John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill is class warfare with a vengeance. Here my conservative friends, Republicans, are supporting the bill that will help Enron, Ken Lay, that is right, Adelphia, WorldCom, Tyco, by making retroactive all the automatic appeal provisions. By the way, the Chambers of Commerce are enthusiastic that maybe the fourth time this will get through the Congress. The National Association of Manufacturers are for it, and so is the President of the United States. That is one side. Now, who are the victims? All consumers groups are against the bill. All civil rights groups are against the bill. All environmental groups are against the bill. All health care groups are against the bill. All judges, Federal and State, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, are against the bill. Get the picture? We do. And so do the people in your districts from whom you are taking the right to be jurors in these trials away from. Let us talk about the coupon business, because in the Democratic substitute, on page 12, section 1711, is the only corrective action to coupons, which have been cried about on this floor this morning. If there is any provision in the bill that is on the floor now about coupons that will eliminate it or make it harder to bring, I would sure like to hear about it in the closing comments; and I have a Detroit Free Press editorial that came out yesterday saying class action, the plan seems less about justice than helping business. And I will insert it and a letter from the NAACP for the Record at this point. [From the Detroit Free Press, June 11, 2003] Class Action: Plan Seems Less About Justice Than Helping Business Now don't go making a federal case of it . . . That old expression is a good one to direct at Congress, since the House and Senate appear to be racing each other to pass bills that would discourage class-action lawsuits by shifting them from state courts to the federal system. This is an interesting tack for a lot of conservative lawmakers who profess to want less federal involvement in American lives. Federal judges, already buckling under case overload, are opposed to it. So are state judges. Consumer groups see the bills as an overkill remedy for a system that's already being repaired by judicial initiatives. Class-action suits allow one or a few people to seek damages for hundreds or even thousand of individuals who may have been affected by a bad product or policy. They are, understandably, the bane of big business and have been outrageously lucrative to some lawyers. But they also have produced changes in dangerous products or practices and held companies accountable. Shifting such suits to federal courts sets up new procedural hurdles, appeal possibilities, and delays even before the merits of a claim are addressed. Even suits in which the entire ``class'' of potentially harmed people resides in the same state as the company being sued would be moved to the federal system, where cases languish years longer than in state courts. The House version of the legislation is particularly offensive because it is retroactive, meaning it would affect class-action claims now pending against Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and other corporations accused of defrauding investors while their executives made millions of dollars. Supporters will say these bills are about reforming a bad process. What they really are about is discouraging a legitimate right to seek redress for wrongdoing--without making a federal case of it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is to celebrate the gentlewoman, the Senior Senator from California Day in addition to Attorney Bashing Day. We have a letter from the senior Senator of California, which says she is opposed to the bill and why she is. So what we have here is a Feinstein-lite or a fake Feinstein here. I do not know what we are trying to do here, but this attempt to fix the class action bill creates, as I expected, more confusion and does not deal with the real defects in the bill. Her letter says: ``As I said in committee before this amendment was adopted, I will not support any class action legislation that moves those suits to Federal court.'' So we have the senior Senator from California saying that this is a class action bill, and there has been general agreement that we need reform on class actions; but these provisions in the bill do not relate to class actions. This is far from a done deal. I do not think we correct the basic defects in the bill; and since this is Feinstein-lite, I am going to reject the amendment that I am sure is made in good faith by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I include the letter from Senator Feinstein in the Record at this point. June 11, 2003. Hon. Rick Boucher, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Boucher: I wanted to clarify several issues with regard to S.274, the Class Action Fairness Act, and two Amendments I offered to it in the Senate Judiciary Committee. During House consideration of H.R. 1115, there has been some misunderstanding about my position. I thought a clarification might be helpful to you in your deliberations. During Committee consideration of S.274, I offered an amendment to raise the amount in controversy to $5 million and to set specific criteria based on a percentage formula to determine whether certain intrastate cases should be heard in state or federal court. This is what has popularly become known as the ``Feinstein Amendment.'' It is my understanding that Chairman Sensenbrenner and a number of Democrats plan to offer this as an amendment to H.R. 1115 on the House floor, and of course, I support its inclusion. I also co-authored an amendment with Senator Specter to strike a provision from the bill that would have made certain citizen suits and ``private attorney general'' actions removable to Federal Court as well. I felt strongly then, and I feel strongly now, that such suits--particularly those brought under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professional Code--properly belong in state court and should not be classified as class actions under the bill. As I said in Committee before this amendment was adopted, I will not support any class action legislation that moves those suits to federal court. Senators Specter's amendment also, however, struck a provision from the bill that would make so-called ``Mass Actions'' subject to the same removal provisions in the bill that apply to class actions. That was not my concern, and in fact I believe that truly national ``Mass Actions'' should be removable to Federal Court under the same procedures as class actions. I hope this clarifies some of my views on this matter. I appreciate your concerns about this important legislation and welcome you to contact me or to have your staff contact my Chief Counsel, David Hantman, at 224-4933 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Dianne Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that he was not that happy with Federal courts in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. Remember that one? Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Virginia, forgot to put in Enron class action cases. I guess that was an oversight. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former prosecutor, judge, and attorney.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I take my time back. I thank the gentleman very much for his contribution. What this bill does, and I just ask that you would read it, I will quote you the exact place in the bill, is grant an automatic right of appeal in class certification cases automatically. Is that going to expedite things? Most of the judges do not even grant an appeal if they had the discretion, and think I think you or your staff may be aware of this. That is a delay, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). Now, in addition to the automatic delay, there is a stay of all discovery proceedings while the right of appeal is exercised. Do you know how long that could take, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)? About 2 years. Now you are telling me that is really expediting the process. I wait to hear your explanation of that. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1115. Although the legislation is described by its proponents as a simple procedural fix, in actuality it represents a major rewrite of the class action rules that would bar most forms of State class actions and massively tilt the playing field in favor of corporate defendants. This is why the legislation is opposed by both the State and Federal judiciaries, consumer and public interest groups, environmental and health groups, and civil rights groups. There are several critical problems with the bill before us. First, H.R. 1115 will have serious adverse impact on the ability of consumers and other harmed individuals to obtain compensation in cases involving widespread harm. At a minimum, the legislation will force most State class action claims into Federal courts where there will be far more victims to litigate cases and where defendants could force plaintiffs to travel long distances to attend proceedings. At worst, because it is so much more difficult to certify class actions at the Federal level, the bill will operate to terminate most class action entirely. Second, the bill includes a whole series of unrelated provisions that have nothing to do with class action jurisdiction, but will serve to benefit corporate wrongdoers. For example, section 6 of the bill gives the defendant an absolute right to appeal preliminary court decisions, which will delay the case by up to 2 years. The section also stops the discovery process dead in its tracks while the appeal is pending. Most outrageously of all, the bill was amended so that it applies retroactively to pending cases. This means that the bill would apply to pending in corporate fraud cases. As my hometown paper, the Detroit Free Press wrote yesterday, ``the House version of the legislation is particularly offensive because it is retroactive, meaning it would affect class action claims now pending against Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and other corporations accused of defrauding investors while their executives made millions of dollars.'' Is there a single Member in this Chamber who could defend Congress intervening in a pending case to help these corporate scam artists? Fourth, the bill federalizes far more than just class actions. Section 4 provides that private attorney general actions and mass tort actions are to be treated as class actions and removed to Federal court. This means that district attorneys will no longer be able to combat fraud and abuse in their own State courts, and groups of harmed tort victims will be forced out of their State courts as well. Do not be fooled by the Boucher amendment, which proponents claim will incorporate the Feinstein language from the Senate. What they do not tell you is that unlike the Feinstein compromise, the Majority's bill applies retroactively, allows for two year delays or more, and knocks out private attorney general actions. None of these provisions were in the Feinstein amendment in the Senate. I believe it is time for more corporate accountability, not less. I urge a no vote on this one-sided, anti-consumer legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield with pleasure to the gentleman from Virginia, my friend on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, everybody has a right to a lawyer. I thank the gentleman very much. I am very happy this gets reiterated. I just want to count the number of times trial lawyers get it in the neck. Property lawyers, they are okay. Domestic relation lawyers, have you got any beef about them? They are okay. But trial lawyers that try these kinds of class action cases, they are making out like bandits, so, let us put it in the Federal courts. Let us take all of the class action cases and send them to the Federal courts, exactly where the Federal judiciary is begging you not to send them; begging you not to send them. All the consumer groups are begging you not to send them there. Yet you tried it in 1998, 1999, 2001, and, now for the fourth time in 6 years, you are back at it again. Why? What is the problem, guys? Should not people, consumers injured, be able to bring their cases to their State courts where they have traditionally? Well, the answer is, for me, yes; but for you, no. Could somebody explain to me why we would make the cases retroactive on top of it? I yield the floor. Tell me why Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, just tell me why those five corporations should be granted a delay?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, welcome to ``Bash Trial Lawyers Day'' in the House of Representatives. My friend the chairman used the term 13 times in his presentation. I just keep wondering, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), what kind of law did you practice? I am intrigued by the right of trial lawyers not to be as effective as they can in court. I notice that the Enron people have pretty good trial lawyers. I notice that WorldCom has pretty good trial lawyers. I notice that Adelphia has pretty good trial lawyers. These are all Republican supporters. I notice that Tyco has pretty good trial lawyers. Why cannot people with class action suits have trial lawyers that are effective and doing a good job and get compensated for it? I would yield to the gentleman, if he chooses to comment on that.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the healthy birth of Isabella L. Mesfun on Sunday, May 25, 2003. I hope Isabella has a life filled with happiness and success.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my service in this House has often shown me the profound tension between government secrecy and democratic decision-making. Rarely however, has that tension been as starkly posed as in the current revelations of divergence between President Bush's assertions based on ``secret information'' about the alleged threat to America posed by Iran and the actual assessment of that threat by America's intelligence professionals. I have seen the American people apparently deceived into supporting invasion of sovereign nation, in violation of UN charter and international law, on the basis of what now appear to be false assurances. The power of the Congress to declare war was usurped. The consent of the governed was obtained by manipulation rather than candid persuasion. Instead of conducting a sustained all-out war against the genuine terrorists behind 9/11, President Bush chose to terrorize the American people. The President, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld painted lurid nightmares of al Qaeda's attacking U.S. cities with insidious anthrax or clouds of deadly nerve gas. All of this was portrayed as coming courtesy of Saddam Hussein, unless we destroyed the Iraq regime. They also wielded the ultimate threat that Iraq would imminently endanger America and our closest allies with nuclear weapons. Members of Congress who voiced deep distrust of those claims were privately briefed with even more vivid descriptions of the deadly threats that Saddam posed to American security. In public speech after speech, the President and his supporting players assured America's anxious citizens that attacking Iraq was absolutely necessary to prevent the imminent threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction from harming them and their loved ones. In addition, President Bush was determined to convince the public that Saddam was personally behind, or at least intimately involved in 9/11. He and Vice President Cheney repeated that mantra incessantly. No wonder that about half of the country still believes that Saddam was involved, although our intelligence community has emphasized that there is no credible evidence that is true. The manipulation was massive and malicious. The motive was simple. The Administration wanted to attack Iraq for a variety of ideological and geopolitical reasons. But the President knew that the American people would not willingly risk shedding the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis without the immediate threat of deadly attack on the United States. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz recently admitted to an interviewer in an unguarded moment, when the threat of weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the banner to lead a march to war, it was chosen for ``bureaucratic reasons,'' not because the danger was imminent or paramount. The President and his Cabinet were well aware that these claims either rested on flimsy projections or came from sources that most of our Intelligence Community disdained. The President and his Cabinet knew that in some cases those discredited sources' assertions were flatly contradicted by the professional assessments of the intelligence Community experts at CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department, and were only supported by a rogue special office established under Secretary Rumsfeld precisely to ``find'' or reinterpret intelligence in order to support the Administration's determination to invade Iraq. When war came, our own military field commanders were surprised by the fierce, often deadly, resistance that our troops faced from Saddam's ``militia.'' We, and our British allies, were surprised when the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere did not rise up to welcome our troops with open arms. Most of all, our military commanders, the Congress and the American people all were surprised when no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. Now, as each day passes, and no WMD has been found, that surprise has turned to suspicion, to concern and finally to outrage at the deception practiced by the Bush Administration. In response, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and their spokespersons have offered one excuse after another. As reporters and whistle-blowers have exposed the flaws in each excuse, the White House has scrambled to create another, with the confusing speed of a kaleidoscope's changing patterns. Law students are taught to plead in the alternative: ``I never borrowed your pot.'' ``Besides, it wasn't cracked when I returned it.'' ``Anyway, it was not cracked when I borrowed it in the first place.'' The Bush Administration has learned that lesson well: The Bush White House assures us that weapons of mass destruction will inevitably be found. At the same time, the Bush White House argues that they never really said Iraq had such weapons in 2002, only that they had programs to develop those weapons. Finally, the Bush White House argues that it doesn't matter whether Iraq did or did not have such weapons posing a threat to the United States, because Saddam was a repressive ruler and its good that the world is rid of him. They cannot succeed with this shell game because they cannot outrun the truth. There are too many previous contradictory statements, too many reports leaked by outraged veteran intelligence analysts, and too great a record of established facts. The Administration's arrogantly crafted script is unraveling. President Bush and his courtiers now have learned the wisdom of the Scottish poet Robert Burns, who warned: ``Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.'' Now, the Administration's final refuge is that the public thinks the war was justified even if no weapons are found. Obviously, those poll results reflect the American people's relief that our military's losses, and the loss of Iraqi civilians, regrettable as they are, have not been even greater. They reflect understandable revulsion at the horrors of Saddam's regime. Nevertheless, continued ethnic conflict and violence, ambushes of American soldiers, political disarray, malnutrition and disease mount daily in the aftermath of this ``easy war.'' Also, the Bush White House is forced to acknowledge the re- emergence of al Qaeda's terrorist threat. So the American people have begun to focus on how badly it appears that they, and their congressional representatives, may have been misled by a president anxious to stampede America into war. In any event, regardless of the final tally on the war in Iraq, there is a growing awareness that this disturbing presidential conduct raises issues that transcend any particular hostilities in which America might engage. It raises the most profound constitutional questions. How can the separation of powers and checks and balances designed to protect our Republic continue to do, if the Executive can work its will through falsehood, deception and concealment? Equally pressing is a determination of the appropriate remedy, should the Administration's assurances to Congress and to the electorate prove to have been as knowingly false as now seems to be the case. In the days ahead, I shall consult with my colleagues, with legal scholars, political scientists and historians, in order to weigh the appropriate actions necessary to prevent this or any future Administration from usurping the power of Congress and the power of the people to decide public policy on the basis of accurate knowledge. An accurately informed public is the essence of our democracy. It is most essential on the ultimate question of peace or war. To deceive the Congress and the public about the facts underlying that momentous decision is to transgress one of the president's supreme constitutional responsibilities. I believe the House Committee on the Judiciary should consider whether this situation has reached that dimension. That question is especially acute at this time because President Bush's disturbing doctrine of ``preventive war'' means he plans to persuade the Congress and the electorate that additional ``preventive wars'' are necessary. Will that advocacy be based on deception and false statements, too? The prospect is frightening. Finally, I note the provocative analysis on this point recently offered by former Counsel to the President John Dean, who has carefully analyzed the nature and context of the President's many assertions about the threats allegedly posed by Iraq and the constitutional implications should they prove false upon further examination. It deserves wide dissemination.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a critical problem that demands constant oversight in a democracy is the tension between an informed Congress and an informed citizenry because both are necessary for a democracy. That tension is against the need for secrecy in some instances and in the interest of national security. That is what I wish to draw Members' attention to today. From Watergate to Iran contra, to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, we have seen and experienced and learned from the peril of the executive branch's use of secrecy in the name of national security to accomplish unlawful deception and illegal acts. We face this issue again now in regard to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the flat assertions by the President of the United States that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction pose an imminent threat to the United States. After all, it was these assertions that led many of the Members of the legislature, both in the House of Representatives and in the other body, to support the war, and so did many Americans. So it is a significant question whether the President's assurance was warranted by the evidence, whether he had something to back up these repeated assertions that the weapons of mass destruction held by the former ruler of Iraq were indeed an imminent threat to the United States. So where are these weapons of mass destruction? One day the President assured us that they will be found. The next day we are told that he only meant to claim that Iraq had programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, and that program was under way. But then the day after that his spokesman said never mind, even if Saddam had no weapons imminently threatening us, he was a bad and evil person who deserved to be destroyed. Now, these contradictions have begun to be noted by more and more people, and I want to report that some in the public are changing their view about this war and what brought us into it as American casualties mount in Iraq, as violence and civilian strife grow worse there, and disease and hunger spread in the aftermath of war. Now, whatever the ultimate final assessment is that will be made about Iraq, the fundamental problem that I bring to Members' attention this evening is if the President deceives the Congress and the public on an issue as sensitive as war or peace, it raises the greatest constitutional issues about whether he is abusing his office, whether he is violating his oath, and whether he is misleading the American people. It is particularly critical because this President's doctrine of preventive war, never before employed by any of the preceding Presidents of this great country, suggests that he may or will be trying to persuade America to support other preventive wars in the future. Will that campaign be based on misrepresentation? Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About the Reason for War an Impeachable Offense? (By John W. Dean) President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake--acts of war against another nation. Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away--unless, perhaps, they start another war. That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraq war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking. Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation. Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But is not too early to explore the relevant issues. president bush's statements on iraq's weapons of mass destruction Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled. Bush's statements, in chronological order, were: ``Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.''-- Untied Nations Address, September 12, 2002. ``Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. ``We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons-- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.''-- Radio Address, October 5, 2002. ``The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. ``We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin never gas, VX nerve gas. ``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're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. ``The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ``nuclear mejahideen''--his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.''--Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002. ``Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.''--State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. ``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.''-- Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003. should the president get the benefit of the doubt? When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no- words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them. As Bush's veracity was being debated at the united Nations, it was also being debated on campuses--including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time. On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reason deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too. First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White Hose speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision. Second, I explained that--at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton--statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world. Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, ``We know for a fact that there are weapons there.'' In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs--and even went so far as to claim he knew ``where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.'' Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would say: ``I have been advised,'' or ``Our intelligence reports strongly suggest,'' or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so. So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been? After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find--for they existed in large quantities, ``thousands of tons'' of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed. So there is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist? There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world. a desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found. Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found. As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there. british and american press reaction to the missing WMDs British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is ``long past time for this administration to be held accountable.'' ``The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat,'' Krugman argued. ``If that claim was fraudulent,'' he continued, ``the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history--worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- Contra.'' But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues. Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1,400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching. But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that ``[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad,'' and remarked flatly, ``They're simply not there.'' Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently, misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe? The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies. investigating the iraqi war intelligence reports Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: ``If America has entered a new age of pre- emption--when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?'' In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of the Administration can find someone else to blame--informants, surveillance technology, lower- level personnel, you name it--they may not escape fault themselves. Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation. These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct--and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made. Senator Bob Graham--a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee--told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios: ``One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.'' Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN ``there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration.'' Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq. But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed ``findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq,'' and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion. Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: ``The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.'' More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that ``[t]he country swims on a sea of oil.'' worse than watergate? a potential huge scandal if wmds are still missing Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable. To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be ``a high crime'' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony ``to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.'' It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power. Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the national into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).