Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the rush to war continues here in Washington, despite the possibility of the reinstatement of effective, unfettered inspections aimed at the destruction of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein may have hidden from past inspections or may have developed since that time. Now, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as a surrogate for this administration, did provide a more concrete and detailed report than anything provided by the Bush administration to the United States Congress thus far on what is going on in Iraq. But the interesting thing is, in reading through the 50-some odd pages of this report and perusing the photographs, the actual conclusion is that inspections did work, U.N. sanctions did work, and are still working. The containment and deterrence doctrine has worked with Saddam Hussein. In fact, the previous program before the inspectors left was extraordinarily successful, more so than would be admitted by this administration, that is very dismissive about the possibility of going back in with intrusive, unfettered inspections with a mandate to destroy any weapons of mass destruction that this miscreant may have managed to develop. I will read a few quotes from Prime Minister Blair's report. He talks about their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons: ``In August 1990, Iraq instigated a crash program to develop a single nuclear weapon within a year. By the time of the Gulf War, the crash program had made little progress.'' They go on to say that ``UNSCOM had totally dismantled the physical infrastructure of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, including the dedicated facilities and equipment for uranium separation and enrichment, and for weapon development and production, and removed the remaining highly enriched uranium.'' It is hard to reconcile that with the assertions that intrusive inspections under the auspices of the U.N. will have no impact on Saddam Hussein or his attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. In early 2002, the British intelligence judged that while sanctions remained effective, Iraq will not be able to produce nuclear weapons. That is on page 27 of the justification given by the Prime Minister of Britain for a preemptive war against Iraq. He cannot build or obtain nuclear weapons, according to British intelligence, as long as the sanctions remain in effect, and that is without intrusive inspections backed by the full force of the United States and around the world. There are many other passages. This is incredibly instructive reading. I would recommend it to my colleagues in Congress. It is certainly more detailed than anything provided to this Congress, either in classified briefings or outside of classified briefings, and certainly more detailed than anything provided to the American public, NATO or anybody else by the United States, and the British have done us a service. But the case they make is the opposite of the conclusion of their Prime Minister. The case that is strongly made here is that a return to the regime of an intrusive, unfettered weapons inspection and destruction program would effectively preclude this dictator from ever obtaining weapons with which he could threaten other countries in that region, and most certainly the United States of America. So this, to me, certainly demonstrates that the rush to war, the first preemptive war in the history of the United States, the first preemptive war since the horrible destruction of World War II and the U.N. and the agreements we have reached since then, breaking with all precedent, the United States, in some bizarre version of ``Minority Report,'' the movie, will decide that we have people in the administration who can determine whether or not someone presents a real and present threat to the United States, even if they made no threats, even if there is no documentation of them having the capabilities on carrying out on the threats they have not made; and we, the United States of America, should be able, in violation of all international law and all precedents of our Nation, be able to preemptively attack and destroy that country for the purposes of regime change, because we do not like who is running that country. Well, there are a lot of brutal dictators around the world running a lot of countries I do not like, including Saddam Hussein; and I would support democratic efforts and subversion efforts and any other way to get those people out of power. But a war that opens the door to worldwide conflicts, to Taiwan and China, India and Pakistan and any other host of countries, is an incredibly dangerous precedent, and this report from the Prime Minister to his Parliament documents that it is not necessary. We have an effective option before us.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today, before the Committee on Armed Services, Secretary Rumsfeld, who has made up his mind, said that the President has not yet made up his mind about a preemptive war and an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now, when the Secretary was asked how he reconciled that with the rush to adopt a resolution authorizing the use of force here in the House if the President had not yet made up his mind and could not articulate the case, he really did not answer the question. To tell the truth, I was a bit put off by that, but that is a key question which needs to be answered. On September 5, I sent the President a letter signed by 17 other Members of the United States House of Representatives. We were pleased that the President had recognized the authority of the Congress, the sole authority of the Congress for declarations of war and use and initiation of force, except in the immediate defense of the United States, as per the Constitution and the War Powers Act; but that we felt that the President had a number of very important questions to answer before Congress should even begin the debate on such a resolution. I fear they are really putting the cart before the horse here. They want a resolution without making the case. The President gave an eloquent speech at the U.N. last week, but many of the things he talked about, the offenses of Saddam Hussein were in fact things that had happened during the Reagan administration, during the administration of Bush I, in fact, such as the horrible gassing of people within his own country and the U.S. aiding him in his war against Iran before we dropped our friendship and support of his horrible regime. Many of these things took place then. Then he went on to make the case for the U.N. resolutions which have been violated. We agree there, that this is an odious individual. He is not worthy of leading any nation. He has gassed and killed his own people, promoted religious and ethnic strife, murdered all his potential political opponents. I wish he could be deported to another planet, but right now, he is in power in his country. Hopefully, some people in his country will find a way to overthrow him and get rid of him. But the question for us in the United States Congress is, should we authorize the first ever preemptive war in the history of the United States, and what is the immediate and serious nature of the threat that would have us break from all precedents in our history and all the precedents of international law? Those are the questions that are embodied in this letter. Quite truthfully, thus far in both unclassified and classified briefings, and I cannot talk about what they did talk about in classified briefings, but I can tell Members what they do not talk about in classified briefings. They have not talked about anything in the classified briefings that we have not read in USA Today or heard on CNN, so they have yet to make an effective case that somehow he has been transmogrified from this reprehensible dictator in a mostly impoverished developing or Third World country to this incredible and immediate threat to the integrity of the United States of America. They can find no links to al Qaeda, who is an immediate threat to the United States of America. In fact, I would say that we are being distracted, as are many of our allies and friends, and not-so-good allies and friends around the world, from the pursuit of al Qaeda and wiping out that threat by propping up suddenly this new threat. I think a lot of this, unfortunately, is probably left over from his father's administration. Many of the foremost advocates of this preemptive war served in Bush's father's administration, and are aggrieved that they did not then so-called ``finish the job.'' But the same problems that confronted Colin Powell then confront us now. Probably his military is not that significant; maybe, maybe not. Maybe there will not be a lot of casualties. Maybe this can be done without a lot of civilian casualties. Sure, we can work through all of that. But then what? Then what? I heard one Senator say that we are going to rule Iraq. We are going to rule Iraq, a country of more than 60 million people with an unbelievably fractious history, in the middle of the most volatile region on Earth, with the problems with the Shi'as and the Sunnis and the Kurds and the Turks and all those other things, and we are going to rule Iraq? They have to have not only an entrance strategy and a rationale for this war, they need an exit strategy that they have to explain to the American people and this Congress before they should receive any sort of authorization to do anything in that area.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today's press reveals that the Bush administration has decided that they can find no linkage between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, despite some of the offhand remarks of Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney to the contrary. The intelligence agencies, turning all of their resources to this, cannot find existing links. So that means that the President and his administration will have to make the case against Saddam Hussein to this Congress because the authorization passed by this Congress last fall was for the President to respond to those who were involved in the attacks and those who harbored or sponsored such attacks. That means a straight-up debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, hopefully a free and fair debate, over the wisdom of the first- ever preemptive war by the United States of America against Iraq. I believe that the burden the administration has to prove that the United States should break from all precedents in more than 200 years of history, should break from all precedents set lawfully under the United Nations conventions since the end of World War II and actually launch a preemptive war, is an extraordinary burden. They have to prove a very real, credible threat by the Saddam Hussein regime. Now Saddam Hussein is a despicable individual. He has murdered tens of thousands, and all effective opposition. He has murdered people ethnically, religiously. He has used weapons of mass destruction. He has an absolutely horrible record, and obviously we would not trust this gentleman one inch. But the question in this case becomes what is different today than a year ago or 2 years ago in terms of Saddam Hussein. It seems, when asked honestly and privately, the generals and admirals at the Pentagon feel containment is working, that he did not pose a credible and immediate threat to the United States of America or its allies in that region. So the question becomes then if he is credibly threatened with a preemptive war, would he become more of a threat? Then there is the issue of our allies. Would any allies support the United States in this endeavor? Then there are the questions from 10 years ago, the same questions that President Bush's father had to confront, and Colin Powell as chairman of the joint chiefs, which is what if they went to Baghdad and took out Hussein, what then? They were confronted with a long and problematic occupation of Iraq and further destabilization in the region. And even with all the allies, including Arab nations at the time, they felt it was not worth the risk of doing that. Well, the same question needs to be asked today. In fact, I witnessed on ``Face the Nation,'' where one Republican Senator said, ``Well, we don't need any allies. We will just go and do this. We will take them out.'' And then he said, ``We will rule Iraq.'' I do not know who he has been talking to or what he is thinking, but the United States being involved intimately in that region and trying to rule a country, a very large country, in an extraordinarily volatile area, is a recipe for disaster. So they need not only a credible plan for what if and how and why; but they need to explain that, both to Congress, some of it can be confidentially, but, for the most part, these should be things that could be laid out. Prime Minister Chretien said yesterday that the President had nothing new to say. It was just the same rhetorical sort of ``we have got to remove him sooner or later,'' the same thing we have been hearing from Ms. Rice and other advisers to the President. So I have sent a letter to the President, signed by 17 other Members of Congress, which lays out a series of about 20 questions that I believe are critical that this administration address before they would undertake to ask even for authorization for a preemptive war, the first ever in our history; and I am hopeful that the administration will in good faith answer those questions. Most of them are questions that could be answered in public, could be given to the American people, and could, if they answer them I believe convincingly, as they have not thus far, lead to some sort of authorization from the United States Congress. But we cannot just sort of have this shadow boxing and discussion in private. This is an extraordinary issue, a constitutional issue, an issue that breaks with all precedent of this country; something that needs to be fully, freely, and fairly debated before the American people before we commit our sons and daughters to lengthy involvement in a war against Iraq and a subsequent occupation and rebuilding of that country. We are not doing such a great job of stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan. One has to question what we would do with a much larger nation in a much more volatile region of the world.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I, too, just returned from a month in my district, and spent a good deal of time traveling the district and talking with my constituents. I have a district that in fact voted in the majority for George Bush, and yet, I found, widely traveling my district, talking to diverse groups of constituents, a lot more questions than certainty about the President's position on Iraq. In fact, there is a great deal of misgiving in my district, as I believe there is abroad in the land. The gentleman who preceded me made an eloquent case on a number of points, and I will not repeat those but I will emphasize a few others. I am today sending a letter, along with 17 other Members of Congress, to the President. We are pleased that the President has now recognized the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war and about the fact that he will come to Congress for approval for a war against Iraq. At this point, I would venture and hope that Congress would not be willing to grant such approval to the President, given the lack of specificity and the many questions that need to be answered. Among the questions that need to be answered are the following: What is the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States? UNSCOM said they destroyed 90 to 95 percent of their weapons of mass destruction. Is there convincing evidence of renewed production of chemical and biological weapons? Is there evidence that Iraq has successfully produced a nuclear weapon? Is there evidence Iraq has produced a reliable delivery system for weapons of mass destruction? Are there new developments that mean Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States, and therefore requires immediate attention? A year ago, the administration did not seem to think that. What has changed in that intervening time? If not, would a policy of enforcing no-fly zones, vigorous weapons inspections, military sanctions be effective in containing and/or reducing the perceived threat, given the success of such strategies over the last decade? Is there any convincing evidence that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, or harbored such organizations or persons? That would give some authority to act without a specific grant from Congress, but the administration has not made that case. Is there convincing evidence that Iraq has shared its knowledge of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, or the weapons themselves, with other nations or terrorist organizations? How does the threat of Iraq doing so compare with the threat posed by Iran, Pakistan, China, North Korea, or a number of other nations that are known to possess weapons of mass destruction, some of whom are known to be sharing and selling such information? How does the administration intend to assure Iraq does not become balkanized? This was the problem that was confronted by Colin Powell and the father of President Bush when they decided not to go to Baghdad, as they said at the time. Will Iraq become balkanized? If it does, what happens with Turkey? What happens with the Kurds wanting their own nation? What happens with the Shi'as in Iran? What happens with the long-term prospects for the governance of Iraq itself? I witnessed a Republican Senator saying we were going to rule Iraq. The United States of America is going to rule Iraq alone, without allies? Has anybody really thought about what that would mean? What are the potential disruptions to the United States economy? We have some problems here at home. I have a lot of unemployed people in my district, the highest unemployment rate in the Nation in my State. What are the potential economic disruptions that might come from a war with Iraq? Would it lead to a disruption of oil supplies? Would it drive up the price of oil dramatically, as it did in the last Gulf War? How much would such a war cost the United States of America and its taxpayers? What are the risks to our troops? What are the risks in terms of a long-term occupation? We have not yet resolved the situation or stabilized the situation in Afghanistan, which is a country that had no discernible military, no weapons of mass destruction. They did harbor terrorists. It was a rogue regime. But yet, the United States of America, with a substantial number of allies around the world, has yet to bring settled conditions to that country. Yet, we are about to depart for a much larger nation who has not been involved, as far as has been revealed to Congress or the people of the United States, in the attacks upon our country, has not posed a credible threat to the United States or our allies. However, we are off on another adventure. Is this left-over business from George Bush's father's administration? It seems like a number of the most hawkish people in his administration are people who served in his father's administration, who still regret the fact that they did not pursue the war to an end then, and they want to revisit the issue. Many questions need to be answered before this Congress should extend authority to the President to wage a war against Iraq, the first preemptive war in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 351, passage of H.R. 4946, Improving Access to Long-Term Care--because of a family emergency I was not present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to accommodate the request. Earlier this evening there were a number scheduled, including one of mine which is unanimously supported by the entire Oregon delegation, House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to name a new courthouse which has just been authorized and appropriated. Unfortunately, I was told that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was upset about the debate over the aviation explosive screening, and he personally said my bill will not be allowed. And if mine will not be allowed, since it was previously scheduled, then I will object to all unanimous consent requests.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to repeat the unanimous consent request.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. We just heard fabrication.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Does it require the use of accurate facts or is fabrication allowed?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, is it required that one use accurate facts during debate on the floor of the House?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DeFAZIO. So he does not want to discuss the issue, he just wants to cast aspersions.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman will not yield, clearly.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, since the gentleman referred to me, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Fourteen years ago, Pan Am 103 was blown from the ski over Scotland. In response the British Government screened every piece of baggage. And we are told we cannot do it here. Guess where they bought the technology? Right here in the United States of America. Every machine that I observed over there was manufactured in this country, but we cannot do it in the United States. Why not? Because special interests are holding us back and because of the incompetence of this administration. Ten years ago, Ramsi Youssef developed a plan to blow 12 747s simultaneously from the sky, U.S. planes, over the Pacific. He was only discovered and thwarted by accident. They will return to these patterns. This is a known threat. How quickly we have forgotten September 11 in this body. How quickly we bow to the powerful special interests and campaign contributors. We can meet this deadline. Now, last week the Bush administration fired the head of the Transportation Security Administration for incompetence. Thank God he is gone. He was doing a horrible job. Now we have a man in charge who knows how to get things done, Admiral Loy. Let him come to us with a plan in September. I know he can get this job done. We have someone in charge. Then they say, well, there is not enough money. Guess what? The night before the money was voted on, the Office of Management and Budget, the head of whom is appointed by the President of the United States, and works, I think, pretty closely with the President and the White House, recommended cutting $219 million from this program to detect explosives to make Americans safe, and now the Republicans say there is not enough money. Does the right hand of the administration know what the left hand is doing? Until a week ago, there was not one person in the administration that said they could not meet these deadlines. Then they fired the incompetent head of the agency, and we have a competent head now. What changed in a week? Politics changed. Special interests changed. Shame on you. If you do not support this amendment when a plane goes down, I will expect you to talk to the grieving families.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Never again. Never again will the United States be caught unawares and lay herself open to terrorist attack. That is certainly a principle that every Member of this House and Senate should take to mind as we move to plug the holes in our security. Since last fall, I have supported the concept of a Cabinet-level status for the Director of Homeland Security so that he or she can get the funds, can compel the cooperation and coordination necessary among the Federal agencies, but now we are rushing through a bill to create the largest Federal bureaucracy in 50 years. Is that the proper response and answer, 170,000 employees who will ultimately some day be merged together into one joint building that will be built somewhere in the Washington, D.C., area? How will it work in the interim? Big question. It does not deal with the two agencies most culpable and most problematic in the attacks, the FBI and the CIA, the failures of intelligence, the failures that were so much in the headlines before this Department was proposed by the White House that they changed their position. Now it will plug the leaks that made us aware of the failings of the CIA and FBI by repealing whistleblower protections and FOIA efforts for this agency. It is going to take other effective agencies like the Coast Guard, who are doing a tremendous job with not enough resources, protecting this country and our coastline and also providing life saving and other services and merge them in. Will the Coast Guard still be able to function in that place? This last week we heard of the failings of the Transportation Security Administration created by Congress to defend our traveling public and all modes of transportation last fall. The President fired his appointee, John Magaw, belatedly; but he did recognize his failings and fired him. They are behind schedule, over budget, and they are failing to put in place many critical aviation security measures and have even failed to begin to deal with other issues, port security and the like. They have a new head who I think is tremendous, the former commandant of the Coast Guard. He may do well, but let us give him some time there to bring it together and bring proposals to Congress. The reaction in this bill to the failings of the Transportation Security Administration under Mr. Magaw is to waive the deadlines to provide critical explosives detection technology. Most Americans are amazed today that their baggage is not screened and the things that go in the hold of the planes are not screened. We set a deadline of the first of next year. Under this bill, there will not be a hard deadline. It will be delayed a minimum of 1 year. That means we can expect it will be 2 or more years before we can be sure there is not a bomb on the plane we are on board of. I think explosives are a bigger threat than a takeover of an airliner. It will also waive contractor liability. Those people who failed to screen passengers adequately will be waived of liability. If we want to commemorate the tragedy of September 11, we can do it better. We can do it by creating something that will work and defend America against real threats.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 2002, I was granted a Leave of Absence due to a family emergency. I was not present for rollcall votes Nos. 330, 331, 332, 333, and 334. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 330 an amendment by Representative Goss to limit the use of funds to enforce the ban on travel to Cuba; ``yes'' on No. 331 an amendment by Representative Flake to prohibit the use of funds to enforce the ban on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens; ``yes'' on No. 332 by Representative Flake to prohibit the use of funds to enforce restrictions on remittances to nationals of Cuba; ``yes'' on No. 333 by Representative Rangel an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to implement, administer or enforce the economic embargo against Cuba; and ``yes'' on No. 334 passage of H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Safety Act.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, that was an extraordinary twist on what is happening. This is a rare loss for the corporate lobbyist, the White House, the Republican House leadership, all of whom stonewalled meaningful reform until the public outrage had grown to the point where they feared the public more than they feared their corporate contributors and patrons. This is a good start, this bill. It is not enough. But there are two words, two words, that will block any effective prosecution and enforcement even under this new legislation. What are those two words? Harvey Pitt. The morally, ethically compromised head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, their former lobbyist of the same accounting firms and security firms that have been defrauding the American people, the same lobbyists who fought all these reforms, he is the person chosen by President Bush as the best person to head up this new effort to get tough on corporate crime. Out of 270 million people in the United States of America, there is not one person who is knowledgeable who is not totally compromised like Mr. Pitt? The President must replace Mr. Pitt if we are going to really get tough about corporate scandals and get a real reform.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we usually do not think about The New York Times like we would The Onion, providing humor for America, but today there is an extraordinarily humorous story on the front page. It says, ``Chief of S.E.C.,'' the Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Is Set to Pursue Former Clients.'' Now, let us think about that for a minute. This gentleman, who made a career out of lobbying for the securities industry and the accounting industry, opposing reforms, representing them in their misdeeds, is now going to pursue them. He is the best we can do in a country of 270 million people. The President cannot find anybody who knows about securities, who is not totally ethically and morally compromised from being the chief watchdog. Here is the vision of Mr. Pitt as the pit bull. Of course, that is a toy poodle, but it says he is going to get tough. Well, if anyone believes that, I have several bridges I would like to talk to you about afterwards. Now, here are some quotes from the story. This is Mr. Pitt talking to The New York Times. ``This will inevitably sound self-serving, but the fact is it is an enormous advantage to the public to have somebody who knows about the securities business and the securities law as I do, and it would be unthinkable to deprive people of my expertise.'' That was Mr. Pitt. So the man who represented these miscreants, the man who lobbied against the tougher rules for accounting firms, the man who has had to recuse himself as the chief law enforcement officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by George Bush, and basically George Bush has continually expressed his utmost faith in Mr. Pitt, he has had to, 29 times in 10 months, in enforcement actions, recuse himself. That means that people did not pay fines or get prosecuted by the SEC. In one case, unfortunately, both Mr. Pitt and one other Bush appointee both had to recuse themselves. So only one commissioner, who is a Clinton holdover, was left. He voted to fine the company, Ernst & Young, but an administrative law judge threw it out because they had to have two votes. Well, they could not have two votes. Is this not a wonderful Catch 22? The agency that is supposed to get tough and clean this up cannot even vote to prosecute or fine people because they are so compromised, the appointees of President Bush are so compromised because these are their friends, they are their clients, they are their benefactors, and they have worked for them and represented them for years. It borders on being humorous. But, actually, it is quite sad. It is quite sad for the millions of Americans who have lost money in their stock funds, their 401(k)s, their retirements; the thousands who have lost their jobs when these firms were bankrupted. It is an incredible tragedy. This is the best that President Bush can do. Tell me that out of a country of 270 million people the best he can find is someone who lobbied for and put in place the policies that brought about these scandals and this fraud on the American people. Since he knows how to trick people, how to defraud people, and how to, in fact, make sure there is no real regulation, he is the best man for the job. He also said in one of his earliest speeches, he fully intended, as head of the SEC, to make it a place that was kinder and gentler for accountants. Does that sound like a pit bull? He went on to say that he thought a regulatory agency was best that regulated least. Does that sound like a pit bull? And he had to recuse himself 29 times from voting because these were his former clients. They are the people he goes to lunch with. They are the people he goes down to visit their $10 million, $20 million homes in Florida, that are exempt under the bankruptcy laws, even if they got the money by fraud, taking money from the stockholders, the pensioners and the employees who were defrauded. We know in America we can do better than this, and President Bush should do better than this. Mr. Pitt should be removed and we should put in place at the Securities and Exchange Commission someone who will provide justice to American pensioners, stockholders, and employees.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. Last week, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and others berated the Senate here on the floor of the House, and they touted the sham fake- accounting reforms passed by the House in March. But today, the most dangerous place in Washington, D.C. is in front of a crowd of rank-and-file Republicans in their rush to embrace the Senate's Sarbanes bill and to take up real reform of the accounting industry and take care of the disasters on Wall Street. But thank God for the GOP leaders. ``Hill GOP Leaders Fight Audit Plan. One day after the Senate unanimously passed broad overhauls of corporate securities laws, top House Republicans said they will try to delay and likely dilute some of the proposed changes.'' At least someone in the Republican Party is true to their corporate sponsors, benefactors, and contributors.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush came into office at his first Cabinet meeting, he said, I expect only one standard and that is the highest of ethical standards. I think many Americans breathed a sigh of relief with the idea that we were going to have an administration free of the drip, drip, drip of scandal of the past administration. Unfortunately, not too long into the President's tenure, that began to become a bit unraveled, and yet the President has yet to ask for the resignation of any of the ethically challenged members of his administration. One standout is Secretary White of the Army. Secretary White was a general retired, and then went to Enron for his retirement. We all know Enron. Previous to MCI WorldCom, the largest scandal and bankruptcy of financial mismanagement and phony bookkeeping in the history of the United States. He headed the worst of Enron, Enron Energy Services. Not only was Enron Energy Services a total fraud, they never made a penny. In fact, they lost billions of dollars while showing huge profits on the books with phony trades. They created things called Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat Boy and other cute names, sounds like maybe secret weapon systems, maybe the kind of thing Secretary White should know about, but he says he did not know a thing about all this phoniness, he was just the front guy, just the rainmaker, just bringing in business and walking away with $60 million. He also manipulated the West Coast energy market, destroying the economy of the Western United States. Oregon is in a deep recession in part because of a 40 percent unnecessary runup in our electric rates because of the shenanigans of Enron and other market manipulators. Mr. White, who ran the part of Enron which did the market manipulation, says he did not know anything about that either, but he has compiled quite a stellar record since he has gone to be Secretary of the Army. He took a corporate jet to Aspen to sign papers to sell his $6.5 million ski house which he bought with his ill-gotten gains from Enron. He forgot to meet the ethics requirements to get rid of his stock with Enron, some stock options he had, and yet the President has not called for his resignation. Now we have a new task force. So Americans should rest easy. We have a new task force, which is headed by a gentleman called Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General. President Bush sat between Mr. Harvey Pitt, who I have talked about on the floor before, the ethically challenged head of the Securities and Exchange Commission who cannot vote because he is so compromised because of his past association with all of the people he is supposed to be investigating. It is a good deal for them because then he cannot convict them of anything and cannot fine them. Then on the other side of the President was Mr. Thompson. He is the new head of the so-called SWAT team which turns out instead to be a kind of a task force, low-key thing. We would not want to get too tough on corporate fraud. Mr. Thompson has quite a bit of experience. He was on the board of Providian. Providian paid the largest penalties in the history of the United States. He was on the audit committee, on the board of directors, paid a pretty penny for this work, but Providian, during his tenure while he was on the audit committee and the board of directors, committed quite a bit of fraud and mismanagement and paid the largest ever penalties to the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, $105 million of penalties for fraud, mismanagement, and consumer abuse; not trivial. They have also settled a $38 million class action lawsuit, and there are other class action lawsuits pending. They are also being sued by their employees who said that Mr. Thompson and other members of the board of directors and executives at Providian told them to put more stock in their 401(k)s while they were secretly dumping their own stock. This is our new chief corporate watchdog of the so-called SWAT team. To return to Mr. Pitt, Mr. Pitt, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who the President also has expressed utmost confidence in, cannot vote on many enforcement actions of his agency because he, in fact, was not the lawyer for but the lobbyist for, and sometimes the lawyer of, many of these same firms who today it is being shown have caused this horrible scandal in the United States. Arthur Andersen was one of his prominent clients. MCI WorldCom was another of his clients and many others. If the President really wants to put some meaning behind this statement, and I am all for it, and that is, the one standard and the highest of ethical standards, he needs to start to clean house. He needs to get rid of some of these extraordinarily, ethically challenged members of his administration who profited by tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars while Americans saw their pensions and their investments go down the drain. Start in the administration.