[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5781-5788]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE 9/11 COMMISSION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New

[[Page 5782]]

Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, this evening I want to discuss the 
serious accusations that former White House counterterrorism chief 
Richard Clarke has leveled at President Bush over the last week. I 
would also like to discuss my concern over the administration's 
attempts, attempts that have now been joined by several congressional 
Republicans, to draw attention away from the serious accusations by 
instead viciously attacking the messenger; and, finally, I come to the 
floor to highlight inconsistencies in the statements that Condoleezza 
Rice has made over the last week, inconsistencies that will undoubtedly 
be addressed when she testifies as early as next week under oath in 
front of the 9/11 Commission.
  Madam Speaker, it is nice to see that after months of stalling the 
Bush administration has finally made an agreement with the 9/11 
Commission to have the President, Vice President and National Security 
Adviser all appear before the entire 9/11 Commission. The announcement 
was a complete retreat from the Bush administration's previous belief 
that Condoleezza Rice should not testify in public.
  Last evening, the President went before reporters and said that he 
had ordered this level of cooperation because, and I quote President 
Bush here, I consider it necessary to gaining a complete picture of the 
months and years that preceded the murder of our fellow citizens on 
September 11, 2001.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is great that the Bush administration 
finally caved in and will allow Condoleezza Rice to testify, but it is 
somewhat disingenuous for the President to say that he has cooperated 
with the Commission in the past. In fact, President Bush has stalled 
the Commission for months on many of their requests.
  Up until yesterday, the President said that he would only testify 
before the Commission's chair and vice chair; and now President Bush 
and Vice President Cheney will testify together but not under oath and 
only one member of the Commission will be allowed to take notes. 
Allowing one person in the room to take notes, in my opinion, is no way 
to fully document critical testimony from the President and the Vice 
President, and I am also interested in why the President and the Vice 
President insist on testifying together.
  So, Mr. President, thank you for finally caving in to political 
pressure and allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify, but do not try to 
spin your way out of this by making it appear that you have been 
cooperating with the 9/11 Commission from the very beginning, because 
that is simply not the case.
  By delaying, the Bush administration has made it extremely difficult 
for the 9/11 Commission to finish its work in a timely fashion, and the 
Commission should not be expected to complete its work until it has 
heard from all the principals involved in the events leading up to and 
coming after 9/11.
  Public testimony from Condoleezza Rice is perhaps even more important 
now that we have heard from Richard Clarke, the President's former top 
counterterrorism adviser. Last week, Richard Clarke raised eyebrows all 
over the Nation when he appeared on 60 Minutes, released a book 
critical of the Bush administration's policy on fighting terrorism, and 
then testified before the 9/11 Commission where he personally 
apologized to the victims' families and told them that they had failed 
them or that he had failed them.
  Richard Clarke raises some serious questions, questions that 
Condoleezza Rice should attempt to answer before the 9/11 Commission, 
and I would like to mention some of those questions, Madam Speaker.
  Question number one: Did the Bush administration, as Richard Clarke 
claims, and I quote, ignore terrorism for months when maybe we could 
have done something to stop 9/11? You do not have to take Richard 
Clarke's word for it. President Bush bluntly acknowledged as much 
during an interview with Bob Woodward for Woodward's book titled Bush 
At War.
  Despite repeated warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack before 9/11 
President Bush admitted to Woodward, and I quote again, I did not feel 
the sense of urgency. That is what the President said. If he did not 
realize the sense of urgency, one has to really wonder what kind of 
advice he was receiving from his National Security Adviser and others.
  According to Richard Clarke, he tried repeatedly to get the 
administration to pay serious attention to the issue of terrorism.
  On January 24, 2001, just days after President Bush took the oath of 
office, Richard Clarke wrote an urgent memo to Condoleezza Rice, asking 
for an urgent Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda 
attack. Clarke claims this request was never acted upon. Three months 
later, in place of a Cabinet-level meeting, Richard Clarke was finally 
able to schedule a meeting with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul 
Wolfowitz. Clarke said he started the meeting by stating to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense that we needed to deal with bin Laden.

                              {time}  2115

  And Wolfowitz's response? ``No, no, no, we don't have to deal with al 
Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about 
Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'' That's what Wolfowitz 
said.
  Again, meetings like this are critical because people like Wolfowitz, 
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice were the very people advising the President. 
If Wolfowitz was describing Osama bin Laden as a little guy to Richard 
Clarke, one has to assume he was making the same sorts of comments to 
his boss, Donald Rumsfeld.
  Clarke could not believe Wolfowitz's characterization of bin Laden as 
a little guy. Clarke then responded to Wolfowitz, and again I quote, 
``Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States 
in 8 years.'' Clarke turned to the Deputy Director of the CIA, who 
agreed with his assessment. Clarke's statements contradict those of the 
National Security Adviser.
  On Sunday night, in an interview on ``60 Minutes,'' Condoleezza Rice 
said, ``The administration took seriously the threat of terrorism 
before 9/11,'' in stark contrast to the very comments of her boss, 
President Bush. And I would like to see Rice's response to a report in 
Newsweek magazine that the administration was trying to deemphasize 
terrorism as an overall priority. As proof, the report pointed to the 
fact that only two out of a hundred national security meetings the 
administration held before 9/11 addressed the terrorist threat.
  I look forward to hearing if the National Security Adviser thinks two 
meetings on the issue of terrorism shows a true dedication on the 
administration's part to fighting terrorism and to taking terrorist 
threats seriously.
  The National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also stated during 
her interview on ``60 Minutes,'' and I quote again, ``I don't know that 
a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us 
to do anything differently. I don't know how we could have done more. I 
would like very much to know what more we could have done.''
  The salient answer to this question, Madam Speaker, is a lot more 
could have been done. First, the administration could have held more 
than two national security meetings on the issue. Based on the major 
intelligence spike in the summer of 2001, the administration could have 
held more meetings with top officials from the CIA and the FBI to make 
sure the agencies were sharing information.
  Earlier this week, 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick said that the 
lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each 
other and key evidence was overlooked.
  Richard Clarke is also very critical of the administration's 
obsession with Saddam Hussein. Again in her interview on ``60 
Minutes,'' Rice claimed that Iraq was put aside immediately after 9/
11.'' But Rice's own claims were refuted, this time by a Washington 
Post report stating that 6 days after the 9/11 attacks, the President 
signed a

[[Page 5783]]

3-page document directing the Pentagon to begin planning military 
options for an invasion of Iraq.
  Furthermore, CBS News reported in 2002 that 5 hours after the 9/11 
attacks, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was telling his aids to come up 
with plans for striking Iraq. This is also consistent with Clarke's own 
statements in which he says that ``Rumsfeld told him on September 11 
that they needed to bomb Iraq.'' Clarke writes in his book that, ``On 
September 12, he went home for a brief period of time to eat and take a 
shower and return to the White House.'' Clarke writes, and I quote, ``I 
expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next 
attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. Instead, I walked into 
a series of discussions about Iraq. At first, I was incredulous we were 
talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized, 
with almost a sharp physical pain, that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were 
going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote 
their agenda on Iraq. Clearly, the administration continued to have its 
eyes set on going to war with Iraq.''
  Now, Madam Speaker, I ask: Was the war on terrorism a convenient, yet 
flawed, justification for going to war against Iraq? That is what 
Richard Clarke believes. It is also supported by another former high-
ranking Bush administration official, Paul O'Neill. The former Treasury 
Secretary stated in his book that ``Vice President Cheney strongly 
suggested U.S. intervention in Iraq well before the terrorist attacks 
of September 11.'' This is another question Condoleezza Rice should 
answer in front of the American people.
  Madam Speaker, it is clear that President Bush's rationale for war 
against Iraq was flawed. The Bush administration used two things to 
justify war with Iraq: first, a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda; 
and, second, the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
  In addition to the new questions raised by Richard Clarke about the 
Iraq-al Qaeda link, experts have concluded that Iraq did not have 
weapons that posed an immediate threat to the United States. CIA 
Director George Tenet recently admitted that the intelligence agencies 
never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. And 
former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that the Bush 
administration made up its mind that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction and it was not interested in evidence to the contrary.
  Madam Speaker, when the President signed the law creating the 
commission in November 2002, he urged the panel to, and I quote, 
``carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts wherever 
they lead.'' But, clearly, the Bush administration did not mean 
following it to the President's National Security Adviser. And while 
the administration charges the panel to follow the facts wherever they 
may lead, they and some congressional Republicans are attempting to 
minimize some of those possible facts by attacking the character of 
Richard Clarke.
  Last week, the majority leader in the other Chamber implied that 
Richard Clarke had perjured himself either during his testimony before 
the 9/11 Commission last week or during his testimony before the Joint 
Congressional Intelligence Committee hearing in July 2002, because, 
according to Senator Frist, he appears to have told two different 
stories. However, despite some pretty harsh words for Mr. Clarke, the 
Senate majority leader could not point to one specific example, but 
called for all of Clarke's testimony before the House Senate 
intelligence panel 2 years ago.
  Now, this past Sunday, Clarke said he would support the 
declassification of his testimony before the joint intelligence panels 
if the administration also declassifies the National Security Adviser's 
testimony before the 9/11 Commission and the declassification of the 
January 25, 2001, memo that Clarke sent to Rice laying out a terrorism 
strategy, a strategy that was not approved until months later.
  Madam Speaker, House Democrats really want a full accounting of the 
events leading up to the September 11 attacks, including the extent to 
which a preoccupation with Iraq affected efforts to deal with the 
threat posed by al Qaeda. It is nice to see the White House has finally 
stopped stonewalling the commission and now says that it will provide 
the public testimony the commission is requesting. But Americans need 
to be able to fully evaluate the decisions of government leaders, 
especially when it comes to the life and death decisions of war and 
peace.
  Madam Speaker, there are others that I would like to yield my time to 
tonight; but I just wanted to say before we go on that I have been to 
the floor many times over the last few months talking about the 
Republican abuse of power and the Bush administration's abuse of power. 
Yesterday, there was an op-ed column in the New York Times by Paul 
Krugman that was entitled, ``This Isn't America.'' And it kind of sums 
up my concern about the abuse of power.
  I mention it tonight in the context of Richard Clarke and the 9/11 
Commission and the National Security Adviser, but Krugman pretty much 
sums up how this abuse of power is rampant with the Bush administration 
and the Republicans in Washington. And I am not going to read the whole 
thing, but I just wanted to read a couple of parts of it, where Krugman 
says, ``Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz 
about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, said, `This isn't America; the 
government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the 
description of the threat to justify their attack.' So even in Israel, 
George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of 
power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's `Against 
All Enemies' provides more evidence that something is rotten in the 
State of our government.''
  Krugman goes on to say that not only in the case of Richard Clarke, 
but in many other cases there is abuse of power by the administration 
and the congressional Republicans: ``A few examples: according to the 
Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General 
Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. 
The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists 
that `a congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic 
lobbyist with a Republican.' Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security 
Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in 
Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads 
for the new drug benefit, ads that look like news reports and also 
serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.''
  Krugman ends and he says, and I quote, ``Where will it end? In his 
new book, `Worse Than Watergate,' John Dean of Watergate fame, says 
`I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible 
political catastrophes; one that will take the air out of the Bush-
Cheney balloon, and the other far more disconcerting that will take the 
air out of democracy.''
  The reason that many Democrats, including myself, come down here on a 
regular basis now to talk about the Republican abuse of power is 
exactly for the reason that John Dean quotes in his book, and that is 
we are very concerned about the future of democracy and where we are 
going with these kinds of abuses of power by the Bush administration 
and the Republican majority.
  I see my colleague from California is here, and I probably took up 
too much, and so I want to yield to her.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me and for continuing to speak the truth, and for making sure that our 
country understands the type of abuses that are taking place here in 
Washington, D.C. I believe that democracy is at a crossroads, and I 
think the gentleman has made that very clear tonight. So I want to 
thank the gentleman for his continuing to speak truth to power, as we 
say.
  Madam Speaker, let me also tonight thank the distinguished chair of 
the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership on this and so many 
other issues as he continues to consistently attempt to wake up 
America.

[[Page 5784]]

  We are here tonight, Madam Speaker, to talk about the Bush 
administration's systematically deceiving the American people. This 
administration has spun a web of deception that really enshrouds the 
truth and hides, mind you, reality. Specifically, I want to talk about 
the administration's foreign policy and how it has based a doctrine of 
preemptive strikes on a foundation that is really built on falsehoods, 
lies, and distortions.
  But first let me just say it is especially telling and especially 
tragic that we are here tonight as we mourn nine new victims of this 
misguided war. Five soldiers and four contractors were killed today. 
Our thoughts and our prayers go out to their families and to all of 
those whose loved ones are still at risk.
  We mourn these latest deaths as we speak out against the deliberate 
decisions and the deceptions that took this country to war. This 
administration did not tell the truth to Congress, to the American 
people, and to the world about the causes, the costs, and the 
consequences of the war in Iraq. The deceit started, mind you, well 
before the war did, and that is no accident. The web of deception was 
woven in order to create a reason for the war.
  The administration told us time and time again that Iraq posed an 
immediate threat to the United States. In the President's State of the 
Union address, the Secretary of State's presentation to the United 
Nations, and in many other statements and speeches the administration 
told us that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons and it already had 
vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. This was apparently 
all false.
  President Bush said that Saddam Hussein was buying aluminum tubes and 
African uranium for nuclear weapons. This was false. Vice President 
Cheney said we know, and this is a quote, ``We know he has been 
absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe 
he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' This was false.
  President Bush said, we gave them a chance to allow the inspectors in 
and they wouldn't let them in. This was false. As for the weapons of 
mass destruction, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, we know 
where they are. This was false. The administration time and time again 
tied Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and this 
was downright false.
  These statements were, however, part of a larger pattern of 
distortion that included warping intelligence to fit the 
administration's vision of the world and then passing on that warped 
intelligence to the American people and to the world as a fact.
  The administration also, mind you, disguised the cost of the war, 
which of course taxpayers are paying for. When economic adviser Larry 
Lindsey said in 2002 that war in Iraq could cost between $100 billion 
and $200 billion, well, he was right; but you know what, he was fired.
  When asked about the possible consequences of the war, the 
administration presented a portrait of a country that would be 
uniformly grateful to its American invaders. This week's Nation says, 
and I quote, ``The idiotic and arrogant statements by Defense Secretary 
Donald Rumsfeld and others that policing Iraq would be a simple matter 
that could be quickly cleaned up by all those flowers they were going 
to throw.''

                              {time}  2130

  The many distortions, deceptions and omissions amounted to, as I was 
actually taught like many of us were taught as a child, lying. I was 
also taught that this is really wrong. This deception was clearly and 
deliberately escalated. The very impressive and thought-provoking 
report by the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace found a very 
dramatic shift in the fall of 2002 as the administration sought to 
rally support for its unnecessary war. Let me just read what the 
Carnegie Foundation indicates:
  Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat 
from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence 
failures noted above by, one, treating nuclear, chemical, and 
biological weapons as a single WMD threat. The conflation of three 
distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the 
cost-benefit analysis of the war.
  Secondly, insisting without evidence, yet treating as a given truth, 
that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists.
  Thirdly, routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions 
of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public 
statements.
  Next, misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned 
threats from minor to dire.
  The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace is a world-renowned 
institution. I suggest that if Members have not read this report, they 
should read it because, in fact, it lays out the facts, the reality and 
what actually went down prior to this war.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Reform, has presented a comprehensive 
examination of the statements and mis-
statements by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser. The 
gentleman from California has compiled a database of deception about 
alleged weapons of mass destruction, alleged ties to al Qaeda and the 
allegedly urgent threat to the United States posed by Iraq. That 
database shows just how far-reaching these distortions were, and they 
do not stop with Iraq, and they do not stop with foreign policy. But 
let me just read a couple of the gentleman from California's quotes 
which have been recorded in this document:
  One is from Vice President Dick Cheney. He said, ``We know he's got 
chemical and biological weapons.'' But, rather, the truth is the 
statement failed to acknowledge that the Defense Intelligence Agency's 
position was, ``There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is 
producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has--or will--
establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.''
  President Bush: ``We've also discovered through intelligence that 
Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that 
could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad 
areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs 
for missions targeting the United States.''
  The explanation of this tale is this was misleading because it 
claimed that Iraq's UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or 
biological weapons, including over the United States, but this failed 
and the President failed to mention that the United States Government 
agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, 
the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the 
following view: ``The U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is 
developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for 
chemical and biological agents.''
  Another President Bush quote: ``We found the weapons of mass 
destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin 
Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got 
laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. 
They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far 
discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for 
those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or 
banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.''
  What this really was, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
was that these trailers which the President said were to produce 
biological weapons did not disclose the fact that the engineers at the 
DIA examined the trailers and concluded that they were most likely to 
produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. That is what the DIA 
concluded.
  We could go on and on tonight about this, but I think the public is 
beginning to get the picture.
  Let us look at Haiti for a minute where the administration claimed it 
was defending democracy while in fact it was conspiring to undermine 
and to

[[Page 5785]]

overthrow the duly elected President of Haiti. That is why we need an 
independent commission to investigate the role of the administration in 
the overthrow of the Aristide government. That is also why we still 
need a truly independent commission to investigate the use and the 
misuse of intelligence in the war in Iraq.
  Of course, the same deceptions permeate our domestic policies as 
well. Look at the administration's track record on its domestic 
policies.
  Example. He said that his tax cuts for the rich would create jobs. 
Instead, we have seen 3 million jobs disappear in this country since 
President Bush took office. He said the vast majority of those tax cuts 
would go to those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. Instead, 
the top 1 percent of earners reap over a third of the tax benefits by 
themselves. Only the top 1 percent. The President said that our schools 
will have greater resources to help meet the goals of Leave No Child 
Behind. But for the third year in a row the President's budget falls 
billions of dollars short of fully funding Leave No Child Behind.
  The deficit. The President says our budget will run a deficit that 
will be small and short-term, but the fact is that the 10-year deficit 
projection by the Congressional Budget Office, assuming extending the 
tax provisions, is $4.7 trillion. In just 2 years, there has been an 
almost $12 trillion swing in the deficit outlook. The $5.6 trillion 10-
year surplus projected when the President took office has been replaced 
by deficits as far as the eye can see. For 2004, the President's budget 
proposes a record deficit of $521 billion, $146 billion more than the 
2003 deficit, which was also a historic record. Yet the President said 
on January 7, 2003, ``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small 
and short-term.''
  We have to really get our administration to begin to understand the 
value of telling the truth, because in both the domestic and foreign 
policies of this administration, this administration and the President 
has deceived the American people about their national security, their 
economy, their children's education and their future. We should be 
leading the world, not misleading it. That is exactly what we are 
doing.
  Finally, let me just say one of the biggest farces which the 
President said and indicated he wanted to do was to unite the country. 
I believe that this country is more divided tonight than ever.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida). The 
gentlewoman will suspend.
  The Chair would remind the Members not to refer to the President or 
the Vice President in terms that are personally offensive, such as 
accusations of deceit.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, may I respond?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I am referring to statements of fact and 
information which has been documented and quotes which have been 
published already.
  I thank the Speaker for reminding us of the rules of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is reminded that Members may 
not read into debate extraneous material which would be improper if 
spoken in the Member's own words.
  Mr. PALLONE. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  I know I have to yield to my other colleague from Maryland, but I 
just wanted to point out that again, going back to what I said before, 
and I was referencing this New York Times article about the future of 
democracy, in order for us to make fair and accurate decisions in the 
way we vote on the floor, whether it is to go to war in Iraq or it is 
to provide funding for various programs, we need to have accurate 
information. I think what the gentlewoman is pointing out is that, 
whether it is foreign policy or domestic policy, with the kind of 
deception that we are getting, we cannot rely on the information that 
is being provided by the administration because many times it is 
distorted or it is not accurate. That is, I think, the real problem 
here.
  I voted against the war but many of our colleagues, both Democrats 
and Republican, voted for it because they relied on representations 
that were being made by the White House that there were weapons of mass 
destruction, that there was an imminent threat, so many of the things 
that she pointed out. So, ultimately, they made the wrong decision, 
many of whom now regret that decision, because they did not get 
accurate information. They relied on the White House to make a decision 
that was the wrong decision.
  The whole point is that we cannot make the right decisions, we cannot 
figure out what to do here if we continue to get this inaccurate 
information from the White House. What ultimately is going to happen is 
we are not going to believe anything we get. We are just going to have 
to come find some other source and assume that whatever comes from the 
White House is not accurate and cannot be relied on. I think the 
gentlewoman pointed that out so many times.
  Ms. LEE. I would just like to say, I think it is very important for 
us, as the leader of the free world, the greatest superpower in the 
world, to be credible, to be credible as we move forward in this 21st 
century in terms of how we view the world in terms of our strategic 
position, in terms of our quest to have a peaceful world, a secure 
world and in terms of our efforts to eliminate terrorism.
  There is no way we should sweep under the rug the facts. The facts 
are here, they are published, we know what who said when. I hope that 
the American people understand that we come to this floor to try to 
present the facts because oftentimes the media does not do that. We 
have it right here, and we are urging people to read what has been said 
over the last few years.
  We have lost over 560 young men and women in the military. Their 
lives are lost, their families' lives are shattered as a result of this 
misinformation and this deceit which led us to war.
  I believe it is our duty and our responsibility to put these facts 
out and to make sure that the American people know what was said, what 
was the basis for this war and what the outcome, unfortunately, has 
been.
  Mr. PALLONE. I mentioned before about this op-ed with Krugman where 
he was quoting the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, a major publication in 
Israel. I just want to read that quote again in their editorial where 
they said, ``This isn't America; the government did not invent 
intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to 
justify their attack.''
  We tend to think of this country and I have always felt it as the 
country that stands for what is right, what is just, what is honest, 
and to think that an Israeli newspaper is now saying, we're not like 
the government of the United States, we don't make up things, we don't 
lie, we don't exaggerate, as if that is the norm for us, is a pretty 
sad state of affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want 
to thank the gentleman for his vigilance and for consistently standing 
up for what is right.
  I have often said that I would like to see my children and 
grandchildren have a better country, inherit a better country than the 
one that existed on January 18, 1951, when I was born.
  I must say that when I listened to my colleagues speak and I look at 
the very subject that we are talking about tonight, I am very much 
concerned that they will not inherit a better country. As a matter of 
fact, the kinds of things that we are talking about tonight, where 
words of this administration are inaccurate, should give the entire 
American public chills, because they are the things that lead to the 
chipping away of this wonderful institution that we call a democracy.
  So I thank the gentleman for standing up and I thank all of my 
colleagues for coming out tonight, certainly the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  I want to just for a moment talk about some of the misconceptions 
that

[[Page 5786]]

we have seen and heard here as Members of this great body. First of 
all, as Members of the Congress, our constituents have vested a unique 
trust in us to represent their interests to the fullest degree and to 
make decisions that have a tremendous impact on their daily lives.

                              {time}  2145

  Every day we are required to consider legislative proposals, policy 
solutions, and programmatic activities that shape the future of our 
Nation. In order to carry out our task for this greatest benefit of the 
American people, it is absolutely essential that the most accurate and 
current information be at our disposal. Anything less would force us to 
abdicate our duties and perform an extreme disservice to the American 
people.
  So, Madam Speaker, I am growing increasingly disturbed and angered by 
the Bush administration's penchant for being less than truthful with 
the people's representatives.
  One striking example of this tendency towards strategically bending 
the truth is the rationale provided for the Iraq War. What disturbs me 
most about the faulty reasoning provided by our rush to war is the fact 
that not only was our Nation's credibility at stake, but most 
importantly human lives were at stake. Recent remarks by the Spanish 
Prime Minister in which he called the United States' occupation of Iraq 
a fiasco, and those are his words, make it increasingly evident that 
international goodwill is beginning to turn against the United States.
  Madam Speaker, it is clear that one of the very first casualties of 
this war was international respect for the United States of America. 
Although terrorists may be jailed or killed on the battlefield, the war 
against terrorism will be fought and won in the hearts and minds.
  By advancing unilateralist policies that isolate the rest of the 
world without concrete proof of imminent threat, we have endangered not 
only our national security, but also our national identity.
  The Bible says, ``Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness 
shall be heard in the light and that which ye have spoken in the ear in 
closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.''
  Several revelations have come to light as of late that seem to 
indicate that the administration's reasoning for war was flawed and the 
information provided to the public as justification for the war was 
misleading. First, we had Secretary Paul O'Neill, a former member of 
President Bush's Cabinet, saying that invading Iraq was a top priority 
of this administration only 10 days after the inauguration of this 
administration. That is, in January of 2001, long before September 11, 
the administration had already had its sights on Iraq.
  Then to add insult to injury, former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay 
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``we were 
almost all wrong'' as it relates to our prewar intelligence. And 
Richard Clarke, the President's former counterterrorism adviser, is 
asserting that even though all credible evidence pointed to al Qaeda as 
being responsible for September 11, the administration still insisted 
on finding a link to Iraq.
  And now, Madam Speaker, we have this report entitled ``Iraq on the 
Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on, Iraq'' issued 
by the special investigations division of the Committee on Government 
Reform approximately 2 weeks ago and which was referred to by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) just a moment ago. This startling 
report, which I submit for the Record, chronicles over 200 misleading 
statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by this 
administration.
  This chart, which was included within the report, graphs the 
occurrence and timing of these misleading statements. Madam Speaker, 
the Members may notice this sharp spike between August, 2002, and 
October, 2002. I am sure the Members will recall that this happens to 
be around the same time Congress was considering the resolution 
authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, I am sure that it is far more than a coincidence that 
just as Congress was debating whether or not force was necessary in 
Iraq, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, 
Secretary Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the 
administration, made 64 misleading statements in 16 public appearances. 
Madam Speaker, that amounts to more than two misleading statements per 
day during the 30-day period between September 8, 2002, and October 8, 
2002.
  I am sure that some of my colleagues across the aisle will find 
objection with this information, but in advance let me assure my 
critics that this report only contains statements that were misleading 
at the time that they were made. I am not referencing statements that 
the administration thought to be true at the time, but were proven 
false in hindsight. I am talking about statements that were not 
accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time 
they were made.
  Madam Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I am outraged by this 
purposeful twisting of the truth, and every American who believes in 
truth and justice should be outraged also.
  Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the argument made for war in Iraq was 
not the only case wherein the administration has knowingly misled the 
Congress and the American public. In December of 2003, the 
administration sent Congress its ``National Healthcare Disparities 
Report.'' As I am sure the Members are aware, Madam Speaker, the law 
requires the Department of Health and Human Services to report to 
Congress on national healthcare quality and national healthcare 
disparities.
  These reports enable us, as legislators, to assess the status of the 
health care crisis in our Nation and propose new solutions to 
eliminating those barriers to ensuring quality and affordable health 
care to every single American.
  Madam Speaker, eliminating disparities in treatment and access to 
health care is a major priority of the Congressional Black Caucus. 
Oftentimes people speak of health care disparities as an abstract issue 
that only exists in the realm of policy and political discussions.
  Under the leadership of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. 
Christensen), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health 
Braintrust, we have tried to make the issue of health disparities one 
that people understand and that we are working diligently to improve 
through our health care disparities legislation. Apparently, Madam 
Speaker, instead of joining the members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and other concerned Members of Congress in our effort to 
eradicate health disparities, the Bush administration has chosen to 
delude Members of Congress as to the extent and nature of the problem.
  The report that the Department of Health and Human Services provided 
Congress was absolutely shameful. The Special Investigations Unit of 
the Committee on Government Reform has found that the Department of 
Health and Human Services altered conclusions of its scientists on 
health care disparities in order to gloss over the appearance of a 
national problem which is literally costing human lives.
  A congressional investigation released in January entitled ``A Case 
Study in Politics and Science: Changes to the National Healthcare 
Disparities Report,'' which I will submit for the Record, made some 
startling findings which I want to share with the American people 
tonight, Madam Speaker.
  The investigation revealed that the Department of Health and Human 
Services' scientists ``found `significant inequality' in health care in 
the United States, called health care disparities `national problems,' 
emphasized that these disparities are pervasive in our health care 
system and found that the disparities carry a significant `personal and 
societal price' in its initial report.''
  However, the final version of the disparities report, that is the 
version the administration submitted to Congress, contained none, none, 
of these conclusions and instead minimized the importance and scope of 
the disparities in health care.

[[Page 5787]]

  Madam Speaker, not only did the administration mislead all 535 
Members of Congress by rewriting a scientific report required by law, 
but the administration officials were dishonest with me personally when 
I asked about the changes made to the report.
  Dr. Carolyn Clancy, director of the Department of Health and Human 
Services Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, wrote a letter to 
me that began: ``I am writing in partial response to your letter to 
Secretary Thompson expressing your concern that these changes were made 
to scientific facts and findings in the National Healthcare Disparities 
Report.'' She goes on to say, as we will see on this chart, the very 
next sentence of the letter read: ``At the outset I want to make it 
clear that no data or statistics in the report were altered in any way 
whatsoever.''
  This is a letter that she sent to me. However, Madam Speaker, if one 
were to visit the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Web site 
right now, they would find another letter from Dr. Clancy which reads: 
``Over the course of the summer and fall, changes, with which I 
concurred,'' meaning she concurred, ``were made to the report by a 
broad array of staff including Agency for Healthcare Research and 
Quality.''
  The question becomes, Madam Speaker, which one is the truth? Is this 
the truth, or is this the truth? No matter what, there is an 
inconsistency that goes to the heart of a major issue on health care 
disparities.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I ask how is it that Dr. Clancy can in good 
conscience tell me that no changes were made to the disparities report 
but a month later, after public pressure, admit that changes were 
indeed made?
  Madam Speaker, this is about more than my feeling personally insulted 
by Dr. Clancy. Madam Speaker, this is an insult to African American 
women who are more than twice as likely to die of cervical cancer than 
are white women and are more likely to die of breast cancer than women 
of any other racial or ethnic group. This is an insult to African 
Americans who are having more strokes at earlier ages, who are more 
likely to die from them, and who experience worse levels of recovery 
than other racial groups. This is about the prevalence of high blood 
pressure within the African American community that ranks among the 
highest in the world. This is about the administration knowing that all 
of these problems exist and choosing to do absolutely nothing about it 
and, furthermore, masking the truth about its existence.
  So I could go on and on, but it is so interesting too that on Dr. 
Martin Luther King's birthday, President Bush visited an African 
American church and said, ``Today would have been his 75th birthday,'' 
and this is President Bush speaking as I conclude. ``It's important for 
our country to honor his life and what he stood for.''
  Later in the day, the President visited Dr. King's memorial in 
Atlanta, Georgia, and held a moment of silence at his tomb. All of this 
was very moving and touching. Yet, Madam Speaker, the very next day the 
President appointed Judge Charles Pickering over the objection of 
United States Senators, the Congressional Black Caucus, and all of 
these civil rights organizations.
  I find it rather ironic that 1 day after the photo-op with Dr. King's 
widow, Coretta Scott King, and after saying that the Nation should 
honor what Dr. King stood for, that President Bush would have appointed 
a judicial nominee that was vigorously opposed by nearly every single 
civil rights group in the entire Nation.
  So I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I 
thank him for yielding to me. Again, we all have come out. We could be 
at home resting, but we cannot rest when we see the deceptions that are 
taking place for we know that those deceptions lead to erosions. It is 
just like a water leak in one's house, drip, drip, drip; and every 
single drip, it may take a long time, but eventually something wears 
away. And we are convinced that we have to stand up. We could not sleep 
unless we did stand.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida). The Chair 
would remind all Members not to attribute intentional 
misrepresentations to the President or Vice President.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for his statement. I know he is also the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus. And, again, I think it is important, 
whether it is foreign policy or domestic policy, that we point out that 
we are not getting accurate information from the White House and it 
makes it very difficult for us to proceed in making policy decisions if 
we cannot rely on accurate information from the White House.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

                              {time}  2200

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I stand here today with such a pride in joining true 
patriots who are coming to the floor tonight under the leadership of 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished chairman 
of the Congressional Black Caucus (Mr. Cummings), and my colleague the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has really been a conscience 
for all of us, that we have to ask the questions.
  We stand here as people who love our country. We love our country so 
much that we fought to be here to represent over 600,000 people, to 
represent the views of ordinary Americans, and we are here tonight 
because we are concerned that our country is losing its credibility and 
its moral leadership around the world; and that our democracy is in 
jeopardy right now, because democracy depends on the truth.
  It depends on the light of day. It depends on discussions being held 
out in the open, so that people can make up their own minds, so the 
facts, the real facts, get laid on the table. And to question, yes, 
even to question the President of the United States, Madam Speaker, 
about things that have been said, and the Vice President of the United 
States.
  No one in this great democracy is beyond being questioned, and that 
is the duty of Americans, not just of Members of Congress, but of 
citizens of the United States, of the media, of the press, to find out 
the truth.
  Madam Speaker, for over 6 months this administration has been 
fighting tooth and nail against all of the facts being laid out in 
public before this commission investigating 9/11 and what happened. It 
is not just the 3,000-plus people that died that day, and it is not 
just the 570, 580 or 590-plus people now that have died in Iraq and 
their families that are suffering, presumably because we were fighting 
terrorism, and some of us question the rationale for that war. But all 
Americans deserve to know the truth, and this administration over the 
last 6 months has battled against the commission over access to 
documents and witnesses.
  The panel has issued two subpoenas to the Federal Government for 
aviation and military records, and twice had to threaten to do the same 
for access to presidential briefing materials. The panel fought the 
White House over an extension of its statutory deadline for issuing a 
report which was originally set for May 27 in order to really do its 
job. There has been pressure on this commission not to explore fully 
and readily exactly what happened on 9/11.
  Now, fortunately, under tremendous pressure right now, we are going 
to hear more information, under oath, from the National Security 
Advisor, who has found it fit to speak on every single broadcast and 
radio station and television program about this. But now under oath she 
will appear. I think this is a wise decision, and I am glad that it is 
going to happen.
  But I want to talk for a minute about one of the strategies that is 
used to silence people who would ask those kinds of questions, who 
would come up with information that the administration does not like, 
that runs counter to the administration's version of the truth.
  I am not saying that the other versions are always true or more 
correct, but what I am saying is that anyone who dares to stand up and 
say

[[Page 5788]]

something different is slimed by this administration. Let me give you 
some examples of the ways in which the integrity, the competence, the 
motives and even the patriotism of those who raise questions is 
attacked.
  The Medicare actuary who came up with the numbers that said that this 
Medicare bill that passed in the middle of the night, after arm-
twisting and holding the record open for 3-plus hours, the actuary who 
came up with dollar figures that said it really was going to cost about 
$140 billion more than the administration said, was warned that he 
would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush 
administration cost estimates that would have torpedoed, or could have, 
any Congressional passage of this White House-backed Medicare 
prescription drug plan.
  Richard S. Foster, the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, told colleagues last June that he would be fired if 
he revealed the numbers relating to higher estimates to lawmakers. This 
is a person who was supposed to give us the truth. That is his job. He 
is supposed to come up with the facts. For doing so, he was told he 
would be fired.
  Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, 3 days after Paul 
O'Neill criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy, the 
administration, quoting from an Associated Press story, ``began an 
investigation into whether any laws or regulations had been violated by 
O'Neill.'' The probe came despite O'Neill having specifically ``cleared 
all of the documents with the Treasury General Counsel's Office.''
  Of course, the problem ended by fully absolving O'Neill. But, right 
away, rather than answering the charges that were raised, the 
administration went after the man and tried to undercut his 
credibility.
  White House Adviser Larry Lindsey was fired when he told a newspaper 
that an Iraq war could cost $200 billion.
  General Anthony Zinni, fired, a retired Marine general who was Bush's 
Middle East mediator. He had the audacity to anger the White House when 
he told a public policy forum in October that ``Bush had far more 
pressing policies than Iraq and suggested there could be a prolonged, 
difficult aftermath to the war. He was not reappointed as Mideast 
envoy.'' The source, and that is a quote, was the Associated Press in 
July of 2003.
  Even troops fighting in Iraq were threatened for telling the truth 
about combat in Iraq. After soldiers in Iraq raised questions about the 
Bush administration's deceptive WMD comments, General John Abizaid said 
no soldiers ``are free to say anything disparaging about the Secretary 
of Defense, or the President of the United States. Whatever action may 
be taken, whether it is a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, 
is up to the commanders on the scene.'' The source, ABC News.
  No, we are not even going to let those who are putting their lives on 
the line publicly raise questions.
  The CIA was blamed for telling the truth about bogus Iraq nuclear 
claims. Despite the CIA having made advance objections to the White 
House about false Iraq nuclear claims, ``President Bush and his 
National Security Advisor yesterday placed full responsibility on the 
Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion in this year's State of 
the Union Address of questionable allegations that Iraq's Saddam 
Hussein was trying to buy nuclear weapons.''
  So much for taking personal responsibility for words that come out of 
one's own mouth. Let us blame someone else.
  And then, of course, there is Richard Clarke.
  But even before I get to him, the Secretary of Commerce the other 
day, in talking about people who are concerned about losing their jobs, 
because jobs are being exported overseas, said that basically this kind 
of outsourcing is really a good thing for the economy. ``People who are 
out of work because of outsourcing, who said, no, they think maybe we 
ought to try and keep jobs at home, he called them economic 
isolationists, and he said economic isolationists wave the flag of 
surrender, rather than the American flag.'' That is a quote.
  So, in other words, people who are out of work because their jobs 
have gone overseas and have the audacity to complain about our policies 
that do that are said to wave the flag of surrender and not the 
American flag.
  What does that mean? They are not patriots? These people, whose 
children every day go to school and say the pledge to the flag while 
dad or mom is looking for a job?

                          ____________________