Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this year an estimated 40,000 mothers, sisters, daughters, friends and loved ones will die of breast cancer, and more than 210,000 new cases will be diagnosed. Throughout the month we have remembered those that have fallen victim to this disease, celebrated those who have survived it, raised awareness about the progress we've made, and called on scientists to aggressively continue the search for a cure. Today, Democrats and Republicans, men and women alike are on the House floor to say--while we have made progress, further gains require a sustained commitment to expanding the national investment in cancer research, prevention, treatment, and outreach programs. It is hard to believe, but when I was first appointed to the Appropriations Committee in 1991, the Federal government was spending just $133 million on breast cancer each year. That investment has increased dramatically--to more than $1.3 billion--between spending at the National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense. This is remarkable, but all of the research in the world won't make a difference unless it is put into practice. That is why we must continue to invest in the Centers for Disease Control's Breast and Cervical Cancer screening program and better mammogram training and oversight to improve radiologists' ability to interpret mammograms. We must also ramp-up efforts to find new and superior ways to detect breast cancer and study the relationship between breast cancer and the environment. Mr. Speaker, I believe, while the government cannot cure cancer, it can put the resources in the hands of scientists who will. Together-- along with advocates, survivors, scientists, and doctors--we can go the distance and stop this disease.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we have witnessed another tragic string of attacks in Iraq. Our troops, our allies, and our mission are under constant fire. I feel very strongly that we must pass this package to protect our troops and to provide the funds to stabilize Iraq. For me that is the most efficient way to bring our troops home as soon as possible and bring some normalcy to that region. There were problems with the initial $87 billion request, and I do believe that the House with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in the lead modified it appropriately. The prudent cuts made in the House survived conference which is good, and important additions were made. Our continued efforts in Afghanistan, formerly the headquarters of al Qaeda, have received the funding needed to make sure that the gains we have made do not slip away. We cannot allow that country to again be a haven to groups that would attack us. We did not forget the victims of the Taliban regime either; $60 million were included for women's empowerment and participation programs. If anyone doubts the importance of women in the development of stable and prosperous states, let them read the remarkable ``Arab Human Developments Reports.'' Written by Arab scholars, the reports name three causes for the underdevelopment in some Arab nations: lack of freedom, lack of knowledge, and lack of women's empowerment. As its 2002 report says, ``Society as a whole suffers when half of its productive potential is stifled.'' The women of this House and Senate know that and are determined that the United States will aggressively and directly provide for opportunities for the women of Afghanistan and Iraq and to help their countries grow strong; and so $10 million was similarly set aside for women's programs in Iraq. We also directed $90 million in Iraq for education, an essential building block of a free society, and an area for which insufficient funds had been originally requested by the administration. The explanation for me seemed to be that education was a ``soft area,'' soft meaning secondary, I believe popular with international donors. Let us leave it to them to fund education. I vigorously disagree with this reasoning, and I am very glad that our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), worked with me to get these dollars in this bill. One need only consider the effect that this soft area has in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where children are sent to madrassas and are taught intolerance and hate and breed the terrorists. Education is not a secondary matter. It is a direct security interest to the United States, and, again, I want to thank the conferees for endorsing this priority. Concerns about competitive contracting and obtaining timely and accurate reports from the administration on Iraq were addressed, unfortunately, in my judgment, with broad waivers that weaken them substantially. An Inspector General was created for the CPA, but the other body insisted on the waiver which gives the President the ability to withhold any information in the name of national security. A similar waiver applies to the disclosure of noncompetitive contracting. And I do fear that these waivers will leads to more sole-source contracts awarded behind closed doors. The House must monitor this very closely. Finally, there was the question of loans versus grants. A constituent asked a very simple question: Why can we not lend money to Iraq? Iraq has such a wealth of oil. It is a reasonable question; and in my judgment, we should have given them a reasonable and prudent compromise. It is unfortunate that this was not accomplished in conference. I truly believe that failure in Iraq would create a dangerous vacuum in the heart of the Middle East. It would be a place where hatred of the United States and violence against us would thrive, but the gravity of the situation should not lower our standards for planning and execution; it should raise them. There are lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our actions will impact the future of all Americans, especially our children and our grandchildren. We owe them caution, honesty, and realism as we face these next stages in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support the supplemental. I believe the appropriations for our troops and for reconstruction are equally important and essential to our mission.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Phelps Hospice and to congratulate it on its 20th anniversary. Since 1983, Phelps Hospice has provided end of life care and comfort throughout Westchester County, NY, helping to relieve the physical, emotional, and spiritual pain of more than 2,000 patients and their loved ones. An essential element of this care is the personalized service that Phelps Hospice provides to meet the unique needs of each patient and his or her loved ones. Working with the patient's primary care physician, Phelps Hospice develops a plan of care that matches the family's needs with the abilities of its medical director, nurses, social workers, home health aids, spiritual counselors, psychologists, nutritionists, volunteers, therapists, and bereavement counselors. Through support groups and memorial services, Phelps Hospice has offered bereavement counseling for the families of hospice patients, as well as for members of the community. In addition, since 2002, Phelps Hospice has provided complementary care consisting of massage, music, pet and art therapy, making it one of the first hospices in Westchester County to incorporate complementary care into its list of services. To aid in the care of patients, Phelps Hospice has trained hundreds of selfless volunteers in the past 20 years. And, of course, the numerous services offered by Phelps Hospice are provided to all patients regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual preference, or ability to pay. I am honored to have this opportunity to congratulate Phelps Hospice on its 20th anniversary. Westchester County is undoubtedly a better place thanks to the tireless work of its staff and volunteers. I wish them the best of luck in the next 20 years--and more--of service to our community.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we are on the cusp of implementing a bill that will fall at least $8 billion below the levels authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act. Our failure to uphold the promises made just 2 years ago will be felt in classrooms throughout America by every school-aged kid. I agree that we have to deal with attitudes. There are a lot of problems, and all of the problems of a community converge on our school systems. But, Mr. Speaker, I visit our schools which have to face the mandates included in No Child Left Behind. They are facing massive teacher shortages, and that has to be resolved by money and training. We have to ensure that every teacher of an academic subject be highly-qualified by 2006 and administering annual assessments in reading and math by 2006. America's schools should not have to choose between the need to recruit and train new teachers, implement antidrug programs, and pay for urgent school renovations. I would like my colleagues to visit some of these schools that are trying to educate these kids without enough books, without enough dollars, without enough teachers with adequate training. If we do not retool our efforts during the Labor-HHS conference, we will impose a great burden on our school administrators, board members and parents. For example, the NCLB Act promised to provide school districts with 40 percent of the Nation's average per pupil expenditure for each low-income student. The title I program already does not meet the overwhelming needs across the country, but NCLB was a step in the right direction. Many of us voted for it. There was broad bipartisan support. However, in this Labor-HHS bill it is $6 billion below the authorized amount. What does that mean for needy children? In New York State alone, almost 460,000 eligible children would not be fully served by the program. This morning, the Afterschool Alliance released a poll demonstrating the public's broad, unwavering support for after-school programs. And, quite frankly, the numbers leapt off the page. They made clear that Americans, not just parents of school-age children, but all Americans, across the board, believe that after-school programs are a sound investment. Eighty percent said after-school is nothing short of an absolute necessity. That is not just support, that is extraordinary support. After-school programs keep kids safe, help them learn, help working families. No Child Left Behind set out a prudent road map for growing the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Initiative, but since the moment the law was enacted, we have gotten off course. Not only did the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget propose a cut of $400 million, or 40 percent to the 21st Century After-School Program, but both the House and the Senate Labor-HHS bills fall 40 percent short on funding for the 21st Century Initiative, providing just $1 billion of the authorized $1.75 billion for the current fiscal year. That funding gap translates into more than 1 million children being left behind after school. I want to say in closing, sometimes we look at these numbers, it sounds great, a billion here, a billion there, but when we are cutting a million dollars or a billion dollars from a key program such as that, that is reflected in real children and real lives. I urge Members to try and get these dollars up so we can be educating all of our children. These programs are critical. I thank the chairman for all of the good work he has done, and I hope we can work together to truly get these numbers up so we can satisfy the tremendous needs out there.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very strong, important statement and for offering this resolution. I join my colleagues in condemning the hate-filled speech given by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the opening of the 10th Organization of the Islamic Conference in Malaysia on October 16. Many of my colleagues and I signed the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister directly, and today, we pass this resolution to make clear that the House of Representatives repudiates the Prime Minister's message of hate and intolerance. In my judgment, the Malaysian Prime Minister's speech was a failure of leadership. At a conference focused on issues confronting Islamic Nations around the world, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad missed the chance to set a positive and constructive tone by talking about how more Islamic Nations can achieve prosperity and development and what those achievements would mean for the Islamic people around the world. But, sadly, the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to call for better educational opportunities or greater investment in Islamic countries or better trade, health care and economic development, all essential elements when creating stability and prosperity. The Prime Minister could have done such good, set an example, as Malaysia has done before, by discussing the Arab Human Development Reports, which place strong emphasis on increasing freedom, knowledge and women's empowerment. The Prime Minister's speech should have been a call for tremendous improvements in these areas. Instead, he gave a caustic, intolerant, hateful statement against Jews and Israel. What a tragic, missed opportunity. Following the negative sentiments of the Prime Minister will lead to more years of poverty, oppression and hate. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution, and I urge the leaders of the world who support economic development and educational opportunities as the best way to a secure future to make themselves heard in opposition to the Prime Minister's speech.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by my colleague and good friend from Massachusetts, Ed Markey. The motion instructs the conferees to the Energy bill to adopt the unclear security provisions included in the House bill and subsequently dropped in the conference report. Since September 11, 2001, intelligence officials have amassed a critical body of evidence suggesting terrorist intentions to strike our nuclear infrastructure. Plans of U.S. nuclear facilities discovered in al Qaeda caves during U.S. military operations in Afghanistan provided perhaps the earliest indication that terrorists had not casually contemplated but rather carefully studied the option of sabotaging a nuclear reactor. In early March, 2003 fresh intelligence confirmed our worst fears: terrorists continued to plot attacks against nuclear and other critical infrastructure. Subsequent reports of a terrorist plan to sabotage the Palo Verde nuclear power plants in Arizona were sufficiently serious that the National Guard was immediately deployed to secure the plant. In light of these facts, the conferees' decision to weaken nuclear security language included in the House report is incomprehensible. I'd like to focus on the two changes that concern me the most: (1) Federal Oversight of Emergency Preparedness at Nuclear Power Plants--the House bill required the NRC to consult with the Department of Homeland Security before issuing or renewing a license to operate a new or existing power plant to ensure adequate steps could be taken to protect the public in the event of a terrorist strike. Unfortunately, the conferees appear ready to eliminate this most basic protective standard. Failure to adopt the House language would permit the NRC to continue its present neglect of the post-September 11th reality. Indeed, the NRC, the agency responsible for assuring the safety and security of the country's 103 commercial reactors, has flatly denied petitions by citizen groups for reinforcement of the spent fuel pools at Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut, stating ``the possibility of a terrorist attack is speculative . . . and simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action.'' NRC's oversight of emergency preparedness at the Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear facility located just north of my district in Buchanan, New York, was wholly inadequate, and demonstrates the need for greater consultation with DHS. NRC, defying the opinions of numerous experts, insisted that emergency planning for an accidental and terrorist-related radiation release were identical. A terrorist attack, which could create paranoia, provoke residents to self- evacuate, and damage evacuation roads and reception centers, would surely pose unique planning challenges. The Commission also contended that a radiological release from a terrorist attack would be no larger and spread no faster than that from an accident. Indeed, it incorrectly assumed that any radiological plume would develop over 8 hours, even though a terrorist attack could result in a radiological release in as little as 40 minutes. Entergy, which owns Indian Point, has optimistically estimated that evacuation of the 10-mile radius around the plants would take 11 hours, making public exposure to radiation likely. Westchester County has publicly stated that mobilizing emergency response teams and notifying the public within the new time requirements would be nearly impossible. Despite these facts, NRC refused to perform an independent review of Indian Point's emergency response plans, instead certifying them within one hour of FEMA's approval. I fear that in the absence of a legal requirement to consult with DHS, NRC neglect of terrorist threats will persist. (2) Upgrade of the Design Basis Threat. The House bill mandated that the NRC issue regulations, ``including changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that licensees address the threats'' of a terrorist attack within one year of enactment of the bill. The conference report would authorize but not mandate that NRC upgrade nuclear security regulations to reflect the findings of a comprehensive study on air, land, and water-based threats to nuclear reactors. Some 25 months after September 11th, NRC still rejects the possibility of a coordinated strike on a nuclear power plant involving several large teams of terrorists using sophisticated tactics and weaponry. NRC requires that nuclear security personnel be prepared to defend against the design basis threat, or DBT, an assumption about the size and tactics of an attacking force. While the precise details of the DBT are classified, nuclear experts suspect that the NRC continues to assume a far smaller and less sophisticated force than the one that struck on September 11th. While the NRC has required power plants to make cosmetic security improvements, such as installation of barb wire fencing, larger threats have been neglected. For example, a recent NRC study found spent fuel spools adjacent to commercial reactors were highly vulnerable to a passenger aircraft crash, which would result in a substantial release of radioactive material. Nevertheless, nuclear licensees have not required additional hardening of spent fuel pools or the containment domes enveloping reactors. Nuclear security personnel have consistently complained that they lack the weaponry and tactical and physical training to thwart a terrorist strike. In the absence of a statutory requirement to upgrade security, I question whether NRC will act on the recommendations of the vulnerability assessment mandated in this energy bill. Frustrated by sub-standard hiring and training standards for guards, I joined Congressman Markey in introducing legislation that would federalize the guard force at commercial nuclear facilities. In my judgment, energy companies chiefly concerned with their bottom lines cannot be trusted to secure the nation's nuclear infrastructure. Under the Nuclear Security Act, personnel would have to meet strict qualification standards, background checks, training requirements, and proficiency reviews. I once again want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Weiner for his leadership and persistence on this critical issue, and rise in strong support of his amendment. I do not say this lightly--Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States; they have come to our aid in Gulf military actions several times. The U.S. has worked hard to get Saudi cooperation to apprehend terrorist suspects, share intelligence, and professionalize their counterterrorism efforts, and I support those efforts. However, there can be no doubt now that Saudi Arabia has two faces. On the one hand, Saudi Arabia stood--they said--in shock and solidarity with the U.S. when our citizens were murdered by an Al Qaeda gang comprised primarily of Saudi citizens. They have allowed the U.S. military to again use Saudi air fields as staging grounds for the emission in Iraq. But on the other, the Council of Foreign Relations reports that Saudis and Saudi charities are a major source--the ``most important'' source, according to CFR--for Al Qaeda, and states plainly that Saudi officials have turned a ``blind eye'' to this reality. Senior U.S. officials criticize Saudi Arabia for being uncooperative in terrorism investigations, Saudi citizens shower the families of Al Qaeda terrorists with money, and the ruling family in Saudi Arabia seems to have come no closer to acknowledging its own complicity in terrorist financing. Further evidence of Saudi Arabia's support for terrorism came from Congress itself. Our investigative report on the September 11th attacks contained a great deal of information on Saudi Arabia in both its classified and unclassified sections. 28 pages remain classified, but according to the New York Times, the section states that ``senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 11 2001 attacks.'' In the past, and this Congress, have been hesitant to call the Saudis on their actions in support of terrorism. But I have come to the conclusion that the U.S. government must stop shielding the Saudis from the criticism and the penalties their actions warrant. Saudi Arabia and its citizens have proven to be major supporters of terrorism against the United States and its citizens around the world. That is clear. Fighting terrorism must be our first priority, and our actions must match our priorities. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before I comment on the supplemental, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for their very important work on the bill. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), my very good friend and colleague on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operation, Export Financing and Related Programs. For 3 years, the gentleman and I have worked together to craft a foreign aid bill, always mindful that our work abroad has a direct impact on the stability and prosperity of those nations that we seek to assist and a direct impact on the national security of the United States. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) is as open to ideas and suggestions, as intelligent in his reasoning and responses, and as gracious in his manner as any Member of Congress that I have known. It has been a true pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to more years of partnership, trust, and accomplishment. Mr. Chairman, this Iraq supplemental is enormous and complex and has provoked passionate and very different opinions among us and the public. Everyone has their own ideas about how it could be done. In my judgment, the request made by the President and the CPA was shaped by a series of miscalculations, miscalculations about how the international community would react to United States operations in Iraq, how we would be received by Iraqis, what would be required to rebuild, how generous other nations would be with donations. That is why this debate is so very important; and everyone should be heard for the sake of our constituents, our heroic Armed Forces, and our democracy. We should not just rubber stamp the executive branch's request. As I said, everyone might have their own ideas about how it could be done, but I think it is crucial that we remember why it should be done. At stake, in my judgment, is the reconstruction of Iraq, a country whose stability and growth is critical for our own national security. Failure in Iraq would create a dangerous vacuum in the heart of the Middle East, a vacuum with no order. It would be a place where hatred of the United States would thrive and where those who seek to plot against us would find another safe haven. That is why this supplemental is necessary and important, and I urge my colleagues to consider that as we debate today. However, it is important to stress again that while the goal is clear, the execution has been, frankly, mediocre. We do not have a plan. We do not have clear priorities, strong safeguards, or a sustained diplomatic effort. Taken separately, each is a serious shortcoming. Taken together, they have led to a reconstruction effort that appears haphazard and irresponsible. However Members vote on this supplemental, we have a dual responsibility to national security and to fiscal stability. The effort in Iraq is crucial for our security, but we must be honest about the cost and about the tough choices we face. I did hope that we would have a full and open debate that would allow us to consider the package drafted by the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I strongly supported the Obey amendment because it spoke to the needs in Iraq, the concerns of our military and their families, and the constraints of our Federal budget. It was a responsible approach that took much of the burden off the United States taxpayer. And I am truly disappointed that we were not able to vote on it. If this were a true democratic House, we would have the opportunity not only to have a full debate, but to be able to take a position on an alternative that I think is really constructive and would be supported by a good deal, maybe even the majority, of the Members of this House. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues as debate on amendments begin.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of our committee. (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, over the last few weeks, the issue of loans versus grants has dominated the debate on this supplemental. On the one side we see the administration and some Members of Congress arguing that increasing Iraq's loan burden would hobble its recovery and delay its transformation to a stable democracy. They also look to next week's donor conference in Madrid and worry that the United States move to assist Iraq using loans rather than grants would lead to similar approaches from other international donors, thus hindering Iraqi recovery further. On the other side, I have talked to many of my colleagues who feel, and they feel on behalf of their districts, that their districts would benefit tremendously from even a small portion of that $87 billion. They believe that we are prepared to give a bonanza to a country with the second largest oil reserve in the world, and they say, should this resource-rich country not pay us back? We need this money as much as they do, for our hospitals, our schools, our neighborhoods. The Obey-Lantos amendment is an attempt to compromise by providing half of the fund through grants and the other half through loans. The reason I strongly support this concept is we have seen reports in the last few weeks that only approximately $6 billion can be spent this year. We know because we have gotten all kinds of reports, some from the World Bank, some from others, that the total bill could be upwards of $25 billion, $50 billion in the long run; but this year we have been told by the World Bank that they estimate we cannot spend more than $6 billion. I want to make it clear that in committee I supported an approach that would provide the loans through the World Bank; and I continue to believe that this is the best approach, allowing the United States to ask for matching funds from other countries and enabling the bank to leverage as much as four times the current funds available for Iraq reconstruction. Unfortunately, this amendment does not use the bank. It does not do so because it was disallowed in the rules process from constructing the amendment in that way. The Obey-Lantos proposal to give half of the reconstruction money in grants and the other half in loans, in my judgment, is still a good approach, even though I would have preferred the World Bank as the vehicle. I believe this will help Iraq, we will be able to provide the money that is needed for reconstruction, and it will also save the United States taxpayers from the entire burden of reconstruction. The Obey-Lantos approach, in my judgment, is the right one. I am going to support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I will take 15 seconds. I will quickly thank the gentleman for bringing these important issues to our attention, and I know that the chairman of the committee shares the gentleman's views of the importance of the funding for Afghanistan. I hope that we can work with the gentleman as we approach the 2004 conference bill and work together to increase funding and investment in Afghanistan.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his long-standing leadership on this issue. He has been insisting that we hold Syria's feet to the fire for a very long time. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my good friend and colleague, for her leadership on this issue and, of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking member of the committee, for his leadership and strong voice. It is time that Congress send a strong and clear message to Syria. We will no longer tolerate their support of terrorism. We will not allow them to further destabilize the Middle East, a region so crucial to the national security of the United States, and we will not risk undermining our efforts to secure peace and stability in Iraq and the region. Syria had its chance and had the opportunity to reform its political environment and become a positive force in the region. Instead, it has remained as it was, a closed society and haven for terrorists. Many terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have offices and training camps in Syria or Syrian-occupied Lebanon. These groups remain heavily active, even after Secretary of State Powell met with President Assad earlier this year and urged him to shut them down. These groups thwart efforts for peace in Israel by destabilizing the Israel-Lebanese border. They are the groups that might very well be sending terrorists over the Iraqi border to commit terrorist acts against our soldiers and the Iraqis brave enough to work with us to create a stable democratic country. Indeed, at a recent hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, the State Department confirmed that Syria is allowing ``volunteers'' and others to enter Iraq to attack and kill Americans. Congress must send the message, it is time to end the terror, and H.R. 1828 is heavily supported on both sides of the aisle. It imposes a variety of penalties upon Syria until it ends its support of terrorism, withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, halts development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and stops facilitating terrorism in Iraq. It is necessary, appropriate, and in my judgment, long overdue. I strongly support H.R. 1828.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it was 1 year ago that Congress voted to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. Many of us supported that resolution; others did not. And I have deep respect for the differences that still divide us. Those of us who voted ``yes'' wanted to do this right. We realized that any action in Iraq would require adequate forces, rigorous planning, and a commitment to stay until the whole mission, the war and the peace, was accomplished. A year has gone by, and now we are all in the same boat. We have undertaken a project that if done well can change the face of the Middle East for the better. If done poorly, in my judgment it will pose a grave threat to our national security. However, the requests made by the President and the Coalition Provisional Authority was shaped in part by a series of miscalculations, miscalculations about how the international community would react to a United States operation to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein; miscalculations about how our troops and our best intentions would be received by much of the Iraqi public; miscalculations about what would be required to rebuild; miscalculations about how generous other nations would be with donations even as their policy input was rebutted; miscalculations about how long it would take to bring Iraqi oil revenues online; and, finally, miscalculations about how this massive undertaking would affect our Federal budget. The Committee on Appropriations, led by our able and fair chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), along with myself, reviewed the administration's request seriously and with close attention. Some necessary changes were made. Other adjustments may be made by the full House as they have been made in the Senate, and this is appropriate. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and we have a responsibility to our constituents, our heroic armed forces, and our democracy to actively participate in this effort, not just rubber stamp the executive branch's request. Despite deep reservations, I have decided to support this supplemental. First and foremost, I believe we have a responsibility to the people of the United States and to the people of Iraq to do our utmost to build a democratic and prosperous Iraq. This remains a fundamental part of our national security strategy. But we cannot do it haphazardly. We must be clear about our priorities and how much money and time it will take to achieve them. We need a plan, a coherent complete strategy that clearly lays out our obligations and shows how we plan to address them in the most efficient and effective way. We need priorities. We need to know that our efforts in Iraq will not just be about building roads, bridges, and buildings. They will also be about building democracy. We need assurances, assurances that United States taxpayer funds are being spent wisely through the use of competitive procurement procedures and strict auditing and oversight of ongoing projects. We need diplomacy, sincere efforts by the administration to marshal other donor contributions on an ongoing basis and to get the support of the United Nations for the rebuilding effort. This problem is a marked change from how the United States handled last year's diplomatic effort. I continue to be amazed at our inability to stick to our goal when I read that after a ridiculously brief period of diplomacy at the U.N., the U.S. is said to be ``frustrated and ready to give up.'' The problem as I see it is that we do not have a plan, priorities, safeguards or sustained diplomatic efforts. We have done what we could with the massive requests of broad parameters of how it would be spent. We asked repeatedly for more detailed information from the CPA and we got some information, removed some of the more problematic provisions, but serious concerns remain. Among them are the impact this borrowed $87 billion will have on our own budget and the priorities that will not be funded because of our responsibilities in Iraq. Many of my colleagues have asked how we can fund school construction in Baghdad, but not in Briarcliff or Boston; how we have money for quality housing in Najaf but not in New York City or Newark; and how we can plan for fair elections in Mosul in northern Iraq but not in Miami in southern Florida. I agree with them. I find it hard to agree that, with this weak economy, the climbing deficit and with the enormous need at home, that we are not engaged in any effort to review our fiscal policies, our tax and spending, as if we still enjoy surpluses as far as the eye can see. That is why I also support the package drafted by our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The Obey package would provide for all emergency reconstruction needs, important military needs not addressed in the request, and increased donor participation by giving part of the United States funding in cash and part as a loan to the World Bank. In my judgment this is realistic. If we are only anticipating $3 billion in direct contributions from allies around the world, we need to find other ways to leverage as much money as we can. And providing $7 billion to the World Bank would leverage up to $40 billion in World Bank funds for reconstruction. The Obey package also provides for detailed reporting and accountability and that is key. However Members vote on this supplemental, we share the responsibilities for keeping our troops safe and following through on our commitment in Iraq. I believe we must finish the effort we began in Iraq for the people in my district as much as for the citizens in Karbala or Basra. But I also believe that we must be honest about what reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan costs Americans, especially our military families. We must be realistic about the tough choices this Nation faces. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we move to conference that a sense of responsibility and realism governs our work. The stakes are very high.