Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Just two quick comments. I gave credit to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for this amendment in committee. The gentleman gave credit to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Whoever deserves the credit should get it, because the Committee on Appropriations did a good job with that. Regarding the requirement of an estimate of the period of time, I am asking for an estimate, not an ironclad statement of future requirements because I know that is difficult. And as part of my language also, a description of the progress of bringing other troops in, I think that is all part of trying to get quarterly reports to the Congress so we can better understand what is happening. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation and his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe we need more information about our situation in Iraq. I would like to offer an amendment to add additional requests for information to a section of the bill that the Appropriations Committee added, appropriately so, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that requires the President to submit quarterly reports to Congress on military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think the committee did the right thing. I think we should ask for more information. And so my amendment would add additional requirements to three sections of the reporting provision already in the bill. One provision in the bill asks for a description of progress made toward the holding of free and fair elections. My amendment would add to that section a schedule for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people, including the drafting of an Iraqi constitution. A second section already in the bill asks for a description of the extent of international participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq, including the amount of provision for financial assistance. I would add a schedule for the provision of financial assistance from other nations and from the United Nations be added as a requirement. And, finally, a section of the bill asks for the number of Armed Forces deployed in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom be reported quarterly. I would add to that section an estimate on how long our troops, including the National Guard and Reserves, will remain in Iraq and the progress being made in replacing them with troops from other nations or from U.N. peacekeepers. I think these reports on a quarterly basis would help us understand the situation in Iraq, would help this Congress fulfill our constitutional duties of oversight and would help us better exercise our power of the purse. I am concerned that we have not had an adequate and a concrete plan to win the peace in Iraq. Our soldiers performed brilliantly and bravely and the military victory was a rousing success. I am concerned that we are not winning the peace. And we have a number of national goals in Iraq. We need to stabilize the country; we need to support and better protect our troops; we need to establish a pluralistic society and a representative self-government; we need to internationalize the construction and the security in Iraq; we need to put Iraqis quickly back in charge of Iraq. For us to do our job appropriately and to exercise our oversight and exercise our power of the purse, we need more information. I would ask the House to approve this amendment that would give on a quarterly basis more information to the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association (PSNA) which is celebrating its 100th anniversary on October 17, 2003. PSNA first met in 1903 with the purpose of supporting Pennsylvania's nurses, and the association quickly worked to establish standards of licensure and education. In its 100 years of service, PSNA has transitioned from a graduate nurses association to a union and finally to a professional organization representing all registered nurses. Through its responses to changing times PSNA has shaped the nursing profession. In its early days, PSNA advocated for the profession and for women. During times of national crisis the organization has provided support to those who needed it. In the days after the tragic events of September 11th PSNA coordinated volunteers willing to provide nursing care to the victims of the terrorist attacks. Registered Nurses play a vital role in the delivery of quality and effective healthcare. PSNA continues to take a leading role in a changing industry. I congratulate the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association on its 100 years of service and support to Pennsylvania's Registered Nurses, and wish them many more years of continued success.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be back on the House floor for another hour of what we are calling the Iraq Watch. This is a weekly effort that I have been engaged in with three colleagues for about 2\1/2\ months to raise questions each week about our policies in Iraq. Before I get into the meat of this week's discussion, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who is discussing an Iraq-related matter. I am anxious to hear the remainder of his remarks. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEFFEL. Did the gentleman see over the weekend the New York Times article that set forth in great detail how overstated the administration's claims were regarding Iraqi oil revenue? It fits exactly into the point the gentleman is making.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his statement and for reading the letter to Mr. Rove. I congratulate the gentleman on his well-reasoned and well-researched document. I would like to advise the gentleman of my deep concern about this leak that has been so unfair to the wife of Joseph Wilson and to tell the gentleman that Mrs. Plame, Valerie Plame, the wife of Mr. Wilson, that her parents are my constituents in suburban Philadelphia. They were recently interviewed by a local newspaper, and her father, Mr. Plame, expressed his great indignation and outrage that his daughter's cover was blown by this leak. He is demanding that the people accountable be held responsible and that appropriate penalties be levied upon them. He was quite eloquent in his anger and frustration that his daughter's career as an undercover operative for the CIA has been compromised. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this matter to the floor. I must say your approach, which is asking for Karl Rove's resignation, is one that I would be delighted to see happen. It probably has about as much chance of succeeding as Rush Limbaugh getting a Diversity Award from the NAACP, but it would be something remarkable if someone in this White House would take responsibility for what is not just an illegal act of blowing the cover of a covert agent, but a morally reprehensible act. I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentleman for further comments.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the need for an independent investigation by a special counsel. I do not think for a minute that the Justice Department is able to appropriately investigate this leak that allegedly comes from the White House. I do have faith in the career prosecutors at the Justice Department, as I know the gentleman does. But as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) pointed out a few minutes ago, there is a preexisting political relationship between Mr. Ashcroft, the Attorney General, and Mr. Rove, and for which Mr. Ashcroft paid Mr. Rove some $700,000, appropriately done, in the course of several political campaigns. But clearly, that relationship alone should disqualify Mr. Ashcroft from being in charge of this investigation of potential leaking. I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), we have started on Iraq Watch with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) reading this evening a letter to Karl Rove asking him to resign his position, and the gentleman from Michigan was here for a 5- minute speech, and we have dragged him into the Iraq Watch this evening. We are glad that he is here, and he has made a major contribution. I am happy to yield to my good friend and cofounder of the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his comments. Before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and we are delighted that he has joined the Iraq Watch this evening, but first, we have actually talked about two different special prosecutors here, or one special counsel, I should say, to review these allegations of a leak from the White House. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has brought up again the general opinion of the Iraq Watch that we need to have a bipartisan and independent study of our intelligence-gathering regarding Iraq and the use to which that intelligence was put. I agree with both of my colleagues on that, although I just want to say once again that while we do not want to be political, we want this to be bipartisan as it is important for our national security interests; this Member of Congress, I have made up my mind about whether or not we were misled by the intelligence presented by the administration. I was misled. I was given exaggerated information. I was given misleading information. The President and all of his top advisors in September and October of 2002 stated with complete certainty that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had biological weapons of mass destruction, was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, was going to give these weapons to al Qaeda. It turns out that not only have they not been able to find weapons, as all Americans know, but it has come out this past spring, 6 months after these statements were made, that the classified intelligence being given to the White House last fall at the time of these statements was filled with uncertainty. The intelligence agencies were telling the President and telling the President's people they were not sure what Hussein had. The defense intelligence agency report of September 2002 said there is no reliable information, and I am quoting, ``No reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities.'' No reliable information, according to the defense intelligence agency. Yet at the same time, the President is saying in the Rose Garden, September 26, 2002 that ``the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons.'' That is the President's statement at the very time that his intelligence agencies were saying there is no reliable information. And again, before I turn to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is waiting patiently, I was briefed with other Members of Congress on October 2, 2002, in the White House, one of many such White House briefings that many of us took advantage of. I was with perhaps 20 Members, a bipartisan group. The briefers were Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet, and they stated with complete certainty on October 2, 2002, that Hussein had these weapons, that he had biological weapons, chemical weapons, reconstituting nukes, the whole litany. And yet they both had access at that time to classified information, some of it coming from Mr. Tenet's own agency, the CIA, that was indicating great uncertainty about the status of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Now, we see Condoleezza Rice appointed this past weekend by the President to head up an Iraq stabilization group at the White House, because the President is concerned that too much bureaucracy is getting in the way of our program. If there is any bureaucracy in the way of our program, it is the President's bureaucracy. Congress did not set up any bureaucracy to frustrate him. He is working through the Defense Department. Most of us think he ought to be working through the State Department and not the Defense Department. We can get into that in more detail in a few minutes. But the credibility of the administration is at stake. A huge credibility gap has grown up between the President's statements and what he was being advised, the classified information he was getting at the time he was saying with such certainty, which we now know was uncertain, and his top officials, including George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice, have the same credibility gap surrounding them. It is bad for the administration. It is bad for the Nation to have these problems. I thank the gentleman for getting me off on this rant. You have triggered some of my frustrations. Let me at this point turn to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I believe he has another aspect to discuss as to the situation in Iraq.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I agree with Mr. DeFazio. And I thank the gentleman from Oregon for reminding us that whatever we do in Iraq, whatever we spend there is borrowed money. Because our fiscal house is in such disorder, we are required to borrow every penny of what we spend. There is agreement in a broad way about the need to support our troops, to make sure they get the support they need, if, as the gentleman said, they need improved protective gear.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the gentleman's comment there. I share your outrage and admire your outrage over the continuing deaths from guerilla opposition and warfare in Iraq. And I remind my colleagues in Iraq Watch and Members of the House and members of the American public that are seeing this, that the President, last July, was asked after about 25 American soldiers had been attacked and assassinated after the May 1 declaration that major hostilities were over, he was asked in July, do we have enough force in Iraq to protect our own force? Are our own people safe enough? Do we have adequate force to protect our own troops? And he said, in what I believe to be the most reckless statement any American President has ever made, he said, Yes, we have enough force. We can stop the guerillas. Bring them on. Bring them on, he said. And since that day, I am sad to report, adding the three dead Americans that the gentleman referenced, we have lost 65 American soldiers due to hostile attacks, assassinations, guerilla activity by the opposition in Iraq. And I wonder what the President would say to those 65 families who may ask him, Mr. President, do we have enough force to protect our own force? What about my family member, Mr. President? I do not know what the President would say to those 65 families.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I think my colleagues would agree that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is a passionate and eloquent and excellent addition to our efforts here. I thank the gentleman for being here.

Mr. HOEFFEL. We have been joined by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has a comment.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We have about a minute and a half left to go. Any final comments from any of my colleagues?

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for another lively discussion during the Iraq Watch. I think we all agree that we need the President to level with the American people. We need information. We need a plan. We need a plan for institutionalizing the situation in Iraq, both the security and the reconstruction. I said institutionalizing. I meant to say internationalizing. That is, I think, a goal that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is talking about, including what kind of donor support we will get from the international community. We need to know how to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq and how soon that will happen, and we need an exit strategy for the United States. We do not want to leave and leave a vacuum. None of us want to do that, but we need to know what is in store, how much time and how much money and the future prospects. We are out of time. I thank my colleagues. The Iraq Watch will be back next week, and I thank the Speaker for his cooperation.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the Members here tonight. Iraq Watch will be back next week.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman, and we look forward to hearing more about the chart. We will now turn to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent comments. I am happy to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, the Iraq Watch is back tonight. We look to have an interesting discussion in store for the next hour. We have been holding these hours of debate on Iraq for the past 2 months or so, once a week, in which we gather on the floor to talk about our policies in Iraq, suggest changes, as we would recommend changes in those policies, and ask questions to try to learn for the Congress and for the American people what the administration's plans are in Iraq. I would like to open up briefly this evening with a brief report on the appearance by Ambassador Paul Bremer before the Committee on International Relations on September 25. He came before the committee to justify the administration's request for $87 billion of military occupation and reconstruction dollars in Iraq. I asked the Ambassador, who I think is a fine public servant who is doing the best he can, a career diplomat, one of America's finest, but I believe his political masters are making it difficult for him to give us the information which I believe Congress is entitled to. I asked the Ambassador when we would get timetables and information and when would the President level with the American people about plans to internationalize the security challenges and the reconstruction challenges in Iraq, when we would get timetables and plans for giving the Iraqi government back to the Iraqis, and when would we get an exit strategy; when would the administration tell us when they believed we could bring our troops home and what standards we would want to achieve in Iraq before making that decision, and how would we know if we were succeeding or failing with those goals. The Ambassador could not answer those questions. He said in his opening statement, ``We have a definite plan with milestone and dates,'' and I asked him about that. First off, he was only talking about how to spend the $87 billion. But, secondly, that definite plan with milestone and dates that he referred to in his opening statement is not yet available for Congress. He may have the milestones and dates, the administration may know what the milestones and dates are, but he could not tell the Committee on International Relations, or any other committee in Congress, what those milestones and dates are. So it was not really a successful explanation to our committee about what is coming down the pike and what the administration plans in Iraq. He did say with some pride that 61 countries have pledged their support for reconstruction in Iraq. I asked him how much that pledge amount totaled, and he said $1.5 billion. Now $1.5 billion is a lot of money, but from 61 countries it is not much of a contribution. If we compare it to what we have spent and will spend in Iraq, it is less than 1 percent of what America is spending on the military occupation and on the reconstruction. And if we only add up what America is spending on reconstruction, what we have already spent and what the President is asking, this $1.5 billion from 61 countries is only about 5 percent of what we will spend and have spent on reconstruction. Clearly the administration has not received from the international community anything close to what we ought to get in terms of their financial support for reconstruction and for what we are trying to do in the name of freedom and liberty in Iraq. I would suggest that the heavy-handed diplomacy, the arrogance, the unilateral approach of this administration has resulted in our allies and international organizations not yet stepping up to the plate. I would simply say that I believe that the $87 billion needs to be handled separately by the Congress; and I would suggest that while we need to grant that money for the support of our troops in the field, that the part of that request, some $21 billion that is designed for reconstruction costs in Iraq, should be handled differently. I believe we ought to provide those dollars as loans to Iraq and not as outright grants to be repaid by Iraqi oil revenue. Everyone believes within 2 or 3 years the Iraqi oil industry will be generating at least $2 billion a year in revenue, hopefully within a few years up to $3 billion to $5 billion in revenue. And Iraq has the ability to repay loans, and I believe our reconstruction aid should be in the form of loans. Some have said that this would only put Iraq further in debt, and international organizations and our allies have already lent $200 billion to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power and they would not take kindly to us creating more debt. Well, if we give this money as loans, it is my view that we should be the first in line for repayment. If the French and Germans and Russians do not like that and feel they have a higher claim on repayment of the money they loaned to Saddam Hussein, let them find Saddam Hussein and ask him for the money. We are the ones that pushed him out of office and have made that investment. I believe we should not put our country deeper into debt, and it should be loans, not grants. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for his comments. Before yielding to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for waging this fight with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) in the Committee on Armed Services, and inform them that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I waged the same fight in the House Committee on International Relations with the same pathetic response and result, that it was approved with a negative recommendation to the floor. I share the gentleman from Hawaii's (Mr. Abercrombie) outrage at that. And the Republican leadership of the committee and the rank and file on the committee took great delight in saying to the Democrats they just have to ask questions and they can get answers and come back later this afternoon. This was last Thursday, September 25, and ask Paul Bremer and they will get all the information they need about the administration's plans in Iraq. And as I said at the beginning of Iraq Watch tonight, we went back and asked Mr. Bremer questions, and we did not get answers at all. It was just more, We do not know, we have got our plans and our timetables but we will not tell you what they are, and it is a sad day for Congress when we cannot get information that we need to make a decision.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his comments and eloquence, and I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for joining us in the Iraq Watch tonight from the Committee on Armed Services. They have reinforced us, and we are glad that they are here. Before going to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has been waiting very patiently, her second appearance I think with Iraq Watch and we welcome her back.