For the relief of Candelaria P. Roxas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's commitment and passion, and I certainly share her commitment about the need to do something about HIV/AIDS. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment does include an emergency designation and, as such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have looked at this amendment and I think the gentleman has made some very good points. It does not change in any substantive way the bill, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who is a member of the Task Force on Drugs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and also an individual who has spent a great deal of time in Central America and Latin America studying this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think this is the wrong time to send the signal to the world that the United States Congress does not fully support President Bush in his fight against terrorism and narcotics in this hemisphere. I believe that the current mix of the ``hard side'' versus the ``soft side'' of programs in Colombia has been vital to our success. The aerial spraying eradication program enjoys strong public support in Colombia. Part of the support is due to the fact that we are offering alternatives to farmers who used to cultivate coca and poppy. Illicit cultivation is not now their only option.

The soft-side programs promoting alternatives is even more effective in Colombia due to the realization if they do not stop cultivation and take advantage of legal opportunities, their coca or poppy will be sprayed and they will not have anything available to them. The carrot- and-stick incentive structure has proven to be very effective in Colombia. I think we have gotten the mix right.

The political will of the Uribe government is part of the reason for our success. However, Colombia has provided more than just political will. In the last 3 years, it has doubled its portion of the GDP that is devoted to public security and democracy. The narco-terrorists they face are smart, well financed, and ruthless. Therefore, both the government of Colombia and the United States must keep up the pressure to end narco-terrorism in Colombia.

Our government has been a strong supporter of Colombia, and President Bush has confirmed to President Uribe our firm commitment to support Colombia in its efforts to combat narco-terrorism. Secretary Rice has also confirmed this commitment during a recent visit to Colombia.

We need to consolidate the many successes of Plan Colombia. There has been almost a 33 percent reduction in coca cultivation in Colombia since 2001 and a 72 percent drop in poppy cultivation. We need to ensure that this trend continues.

Our goals in Colombia are to eliminate narco-terrorism, promote respect for human rights, create economic alternatives and opportunities, respect for the rule of law, and achieving peace. Democracy is flourishing in this important ally and terrorism is being defeated. We cannot afford to lose the momentum.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise to say that I think that the issue that has been raised by the gentleman from California is a very important one, and we do accept this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just say simply that the program is certainly a worthwhile one and we have no problem with it. We simply did not earmark specific dollars from this account for it. This would suggest that certain dollars are to be spent, and we do support what is being done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 70, line 19 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, though I am not in opposition, I will claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say the bill that we do have does provide that not less than $27 million of the funds appropriated under this section should be allocated for the Human Rights and the Democracy Fund. What the gentleman has been talking about I think is a very worthwhile program. The addition of the additional funds to that I think is worthwhile. For that reason, we would accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 132, line 13, 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 rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment that would cut off assistance for U.S. programs in Mexico, and let us make it clear that Mexico is the country we are talking about today, no other.

The amendment is based on the wrong assumption that U.S. foreign assistance to Mexico is only in Mexico's national interests. I am here to say that the funding in this amendment prohibits the United States' national interest, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

President Bush and his Office of National Drug Control Policy are fully supportive of the assistance we provide in this bill for the country of Mexico. The bulk of that assistance takes the form of international narcotics and law enforcement, roughly around $40 million. There is another $11 million in ESF funds that support democracy and the rule-of-law programs. Around $22 million supports child survival and development programs. All of these resources are central to the U.S. national interest.

This amendment could directly cut off $40 million in resources that are essential for our counternarcotics assistance, law enforcement assistance, and border securities. We do not, in other words, with this amendment, gain any kind of leverage over the country of Mexico.

I highlight the fact that this assistance is more for us than Mexico because the objective of this assistance is to increase U.S. national and border security, something I am acutely aware of, living along the border. Cutting off these funds would be very shortsighted and would serve to hurt U.S. interests, not the interests of Mexico.

For decades, the U.S.-Mexico relationship was one of acrimony, distrust, and a lack of good working relationship to meet the challenges of the enormous border relationship between our two countries.

Only with the passage of NAFTA, 10 years ago, were we able to write a new chapter in U.S.-Mexico relations. We started down a path of deeper cooperation in order to spur development in Mexico, secure our shared borders, and fight the flow of illegal drugs across our territories.

Passage of this amendment could have a devastating impact on that effort to stop the flow of drugs.

I would point out that Mexico has offered tremendous cooperation in improving border security and counterterrorism efforts. Let me cite just a couple of things. During the threat to aviation security at the end of 2003, Mexico worked closely with the U.S. Government canceling some flights, Air Mexico flights to Los Angeles and stepping up passenger screening. They stopped those flights in direct response to our request. At the commencement of the war in Iraq, the Government of Mexico implemented a plan and its military assumed a higher state of alert for potential targets of international terrorism, including key infrastructure sites and centers of tourism. Third, multilaterally, Mexico is party to all 12 United States conventions and protocols against terrorism and has hosted several conferences on security.

I believe this amendment would undermine the spirit of cooperation and the degree of cooperation that we have achieved, and I do not think this amendment reflects the priorities of the national interest of the United States. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I would just briefly close by citing just a few statistics on extraditions. I have had the privilege over the last 10 years now of serving as chairman of the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary meeting. I can remember when I first started attending 20 years ago, extradition was the issue that we are always talking about. We do not talk about that very much anymore, and the reason is very simple.

The first 14 years of the Extradition Treaty with Mexico, from 1980 to 1994, a total of 14 years, Mexico extradited eight, a total of eight fugitives to the United States. Between 1996 and 2000, Mexico extradited an annual average of 13 fugitives each year to the United States.

Mexico has extradited more fugitives every year between 1996 and 2000 than in the first 15 years of the Bilateral Extradition Treaty combined. In 2004 they extradited a record 34 fugitives to the U.S., up from the record numbers of 17 in 2001, a record number of 25 in 2002, and 31 in 2003. These include 19 Mexican nationals and 17 narcotics defendants.

So I think there is no question that Mexico is doing what they can do. Can there be more done? Can they do better? Do we have areas of disagreement? Yes, we do, and one of these issues is the matter of the length of term for which a person may be sentenced to prison. We are working with them on that.

But I would urge my colleagues that this amendment is certainly not going to help us get a cooperative attitude with Mexico if it were to pass. I urge its defeat.

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

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

This is another one of those amendments that is difficult to speak against, I suppose, because we all have our problems with the record in Saudi Arabia. But it is also one that when we look at it in the cold light, I think we recognize that it does not do what it says it is going to do, it is symbolic, and the symbolism comes down on the wrong side.

In the past there have been elements, certainly, of the Saudi Government that have not been helpful to the United States in its Global War on Terrorism but, in the past few years, the Government of Saudi Arabia has greatly increased its efforts to root out terrorism and has increased its cooperation with the United States Government.

Now, this bill provides a really very small sum of $25,000 to the International Military Education and Training program, or IMET, to help train and increase military contracts with the Saudi military. Some would say, what could you possibly do for $25,000, and why do we not charge the Saudi Government for this training? In fact, that is exactly what we do. By providing this sum of $25,000, about the cost of training one officer, we allow them access to the program, and this results in Saudi Arabia spending approximately $13 million of its own funds on an annual basis to train over 400 students at U.S. military schools. This training exposes Saudi officers to U.S. military doctrines, training regimes, systems and, most importantly, to U.S. values.

With the Global War on Terrorism, now is not the time to turn our backs on those who have albeit belatedly, turned to us for assistance and cooperation. We need all the friends and the allies that we can get in this fight against terrorism. There is no question that the Saudi Arabian government has been remiss in the past in its commitments to combating terrorism, but that is changing and, above all, we need to be encouraging the change, not discouraging it, which is precisely, of course, what this amendment would do.

So let us not drive a wedge between the United States and the Arab regimes that are cooperating with us on the War on Terrorism. I urge that we defeat this amendment.

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

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

I just want to try to reiterate one argument and add a point on another argument that has just been made by the gentleman from the other side. First, on the issue of the funding, the financing of this program, I hope that the comments that I made have dispensed with that. For $25,000, in other words, the country has access to the program, they become a part of the IMET program, we get a $13 million payment from the country. So it is not as though we are giving money to the country of Saudi Arabia. It is a legal process that they have to do to access the program; and to do that we have to provide training for one officer, then they are able to provide training for the hundreds of other officers that come to the United States, and they pay fully for them.

And that money is here in the United States and stays here in the United States where these people are being trained. So I think that is a pretty good rate of return on the investment, $25,000 getting you $13 million. The foreign aid argument is untrue. It has nothing to do with whether Saudi Arabia is a rich country or not. It has to do with whether or not these countries should be getting any kind of training. And I think the kind of training that we give in the IMET program is exactly the kind of training we ought to be giving to military officers of other countries including Saudi Arabia.

And on the last point, the gentleman from New York made the suggestion that these people from Saudi, he said, where are they going. We know where they are going. They are going to Iraq and blowing up our troops. The implication that somehow the Saudi Government is involved in an official way in blowing up our troops in Iraq is an absolutely outrageous statement and has no basis in fact whatsoever. And so I would reject this statement.

And I think on this basis alone this amendment ought to be defeated because we should not be saying to the Saudi Government that we believe that somehow you are involved in blowing up troops in Iraq.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the statement is made. The gentleman from New York has just confirmed what I thought. The statement is that the Saudi Government is officially involved in helping to kill American troops in Iraq. And I think that statement is an absolute outrage, and I do not think there is any basis of fact whatever for that.

I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It does not belong here. We should not do it. We should not be sending this kind of signal. I urge defeat of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not have any comments. I would make a point of order, though, if the gentleman is not prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As he said, this amendment would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from supporting the sale of nuclear power plant and technology in China.

It was 6 years ago in 1998 during the Clinton administration that the U.S. lifted the ban on the export of civilian nuclear power plants and fuel to China. After we became satisfied that China had met the conditions of the 1985 U.S.-China agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation.

Last September the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce expressed their support for increasing trade with China in nuclear energy technology and for the export of U.S. civilian nuclear power plants. In February of this year the Ex-Im Board of Directors approved a preliminary commitment of $5 million from Westinghouse Electric Company to enable it to make a bid on the design and construction of four 1,000 megawatt commercial power reactors on two sites in China.

These reactors will be the first in a series of 26 new commercial power plants planned for construction through the year 2020. So we are looking at a very large possible export in business for United States businesses. We are in heavy competition. Westinghouse is in heavy competition with companies from France and from Russia to provide the same or similar kind of technology. This order would create or sustain, according to Westinghouse, about 5,000 jobs; 5,000 jobs in the United States at Westinghouse and its American suppliers.

Because I have heard the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on the floor railing against outsourcing and the China trade deficit, I thought, here is an opportunity for us to do something about that, to create jobs here at home for us to make sure that we are selling things to China. But this amendment of course would make it impossible for Westinghouse conduct this business while, other countries would get the kind of commitments that they need from the government to protect those kind of investments. We, the U.S. Government, would not be doing so for Westinghouse.

There can be no question about it. Prohibiting the Export-Import Bank from supporting this and future transactions is going to have a tremendously negative impact on U.S. exporters and U.S. employment. And it is going to send a signal to businesses that they better not be doing business in China. Nothing could be worse for us.

I strongly urge us to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close. I am the only other speaker at the moment that is here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will not take that much time to close this debate.

The gentleman from Vermont talked about outsourcing jobs and jobs being moved to other countries in order for them to get this business. The exact opposite is the case here.

If we do not support this kind of business, it is a legitimate thing for a government, I think, to have an export-import kind of relationship. Virtually every major country in the world does that. It is a way of saying, without putting at risk the taxpayers' dollars, and so far Ex-Im Bank has never cost the taxpayers' dollars, any real money in terms of lost loans that we have had to pay for as taxpayers, it is a way of us making sure that we get jobs here in the United States, of keeping businesses here in the United States, and that is exactly what this would do: high-paying technology jobs, high-paying engineering jobs, high paying work, design work that would be done by engineers and others to support the construction of nuclear power plants in China, a very large project.

What we are talking about here today is only the tip of the iceberg. We are talking about building a large number of these plants over many years. No doubt whoever wins the initial contract, it will be like doing cookie cutters after that. They will get the rest of them. So I think we are talking about something much, much larger than is shown here today.

It is for that reason that the State Department has strongly opposed this amendment, because they believe that it affects jobs that will result, and Westinghouse has said about the loss of 5,000 jobs if they are not able to get this contract. We think we have the technology to get it. We think we can get this contract, and we expect that we will win those jobs as a result of that.

I think it is ironic that even at a moment when my colleagues are talking about the weak economy or they are talking about the fact that we are losing jobs overseas because of the trade deficit that they want to create a larger trade deficit. They want to stop jobs from being created here at home. They want to stop American companies from exporting this kind of technology, all of which has been decided that it is safe and politically safe as well as technologically safe. They want us to stop us from exporting these kinds of jobs.

The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that one of the reasons we want to do this, we should be so anxious that China increases its reliance on nuclear power, is that if they fail to do that, they are going to have to continue to use more and more fossil fuels, particularly petroleum; and we know it already is occurring. Virtually all of the incremental production in the world is being consumed by China which has a rapidly growing economy, and that is what is helping to drive up the price of oil in the world to the sky-rocketing, the sky-high levels that it is today.

If we are not able to help with this kind of technology, China would perhaps have to go back to other kinds of fossil fuel-using plants. Not only does it have environmental degradation, but it obviously has enormous impact on the economy of the rest of the world.

For all of those reasons, this is a very bad amendment, ill designed, ill directed, and ill timed; and I urge its defeat.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we just dealt with another amendment that, in a similar way, tried to criticize at the country of Mexico for the problems that we have with extradition, and during that debate, I think I outlined what I think has been the rather substantial improvement in the cooperation that we have had with Mexico on this issue.

During the first 14 years of the extradition treaty with Mexico, from 1980 to 1994, Mexico extradited, a total of eight fugitives to the United States. In the next 4 years, they extradited an average each year of 13. But in the last 4 years, in 2001 they indicted 17; in 2002, 25; in 2003, 31; and in 2004, they extradited a record of 34 fugitives to the United States. So I think there is little doubt that we have great cooperation.

The problem I have with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia is it is not at all clear to whom this applies. I asked the gentleman, and he is not sure. We have asked the Department of State, and they are not sure. I know what his intention is and the country he is trying to effect, but we do not know it does not apply to other countries. There may well be other countries that it applies to.

I cannot say, for example, with certainty that this would not require us to cut off all of our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. I am not sure it would not have some impact on a country like that. It could have an impact in Afghanistan. I do not know. Nobody seems to know for sure what the impact of this might be.

So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, and until we have a much clearer idea of how this would impact, I would urge that we not adopt this amendment and that it be defeated.

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

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

Let me just note that we have just been advised by the State Department that this would affect Colombia. Of course, as the gentleman said, it does not affect the international narcotics control and law enforcement account, which is one of the big sums of money that goes to Colombia, but this would affect foreign military financing, FMF, for Colombia. It would cut off the money for IMET, the International Military Education Training programs. And it would affect the anti- terrorism programs that come under the NADR category. So it would have an enormous impact on our efforts in Colombia.

I think for that reason, I would certainly hope that this body would not accept this amendment, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose the amendment. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I would be prepared to accept this amendment, however, I think it is extremely important that we make it clear that we want to express that our congressional intent with this amendment is that this prohibition not extend to medical equipment or excess property that is used for humanitarian purposes.

I do not believe that is what the gentlewoman is intending to do. I know what she is trying to get at, but I think it is very important we make it very clear in our intent here that we are not trying to prevent the transfer of medical equipment and other kinds of property that would be used for humanitarian purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and, again with the understanding that we are all in agreement that the intent of this prohibition is not to extend to medical equipment or other excess property used for humanitarian purposes, I accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I will not be in opposition to the amendment for the purpose of this discussion, and I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I thank him for his remarks. As the gentleman suggested, this is a very emotional issue which cuts deeply with a number of American families that have adoptions pending in Romania.

The development assistance accounts in our bill accounts for roughly $20 million for Romania. I want to make it very clear it is not my intent to limit assistance to Romania for the entire year. The assistance we provide is very important for local police forces, for HIV/AIDS prevention, and for fighting human trafficking, very much the kind of thing that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) would want us to fight against. It helps fight corruption and money laundering and builds an independent media.

I have been working with the Romanian Government to address this issue, but I know not a great deal has been accomplished in this regard. I think by adopting this amendment this evening, we are impressing both on the State Department and I hope the Romania government, which I hope will get this message, how important it is to continue to work toward a solution. This does send a very strong signal to the Romanian Government. I am pleased to accept the amendment, but I do expect to work with the ranking member and the gentleman to work and revisit this issue in conference with the Senate and to find a solution that will not involve cutting off aid to Romania.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment proposes to state a legislative position.

Mr. Chairman, for that reason I would insist on the point of order.

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

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

I do not intend to oppose the amendment, but simply to say that I am willing to accept this amendment at this time and will revisit this and consider this, of course, in the conference.

But I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this issue to our attention, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, but before I do so, let me say to the gentleman that I fully concur with what he is attempting to do here. I have been to Darfur. I went with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), and we have seen some of the terrible things going on there. There is no question about it. We need to do everything we can to stop this. And I believe that our legislation does do a lot of that. For one thing, we have $69 million in the legislation for the assistance to Darfur for humanitarian assistance as well as other moneys to implement the peace accords in the south.

But, Mr. Chairman, this is a very broad amendment, and for that reason I must make a point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

That rule states in pertinent part that:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, modifies existing powers and duties.'' This does that, and for that reason it would not be in order.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose it.

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

Let me just say that I think the gentleman's amendment is one that we can accept. The administration has requested $1 million to pay for an Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Export-Import Bank in addition to the $73 million that they have for regular administrative expenses.

For the past few years, the committee has not recommended separate funding for an Inspector General because we felt the bank was small. It only had 400 employees. The bank uses a private accounting firm to audit its books so a main function of the proposed IG is already being met.

Nonetheless, I understand the frustration that the gentleman from Texas has shown here this evening and has expressed. The bank should be responsive to the needs of U.S. exporters; so I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

I do want to say, however, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Texas that I am concerned about what might be the unintended side consequences of this amendment. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is not able to control the nomination and confirmation process of the Inspector General, as we know. That comes from the White House, the President; so they cannot have any control over that. And without doubt it would penalize U.S. exporters and the bank itself if there were a delay through no fault at the bank in nominating and confirming the Inspector General.

So I intend to work in conference to ensure that the bank is not unintentionally harmed with respect to the support that it gives to U.S. exporters, and I am sure that that would be the intention of the gentleman from Texas as well.

I urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to cut military aid to Colombia by $100 million.

For the past several years, we have debated Colombia policy here in the House. We are always being told that things are getting better; but they are not getting better, Mr. Chairman.

This policy has failed as an antidrug policy. It has failed as a human rights policy, and it has failed to have any impact whatsoever in reducing the availability, price or purity of drugs in the streets of America. In fact, illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago. And yet we will hear again today from supporters of Plan Colombia that everything is just rosy in Colombia, that we are winning the drug war, and respect for human rights is flourishing. Not true, Mr. Chairman.

It makes no difference whether you are looking at the United Nations numbers, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy numbers, the Colombian National Police, or the CIA's. It all adds up to the same picture. Compared to where we were in 1999, right before the start of Plan Colombia, coca cultivation in Colombia has declined by only 7 percent and in the Andean region by only 9 percent. And the growing of coca did not decrease at all in the year 2004.

On top of that, the U.N. and the Colombian National Police agree that opium growing in Colombia did not decrease at all in 2004.

You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make something good out of these numbers. You do that by deliberately ignoring where we were 6 years ago before Plan Colombia and picking and choosing bits and pieces of statistics, like starting your comparisons in 2003. Well, that only works because you ignore the huge increases in coca production in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

But, ultimately, the most damning numbers come from our own Department of Justice, which states that cocaine remains readily available on the streets of America, with wholesale and retail prices for cocaine and heroin at an all-time low and purity at or near historic highs.

Congress was told that we had to support Plan Colombia. We had to pour billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars into the Colombian military to stop the surge of drugs in America.

Well, what a waste of money it has been. Six years ago, the Rand Corporation told us that every dollar we spent trying to wipe out coca in remote areas of Colombia would be 23 times more effective if we spent it right here at home on drug treatment, prevention, and education and on local law enforcement.

But Congress chose to ignore that good advice; and here we are, 6 years and $4 billion later. Now, we may have thought our policy was tough on drugs, but it sure was not very smart.

So how about human rights? Is Colombia's human rights situation any better today? Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world to be a trade union leader. It is the second most dangerous place to be a religious pastor or lay leader.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees calls the issue of Colombia's internally displaced a great humanitarian crisis second only to Sudan. Death threats against human rights defenders have increased significantly over the past 18 months.

Abuses by the Colombian military are on the rise and the armed forces commit crimes with impunity, with no high-level Colombian military officer ever having been successfully prosecuted for human rights crimes.

Even our own State Department has not been able to certify any human rights progress in Colombia since March because the situation is so untenable. But has Colombia tried to improve their human rights situation at all so that the State Department could have something, anything that will allow it to certify? Not at all.

But so much pressure from the Pentagon and the Colombian Government and even from some members of Congress is building on the State Department to go ahead and certify anyway that I hear that the State Department is likely to certify right after this Congress breaks for the Fourth of July recess.

But the most galling thing of all is this: while U.S. taxpayers have sent over $4 billion of their hard-earned money to Colombia over the past 6 years, the wealthy elites of Colombia have hardly contributed a dime. Out of a population of 42 million people, only 740,000 Colombians pay any income tax at all, and even that is a pitiful amount. So Colombians are not paying to fight their own war, and they are not paying to improve the conditions that keep so many of their own people in poverty.

It is time that this House stood up and decided to stop sending a blank check to Colombia, year after year. It is time that we demand real progress on human rights as a condition to our aid. It is time that we stop being a cheap date.

We are not walking away from Colombia. We are just sending a long overdue message that it is time to take a cold hard look at our current course and change it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman I have been to Colombia several times and have gone well beyond the areas that the embassy has recommended me to go, and I assure the gentleman things are quite bad.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke. Maybe he has not been reading the newspapers but the Colombian government just passed an amnesty law that gives narco-traffickers and the paramilitaries and people who have been guilty of crimes against humanity a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is one of the reasons why I am here today expressing my outrage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman. I believe we need a balanced policy. And some of us tried in the Committee on International Relations and in the Committee on Appropriations to make some modest changes in support of increased alternative development aid, but we were shut down on even those modest changes. Maybe the gentleman did not listen to my statistics.

Also, we have a critique of the letter of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that he sent to Members of Congress, and I think the gentleman would be interested to know that some of the figures that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has cited we believe are totally inaccurate.

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

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

Let me just respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, if I can, by saying, if the Colombian people support this policy so much, then why is it that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million people? That is a fact. That was stated in the Council on Foreign Relations report that came out last year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts. The facts are that illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago when we began Plan Colombia. The facts are that the elites in Colombia want us to bankroll this war. It remains an embarrassing fact that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million. They are relying on us to bankroll this war.

Mr. Chairman, the other fact is that widespread impunity for human rights abusers is getting worse. It has been widely publicized in our newspapers about the new law that the Colombian Government has passed to grant immunity and to grant amnesty, for the most part, to individuals in the paramilitaries who are guilty of crimes again humanity, many of them involved in the drug trade, and they are doing that right before our eyes.

The facts are that the human rights situation is so bad that our own State Department has yet to certify human rights progress in Colombia. We are being drawn into a quagmire. The legal limit on the number of military and contractor personnel had to be increased in 2004 from 400 to 800 military, from 400 to 600 contractors.

Let us try to solve the problem of drug abuse, not just throw money at failing strategies. We need to invest in drug treatment and prevention here at home and in the Andes, in alternative development programs to help small farmers transition permanently from growing illicit drugs. But this policy has failed.

Mr. Chairman, the question was raised before what are we for. I include for the Record a statement of what we are for.

Rethinking Plan Colombia

Low-cost: use U.S. leverage far more vigorously in support

of human rights and the rule of law; support the

recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights for Colombia; insist upon the complete

dismantlement of paramilitary forces and structures, within

an effective legal framework for justice, truth, and

reparations; make trade consistent with sustainable drug

policy and human rights; encourage negotiations with the

guerrillas for a just and lasting peace; encourage Colombia's

elite to use more of its own resources to improve governance.

Fund by reducing security assistance: support a strong

judiciary and an independent

human rights sector; expand alternative development within a

comprehensive rural development strategy, and end aerial

spraying; encourage the strengthening of civilian governance

in rural areas, including local peace-building initiatives;

increase and improve humanitarian assistance, and expand

protection, to displaced persons and refugees; reduce U.S.

demand for drugs through evidence-based prevention strategies

and improved access to high-quality treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, if this policy is succeeding, why does cocaine remain readily available on U.S. streets at lower prices than ever, and the levels of use are stable if not rising? There is increased availability.

If this policy is such a success, why are there increased abuses by the army? Why are trade union murders on the rise? Murders of trade union leaders increased in 2004 over 2003.

Let us look at the facts here. The bottom line is that this policy has not succeeded. It is time for us to take a fresh look at it and to change course.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not cripple our military support for Colombia. Currently, there is $332 million in the Andean Counterdrug Initiative for Colombia.

This amendment reduces that amount by $100 million. There is an additional $152 million for alternative development, human rights, and rule of law programs for Colombia in the ACI. We are not touching that money. There is another $90 million in military aid for Colombia in the FMF account in this bill. We are not touching that money. In the defense appropriations bill that we passed just a few weeks ago, there was another $165 million in military aid for Colombia.

And should this amendment prevail, I will be happy to work with the chairman, a gentleman I greatly admire, and the distinguished ranking member to ensure that the intent of this amendment is made clear in the final foreign operations conference report.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard some talk today about the new law passed in Colombia last week to demobilize the paramilitary forces. Maybe we should call the law up here what they are calling it in Colombia: the Impunity and Immunity law. It fails to establish any mechanisms that will ensure the dismantling of the paramilitaries' organizational structures or financial structures. Commanders who are major narco- traffickers and have committed crimes against humanity will get off with very limited, if any, sentences, probably spent under house arrest at their local hacienda, profits in hand.

Mr. Chairman, 6 years, over $4 billion. We are paying for Colombia's war. As I pointed out over and over in this debate, there are 42 million people who live in Colombia. Only 720,000 of them actually pay taxes. We are bankrolling this war. Maybe the elites in Colombia should put up some of their own money.

We need to send a strong message: We are not Colombia's piggy-bank. We cannot just keep writing blank checks. This policy has failed. It has failed. The availability of cocaine on the streets of the United States of America has never been more plentiful. The price has never been lower. This policy has not made a difference to any of the people in this country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment. Enough is enough.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I wish to be heard on the point of order.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on the issue. I am pleased that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I were able to double the President's request for the Global Fund in the bill from $200 million to $400 million, and, as the gentlewoman probably knows, given the allocation, it was simply the best we could do.

However, I understand the urgency of the situation, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman as we move the bill forward to continue to

meet our responsibilities, and then some, because of the tremendous, tremendous impact of HIV/AIDS in every part of this world.

Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order, I ask for clarification as to which of the two amendments the gentleman is offering to the House.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I withdraw my reservation, because I understand from the chairman that this does not have any substantive changes being made in the bill. But I certainly think that the content of the gentleman's amendment deserves greater discussion at another time. The chairman and I were also in Botswana, we were also in South Africa, we were in Tanzania as well, and there is progress being made in some parts of the country, and some not. It is a tremendous challenge, but I think

it is simplistic to say that only one area deserves further funding, and that the ABC approach may not be as successful as one may think.

So I think we need to discuss this further, and I would like to enter into dialogue with the gentleman at another time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on the bill. And I hope the gentleman will work, certainly, with the chairman and myself and many of us who would support increased funding to address the critical issues that the gentleman mentions.

However, within this allocation, the gentleman knows it was very difficult; and I feel very strongly that in terms of our international policies, nothing is more important than expanding our support in the country for all the important initiatives included in this bill and increasing the dollars that we can spend on them.

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

I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I certainly agree with his intent, which is to minimize United States investment in failed counternarcotics programs.

For far too long, we have supported policies and funded programs in Colombia that simply do not work. Our counternarcotics programs in Colombia have long been an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

The data we have from the National Drug Intelligence Center at the Department of Justice with respect to the success of this program is negative. It shows that the program has not decreased the amount of cocaine coming into the United States. In fact, the quantity of cocaine on our streets is increasing, and the price is decreasing, making it all the more affordable and attractive to our youth.

The billions that we have put into Plan Colombia have not been effective in substantially decreasing the amount of coca being grown in Colombia either. After spending over $4 billion and spending nearly 6 years, have we even cut coca production in half? No. We have decreased by less than 7 percent the number of hectares of coca in Colombia.

It is becoming even more difficult and costly to eliminate each hectare of coca. The U.N., whose own surveys found a small decrease in Colombian coca in 2004, found that for every acre of coca reduced in 2004, 22.8 acres of coca had to be sprayed. This ratio has never been so high.

U.N. statistics indicate that the overall amount of coca grown in the Andes increased by 3 percent last year, led by substantial increases in Bolivia, 17 percent; Peru, 14 percent.

Finally, the failure of this program to solve the problem of coca production is all the more compounded by the heavy toll it imposes on the rural communities in Colombia that are already suffering from armed conflict. Continuing to fund it at such a high level is simply bad policy.

I am troubled by the fact that this amendment cuts $100 million from the foreign operations bill without adding it back for one of the many programs that could use it. The allocation with which the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I had to contend is already $2.5 billion short of the President's request; and with the increased needs we face around the world, to combat the HIV/AIDS virus and other diseases, fight hunger, improve child health and education, and promote peace and security in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe, I am concerned that this amendment further reduces our funding in the bill.

Again, I support the gentleman for raising these important issues, and I thank him for all the time he has spent really understanding the issue, working on the issue and trying to stress how useless this funding really is in making a dent in the coca operation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

And I want to thank the gentleman for raising this issue today. I strongly support continued funding for programs to secure and destroy small arms and light weapons around the world, and I join my chairman in delightfully accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Strengthening democracy and promoting human rights are at the heart of our national security strategy. The President has made these ideals central components of U.S. foreign policy.

The State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund focuses on the countries and regions of greatest strategic interest to the United States, supporting those who seek to bolster human rights and promote democracy in key areas of the world.

Unfortunately, the administration's request cut funding by $9 million below FY 2005 levels. This was in part because the administration requested increased funding for democracy programs through the National Endowment for Democracy in the Science-State-Justice-Commerce bill. However, the House did not grant the requested increases for NED; and, in fact, the SSJC appropriations bill cut funding for NED below the FY 2005 enacted levels.

I therefore am very pleased that the chairman will accept the gentleman's amendment so that we may ensure sufficient funding for democracy programs in the FY 2006 bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the comments of the chairman. I think that this amendment would be detrimental to the national security, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weiner amendment. This provision was included in the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations bill, and I believe it should be included again.

This is a common sense amendment. It sends a message to Saudi Arabia that the United States is serious about reform.

We impatiently await Saudi Government efforts to eliminate anti- Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda from its state-controlled media. We are looking for democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, including reforms that would allow the women of that country a voice in shaping their country.

We still have not seen Saudi Arabia disavow its propaganda campaign against Christians and Jews, a campaign that is alive and well here in our very own country, as Saudi-exported materials inciting hatred and prejudice are made available at Saudi-supported American mosques.

In short, it is all carrot these days and too little sticks. The Weiner amendment provides some incentive for change in Saudi Arabia. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues from California, the cochairs of the Haiti task force, for their important work on this issue. So many of us continue to look at the horrors that are occurring every day, and instead of being minimized, they seem to increase in intensity. In talking to friends who have been there recently, each day the violence gets more grim, and it affects the average person who just wants to go about their business living normally. That is impossible.

So I am very pleased that the chairman is accepting this amendment, and I hope that we can work closely with the Haiti task force to see if we can come up with some kind of positive recommendations that can have an impact on the lives of people.

So I thank my colleagues for introducing this amendment and I look forward to working closely with them so that perhaps the average family can look forward to a decent life one day soon.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for clarifying the amendment. We understand the important purposes of our

aid to Romania, and I hope we can really make a change in the adoption policy. I look forward to working with the chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for spending some time to discuss the genocide that is currently occurring in Darfur. He and I understand that the administration does currently have the authorization to take steps, and with his help and with the help of the Chair, I hope we can continue to keep this issue on the tops of our agenda so that the world does not actually watch what is going on without taking all appropriate action, and I want to thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to first start by thanking the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and our ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their hard work on this bill and for making sure that it is a bipartisan bill. I also thank them for their very difficult work in establishing the priorities in terms of our foreign policy funding priorities. I know that every year they are given, I believe, an inadequate allocation and that they both wish that they could do more to meet our foreign assistance priorities.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to come to the floor today and offer this amendment because every year the global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria pandemics kill over 6 million people combined. Just imagine that, over 6 million every year. That is more than the number of people who die from war, famine, terrorism or natural disasters each year combined. That is really quite mind-boggling. What is worse, each of these three diseases is completely, completely preventible and treatable; and in the case of tuberculosis and malaria, they can be completely cured.

So while we have begun to focus our efforts and funding with regard to this pandemic, I believe that we cannot afford to drag our feet and just let 6 million people die like this year after year. When do we draw the line and say enough is enough and we are going to escalate our efforts and put more resources into this pandemic?

We cannot in good conscience, Mr. Chairman, ignore this human tragedy that unfolds around us each and every day. We must act, and we must act in a bold fashion.

That is why today I am offering an amendment to add $600 million in emergency funding to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, adding to the $400 million already in the bill, and bringing our total contribution to $1 billion.

Unfortunately, last week $100 million was actually cut from the Global Fund in the Labor-HHS bill by this body. The Global Fund is one of the most powerful tools that we have as an international community to combat these three diseases. In fact, we created the framework for the Global Fund back in 2000 with the passage of the Global Aids and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, which was signed into law by President Clinton.

And we provided the very first contribution in 2001 to help attract further financing from other donor nations.

Today, the Global Fund is a model for what the future of international development may look like. Designed strictly as a financing instrument, the Global Fund seeks to attract, manage, leverage, and disburse funding to support locally-driven strategies to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. To date, the Global Fund has approved $3.4 billion for over 300 grants in 127 countries.

However, this year the Global Fund faces one of its biggest challenges: renewing over the $1.8 billion in existing grant agreements and approving upwards of $1 billion in new contracts, and this is still not enough. With the renewing of these contracts, there is just not enough money.

Without increased support from the United States and other donor nations, the fund may be forced to cut back on funding new grants and, worse, may be forced to cut crucial funding for people already on anti- retroviral therapy. Mr. Chairman, that would quite frankly just be totally disastrous.

Around the world, momentum is building in support of increased funding for the Global Fund and other international development initiatives. Two weeks ago, France announced it that would double its Global Fund contribution through 2007. Last week, Japan pledged $5 billion in new funding to help Africa combat AIDS, TB, and malaria, with a sizable contribution going to the Global Fund. And, with the upcoming G-8 summit taking place in Scotland next week, and with the British Prime Minister's focus on a huge new development initiative for Africa, the United States can and must do more. By providing $600 million in emergency funding, my amendment would take that first step.

Mr. Chairman, because my amendment is an emergency spending request, it will exceed the foreign operations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and, therefore, I know that that is subject to a point of order. But I would hope that given the gravity of the pandemic, that my colleagues would consider this as a moral effort, strictly a moral effort to those who desperately need our help. Given the magnitude of the deaths and the pain and the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, and the devastation that these diseases leave behind, I would ask the Chair to reject the point of order.

Point of Order

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

The goal of the Lee-Conyers-Kilpatrick-Waters amendment is to limit the transfer of free guns and other defense articles to the Government of Haiti which have been used to wreak havoc on the Haitian people. Many in the general public and here in Congress have been under the misconception that there is an arms embargo to Haiti. However, since 2004, close to 3,000 weapons have been transferred to Haiti from the United States and, in all probability, have gone to arm the Haitian National Police force.

This amendment requires a limitation on all transfers of excess property to the Government of Haiti because they are using excess arms and ammunition from the United States to arm criminals in the Haitian National Police force. This amendment specifically would prohibit all arms transfers by the State Department in accordance with all relevant sections of current law.

This limitation is critical, Mr. Chairman, because the people of Haiti are not safe, and they remain targets of political violence, torture, and, in many cases, murder. Unfortunately, too often the perpetrators of this violence are the Haitian National Police. There have been numerous reports in the news and firsthand accounts of human rights' and faith-based groups who have traveled to Haiti and seen the hostile environment Haitians face.

The Haitian National Police are intimidating, murdering, and executing the poor and political opposition with weapons transferred from the United States to the Government of Haiti. This is simply unacceptable. The Government of Haiti has access to weapons for police training and security and have paid for defense articles out of their own budget without our government and this Congress' free transfer of arms and ammunition.

This amendment is basically about accountability and saving Haitians' lives. The United States must not be complicit in helping to arm criminals, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Lee- Conyers-Waters-Kilpatrick Haiti arms limitation amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the co-chair of the Haiti task force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also want to thank the chairman for supporting this amendment, and I want to assure him that if we need to, in conference, make it explicit that no humanitarian assistance or excess property would be prohibited by this, we will definitely do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan for their support and their very clear statements.

Also, if there are no other requests for time, I want to, once again, thank our chairman for his support and clarify again that the point he raised is certainly a concern all of us have, and we will make sure that humanitarian types of excess property that we all care about in getting to Haiti is excluded from this provision.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is this the appropriate place in the reading for a limiting amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the more appropriate question about this amendment is not why should we restrict any funds in this bill from going to the Nation of Saudi Arabia, but why should we allow any funds from this or any other budget to be going to Saudi Arabia.

There is not much in the bill, but there is $25,000 for the Saudis, the IMET program. More importantly, that money triggers allocations in future bills that permit the Saudis to buy U.S. arms at a discounted rate.

The administration, when they were asked to justify why we would give any money to a nation that exports terror, a nation that is getting almost $60 for a barrel of crude oil, here is what they say in their State Department budget justification: ``While Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces an increasing budget pressure.''

So I guess one of the reasons we are providing aid to the Saudis is because of their budget pressures.

Frankly, we have heard a great deal over the course of years; in fact, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who has done a terrific job on this bill in many ways, has argued in the past that the Saudis are doing better, they are doing better at cracking down on crime. But on May 28 of 2005, Syria arrested 300 Saudis trying to cross the border into Iraq to join the Jihad against the United States. I would say to my colleagues in the House that if you are relying on Syria to crack down on terrorism against Saudi Arabia, you know you have trouble.

Recently, a report in The Washington Post analyzed all of the Web sites where Jihadists brag about their so-called martyrdom, places where they list those who have given their lives so that they can blow up others, including our troops. They concluded that 70 percent of the homicide bombers on Islamic extremist Web sites are Saudis. Sixty-one percent of the Arab martyrs in Iraq are Saudis. This is just in recent months, in recent times since our last bill passed.

According to Ambassador Dory Gold, in testimony before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations in July of 2003, at least 50 percent of the funding for Hamas is Saudi blood money.

We all know the history of Osama bin Laden. When he left Saudi Arabia, he did so with, by some estimates, nearly $1 billion of Saudi blood money which was subsequently used, as we know, to attack my city, and others.

The time has come for us to say once again, just as we did last year in this bill, no aid to Saudi Arabia, no aid to a country that exports Wahabisim, no aid to a country that exports terrorism, no aid to a country that has been worse than uncooperative in our efforts to control worldwide oil prices.

There is no other way to view the Saudis except as our enemies, not as our friends. Nothing, I think, was more troubling for many of us than to see the President waiting in Crawford, Texas for over an hour while the Crown Prince came and then gave a lecture to our President on the way to fight terrorism.

The way we in the House should fight terrorism is to not provide any more aid to the Saudis, and my amendment would do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a couple of things that the chairman said.

For 3 years now, I have heard the argument for continued support for the Saudis as two somewhat contradictory positions. One, it is not a lot of money; and two, they are getting better.

Well, I think it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly in this bill when we are already short-funded, to justify why it is we provide any money at all if they are not an ally. If they are not espousing U.S. American views, if they are not improving democracy, what are they doing? I will tell you what they are doing, Mr. Chairman. They are traveling to Iraq and blowing up our troops.

That is not according to me; that is according to their own bragging Web sites and The Washington Post assessment about who they are. There is a dramatic increase in the amount of violence since we offered this bill last year, not a decline. There is a dramatic increase in the exporting of Wahabiism, not a decline. And there is no sign of greater cooperation. You know, a sign of great cooperation is not hiring a very expensive lobbyist here, running TV ads, running newspaper ads. A sign of cooperation is saying we are going to start cracking down on terror, not moving it out of our country into someone else's problem.

The problem that we face here, whether it is $25,000, $25 million or $25 billion, is we articulate our values in this bill. And our values are simply not to be supportive of the Saudi Arabian Government.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

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

First of all, let me just say to the chairman and the ranking member, they have done an excellent job with a limited budget. But I think we should give them an extra $25,000 to work with by saying that we are not going to provide comfort to the Saudis, we are not going to provide aid, taxpayer aid to the Saudi Arabians.

This is not just the position of a bipartisan group here in Congress. The Council on Foreign Relations has said for years individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission said Saudi Arabia is ``a problematic ally in fighting Islamic extremism.'' Our own State Department says Hamas receives funding from ``private benefactors in Saudi Arabia.''

There is not probably an observer of the scene today that does not recognize that Saudi Arabia has done a very deft two-face game. They come here, they send us a moderate face. They have convinced, obviously, our State Department, who walks along almost in lock step with everything that they say.

We here in Congress should say we understand that we are going to start judging nations in the post-September 11 world by what they do, not by what they say. And what the Saudi Arabians have done is export Wahabiism to the United States, export terrorism to the troops in Iraq, and export terror all around the world.

Vote ``yes'' on the Weiner/Ferguson amendment. Let us finally put an end to it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that it has been the Saudi policy to export their worst troublemakers like bin Laden, like Wahabiism, so that the problem is not turned inward. That is their policy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.