Newsmakers

November 16, 2007

Host: Robb Harleston

Guest: U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey, (D-NY)

Reporters: Adam Graham-Silverman, “Congressional Quarterly,”

and Elizabeth Williamson, “Washington Post”

ROBB HARLESTON, HOST: In this edition of “Newsmakers,” we’ll be discussing congressional spending on Pakistan and Iraq, as well as other foreign spending obligations and foreign aid.

Our guest this morning is Representative Nita Lowey, chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee for State and Foreign Operations.

And here in the studio to help us with the interview are Adam Graham-Silverman of “Congressional Quarterly,” and Elizabeth Williamson of the “Washington Post.”

Representative Lowey, you were in Pakistan in April and met with President Musharraf. Given the current situation in Pakistan, should the U.S. cut off financial and military aid to Pakistan? And can Congress do that without the approval of President Bush?

U.S. REP. NITA LOWEY, (D-NY): I was in Pakistan for the second time in April. And this was one month after he suspended the chief justice of the court. We made it clear to him that that action was outrageous. And it was clear, it was a huge mistake. He never should have suspended the chief justice.

But at that time, not only myself as the chair of the delegation, but all the members of the congressional delegation felt that the president was probably doing as much as he could, not as much as he should, with our counterterrorism funds.

In the last weeks, I am astonished, outraged. And I have made my position very clear to our government and to the government of Musharraf, that unless he retreats on martial law and reverses it, unless he reinstates the judges, unless he releases those lawyers and members of civil society, the opposition party – he did suspend the embargo around Benazir Bhutto’s home – unless he guarantees free and fair elections in January, we will do a thorough review of all the money.

And currently, we are in the process of reviewing the FY ’08 foreign operations bill. So, this is the time the decisions are made. And President Musharraf must have action.

Now, I’m talking about the funds, $800 million in my bill. There’s also $1.7 billion that is under the aegis of the Defense Committee. But I think we have to review the whole package and make it clear to Musharraf – and Negroponte is on his way to Pakistan now – that this can’t be business as usual, and we’re going to review the whole package.

And I also want to say at this time, express my condolences, what once was East Pakistan and now Bangladesh, for the huge storm that has taken 500 lives. To actually bring on the kind of actions that are taking place in Pakistan now, when through natural elements there can be such a disaster, is so tragic.

HARLESTON: We’re going to continue our conversation with Representative Lowey with Elizabeth Williamson of the “Washington Post.”

ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, “WASHINGTON POST”: Congresswoman, I wanted to ask you further about Pakistan. Do you really think that Musharraf is going to last until January elections?

And what are the prospects for free and fair elections given the situation – the media being rounded up, opposition leaders being rounded up, even the cricket star Imran Khan being jailed?

LOWEY: Well, I’m not in the business of placing odds on a situation like this. However, I do think the opposition will get stronger. Benazir Bhutto, even though she has been released from house arrest, is certainly talking to her followers. She has been talking with Nawaz Sharif, who hasn’t been allowed to participate in civil society.

So, I am very concerned about the actions that he is taking and will take. And unless there is a very clear reversal, I don’t expect that it will be business as usual in Pakistan, or in the United States in our support for Pakistan.

HARLESTON: Adam Graham-Silverman of “Congressional Quarterly.”

ADAM GRAHAM-SILVERMAN, FOREIGN POLICY REPORTER, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY”: Hi. To follow up on that, you said you wanted to review the entire aid package to the country.

What options are actually available to you, given that it sounds like the president would be likely to veto a change in strategy in terms of aid there? I mean, might you freeze it, as you have proposed for Egypt? Or what other – what would be the options?

LOWEY: The aid package, under the foreign ops committee that I chair, is composed of about – roughly – about $800 million, $200 million of which is cash transferred direct to the government, although there is a memorandum of understanding as to where that money should go. So, that I would place a hold on until some action is taken.

There is money that goes to development, education, health care. In fact, when I was in Pakistan – in Dadar, in the earthquake area – I dedicated a wonderful school for young girls. That kind of work is important.

If you look at what’s happening in the Fateh (ph) area, the illiteracy rate, especially among girls, is so high that continuing to invest in education and health care, development assistance, I would expect would receive support, of course from the administration, and certainly the majority of my colleagues.

So, we have to really look at the foreign military funds, the counterterrorism funds. I think it’s important to note that the same kind of funds that are so important for counterterrorism can also be used to maintain martial law.

So, we have to really review the whole package.

But I would hope that it wouldn’t come to that and – rather, a discontinuance of the package – I would hope that civil society will continue to strengthen.

And whether it’s Benazir Bhutto or another respected figure that would suddenly rise to the top, that there would be free and fair elections. And whether it’s President Musharraf under a totally new kind of regime, shall we say, or another leader, we can see democracy restored.

But we have to insist on the reversal of martial law, reinstating the judges, making sure that civil society is restored, and that there are free and fair elections.

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: So, it sounds like you’re not ready to say we should withhold that military – for military financing money.

LOWEY: I am saying we should hold the aid package until there are clear discussions with Musharraf. He understands. Negroponte is on his way. He understands what he has to do.

But how can we do business as usual, when in fact you have martial law, civil society – and I didn’t mention the media. He restored two channels, I believe. But the media is still restricted. And this is something that Musharraf has always been proud of.

And it has been an open, fair media. And what’s amazing, even with the close-down of the media, through the Internet and other resources, we’ve been able to get a very clear idea of what’s going on.

WILLIAMSON: Do you think we should be providing him with a deadline? Or what is your timeframe here …

LOWEY: Well, the deadline is within the month. We’re not heading for a two-week recess for Thanksgiving. When we come back, by the middle of December, we’re hoping that the appropriations process will proceed, and the president will sign those bills.

You know they’re being held up – $22 billion of domestic dollars for things like health care, breast cancer research, Alzheimer’s – are holding up this bill, while we spend $12 billion a month in Iraq.

So, I am cautiously optimistic that there will be a meeting of the minds with the president, that there will be bipartisan support for the appropriations process, and that by mid-December – before Christmas break – we will be able to pass these bills.

So, there is a month in which there can be a reversal of course, a very clear statement that we’re going to have free and fair elections in January that are going to be monitored.

And if, in fact, this happens, I think the package has a good chance – maybe with some changes – to go through. But if it’s all a mockery and democracy is not restored, and the judges that were there before are not reinstated, and the lawyers and representatives of civil society are still being retained, there are going to be real problems here in getting this package through.

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: With regard to the broader appropriations process, as you mentioned, the president has followed through on his threats to veto the bills that are above his spending.

How do you see this playing out? Is it omnibus time? Are we just going to see all these bills combined into a big package and tell the president, take it or leave it? How do you see that …

LOWEY: Well, as you know, the Senate passed – I’m not sure, is it rule 28, that says you can’t combine the bills.

That can be overruled, clearly. And if the leadership, the Republican leadership of the Senate wants to cooperate and get these bills through, procedurally it can happen.

I would really hope that there is bipartisan support and a direct signal to the president, that you can’t hold up money for diabetes research, Alzheimer’s research, child care, education – all these good domestics concerns – and keep spending $12 billion a month in Iraq.

And last night was interesting, because we were just four votes short of an override for the Labor, Health, Human Service, Education bills.

So, let’s put politics aside, work with the administration and say, Mr. President, it’s time to get this process moving and pass these appropriations bills.

WILLIAMSON: However, the leadership and members in Congress and the Appropriations Committee have been saying that for months, and you’re really now down to the wire. You’ve got until December 14th under the current continuing resolution.

Do you really think that this is going to work without an omnibus?

And what would be the cost, particularly to the State Foreign Ops bill, if you had to push them all together into a several-hundred-page, single bill?

LOWEY: Well, what’s interesting about State Foreign Ops, is that we’re below the president’s request, so he couldn’t hold up our bill for budgetary reasons.

If anything, I would hope that it would go up a little bit, because there are such important needs that are fulfilled in that bill besides Pakistan, of course. It’s HIV/AIDS and environmental, water.

We are providing so many good services everywhere in the world. And this is part of our national security strategy. Foreign aid is considered part of the national security strategy now.

So yes, certainly, the discussions have been going on for months. But the Congress has been known to do things when we’re up against a deadline. And since the speaker of the House is looking at December 13th as the deadline for going home to our families and our constituents, I am optimistic – cautiously optimistic – that the Republicans will send a message to the president, “Look, we worked on these bills together.”

And I will say, in spite of all the partisanship, certainly in my committee, I work closely with Frank Wolf. On the other Appropriations subcommittees there is real bipartisanship.

And I’m hoping that those Republicans who want to support the president – he’s our president – will make a clear statement that it’s time to move on, put these bills to bed and face the new year with new challenges.

WILLIAMSON: But have you been in on discussions about the potential for an omnibus?

LOWEY: Yes. But when the Senate passed that rule prohibiting an omnibus, it would take a lot of cooperation to do an omnibus.

So, I’m really cautiously optimistic that we can still pass all of the 12 bills, appropriations bills, send them to the president – after some serious “let’s get it done” discussions.

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: Do you get any sense from him that he is willing to compromise? I mean, he really – this being his last year in office, he really has no incentive to. And he’s taken a very hard line, offering to veto almost anything that Congress is going to send him.

LOWEY: You know, Adam, what’s interesting is, in the six years – a little over six years now, I guess – that President Bush has been the president, I haven’t heard of any vetoes. Have you? I haven’t heard of the deficit going down. Have you?

So, all of a sudden, as we approach the last month of the appropriations process, he’s talking about vetoing all these bills, 12 bills – I’m sorry, defense has gone through – most of the appropriations bills, because of the $22 billion excess in domestic spending.

Now, if he were out there talking to people in the districts, he would understand that people want investment in the National Institutes of Health. They want investment in education. They want investment – and there’s a whole range of homeland security programs.

Or our veterans bill – the highest number for veterans in the history of – I won’t say this Congress – as many congresses back as I can remember. We have to take care of our veterans. There was bipartisan support for these bills.

So, it’s common sense to me that a president who has not been concerned about fiscal issues, who continues to preside over an increasing deficit, wouldn’t reach a compromise on the $22 billion for domestic concerns that everyone wants.

And he keeps asking the Congress to give him money for Iraq, to the military. And we have the best military in the world. There is bipartisan support for providing our military with the best equipment, the best protection possible. But we know this war can’t be won militarily, and yet, he’s willing to ask us to put all those billions of dollars in the war.

And by the way, when the administration says there is progress, we haven’t seen much progress and reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shias. Yes, our military is the greatest in the world. And as long as they’re in a city, there are better conditions.

But I would hope there’s some compromise here and the president would sign them. And we’re willing to sit down and compromise.

HARLESTON: Representative Lowey is representing New York’s 18th District, and she’s been in Congress – this is her 10th term. She was first elected in 1988 to the House of Representatives. A graduate of Mount Holyoke College with a B.A. in marketing.

Elizabeth Williamson is congressional reporter with the “Washington Post,” and in her earlier days opened a small ad agency in Chicago.

And also, Adam Graham-Silverman is the “Congressional Quarterly’s” foreign policy reporter, and has also worked as managing editor of CQ’s Budget Tracker.

We’re going to continue the conversation with Adam Graham-Silverman.

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: We were talking about the war. And this morning the Senate failed to move forward with a spending bill that had some strings in it, in terms of bringing troops home.

There’s talk that in December, Congress will come back and pass a bill without strings.

Does that mean that the Democrats, their hands are just tied, and they have to capitulate to the president?

LOWEY: Well, on the day after the debates for president, it’s clear to me we need some new leadership in the White House. And that shouldn’t surprise you, since I am a Democrat, and I’m working very hard for a Democrat in the White House.

But I would still hope, as I mentioned with the appropriations process – I’m a political science major. I have to just correct that one thing …

HARLESTON: Thank you.

LOWEY: … in the bio – I won’t say as a political science major, but as a member who’s been there for a while, I would hope that the country has spoken.

The majority of people in my district and throughout the country understand that this war can’t be won militarily. And what was important about the bill last night, it sends a very clear signal to al-Maliki, and to those who are in charge, that our troops are the greatest in the world, and we’re going to make sure they’re safe. We’re going to make sure they have everything they need, and we’re going to take care of them when they come home as veterans.

But you have to do something. There has to be some action to reconcile the various issues, whether it’s oil, whether it is hospitals where Sunnis and Shias can both get the service they need.

When I was in Afghanistan – this was sometime this year, earlier – it was clear to me that the Shias were afraid to go into a hospital, if it was run by Sunnis, that they wouldn’t come out.

So, we’re hearing all kinds of wonderful stories that there is progress. And as I mentioned before, there is progress when our military is in an area.

If you talk to citizens, they will say our military will patrol some areas four times a day, but there are still blast walls between Sunni and Shias in a community, although frankly, most of the – I don’t want to call it cleansing – there has been a great deal of movement.

And the Sunnis are living in primarily Sunni areas, and the Shias in Shia areas. And in Baghdad there are blast walls dividing the population.

So, I would hope that there would be some kind of compromise on that bill, but not compromise to the extent that it doesn’t make it very clear to those in power, that they have to get to work. There (ph) is their country. They have to use their money.

And by the way, we’ve been using our money for reconstruction. But when it comes to turning project, whether it’s a hospital, a school or a factory, over to the Iraqis, there’s no money and there’s no administration. Very little progress in that regard.

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: So, how do you send that message, given that the makeup of Congress doesn’t actually reflect what you’re talking about the American people wanting to have happen?

LOWEY: Well, I do believe that we have to pass some tough language. And I’m not sure what the compromise will be, because politics is the art of compromise.

But each of these representatives have people in their district, who understand that we can’t keep spending $12 billion a month in Iraq and cut back on homeland security, on – if you go to an airport, we have TSA workers there. I understand that there’s been a request from the president for over $200 million for more money to protect our transportation systems.

And if you look at what other systems are doing, we do have work that has to be done.

Yes, we may have – we are in a better position than we were in before 9/11, but we still have more money to invest in homeland security, our transportation system, our judiciary. There are so many needs here.

WILLIAMSON: Congresswoman, are we really in a better position that we were before 9/11? If you look at the report that came out yesterday about investigators, undercover investigators being able to sneak bomb parts through airports, right under the noses of TSA people.

You’ve held hearings on TSA, and you’ve been a real advocate for proper training.

What did you think of that report? And what can be done about that? Will you hold another hearing?

LOWEY: It’s outrageous. I had a hearing with my committee on homeland security, where someone at TSA tipped off the inspectors that – excuse me – tipped off the TSA workers at the airport that there was going to be an inspection. Outrageous.

This is real stuff. I’m a New Yorker, and I have three children and eight grandchildren. And I want to tell you, I worry every day.

So, when you hear reports like this, it is astonishing that we could still be spending so much in Iraq and not take care of our homeland, effectively and efficiently.

WILLIAMSON: Do you plan a hearing into that issue?

LOWEY: Oh, for sure.

And also as you know, there were hearings with Henry Waxman’s committee, that has been investing. And I have been talking to Stuart Bowen, the inspector general who is superb. And he’s not exactly a left-wing Democrat. He is a Republican, and he is an excellent inspector general.

I’ve had my hearings. Henry Waxman has had hearings. We’re concerned about the overspending and the corruption with the embassy.

In fact, you know, in my last hearing, it was estimated by GAO and the inspector general, that in the reconstruction – not just the embassy, all the other projects – of the $45 billion, about $7 to $9 billion was wasted.

So, we have to be sure that the Homeland Security Department is operating efficiently, our reconstruction expenditures have appropriate oversight.

I worry that too much money is wasted that can be invested positively, to really lift up people and give them an opportunity to live their lives.

WILLIAMSON: Is there an effort to come up with some legislation in this area? Because, as you said, you know, DynCorp, a $1 billion Iraqi police training contract with one single individual as an overseer. The State Department, the Blackwater contract.

What types of legislation are under discussion to try and rein in that spending and enforce a little oversight?

LOWEY: Well, there is legislation being proposed, but I have this appropriation bill coming up. And I’ve made it very clear to the secretary of state and several assistant secretary of states, and USAID, that unless we see clear oversight measures in place, we’re not just going to do business as usual with the appropriations.

It is an outrage, not just to me, but to the American people. What an insult that they are sacrificing, working hard every day.

I think I saw the number, that over a million people are in foreclosure, losing their homes. And many of these people are people who work hard every day. And to see the billions of dollars that are being wasted, really is an outrage and an insult.

HARLESTON: Representative Lowey, we’d like to thank you for being on this edition of “Newsmakers.”

LOWEY: I thank you. And thank you, it’s a pleasure. And this situation is changing every day, so stay tuned.

HARLESTON: Thank you.

LOWEY: Thank you so much.

(BREAK)

HARLESTON: Elizabeth Williamson of the “Washington Post,” how would you assess Representative Lowey’s response regarding questions concerning continued funding of Pakistan?

WILLIAMSON: I think there was a little bit of hedging there. I think that time is short. There’s only really four weeks for them to consider this bill and to make any adjustments to foreign aid to Pakistan that they might make.

But really, like they are with all the spending bills, all the appropriations bills, they’re really up against that wall of the veto. And it’s going to be very difficult for them to do anything more than a purely symbolic measure, I would think.

HARLESTON: Adam Graham-Silverman, you also posed a question regarding freezing aid packages. Were you satisfied with Representative Lowey’s response?

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: Well, I would agree with Elizabeth. She – the congresswoman did – was, I think, unwilling to commit to a definite plan, particularly on the military money, because there is so little that it would actually do. You would have Republicans blocking just about everything in the Senate, and then the president with no incentive to compromise.

So, there’s, you know, unless there’s something that the president says he wants, the Democrats’ hands are pretty tied.

HARLESTON: Elizabeth Williamson, is there anything going on in Congress right now regarding the legislation of either funding or oversight of the State Department, that is going to attract any kind of interest, or kind of get the attention of the administration between now and, say, January?

WILLIAMSON: I think the thing more likely to get their attention would be the criminal probe of the Iraq embassy contracts. I think that was something that came to light Wednesday during Waxman’s oversight hearing, when he talked with Howard Krongard, the I.G. for the State Department, who’s very embattled right now, but so far staying in office.

When that came to light, I think that’s something that will get their attention more than something that might be done legislatively.

HARLESTON: Adam Graham-Silverman, do you see Congress stepping out and trying to affect foreign policy, either through legislation or appropriation between, say, now and election day 2008?

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: 2008? Well, I think this year, anyway, the Democrats are reaping sort of what they sowed. The time is so short and late now, that it would be very hard to get going a new initiative.

If they had brought something up earlier in the year and put it into some of these bills initially, I think there would be more discussion about it and a better chance of actually seeing something happen.

Next year, I think, again, the situation in Congress not changing and the veto pen still being waved around.

I think we’ll see some political votes that will allow presidential candidates to make statements, and in some cases votes, on foreign policy issues. But I’m pretty doubtful that anything will actually come of it legislatively.

HARLESTON: There were also some questions regarding funding for the Iraq war. Do you think that it’s going to continue on business as usual as far as the Congress is concerned.

WILLIAMSON: Again, I think that so much of this is about symbolism. They’re trying to put something – something non-binding, something symbolic, like the House passed this week, $50 billion in funds but with a lot of strings attached.

But on the Senate side, the drive has been for $70 billion with nothing.

You know, the Democrats don’t control the Senate. They do only nominally.

So, it’s just really hard to get something through, especially when it’s attached to funding. And there have been like a dozen tries since January to do this.

So, it’s been really – you know, they just keep hitting that same buzz saw.

HARLESTON: Adam Graham-Silverman, same question to you. Do you see any change happening with regard to funding for the Iraq war? Or is it going to be what we’ve seen over the last couple of years in the relationship between Congress and the president?

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: I again would agree with Elizabeth. The Republicans and the president have played this situation very well, where you saw the secretary of defense coming out and saying he’s going to have to start laying people off, if Congress doesn’t hurry up and given them the money that he needs right away.

So, they’re in a position to make the point that we have to keep supporting our troops, we need this money now, we need it without strings. And they’re in a position to back that up.

So, again, it’s been very well played on their part, and they do have control of that piece of it.

HARLESTON: Adam Graham-Silverman of “Congressional Quarterly,” and Elizabeth Williamson of the “Washington Post,” thank you very much for being on “Newsmakers.”

WILLIAMSON: Thank you, Robb.

GRAHAM-SILVERMAN: Thank you.

END