Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agree with the motivations of this amendment, but I absolutely have to oppose the substance of it. The reason I do so is because I think it is going to accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent of this amendment. Proponents of this amendment are, as the gentleman suggested, upset at opposition the U.S. faced at the United Nations Security Council in getting an extension of a U.S. exemption under the jurisdiction of the ICC. We were successful for some time in getting that, but now it has failed because we have faced a public relations nightmare in the United Nations and elsewhere around the world. Do we have a right to be angry and upset and outraged that we have not gotten this extension? Yes, I think we should be; and we should continue to press for an extension. Many times this Chamber has supported the American Servicemembers Protections Act, and I have been among its strongest supporters. I believe it is crucial that the U.S. negotiate Article 98 agreements with as many countries as possible to prevent the possibility that they may be tried in an international criminal court, with little or no political accountability. However, conditioning ESF assistance and cutting it off to nations that do not sign Article 98 agreements is not, in my opinion, the right response. It is a very, very heavy hand to the problem. We have conditioned foreign assistance through FMF and IMF accounts to encourage countries to sign Article 98 agreements. The result of this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to cut off all aid to some of these countries: Jordan, at $250 million; Kenya, at $25 million; Lebanon, at $32 million; Ecuador, at $13 million; Cyprus, at $13.5 million. I believe most of us believe trying to get a Cyprus agreement is very important. I think all of us believe that Jordan is extraordinarily important in our war against terrorism. But it would cut off our ESF assistance and I think it would do extraordinary damage to our relationship with Jordan. How are we going to explain to them what we are really trying to do in getting them to cooperate in the war on terrorism? At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea. Nothing would make the opponents of the U.S. in the Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly happier than if we were to do that. They do not like us using foreign assistance to support U.S. strategic interests. So if we were to cut it off, it makes them happy on two accounts: It will have denied the U.S. the exemption in the first instance, and it will have reduced our influence around the world. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. If we accept it, the U.S. will be hamstringing itself, placing a straitjacket on its diplomatic tools, when we have a lot of U.S. national security objectives that must carry the same or equal weight as securing Article 98 agreements. I urge a ``no'' vote on this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for talking about this issue. As the gentlewoman knows, both the gentlewoman from New York and I feel very strongly about the Child Survival and Health Account and the good work that is done by this account in helping save children's lives and families and the poor people around the world. The vaccination programs, the health programs, the clinics, the education programs that are run through this are extraordinarily important. I quite agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Everything we can do to increase the amount in this account is certainly something that we intend to do. I appreciate her bringing it to our attention. We will do everything that we can to try to increase this account.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly will not take the 10 minutes. Let me just quickly make a couple of comments. I appreciate the comments that have been made here by the gentleman from Georgia, the other gentleman from Georgia, and the gentleman from Indiana here. I share the outrage that people feel about somebody who is a murderer of a law enforcement officer in this country getting away to a country like Mexico and then being able to escape justice. That should not happen. We have extradition treaties with a number of countries; and almost all of them in many cases, I should say, since most other countries prohibit death penalties, they do prohibit extradition if death is an option as a penalty. But this is a new wrinkle. This is a new wrinkle that was put in by the supreme court in Mexico, which ruled that if an individual faces life in prison without possibility of parole, that is equivalent, apparently is what the supreme court said, and I have not read the complete ruling. I am a little sympathetic to the government of Mexico, which I do not think anticipated this. They certainly did not suggest to us or to the State Department that they anticipated this ruling by the supreme court, and I think they are willing and trying to work with us to resolve that. We want to see that all crimes that are committed on our soil are brought to justice. We want to see them brought to justice particularly when it is a law enforcement officer who is the victim of this kind of terrible crime. So I intend to work with the gentleman to encourage the State Department to make every possible effort in these cases. But before I close, let me just make one other comment, that is, I think there is a danger here of mixing some apples and oranges here when we talk about this punishment of Mexico and then we talk about whether or not they are having any effect in solving the drug problem. I would point out that this bill also contains $731 million for the Andean Counter-Drug Initiative, that is, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador. Those are the countries where most of the raw materials for our drugs that are consumed in this country come from. But I am sure that the three gentlemen that have spoken here would not suggest we would today cut off that money because we have not been effective. That argument has been made by some on this floor, and I do not think it is a good argument. We should do that. The $40 million that we provide to INL, the international narcotics force that we have overseas, goes largely in Mexico to support the helicopter program, that is, to maintain and supply the helicopters that are used both in chasing down drug smugglers, that is, in small planes, and in eradication efforts. So I think it is money that is probably well spent, and I would suggest it is not money we would really want to cut off here. And with that I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been an interesting discussion from the other side. But contrary to what the gentleman from Mississippi may have thought I would do, I do, indeed, rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, let me begin by saying I do not condone companies relocating overseas for tax purposes, but I will come back to that in a minute. This is an interesting issue we are dealing with here today. We had this in the full committee not long ago as it related to outsourcing, but here we are talking about supporting U.S. exports and jobs. With this amendment, we are talking about punishing companies that are creating jobs here in the United States. We are going to punish them because they are creating jobs here. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. The gentleman from Vermont had 20 minutes. I am not going to use but a fraction of that, so I want to get my thoughts in here and do them all together here. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why in the world are we talking about punishing companies that are creating high-paying export jobs, and giving that away to foreign competition by eliminating Export-Import Bank financing? But that is exactly what the amendment would do. It hurts workers in this country. It hurts the economy in this country. And yes, of course, it hurts the shareholders in this country. But most of all it hurts the workers, because this only goes to companies that are exporting. We are talking about companies that are creating jobs here in this country in order to export. Now, the gentleman named some companies in particular in his argument. Ingersoll-Rand I heard. I think we heard Nabors Industries, Noble Drilling Corporation, Weatherford International. But this amendment would prohibit any Ex-Im Bank loan or guarantee to any U.S. company, any U.S. company that is registered offshore. Now, I do not have any percentage of how much U.S. Export-Import Bank loans would be affected by this amendment, but characterizing Ex-Im loans as corporate welfare and a giveaway from U.S. taxpayers is certainly not correct. I am not sure why the sponsors of this amendment do not recognize that exports means U.S. jobs. It is the exact opposite of outsourcing. The fiscal year 2005 funding for the Ex-Im Bank would support U.S. exports valued at $12 billion. For every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Ex-Im's program, there have been historical returns, and this is not just this year, there have been historical returns of $15 in credit support for export transactions. Since Ex-Im Bank supports 85 percent of most transactions, this means that the actual export value is about 15 percent higher, raising the ratio to about $18 in total value of exports supported by every $1 we put into the Ex-Im program. I do not think this is corporate welfare. The bank has an exceptional, I would say exceptional, repayment record, with losses running at 1.4 percent of disbursements over the 70-year history of the Ex-Im Bank. And while the Ex-Im Bank has done more and more each year for small businesses, even large companies cannot get private bank financing to go to some parts of the world or to compete with aggressive foreign financing. While businesses may be able to exist without making that extra sale, Ex-Im Bank is here for that very reason, to keep U.S. exports strong, to hopefully grow them, and to help sustain U.S. jobs through exports. Eighty-six percent of the transactions of the Ex-Im Bank directly benefit small businesses, and that is because many small businesses benefit from the larger transactions of the bank. Let me give a statistic that alone ought to cause Members to give pause about this amendment. Ex-Im Bank's top 13 users have over 35,000 suppliers in this country, most of which are small businesses. The reality is that small businesses benefit directly and indirectly from Ex-Im Bank-financed transactions. By law, Ex-Im Bank finances only goods and services made here in the United States. Under this bill, if a U.S. company is cut off from using Ex-Im, the company would be confronted with either losing the export sale or being forced to use foreign financing and sourcing. In either case, the impact would be to reduce U.S. exports and jeopardize the jobs that are associated with those sales. Shutting off Ex-Im would remove one of the few government programs to help U.S. exporters and to keep export-related jobs here in the United States. One more statistic. I have been able to find information on two of the companies that were mentioned. Ingersoll-Rand has 28,000 employees here in the United States, not overseas. These are employees here in the U.S. Nabors Industries has 14,000 employees here in the United States. This amendment cuts off financing that helps to keep those jobs secure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which I know is not an organization that perhaps my colleague on the other side would put too much stock in, but I think they made a very important point in the letter that they wrote about this a couple of days ago to the Speaker. They made this statement, and I quote: Measures such as Representative Sanders' amendment are poor substitutes for needed reforms of the U.S. Tax Code's archaic international provisions which currently put our corporations at a competitive disadvantage internationally and provide great incentive for them to leave this country. That brings me back to my final point that I said at the beginning. The real issue here is the archaic Tax Code that the United States has. We are not even talking about 20th century. We are talking about 19th century. We have a Tax Code that is so archaic, we are virtually the only country in the world that taxes all income whether or not it has anything to do with being produced here in the United States. So, of course, it encourages companies to go offshore, to locate offshore their corporate headquarters. They are still paying the taxes on everything they make here in the United States, Ingersoll-Rand, Nabors, all of those pay the taxes on all the income that is made here in the United States, but they do not want to pay the taxes on a subsidiary they may have in South Africa or a subsidiary they may have in Japan or elsewhere, and so they locate their corporate headquarters offshore. It is because of the archaic Tax Code that the United States continues to have. That is what we really need to be doing. That is what we really need to be reforming, is the Tax Code. We are in the 21st century, not the 19th century. That would make us more competitive in the world. Why do we have DaimlerChrysler and not ChryslerDaimler? We have DaimlerChrysler because of the Tax Codes of the United States. In order to avoid paying taxes on production done in Germany, it was necessary for them to become DaimlerChrysler, not ChryslerDaimler. Otherwise, they would have been paying taxes on everything they produced, every car they produced in Germany. That is why this is so important that we continue to have Ex-Im Bank. It is a crutch, if you will, but it is something that we can do to help U.S. corporations export, and it helps American workers keep their jobs. Ex-Im Bank only goes to corporations for doing business producing here in the United States. I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to oppose this amendment. It hurts U.S. workers. It jeopardizes U.S. jobs. Now is not the time to further cut, to eliminate one of the few tools the U.S. Government has to support exports and export-related manufacturing jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just point out that the $5 million that goes into development assistance comes out of ESF, which also does the same kinds of things. So the Economic Stabilization Fund does the same kinds of things. So it really is just transferring it from one hand to the other, doing the same kinds of programs. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to present to the House today the funding recommendations of the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs. The bill provides important funding for programs designed to support the global war on terrorism, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and to support the national interests of the United States. In the wake of September 11, 2001, such funding for our critical friends and allies is more important than ever. The committee recommends a total of $19,385,645,000 in new discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005. This represents a reduction of $1.932 billion from the President's budget request. On the other hand, the bill before us is $1.905 billion above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level when we exclude the supplemental appropriations. If supplemental appropriations are included, the recommendation represents a decrease of $19.287 billion over the 2004 level. Having gotten those numbers out of the way, let me just say it is important that we know that this bill was developed in a bipartisan way, and I want to pay special tribute and give credit to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking minority member, for the fine work that she has done on this bill and for engaging in a process that resulted in basic agreement on the components of this package, even if funding compromises happen to be found on both sides. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the way the House of Representatives ought to work, and I think the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked in a bipartisan fashion. In preparing this legislation, we have three overriding priorities: first, supporting our allies on the war on terrorism; second, responding to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; and, third, supporting innovative approaches to foreign assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Let me summarize how this recommendation responds to those challenges. First, the President's budget request included important military assistance and counternarcotics increases for our allies in the global war on terrorism. That includes an increase of $350 million to equip the new Afghan National Army; an increase of $90 million for law enforcement and counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan; a new base program of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan as they assist us in hunting terrorists along the Afghan border; an increase of $46 million for a total of $66 million for Poland, a major ally in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and an increase of $73 million, for a total of $2.22 billion for the State of Israel, which is our closest ally in the Middle East. The committee recommendation includes full funding for these increases both through new budget authority and, in the case of Pakistan, use of $150 million of transfer authority. The second priority in the President's budget request is one that we also met with an increase of $593 million to combat HIV/AIDS and related diseases, for a total of $2.2 billion. The committee recommendation fully meets that funding level. It includes a grant of $400 million for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, subject to conditions that improve the fund's accountability and efficiency. Together with the money that we expect that the House Labor Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee will include, that will mean over $2.8 billion will be available for HIV/AIDS programs around the world in fiscal year 2005. The Global AIDS Initiative is making treatment and care available to a record number of people affected by the disease. In 2003, only 50,000 people in the developing world had access to the drugs that dramatically reduced the impact of AIDS and extend life for years. By next summer, 200,000 people will have access to these drugs; and over the next several years, millions of infected people will be treated through the use of the Nevirapine for pregnant women. The third priority, of course, in the President's budget was a request for a $1.5 billion increase for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for a total of $2.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, given our allocation, we could not recommend full funding for this initiative, important though it is and though I am very personally committed to it. However, to demonstrate our commitment to this important foreign assistance reform effort and to respond positively to the President's proposal, the recommendation does include $1.250 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. That is an increase of $256 million over last year. As chairman, I have made the MCC a priority in this bill. I believe in the President's vision of a new form of development assistance where a country's commitment to fighting corruption, its commitment to reform, and its commitment to investing in its people is complemented by an assistance package from the United States, negotiated by the country in the form of a signed compact. We included the authorization that created the MCC in last year's appropriation bill, and the President can continue to count on me as a strong supporter. In preparing this bill, we were also faced with decreases in some areas of the budget, including some key non-HIV/AIDS health programs, and in the development assistance account. We have restored those reductions and, in the case of development assistance, added funds for basic education. I believe our development assistance program is a key component of our national security strategy, and it is critical to a positive U.S. image in foreign countries. Including funding for HIV/AIDS, this bill makes available $3.079 billion for health programs overall, and that is an increase of $600 million over last year's House-passed bill. Of this total, over $332 million will be made available to fight TB and malaria. These funds help to continue the global fight against malaria, which kills one person every 30 seconds, most of them African children. USAID implements a comprehensive approach against this disease supporting the purchase and distribution of malaria medicines, a search for a vaccine, and strong prevention efforts. Basic education has become a signature issue for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey); so I will let her describe the details of our recommendation in that regard. Suffice it to say that I fully support her efforts to provide more educational opportunities to the impoverished youth of the world, especially women and children. This bill recommends $400 million for basic education activities. That is an increase from $326 million in fiscal year 2004. Report language accompanying the bill requires the Secretary of State to articulate an interagency strategy on the use of those funds so that we have a coherent, coordinated effort that can produce meaningful results in reducing illiteracy. The bill also supports USAID's work to support microenterprise lending. Report language accompanying the bill references the fiscal year 2004 authorization ceiling of $200 million as the program level the committee expects in fiscal year 2005. It is also important that USAID continue to use the traditional providers of microenterprise lending and not rely excessively on contractors for implementing this program. We continue an emphasis in our bill on helping developing countries build their capacity to participate in the international trading system. We have $517 million in the bill for trade capacity building, and that is the same amount as the House passed version last year. Fiscal year 2005 is the final year of the President's Water for the Poor Initiative, announced in August, 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. In all likelihood, we will exceed the 3-year goal of spending $970 million on water projects. Report language urges the President to direct $50 million to water programs in Africa with $9 million targeted to programs in East Africa. The committee continues its strong support for women's programs, provides that not less than $15 million in development assistance shall be made available to improve women's leadership capacity in recipient countries. This is an increase from the $11 million that we provided last year. In addition, from our Afghanistan assistance program, we set a goal of $60 million in fiscal year 2005 for programs for women and girls. The committee recommendation also responds to emerging needs, such as the provision of an additional $50 million for assistance for Haiti. Following up on my amendment to the Defense appropriation bill that included $95 million in supplemental assistance for the victims of the violence in the Darfur region of Sudan, we recommend $311 million in this bill for humanitarian assistance for Sudan and for the refugees affected by that conflict. Although there are no funds for Iraq in this bill, we continue our oversight responsibilities by mandating the continuation of an independent inspector general to audit the Iraq Reconstruction program. Without new authority, the inspector general will go out of business on December 28 of this year, 6 months after the Coalition Provisional Authority was disbanded. Section 573 of the bill provides for continued operations of the CPA Inspector General's Office operating under the supervision of the Secretary of State and providing that the $75 million previously appropriated for the IG is to be made available only to the IG for his continued audit and investigative work in Iraq. We also provide the administration the authority they need to reduce Iraq's debt to our government so that the United States can negotiate an international debt reduction for Iraq. The sooner Iraq has financial stability, the sooner the government of Iraq can fund its own security and reconstruction needs. No new funds are provided for this purpose. Any funding for debt relief will come from previously appropriated funds. The bill fully funds the President's request for export finance agencies to promote U.S. investment overseas and create jobs in United States export sectors. The bill provides $317 million for those agencies, which include the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency. About $311 million of that $317 million is offset by collections. Mr. Chairman, the United States leads the international fight against coca and poppy cultivation overseas. The narcotics industry has become a source of funding for terrorists, as well as, of course, a source of drugs worldwide. As part of the war on terror, the committee fully funds the President's request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at a level of $731 million for antinarcotics, interdiction, for development programs, and rule-of-law and institution-building programs in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. Under the general anti-narcotics account, the bill fully funds anti- narcotics and law enforcement programs in Afghanistan at a level of $90 million, in Mexico at $40 million, and supports an existing program in Pakistan at $32 million. To support continuing United States leadership in the world for humanitarian responses to refugee crises, we include $776 million for refugee programs, and that is $26 million more than the President requested. We have $19 million, $1.5 million more than the request, for the Department of Treasury, to provide technical advisors to developing countries throughout the world. The committee includes full funding of $20 million for the President's request for debt relief for countries who qualify under the Tropical Forestry Conservation Act and $75 million for multilateral debt relief for the poorest nations that receive assistance from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or the HIPC, trust fund. The committee supports contributions to the Multilateral Development Bank and includes $1.3 billion for such contributions. While the committee was not able to fund the World Bank incentive fund or all the arrears requested by the budget because of the budgetary restraints I mentioned earlier, we have provided full funding of the regularly scheduled contributions to these banks. Finally, the committee has provided $323 million for voluntary contributions to international organizations and programs, a level $19 million more than the request. It includes $125 million to the United Nations Childrens Fund, or UNICEF, an increase of $5 million for this important organization. We also have $107 million for the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP, and $7 million for the Fund for Victims of Torture. A total of $25 million is available through the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, under the same ``Kemp-Kasten'' restrictions as exist in current law. We have had to reduce this bill by $1.9 billion from the President's request, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, we did not or could not provide funding for a number of new and expanded initiatives requested by the President or brought to the committee's attention by committee members, other Members of Congress and outside groups. The major reductions to the President's budget include, as I have already mentioned, a cut of $1.25 billion to the request for the Millennium Challenge Corporation; a reduction of $224 million for the World Bank Group, including the International Development Association; and a cut of $95 million in debt relief. There are other reductions to the President's request, but we tried to retain the base funding for most of the programs. I believe this balanced bill provides important support for our most critical national security needs, while substantially increasing funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It enhances our support for overseas development assistance and humanitarian assistance. It meets the high priorities of the President in these areas and accommodates congressional concerns as well. As I have said, this bill was developed in a very bipartisan manner and should have broad support in the House. I urge a yes vote on this bill. Before I yield the floor, I want to call the attention of the House to two matters that were inadvertently left out of the committee report. One matter involves the Surgical Implant Generation Network, based in Richland, Washington, which is the only organization in the world that provides, free of charge, an ongoing supply of training and orthopedic materials to surgeons in developing countries who repair fractures of the very poor. The second matter involves the Vishnevskaya Rostropovich Foundation, a charitable organization based in Washington, D.C., that conducts a mass children's vaccination initiative in the Russian Federation. I would urge the United States Agency for International Development to give strong consideration to funding proposals for these funding organizations. Mr. Chairman, I include the following charts for the Record. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY04.007 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am the only other speaker I have, if the gentleman is prepared to yield back the balance of his time.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for her attention to this important issue. Children that are affected by HIV/AIDS are a group that tugs at the heart strings of all people. I have worked closely with USAID and the Global AIDS coordinator to develop an integrated, comprehensive approach to fighting this disease, and pediatric AIDS is a core component of that approach. While I applaud the gentlewoman's intentions, I believe that in some circumstances, integrated treatment and care centers where both adults and children can receive attention would be more appropriate. However, I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman, the Global AIDS coordinator, USAID, and other concerned parties to ensure that orphans and vulnerable children receive proper treatment, care and support, as part of a comprehensive approach to fighting this disease.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I have to say that I find that these are very troubling charges, but we have only been recently informed of the issue. I intend to ask the State Department for further information regarding the situation, and I can assure the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that I will give it serious consideration. The way Ethiopia deals with this issue will weigh heavily in the decisions we make in terms of policy and levels of assistance. So I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention, and I will ask my staff to work with the gentleman to move towards a resolution.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, since I believe I will be the only one speaking here, I reserve my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter). We certainly should not tolerate support for terrorism by any organization, that includes the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, the bill that is before you prohibits funds for the Authority, prohibits all funds for the Palestinian Authority, and includes a number of provisions affecting West Bank Gaza programs that would prohibit funds for any group or individual that supports terrorism. This year the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I strengthen the prohibition on funding for terrorist groups by banning funding through the West Bank/Gaza program for any individual, any individual or group that advocates terrorism. The new provision also requires an immediate cut-off of funds if any group currently receiving funds advocates or engages in terrorist activities. On the other hand, it is important to continue the West Bank/Gaza programs because they provide important humanitarian and infrastructure assistance for the Palestinian people. It is important to stress that all of the funds in this program are provided through nongovernmental organizations or through American contractors, or in some cases, Israeli contractors for water and sewer infrastructure programs. Not one cent goes to the Palestinian Authority. I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman has expressed. They are the concerns of this subcommittee, and they are, I can assure the gentleman, expressed in the bill here. I understand the gentleman is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct in her characterization. Assuming the availability of funds, we will seek to include report language that, at a minimum, would continue the program in Laos at the fiscal year 2004 level; but, if possible, at a higher level of $3 million.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman with his comments. I am confident with his support and that of other Members of this body, we will get the attention of the administration on this issue. Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).