Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I cannot think of a more eloquent filibusterer than the gentleman from Connecticut. I thank him for doing this honor to Bob Borski. Mr. SHAYS. He deserves it. He is an outstanding man.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership in the committee and on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2328, the legislation designating the United States postal facility located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia as the Robert A. Borski Post Office Building. Congressman Robert Borski was one of the longest-serving members of the Pennsylvania delegation, having served here for 20 years in Congress representing the Third Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Congressman Borski was a leader on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure where he served as Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. He fought for a strong Federal commitment to our Nation's highways and transit systems. His efforts on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century resulted in major infrastructure investment for the Philadelphia region. Congressman Borski also worked hard to revitalize urban areas, supporting both transportation and water infrastructure projects. From his seat on the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Congressman Borski pushed for legislation to promote the cleanup of brownfields and to redevelop urban industrial sites. Congressman Borski also initiated the effort to reclaim and revitalize the neglected areas along the North Delaware River in Philadelphia. With the support of the entire Pennsylvania congressional delegation, I introduced H.R. 2328. I selected this specific location because Bob Borski's late father was a postman who delivered mail from this facility on Willard Street and his mother still lives in the delivery area of this post office. The naming of the Borski post office, accordingly, has a very rich symbolic value and makes this action very meaningful and very emotional for the Borski family. I first met Bob Borski in 1977 when we were both freshman legislators in the Pennsylvania State House. We came from very different backgrounds and very different political worlds, one from the Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia, one from suburban Abington, but we became good friends. We served together for 6 years in the State House. Bob got here to Congress well before I did; and when I finally made it, he took me under his wing and served as my mentor. He would only occasionally give me advice. Sometimes I followed it; sometimes I did not. I learned after time I should have always followed it. He is a good man and a good friend. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that you find an individual with such dedication and commitment to his community. I am pleased to honor Congressman Bob Borski in this manner. He is truly deserving of this honor. I urge swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and congratulate her on her leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of House bill 1516, and I want to start by acknowledging the great work of our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach). The gentleman has taken an issue that is an old issue in the Philadelphia area, trying to create new cemetery space for our veterans, and he has found a way to get this out of committee on to the floor for certain passage here today. I compliment the gentleman on it. It is important. For the last, I guess, five terms of Congress, Members have tried to create a new cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania. My predecessor, Congressman Jon Fox, introduced a bill in both of his two terms in Congress, with a similar bill introduced in the other body by Senator Arlen Specter, that would have named the Valley Forge National Historical Park as the setting for a new veterans cemetery, a setting I still think is the perfect location. There is some controversy and resistance to that. The important thing is that we get a new cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania. In my first two terms, I introduced the same bill with the same support in the Senate. I lost that area in redistricting, and now the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) has figured out a way to add other sites to southeastern Pennsylvania and move this bill forward with full support; and I thank the Members of the committee, the ranking members and, of course, the chairs of the full committee and the subcommittee, for putting together a bill with great support. This will create a clear and strict timetable to establish a new veterans cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania and four other locations around the country, with sensible and responsible reporting requirements placed upon the Secretary of Veterans Affairs so that Congress can make sure that these new cemeteries actually get opened. It is overdue, it is important legislation, and it is the right thing to do for our veterans. They have given so much to this country. It is entirely appropriate for us to make sure that all veterans who are interested in a final resting space in a national veterans cemetery have the opportunity to do it, and I know that the veterans in southeastern Pennsylvania will be very pleased by this progress. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), as well as all involved.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. What I think we need, before I get back to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has only had one bite at the apple night and is going to get another one, we have got to have straight talk about what is happening now and a clear reality and acknowledgment of what is happening now. Let me give one example. We have a new U.S. commander in Iraq, General John Abizaid, I hope I said his name right, who has acknowledged that we are facing a guerrilla opposition, which I think is an obvious reality that we all know. What he has described as ``a classical guerrilla-type campaign'' is being waged against our armed services in stark contrast to what the Secretary of Defense has refused to acknowledge. Donald Rumsfeld has refused to acknowledge that we have got an organized resistance or a guerrilla resistance; and as Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer in her commentary said, ``You can't fight a war unless you recognize the enemy.'' Even on the military side of this conflict, until this new commander has told us the truth, General Abizaid, the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense has not faced the reality. What has happened, as we all know, is since the military victory was announced on May 1 by the President on the ship off San Diego, the American forces have been subjected to repeated ambushes and attacks. Some 35 Americans have been assassinated since that day. And 10 have occurred since the President said the other day ``Bring it on.'' Since the President said, ``We have enough force to protect our forces in Iraq, so ``bring it on,'' ten more Americans have been assassinated. Last week, Minnesota Public Radio quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, who said ``President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said `bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead.'' The lack of straight talk and too much arrogance and too much bragging is bringing on this credibility gap. And so I do not have a credibility gap, Madam Speaker, I am going to honor my commitment to hear from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) one more time. Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, one thing that I think is important to say about this commission that we are urging is that it is not a commission to debate the Iraq war or the reasons for the war or the propriety of the war. I represent constituents who have divided opinion about that today. Some of my constituents believe that a removal of Saddam Hussein was justified even if he had toothpicks and that is all he had. Some of my constituents believe that was a legitimate exercise of military force by the United States. Now, I do not agree with that, but some of my constituents feel like that sincerely. But those same constituents tell me that they did not appreciate being kept in the dark about the reams of intelligence which suggested that the President concluded that there was no doubt about Iraq's having these weapons, when, in fact, there was massive doubt; that he had no doubt there was a connection with al-Qaeda, when, in fact, there was massive doubt; that he made the decision after he had the intelligence; when, in fact, he made the decision before he had the intelligence. Those same people who believed the war may have been justified do not appreciate that because they recognize this is a threat to democracy.

Mr. HOEFFEL

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

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, let me, in our final 5 minutes here, see who among us might like to make additional comments or perhaps quickly raise a new issue, and I think the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has something to say.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is nobody in this House I respect more than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). But I disagree with him completely on his amendment, and I rise in strong opposition. The gentleman talks about four points. I would like to rebut them. He says that the deepening of the channel for the Port of Philadelphia from 40 feet to 45 feet would be a waste of money. That is not true. The Army Corps of Engineers has studied this matter twice. The first study said there would be $1.40 of benefit for every dollar of investment to deepen the channel. That was challenged by the GAO, as the gentleman has suggested. The Army Corps reanalyzed and came back with an economic analysis of a benefit of $1.18 for every dollar of investment. That is the current status. It is not a waste of money; it will help the Port of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia region to deepen the channel to 45 feet. The second point is the gentleman suggested a 40-foot channel is adequate and that we do not need to lower the channel, and he is simply wrong. Big, modern ships cannot come to the Delaware River to the Port of Philadelphia if it stays only at a 40-foot depth. It must be deepened to 45 to stay competitive with all of the other ports up and down the Mid-Atlantic. It is necessary to deepen the channel. Thirdly, the gentleman suggested there is environmental damage by the deepening. Well, that has been debunked and refuted by seven State and Federal agencies that have found no adverse impact on the environment. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service have all found no adverse environmental impact; and the environmental agencies of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have found no adverse environmental impact. The final point that the gentleman made is that there is a lack of local support. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we will hear from the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), there is unanimous support from the governments, from the labor unions, from the businesses. The only, only business opposed to deepening the channel is the litering companies in the area that benefit from a shallow channel so ships come off port, have to unload their material, and smaller ships from the litering companies take it up the river. Those are the people leading the opposition to this. Philadelphia needs a deeper channel. It is good for the economy. We have to do it to protect jobs. We have to do it to stay competitive. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to support the Holt-Rahall amendment that would phase out the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National parks. These parks have a special place in my heart as they have in the hearts of most Americans. I have frequently visited Grand Teton and Yellowstone Park during the summer months, probably visiting Yellowstone 10 times during my life. It is a beautiful park, as all Americans know. It is a grand and wonderful place, our first national park. But because of the concerns I heard about snowmobile use in the winter, I visited the park this past winter with the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from West Virginia, because I could not believe that things were quite as bad as I heard. In fact, I found that they are worse. The use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone has all of the negative impacts that the gentleman from New Jersey has described, of noise pollution, air pollution, the harassment of animals, the impact on the habitat. I was completely overwhelmed by the amount of noise that these machines generate. But what I did not understand was that government policy is to virtually require the use of snowmobiles. I thought this problem was because of some recreational use in Yellowstone during the wintertime. That shows you what an Easterner maybe does not understand about Western winters. There is a lot of snow out there, and they do not pave the roads so that cars can ride into Old Faithful or around Yellowstone. They groom the roads with the snow on it and pack it down for the use of snowmobiles. Snowmobiles are the preferred and only way to travel around Yellowstone unless you use a snow coach, a larger- tracked vehicle that can carry 10 or 15 people. So the government policy is to use snowmobiles. Therefore, we are responsible for what is happening there. The reality is that the Holt- Rahall amendment is not about banning snowmobiles. It is about protecting Yellowstone. It is about protecting it from the invasion of these machines in the wintertime that pollute, that disrupt because of noise, disrupt because of harassment. We see this picture of one of the groomed roads with some of the bison in the Yellowstone herd with even more of a machine herd coming behind them, the people that are using the snowmobiles to travel. I am sure snowmobiles are a lot of fun to ride. I have, in fact, ridden them in the East. I understand the appeal. But this is not about snowmobiles. We have an obligation to protect Yellowstone. We have an obligation to make sure we stop practices that are hurting Yellowstone. We have stopped allowing tourists to chip off parts of the formations there. We keep them out of the geyser basins so that there will not be damage to the natural beauty or harm to the visitors. We have stopped certain things from happening in Yellowstone and in Grand Teton because we want to protect the natural beauty and protect those parks for the future. Under the same thinking, we have to phase out snowmobiles in order to protect the park. The three of us visited the entrance to the park on a Saturday morning. The pollution, the smoke, the haze was extraordinary. The noise was disruptive. No matter where we went in the park, we could hear the noise of the snowmobiles. The advocates of the current use say that modern technology is improving the situation, that the four-stroke technology of the new machines gets rid of the problems that the old two-stroke machines were causing. That simply is not the case. The four-stroke machines are noisy. They pollute. The answer here is to phase out snowmobiles, promote the use of snow coaches. The government could purchase a fleet or help develop a fleet of snow coaches that could be leased by the government to the private sector that now represents snowmobiles. The private sector could take the responsibility for putting the visitors into those snow coaches, could charge for that, could make money, the economies of the surrounding areas would stay strong, and yet we would have done a major benefit for Yellowstone by outlawing the snowmobiles, protecting the environment and living up to our obligations to be good stewards of Yellowstone and Grand Teton for our children and our grandchildren to enjoy.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Robert Miller III on his receipt of a Congressional Award Gold Medal on Wednesday, June 25, 2003. At a mere 18 years of age, Robert's accomplishments are amazing. As a recipient of the Congressional Award Gold Medal, Robert has demonstrated a noteworthy commitment in several fields. Receipt of this award signifies that Robert has performed over 400 hours of community service, as well as 200 hours of both personal development and physical fitness activities over the past 2 years. This honor similarly attests to Robert's exemplary academic and extracurricular status as a student at North Penn High School. Prestigious awards such as this one are nothing new to Robert. Previously, he has received both a bronze and a silver Congressional Award Medal. As an Eagle Scout, his involvement in the Cradle of Liberty Council Boy Scouts of America further reflects the strength of his character. Robert has shown exceptional dedication to community service, personal development and physical fitness. I firmly believe that these characteristics will lead him to unbounded success in the future. I also wish to extend my congratulations to Robert's parents, Dorothy and Robert Miller Jr., who have instilled him with good moral standards and have supported his efforts tirelessly. Again, I congratulate Robert Miller III on his Congressional Award Gold Medal.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we know exactly whose fault it was. It is George Tenet. That is what Condoleeza Rice is saying. That is what the Vice President is saying. Everybody's quite willing to blame George Tenet for that information being in the State of the Union that should not have been there. Does anybody in this House or watching throughout America believe that George Tenet alone is responsible?

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, for 5 or 6 weeks, a number of us have been coming to the floor to discuss our Nation's involvement and our role in Iraq. We have at least four times come here, four of us, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and have had a discussion and a lively give and take about Iraq, about what is going right over there, what is going wrong, trying to seek the truth, trying to suggest policy changes, trying to have a full discussion and report to the people of this country. And we have decided to do this every week, every week that the House is in session as long as our country is involved in Iraq. We are going to call ourselves the Iraq Watch because we think that there are important public policy matters that the American people need to be aware of, that Congress needs to focus on, we need to ask questions about, seek information about, to clarify, to seek policy changes, to make some changes and fundamentally to report to the people of this country on what we know and what we think we all ought to know about what has happened in Iraq. Now, of the four I named, two of us voted in favor of the military authority sought by the President and two of us voted ``no'' to exercise that authority. But we all were sold, as was the entire Congress and the American people, with great certainty by the administration and by the President that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction last fall when the vote was approaching and that he was trying to develop more. The certainty was expressed in public. The certainty was expressed in private. I have, along with a number of Members of Congress, attended a briefing at the White House, one of a series of briefings. In my case, we were briefed by Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, and George Tenet, the director of the CIA. We were told with certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to develop more. Now, there is no question that in the past Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That has been proven. He used them. He used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He used them against the Kurds. And he used them against innocent civilians in Iraq. He used them in murderous ways. That is beyond question. But what we were told is that he had them in the fall of 2002, that he was developing more, and that he was an impediment to the peace in the Middle East and to our Nation's security and because of that imminent threat, we needed to exercise preemptive military power to disarm Saddam Hussein. I voted for it. I would do so again being told the same information as we were told then. I imagine that some of my colleagues who voted ``no'' would vote ``no'' again. But the question is we are discovering that things may not have been just what we thought they were. We certainly have won a great military victory. Our armed services, our young men and women in uniform performed admirably and with great courage in Iraq. But we have got two questions, this group has two questions: Fundamentally, is our military mission complete and are we winning the peace in Iraq? And I would submit before I yield to my colleagues that the military mission is not complete and cannot be complete as long as there has not been an accounting of the weapons of mass destruction, where are they and who controls them, and what went wrong regarding our intelligence, how was our intelligence collected, and how was it used by the White House and by the political leadership, and are we doing the right things from a policy standpoint to win the peace. And I suggest that this group of four and many of our colleagues have a lot of questions about this. I know those questions are shared by the American people; I hope we can give voice to these questions in this Iraq Watch. I hope we can come up with some answers or seek those answers from the administration, and I hope we can report back on a regular basis once a week to the American people. I yield now to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the gentleman, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) can, that there was no lack of trying to get that exit strategy from the administration last fall. I wrote letters to the President. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) participated in similar efforts. He and I serve on the Committee on International Relations. There was great efforts at hearings as well as individual letters written to the administration seeking information.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.

Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman is correct, there were not answers. And there were many more questions, certainly in my letter? How much will it cost? How many troops will it take? How many allies will go in with us? How many allies will stay with us in the post-conflict exercise? The military victory was never in doubt. No one doubted that, but the question was what kind of risk were we assuming, would we have friends to help us, to absorb some of the cost and to take on some of the responsibility so that the United States would not alone be the subject of frustration and anger after the fact, which is exactly what is happening. Thirty American soldiers have been assassinated, attacked, ambushed and assassinated since the President declared military victory. About 75 altogether have died, but 30 have been killed directly.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman; and before we go any further, we have been joined by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for pointing out the inconsistency of our admirable generosity to those overseas and our moral obligation to help rebuild a nation, a country that we had to use military power against but our failure to live up to that same moral obligation to our own citizens. Let me ask my colleagues to respond to what we would like to see happen in Iraq. There are 8 or 10 or 15 things perhaps that we might recommend. I would suggest one, and perhaps my colleagues can make further comment. I think we need to start with a full explanation by the President of his vision for what is happening, for the costs that he believes will be necessary to complete the reconstruction, the timetable for that, the number of U.S. military forces that would be needed. The President needs to come clean. He has a growing credibility gap in my view because of the use and possible misuse of the intelligence leading up to the war, the statements made with such certainty that we are now learning the White House was being advised by intelligence agencies that things were not so certain at all and by the fact, as we have commented earlier tonight, that since the President, as our colleague from Illinois says, flew onto that aircraft carrier and declared victory, that 30 American soldiers have been assassinated and 84, as the gentleman points out, have died in some fashion since military victory has been declared. We need to know what the President thinks. We need to know what he believes will be necessary. He has got to tell the American people what is coming. That would be my suggestion for just a fundamental need.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think our time is getting short. Any final comments from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt)?

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). The Iraq Watch is going to be hard at work. I thank my colleagues for being part of this. We will be back next week to ask more questions, to seek more information, and to try to better educate our colleagues in the Congress and the American people regarding the challenges of our role in Iraq.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the situation in the Middle East. Our government has embarked on a journey promoting the so-called roadmap to peace, and I sincerely hope that the road we are taking is straight and wide and safe, but I am deeply worried. I support the concept of the roadmap, and I support the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I do not believe the timing is right. Neither the Bush administration nor the Israeli Government, under pressure from the Bush administration, has required enough of the Palestinians for us to continue successfully on the road at this time. Simply put, we need the Palestinians to crack down on terror, and they have not done it. In today's Washington Post it was reported that the administration has reversed years of American policy and decided to provide $20 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. The amount of money is not huge, but the symbolism is. The theory behind the policy change has some merit, as it hopefully would strengthen the hand of Prime Minister Abbas. But I believe we must demand and see a much greater commitment toward peace and the end of terrorism from the Palestinians before we reward them with money or support that could, in fact, be used against the Israeli people. In my opinion, before we seriously pursue the roadmap and before we send $20 million to the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Authority should take concrete action to arrest terrorist leaders, to confiscate terrorist weapons, to dismantle terrorist organizations, to change the cultural bias that allows anti-Semitism to be taught in the schools and broadcast on radio and TV, and to stop honoring suicide terrorists with public posters and street names. Until the Palestinian Authority cracks down on terror, the Palestinian cause should not be rewarded with a Palestinian state. We can make progress in the Middle East, we must make progress in the Middle East, but with this progress we must demand effective action from the Palestinians to stop terror. This will protect the innocent as we move down that road to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. If I could reclaim my time for a moment just to point out that the gentleman is pointing out that the Bush administration has a growing credibility gap regarding its prior claims and the evidence that is forthcoming after the conflict. And I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) was the first on this floor to my knowledge to raise the questions about the accusations regarding the country of Niger in Africa. I wonder if the gentleman would share the latest information that has been made public on that score.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, it is.

Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman will yield on that point, is he aware that the Bush tax cuts in 2004 will reduce revenues about $60 billion, and that for $1 billion we could fully fund our obligations to all of the veterans, including category 7 and category 8 veterans, so that they all would get the health care that we promised all veterans? We are $1 billion short. Now, $1 billion is a lot of money.

Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman is correct. We are appropriating $29 billion next year for veterans health care. We need $30 billion to meet all of our obligations, our moral obligations, and we are not measuring up, and it is wrong.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on and to include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.