[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17195-17201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NATIONAL POLICIES IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Hoeffel) is recognized for 60 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on and to include extraneous material on the subject of this 
Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to talk about 
Iraq, to talk about the military activity, to talk about the weapons of 
mass destruction, to talk about the postconflict steps that have been 
taken and need to be taken. I am joined this evening by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel), and perhaps others, to talk for the next hour about our 
national policies in Iraq.
  Some of us, myself included, voted in favor of the military authority 
requested by the President to invade Iraq. Some of us who will be 
speaking tonight voted against that military authority. But all of us 
have some common questions. We all salute the brave and courageous 
efforts by our young men and women in uniform. They won a very 
impressive military victory in short order. That military victory was 
never in doubt, but it was impressive nonetheless how well our troops 
performed.
  But there are two questions, really: Is our military mission 
completed in Iraq? And secondly, are we winning the peace?
  Now, I would suggest, just to get the conversation started this 
evening, that first off, our military mission is not complete, because 
we have not found the weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are 
what motivated me to vote in favor of this military authority, because 
I believed then and I believe now that it was necessary to disarm 
Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. But if we cannot find 
those weapons of mass destruction, there are serious questions. And we 
need a full accounting, first, of where those weapons are so that we 
know they are secured or dismantled and in safe custody. Secondly, we 
need a full accounting of how accurate our intelligence was. Were our 
intelligence agencies accurate in the information they gave to the 
administration? Was that information properly used by the 
administration?
  And this is not just an academic exercise. The entire Bush doctrine 
of the preemptive use of force requires as a foundation accurate 
intelligence regarding the intentions of other countries and potential 
enemies around the world. If we are going to use force preemptively in 
the face of imminent threats to this country or to our allies, we have 
to know that our intelligence is accurate.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply add one other item 
that I would hope that tonight we can discuss and that our friend from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has really, in my judgment, done an 
extraordinary job in terms of laying out for the American people what 
it is going to cost the taxpayers of the United States and the impact 
in terms of service cuts for Americans that that will entail.
  But if for a moment I could just simply go to the issue that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania raised about the issue of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  It certainly is well-known that the two premises for the rationale 
for the military attack on Iraq as articulated by the President was, 
number one, links between the Saddam Hussein regime and the possession 
of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with an intent to use them by 
that regime that presented a clear and present danger to the United 
States and to our people. Since the end of the conflict, we no longer 
hear about links between al Qaeda and the regime of the tyrant Saddam 
Hussein. In fact, I would dare say there is a consensus now that there 
was no evidence to indicate any collaborative effort or any cooperation 
between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and, most likely, the 
opposite was true.
  I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania remembers and I know the 
gentleman from Illinois took note of the fact that about, I think it 
was in April of 2001, there was a report that Mohammed Atta, the 
ringleader of September 11, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent 
in the Czech Republic.

                              {time}  2215

  It was later revealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that 
that could not have happened because Mr. Atta at the time of the 
alleged meeting was here in the United States plotting against the 
American people. No longer do we hear about links between Saddam 
Hussein and al Qaeda. So that argument proved to be false and 
inaccurate.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. If I could reclaim my time for a moment just to point 
out

[[Page 17196]]

that the gentleman is pointing out that the Bush administration has a 
growing credibility gap regarding its prior claims and the evidence 
that is forthcoming after the conflict. And I know the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) was the first on this floor to my 
knowledge to raise the questions about the accusations regarding the 
country of Niger in Africa.
  I wonder if the gentleman would share the latest information that has 
been made public on that score.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the latest information is that today, 
today, the White House announced that when the President made the 
statement regarding the sale of highly enriched uranium to the Iraqi 
regime by a country in Africa, they made a mistake. Better late than 
never.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. I think it is very important to note this fact that 2 
weeks after the State of the Union, the Secretary of State was handed 
that same information as he was preparing his presentation to the U.N., 
and he rejected that data as insufficient and inaccurate.
  Now, having worked in the White House, having worked on a few State 
of the Unions, which are the most important speech a President will 
give in their Presidency outside of an oval address, I cannot think of 
a moment in time where you can have a Secretary of State reject the 
information as inadequate for their presentation to the United Nations, 
and yet is adequate and sufficient for the President of the United 
States to stand in this well at that desk and address the Nation, the 
world, and for this speech on why we need to go to war.
  Now, I happened to have supported the resolution, but the entire 
credibility of our ability to marshal the resources of the world as we 
relate to North Korea and Iran are going to be heretofore questioned. 
And I always think it is interesting if I were giving advice, not that 
I would be giving advice, nor would they be seeking my advice, that 
before the President of the United States was back from Africa, he 
would have the name, the phone number and the forwarding address of the 
individual that gave that information because they would not be in this 
White House any longer.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a point very well taken because several weeks 
ago, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), our colleague who has 
joined us, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I were 
having this discussion just as the gentleman pointed out, the President 
of the United States in the State of the Union Address made that 
statement to the American people; and one week later before the United 
Nations Security Council when he made his presentation, Secretary 
Powell discarded that information. But it has taken until today, today, 
more than 6 months later, that the White House acknowledged that that 
information, and let me quote what they had to say, that it was 
incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American 
intelligence agencies.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), if he could give an educated, 
speculative assessment of what would have taken place had this same 
circumstance occurred today during the Presidency of Mr. Clinton.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Well, heads would have rolled. You cannot allow the 
President of the United States to have gone up on any speech, let alone 
a State of the Union, to address the Nation and in this case, this 
State of the Union was unique, on the precipice of war, the world with 
information that was clearly, because of Secretary Powell's actions, 
inadequate, not up to snuff. Heads would have rolled. There would have 
been an accounting. There would have been an internal accounting to 
that; and I think properly so, Congress would have asked for it.
  I would like to note, I cannot think what is worse, the fact that 
they have used, since there is ample evidence to say that Saddam 
Hussein was a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people and 
started three wars, why you would go and stretch information, damage 
your own case. I cannot figure out what is worse, the fact that they 
used this phony memo, or the fact that they have had no plan for the 
occupation and no strategy for our exit.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman allow me to venture perhaps an 
educated guess myself on that score? Because they were trying to 
establish a new doctrine for the United States of preemptive warfare. 
Not that citations might not have been made with regard to other 
military actions by the United States in previous times, perhaps up to 
and even including President Clinton's Presidency, but that there was 
to be established with this a new paradigm of preemption based on an 
imperial view of the world that the stamp of the United States must be 
placed upon the rest of the world.
  I would venture to further my question to the gentleman from 
Illinois, if President Clinton was in office today and this information 
was revealed today, what do you think the response of some of our 
colleagues might have been?
  Mr. EMANUEL. I can feel the foam and the lather building up. We would 
not be arguing for 2 weeks whether Congress should call the inquiry an 
investigation or not. There would be a full-blown investigation, and it 
would be proper. Because the President of the United States at that 
point, at that Chamber, at that speech, at this podium would be 
addressing the world as the President of the United States speaking for 
all of us, not just the bodies in here and the cameras up there.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not think we would be speaking in a Chamber as 
we are tonight during Special Orders with, again, the press being 
absent. I will presume perhaps some of them are watching on C-SPAN. We 
would not have an empty Chamber. On the contrary, there would be a 
full-blown cry throughout the opposition to Mr. Clinton indicating that 
he should be brought to account or those around him who are giving 
advice should be brought to account. And I agree with the gentleman, 
that would be true.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I want to add one thing to this whole discussion if that 
is okay with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, it is.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Because as we talk about this memo from Niger and how it 
got into the speech, how it got into the British dossier for the 
justification for the war, what is equally telling and missing in the 
debate is the discussion of reconstruction in Iraq. And if you go over 
and pull over at USAID, an agency within the State Department, the 
plans for Iraq's reconstruction, I would like to cite some statistics.
  They call for 20,000 units of housing. Yet the budget for this 
country only calls for 5,000 units of housing here in the United 
States; 13 million Iraqis, half of the population, will get universal 
health care. Yet not a single penny in the budget presented by the 
administration or passed by a Republican Congress does anything to 
support health care for the 42 million working uninsured in this 
country; 12,500 schools will be given full resources for reconstruction 
and books and supplies. Yet in our country, teachers have to get a tax 
credit because they have to take money out of their own budget, 
personal budget, their salary to pay for supplies. Four million kids in 
Iraq will be given early childhood education. In the President's 
budget, 58,000 kids cut from Head Start. We have a deep water port in 
Iraq being built from top to bottom. Yet the Corps of Engineers in this 
country is cut by 10 percent, their budget.
  I think if we look at the history, the American people are quite 
generous and quite supportive of our efforts and we support the notion 
of Iraq having a new beginning. But I do not think they would ever 
support the notion that we can deconstruct America while we reconstruct 
Iraq.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Given the extraordinary examples that the gentleman has 
just cited of American generosity to help reconstruct Iraq, does the 
gentleman think that we are winning the peace in Iraq?

[[Page 17197]]


  Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is that there is nothing that has gone on post 
the war in Iraq that we could not have seen ahead. Nothing new. There 
was no plan for the occupation. In fact, there is no plan for the exit. 
We have 158,000 troops based there as far as the eye can see out to the 
horizon and there is no family member who can count the days of when 
they are coming home because they have no knowledge of when they are 
coming home. So nobody can check the calendar at home when the husband 
is coming, the wife is coming, the sister is coming, the brother is 
coming.
  Remember, this is the heydays. These are the days we are getting the 
kisses, the hugs and the flowers. A year from now they will be tired of 
our presence there.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, the day of the hugs and the cheers really 
could be numbered in hours. Since the official end of the hostility as 
declared by the President, almost on a daily basis, tragically, 
American service men and women are losing their lives.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I checked that statistic. It has been 69 days since the 
President on the Lincoln aircraft carrier declared our mission complete 
and 70 Americans have died; 69 days, 70 Americans since May 1.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are all in our prayers. But I would like to 
make one other observation if I can. I do not want the American people 
as they watch here tonight to think that this is just simply four 
Democrats railing for political purposes against the White House and 
the administration. I know that many of our colleagues on the other 
side share our concerns. And I found extraordinarily interesting an 
article that was penned by someone whom we all respect, Senator Richard 
Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  And if I might, just for a moment, read his words:

       The combat phase of our war in Iraq ended with a speedy, 
     decisive victory and minimal loss of life. That impressive 
     success is now at risk. Clearly, the administration's 
     planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate. 
     I am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress have 
     yet to face up to the true size of the task that lies ahead 
     or prepared the American people for it. The administration 
     should state clearly that we are engaged in nation building. 
     We are constructing the future in Iraq, and it is a 
     complicated and uncertain business. The days when Americans 
     could win battles and come home quickly for a parade are 
     over. And when some in the Pentagon talk about quick exit 
     strategies or say dismissively that they don't do nation 
     building, they are wrong.

  This comes from a Republican, highly regarded and well respected. It 
is important that we are doing this here tonight so the American people 
know that, so they hear the truth.
  Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is among us four we had different opinions and 
votes on whether we should or should not go to war, whether there was a 
case for a war.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I voted against the resolution. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) voted to support it, as did the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel); and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) voted against it.
  Mr. EMANUEL. But we are united in our view that an administration 
should not mislead the American people; that a person who gave the 
President the wrong information needs to be held accountable because 
all of our reputations are on the line when the President of the United 
States is talking to the world with our judgment and justification. 
Second, that as we plan for this occupation, that if we had done the 
hard work of building allies on the front end, we would have allies on 
the back end. And that the only faces in the occupation are American 
and British and others, but dominantly American, and, therefore, 
Americans bearing this burden alone, which it should not, in both 
financial and human costs.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I can follow up on the comments of the 
gentleman, I certainly agree with him that we need to internationalize 
the postconflict situation in Iraq. We are bringing on ourselves the 
frustrations of those people. We do not have anyone sharing the burden 
other than the British. We do not have anyone else sharing 
responsibility or blame for things that are going wrong.
  We need to bring in NATO to help with peacekeeping. We need to bring 
in the United Nations to help with reconstruction. And, obviously, the 
United States would be the major partner in both of those operations. 
We still would be very deeply involved, but we would have international 
allies and international institutions to help with resources and to 
help with credibility and to help with responsibility for the work that 
needs to be done.
  We need to turn over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible two things: 
One, their oil; and, secondly, their government. We need to make sure 
that the Iraqi oil industry is transparent, corruption-free, and the 
proceeds from which are used to rebuild Iraq. And we have to turn over 
to the Iraqis their own government. We are moving way too slowly to do 
that.
  Paul Bremer, the viceroy occupier, I am not sure what his title is, 
has postponed repeatedly the formation of an Iraqi interim government. 
He is now calling it an advisory committee that he will appoint to 
advise him. I do not think that is the way to give the Iraqis the stake 
in their future government that they expect and deserve.
  Mr. EMANUEL. If I can add one thing to this debate before I need to 
go. I remember during the Reagan administration there was an open 
public discussion between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State, which continued in years past, about the fact that we could not 
get into a military operation without an exit strategy. And I think it 
would behoove all of us in this institution, regardless of party or 
regardless of position, if we could define what the exit strategy is. 
What is the test? What is the standard?
  When we have 70 deaths in 69 days, and some people, I think Senator 
Lugar noted that we have to level with the American people we are here 
maybe 5, 10 years, that does not sound very convincing for an exit 
strategy and a standard that says here is when we know we are done. We 
cannot just say to the American people that we will know when we are 
done when we are done. We cannot have an open-ended checkbook and an 
open-ended sense of lives that are to be lost.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that these are the days that are 
supposed to be flowers and kisses and hugs. A year from now we are 
supposed to be experiencing what we are experiencing today. Not today.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Before the gentleman leaves, let me ask him if he has 
been able to figure out what strategy the President was pursuing last 
week when he suggested, in the face of the guerilla attacks and 
ambushes and assassinations of American soldiers, that our opponents 
should ``bring 'em on?'' Could any of the gentlemen joining me on the 
floor today tell me what they think the President's strategy was with 
that comment?
  Mr. EMANUEL. As a former staff person who worked for a President, I 
believe that every staff person in that White House who was sitting on 
the side cringed when they heard that, because you cannot but think 
that there was a President whose rhetoric got ahead of where the policy 
is and what they were saying.
  Nobody would ever suggest that our men and women in uniform, who are 
doing all of us proud, should be the focus of further attacks, this 
notion of ``bring 'em on.'' We have lost 70 Americans in 69 days. There 
are other Americans we have lost in this whole battle, but 70 Americans 
who are fathers, who are mothers, who are brothers, sisters, who are 
Boy Scout coaches, leaders in their community, YMCA leaders. And the 
notion that somebody would sit here in the comfort of our great country 
in our capital and say ``Bring 'em on'' to our soldiers I think misses 
what they are facing every day. And I think it was a very, very 
unfortunate choice of words.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield a moment further in 
that regard and in that context, I do think that the response to the 
gentleman's question is that the President, and my point to my 
colleague is, I wonder if he could corroborate or whether he would 
agree that the President, at

[[Page 17198]]

least in my estimation, has said that this is wide open; that this does 
not have an end; that the calculations will be made on essentially an 
ad hoc basis; and that there is nothing that he can foresee at this 
moment that would lead us to the kind of exit strategy conclusions that 
the gentleman has raised.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Well, my worry is not only do we not know the standard 
for our exit, and that before you get into any military engagement, you 
should know what your exit strategy is; that because we have 168,000 
troops based now in all of Iraq, with no ability of any ally to come 
and replace our troops at a serious level, that our forces are 
stretched thin when it comes to the war on terrorism because of their 
occupation and being tied down in the deserts of Iraq.
  Now, I think we are there, and we have to help turn this country 
around, but clearly now our troops are being targeted from guerilla 
warfare and from terrorists. Our ability to do what we need to do 
around the world, both in Afghanistan and other corners of the world, 
our resources are being stretched thin and spread thin when it comes to 
the war on terrorism.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned 
Afghanistan, and I know he has another appointment, but let us review 
for a moment where we are in terms of Afghanistan.
  How long have we been in Afghanistan? We are talking years already. 
And yet what progress have we made in Afghanistan? The American people 
should be aware of the fact that it is a mess. The President of 
Afghanistan, President Karzai, whom we supported from the beginning, is 
unable to travel throughout Afghanistan. He is just about able to leave 
the central district of the capital city of Kabul. We did not conclude 
our work there before we took on another military intervention of a 
much different magnitude, much larger size, when we went into Iraq.
  As has been stated by all three of my colleagues tonight, America's 
word is at risk here. If we just go back again to the quality of the 
intelligence, I do not want to leave the impression with those who are 
watching this conversation that we are having tonight that this is, 
again, exclusively restricted to Democrats. These are concerns that are 
shared across the aisle. This is simply too important. Decisions were 
made regarding whether to wage war based on this intelligence, and, 
clearly, that is, in our democracy, a question of the most serious 
consequence, to wage war.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. May I follow up in that context?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Certainly.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Today, as I am sure my colleagues will acknowledge, 
and not everyone who is observing us and listening tonight may be 
aware, we passed a defense appropriations bill from this House. If 
anything should reflect the concern of the administration with regard 
to the issues of resolving the consequences of our attack in Iraq, it 
should be contained in here.
  I have, for my colleagues' information, Mr. Speaker, referring to the 
House Action Reports, a Congressional Quarterly publication, a fact 
sheet edition published today on defense appropriations. In it, section 
3 addresses military personnel. It includes things like a military pay 
raise and a civilian Defense Department pay raise. Active Duty 
personnel are listed at 1,388,100 in fiscal year 2004, equal to the 
President's request of 1,600 less than the current level. On Reserves, 
the bill sets a ceiling on Reserve personnel for a total of 863,300 in 
the next fiscal year, equal to the administration's request of 1,258 
less than the 2003 level.
  Now, think about it. We now have 150,000 plus people committed in 
Iraq under the circumstances and conditions that have been discussed 
here tonight, personnel deployed throughout the world, not just in 
Afghanistan, but the Philippines, Yemen, and dozens of places, now 
possibly in Liberia, again under circumstances that are not clear as to 
where we are going, what we are doing, and who we are doing it with.
  The President says, ``Bring 'em on,'' but here is the congressional 
responsibility and obligation as manifested in the appropriations which 
follow on our authorizing personnel. And what we are saying is, is that 
the same deployments that have been taking place up until now, which 
have put such an enormous strain on the Guard and Reserves are going to 
continue. We are not adding a single person. We are not facing with any 
respect whatsoever the realities of what these deployments and the 
obligations attendant upon them will require of us.
  That is why we are here in the evening during these Special Orders 
trying to reach out to the American public to explain that we are not 
quiescent on this. We are not merely observers. We are trying to 
participate in a respectful and responsible way as Members of Congress. 
But we have to rouse the attention of the American people to let them 
know that we are failing those men and women in the armed services if 
we think for a moment that we are providing adequate support and 
foundation for what we expect of them.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I would say to my colleague that that is only half the 
story. When those men and women come home, when they are discharged 
from Active Duty, and when they assume the title of veteran, what are 
we doing to them then? What are we doing to them then? Well, what we 
are doing to them is, in some respects, discriminating against them. We 
are creating new categories of veterans who no longer will have access 
to veterans health care. That is unconscionable.
  We send them to war, and when they come home, we reduce their 
benefits and, in fact, eliminate some of these heroes and heroines from 
having access to health care provided by the Veterans Administration. 
That is shameful.
  Patriotism is more than just simply raising the flag. The flag 
represents respect, respect especially for men and women who serve this 
country in the military, and we are disrespecting and dishonoring them. 
That is wrong.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman will yield on that point, is he aware 
that the Bush tax cuts in 2004 will reduce revenues about $60 billion, 
and that for $1 billion we could fully fund our obligations to all of 
the veterans, including category 7 and category 8 veterans, so that 
they all would get the health care that we promised all veterans?
  We are $1 billion short. Now, $1 billion is a lot of money.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But when it comes to Iraq, we are going to be sending 
hundreds of billions of dollars, as the gentleman from Illinois 
indicated, to build schools, to provide health care, and to provide 
deepwater ports, but we cannot take care of our own veterans.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman is correct. We are appropriating $29 
billion next year for veterans health care. We need $30 billion to meet 
all of our obligations, our moral obligations, and we are not measuring 
up, and it is wrong.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield in turn, to follow up 
on my point in regard to our analysis, or rather not so much an 
analysis, I daresay, but our observation that these offhand remarks, 
these ad hoc remarks by the President, which take on the weight of 
policy, such as ``Bring 'em on,'' this kind of childish assessment of 
what constitutes the ground operations in Iraq, are now followed by an 
observation of the President that Mr. Taylor, the President in Liberia, 
has to go.
  Now, where he is going and how he is going and under what 
circumstances is not said. And the questions from the press, the press 
which is absent, which do not appear, at least as far as I can tell; 
now, whether or not people in the White House are so covetous of being 
in the White House that they do not dare ask the question that anybody 
with any journalistic bent worthy of the name would ask, just who is 
supposed to replace Mr. Taylor when he does go, wherever you think he 
should, provided you have got that far?

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this issue and the reason I raise it 
in the present context is if you think we had no planning in Iraq, I 
can tell you now and tell the American people and tell my colleagues we 
do not have a clue or an idea of what we will do in Liberia in terms of 
who will replace Mr. Taylor and who will prevail when he leaves.

[[Page 17199]]

  Now, are we to send in not tens of thousands of, but perhaps hundreds 
of, American soldiers into a situation that we do not have the 
slightest idea, nor has there been any discussion in the Congress about 
what we are going to do, how, when or why we are going to do it, and 
what the circumstances will be upon the action taken.
  Now, I for one admonish all of us to take into account where we are 
now in Iraq and remember that we face exactly the same circumstances in 
terms of lack of forward-planning policy with regard to Liberia, and 
the consequences could be just as severe. The numbers might be 
different, but the situation is the same. We have an administration now 
that thinks that military action in and of itself constitutes political 
policy. Furthermore, support for the troops is then defined as being 
support for whatever political agenda they have. Now, that is what we 
are facing this evening.
  No one can say if only for the fact that we appear here on the floor 
tonight that due warning has not been given to the American public by 
Members serving in the Congress of the United States that we should 
have a full debate with respect to what we are going to do in Liberia, 
most particularly in the wake of what is taking place in Iraq, and that 
before any action is taken in Liberia, the will of the Congress has to 
be determined.
  I would hope that we take the most serious and sober view before we 
commit American troops in furtherance of a political agenda, and that 
political agenda is made manifest for the world to judge on the basis 
of action by American troops.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
think we need to learn our lessons and learn them well and ask the 
questions that need to be asked and avoid the taunts and the arrogance 
that can get us into a lot of trouble when we fail to think things 
through.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues that editorial opinion is 
focusing on the President's comments and on the post-conflict realities 
in Iraq. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday in response to the 
President's comments about ``bring it on'' in their lead editorial 
title ``Bring Reality On,'' said continued hubris in high places 
heightens risks for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The Inquirer asks: ``Mr. 
President, do you live in a playhouse or the White House? Childish 
taunts such as that are not the calibrated words demanded of the United 
States President at this turn of history's wheel.'' And the 
Philadelphia Inquirer goes on to make several points about the reality 
that is needed in our policy.
  First, they say get real about the number of U.S. troops needed to 
establish and maintain order for months to come; get real about the 
full scope of reconstructing Iraq, its costs and duration; get real 
about cutting taxes. The incumbent is the only President, the Inquirer 
says, in the Nation's history to cut taxes in the middle of a hot war. 
They say get real about spurning the value of the United Nations; get 
real about the democratic aspirations you unwisely inflated among the 
long-oppressed, divided Iraqi population; and get real about admitting 
mistakes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, obviously we all make mistakes, but it is 
important to acknowledge the making of mistakes. I would submit that if 
Secretary Powell had information that was available to him a week after 
the President of the United States in his State of the Union message 
referenced the sale of uranium by an African country to Saddam Hussein, 
then it is almost inconceivable that the Secretary of State, Colin 
Powell, would not have had a conversation with the President suggesting 
or informing him that he did not find that information reliable in 
terms of his presentation to the United Nations; and yet for 6 months 
the White House, the President, has continued to insist on the 
reliability of the intelligence that he selected when he made his 
presentation to the American people.
  The complaints are not coming just from this side of the aisle, but 
are coming from the intelligence community. Even the top U.S. Marine 
officer in Iraq, General James Conway, said U.S. intelligence was 
simply wrong in leading the military to believe that the invading 
troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons. I respect the 
general for making that statement; and it is time that the 
administration, the President and those who, upon review, discovered 
that the premises and the facts that supported those premises were 
inaccurate or incorrect, it is time to acknowledge them and restore the 
confidence of the American people and the people of this world in the 
integrity of the United States and its leadership.
  These are just some quotes from intelligence officials, individuals 
who have no particular partisan ax to grind, and these are reports from 
the New York Times, and I am quoting, ``As an employee of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, I know how this administration has lied to the 
public to get support for its attack on Iraq. Some others see a pattern 
not so much of lying as of self-delusion and of subjecting the 
intelligence agencies to these delusions.''
  Another quote, ```The American people were manipulated,' bluntly 
declares one person from the Defendant Intelligence Agency who says 
that he was privy to all of the intelligence on Iraq. `These people are 
coming forward because they are fiercely proud.''' He is referring to 
intelligence analyses at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and those 
that are watching should be aware that there are many intelligence 
agencies, but this is the consensus of their opinion, that they are 
fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world, that 
such work should be nonpolitical and are disgusted at efforts to turn 
them into propaganda.
  This is from an individual who retired in September after 25 years in 
the State Department. His name is Greg Thielmann, and he spent the last 
4 years of his public service in the Bureau of Intelligence and 
Research, and these are his quotes: ``The al Qaeda connection and 
nuclear weapons issues were the only two ways that you could link Iraq 
to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the 
administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both 
things.''
  The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread 
that they have formed a group, an association, called the Veteran 
Intelligent Professionals for Sanity, and they wrote to President Bush 
this past month to protest what they called, and again this is their 
language, ``a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental 
proportions.''
  I am quoting from their letter: ``While there have been occasions in 
the past when intelligence has been deliberately wopped for political 
purposes, never before has such wopping been used in such a systematic 
way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize 
launching a war.''
  A comment by Larry Johnson, one of those talking heads that we always 
see on those cable programs, he used to be a CIA analyst and worked at 
the State Department, referring to the low morale among the 
intelligence community: ``I have never heard this level of alarm 
before. It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The President was 
misled. He was ill-served by folks who are supposed to protect him on 
this. Whether this is witting or unwitting, I do not know.''
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman is aware that there 
is a perfectly rational reason why the White House admitted this week 
that they made a mistake with the President's State of the Union speech 
in which he claimed Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The 
reason that the White House had to finally admit their error is they 
were basing this on British intelligence, and the British system has 
resulted in an open inquiry where British parliamentarians have 
investigated and continue to investigate the question of the accuracy 
of their intelligence prewar, and the uses of that intelligence by the 
Blair administration.
  They have concluded that while Prime Minister Blair did not himself 
mislead the public, that this information regarding the purchase of 
uranium

[[Page 17200]]

in Africa was simply wrong and was based on forged documents.
  This White House could no longer maintain the fiction that there was 
any basis in anybody's intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was 
trying to buy uranium in Africa, and they simply had to because of a 
more open system in England where their Parliament has been more 
aggressive than this Congress. They had to face reality.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure that C-SPAN viewers have witnessed those 
hearings. Sources and methods were protected. No State secrets were 
given out. It was a respectful discourse; and it informed the British 
people, a people, by the way, who sent men and women into combat with 
the United States. But I do not believe that is the only reason, and I 
am directing this to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) 
because while they admitted it today, ironically Sunday there appeared 
an article in the New York Times written by the individual, a former 
ambassador who, on behalf of the CIA, went to Nigeria to investigate 
this assertion that, according to some newspapers, came via the Italian 
intelligence service, and what he has to say in his words, one might 
draw the inference prompted this response today by the White House. 
Some might claim it to be an effort at damage control. But his name is 
Joseph Wilson, and the article is entitled ``What I Didn't Find In 
Africa.''
  He starts it by saying, ``Did the Bush administration manipulate 
intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an 
invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the 
months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that 
some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was 
twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the whole article, but it is 
extraordinarily informative. Maybe we can do it here in the United 
States as well as they can do it in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure our colleagues as well 
as those who may be observing and listening to us that we do not intend 
to make this a 1- or 2- or 3-time deal.

                              {time}  2300

  This is not two or three Members of Congress off on some individual 
crusade. We are not here simply to recount those things with which we 
have a disagreement. What we feel very strongly about is what I believe 
is the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United 
States and most certainly those who have talked to me about that 
Members of Congress have not stepped up to the plate with regard to the 
discussion of these issues in illuminating what is at stake for this 
country, and that right now some of these corporation-controlled media 
networks and the organs of the executive government are controlling the 
message that is out there, and only free men and women, freely elected 
with the faith and trust of the electorate, the people have put us into 
these positions of trust here in the people's House.
  It is up to us with that kind of an obligation placed upon us by the 
people to speak out and to speak up, to speak forthrightly, to speak 
with as much knowledge as we can bring to bear, to exercise such 
judgment as we are able to bring to bear, and to keep the people of 
this country informed, and to let them know that we will not be 
silenced in this, that we are going to be back night after night after 
night, and that if we cannot get these issues discussed during the 
regular business of the day, then rest assured we will be here in the 
Special Orders that are given to us here in the people's House to make 
certain that the hammer of truth is going to come down on the anvil of 
inquiry that is required of a free people in a democratic society.
  We are going to return here again. We invite our colleagues to engage 
in this colloquy. We invite our colleagues to come forward and express 
their views. We invite our colleagues to come forth and make inquiry of 
one another so that we can be better informed ourselves, so that we do 
not have a circumstance that comes to fruition again in this Nation 
such as we experienced in Vietnam.
  If anything motivates me to be down here on this floor, I see 
parallels. I am not drawing analogies, but I see parallels, distinctly 
fearful parallels, to what took place in Vietnam in which we were urged 
to keep quiet, in which we were urged not to say anything for fear it 
would be called dissent, as if there was already an understanding as to 
what the correct position should be when it comes to issue of life and 
death as we face now in Iraq and other places where American troops are 
deployed.
  I believe it is an absolute necessity of democracy that we have the 
fullest and freest and the deepest and with the widest breadth of 
discussion that it is possible to have, and that is what we are going 
to be doing on this floor.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we would be derogating our duty. And I 
applaud the eloquence and the obviously genuine commitment that the 
gentleman from Hawaii just respected. We would not be honoring our 
obligation, and additionally we would be failing those members in the 
military that have fought as well as they have, and we would be failing 
those individuals in the Intelligence Community that have expressed 
their views.
  It brings to mind a story that again appeared in the newspapers 
shortly before we broke, I think it was the day that we broke, where 
someone stood up and testified before a House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. There was a number of intelligence officials 
within this closed hearing. Of course, it appears in the press, so I 
can speak about it. And this individual's name is Christian Westerman, 
and he happens to be a top State Department expert on chemical and 
biological weapons, and he told the committees that he had been pressed 
to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters specifically 
pertaining to Cuba to conform with the Bush administration's views. 
That is unacceptable. He is viewed within the Department, according to 
reports, as a careful and respected analyst of intelligence. He served 
in the Navy, and he was obviously not comfortable making that 
statement, but that kind of courage is important if we are going to 
ascertain the truth.
  And whatever the truth is, the American people deserve the truth, and 
it is our responsibility to make every effort that we can to seek it. 
And I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and 
I actually wrote those words down. ``The hammer of truth will be 
brought down on the anvil of inquiry,'' and that is our job. It is our 
challenge here. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions. It is not 
unpatriotic to seek accountability. It is not unpatriotic to dissent. 
In fact, it is the highest form of patriotism to seek the truth, to ask 
questions, to try to get to the bottom of this in the name of the 
American people.
  I know our time is short. Mr. Speaker, does either gentleman have any 
concluding remarks?
  The gentleman from Hawaii I thank for being here.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at some point in the future, 
and we should discuss this with other Members of the House, but I for 
one would like to extend an invitation to some of our colleagues who 
serve in the Parliament, in the House of Commons, to come to the United 
States, or maybe some of us to go there to further this discussion, 
because I was so impressed with British democracy after viewing on C-
SPAN those hearings that we have alluded to tonight. And there is real 
deep concern among the British, and it is clear that it is having an 
impact in Britain to a far more significant degree, unfortunately, than 
it appears to be having in this country. Maybe at some point in time, 
because I really believe it is necessary to have an independent 
commission depoliticize this issue, take it out of the realm of 
partisan politics.
  Yes, there are congressional committees going on, but we know that 
there was an independent commission that was chaired by former Senator 
Rudman

[[Page 17201]]

and former Senator Gary Hart that, unfortunately, they examined 
national security and just about predicted the events of September 11. 
It is so important to restore the confidence of the people in our 
national security, in our system. I think that happens to be the 
answer, but I would really welcome the input from the members of 
Parliament, from the House of Commons that sat in on those hearings to 
come and give us their observations.
  I was particularly impressed with former Minister Robin Cook and a 
female former member by the name of Claire Short. I would think that if 
we invited them, they would come here, and hopefully the American 
media, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) have put up with, 
finally start to take a good look, because this is an issue that is not 
going to go away because it is about time that we reflected and began 
to see ourselves as others are viewing us if we are going to continue 
to claim a certain moral authority in this world.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and 
I would only add it would also be nice if we could be joined by our 
friends across the aisle in some of these discussions during these 
special orders. I thank my colleagues for being part of this 
discussion.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the 
Special Orders matter related to Post-Conflict Iraq and the U.S.-U.N. 
involvement therein. I ask that our colleagues remember that two wars 
and over a decade of sanctions have crippled Iraq's infrastructure. 
With respect to the events that led to the need for Iraq rebuilding, I 
renew my concerns that there has been an apparent break down in U.S. 
intelligence as to the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) 
that suggests that the current administration may have misled the 
public in order to garner support of the war in Iraq. Secondly, because 
the international community looks, in large part, to the United States 
as the nation with the best ability to aid in the job of rebuilding 
Iraq, it is important that our leadership respect its humanitarian 
needs, especially of the right to self-determination and ensure that 
these needs take precedence over capitalistic prospect. Moreover, as 
will be evidenced by my introduction of a bill to authorize the 
formation of a women's peace commission, I strongly advocate the 
involvement of women in the peace and rebuilding process in leadership 
capacities. In fact, not only should the women's peace commission be 
composed of Members of Congress, American small, minority, and women-
owned businesses should also be active in the rebuilding process.
  As to the potential misleading of the public as to the U.S. motive 
for waging war on Iraq, I will offer a resolution calling for the 
establishment of an independent commission to study the performance of 
U.S. intelligence agencies in gathering and disseminating intelligence 
on WMD in Iraq, the current administration's knowledge of WMD in Iraq, 
and the accuracy of the information given to the public. During a 
Presidential address on March 17, 2003, President Bush stated, 
``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt 
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most 
lethal weapons ever devised.'' Thereupon, the administration initiated 
Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003. Although the public 
justification for this war was Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of 
WMD, we have seen nothing to date in the form of WMD in Iraq. This 
failure to locate any WMD in Iraq or any evidence that WMD have been 
destroyed or relocated strongly suggests the U.S. intelligence's 
inaccuracy or the inaccurate communication of this information to the 
public. At this point, thorough assessment of the performance of U.S. 
intelligence agencies with respect to the gathering of information as 
to WMD will be required to restore public confidence in the American 
Government before we are in a position to efficiently offer genuine aid 
in the rebuilding process of Iraq.
  The United Nations (U.N.) has been in the nation-building/rebuilding 
business on a worldwide scale for over a decade: East Timor, Cambodia, 
Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and to some extent El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
parts of Africa. Although the U.N. has experts and experience, it does 
not have sufficient resources in which to undertake the task of 
rebuilding Iraq. While, as I mentioned above, the international 
community looks to us for the lion's share of support resources, we 
must yield to the U.N. as a legitimizer of a new order in Iraq. 
Legitimacy through international alliances and high overt purpose is 
vital to an effective rebuilding process. The U.N. power is that 
bestowed upon it by its member-nations; however, it has great capacity 
to bestow legitimacy to this effort. In obtaining legitimacy through 
the U.N., we must not abuse the interest in self-determination of the 
Iraqi people. All ameliorative efforts should aim toward the goal of 
facilitating Iraqis in running their own trials without the involvement 
of U.N. international expertise. Furthermore, the United Nations will 
aid the effort to build internationally acceptable electoral machinery 
and run elections for the rebuilding nation. Experienced U.N. advisers 
could remain in government ministries, for years if necessary, without 
creating looking like an occupation.
  As to the method of rebuilding Iraq, I have suggested the creation of 
a bipartisan, bicameral working group on Iraqi reconstruction. I 
proposed the convening of an immediate working group to craft a 
comprehensive strategy for the reconstruction of Iraq. I am deeply 
troubled by the reports we are receiving from Iraq. The picture that 
was painted for us before the war--what we would find and how the Iraqi 
people would respond to being ``liberated''--seems to be wholly 
inaccurate. It seems that our forces, as well as the American people, 
were unprepared for the challenges we are now facing. It is essential 
that we develop a truer vision for the future of Iraq, and a realistic 
plan for making that vision come to be. Doing so will demand all the 
expertise and experience that Congress has to offer.
  To tap into those skills, we should form a working group, composed of 
a diverse array of qualified and committed Members of Congress. 
Conceptually, we must immediately dispense with partisanship and turf-
wars and come together to form a plan that is right for our troops, 
right for the people of Iraq, and worthy of support and financing by 
the American people. We do not have the luxury of time to start this 
discussion in both the House and Senate, a dozen committees, and then 
assimilate ideas later. So, I propose that we convene a joint House-
Senate bipartisan working group on Iraq.
  Since tensions began to escalate in Iraq last year, I have 
consistently fought for resolving the crisis with four goals in mind: 
minimizing the loss of American lives; minimizing the impact on the 
Iraqi people; minimizing the costs to the American taxpayers; and 
ensuring that our work in Iraq leads to long-term peace and stability 
in Iraq and the Middle East. I believe that those of us against the 
war, as well as those who supported it, can all agree on those four 
principles. We owe it to our troops and to the people of Iraq to 
acknowledge the problems that exist, and to make the investments of 
time and money necessary to get the job done--so we can bring our 
troops home.

                          ____________________