledgment that they have a responsibility for helping to control the problems of migration, illegal migration coming into the United States.

The bill that we brought before you is a very modest increase, the $1 million increase, over the previous year to Mexico to help to try and control the border. The majority of this goes to sustain border and port security by improving the ports of entry, improving the inspections at the ports of entry, more secure traffic laws, mobile interdiction teams, and national crime databases. These are all good things. These are the kinds of things we should want to support in criminal justice and institution-building in Mexico, and including the Office of the Attorney General and anticorruption programs. So I think it is a good program, and I think it is one that deserves to have support.

Let me be clear about one fact: the funds in this account are used by Mexico to help stop narcotics from entering the United States. Cutting funding in this area doesn't really hurt Mexico, because it isn't anything that has to do with their own law enforcement per se. It hurts our efforts to keep drugs off our streets and out of our schools.

I think this amendment won't have a huge effect, but as a symbol I think it is the wrong kind of symbol that we should be sending to Mexico, and I do oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say again I think this is an ill-advised amendment, but, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

In this bill there is a total of $420,000 for Saudi Arabia. Now, just so we understand where these accounts are, the $20,000 we have heard about before, last year that is what we were arguing about, $20,000 in this entire bill when this amendment came up. And why do we have that in there? That is for providing a classroom space for the IMET, the International Military Education Training program, for IMET students.

Why do we have to provide one space? Because by giving them a grant for one space, they are then eligible to buy seats in the classes that they pay for at the somewhat reduced rate. So that is just simply a kind of a dues that are required in order to have them eligible for this program.

We have talked about IMET before. Again, it is similar to what we were just talking about a moment ago with regard to the WHINSEC program in Latin America. If we want to have American values of democracy and civil rights and justice transmitted to

these countries, to these people, then we need to have that kind of program.

Now, the other $400,000 is new this year. Not a heck of a lot of money, but it is for nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining programs. This pays for American experts, bomb detection experts, criminal investigation experts to go and help train antiterrorism police in Saudi Arabia.

For heaven sakes, is this not something we want to do? Do we not want to train the Saudis to help the Saudis become better at detecting antiterrorism, at detecting terrorist attacks? Do we not want to help them try to deter those kinds of attacks against us and against their own society?

This is about the war on terror. And this amendment is about saying, no, we don't want Saudi Arabia involved in the war on terror; we don't believe they should be on our side in the war on terror, because we want to cut out the money that allows us to help the little bit that we have that allows us to help train those people.

So I understand the sentiment that is behind this. It is an easy kind of sentiment to scratch the surface and get to this kind of emotion, but it is not the right thing to do. It is clearly not the right thing to do. If we desire that the people of Saudi Arabia embrace a more Western tolerance and a value system, how do we expect them to learn to do that? If we want them to be a better partner in the war on terror, how do we expect them to do that if we are not willing to help train them?

This is absolutely the wrong signal for us to send, and I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond very briefly to what the gentleman just said. I think what he just said demonstrates what this issue is all about: Are we talking about something that scratches the surface of emotions, or are we talking about something that is real.

The money is not symbolic. It is real. The $20,000 allows them to buy a seat at the IMET table. It allows them to send their students to the United States to be trained in western values, in democracy and justice.

The $400,000 is to pay for American experts to go over and train them in bomb detections and in criminal investigations. Is the gentleman saying we do not want them to be trained, we do not want them to participate? What does this have to do with Wahabism? Nothing. This has to do with whether or not they are going to be a partner in the war on terror.

But yes, you can reach beyond that to the emotion and you can do the wrong thing, which this amendment would do, which is to cut the money which enables them to participate in a significant way in the war on terror.

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

Mr. Chairman, if we were sending, millions of dollars to support economic development in

Saudi Arabia, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, they are a rich country, so as you pointed out, they are doing some bad things, I would agree with them. If we were sending millions of dollars for various projects in Saudi Arabia, I would agree with them.

But we are talking about training a police officer to have the tools to detect a terrorist attack. We are talking about fighting terrorism. This is so narrow and so focused. It is on counterterrorism, and that surely is what we want the Saudis to do, to have the skills to detect a terrorist attack in advance, to head it off, to investigate terrorist attacks and to be able to prosecute those people. Surely that is what we want to do.

We do not agree with the policies of Saudi Arabia. I do not agree with them, but I certainly want their police officers, I want their detectives to have the kinds of skills they need to go after terrorists, and that is what this amendment is about. This tiny amount of money is about that. We ought not to be taking this kind of step. It is more than symbolic. It has to do with very specific kinds of training that combats terrorism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and just say very quickly that a 2,000 percent increase is a bogus argument. There was $20,000 last year. There is $420,000 this year because we have $400,000 for terrorist training specifically to pay for the salaries of American experts who go over there to train their police. It is not the percentage amount that we are talking about here. It is, should we be doing this kind of work at all; and the answer, I think, if you believe we should be fighting the war on terror and that we should be fighting it where we can find it, wherever we can find police forces that need to be trained, we ought to be doing it with the Saudis, and that is all this is about. I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) who represents a border State and a border district.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say once again I think this would be a very wrong-headed amendment, the wrong thing for us to do. This is not symbolic. This cuts all the ESF funds that we provide to the country of Mexico, which is, relative to most of our programs around the world, very, very small because Mexico is a country that is beyond the least developed; it is now rapidly developing.

The money that we provide here is important money. It is money that helps promote democracy. It is money that helps promote such things as property rights. It is money that helps promote such things as microfinance. It is the kinds of things that we do that help provide economic livelihood for the people in Mexico. This is about job creation. It is about allowing people to live and work in Mexico and not have to come to the United States. If you want less migration from Mexico to the United States, we have got to give them a hand, a hand up to prevent them from having to come to the United States because they have no way of taking care of their families. So this would be the wrong thing for us to do in terms of cutting the economic support funds for Mexico.

It is also the wrong thing to do to a neighbor with whom we have a very good relationship. Do we have problems? Of course we have problems. Are there times when we disagree? Of course we disagree. Would we like to have more help on some of the migration problems and the drug interdiction problems? Yes, we want more help. But I remember, I have been here in this Congress for 22 years, and I remember going to the inter-American, the U.S.-Mexico parliamentary meetings 22 years ago when we were told by our State Department, our law enforcement officials, there was no cooperation with Mexico. Today, that is very much changed. There is cooperation. We have significant cooperation. This is the wrong thing to do to a country like Mexico that is doing its best to try and cooperate with the United States, both on migration and on drug interdiction. These are small programs, but they are programs that make a difference in terms of economic livelihood in Mexico, and I hope we will defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from Ohio is trying to do to look out for the interests of the people of El Salvador, but I think he has got some misinformation. Now, there is one thing he is right about and we can certainly agree on and that is that the Millennium Challenge Corporation proposed compact for El Salvador does have a major roads component. But we are not talking about a superhighway that is blowing through the fields of some poor farmers in El Salvador. It is not about a road that is going to allow building profits for the multinational mining firms that are somehow earning it on the backs of the peasants. And the proposal certainly wasn't developed by the central government at the expense of the opinions of those at the local level.

This proposal was developed over 7 years as part of a consultative process, a process which is developing as part of a regional development plan with the other countries in the region, which have identified the lack of transportation infrastructure as a significant impediment for development. If anyone wants proof and reads Spanish, you can go to the Web site for the government of El Salvador where reports about the consultations have been put online, where they are actually online about all the kind of town meetings and the other consultations that have taken place. And why is that? Because for one thing, that is one of the core requirements of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, that this kind of transparency absolutely must be included in the development of the MCC proposal for the partner countries.

I was recently in Nicaragua and Honduras, and there too we have roads as a major component of what we are trying to do with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And why is that important? Because that is how, in a country that is heavily reliant on agriculture, that is how you get products to market. You can't get the products from the farms up in the hills and in the valleys if you don't have roads, secondary roads and main roads, to bring those things to market. So that is why it is an important part of this. But it is not about taking things away from peasants, and this is certainly not about multinational mining companies. It is not about building a superhighway. This is not a four- lane or six-lane. It is a two-lane road, a two-lane paved road that will be good for trucks to carry things on for products to go to market. And importantly, there are 150 miles of tertiary farm to road markets that spread out from this central highway that bring the products in from the little villages and the farms to this highway and then bring it to the markets where it can either be sold in the major cities of El Salvador, or it can be shipped into international commerce, not just to the United States, but regionally, where it can travel on the highways in the region and help to develop the economy of this region. This is the kind of thing that we ought to be trying to encourage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

With all due respect to my good friend, this road is about helping a poor gold mining company more than it is about helping the people. We know what the stated purpose is: to connect small farmers to a larger market. Yet gold mining, a process that releases cyanide into the environment, is going to result in serious environmental damage, and it is going to displace the farming communities that depend on clean water and land.

So you help the gold mining operations move forward and you effectively eradicate farming in that area, which is exactly the opposite of what we are being told. And if the purpose of the highway is to help the poor in the northern region, then why are those same poor and those who work with the poor opposed to the construction of the highway?

I have here a photo from a newspaper in the area that shows a huge protest against construction of the highway, among other things, by people in the Chalatenango area, a poor area in the north which will be affected by the highway. The Catholic Diocese of Chalatenango, as well as Caritas, El Salvador, a Catholic relief organization that works with the poor and oppressed, they are marching in protest to this road that is supposed to be being built for them. There are so many other groups that are opposed to this. I submit the following list for the Record.

Other groups opposed to construction of the highway include

the SHARE Foundation; Committee in Solidarity with the People

of El Salvador (CISPES); Unidad Ecologica Salvadorena, an

umbrella group of 32 environmental organizations in El

Salvador; the Association of Communities for the Development

of Chalatenango, an association of 100 villages and 22

municipalities; the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network

(SEEN); among others.

Furthermore, not only is the northern region of El Salvador home to half of El Salvador's poorest areas, but it also contains the main source of water and biodiversity in this Lempa River Basin.

So you have got the degrading environmental impact of gold mining, and it is going to have a negative consequence for the whole area; and El Salvador is going to end up having to borrow other money to complete the highway. They will end up getting loans from the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to finance the rest of the project, get into worse debt and have that debt paid off by the poor. This is a nightmare.

I repeat: the people of the United States are building a highway in El Salvador for the benefit of two gold mining companies while gold is about $800 an ounce and these companies could build their own road with a couple of truckloads of gold. Why in the world, when we have bridges falling apart in America, when we have chuckholes all over our highways, when we can't even repair our own infrastructure, are we ready to fork over a couple hundred million dollars, principally to help gold mine companies from Canada? This is insane.

So friends, Republicans, and budget hawks, lend me your ears. Reject this plan to fund a road for gold miners, and support the Kucinich amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will close very quickly. Let me just say that the gentleman may be right that there are some groups that oppose this; but every single mayor, every single elected mayor in those villages and those towns shown on the map that he just showed there of El Salvador has voted in favor of this during the consultative process. Every single elected mayor has come out in favor of this.

The economic analysis of this has shown that it has about a 20 percent return on the rate of investment. This is the kind of thing that is going to help farmers and businessmen and others who have been too long isolated in this region. In addition to markets, the project connects people with better education, better health care, and better futures for themselves and for their children.

So I struggle to see how this amendment is against the people of El Salvador. It is not for mining companies. It is for the farmers; it is for the poor people. It is about not only their livelihood, but it is about their education, it is about their health care.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment would be defeated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, I certainly would intend to try to work to resolve this problem within the degree to which the foreign operations appropriation can do that with foreign countries. But coming from a ranching background and being a rancher myself, I would certainly agree this is a problem that is important.

If I might, I understand that you are prepared to withdraw the amendment. If that is the case, then I will not need to insist on my point of order.

I appreciate the exchange with the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, certainly the thrust of this amendment is a good one and what he is attempting to do with this is very good. I have some concerns about the cuts, continuing to cut in what is a very limited increase for the O&E for USAID. But having said that, at this time I am prepared to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas. I understand she has some comments she would like to make.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that would focus on not having any funds be made available in this act to be used to assist any foreign government in enforcing any religious law that has the effect of punishing a victim of sexual assault or rape.

This is an area and an issue that has a heavy burden in many of our Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Middle East and North Africa, and as well incidents that have occurred in Nigeria, Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey.

Of course, many of these are our strong allies. However, I think it is befitting and important for this Congress to make a very strong statement.

For example, in South Africa, a woman is raped every 26 seconds. In South Africa, a woman is killed every 6 days. Bangladesh shows vigilantism against women for a perceived moral transgression. In Pakistan, a woman by the name of Dr. Shazia, a 32-year-old Pakistani physician, is no longer in that country after being raped because of some problems with the judicial system, although the government has expressed support for her and I hope that she will be able to come back to testify against the particular culprit. Because of the religious codes that surround these incidences, women are not protected.

My amendment will simply go on record, Mr. Chairman, to say that we are paying attention to this issue, we are concerned about it, and, of course, we want to be able to address it.

I would hope that in the statement of managers, as we move toward the Senate, we would be able to express our concern, in particular, about this unique issue

And, Mr. Chairman, if I might add, as you well know, I have just recently returned from Afghanistan, and had many, many women surround me, many of them elected officials, the newly elected parliament which we are excited about, has a high percentage of women.

These women said to me directly in general Chambers, we are afraid to go back to our provinces. I want to make sure that the security funds for Afghanistan have a particular sensitivity to the security of women elected officials after returning to their provinces and are fearful for their lives.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. It increases funding by $30 million for the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, and it decreases the Andean Counter Drug Initiative by the same amount. The reduction in the ACI account should come from eradication and military related aid above the President's request level. It is my understanding from figures provided by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee that, under the ACI, the President requested $506.2 million for Colombia; the committee provided $545.2 million for all these categories of aid. So even after this amount is reduced by $30 million, aid for Colombia requested by the President would still total $515.2 million, or $9 million above the President's fiscal year 2007 request.

Mr. Chairman, I have been on this House floor before expressing my concerns about our policy in Colombia. The drug eradication policy, to be blunt, has been a miserable failure. The Colombian military continues to commit heinous acts with impunity.

Now, I know that some of my esteemed colleagues who oppose this amendment will once again come to the House floor with their charts and graphs and arrows pointing this way and that, but no matter how you slice and dice it, the bottom line is that after 6 years and $4.7 billion for Colombia, we are exactly where we started out as far as drug cultivation is concerned. The same amount of coca is being grown today in Colombia as in 1999. And this isn't Jim McGovern just saying this; this fact comes from our own Office of Narcotics Control and Drug Policy. It is their figures, their findings, their conclusion; the State Department backs them up on this. $4.7 billion.

As the committee report accompanying this bill states so eloquently on page 62: after a massive increase in fumigation from 47,000 hectares at the start of Plan Colombia to today when we fumigated 138,775 hectares last year, we have accomplished zilch, Mr. Chairman. Coca cultivation in Columbia is at the same level or maybe slightly above from where it was when we started.

On Monday, Mr. Chairman, headlines in the newspapers informed us that a Colombian military unit murdered in a deliberate cold-blooded ambush one of the most successful U.S.-trained antidrug units in Colombia. Yesterday the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee froze $30 million in military aid because it was so enraged over these murders and the State Department's recent human rights certification.

Mr. Chairman, we have to respond to this. This House has to respond, and this is the moment to do so. We are not undermining President Uribe by adopting this amendment. Colombia will still receive more than what the President of the United States of America

asked for in fiscal year 2007. But we can send a powerful message to the Colombian Armed Forces that we won't keep writing blank checks, we won't keep turning a blind eye, we aren't a cheap date you can take advantage of.

Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity to do some real good with this amendment. We can fund the President's request for U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance fund. The fund currently stands at its lowest balance in over a decade. The State Department generally draws down between $60 million and $70 million in ERMA funds each year. There are just too many unexpected emergencies happening around the world. Without the increase provided by the amendment, we could be threatening the life-saving assistance that can mean the difference of life and death to persons caught in tragic violence or natural disaster. Whether we are looking at an increasingly explosive border between Chad and Sudan to preventing food aid pipeline breaks in Kenya and Uganda, to being able to respond quickly to victims of earthquakes or volcanoes, this fund is one of the President's most effective tools. With this amendment we can give the President what he has requested and needs for Colombia and ACI, and we can give him what he asked for and needs to meet emergency refugee crises. And at the same time, Mr. Chairman, and for the first time, we can send a powerful message to the Colombian military that our pockets and our patience are wearing thin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague is absolutely right, eradication has dramatically increased in Colombia, but it has achieved absolutely nothing. There is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. We have gone from 336,000 acres in 2000 to 355,000 acres, and that is actually a 6 percent increase. How is that success?

When Plan Colombia started, it was supposed to decrease coca growing by 50 percent over 5 years. That is what we were promised. Well, $4.7 billion later, we have a 6 percent increase over 5 years the amount of coca being grown in Colombia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is a Colombian expert and who was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia.

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

I will insert in the Record at this point an article that recently appeared in the Financial Times entitled, ``Colombia `most dangerous' place for trade unionists'' in the world.

[From the Financial Times, June 6, 2006]

Colombia ``Most Dangerous'' Place for Trade Unionists

(By Frances Williams)

Colombia remains the most dangerous place on earth to be a

trade unionist, with 70 people killed there last year for

union activities.

In addition, 260 Colombian trade unionists received death

threats ``in a climate of continuing impunity for the

assassins, according to the annual survey released today by

the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

Right-wing paramilitary groups and the state security

forces have been blamed for most of the violence in Colombia.

The ICFTU also records slayings in Brazil and Honduras, and a

``pervasive climate of violence and fear'' in Guatemala.

Worldwide, a total of 115 people were murdered for

defending workers' rights in 2005, more than 1,600 were

subjected to violent assaults and some 9,000 were arrested.

Apart from Colombia, the report highlights violence and

repression in Iraq, Iran, El Salvador, Djibouti, China,

Cambodia, Guatemala, Zimbabwe and Burma.

Though the death toll was down from 145 in 2004, almost

entirely due to fewer killings in Colombia, ``we are

nevertheless witnessing increasingly severe violence and

hostility against working people who stand up for their

rights,'' said Guy Ryder, ICFTU general secretary.

Even in the industrialised world workers' rights are

frequently violated or eroded, the report says. The Bush

administration is accused of encouraging ``union-busting''

through measures via its National Labour Relations Board to

reduce the influence of trade unions.

The ICFTU also notes aggressive publicity campaigns in the

US aimed at weakening workers' trust in trade unions.

Australia is criticised for a wave of anti-union laws that

it said would deprive most workers of protection from unfair

dismissal.

Publication of the report by Brussels-based ICFTU, whose

233 affiliated organisations represent 145m workers, is timed

to coincide with the annual conference of the International

Labour Organisation now underway in Geneva.

The conference is expected to condemn Belarus for

persistent interference in trade union affairs and to

consider action against Burma for its refusal to end forced

labour.

In Asia, violence against trade unionists by police and

security forces was documented last year in Burma, South

Korea, India, Cambodia and China, where dozens of trade union

activists continue to be incarcerated.

In the Middle East, 13 union representatives were

assassinated in Iraq and there were reports of torture and

violence against strikers in Iran. In several other countries

trade unions are outlawed or severely restricted.

In Africa, the report singles out Djibouti and Zimbabwe,

where the trade union movements suffer constant harassment by

the government of President Robert Mugabe.

Mr. Chairman, I would also insert in the Record an article that I referred to earlier that appeared in the Boston Globe about how ``Colombia says soldiers killed antidrug police.'' That Colombia's military unit assassinated a U.S.-trained, elite antinarcotics team at the bidding of the drug mafia 2 weeks ago. And what is the response of this House? Nothing. The United States Senate froze $30 million in military aid because they were so outraged that the Colombian military, who we finance, went out and killed in cold blood this anti-drug police unit.

Mr. Chairman, we need to send a strong signal that we are not a cheap date, that we are watching, that we care and we demand accountability.

[From the Boston Globe, June 6, 2006]

Colombia Says Soldiers Killed Antidrug Police

authorities probe colonel for link to major trafficker

(By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan)

Bogota.--Suspicions that a Colombian military unit

assassinated a US-trained, elite antinarcotics team at the

bidding of the drug mafia two weeks ago have proven true,

officials say, in a case that has badly shaken public

confidence in the military.

On May 22, 10 of the country's most successful antidrug

police were killed by a military platoon in the outskirts of

Jamundi, an area under the influence of narco-traffickers 195

miles southwest of the capital, near Cali.

Two military officers and six soldiers were arrested

Thursday on the basis of incriminating cellphone text

messages and crimescene evidence that investigators say

prove the eight men planned the killings. The suspects insist

the shootings were a ``friendly fire'' mistake.

``This was not a mistake, this was a crime; this was a

deliberate decision, a criminal decision,'' Attorney General

Mario Iguaran said last week. ``They were doing the bidding

of a drug trafficker.''

Authorities are investigating bank accounts allegedly

containing $44,000 belonging to Army Colonel Bayron Carvajal,

the most senior officer arrested, as well as his alleged

links to Omar Garcia Varela, according to Colombian newspaper

El Tiempo. Varela is accused of being right-hand man of drug

boss Diego Montoya, one of the United States' 10 most-wanted

narcotraffickers, who is believed to control properties and

drug laboratories near the site of fatal attack. The United

States has offered $5 million for information leading to

Montoya's capture.

Questions remain in the Jamundi case about the extent of

alleged collusion with drug traffickers within the armed

forces, and how high up it may go. The arrests came days

after the US State Department certified Colombia's human

rights record, ensuring the flow of most US military aid to

this country. Last year, Congress withheld some military

assistance on worries that the Colombian government, which

has waged a nearly decade-long campaign against drug

corruption, was ignoring extrajudicial killings or

cooperation between the military and right-wing death squads.

The Jamundi case has sparked a national outcry that has

reached up to President Alvaro Uribe, but Uribe on Friday

said he was not ready to oust generals to hold them

responsible for the killings. The best way to restore

military credibility, he said, would be to clarify events and

impose sanctions on the guilty.

Among the most damning evidence against the arrested

soldiers are text messages allegedly sent by Carvajal on the

day of the killing to the lieutenant and sergeant in charge

of the platoon.

``Pull back the ambush. . . . Everything is set for

tonight,'' read one message leaked by authorities to El

Tiempo and the newsmagazine Semana.

That afternoon, Carvajal sent another message, the media

reported: ``Get ready for the group to come with the chicken

so you can get it.''

``Chicken'' was the nickname of civilian informant Luis

Eduardo Betancur, who was leading police to a suspected 440-

pound stash of cocaine. Betancur was also a registered

informant of Carvajal, authorities say. He was found shot in

the neck, with his balaclava removed, investigators say.

Eight of the 10 police killed were shot in the back, and

``the crime scene was contaminated before investigators

arrived,'' said an investigative official yesterday who spoke

on condition of anonymity. Investigators suspect soldiers may

have fired shots from the police officers' weapons after they

died, in an effort to make it look like there was a

confrontation, El Tiempo reported.

Fewer than half of the soldiers in the 28-man platoon fired

at the police. Witnesses interviewed by telephone from

Jamundi say the police identified themselves during the

attack and begged the soldiers not to shoot.

More than half of the shots fired originated from a

military sniper who was hidden from view, said an

investigative official.

When colleagues of the slain police arrived at the scene to

investigate, another text message allegedly demanded to know

why they had been allowed to pass a military roadblock.

The police unit had been trained by the Drug Enforcement

Administration and was responsible for more than 200 arrests

of drug traffickers, including 23 wanted for extradition to

the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is an expert on Colombian's eradication policy.

Mr. Chairman, we are very much committed to Colombia and committed to success, but the fact of the matter is that after $4.7 billion there is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. We want success. We want to achieve results. We just don't want to go along because we don't want to admit that maybe we can improve this policy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to put this debate in perspective. Nobody is talking about the dismantling our support for Colombia. Nobody is talking about withdrawing all of our support to Colombia. What we are talking about is sending the appropriate message at this appropriate time.

I will agree with the gentleman that fumigation has never been higher. But the problem is that there is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. So maybe we need to rethink our strategy. Maybe it is not working. I think any reasonable person who looks at the statistics, provided by our own government, would come to that conclusion.

I will agree with the gentleman that President Uribe deserves credit for lowering the number of kidnappings in Colombia. But I am not prepared to give him a pat on the back in the face of what just happened, where U.S.-funded Colombian military soldiers went out and killed in cold blood antinarcotic policemen who are dedicated to combating drugs in Colombia.

What kind of message are we sending when we respond to that by doing nothing, by saying you have to continue to get everything that you expect? The United States Senate understands what is at stake. They froze $30 million in military aid in response to that. We need to send a signal too: we are not a cheap date. We want to support you, but we want there to be accountability. We want an end to the violence. We want the military not to be above the law.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Facts are stubborn things, and maybe I haven't been clear in this debate, but when the opposition here talks about we are cutting aid to Colombia, that is not true.

The bottom line is we are providing Colombia everything that the President of the United States has requested, plus $9 million more. That is not cutting Colombia. That is not walking away from the drug war.

What we are frustrated with is the billions that we are spending are not accomplishing the goals we were promised. We are concerned there could continue to be gross human rights violations by the Colombian military. We want to send a signal and strengthen President Uribe's hands in helping to bring those military men to justice who committed those terrible murders against those police officers. We also want to call attention to the fact that all of this money that we have been sending down there has done nothing to reduce the amount of coca cultivation and growth in that country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the co-chair of the Refugee Caucus.

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

I just want to alert the Members that there is broad support for this amendment. The support ranges from the American Refugee Committee to Amnesty International to the International Crisis Group, International Rescue Committee, the Jesuit Conference, Mercy Corps, Refugees International, the Steel Workers, the United Methodist Church. I could go on and on and on.

Support for this amendment ranges from--The American

Refugee Committee, Amnesty International, The International

Crisis Group, International Rescue Committee, The Jesuit

Conference, Mercy Corps,

To--Refugees International, The Steelworkers, The United

Methodist Church.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. Chairman, I am the last remaining speaker on my side. I don't know whether you have any other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, let me just kind of go over a few things here. First of all, on the issue that somehow we are withdrawing from our support for Colombia, let me remind my colleagues that the President of the United States asked for $506.2 million. The committee provided $545.2 million. My amendment would reduce that to $515.2 million, or $9 million above the President's request for Colombia. So we are not doing anything here to walk away from Colombia.

Secondly, on the issue of human rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported this year that more grave violations of human rights were committed directly by Colombia's military forces than in the past. The ICRC has recorded a 13.6 percent increase in disappearances. The number of people forced from their homes by violence increased by 8 percent over the past year.

I introduced into the Record earlier, and I will remind my colleagues about an article that appeared in the Financial Times. The headlines, Colombia, The Most Dangerous Place For Trade Unionists. And I also inserted into the Record, and I will remind my colleagues about this article that appeared in a number of newspapers that the Colombian military units assassinated U.S. trained antinarcotics teams at the bidding of the drug mafia. So in some areas, there is improvement, but Colombia is still near the top of any human rights watch list.

Let me, again, make one other point that I have made repeatedly here. We have invested $4.7 million in Colombia. We were promised that coca cultivation would be cut by 50 percent by the proponents of this. The bottom line is, according to this chart, that has not happened. In fact, coca cultivation has actually increased in Colombia.

I agree with my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) when he says the conservatives are supposed to, they don't want to eliminate waste and demand more efficiency in government. Well, by any measure, this has not been an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me just say that we have heard the arguments on the other side. Massive increases in fumigation, overwhelming support for President Uribe, kidnappings down, cities and highways safer. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is all true. But massive increases in fumigation have not led to any reduction in coca cultivation. Overwhelming popular support for President Uribe has not resulted in even a dent in the impunity enjoyed by military officers tied to drug lords, mafia kings, paramilitaries and who carry out violent human rights crimes and other criminal acts. Kidnappings are down, but assassinations, disappearances and death threats against labor, religious indigenous Afro-Colombian and other community leaders is skyrocketing according to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross and every other reputable human rights organization in the world. And if cities and highways are safer, the rural country side is as dangerous, violent, bloody and as perilous as ever.

We can do something good with this amendment. We can do something right. We can provide the President with a little more than he asked for, both for refugee emergencies and for Colombia. So I would urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Leach-Payne-Lofgren-McCollum- Grijalva-Schakowsky-Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it has been many years since we last debated this issue. In 1999 the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to stop funding the U.S. Army School of the Americas. That vote so shook the Department of Defense that the following year, they brought a proposal to the Congress to close the SOA and organize a new school, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

In the past 5 years, we have continued to see the notorious legacy of the School of the Americas live on. To this day, human rights violation and criminal acts continue to be committed by its graduates. But what about the Western Hemisphere Institute itself?

While it is still in its early years, already we have seen the Institute welcome to its courses well known, well documented human rights violators. This has happened with the 2003 admittance of a Salvadorian colonel responsible for the 1983 massacre at Las Hojas. This case, and his name, were cited in the United Nations Truth Commission report in 1993, and even in our own State Department Country Reports.

The Institute accepted and trained in 2002 a major from Bolivia responsible for kidnapping and torture of Waldo Albarracin, who today serves as Bolivia's human rights ombudsman. This is a case that was presented to the OAS Human Rights Commission.

And three Colombian officers under investigation for personal use of counternarcotics funds, and let me add under investigation at the insistence of the United States Justice Department, were admitted to the Institute in 2003.

What possible kind of pre-vetting program could possibly let such notorious figures into its classes? Why are our tax dollars being spent on giving these guys a junket in Georgia? And if the WHINSEC cannot even screen out well known murderers and criminals, what about those who are less well known?

Mr. Chairman, Latin America is already walking away from the WHINSEC. Argentina and Uruguay recently announced they will no longer send any of its military or police to the school.

Enrollment from Latin America has been steadily falling over the past 3 years. In 2003, there were 1,190 students at the WHINSEC. This year there will only be 668. 77 percent of the students come from just five countries, mainly the Andean nations.

But while enrollment has declined by 40 percent, funding for the school has remained steady or slightly increased. U.S. soldiers are now attending the WHINSEC to fill up the classrooms.

Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here? I will tell you one thing that we are doing, we are sending the wrong signal to Latin America. We are telling them that we will not shut down the school that is anathema to civil society and human rights organizations throughout the hemisphere.

And if you wonder what the old School of the Americas has to do with all of this, well, let me just tell you. Every time someone gets murdered in Latin America today by someone trained at the School of the Americas, their family, friends and colleagues, they remember that the U.S. trained this guy at that notorious school. That school still exists for them.

It is at the same military base, in the same buildings with much of the same curriculum and the same teachers as the old school. Excuse me if they do not get the difference.

If you do not think this is happening, let me go back to the article that I referred to in the earlier debate, in Monday's Boston Globe about the military commander who orchestrated the ambush and murder of U.S.-trained antidrug police, a U.S. trained antidrug police unit in Colombia.

That Colombian commander was trained at the School of the Americas. So we have a U.S.-trained Army officer murdering U.S.-trained antidrug police. It makes no sense. We can let Latin America know that we get at our human rights by stopping some of the funding for this school which remains to this day a powerful symbol of U.S. fixation on the military to the detriment of military rights.

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

Mr. Chairman, the following is a list of individuals that I cited in my opening remarks who are graduates of WHINSEC who have committed gross human rights violations against civilians:

Supporters of the WHINSEC consistently argue that nothing

associated with the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA)

should be taken into consideration when debating the merits

of the WHINSEC. However, even at these early stages, the

WHINSEC is repeating the mistakes of its predecessor

organization.

Latin American nominees are supposed to be thoroughly

vetted, but pre-screening of applicants remains inadequate.

Amnesty International detailed in a 2002 report, Unmatched

Power, Unmet Principles, the many loopholes and gaps that

exist in the current screening process. Already a number of

students with previously well-known, well-documented

histories of human rights abuses have been awarded

scholarships to attend the WHINSEC, including:

Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz (El Salvador) attended the

WHINSEC in 2003. In 1983, he commanded a unit responsible for

a very notorious massacre of indigenous peoples at the Las

Hojas Cooperative in Sonsonate, El Salvador. This was a high-

profile human rights case, included in the list of cases

congressionally mandated for investigation during that

period, and cited annually in the State Department's Human

Rights Country Reports throughout the 1980s. The United

Nations Truth Commission on El Salvador, established under

the terms of the 1992 Peace Accords, identified Col. Cid Diaz

as the commander who ordered and led the massacre and

recommended he be brought to justice. Ironically, he returned

to attend the SOA in 1988 and 1991, even after the U.S. State

Department had identified the unit most likely responsible

for the Las Hojas massacre. He then returned to attend the

WHINSEC in 2003.

Major Fillmann Urzagaste Rodriguez (Bolivia) attended the

WHINSEC in 2002. In 1997, then Captain Fillmann Urzagaste

Rodriguez was one of those responsible for the kidnapping and

torture of Waldo Albarracin, who was then the director of the

Popular Assembly for Human Rights in Bolivia; Mr. Albarracin

is now the official Human Rights Ombudsman for the Government

of Bolivia. At the time, the Bolivian Chamber of Deputies

Commission undertook an investigation of the case and

determined that it needed to be sent to the courts for

further investigation and prosecution, where unfortunately it

languished given the military impunity during that period.

This same case is also the subject of a high-profile petition

to the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In

2002, Urzagaste Rodriguez, now a major, took a 49-week

officer training course at the WHINSEC.

Captain Dario Sierro Chapeta, Lieutenant Colonel Francisco

Patino Fonseca, and Captain Luis Benavides Guancha (Colombia)

are all Colombian police officers under investigation for

personal use of counter-narcotics funds. In June 2002, the

Colombian Attorney General's office, at the request of the

U.S. government, opened a ``disciplinary'' investigation into

alleged activities of corruption by members of the Colombian

National Police, including these three officers. The first

two officers, namely Captain Sierro Chapeta and Lt. Col.

Patino Fonseca, attended the WHINSEC in 2002 (it isn't clear

whether the charges against the 3 were brought before, during

or after their acceptance to the WHINSEC, but it was well

known that their unit was under investigation). Captain

Benavides Guancha attended the WHINSEC for 18 weeks in 2003,

well after the targets he investigation were known to the

Colombian and U.S. governments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, let me point out to the gentleman from Florida, we are not against the training of Latin American soldiers. We train over 20,000 Latin American soldiers each year, but only a fraction of them, fewer than 600, are actually trained at the School of the Americas. We want to shut the School of the Americas down because we believe it is anathema to America's commitments and America's human rights.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me tell my good friend from Georgia, maybe he did not hear my opening speech, but I cited a case that happened 2 weeks ago where a graduate of the School of the Americas was involved in killing counternarcotics police in Colombia.

The other thing is, I have heard from the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Arizona that the vast majority of graduates from this school go on to serve their countries honorably. How do we know? There is no follow-up done by this school and the Department of Defense. The only reason we know about the notorious cases is because of the hard work that goes on by human rights organizations on the ground and people in our own State Department. That is how we know, but there is no follow-up. There is no basis to say that the majority go on to serve their countries honorably. We do not know that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to let Latin America know that we get it on human rights, then let us shut down this notorious school. If we genuinely want to show Latin America that our priorities are not the military, but development and democracy, then let us establish a western hemisphere institute for judicial reform, for civil engineering, for local governance, for rural development, for human rights.

Let us show Latin America we get it on human rights, and by closing down this school, we also send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that human rights remains our highest priority.

I urge my colleague to support the McGovern-Lewis amendment to prohibit funds in this bill for WHINSEC.

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

I cannot understand why anybody would want to start cutting funding to Colombia for the war against terror. It would be a terrible mistake to do that right now. President Uribe was just reelected. He is doing everything possible to stop the drug cartels from sending drugs to the United States and other parts of the world. After just being reelected and meeting with many of us in Costa Rica a few weeks ago, for us to start cutting funding when they need more resources to fight the war against drugs is absolutely insane, in my opinion.

The Speaker of the House is very aware of this issue. He just worked with me to get three additional platform aircraft to police the drugs coming through the Caribbean. If we didn't have those resources, the drug cartels would have a free rein to go through the Caribbean. We need additional helicopters and there is additional money in there for that. And for us to start cutting that right now would give the drug cartels all kinds of reasons to invest more money to start expanding the drug operation down there.

In addition, let me say that we have talked about these 11 policemen who were murdered by the Colombian military. I am confident, and I have talked to President Uribe about this, they are going to investigate this thoroughly. And if there are military personnel that actually did the killing, and we believe that is the case, they will be brought to justice. And no money, none of this money is going to go to any military unit that is involved in any activity like this.

So the bottom line is it is extremely important if we believe in keeping drugs off the streets of America that this fight continue. And to start cutting back dramatically and sending this money someplace else because of budgetary constraints is the wrong thing to do.

Visitors from across this country will tell you the number one issue facing this country is the drug problem, and the drugs which are killing our kids and ruining their lives.

This is a very important issue, and it must not take a back seat to any other issue. We must make sure that the resources to continue the war against drugs are given to the people that need it. Colombia is in the forefront, and President Uribe has done an outstanding job, and he needs all of the help he can get and we need to give it to him.

I rise in very strong opposition to the proposed cut in narco- terrorism fighting assistance to our good friend and ally Colombia, especially so, at this critical point in the global war on terror.

While the amendment's author wants to talk about more and more coca, he doesn't want to talk about the more than a half dozen helicopters the Committee has wisely provided the new means for the world renowned Colombian National Police (CNP) anti-drug unit to use to take on the increased coca we have now discovered. The committee also wisely

freed up at least 10 more helicopters to be used by the Colombian Army for drug interdiction and additional eradication to take on the new coca challenge as well. That is a total of 16 more helicopters for the drug fight.

We found the coca in more remote areas of Colombia where the narco- terrorists flee our joint aerial eradication. This new helicopter allocation will permit us to go after that new crop. They may well soon run out of places to hide if we do our job right. We cannot cut and run now.

In addition, I note also little reference by the gentleman from Massachusetts to opium and heroin and the progress and lives saved from our eradication and other efforts against that even more deadly and addictive drug (14 percent more addictive) from nearby Colombia. Until we went after the heroin at the source in Colombia, South American heroin was spreading rapidly across America from New York, Baltimore, Boston and other areas on the East Coast, on into places like Chicago in the Midwest, and further west.

There was a major breakup in December 2005 of a Colombian heroin ring in the Boston, Lawrence, Lynn, and Everett Massachusetts area by our DEA and local police with the cooperation of the Colombian National Police (CNP), who benefit from Plan Colombia aid. We cannot and ought not end those law enforcement efforts as well in places like the Boston area.

Prices have risen by 30 percent and purity has fallen 22 percent from 2003 to 2004 in the once deadly heroin from Colombia according to ONDCP data released this past November.

Young lives have been saved and many overdoses avoided here because of our eradication and other Plan Colombia efforts against South American heroin.

Unlike cocaine, which you can interdict in the multiton loads, heroin comes in concealed, one deadly kilo at a time in shoes, cloths, or baggage, and is nearly impossible to interdict after it leaves Colombia. Either spray it, or you will find it on the streets and communities of America taking lives and creating havoc. We have done this with South American heroin. The critics are silent on that part of Plan Colombia and the success we have witnessed.

``Just say no'' to this ill-advised and unproductive cut in aid for Colombia, a key strategic partner in the global war on terrorism in our own backyard and around the globe, including in Afghanistan where the Colombian National Police will soon be helping train the Afghan anti- drug units.

We owe them, and our kids as well, a Stay-the-Course Approach. Vote ``no.''

First of all, the Saudis don't need our money. They are one of the biggest oil producers in the world. And so why are we giving them $400,000 or $500,000 or a million, or whatever it happens to be?

I understand this is symbolic, but the fact of the matter is we want to send a message today to the Saudis. And the message is that we don't want them supporting Wahabism, which teaches hatred and teaches people to want to hate to the degree they would kill Christians and Jews and anybody that doesn't agree with them.

They are not only giving money to teach Wahabism in Saudi Arabia, but they are doing it in countries around the world. They are doing it in Canada, where 17 people were just captured the other day from a mosque up there that was teaching Wahabism and who were going to behead the Prime Minister of Canada.

Now, they should be very careful about where they are spending their money. And the way to let them know that is not to give them any of our money, which they don't need anyhow. They are also giving money to terrorist organizations like Hamas, and they are giving money to the families of people who blow themselves up, killing innocent women and children.

The Saudis should be responsible in using their money and teaching brotherly love and human rights and dignity of man instead of teaching Wahabism, which teaches just the opposite, hatred, murder, killing of people who don't agree with them and trying to spread in a prolific way the hatred of Wahabism.

I understand the concern of my colleague, but this is a signal that we are sending today. It is not going to amount to very much money, but it is a signal that needs to be sent to the Saudis that the world, not just the United States but the world, does not want organizations teaching hatred of Christians and Jews and anybody that doesn't agree with them. And that is being taught, as my colleague Mr. Weiner just pointed out very vividly on the floor.

In their textbooks, in their teaching they are teaching hatred, and that is not a thing we should be supporting in any way. And although this isn't much money, it is a message that should be sent, and I agree very strongly and hope everybody supports this amendment, as they did last year.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer the Weiner-Burton-Crowley-Ferguson-Berkley amendment to prohibit all aid in this bill from going to the Saudi Arabians.

You might be asking a couple of questions. First, you might be asking why we would be offering any aid at all to the wealthiest nation on Earth; why we would be offering any aid at all to a nation that exports Wahabism, exports terrorism, has done nothing to help us in Iraq, and has, frankly, not been constructive. And on top of all that, why are we offering it when consistently, every single year, this House says we are not going to support it.

Well, we are back here again because we here in this House did not heed the admonition of President Bush after September 11 when he said, you know, nowadays, we have to not look at what nations say, we have to start looking at what they actually do. And the fact is that despite the great rhetoric of the people of Saudi Arabia and their government, they continue to be a force of hate in the world and continue to be a force that exports terrorism in the world.

Let me give you an example, just since we passed this bill last time. This is a quotation from the Saudi Ambassador from an ad in the New Republic on the back cover of September 12, 2005. It says: ``Modernizing our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow, Saudi Arabia has vowed to fight evil with justice and challenge extremism with moderation and tolerance.'' That is what they say.

I am holding in my hand the government-sponsored textbook of the people of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman. I am holding a book that is in classrooms today. Let me tell you some of the things they are teaching in the eighth grade from their textbooks today: ``The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath, while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus.''

That is what this textbook says the children in the eighth grade in Saudi Arabia are being taught today. And if we are to pass this bill as is, we are going to pass funding for Saudi Arabia from the U.S. taxpayers.

Let me show you what they are teaching in the ninth grade. This is the Saudi Ministry. This is the textbook that is issued by the government of Saudi Arabia: ``The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.'' This is in a part of the world where we in this House, we in this country are trying to seek moderation and trying to seek tolerance. This is what they are teaching this year.

You know, I could read some other quotes, and among the quotes I can read are yours, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Chairman, who has done a terrific job with this bill by and large and have served this House with great distinction. Every single year we say, well, the reason we are putting money in this bill is the Saudis are getting better.

Sure, 15 of the 19 homicide bombers on my city were Saudis; sure, 70 percent of the most wanted international terrorists are Saudis; sure, according to the State Department, 60 percent of all the funding exported is coming from the Saudis. But, still, they are getting better. They are getting better.

Mr. Chairman, this is what they are saying today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the sponsors of this amendment, Mr. Burton.

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

But, Mr. Chairman, that is not what they are traveling around the world to do. They are traveling around the world, in the words of our own Department of Treasury, with the World Association of Muslim Youth. What are they doing? They are exporting Wahabism. They are setting up madrasahs all around the world. They are exploiting the kind of teaching that you and I do not agree with them, and we are giving them in this bill a 2,000 percent increase from what they got last year when this House said we had had enough.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

I have no further speakers, so I will use this time to wrap up.

The chairman of the subcommittee deserves an enormous amount of credit for through the years crafting excellent bills that have unified this House. Three hundred of us said last year, enough is enough, we are not going to provide aid to Saudi Arabia.

The fact that we still have it back this year makes you wonder why it is. But he posits the wrong question. He says what is so bad about having a 2,000 percent increase in the amount of funds we are going to provide Saudi Arabia? My colleagues, we should be asking a different question when we provide foreign aid. The question should be: Why should we? Why should we provide aid to a country that has systematically exported terrorism?

When Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for the caves of Afghanistan, he did so with what some people think was close to $1 billion of cash in his pocket, Saudi blood money.

When Wahabism is spread worldwide, this virulent form of Islamic teaching that is outside anyone's realm of understanding about why you would teach young people to hate, as I showed from this textbook from this year, the Saudi government is doing that.

When we look at the numbers of Saudi citizens that are being exported around the world and committing acts of terror, when we look at the fact that the Saudis said again and again we are going to shut down these bank accounts that fund terrorism, and again and again it has been proven that they haven't done it, the question should be: Why are we providing any aid to them? Never mind a 2,000 percent increase from last year, why provide any aid?

And this legislation is very simple. It says let us have a good foreign aid bill, but not a 2,000 percent increase to the Saudis when they have lied to us. They said they were going to close down ``Account 98'' used to fund terrorism. As of today, it is open.

They said they were going to change their teachings to make them more tolerant. As of today, they have not.

They said they were going to stop exporting Wahabism. As of today, the World Association of Muslim Youth is still being funded by them and exporting the worst type of terrorism.

My colleagues, I urge you to support the Weiner-Burton-Crowley- Ferguson-Berkley amendment. Let's make this a good foreign aid bill that doesn't include foreign aid to people who have lied to us and exported terrorism. Let's not provide a 2,000 percent increase in aid to the Saudis. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Florida yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to withdraw this amendment.

I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have worked for years going back to the creation of the International Fund for Ireland in the 1980s on providing funding and direction for the IFI. I have visited its projects and witnessed the cross community cooperation. As a direct result of the IFI and U.S. support for the fund, we have seen tremendous job creation. I would agree, in the Republic of Ireland there has been a significant growth, economic recovery, particularly in the Dublin area, not necessarily in western Ireland, but certainly in the Dublin area.

But in Northern Ireland, in Belfast, and in the counties in the north, there remains serious problems, problems that fuel social unrest. One of the things that I find so encouraging is that, we have worked well with the leaders of the IFI. They are on a glide path to ending foreign support for this program. But they are doing so in a way that encourages police corporation and sustains good programs. They did it frankly directly at our request.

The remaining problem is that the Catholics and the Protestants still haven't collaborated enough where prejudices have broken down. There are 5,700 projects that have been funded under the IFI, and I am glad the gentlewoman is withdrawing her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) and I am pleased that the gentlelady from Florida has withdrawn the amendment to eliminate it's funding.

The International Fund for Ireland is widely recognized for creating comprehensive programs that have helped promote peace and reconciliation in the north of Ireland and the border counties in the Republic of Ireland.

Twenty years ago the U.S. Congress, with overwhelming bi-partisan support, passed the Anglo-Irish Support Act of 1986. This landmark legislation created the means for the U.S. to contribute to the IFI--a Fund established by the Irish and British governments to promote economic development and peace in Northern Ireland. The Fund receives support from the United States, EU, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. it's been a most effective way for the international community to help end the terrible war raging in Northern Ireland.

Four U.S. Presidents and 10 Congresses have endorsed the efforts of the IFI. At the joint hearing I held this March--the eleventh I have convened on the peace process in Northern Ireland--U.S. Special Envoy for Northern Ireland Ambassador Mitchell Reiss strongly praised the outstanding work being done by the IFI, and urged continued support for it.

Since the inception of the IFI, the United States has contributed nearly $460 million and the results have been remarkable. As of 2004, the IFI has created nearly 38,000 direct jobs, and 18,000 indirect ones. In the 1990s Northern Ireland's GDP increased 53 percent, employment increased 17 percent and unemployment fell by 40 percent. Eighty percent of these investments have been in disadvantaged areas. The IFI has contributed to over 5,700 projects in Northern Ireland and the bordering counties of the Republic of Ireland and has provided 17,000 young people from cross-community areas with jobs. This is a tangible success in our struggle to end the conditions of despair and hopelessness which are the breeding grounds for terrorism.

Earlier in this Congress, and also in the 108th Congress, the House passed my legislation (H.R. 2601 and H.R. 1208 respectively) reauthorizing the program at more than $20 million and urging the Fund to shift its focus from primarily economic programs to those that have a greater emphasis on peace and reconciliation.

I am pleased to say, the Fund has responded. This year they released a Strategic Framework of Action 2006-2010 which strongly emphasizes cross community and reconciliation programs. The strategic plan also puts in place an exit strategy in which the Fund will wind down its reliance on international support. With this strategic plan in place, we cannot falter on our commitment. We are near to lasting peace in Ireland, but this is no time to falter in our efforts or rest on our laurels.

Much remains to be done as Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahem has said, ``The next five years will be vital to ensure a lasting legacy for the Fund and for 25 years of international engagement with the peace process. . . . Once again the United States has demonstrated the importance of its relationship with Ireland and of our efforts to bring the peace process to a conclusion.'' Among the most important work it is doing now, in response to urgent requests from this Congress, are programs that enhance relations between the police and the communities they serve and promote human rights training for police. Without our continued funding, it will be near impossible for the IFI to do this vital work for lasting peace and finish the work it has begun.

As IFI Chairman Rooney has stated, ``(The Appropriation Committee's) recommendation is a real vote of confidence in the young people and communities which benefit from the programs of the IFI. These programs address the root causes of conflict in our society: economic and social disadvantage, sectarianism and marginalisation. With a contribution of this level (i.e., $10.8 million) we can continue to target the areas of greatest need and ensure the goals we set ourselves. . . . The goodwill and support of the American people will be critical to our efforts. I would like to thank the many friends of Ireland in Congress for their continued generosity.''

Now is not the time for the United States to pull the plug on our support for this successful peace and reconciliation program; such a move would have a dramatic impact on programs that emphasize reconciliation among school children and young adults. The IFI has developed its own exist strategy enabling a thoughtful transition to self-reliant cross-community and social advancement. It is a good strategy and one that deserves our support until the end.