Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The additional funding requested for Colombia has no place in this bill. More importantly, it adds funding in support of a policy that is essentially flawed. President Uribe's election gave us some initial hope that he would engage all the disparate elements of the conflict with new ideas and a real commitment to bring lasting peace. Unfortunately, what we have seen is an escalation of activity from guerilla organizations, increasing influence and control by paramilitary organizations, no reduction in coca cultivation, and a slippage in the commitment to prosecute human rights abuses. I have no illusion about the complexity of the problems of Colombia, but I do not think we should be adding funds to expand our commitment there at this point. Make no mistake: we are headed toward the direct involvement of U.S. troops in that conflict. I regret the fact that there are U.S. hostages in FARC camps, and I support all efforts to rescue them, but this funding goes beyond that and expands the involvement of U.S. personnel on the ground. If the policy were balanced and we had a real commitment on the part of the Colombian government to deal with all aspects of the problem-- including the rapidly expanding drug trafficking by paramilitary organizations--it might be different. Unfortunately we don't, and the influence of these organizations and their cooperation with the Colombian military increases daily. The Colombian military has succeeded in decreasing the control that rebel groups have enjoyed in certain parts of the country. But these successful military operations have been followed up by paramilitary units moving in to these same areas and taking control. This has occurred in the Buena Ventura port area on the Pacific Coast of Colombia, which is a primary drug transshipment port near the town of Cali. And we also have seen no action by the Colombians to arrest indicted members of the Paramilitaries. Until we have a balanced policy with a real commitment by the Colombian government to deal with all aspects of the problem, our funding for eradication and military training only serves to inflame, not to stop, the conflict. I urge my colleagues to move funding away from these purposes, and instead invest it in homeland security--where it can make a positive difference in the lives of the American people.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I would like to take a moment to address two different sections of the Supplemental--foreign assistance and support for first responders. The Foreign Operations section provides $7.3 billion of the $7.5 billion requested. I think it is generally a good product, and I appreciate Chairman Kolbe's willingness to work with me on it. As many of my colleagues know, I consider foreign aid to be an indispensable arm of our national security strategy. No place is this role more evident than in today's bill, which will help strengthen many of our allies in the coalition of the willing. I particularly support the funding for Israel, a key ally in the war on terrorism and a force for stability in the Middle East, as well as the assistance for Jordan, a country which has supported our cause at great risk to its own stability. I am also pleased that this bill takes important steps to secure the role of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development in guiding spending for post-war relief and reconstruction. It has been clear to us for quite some time that the Department of Defense would like to take over the management of these funds. While the President requested that all Iraq relief and reconstruction dollars be provided in a form that would have allowed him to transfer them to any government agency with no Congressional input, this bill wisely allows the flexibility to use them only at USAID, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and HHS--the four main agency implementers of our foreign assistance programs. The bill also makes clear the policy decisions regarding post-war relief and reconstruction should be made at the State Department--not anywhere else. Both of these provisions provide important precedents for similar situations that may arise in the future. I do have a few concerns about the Foreign Operations section of the bill--primarily that funding is provided for Colombia and the Philippines, despite the fact that they have no direct or indirect role in the conflict in Iraq. Congress has been admonished by the administration not to attach extraneous provisions to this bill, and I think these are two that could be better dealt with in the regular Fiscal Year 2004 process. I strongly support the $700 million set-aside in the High-Risk Urban Areas category in the Office of Domestic Preparedness, an area of critical need. The administration requested $50 million for this purpose, an in the committee's mark on Tuesday the funding was raised to $700 million. This is excellent progress, but I still believe we must do more. We have a responsibility to protect every American, wherever they live and wherever they serve this Nation around the globe. But we know, based on experience and intelligence, that there are areas of higher risk than others in America. And it isn't always the most obvious places, like New York City, or Washington, DC, and the Pentagon. It could be Orlando, where Disney World draws millions of visitors, or Fort Knox in Kentucky. It could be an attraction that symbolizes American culture like the Rock and Roll Hall of fame in Ohio, or a military installation like Quantico in Virginia. Each of these places has political and cultural significance to our people and the world. We've seen that Al Qaeda has a diabolical sense of where to hit us--not only to take innocent life and destroy structures, but also to shake our confidence and our sense of America as a safe place. For those reasons, there's an urgent need to provide funding for high-level risk areas, especially in urban centers. The administration, in its request, provided $50 million in funding for these needs. But $50 million isn't adequate. New York City spends that in 10 weeks alone--$5 million a week. The State of New York spends $7 million a week, mostly in New York City. This funding is for needs nationally, and that's very important, but I want to mention just a few things that New York needs to do in order to protect the 11 million people who work in the city every day: The city now has its own Counterterrorism Bureau in the police department that costs $200 million to run. Its one thousand officers are deployed in New York and around the world. It's designing a communications system that will work from high-rise buildings to subways, that isn't reliant on a private carrier and has built-in redundancy so a failure at one point won't bring the whole communications systems to a halt. That will cost $120 million. It needs $25 million to add HazMat units because the city isn't adequately prepared for a major chemical and/or biological incident. It needs bigger and faster fireboats to help put out fires. For all of New York City's 575 miles of shoreline, there are 3 small fireboats. If, God forbid, there's an attack on a cruise ship, ferry, bridge or port, a large fireboat would be needed for rescue and fire control. A boat with large capacity is $15 million. It also has immense training needs--among the 343 firefighters killed on September 11th were many of the department's most highly trained officers, who had accrued 4,400 years of collective experience and training. To recruit and train new firefighters will cost about $40 million. And that's just New York--unfortunately, cities nationwide are forced to carry out similar costly measures to ensure their security. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that cities are spending about $70 million a week, on top of their law enforcement budget, to deal with the increased threat level and security costs due to the war. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working hard to address these important needs, and to fund the High Risk Urban Areas category at $700 million. We still need to do more. As a fire commissioner in my district said, referring to the color code alert system, ``we cannot go to color orange without seeing some color green.'' I hope we can work together through conference with the Senate, to help all our local areas--urban and rural--become as prepared as possible for any terrorist attack.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There is no question that Turkey's initial refusal to allow the use of its territory had made prosecution of the war more difficult for us. While I would characterize the vote of the Turkish Parliament as unfortunate and misguided, it happened. Sometimes we find the result of democratic deliberations inconvenient, but this was, in fact, the result. Despite that vote, the administration has requested $1 billion for Turkey. The justification, as presented by administration officials, is primarily economic. Turkey is in dire straits at the moment. This is partly due to the war, and partly due to past economic policies. But regardless of the reason, the Turkish economy is teetering. They owe the IMF over $17 billion at the moment, and are financing most of their cash needs in short-term, high-interest debt. They have started down the path of economic reform, but they have a long way to go. Now that the war is on, and Turkey has finally agreed to allow the positioning of supplies for our troops on its soil, the worst thing we could do is send a signal that we do not support Turkey. The circumstances surrounding this request may not be ideal, but our men and women in uniform are well into a tough battle for the future of Iraq, and Turkey's continued cooperation will help them. Economic collapse of Turkey, coupled with a further breach in United States-Turkish relations which would result from passage of this amendment, would be absolutely disastrous to the war effort--and the peace effort that will come after. Turkey remains one of the few stable, democratic countries in the region, surrounded by unstable, authoritarian states. As a moderate Muslim state, strategically situated at the gateway to the Middle East, we simply cannot allow it to fail. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member from Texas, who has the same laryngitis I do, for yielding to me. I appreciate his leadership on this very important issue. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss my continued concerns about security at the Nation's commercial nuclear reactors. Since September 11, 2001, intelligence officials have amassed a critical body of evidence suggesting terrorists intend 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 just casually contemplated, but rather assiduously, studied the option of sabotaging a nuclear reactor. In early March, fresh intelligence confirmed our worst fears: Terrorists continued to plot attacks against nuclear and other critical infrastructure. Recent reports of a terrorist plan to sabotage the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona were sufficiently serious that the National Guard was immediately deployed to secure the plant. As disturbing as these revelations is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to coherently address them. Indeed, the NRC, the agency responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the country's 103 commercial reactors, has shown a remarkable unwillingness to recognize post-September 11 terrorist threats. The commission flatly denied petitions by citizen groups for reinforcement of the spent fuel pools at Millstone Nuclear Power Station, stating ``the possibility of a terrorist attack is speculative . . . and simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action.'' Over 18 months after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the same old assumptions about the size, tactics, and weapons used by an attacking force, referred to as the Design Basis Threat, guides serious security policies. The NRC continues to presume a terrorist force of no more than three individuals, with one passive insider who would relay information to the outside force, but not manipulate any controls or even attempt to incapacitate plant operators. The NRC further assumes that the attacking force would not utilize a vehicle larger than a Jeep to transport and detonate explosives. The Design Basis Threat is also built on the premise that sophisticated weaponry, including grenade launchers and shaped charges, is well beyond the reach of terrorists. These flawed assumptions define the conditions for NRC-supervised force-on-force exams, in which security personnel must defend the reactors against mock terrorists. They also govern NRC standards with respect to the size, training, and capability of the guard force. Our national response to nuclear terrorism must no longer be predicated on such hollow hopes. More than the Design Basis Threat is in urgent need of revision. The NRC has not required reinforcement of the walls of nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools. Although these pools often contain several times the radioactive material of the reactor vessels themselves, they remain among the most lightly defended parts of the nuclear facilities. Collision of a large aircraft into these pools, which are not designed to withstand such an impact, could result in release of radioactive material in as little as 1 hour. A recent report on the hazards of spent fuel pools written by a team of distinguished scientists concluded that the long-term land contamination consequences of a spent pool fuel fire could be significantly worse than those of Chernobyl. Force-on-force drills in which plant personnel respond to a mock terrorist attack have not been administered at some facilities in over 8 years. The NRC has only recently resumed these drills, discontinued after September 11, 2001. Nuclear power plants' abysmal performances on these force-on-force drills, licensees have failed about half of all of the exams administered, causes me considerable consternation. The NRC has never decommissioned or fined facilities failing the exam. At an August security drill at the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanon, New York, which abuts my district, mock attackers were able to place simulated explosives at the spent fuel pools twice in 60 seconds or less. The NRC nevertheless ultimately passed Indian Point with high marks. The absence of any sanctions for poor performance provides licensees with little incentive to improve security. The commission's decision to administer force-on-force drills triennially, while certainly an improvement, will be of limited effectiveness as long as violations go unpunished. Chronic turnover in security personnel at nuclear facilities, which can approach 70 to 100 percent for a 3\1/2\ year period, also makes more frequent exams essential. The size and tactics employed by the mock enemy force is still based on the current flawed Design Basis Threat of three lightly armed terrorists and one passive insider. More frequent realistic exams, coupled with stiff penalties for poor performance, would dramatically improve the usefulness of these drills. The absence of strong Federal training standards have left many guards wholly unprepared to fend off a terrorist attack. Tactics are commonly taught using painted clothespins and a flat surface rather than serious simulation models. The testimony of guards in a report released by the Project on Government Oversight challenges industry assertions that personnel received 270 hours of pre-posting training, 90 hours of recurrent firearms training, and 30 hours per year of tactical instructions. Most guards interviewed engaged in firearms training only a few hours every year, and had no moving-target practice. Such training is all the more necessary as many personnel have no prior military or law enforcement experience. Physical agility exams are notoriously lax and wholly inadequate to verify plant personnel could respond effectively to a coordinated attack by multiple professional terrorists. An internal report completed by Entergy, the plant's owners, in 2001 revealed that 4 out of 5 guards interviewed by Entergy lacked confidence in their ability to thwart a terrorist attack. The majority of guards also stated they feared retribution if they spoke up about security concerns and substandard hiring and training procedures. Struggling to fill vacancies, Entergy has hired personnel with little or no law enforcement or military background. Security-sensitive information, including guard performance on firearm drills, has not been protected in accordance with Federal regulations. Astoundingly, the NRC never fined or even warned Entergy for these practices which violated Commission-approved security policies. Foster Zeh, a certified instructor at Indian Point and vocal critic of its security operations, has affirmed, with few exceptions the problems identified in the December 2002 report still exist today. I worry that a similar system prevails at other nuclear reactors around the country. The NRC's policy of benign negligence should no longer stand. Training and qualification standards for guards must be strengthened and an enforcement system with real teeth must be put in place. A comprehensive evaluation of present terrorist threats and of the new security policies needed to address them is long overdue. Certainly the stakes are high. Studies on the impact of a successful attack on a nuclear facility detail public health and economic consequences almost too chilling to contemplate. A 1982 investigation commissioned by the NRC found that a meltdown at Indian Point, which lies within 50 miles of 21 million people, could lead to 123,000 short- and long-term deaths, over 300,000 injuries, and property damages conservatively estimated at over $1 trillion. Factoring the fourfold increase in property values in the New York metropolitan area since the study, the economic damages for our region could reach $2.3 trillion. This administration's recent decision to restrict public access to millions of classified documents, including those potentially dealing with the safety of nuclear power plants, represents a step in the wrong direction. Covering NRC activities in a veil of secrecy would limit the public's ability to effectively critique the plan, thereby removing a critical check on the agency. The Department of Energy, pursuing a similar strategy, has repeatedly refused to provide the Government Affairs Office with details on the Design Basis Threat, information the office requires to complete a report on physical security at DOE sites. As terrorist threats increase across the globe, we must acknowledge the vulnerability of nuclear infrastructure and craft thoughtful, coherent responses. In this area we truly delay at our own peril. And I want to thank the gentleman again, my friend the Congressman and the ranking member of our select committee, for arranging this time to share our views on this very important issue of homeland security. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Eve W. Paul, vice president and general counsel of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Ms. Paul is retiring after 25 years of distinguished service to that indispensable and life-enhancing organization. In her long career as an attorney, Ms. Paul has devoted herself to women's rights. She was on the board of the Stamford (Connecticut) League of Women Voters, and she was director and general counsel of the Connecticut Women's Bank. Before coming to Planned Parenthood Federation, Ms. Paul served as a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society, in its Family Court Branch, a post that reflected her life-long commitment to the welfare of women and children. While serving Planned Parenthood, Ms. Paul headed the Legal Analysis Project. In that capacity she prepared a study of U.S. laws on family planning. She also has written extensively on reproductive health care issues, including abortion, contraception, and minors' rights. Throughout her career Ms. Paul has been an advocate for reproductive freedom, and has worked on a number of landmark cases that secured for women the fundamental human and civil right to make their own childbearing choices. I am honored to congratulate Eve W. Paul on her retirement. Her work in the service of human rights has left the world a better place. We wish her well.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, our decision to authorize the President to commit American men and women to overseas military action is the most difficult decision a Member of Congress will ever face. Since September 11, 2001, when more than 100 of my constituents were killed in the terror attacks on our country, I have felt a new urgency to address the dangers to our national security that exist both here in the United States and abroad. Our government must act to secure our boarders and airways, protect nuclear power plants, safeguard our food and water supplies and more. We must face up to the very real possibility of a biological, chemical or even nuclear attack upon our country and take whatever action is necessary to prevent it. I have spent a great deal of time, as have my colleagues, in recent weeks in classified briefings, with military and intelligence experts; and I have also paid close attention to the very real concerns of my constituents and even my family. We are living in a world far more dangerous today than we have ever known, and I have concluded that we must not wait for another terrorist attack before giving the President the authority to take the necessary action to protect our children and our grandchildren. Throughout world history, inaction against tyrants has proven to be an ineffective strategy for averting catastrophe. We have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is continuing to build up his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He continues to defy the civilized world and United Nations Security Council resolutions ordering him to disarm. He has shown through brutality toward his own people his willingness to use these terrible weapons against innocent people. Therefore, I have concluded that Saddam Hussein poses a serious danger to United States national security. We must stand up to this threat first by pursuing to the fullest all possible diplomatic means and then, only if we must, by the use of force. As a strong believer in the United Nations, I have a long record of support for a robust United States role in the United Nations, and I believe that strong United States leadership in the United Nations is critical to achieve peace in the world. But the United Nations must act. The crisis before us provides an important opportunity for the U.N. Security Council to show that there are consequences to ignoring the will of the international community. Failure to enforce the relevant resolutions will hurt the U.N.'s effectiveness as an organization, diminishing a potent force for stability around the world. And if all else fails, if we must pursue military action, I hope and I pray that the mission is successful and short and that it will pave the way to a better day for Iraq and the region and result in greater security for Americans here at home.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the one year anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Last September, the lives of all Americans were forever changed. Loved ones have been lost, and the grief we feel is as sharp now as it was one year ago. There is an emptiness in families, in offices, in communities, where sons and daughters, husbands and wives, parents, siblings and friends once were. Our country has changed. We have focused intently on the task of ensuring our homeland security--a term seldom heard before this past year. We have invested billions of dollars in securing our ports and borders, water and food, and airways. We have enhanced the strength of our military and intelligence capacities, undertaking an unprecedented campaign to end the threat of international terrorism. We have a new appreciation for the hard work of our men and women in uniform--whether they are soldiers, police officers, emergency medical technicians, or firefighters. We joined together with the President, the Governor, and former Mayor Giuliani in passing an emergency spending bill which provided $21 billion to fund the rescue and recovery efforts at the World Trade Center site and cleanup in lower Manhattan. This funding has also helped alleviate some of the economic ramifications of the terrorist attacks, provide counseling to New York schoolchildren affected by 9/ 11, and it is now being used to modernize the transportation systems that were devastated by the towers' collapse. The wounds remain, but our community has shown extraordinary courage in dealing with the challenges before us. We will never forget, but we will recover. Shattering as this ordeal has been, the fundamental character of America has remained the same. And for this we should all be proud. We are still a strong and diverse nation, focused on the pleasures and challenges of everyday life, caught up in the struggle to provide good homes for our children, achieve meaning in our lives, and leave this world a better place after we've gone. We still believe in the importance of our democratic ideals--the foundation on which our country was built, and continues to thrive. As a nation, we have joined together to provide support for our neighbors, friends, coworkers and fellow Americans. As I have traveled around New York, I have seen remarkable displays of the resilience of the American spirit as we have worked in the recovery effort, giving from both our hearts and our wallets. The tragedy of September 11th was once unimaginable as were the courage and empathy that were displayed that terrible day. Now, it is this strength and this concern for our fellow citizens that redefine us as Americans. This is what gives us hope. And this is what gives us confidence that, despite the dangers of the world and the challenges our country faces, we will prevail in perpetuating the values we hold dear. I am humbled and honored to stand before you today in remembrance of the tragedy of September 11th and the heroism and patriotism of New Yorkers and all Americans over the past year.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to express my strong opposition to the idea of a long-term continuing resolution. My colleagues, what have we done over the last few weeks? We've passed resolutions critical of the other body. Day by day, however, the start of the fiscal year approaches and the possibility looms that our inaction on the Labor-HHS bill will be felt in classrooms throughout American and by every school-age kid. The House Republican leadership ought to stop pointing the finger at the Senate, and start crafting appropriations bills that are palatable to their own party. Last year we passed and the President signed into law the landmark reauthorization of the ESEA, which calls for substantial increases in funding to ensure a quality education for every American child. The No Child Left Behind Act marked a new federal commitment to the education of our children. It seems, unfortunately, that the Republican Leadership suddenly forgot everything it said as soon as we passed this bill. The new ESEA law promised to provide school districts with 40% of the nation's average per pupil expenditure for each low-income student. Title I funding already does not meet the overwhelming need across the country, particularly in urban school districts, but ESEA was a step in the right direction. The Republican budget, however, provides a mere $1 billion increase in Title I funding. This funding level is $16.7 billion below ``full'' funding for Title I under the new education law. Not only does this increase come on the backs of other programs, but it does not even keep up with inflation. In New York City alone, only 30% of eligible low-income students were served by Title I in the last school year. This means that 326,000 students are being left behind. Under the Republican budget, even with the $1 billion increase, 256,000 eligible students will still miss out. The failure to provide adequate Title I dollars runs counter to the historic No Child Left Behind Act, which promised to provide greater federal assistance to those schools serving the highest concentration of poor students. Regardless of location, the costs of educating children are similar in all schools. Under the Republicans' education spending bill, children will continue to be deprived of critical academic services. Now it is the number one victim of Republican delays and intra-party squabbles. Democrats will not allow after-school, teacher training, and school construction programs be put aside and underfunded until the spring of next year. Clearly, education must remain a recession-proof priority.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, during an absence yesterday, I regrettably missed Roll Call votes 375-377. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll Call #375: Yea; Roll Call #376: Yea; Roll Call #377: Yea.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oberstar Amendment. My colleagues, the first obligation of our government is to protect our citizens. While I strongly believe we are united in our determination to win the war on terrorism and committed to reorganizing the federal government to better serve our country during these times, I continue to be puzzled by the actions of some of my colleagues. In the fall, the Leadership took only three days to start bailing out the airline industry, but dodged the issue of aviation security for months. Democrats fought hard, constantly reminding our colleagues that in order to assure the public that our skies are safe we had to require that the federal government to assume passenger screening responsibilities, expand its air marshal program, and screen all checked baggage for explosives. Although our efforts were successful, some of my colleagues have been working bit by bit to unravel the commitment we made to Americans. When the TSA asked for $4.4 billion, Republicans shortchanged them by $1 billion. Now, they are using the bill designed to set up a department to ensure homeland security to postpone the deadline for installing bomb- detecting equipment at our airports. The Administration says it cannot meet the deadline of December 2002 due to the delay in passing the emergency supplemental and the lack of necessary funding--the fault of the House Republicans. To that I say, I am truly disappointed that any of us would backtrack in the face of a self-imposed deadline. We should hunker down and work together to tackle this deadline because compromised security in our skies and airports is a clear and present danger. My colleagues, we cannot break our promise. When we passed the transportation security act last year, we acknowledged the immediate need to make aviation security a matter of national security. We must vote to reinstate the baggage screening deadline, and stand by our promise to have every bag screened, on every flight, every day by the new year. Our homeland won't be secure until our skies are secure. I urge you to carefully consider the risks we would take by postponing this deadline. Vote for the Oberstar amendment. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with some reluctance, I rise in opposition to the Oberstar-Menendez amendment regarding the deadline for installation of explosive detection systems at the nation's airports. Let me first say that I would have much preferred that this issue not have been highlighted so prominently. If airports continue to be vulnerable, we do not need to be announcing that for all the world to see. I understand the concerns of airports and their desire to extend the deadline. Many of them, particularly large airports like DFW in my district, have made a compelling case that the existing deadlines cannot be met. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I serve, has been looking at this issue carefully. Earlier this week, it held a hearing on TSA's implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, featuring Secretary Mineta and the DOT Inspector General's office. Secretary Mineta indicated concern that the TSA might not be able to meet the deadline for EDS deployment because of insufficient funding in the FY2002 supplemental for TSA. In part because of his testimony, I voted against the supplemental. The IG's office testified that it would be premature to extend the deadlines at this time because they were still conducting their airport-by-airport assessments. I will quote from the IG's written testimony: ``Because airport assessment for the deployment of explosives detection equipment are scheduled to be completed at the largest airports by the end of August, and because of the current ramp-up in hiring passenger screeners, we will be in a much better position in a month to judge what is or is not feasible to accomplish by the deadlines.'' Mr. Speaker, the language to extend the deadline by one year is far from perfect. Most likely, the deadlines cannot be met, but would it not be prudent to wait until the IG's office completes their assessment and issues a recommendation for a new deadline? However, I also recognize the anxiety that airports are experiencing and their desire to move this language on ``must-pass'' legislation. I will therefore support the one-year extension at this time and vote against the Oberstar-Menendez amendment so that we can move forward on this issue and ensure that this gets resolved in conference. However, I will also be monitoring the IG's recommendations and insist that the conference adjust the language if it conflicts with the IG's findings. Explosive detection systems must be deployed as quickly as possible, and if the IG indicates that compliance before December 31, 2003 is feasible, the conferees must adjust the language accordingly.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we are here today, considering a ban on so-called ``partial-birth abortions'' for the eighth time in seven years, because the proponents of this bill want to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ban is not about outlawing one method of abortion--it's about access to safe abortion methods used throughout pregnancy. It's not about post-viability abortion--it's about the right of all women to choose. It's about Roe v. Wade. And those who support this ban--much as I respect their convictions--do not want Americans to hear that because they know Americans support to right to choose. Roe v. Wade guaranteed that right to choose by expressing three very important values that make sense and have been widely accepted by the American people. First, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is private and personal, and should be made by a woman and her family without undue interference from the government. At the earliest point in pregnancy, the government has no place in this process. Therefore, a state cannot ban access to abortion before fetal viability, the point at which a fetus can live outside of the woman. Second, a woman must never be forced to sacrifice her life or damage her health in order to bring a pregnancy to term. The woman's life and health must come first and be protected throughout pregnancy. Third, determinations about viability and health risks must be made for each woman by her physician. A blanket government decree on medical determinations is irresponsible, offensive, and dangerous. Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart--which confirmed these principles--H.R. 4965 clearly rejects each of these values. The Court made clear that a ``partial birth abortion'' ban was extreme and dangerous because it limited safe options for women and failed to protect the health of women. Yet the bill before us contains no mention of fetal viability, no protection for the health of the woman, and leaves no role for the physician treating a woman. The government makes all the decisions. The proponents of the bill may deny it, but their tireless efforts to ban so-called ``partial birth abortions'' is in fact a calculated, nationwide effort to undermine support for Roe v. Wade. Please do not be fooled by today's charade, this is just another attempt to make abortion illegal. My colleagues, we believe that women matter. We believe their lives are irreplaceable and worth protecting. That is why we oppose this ban. I urge my colleagues to respect the law of the land by supporting the values in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart--let's leave decisions in the hands of families and protect the health of women. Vote against this terrible harmful bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, during an absence last week, I regrettably missed Rollcall votes 319-323. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 319: ``nay''; Rollcall No. 320: ``yea''; Rollcall No. 321: ``yea''; Rollcall No. 322: ``yea''; Rollcall No. 323: ``nay''.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter- Dicks Amendment, to make important increases to the NEA and NEH. Before I continue, I must relay my hesitation to use the term ``increase'' when referring to the modest funding this amendment would provide. After all, the NEA and NEH have yet to fully recover from the more than 40 percent cut they suffered in 1995. We know that the arts are crucial to the development of our culture and our economy, and beneficial to all our citizens. In fact, a recent study showed that the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity and $24 billion in tax revenue in the U.S. annually. The arts are especially important to New York. As a former member of the National Council on the Arts, I have seen first-hand the grant selection process, and I applaud the NEA for successfully increasing all Americans' access to the arts, through programs such as ``Challenge America.'' It is vital that we continue to fully support these extraordinary programs. We must recognize, however, that last year's funding increase was not the conclusion of a struggle, but rather, a first step toward funding the arts and humanities at levels appropriate to them. A $10 million increase to the NEA budget would not only support magnificent artistic work, but would also generate federal revenue and foster local economic activity. Let's use this opportunity to get back to providing a level of resources to the NEA and the NEH of which we can all be proud. My colleagues, I urge you to support the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. The skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs is a bitter pill to swallow, and the Republican leadership's refusal to let us consider the Democratic proposal is simply bad medicine for America's seniors. My colleagues, last year, I conducted a study which showed that seniors in Westchester County are paying from 57 percent to 128 percent more than their counterparts in six foreign countries for the five drugs most commonly used by seniors in the United States. It also revealed that three medications frequently prescribed to seniors increased in price by at least twice the rate of inflation. These statistics reveal to us over and over again the depth of the problem, which is growing worse by the day. Clearly, America's seniors deserve more than a hope and a prayer when it comes to ensuring their health and well-being. The bill under consideration would, unfortunately, not guarantee benefits for seniors. Instead, it would pay subsidies to insurance companies in the hopes that they will establish drug-only insurance plans for Medicare beneficiaries. Under the Democratic plan, which we were not able to really debate this evening, Medicare would provide voluntary prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. It is simply unconscionable that the Republicans are denying us a vote on the Democratic bill because perhaps they feel their Members will join us in voting for a real prescription drug benefit. I also note that congressional action on provider payment increase and protections for Medicare-Plus Choice is long overdue. Let us vote for a real plan. Let us have a real debate. Let us vote down this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Jack Teich, CEO and Co-Chairman of the Board of the Acme Architectural Company. Mr. Teich was honored this past October at The Friars Foundation Annual International Gala Dinner and Ball, along with legendary writers and lyricists Betty Comden and Adolph Green. It is in the spirit of this occasion that I am pleased to call to the attention of my colleagues the many contributions Mr. Teich has made to his community and the Friars organization, and to congratulate him today. Mr. Teich, a resident of Harrison, NY, in my district, is the President and CEO of Acme Architectural Products Inc., a leading manufacturer of building products, which has offices and manufacturing plants throughout New York State. His sons Marc and Michael have recently joined their father in the family business. Mr. Teich is also involved with several philanthropic organizations. He is a member of the Chief Executive Organization and the World Presidents Organization, of which he is Vice-Chairrnan of the New York chapter. He is also a Trustee of the Pension and Welfare Funds of Local 2947 Carpenters Union, and is active with the Personal Enterprise program with Cornell University. He and his wife Janet are on several charity boards including the Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Janet is also a board member of The Rye Art Institute. Jack has been active with the Friars Club since 1974, and serves on its Finance Committee. His family has also been and continues to be deeply involved in the Friars Foundation, which gives Performing Arts Scholarship Grants to 12 colleges in New York State to young people studying one of the performing arts. For his commitment and many contributions to his community and his State, it is my privilege to join the Friars Club in honoring Mr. Jack Teich on this special occasion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am very pleased that the chairman has withdrawn, as I understand it, one amendment which was funding for Israel, and if the gentleman is talking about the funding for Arafat and withdrawing that money, I agree with the gentleman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I am afraid that I am quickly losing my time, yes, I was there when we were negotiating. The gentleman is talking about the Ne'eman Plan, and we all agreed to it. That was the time when there was interaction in the region. We did not have terrorists in the region blowing people up, blowing innocent children in a marketplace up. That was the time when we had hope for the future. The President has made it clear that we are united in the war against terrorism. We see what is going on in that region of the world, and that is why I have supported the amount put in the bill. Let me just say this: I have applauded the gentleman for crafting the plan. We worked together, we supported it. But times have changed. At that time, I would say to my chairman, my former chairman, we did not have a plane go into the World Trade Center. We did not have people dying in the street because of terrorists blowing people up. So I think this is very different, and I would certainly ask my colleagues, when these amendments come up, unless the gentleman decides not to offer those amendments at 2 in the morning, when they come up, that we understand the difference in the world today and how those people are suffering and how we need to deal with our allies and make sure that we keep that message consistent. There is a war on terrorism. We support the war on terrorism whether it is the Middle East, whether it is in Afghanistan, no matter where it is; and that is the position of our President. So I hope the gentleman will reconsider and not offer those amendments.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), and he is my good friend, because we have worked together on so many issues, I really do not find this issue a laughing matter, and I do hope, my good friend, that when we bring the charts here, we will also show pictures of the devastation, of the lives that have been lost, about the empty hotels, the empty streets. Because of the suicide bombers, people are afraid.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was aware of several amendments. I am not sure if one amendment is regarding the $200 million for Israel as well. I thought that was one of the amendments. I think for those of us who are in touch with people who are living there and hear stories of the empty hotels, the lack of commerce, the lack of any kind of interaction in the region, many of us had great hopes, as the gentleman was saying, for the economy to begin booming again, for trade between Egypt and Israel and the other nations in the region, certainly with Jordan. There was a great deal of work done with Israel and in the region in trying to have projects, sewer projects, water projects, to help lift the people up, to educate the people. So I take this amendment very seriously, and I do not believe that my colleagues should just treat it as an aside. I just want to say one other thing. The vast majority of funding in this bill was requested by the President and will be granted by Congress to help bolster the war on terrorism, and whether resources go to secure our Nation's borders, improve transportation security, help our men and women in uniform in Central Asia or alleviate the poverty and instability that provides a breeding ground for extremism, all of our oars should be pulling together against terrorism. And providing assistance for Israel, our ally, in that part of the world, is just one part of the campaign.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time, and I also want to take the opportunity to thank our chairman of the committee, and to me it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and I rise to address the foreign operations component of this bill. The foreign operations portion of the supplemental contains $1.6 billion for various priorities and provides for the vast majority of the administration's requests. I am particularly pleased that the committee did not grant the broad waivers sought by the administration along with these funds but, rather, included specific waivers where appropriate. This bill will give the President the broad latitude and flexibility that he sought to carry out the war on terrorism. While many have expressed concern that unnecessary funds for foreign operations were added to the bill, in excess of the President's request, I believe the funding added by this committee is extremely important. In light of the fact that the committee received few details as to how the funding requested will actually be spent, we were well within our discretion to provide what we thought was necessary. I strongly support the additional funding in this bill for rebuilding Afghanistan, a long-term commitment we simply cannot shortchange, and I also support the additional funds provided for Israel. The bill contains both military and economic assistance to a number of countries outside the immediate area of Afghanistan, such as the Philippines, Georgia and Yemen, where United States troops are or will be engaged in training indigenous forces to combat terrorism. The committee has approved funding in these instances with the clear expectation that the administration will keep Congress fully informed of any change or expansion in the role of the United States forces. I hope this will indeed be the case. As I said before, I strongly support the additional assistance to Israel that is included in this bill. Maintaining Israel's security and stability has long been a fundamental priority of the United States foreign policy. Israel has devoted precious resources to fighting the terror that continues to threaten its own citizens, 3 of whom were murdered just this week by suicide bombers, and the country is a key democratic ally in our war against terror. This funding originally requested by the State Department as part of its supplemental request to OMB is essential to ensure our key partner in the Middle East remains strong. I urge my colleagues to oppose amendments to cut this funding. I would like to take a moment to discuss 2 specific items of concern. First, the current status of fiscal year 2002 funds for the United Nations Population Fund. The conference agreement on the fiscal year 2002 foreign operations bill provided $34 million for the organization, a deal that was painstakingly negotiated. The administration knew about our negotiations, and after the bill passed the House by an overwhelming margin, the President signed it on January 10, 2002. Only after signing the bill did the administration express concern about as-yet unproven allegations that UNFPA supported coercive family planning practices in China in violation of U.S. law. In a direct challenge to clear congressional direction, the President waited 5 months to even investigate these claims, and UNFPA was forced to cut its staff and curtail its life-saving programs around the world. During committee consideration of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I offered an amendment which would have ensured that UNFPA received the funds intended for it by July 10, 7 months after the signing of the bill, unless the President determines that the organization is in violation of the U.S. law. I am deeply disappointed that the Committee on Rules left this provision and another dealing with UNFPA unprotected. In my judgment, it was inappropriate to single out this particular issue while allowing the bill to come to the floor with highly controversial provisions regarding the International Criminal Court, the budget resolution and Medicare provider payments. I anticipate the Senate bill will have something to say about UNFPA, and I look forward to discussing it in conference. I am also disappointed that the rule did not allow me to offer an amendment increasing funding to address the global AIDS crisis. While this bill already contains $200 million for HIV/AIDS, a clear indication that Congress recognizes the emergency nature of the crisis, we can and should be doing more. Applications to the Global Fund to Combat Infectious Diseases have far exceeded the fund's resources, and this situation will only get worse as time goes by. Our own bilateral programs, while highly effective, will reach 25 percent of affected areas. Our response to this tragedy must be as expansive as the pandemic itself so that we stop the wholesale destruction that AIDS is causing in Africa and will cause in other areas around the world. As a global leader, we have the responsibility to take the initiative, jolting other donors into contributing more. Again, I anticipate that the Senate bill will far exceed ours, and I look forward to discussing this in conference as well.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Master Sergeant Richard W. Petrone, who retired from the New York Army National Guard on September 30, 2001, with more than thirty-one years of exemplary service to our nation. It is my pleasure to honor him here today. Mr. Petrone has enjoyed a long career in public service. He worked with New York Police Department for 23 years, and served in the U.S. Army Reserve for more than two years. Among several positions at the National Guard, Mr. Petrone served as Chief Training Instructor at the 106th Regiment Headquarters Regional Training Institute. There, he was instrumental in organizing and supervising several outstanding programs, which garnered the Institute several certificates of accreditation. As Battalion Communications Chief with the 206 Corps Support Battalion, Master Sergeant Petrone enacted programs to make the unit act in a more coordinated and efficient fashion. This contributed to a more effective communications program throughout the command. For his service, Mr. Petrone has received several awards, including the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the New York State Military Commendation Medal, and the New York State Medal for Humane Service. For his commitment to his community, his State, and his Country, it is my privilege to congratulate Master Sergeant Richard W. Petrone on this special occasion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank my colleague Loretta Sanchez for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country. And yet, these women--for the past eight years--have been denied the very Constitutional rights they fight to protect. My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions because no federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to because they are protected by a broad exemption. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access safe and legal abortion services. Mr. Chairman, as our nation works to preserve our freedoms and democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the path of our troops overseas. We know that the restriction on abortion does nothing to make abortion less necessary--it simply makes abortion more difficult and dangerous. It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our military personnel. I urge passage of the Sanchez amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of H. Res. 392, expressing the solidarity of Congress with Israel in its fight against terrorism. Fifty-four years ago after the establishment of the State, the miracle so many fought and died for is once again under attack. Indeed, the ideals and values are under siege in this difficult time in the region, freedom, democracy and human rights, are not just Israel's. They are America's as well. Today, Israel's fundamental right to exist within secure borders is being questioned by both sworn enemies and one-time friends of the Jewish state. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, which spent most of its recent session ignoring human rights violations around the world, voted to condone Palestinian armed struggle in pursuit of Statehood, declining to denounce terror. Unbelievably, only six nations opposed the resolution. But the United States, as ever, must stand with our ally. We must remind the world that the Israeli people have been prepared to give up land, to recognize a Palestinian state, to make other sacrifices to end hostilities and to return peace and security to the Jewish state. That is why I join my colleagues here today. Peace has always been Israel's goal. In the words of David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, in the very declaration that established the state, and I quote, ``We offer peace and amity to all neighboring states and their peoples. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress of the Middle East.'' The Israeli people have been ready for peace, not just since Oslo in 1933, they have been ready for peace for 54 years. But peace requires a partner. It is clear that Yasir Arafat will not negotiate in earnest and will not keep his promises. He encourages suicide bombers. His actions threaten the security of Israel and the stability of the whole region. And they endanger our own country's war against terrorism. My colleagues, we must remain actively and assertively engaged. Our message must remain unequivocal. Terror against any of us is terror against all of us, and it must stop. Just as the United States decisively struck back against the terror perpetrated on our own shores, Israel must do the same. We have told Yasir Arafat what we expect, and he has met our requests with unreasonable demands and promises of violence. He has avoided real leadership, preferring to incite terror, hatred, and chaos. We must not bow to these tactics. I call on others in the region to put aside their dangerous flirtation with terror and push the Palestinian Authority towards the peace they claim to support. This is the only way progress can be achieved. The Israel-Palestinian conflict can no longer be a pressure valve for their failings and for the resentments of their people. They must save the region from its path of slow self- destruction. Today, as this long and sad saga continues, Congress will reaffirm the strength of the United States-Israel relationship. Let there be no mistake why this friendship endures. We both cherish democracy. We are both committed to freedom of speech and human rights. And we stand together against terror. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.