Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mrs. LOWEY. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that for far too long the Saudi Government looked the other way as the roots of global terrorism drew stronger and stronger within its borders. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. U.S. troops and nationals have repeatedly been attacked by terrorists on Saudi soil. Saudi Arabia has been identified time and time again as a major source and transit point for terrorist financing. Enough is enough. We simply cannot stand by silently as Saudi Arabia continues to poison the minds of its children with anti-Israel and anti-Western canards; as it continues to legitimize Yasser Arafat even as Abu Mazen tries to lead his people on the path toward peace; as it allows telethons on its airwaves raising funds for families of suicide bombers. This amendment will not solve all of these problems, but it will send the message that Congress has had enough. It is time for Saudi Arabia to show some leadership, to take the first step to reform its education system, to reflect the realities of the peace process it professes to support. It is time for Saudi Arabia to strengthen the transparency and accountability of its financial systems to close the loopholes that let terrorist financing slip through and to stop passing off as charity payments to terrorists and their organizations. It is time for Saudi Arabia to live up to its commitments to bolster the newly elected Palestinian leadership instead of continuing to strengthen the old guard that remains fixated on using terror as a negotiating tactic. However, I do have some serious concerns about the effects this amendment could have on U.S.-Saudi cooperation to apprehend terrorist suspects and stop the flow of financing to terrorist organizations. It could also slow or stop the flow of Saudi intelligence to our own law enforcement agencies and may stymie State Department plans to help the Saudis professionalize their counterterrorism efforts by opening a training facility in that country. I agree that we must be clear about our dissatisfaction with Saudi Arabia, but I am very concerned that this amendment may hurt our efforts to fight terrorism more than it will hurt the Saudis.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides $574 million for Colombia. The amendment would cut $75 million from that total. And the reason I support it, although I have great respect for the chairman's position, is because I have fundamental questions about the direction in which our Colombia policy is headed. As my colleagues may know, the United States' commitment to Colombia has shifted in the last year from being exclusively focused on drugs towards an open-ended, long-term commitment to aid the Columbian government in its war against guerillas and terrorists. The response to that shift in the United States' policy has been more violence directed at U.S. personnel, including kidnappings, hostages being taken and planes being shot down. Next year marks the end of the original 5-year Plan Colombia, and as we near that time we find that coca production in the region has increased rather than decreased, violence continues unabated, more Colombians are internally displaced. The human rights situation is worse. No viable alternative development scheme is in place, and drug dealing paramilitary organizations control much of the country. Meanwhile, the amount of United States assistance to Colombia has increased every year to over half a billion requested next year. Plans underway in the administration will lead to an even broader commitment to Colombia to assist in this civil war in the name of fighting terrorism. According to the GAO, the administration has not developed estimates of future program costs, defined their future roles in Colombia, identified a proposed end state, or determined how they plan to achieve it. During the original debate on Plan Colombia, critics said we were descending a slippery slope. Well, we are hurtling down that slope with no end in sight. Last year, in the context of agreeing to broaden the authority for U.S. programs beyond drugs, the new government of Colombia agreed to adopt major reforms within the military and to significantly increase security expenditures from its own budget. While it appears that the Colombians increase their security budget in 2002 and 2003, the United States has no firm commitment that the increased level will continue in 2004 and beyond. In the meantime, the costs of simply maintaining the aircraft and equipment we already have there now exceeds $230 million per year. The best you can say about reforms within the military is that they are a work in progress. I support Colombia. I want to help Colombia. But we do not help Colombia by continuing an unbalanced policy, looking the other way on human rights problems and continue collusion with paramilitary organizations and paying the maintenance bill for their helicopters while failing to insist on a viable development scheme for rural areas. Passage of this amendment will not cut off aid to Colombia. It will send a strong signal to the administration that they need to make some policy changes, clarify the length and terms of our commitment and present Congress with an exit strategy. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the McGovern amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman for bringing this important issue to the floor today. During this time of great hope in the Middle East peace process, it is critical that we take a step back to recognize that the roots of tolerance and coexistence must be planted in our young people early in order for peace to truly take hold. I have long shared the gentleman's concern about the danger of anti- Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-Western propaganda in the Arab world. Nowhere is this propaganda more insidious than in school textbooks, where it has the capacity to poison the minds of the children who should be the region's best hope for peace. One of the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East has been the consistent refusal of Arab regimes to prepare their people for coexistence with Israel. Instead, they have used the Palestinian- Israeli conflict as a pressure valve for their citizens to vent frustrations that otherwise might be directed at the ruling regimes themselves. It has been in many of these leaders' best interests to perpetuate the stereotypes and canards that make peaceful coexistence impossible. If we are ever to realize our goal of a peaceful Middle East this practice must end. The amendment the gentleman raises today raises this point, and I think it is one that needs to be made by Congress and heeded by Israel's Arab neighbors.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman for his important work in this area. I know that we have talked quite a bit about the importance of focusing on urban areas and creating a sense of civility in the areas by working on transportation and health and orderliness in our communities. I look forward to working with the gentleman. I appreciate his assistance in helping us craft important language in the reports of this bill, and I know that working together and working with AID, we can increase the intensity of their commitment to this project. I look forward to working with the Chair and the gentleman in the next year.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment which would cut funding below the already inadequate allocation we have for this bill. Foreign assistance is a critical component of our national security strategy, and it would be a mistake to cut it further. I would like to take a moment to mention just a few of the vital parts of this bill that will suffer if the gentleman's amendment is adopted. The Middle East is at a critical juncture right now, and as we work towards peace and stability in that region, our support is absolutely essential to the process. I believe it would be a grave error to cut this funding. We are all well aware of the devastation HIV/AIDS has caused, is causing, and will cause for years to come. Our only answer is to fight, and we cannot possibly do that with reduced funds. The funding we are providing now is not enough, and the gentleman's amendment will cut it further. I am especially proud of the funding this bill provides for basic education. Education is the basis of economic growth in developing societies. This amendment would curtail our ability to provide more of the world's poorest children with the opportunity for a better life. There are many other issues which I could raise, but I think the point is clear. Right now we need more resources in this bill, not less, and I would like to remind the gentleman that the President requested $18.8 billion for foreign aid. This House provided $17.1 billion, so we are already below the President's request. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendments.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my Chair in thanking the member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for her commitment to Ukraine. I know of her important work in developing agriculture initiatives there and understanding how important agriculture is to Ukraine. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention. I can assure the gentlewoman that the Ukraine, as always, will get a significant amount of money to continue the important work that the gentlewoman and others have been doing in Ukraine.

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise to be heard on the point of order.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the chairman's amendment; however, I do have a few comments. This amendment clarifies some of the authorities in the bill with respect to the HIV/AIDS coordinator, while preserving the underlying language in the bill setting up the framework for HIV/AIDS programs. While the President is intent on ensuring that all AIDS funding pass through the new coordinator's office, there are some in Congress who would question the wisdom of such a requirement. Both the Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control have years of experience programming funds spent to combat HIV/AIDS. At the moment it is unclear what function the new coordinator will serve. If the office attempts to micromanage HIV programs as opposed to coordinate them among Federal agencies, there will potentially be serious delays in program implementation. This bill gives the coordinator adequate authority and also ensures that the appropriate agency controls program funds. Everyone is anxious to make progress in this fight, but we have to be careful that we do not create a bureaucratic mess in the name of coordination. This amendment removes a limitation that would have focused the resources of the coordinator's operation, and it is my expectation, as we move forward to create this new bureaucracy, that Congress will exercise its oversight prerogatives on the use of such funds. Again, I do have do not object to the chairman's amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I understand that. And the reason we have had to depend upon think tanks for this information is that the administration, other than developing the criteria, has not responded to us in a request for specifics. Why do we not leave it at that, and I will go on and make a few other points. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment because the amendment would add $300 million to the Child Survival Account to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and is offset by a corresponding cut in the Millennium Challenge Account. Along with the $2 billion already provided in this bill and in the labor-HHS bill, the amendment would bring the total amount appropriated for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria to $2.3 billion. I had hoped that my amendment to add $1 billion for HIV/ AIDS would be made in order, but it was not. I believe that this amendment is a step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to support it. Nearly 3 months ago, the House voted to authorize $3 billion to fulfill the first year of the President's 5-year, $15 billion global AIDS initiative. Amendments to cut the $3 billion level were defeated soundly by the full House. And the President did leave the distinct impression during his recent trip to Africa that the full $3 billion would be provided in 2004, despite the fact that he only requested $2 billion in funding. In fact, OMB's statement of administration policy on this bill, which arrived just a short time ago, threatens to veto the bill if we move funds from the MCA account for HIV/AIDS programs. Frankly, I find it outrageous that a veto is threatened over the fact that funding may be shifted from a proven, up-and-running program to a brand new initiative that has not yet begun. This threat does prove one thing, however. Clearly the President has no intention of reaching a $3 billion level for HIV/AIDS as was authorized in 2004. The rhetoric that surrounded the signing of the HIV/AIDS bill was hollow. Today we have an opportunity to prove that our commitment was real. HIV/AIDS is not only a humanitarian crisis; it is a grave threat to global stability. The African continent is being destroyed by this pandemic. Of the 42 million people infected with HIV, almost three- quarters live in Africa. Life expectancies in Africa are falling rapidly and in some countries people are not expected to live past their forties. By the year 2010, there will be 40 million AIDS orphans. There are still many countries in Africa where condom distribution, access to HIV testing, and education programs is still not available. More resources are necessary and our capacity to plan and deliver programs can and must be expanded. The global AIDS bill recently passed by Congress requires that our HIV/AIDS programs begin a transition from awareness and comprehensive prevention to treatment and abstinence promotion programs. This will be an expensive undertaking, and it should not replace current efforts which emphasize a balanced approach to prevention and awareness. New efforts require new resources. These funds can be spent wisely next year. The most recent United Nations report, the subject cites the need for $8.3 billion for HIV/ AIDS programs next year, while estimating that only $5.3 billion will be provided by all donors combined, leaving a gap of $3 billion. The amendment also leaves open the possibility of an increase above the $400 million already in the bill for the Global Fund. Having more U.S. dollars in place for the fund will serve as an incentive for other donors to do more. The additional funds can be used next year to: speed expansion of Mother-to-Child transmission programs; accelerate the creation of viable treatment programs; establish drug purchase and distribution programs; expand the President's initiative beyond the 14 countries currently identified; and expand prevention programs. I support the offset included in this amendment not because I do not support the MCA initiative, but because all the funds provided in the bill cannot be used next year. Legislation setting the parameters for the new Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has just passed the House and may not pass the Senate anytime soon. There are many unresolved issues relating to Congressional oversight and eligibility criteria. The head of the MCC has not been appointed, no staff are in place, and no financial or contracting procedures exist. Under the best circumstances, it will take 12 to 18 months for the Corporation to be fully functioning. Passage of this amendment leaves the MCC with $500 million for 2004, which I believe is more than enough. The additional funding for HIV/AIDS can be used wisely next year. It will make a real difference and save lives, and it will demonstrate to the world that when the United States makes a promise, we keep it. I urge support of the Kilpatrick amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Although I certainly respect the chairman's point of order, I just wanted to make a few points before the Chair rules. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman does stress the urgency of the request that he has made in this bill. I have tried repeatedly to get an emergency amendment for $1 billion, which would match the authorization, bringing the current appropriation from $2 billion to $3 billion for HIV/AIDS, and I certainly applaud the gentleman for making this point again. And I also want to applaud the gentleman for talking about the urgency of conditions in Africa. Certainly the chairman and I would have been delighted to have the appropriation recommended by the President, which was $18.8 billion, and it was unfortunate that the leadership cut our appropriation to $17.1 billion. We know the reality, based upon last year, that $23 billion was the total amount that was appropriated for fiscal year 2003. We know that this bill does not include funding for operations in Iraq. We know there will be other urgent needs in the year. And I just want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for again bringing these issues to our attention. We have the power of a great Nation to act, and to act and respond to these urgent situations I think is a moral imperative.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kilpatrick amendment. I just want to make a point at the beginning to my distinguished chairman. Based upon the information I have received and we have received as a committee from the administration that MCA, and as you and I know we have received very little information, based upon the criteria that they have set out, only three African nations would qualify in 2004 and 2005, an additional three. I welcome additional information, but the administration has not been over to brief us.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of our committee who has made sure that we focus on our priorities every day he is there. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), distinguished member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut for the purposes of offering a motion. Preferential Motion Offered By Ms. DeLauro

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, although I am a strong supporter of this bill, I rise to express my disappointment with the rule. On a party- line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to make my amendment in order to add $1 billion in emergency funds for HIV/AIDS. I requested that it be made in order so that the full House would have the opportunity to vote to provide the $3 billion authorized in the recently passed HIV/ AIDS bill. Unfortunately, we are being denied the opportunity to live up to the promises we have made. It is truly a shame that the White House opposed this amendment when I offered it during full committee consideration of the bill. These funds are needed and can be used effectively next year. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) will be offering an amendment to the bill adding $300 million for HIV/AIDS, which I urge Members to support. The amendment will be offset with $300 million from the Millennium Challenge Account, which in my judgment is overfunded in the bill at $800 million, because I do not believe they can spend it in this appropriations cycle. I am perplexed by other aspects of this rule. Apparently, the Committee on Rules feels compelled not to protect language in appropriation bills if authorizing committee chairmen object. A provision requiring competitive contracting in Iraq has been left unprotected. Language allowing bilateral agricultural debt to be rescheduled along with all other U.S. Government debt has also been left unprotected. And language clarifying how AID should interact with the new Millennium Challenge Corporation is unprotected as well. All of these provisions were included for sound policy reasons and were supported by the Committee on Appropriations. It was necessary to include them only because the authorizing committees have failed to address the issues involved. It is my hope that the authorizing committee members involved would think twice before making their points of order, but the practical implications of dropping the language in the bill seem to be of secondary concern to jurisdictional interests. The rule also failed to make in order a number of important provisions, including a request from the Committee on Financial Services to authorize several international banks. This authorization is badly needed and long overdue. There were other Democratic amendments that were not given protection from points of order, including amendments by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, which would have helped fill the gap in our funding for various programs in Africa. Again, my colleagues, it is very disappointing that the full House will not be allowed to consider a number of sound policy initiatives today.