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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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