[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1955-1956]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            THE NEED FOR STRAIGHT TALK ON NATIONAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as I talk to my constituents, Democrats, 
Republicans and Independents alike, there is an increasing concern that 
the Bush administration is not talking straight to the American people 
on important issues of national security.
  We know that during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the intelligence 
community was put under pressure to come up with a certain view of the 
facts. And where we put ideology over facts, instead of having the 
facts shape our policy, it was the other way around.
  We have now learned recently from a former CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, 
that not only did we play with the facts with respect to whether or not 
there were weapons of mass destruction and whether or not there were 
links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but we also ignored many of 
the facts brought to us by some of the intelligence community with 
respect to the difficulties we would confront in Iraq in the case of a 
military invasion there.
  And what happened, and he has laid this out very clearly, is the 
administration cherry-picked the information. They always took the rosy 
view of the facts as they presented us with their support of their case 
and tended to ignore those facts that did not support their case.
  Now, whether you were for or against taking military action in Iraq, 
we should all be able to agree as Americans that it is important that 
we listen to those people who have experience, who have the 
professional know-how, people in our intelligence community who have 
spent years looking into issues around the world and in this case, 
issues with respect to the Middle East.
  So I think it should concern all Americans that the administration 
decided to ignore warnings from nonpartisan individuals who brought 
information to their attention. And it is not just the failure to take 
heed of that information. Now we are seeing the consequences in terms 
of the manpower in different intelligence agencies.
  U.S. News and World Report has a story about how we are losing many 
of the most experienced people in the CIA as a result of the fact that 
they feel pressure to take a political position or that they are forced 
out of their positions. We are losing many of our most experienced 
people in the ranks of our intelligence community, and that certainly 
is not good for our national security.
  We would have thought that after 9/11 we would have heeded some 
lessons, and in fact we formed a bipartisan 9/11 Commission that came 
out with a number of recommendations. One of their recommendations was 
to do more about the so-called ``lose nukes,'' nuclear weapons in the 
former Soviet Union.
  Unfortunately, if you look at what has been done to date, it is very 
little. We are not doing what we should with respect to the Nunn-Lugar 
program; and that is why if you look at the most recent report by the 
9/11 Commission, they have given this administration and this Congress 
Ds and Fs, failing grades, in a whole range of categories,

[[Page 1956]]

making it clear that we have not learned our lessons and that we are 
not more prepared.
  In fact, we know we are not prepared because all we have to do is 
look at the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the recent 
reports that have come out in the last couple of days showing the total 
failure of initiative by the Federal Government.
  You know, a lot of people talk a good game about being prepared to 
deal with national security threats; but the fact of the matter is when 
you take the lid off and look underneath as to what is actually being 
done, the news is not good: more people leaving our intelligence 
agencies, the fact that we are continuing to get failing grades from 
the 9/11 Commission.
  And just the other day in the Government Reform Committee, we had a 
hearing with a number of whistleblowers, all from national security 
agencies. These are people who have uncovered abuses within national 
security agencies, from the FBI to the NSA.
  And instead of welcoming these individuals who have come forward to 
present the administration and the public with some truths, the 
testimony of these individuals, all under oath, sworn under oath, is 
that they are actually being punished for having come forward to try 
and tell the truth.
  Now, again, I do not care what party affiliation you may have; it is 
not in the security interests of this country for us to punish people 
who come forward and tell the truth and reveal abuses that are going on 
within different national security agencies. That undermines our 
national security. That undermines our credibility as a government.
  So I would just suggest that as we listen to a lot of the rhetoric 
from the administration, we remember that, unfortunately, this is the 
gang that cannot shoot straight with the American people. And in the 
last couple of days we have learned that that is not just figuratively 
true, it is also, unfortunately, actually true.

                          ____________________