Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for putting a human face on what we are discussing. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Just for a moment, Congress Meehan, I want to join you in that. I had sitting next to me at a weekend event Saturday a father who had lost his 19-year-old. He was sitting next to one of our well-known POWs who suffered, Shoshanna Johnson. He got a chance to sit next to her. He happened to be a constituent of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). And without the details of it, he just simply wanted to sit next to someone who had returned. His son did not. She happened to have known his son and was able to share with him some of those, unfortunately, last hours of his life. The parent was just grappling to have some connection to that young boy who no longer lives, who had a future. I am disturbed by commentators, media, administrations saying it has been 200. No, this is not Vietnam. We lost, as I understand it, 50,000. But what we are trying to do on behalf of the American people is to not have this be a Vietnam. In Afghanistan we hear that the Taliban is reorganizing and coming back. So that young man's life was not in vain, we have got to be able to ask the hard questions of this administration: What are you doing in Afghanistan to make sure that we have a victory and what are you doing in Iraq? Because fathers and mothers and relatives are coming and sitting next to people and going to churches and synagogues and parishes to try to find comfort about their deceased loved ones. We should not diminish what it means to lose a child. That is why this discussion is so vital, and that is why I think it is imperative that we have answers from the administration to pay tribute to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), particularly for her enumeration of conditions that you want to see the administration provide before we vote for the requested money; and I think that is a fundamental theme that we have to provide for.

Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman from Washington does not mind, I will yield the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a regular participant in Iraq Watch.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing up this very important matter about Mr. Wilson. I assume the gentleman understands about what he was describing. The blowing of a CIA cover is a Federal offense. It is illegal. It is dangerous and wrong and morally reprehensible. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DelaHunt).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HOEFFEL

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

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We have been joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). Aloha.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I will indeed.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we have come back to the floor this evening, the Iraq Watch has come back to the floor, and we are glad to be back. There is new information to discuss, the President's speech today at the United Nations to review. I am looking forward to the next hour, joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland); and I know others are on the way. I would like to just start, though. The previous hour was taken by three distinguished Members of the other side of the aisle speaking about Iraq. I listened carefully to what they said and found myself in agreement with many of their comments. Certainly their frustrations that the press does not accurately report the good news, tends to report and dwell on the confrontations and the failures. That obviously is something we have broad bipartisan agreement on, the failures of the media to cover things the way we would like them to be covered. I would hope perhaps tonight could be the beginning of a more bipartisan discussion during this Special Order when we give our Iraq Watch hour. Perhaps in the future, the Republican Members could join us, not in a confrontational way, but in a way to see if there is common ground and, if we have disagreements, to develop those more fully. The purpose of Iraq Watch is to ask questions about our policies in Iraq, to see if there cannot be more information solicited for the Members of Congress and for the general public and to suggest policy changes that we think are necessary. Perhaps we can do that with our Republican friends in the future. Let me take a few moments before turning to my colleagues to respond to the President's speech today in the United Nations. I should not say ``respond,'' comment upon the President's speech. He essentially gave a summary of our role and our spending in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the worldwide fight against AIDS and in measures to fight the traffic in humans and the sex trade. He also challenged the member nations of the United Nations to do more and join us in these efforts. It was a wonderful opportunity for the President to set forth our challenge to the United Nations, our desire for them to be involved in Iraq, to step forward, to provide leadership for the reconstruction and the security that clearly needs to be done in Iraq. Yet the President, from my point of view, did not achieve that. I found his remarks to be flat and uninspiring. He did not set forth the role that the United Nations could assume in Iraq. He did not discuss the parameters of that role. He surely did not discuss the power- sharing that the United Nations member states have indicated they want to share in order to assume the major role in Iraq in terms of their reconstruction and their security needs. In fact, he made it clear in a reference to America working to submit a new resolution to the Security Council to bring in the U.N., the President's vision is for the United States to stay in control of the occupation in Iraq. I think one fundamental question Congress has to ask as we consider the $87 billion request the President has made, does the United States have to be in charge of the reconstruction? Why should the United Nations not be in charge of the reconstruction and the new governance and the security? That would require the U.N. to step up to the plate, and perhaps they will not. If they do not, then we must finish the job ourselves, because surely we cannot leave a vacuum in Iraq. We must make sure that the innocent civilians of that country have an opportunity to move forward in a pluralistic way toward freedom, toward self-government, hopefully toward democracy as soon as possible. But why does the President refuse to consider the notion that the United Nations be given the primary responsibility, if they will assume it, to reconstruct Iraq, to provide security and bring a new governance forward? From my way of thinking, that is why there is a United Nations. The President in his campaign for office scorned the notion of nation-building. He did not want to do it. Yet that is exactly what he wants America to do, primarily be in charge of nation-building in Iraq. I would suggest we consider a larger role for the United Nations. It was interesting the other day, the President sort of quickly, without any warning, finally indicated that he believes that Saddam Hussein was not behind the terror attacks of 9/11. He indicated that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind, or responsible for, those horrible attacks on 9/11.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Before I go to the gentleman from Illinois, who has got important information about his American Parity Act and before we come back to discussions of the veterans, let me just quickly return to the point that I yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts on, his absolutely accurate comments about the President obviously responding to the Vice President's comments when the Vice President tried to once again weave that web that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. It reminds me of that movie ``A Bridge Too Far.'' I would suggest that the President finally leveled with the American people about that because the Vice President made a comment too far. He just said it once too often and the press was paying attention and the President decided he had to say what we have all known, that there is no evidence of that connection between Hussein and 9/11. But if you look at the President's speech today to the United Nations, he did it again. As another President said, ``There he goes again.'' There were several references when the President talks about the regime of Saddam Hussein cultivating ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction, and nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen. Saddam Hussein is a murderous and evil man who was willing to use weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. He did it against his own Kurds. He did it against innocent Iranians. But there is no evidence of the so-called ties to terror. It seems to me, before I yield to my colleagues, that one of the most fundamental things we need from the White House is for the President to level with the American people. The situation in Iraq and with Hussein was bad enough. It does not have to be exaggerated. We do not need to continue to try to make connections with terror that simply do not exist. Hussein is evil enough on his own. And every time a bogus claim is made or an exaggeration is made by the administration and by the spokesmen for the administration, it weakens the President's credibility, it weakens the national credibility, and it does not help us accumulate the international support that we need to internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq and to get the Iraqis back in charge of Iraq, which must be our two primary goals. I thank the gentleman for being patient with me, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not mind a friendly correction, he hopes to offer the amendment. I know he will try to offer the amendment, but the House Committee on Rules is unlikely to allow any amendment to be offered to that bill.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I just wanted to add to the gentleman's comments that the reference to Afghanistan is important because we have been distracted from the challenge in Afghanistan because of our commitment in Iraq, and things are not going so well in Afghanistan these days. The Taliban is reforming, President Karzi is having a difficult time with security outside of the capital city of Kabul, and clearly we did not get the job finished in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda was clearly located and where the Taliban was allowing al Qaeda to flourish.

Mr. HOEFFEL. And many of them do not get that.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for joining us. She adds great wisdom and enthusiasm to the discussion. I hope you will be here every week with us. We plan to continue this for the duration. I know there is one of our colleagues who has been patiently waiting who has not spoken yet. First the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has a quick point to make.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). He has done a magnificent job with this fiscal analysis of the requested money for reconstruction in Iraq. It is a fascinating comparison that I think all of America needs to pay attention to. You made a reference to wanting to ask Paul Bremer these questions directly. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I will have an opportunity on Thursday when he appears before the Committee on International Relations, and maybe we will have a chance to use some of your material, and we will credit you and ask the appropriate questions. Let me now yield to our colleague the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the promotion they have given me this evening, but we are all equal in the Iraq Watch, and we will be back next week; and I thank the Speaker for his cooperation.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that point. It is very well taken. We have about 2 minutes left this evening in our Iraq Watch. I would summarize my thoughts based upon what all of us have said, and the President's speech today, it is clearer than ever before that the President needs to do three things. First, he needs to level with the American people about the costs, about the timetables, about what we are getting into. Secondly, we need a plan on how he is going to internationalize the reconstruction and the security challenges in Iraq, and how he is going to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq; how long will it take, when will we know it is going to happen. The third thing we need is an exit strategy. We cannot leave until these other things happen, or until the United Nations steps up in a real way to do it. If they do not step up, we have to stay and do it. How will we judge our progress? When will we know when it is time for us to leave? We have 1 minute left, I think. Any comments from my colleagues?

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, as always. We have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman remember that Lawrence Lindsey of the White House Budget Office lost his job when he suggested that the war in Iraq would cost between $100 and $200 billion? And as the gentleman says, that is exactly what it has cost to date, yet he got fired for telling the truth.

Mr. HOEFFEL. That is right.

Mr. HOEFFEL. The occasionally late, but always eloquent and passionate member from Hawaii.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, before we introduce some colleagues that have joined us, I want to echo the gentleman's comments and join his call for an independent commission to review the intelligence that was collected and analyzed before we went to war and to review the use that that intelligence was put to. I can tell this House that I attended a briefing with about 20 Members of the House, a bipartisan group on October 2, 2002, at the White House in the Roosevelt Room where George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice briefed this bipartisan group of Members. And the representations were made by those two leading members of the administration that with complete certainty they were sure that Saddam Hussein had an active weapons of mass destruction program, that he had an active biological weapon component, an active chemical weapons component, that he was restarting a nuclear component, that he was quite likely to be giving these weapons to terrorists and the rest. And there was no uncertainty expressed whatsoever. We have now learned, as reports have been declassified, that the White House was being told in a September, 2002, Defense Intelligence Agency report and in an October, 2002, National Intelligence Estimate that there was great uncertainty among the intelligence agencies, including Mr. Tenet's CIA. The parts that had been declassified have been reported in the press, phrases such as ``no credible evidence existing of an Iraqi chemical weapons program.'' I have read those reports that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to Members that have not yet been declassified. While none of us are free to quote what we have seen, we can talk about our conclusions. And just as the published reports have indicated, what I read was full of uncertainties, expressed hesitations, ``we are not sure about this,'' ``we are not sure about that.'' But that is not at all what the administration figures were telling Congress in private briefings or to the American people in public statements, repeated as recently as Sunday, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said, the Vice President repeated. So we need a bipartisan, independent commission to study the intelligence and its usage before the fighting started in Iraq, because it is hard to conclude anything other than the Congress and the American people were not told the full truth; that we were told things existed with complete certainty, that the administration was telling them that, when in fact when they were making those claims there was great uncertainty. I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) to share a few words.

Mr. HOEFFEL

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