Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, the day of the hugs and the cheers really could be numbered in hours. Since the official end of the hostility as declared by the President, almost on a daily basis, tragically, American service men and women are losing their lives.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a point very well taken because several weeks ago, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), our colleague who has joined us, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I were having this discussion just as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the United States in the State of the Union Address made that statement to the American people; and one week later before the United Nations Security Council when he made his presentation, Secretary Powell discarded that information. But it has taken until today, today, more than 6 months later, that the White House acknowledged that that information, and let me quote what they had to say, that it was incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I am aware of that, and I am also aware of newspaper reports that indicated that there was nothing special, according to the National Security Adviser, about this particular information, and that they just simply did not inquire any further from the CIA as to the reliability of that particular information. But what I find disturbing, I say to the gentleman, is that a week from that date, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, presented the administration's case before the United Nations Security Council. And according, again, to newspaper reports, that information was omitted by the Secretary of State because he felt that that information was inaccurate. Now, something is wrong. If, in the space of 7 days, through a vetting process at the Department of State by Secretary Powell, he made the decision to remove that key piece of evidence from his presentation to the Security Council, then something is remiss, something very, very serious. Now, I know that the gentleman supported the resolution. I happened to vote against that resolution. We all had our own reasons. But even those who disagree on the issue as to whether there should have been military intervention in Iraq have an obligation, I would submit, to conduct a full and thorough review of what occurred and why this particular intelligence was referred to by the President of the United States as he addressed the American people, and clearly influenced the American people. And I would hope, and we understand that our intelligence committees on both the House and the Senate side, are conducting an investigation because of the concerns not only with this piece of information, but other pieces of information that were relied on or alluded to that supported the claim of the administration as to the intent and the position of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. But I would respectfully suggest that that is inadequate. I think we have to be candid that this is a political institution, the American people are represented by two major political parties, and I dare say that if there is disagreement within the intelligence committees of the House and the Senate, and if that disagreement should break along party lines, there will be accusations that the Republicans were stonewalling, or that the Democrats were seeking political advantage in an effort to embarrass the President. And I do not think the American people deserve that. I genuinely believe that this is a nonpartisan issue. This is an issue about America. This is an issue about democracy. This is an issue that has, I would suggest, consequences far into the future about America's image in the rest of the world. I would hope that this body and that the President would consider convening an independent commission; take the politics out of this so there will not be any finger-pointing, and bring people on board that have reputations for probity, for integrity, and are eminently qualified to address these issues. We should take it away from this body, take it away from the Senate, so that it is not about politics. Mr. Speaker, we have already had that experience. The Hart-Rudman Commission that none of us really knew about or thought about or gave special attention to until September 12, the day after. Because that particular commission was comprised of eminent Americans from different fields, all highly regarded, people whose integrity are not in question; people who had no political ax to grind, who did this country a great service and produced a document that predicted, that predicted September 11. They warned that the United States was at risk. That particular document was filed on February 25 of 2001. And tragically, tragically, it sat on a shelf and no one paid any attention to it. Mr. Speaker, I would think that given the work of that particular commission, some of those people might very well agree to serve their country again. Because we have this, as the gentleman describes it, growing credibility gap. It is important to note that the CIA, again, according to newspaper reports, is in serious disagreement with the White House and the President. According to a Washington Post article that appeared on June 12, the story quoted a senior CIA analyst that this case, and it is referring to the evidence developed regarding the alleged, the alleged purchase of uranium from the country of Niger that proved to be false, a senior CIA analyst said that this case, and I am quoting his words now, ``This case is indicative of larger problems involving the intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and its links to al Qaeda,'' which the administration cited, as we well know, as justification for war. Information not consistent, and this is a senior Central Intelligence Agency analyst who said this: ``Information not consistent with the administration's agenda was discarded, and information that was consistent was not, was not seriously scrutinized.'' We do not know what the proof is, and that is our obligation. That is why we are here. We have a responsibility to seek the truth, to answer questions. Not for political gain, not to embarrass anyone, but to reassure the American people that the integrity and the professionalism of their intelligence services is not questioned.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me just close with an observation. It is my understanding that sometime this week we could very well be considering a proposal for prescription drug benefits. I juxtapose that with a headline that I noticed today, and I guess it must have been in the aftermath of Under Secretary Wolfowitz's testimony before the Committee on Armed Services where it was concluded that there was a probability that a substantial American presence would be required in Iraq for a decade and that the cost to the American people would be $54 billion a year. I ask my colleagues and those that are watching us to reflect for a moment on the cost to the taxpayers and the reality of the deficit that we are facing far into the future and at the same time the needs of our seniors to have a genuine, significant, prescription drug benefit so they can live their lives with dignity and a sense that they are going to be treated as they should.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The number I understand now is 43 young Americans have died since the end of the formal phase of combat.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Or ride it out. Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to ride it out.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add one observation. The gentleman mentioned the Balkans. What is transpiring today in Afghanistan is close to a disaster, and here again we have young Americans at risk every day. There has been an unfavorable review of what is occurring within Afghanistan. The warlords are still there. The Taliban are reconstituting themselves. The president, who had the support and continues to have the support of the United States, President Karzai, is fearful of leaving Kabul. Again, progress has not been measured, but rather the lack of progress is obvious; and we have been there 18 months. Earlier, my colleague referred to General Shinseki. He had the courage to speak his mind. He had the courage to tell the American people. And by the way, I think we all agree, I think there is unanimity among us that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. That is not at issue here. We have had a changing policy in regard to Iraq dating back for years, including, by the way, in the 1980s, when this President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, took Saddam Hussein off the terrorist list as Vice President in the early 1980s, in conjunction with, and, obviously, under the direction of President Reagan, installed an embassy in Baghdad, supplied agricultural credits in the amounts of billions of dollars to the Iraqis, and were providing intelligence from our military to the Iraqi military in terms of benefiting in their war with Iran. I think we have to say it, they were fully aware that the Iraqis at that point in time were using chemical weapons. They knew. They knew what was happening in northern Iraq against the Kurds.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think what the American people have to understand is that we are not making allegations. We are not making assertions. We are asking for a process that will reassure the American people. Others are making allegations, others like a gentleman who recently retired after 25 years in the State Department, the last four of which were in the Bureau of Intelligence, and his name is Greg Fieldman, 25- year veteran, and this is what he said, and I do not know what his political affiliation is. He could be a Republican for all I know. The al Qaeda connection and the nuclear weapons issues were the only ones that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both items. That is his words. That is not my colleague's words, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Hoeffel) words or my words or Democrat words in a partisan context. I want to hear from him, and the American people have a right to hear from him, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would expect to hear from him, also. I would hope that this idea is seriously considered by both sides.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend from Hawaii would yield, I think again one cannot overemphasize the need for the information to get out to the American people because it is important to know that the investigations that will be conducted in this House by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the other body will be conducted behind closed doors, and what we are looking for is to take the politics out of it. Now, I hear some say that Democrats are raising these issues to embarrass the President. No one can gauge our sincerity, but I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and many of us on both sides of the aisle, by the way, Republicans and Democrats, want a situation that does not lead to a political competition. Here I just ran across a report from The New York Times dated June 18. And let me again quote: ``Despite growing questions about whether the White House exaggerated the evidence about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, President Bush and his aids believe that the relief that Americans feel about Mr. Hussein's fall in Iraq will overwhelm any questions about the case the administration built against him. Administration officials and Republican strategists say, `I think we can ride this out,' said an official.'' This is not a question of riding something out. This is a question of righting a wrong. A wrong, wherever the responsibility should fall, let the American people in an appropriate forum listen to the questions, listen to the evidence and form their own judgments. This is not about politics. I do not know if either one of the gentleman had the opportunity to see the British Parliament in its inquiry into these issues. I found it extraordinary. It was carried on BBC. It was televised during the day. It received national attention there. And two former ministers of the Blair government who had resigned because they did not believe that the intelligence was accurate and was sufficient, they testified as to their observations. It was civil. It was respectful. It was a debate that I know has informed the British people. We need that to happen here, but given the realities of our own political system, I think it is best if the President, the leadership of both branches, agree for an independent commission to have public hearings that are transparent, much like the Blair government has conducted in the United Kingdom. Naturally, we are not going to expose sources, but I would like to know, for example, what happened between January 28 and February 5. On January 28, the President of the United States in his State of the Union address made this assertion, and on February 5, according to newspaper reports, the Secretary of State Colin Powell had that particular piece of evidence removed from his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. What happened during those 7 days? The American people should have an answer.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think it is important for us to be very clear and state that just recently, and I believe it was in Philadelphia, a city with which the gentleman is familiar, the President, once more, stated unequivocally that they will find the weapons of mass destruction. So I will accept the word of the President of the United States. But this goes beyond just that question, because it is clear that up to this point in time, there have been no discoveries about weapons of mass destruction. It just has not happened. But this is about integrity. This is about whether information was used in a way so that the American people were misled, or this was information that was given to the President of the United States, that was inaccurate and led him to come to the floor of this House, deliver the State of the Union address to the American people, and tell something and suggest to them something that in fact had not happened. So again, I would hope that we would get the politics out of this process and seek to establish an independent commission, one of prominent Americans, that would take up this burden, and it is a burden, because it would be again calling on them to serve their country as they did so well when they told us: beware, America is at risk of an attack, a serious attack, that could cause a substantial loss of life by terrorists and no one was listening.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I have not, but I am eagerly awaiting to learn.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for again coming to the floor of this House to raise this issue to the American people because clearly our credibility is at risk; and as time passes, there is a growing crescendo of constituents of mine, of his, and of others of our colleagues inquiring as to what occurred in this particular case. I think what I find particularly disturbing is that in the State of the Union Address by the President back on January 28, he referred to an African nation. That nation, it was subsequently revealed, is the nation of Niger and that there had been a series of letters exchanged between officials of that nation and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq relative to the desire of Saddam Hussein to purchase highly enriched uranium from that nation; and that was referenced in the State of the Union Address, as I indicated, by the President of the United States. In fact, it was one of the core ingredients in terms of the Administration's presentation to the American people for its rationale in launching military intervention into Iraq. Now subsequently it has been revealed that that information was false and that those documents that were relied on by the President, by the White House were, in fact, false. They were forgeries. And that was known to our intelligence agencies, specifically the CIA. Now there appears to be disagreement between the CIA and the Administration as to the information that was brought to the White House by the CIA.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues who does support this bill, and particularly the provision that makes the automatic appeal and the stay of the discovery proceedings retroactive. It is none of the groups that were enumerated by the gentleman from New York, no. We have two letters that were submitted as testimony, as exhibits before the Committee on the Judiciary. One is the Association to Advance Technology. Another is a similar trade association involving the high- tech industry. My memory is that it was submitted by the gentleman from Virginia. I just wonder, and I am really posing a question, I guess, do any members of either of these trade associations have class action suits pending against them now? I do not know, and I do not see the gentleman responding. But he was very effective with his parade of horror stories. Well, let me tell my colleagues, too, I do not have any charts; but maybe we could present pictures here, pictures of dead people, people who died as a result of defective tires that were manufactured by Firestone. Maybe we could read the names of those who died as a result of not being informed by the tobacco industry about the carcinogens that are present in a cigarette. But thank God we had class action suits, because this Congress is not ready to take action until some lawyer, yes, a lawyer, went out and filed a class action suit and finally revealed what the truth was, that these industries were withholding information that affected the public welfare of the people of the United States. Mr. Chairman, this bill doesn't ``reform'' the class action system. It eviscerates it. And before we curtail the ability of our citizens to bring class actions, we need to be clear about why they exist in the first place. Class actions do not exist solely or even primarily to provide relief for private wrongs. They exist to correct, punish and deter misconduct that harms large numbers of ordinary people and society as a whole. Class actions level the playing field, uniting ordinary citizens who could never undertake complex and costly litigation on their own. You can understand why a mechanism like this is threatening to major corporations. Faced with a single lawsuit by an average citizen, most major companies can barely stifle a yawn. It is only the prospect of a class action suit joined by hundreds or thousands of such citizens that can get their attention. You can understand why corporate defendants would do all they can to stack the deck in their favor. Or in this case, to shuffle the deck in their favor. The sponsors have hit on a brilliant strategy. Since Congress cannot dictate the rules by which state courts handle their cases, the bill simply removes the cases from state court and transfers them to federal court. Then, once they're in federal court, the bill changes the rules to make sure that most of these cases will never see the light of day. As soon as the district court either grants or denies certification to the class, the bill gives the parties the right to an automatic interlocutory appeal of the decision. And as soon as a party files an appeal, the bill halts all discovery proceedings in the case until the appeal is completed. What does this mean in practical terms? Given the huge backlogs in federal court--backlogs which this bill will only make worse--it will be years before discovery can resume. And years more before plaintiffs who have suffered grievous injuries can get to trial on the merits. What's important to understand is that this doesn't just delay recoveries. It undermines the very purpose of the class action system by removing the incentive for corporate defendants to fix problems. And delaying the release to the public of information that might save lives. The current federal rules permit the judge to entertain an appeal of a class certification order, and even to stay proceedings until the appeal is resolved. But as Judge Scirica has explained in a recent letter to the committee on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States: ``Providing an appeal as of right might tempt a party to . . . appeal solely for tactical reasons. Staying discovery and other proceedings in the district court would only increase the tactical advantages of filing an interlocutory appeal, particularly because resolution of the appeal may not occur for 12 to 18 months.'' Nor will this problem affect only the cases that the bill transfers to federal court. It will also affect the hundreds of cases that are already there, since the bill applies retroactively to cases that have not yet been certified at the time it goes into effect. Thoses cases include some of the most notorious corporate fraud cases in history, including-- The Enron case, on behalf of thousands of investors who claim more than $20 billion in damages as a result of the series of fraudulent transactions that destroyed the company and rendered its stock worthless. The WorldCom case, in which the plaintiffs contend that corporate insiders and auditors disseminated materially false and misleading information and used illegitimate accounting schemes to hide losses and inflate reported earnings. The Adelphia case, in which plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws flowing from the failure to disclose billions of dollars in debt. The Global Crossing case, in which plaintiffs cite the accounting schemes that grossly misrepresented the company's financial picture and precipitated the ruin of the company. The ImClone case, in which senior corporate executives engaged in fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice for which the CEO has just been convicted in federal court and other indictments are pending. These class actions seek to address the looting of company after company by corporate insiders, whose brazen misconduct and self-dealing defrauded creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees and retirees of their livelihood and life savings. Yet if this bill becomes law, the victims of those practices will face new obstacles in their efforts to call those executives to task. Are there abuses of the class action system? Of course. We've all herd about abusive coupon settlements, collusive settlements, excessive fees, and the like. The Democratic substitute would address these problems. But the bill does not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose isn't to fine-tune the class action system but to eviscerate it. To shield corporate malefactors from civil liability and leave the public unprotected. At our markup of this bill, one of its supporters said, ``The goal of this bill is to ensure that legitimate plaintiffs receive fair and prompt recoveries.'' Plainly that is not the goal of the bill. The goal is to ensure that legitimate plaintiffs are denied any recovery at all. And that whatever recovery they do receive is delayed as long as possible. This bill is not about protecting plaintiffs. It's not about protecting the public. It's about protecting large corporations whose conduct has been egregious. It's about protecting the powerful at the expense of the powerless. And to prevent people from banding together as a class to challenge that power in the only way we can. We must also see this bill in its proper context. It is only part of an ambitious and multi-pronged campaign by major corporations to evade their obligations to society. Under the guise of ``deregulation'' we're watching the wholesale dismantling of health and safety standards, environmental protections, and longstanding limits on concentration of ownership within the media and other key industries. This House has just passed a bill that releases gun manufacturers from liability for the death and destruction they cause. And a bankruptcy ``reform'' bill that rewards abuses by credit card companies and does nothing to curb the greed and irresponsibility that have bankrupted major corporations and left employees, retirees and creditors holding the bag. And a medical malpractice bill that caps recovery for the injuries inflicted on patients by negligent health care providers, while doing nothing to reduce the rate of medical errors or curb the exorbitant premiums charged by insurance companies. Today's bill completes this picture. It takes aim at the civil justice system that exists to correct the wrongs that the government cannot or will not address. Not content to put an end to regulation, the proponents seek to muzzle the courts as well. We cannot allow them to do it, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the proponents, they do not want to reform class actions; they really want to destroy them. Not only have they for all intents and purposes barred States from considering these cases by means of a massive expansion of Federal jurisdiction, against the advice, by the way, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Conference of State Chief Justices, but they have cleverly changed the rules in the Federal courts to further thwart class action suits. I want to acknowledge that it is a brilliant strategy. Do Members realize that even Washington cannot dictate the rules by which State courts handle their cases? So they simply remove most of these cases to the Federal court. Then once they are in the Federal court, they design an obstacle course to make sure that most of these cases will just linger and linger and linger and never see the light of day. They did this by adding a section which creates an automatic right of appeal. If a Federal district court simply certifies, simply certifies a class, that appeal comes before the case is even heard on the merits. Now, that is not all. The bill, as others have indicated, would halt all discovery proceedings in the case until the appeal, until the appeal is completed. This unprecedented new right for defendants is unheard of in the American civil justice system. What does it mean in practical terms? There is already an enormous backlog in the Federal courts, as others have suggested. This bill in and of itself will seriously exacerbate that problem and it will delay the resolution of these cases by years. As the gentleman from Virginia has said: Justice delayed is justice denied. What I find particularly unconscionable is that the sponsors claim that the first purpose of this act is to ensure fair and prompt, and prompt, recoveries for class members with legitimate claims. Well, as that great philosopher, Rodney Dangerfield, said, Give me a break. It is important to understand that class actions do not exist solely, solely, to provide relief for private wrongs. No, they exist to correct and punish and deter; most importantly, deter corporate misconduct that harms large numbers of ordinary people and can put all Americans at risk. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the Firestone case, the tobacco cases, where it was class action suits that revealed the ugly truth that lives had been sacrificed because of corporate greed? Because of this bill, we will create fertile ground for future Firestone and tobacco cases. That is a tragedy. We should also understand that the existing practice which was adopted by rule in 1998 gives the judge discretion to permit an appeal of a class certification order and to stay proceedings. But as Judge Scirica, writing on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, said in a recent letter to the committee, and now I am quoting, ``Providing an appeal as a right might tempt a party to appeal solely for tactical reasons.'' He pointed out that many appeals are unnecessary, wasteful, and expensive. He said that he was unaware of any dissatisfaction, not a single complaint from the bench or bar, with the current rule; and that since the rule had only been promulgated recently, any consideration of it being amended should be deferred. Well, as my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said, we agreed with Judge Scirica and filed an amendment to undo their damage. Of course, it was not made in order. I guess I should not be surprised. Members should know that these concerns would not only affect future class action suits in the Federal court. No, the sponsors were not satisfied with that. They wanted the whole enchilada. Unbelievably, they made that provision retroactive, so it will alter the course of hundreds of cases that have already been filed in Federal court and cause further delay, further delay; cases like the ImClone case, in which that CEO was just sentenced to 7 years in prison for fraud and perjury and obstruction of justice; and like the Enron case, brought by thousands of investors who claim more than $20 billion in damages as a result of the series of fraudulent transactions that destroyed the company and rendered its stock worthless. Are there abuses of the system? Of course. That is undeniable. The Democratic substitute would address them; but the underlying bill does not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to shield corporate wrongdoers from civil liability and leave the public unprotected. This is not about protecting plaintiffs, and, as I said, ensuring prompt recoveries; it is about protecting large corporations whose conduct has been egregious. It is about protecting the powerful at the expense of the powerless, and to prevent people from banding together as a class to challenge power in the only way they can. Defeat the rule and defeat the bill. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot that's wrong with this bill. But nothing is as wrong as the provision that was added to it during our committee debate to give it retroactive effect with respect to cases already pending in court. It's one thing to make new policy for future cases. It's quite another to rewrite the rules once the whistle has sounded. Why in the world would the sponsors of the bill insist on making it retroactive? During our markup, one of the supporters of the amendment making the bill retroactive said, and I quote, ``If this bill is enacted but pending cases that have not been certified for class treatment are excluded, it would discriminate against those who may be joined to a class in a pending case after the date of enactment.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, we must transfer all pending cases to federal court and make every class certification subject to automatic appeal to ensure that no individual is forced to be a member of a class against his or her will. That's like saying that we have to quarantine the entire U.S. population to contain a single outbreak of West Nile virus. The truth is that individuals can already opt out of the class at the time they receive notice of the suit. And under rules that go into effect in December, judges will be able to extend the opt-out even after certification. Such an argument does not deserve to be taken seriously. But the supporters also make a second argument. Unless we apply the new rules to pending cases, they say, there will be a rush to the courthouse by new plaintiffs seeking to file ``frivolous'' lawsuits under the old rules. Here again, they propose to disrupt the hundreds of cases now awaiting class certification, some of which have already been in court proceedings for many months, in order to prevent certain other people, as yet unknown, from racing to file other cases. This argument is almost so absurd that one is embarrassed to respond to it. If a suit is frivolous, it will survive a motion to dismiss, where it is filed in state or federal court. That is the customary remedy for frivolous lawsuits, and the courts are quite capable of using it. No, I'm afraid that ``this dog won't hunt,'' as my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), is so fond of saying. The real reason they're so desperate to make the bill retroactive is obvious. It's the only way to throw a monkey wrench into the class actions that are now proceeding against the former executives at companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing, who are facing both civil and criminal liability for the systematic looting of their companies. For the brazen misconduct and self-dealing that defrauded creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees and retirees of their livelihood and life savings. If this bill passes, those executives will be able to breathe a sign of relief. In fact, they'll get another year or two in which to spend down their ill-gotten gains before they need to worry about going to trial. It's no surprise that the House leadership was unwilling to make in order an amendment that would have stripped the retroactivity language from the bill. They don't want the public to know what they're doing. They're embarrassed by it. And they ought to be. Oppose the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to express my strong support for this legislation and my appreciation to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their bipartisan leadership in bringing it to the floor. Nearly 20 years ago, Congress passed legislation known as the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 which permitted certain cooperative ventures to reduce their exposure to treble damages currently provided for under antitrust laws by making advance disclosures of their activities. The bill before us would provide similar relief to nonprofit organizations that develop voluntary technical standards, known as standards-development organizations, or commonly referred to as SDOs. As the chairman indicated, these standards developed by these organizations play an essential role in enhancing public safety, facilitating market access, and promoting trade and innovation. Yet despite these pro-competitive effects, these SDOs can find themselves named as defendants in suits between business competitors alleging violations of the antitrust laws. Once they are sued, these organizations are forced to expend considerable resources on protracted discovery proceedings before they are finally able to prevail on motions for summary judgment which occurs in 100 percent of the cases, from my information. The bill, like the National Cooperative Research Act before it, takes a moderate approach to addressing this problem. It does not create, as the chairman indicated, a statutory exemption or confer immunity from the operation of the antitrust laws. Most significantly, it merely ``de-trebles'' antitrust damages in cases where accurate predisclosure of collaborative activities has been made to the Department of Justice and the FTC. I think this is the right approach. Congress should allow the antitrust laws to operate as they were meant to, without creating special exemptions and carve-outs for particular industries. This bill does not create an exemption for SDOs. Instead, it grants them limited relief of the same type and in the same manner as the relief provided for by the National Cooperative Research Act to certain cooperative joint ventures. It is a moderate approach, and it has worked well. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for their cooperative joint venture in support of this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my good friend, Jim Shannon, a former Member of this body and former Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He currently serves as president and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association, an international organization that develops the fire safety codes and standards that protect all of us. The NFPA just happens to be based in my hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts; and Jim Shannon and this fine organization have worked very hard to advance this legislation. I want to acknowledge their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. We do not seem to be hearing that anymore.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I am clearly aware of them and it even goes beyond to simply Mr. Thielmann. In fact, there is such outrage among intelligence professionals, people that have committed their lives to this work who I am sure are devoted to their country and are clearly not part of the Blame America Crowd; but they have come together and formed a group, Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. They wrote recently to President Bush to protest what they call a policy, and, again, I am quoting here, ``a policy in intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes,'' this is their letter, ``never before has such warping been used in a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives in voting to authorize war.'' That is a very serious accusation; and the American people deserve to have these individuals, other individuals come before in public session, the appropriate committees in Congress, and listen to what they have to say and provide us with an opportunity to inquire to them, let us lift the veil of secrecy. This is a democracy. When we talk about American values, we talk about transparency and accountability; and I am profoundly concerned as to what I am witnessing over the course of the past 2 or 3 weeks, specifically as it relates to the issues of weapons of mass destruction and the issue of links with al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. I think the point is, how in the future, if we face a genuine threat to our liberty, to our democracy, do we turn to our allies and the rest of the world and say this is a moment when the United States must take action, given what appears to be, what appears to be issues surrounding the quality of our intelligence. Let me just go a bit further with the example that you alluded to. It was so shoddy, the intelligence work, that a local police department, let alone our intelligence agencies, would have, I hope, discovered that this information was false. It was based on forged documents. It was one of the documents being signed by the foreign minister of this particular nation which happens to be Niger, not Nigeria, but Niger on the continent of Africa, signed by the foreign minister. And simply taking the name of the foreign minister and doing an Internet search would have revealed that the foreign minister whose signature appeared, in fact, had left that particular role, had resigned from government for 10 years, 10 years. What does that say about the quality of the intelligence that was relied on by the President and by those who supported the military intervention in Iraq? And yet some would suggest that to even pose these questions or raise these concerns is Blame America First? I respond by saying it is defending America, defending our democracy, defending our credibility, defending our claim to moral authority among the family of nations. Not to do so would be unpatriotic.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Or lockboxes, either, for that matter. As the both of you were talking about the men and women that really made us all proud, and we consider our very best, I think it is important to state unequivocally that when they return, it is not simply about parades, it is about respecting them and delivering the promise and the commitment to veterans that I know each and every member of our party is willing to make. No cuts in veterans' benefits. None at all. That is unacceptable and would be unconscionable. But let me end my digression and go back to the issue of nation building and just read a paragraph from the May 19 Washington Post. It is entitled ``Plan to Secure Postwar Iraq Faulted.'' The author writes the following paragraph: ``In interviews here and in Washington and in testimony on Capitol Hill, military officers, other administration officials, and defense experts said the Pentagon ignored lessons from a decade of peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and Afghanistan.'' Let us be candid and let the American people hear this: that in Afghanistan, we are at great risk of returning to that kind of chaos, that kind of volatility, instability that occurred prior to our invasion of Afghanistan. It is a mess in Afghanistan. The President of that country, President Karzai, cannot leave Kabul. The rest of that nation and many sections of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan are rife with Taliban and with other terrorist groups. And we have failed miserably in reconstruction efforts there. I would hope that this administration and this House would look to Afghanistan as an example of what not to do and go forward with a sensible plan that we can all support, because we know our responsibility.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think what is rather ironic, of course, is in Afghanistan, our NATO ally Germany is playing a key and vital role. Afghanistan militarily was truly a coalition of the willing, not a coalition of the coerced, the bribed, but a coalition of the willing. But I think it is important that we approach the reconstruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq on a multilateral basis. We cannot ask the American people to continue to bear the full burden. We have already made a comment in Iraq which practically guarantees a new hospital in every Iraqi city, 100 percent maternity coverage for Iraqi women that is going to be funded by the taxpayers of the United States. And what are we doing here in this Congress under this Republican leadership to Medicare? We are cutting it by $95 billion. That is not fair to the American taxpayer. It is not fair to the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But that was grossly exaggerated. Now we discover that General Shinseki is absolutely correct. When I asked during the course of a House Committee on International Relations hearing to the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Dan Fife, simple questions, I think his responses are informative; and if I could indulge, I asked Secretary Fife, ``We read different estimates of the cost of reconstruction to the American taxpayers. What is the current estimate of the administration in terms of the cost to the American taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq? ``Mr. Fife: There is no total estimate for the whole government for the whole range of things. ``Mr. Delahunt: There is no estimate. Is there a range? ``Mr. Fife: I am not aware that anybody has pulled together all of the threads.'' So then I said, ``Well, I would hope that they would pull the threads together, and if you can get that information to me in writing, I would appreciate that.'' This is maybe several weeks ago rather than at the end of the combat, the hostilities announced by the President. I would hope, in fact, that these estimates would have occurred months before the military intervention was launched. Then I go on, ``You have answered my question, but I would like to receive something in writing, Mr. Secretary, and I would like to share it with my colleagues. I think it was General Shinseki that estimated some 200,000 troops would be necessary to secure stability in Iraq. What is the current estimate from the Department of Defense and for how long would they be required?'' The Under Secretary's response: ``These kinds of questions have been an issue for some weeks, and we are continually being asked. And we are, obviously, not getting through on a key point which is there are so many things, so many different aspects of reconstruction and security, and each aspect depends on events and it depends on things we do not know about and we cannot know about. For example, how smoothly is the transition to an Iraq interim authority going to take place, and how quickly are the Iraqis going to be organizing?'' I responded, ``I respect that, Mr. Secretary, but at the same time I would hope that the department would have been prepared to provide a range in terms of worst- and best-case scenarios. I think we have a right to that information. Let me ask you another question: Do you have an estimate in terms of when an election in Iraq may occur?'' The Under Secretary responded, ``No, we do not.'' ``I appreciate your answers. You indicated there appears to be a narrow popular support for a theocracy similar to the one in Iran. Do we have polling data to support your thesis, or is this just an opinion through intelligence?'' Mr. Fife responded, ``It is an opinion that comes from intelligence. It comes from diplomatic reporting.'' ``But there is no polling data, I take it?'' ``I do not know whether there are. I do not know off the top of my head whether there is polling data.'' So then I said, ``Let me ask this question. Let me pose you a hypothetical question. If we have a free and fair election and if as a result of that election there is a leadership that does not necessarily feel warmly towards the United States, are we unconditionally willing to accept that particular leadership, presuming again free and fair elections?'' Mr. Fife answers, ``We are going to be working with the Iraqis to get a government organized, and part of that is going to be organizing a constitution and a bill of rights.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me pick up on the issue that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) raises and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). Our troops made us proud. We all support them. Every American supports them. Now they are being asked to do something, as the gentleman indicates, that they have not been trained for. There they are on the ground in a situation that at best is unstable. I do not even want to calculate the number of dead American soldiers on a weekly basis that have occurred as a result of guerrilla-type attacks, ambushes. It is simply not fair. And the irony of this is that the Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, indicated before the war that it was his judgment, his estimate that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. He was dismissed by the Secretary of Defense. I think maybe it was the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, maybe Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to congratulate him on conducting this particular Special Order because I think it is very important. Clearly, newspaper reports, interviews over the course of the past several days, have raised these issues, really, to a level that I know our respective offices are receiving numerous telephone calls by constituents that are expressing profound concern. Earlier this evening, a Republican colleague of ours talked about these issues. I think he was suggesting that they were emanating from a crowd that he called Blame America First. I respectfully have to disagree with him. I think these are questions that have to be asked. I think it is our responsibility to ask them on behalf of the American people. We are not the only ones that are asking these questions. If there is a Blame America crowd, there are many people in that crowd who are not only highly regarded and highly respected but are Members of both parties. I think it is important to note that the top Marine officer in Iraq, Lieutenant General Jim Conway, and again, this is from a report in The Washington Post, when no such weapons had been found and the move was announced just hours ago, and we are talking about a reorganization of the group that is missioned or tasked to look for these weapons of mass destruction, he said in a press conference that U.S. intelligence was simply wrong in leading the military to believe that the invading troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons. This is a statement by Lieutenant General James Conway. I doubt that he is part of any group that would blame America, but he is making a statement that deserves an answer. The Republican Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of this House, highly regarded, well respected on both sides of the aisle, in a letter dated May 22, 2003, and I am referring to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), he co-signed a letter to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Let me just simply quote several sentences: ``The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence believes that it is now time to reevaluate U.S. intelligence regarding the amount or existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that country's linkages to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. ``The committee wants to ensure that the intelligence analysis relayed to our policymakers from the intelligence community was,'' and I am quoting the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), ``accurate, unbiased, and timely in light of new information resulting from recent events in Iraq.'' He goes on: ``The committee is also interested in understanding how the CIA's analysis of Iraq's linkages to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda was derived.'' No one in this body would ever describe the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) as a member of the Blame America Crowd. When we raise questions about the planning and the efforts of reconstructing Iraq after that war, I am confident that no one would ever accuse the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, as part of the Blame America Crowd. Let me read, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and to the American people what Senator Lugar, a Republican from the State of Indiana, chairman of the foreign relations committee, had to say in an opinion piece that he wrote on May 22 of this year: ``But transforming Iraq will not be easy, quick, or cheap.'' These are his words: ``Clearly, the administration's planning for the post- conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate. I am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress has not yet faced up to the true size of the task that lies ahead or prepared the American people for it. The administration should state clearly that we are engaged in nation- building.'' That is Senator Lugar's phrase. ``We are constructing the future in Iraq. It is a complicated and uncertain business, and it is not made any easier when some in the Pentagon talk about quick exit strategies or saying dismissively that they don't do nation-building. The days when America could win battles and then come home quickly for a parade are over.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.