Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee of Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to associate myself with the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) regarding putting national security second to anything. It is our first priority to protect the American people. It is in the Preamble to the Constitution first to provide for the common defense and we really must revisit this idea, especially at the time of such tremendous need for linguistic skills, especially in the languages expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to thank so many people who made this bill possible, my distinguished chairman for sure, all of the members of the committee acting in bipartisan fashion, and I want to commend the wonderful staff that we have. I want to acknowledge on the Democratic side our counsel Mike Sheehy who heads up the Democratic staff. We do not really think in terms of Democrat and Republican. It just somehow breaks down that way. But we act in a very bipartisan way, members and staff. Chris Healey, Beth Larson, Ilene Romack, Wyndee Parker, Carolyn Bartholomew, Bob Emmett, Kirk McConnell, Marcel Lettre and, again, Mike Sheehy, who heads up our side. I want to commend Tim Sample, who is the major honcho staff person of the Committee, Chris Bartow, Mike Meermans and all of the other members of the staff for all of their hard work. Mr. Speaker, I want to just respond briefly, because the hour is late, very briefly, to the very serious concerns and the sincerity in which they were expressed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). The purpose of the commission is not to assign blame; it is to find out why and how 9-11 happened. I agree with the gentleman, if the purpose is to assign blame, we should not have the commission. That would not be constructive. But we must try our very best to make sure that a 9-11 or anything like it does not happen again; and in order to do that, we have to get to the bottom of it. This commission will build on the work of the Joint Inquiry, in which this committee and the Senate committee have been engaged, and we are very pleased with the work of our staff director, Eleanor Hill, and the very, very able staff of the inquiry. It will build on that. But this commission, the purpose of it is to have fresh eyes take a new fresh look at what happened and also to go beyond those agencies of government that the inquiry has looked at, to look at every agency of government that had any responsibility for protecting the American people from terrorism. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just say as we go into this commission, we are walking on hallowed ground. There is no place for politics or assigning blame here, but we do have a responsibility to reduce risk to the American people, to find answers as to why 9-11 happened, to prevent it from happening again, to provide comfort to the families who have been a source of strength. We try to console them. They are an inspiration and a source of strength to us, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) indicated. Whatever we do, we must bring honor to the memory of those who lost their lives on September 11. I think our work in the Joint Inquiry is an excellent product, will be an excellent product when the report comes out, and that this work of the independent commission will bring honor to the memory of those who died as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader for presenting the schedule for today. Mr. Speaker, is it the gentleman's view that we will have the PAYGO vote today as well, or will that vote be rolled until tomorrow?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if we debated it today, is there a possibility that we would vote on it tomorrow, or has that decision been made?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Leader, could you inform us of the schedule for tomorrow, and would that be the last day of the session?

Ms. PELOSI. I understand that about today. But does the gentleman anticipate that we will be working through the weekend, or will the schedule end tomorrow?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the distinguished gentleman could continue to yield, I would just like to say, Mr. Leader, that I have expressed to you over and over again my dismay that we have only passed two appropriations bills and that we have a tremendous amount of unfinished business before the Congress. However, I will use my remaining time to say that from what you have said, this may be your last or among your last colloquies on the floor of this House; and I would like, as the minority whip, to commend you for your service to the Congress, to wish you well in your future endeavors, and to thank you for your many courtesies.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and extend to him and the entire Minnesota delegation the deepest sympathy of my family and my constituents. I have known Paul and Sheila for a very long time, long before either of us were in Congress, he in the Senate, going back to our days in the Democratic Party in the early 1980s. I have known of his passion for the issues and for working families in our country and his interest in making a difference for them in our country. I rise today to honor Senator Paul Wellstone, Sheila Wellstone, the sadness of their losing their daughter at the same time and to offer my sympathy to the families of those who were lost in that terrible tragedy. To the families of staffers Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic and Mary McEvoy, Mary was a person of so many credentials and all of them much heralded in these sad days, and of the Captains Richard Conroy and Michael Guess, I pray that you can take some comfort in the fact that your loved ones lost their lives in service to our country. To take part in the political process, the process of educating voters about their choices, is indeed a great service to democracy. To David and Mark Wellstone, thank you for sharing your wonderful family with all of us and with the American people. In this era of polls and pundits, Paul Wellstone was that increasingly rare breed, a politician with the courage of his convictions. We see a lot of that here in Congress, but the public is not aware of that. He fought for what he believed in. He voted for what he thought was right regardless of whether it was popular. He stood for something, and he stood his ground. In doing so, he gave voice to the many millions of Americans who cannot afford to make campaign donations and who are struggling just to pay their rent and feed their families. When Paul Wellstone took the floor of the United States Senate, you knew you were going to hear something quite different from what had come before and what was likely to follow. You would hear passion and compassion and sometimes anger. You would hear talk about issues that do not get a great deal of attention these days, social justice, poverty and the responsibility of government to improve the lives of citizens. This was a responsibility that Paul Wellstone lived and breathed, to the good of millions of America's children and families. Paul and Sheila left us not only a memory but a legacy. His legacy of good works will live throughout the country. Sheila's work in terms of domestic violence and so many other issues are being made known to the American people now more generally, but anyone who knew them knew of her commitment and the difference she made in that area. Losing Marcia is another tragedy, leaving her family behind seems to be the saddest of all, but I hope again it is a comfort to those families that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this time. To us in Congress, Paul Wellstone left a special legacy. We can keep his spirit alive and that legacy glowing by standing strong for what we believe in and by bringing both passion and compassion to everything we do. He did that but he brought a great intellect, a great knowledge, a plan of action. He was a great person. Sheila and Paul were a great team. Mr. Speaker, we have already had a service in San Francisco honoring the memory of Sheila and Paul Wellstone, Marcia and the others who perished. I bring from that service, attended by hundreds of people, the sympathy and condolences of my community to the people of Minnesota. I am so sorry.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the distinguished majority leader regarding the schedule.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for that information, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the leader, what day will we be back after the election?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman know what time votes would occur that day?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, continuing to yield to the leader, will we be in through Friday of that week?

Ms. PELOSI. Could the gentleman please shed some light on what legislative business might come up that week? Would there be any appropriations bills?

Ms. PELOSI. Will we have votes the week of November 18, the week before Thanksgiving?

Ms. PELOSI. So we would only be in the week of November 12 and not the following week, the week before Thanksgiving, just to confirm?

Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate the gentleman's information about that week. I have no intention to be on any of those trips. I intend to be here planning for a Democratic majority for the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman tell us, will we be here in December planning for that Democratic majority?

Ms. PELOSI. I know Members will be eager to know, not because of trips but because of the work that is unfinished. I thank the gentleman and I wish him well and thank him for the information. It is my firm hope and desire that the next time we meet to discuss the schedule, we will have a Democratic majority in the House, and we will be preparing for that. Unless the gentleman had any other information on the schedule?

Ms. PELOSI. I wish the gentleman well in all of the endeavors that he pursues outside of this body and outside the political arena. I know we will probably have another colloquy; but just until we meet again, I want to thank the gentleman for his service to the Congress, but I am sure we will have some more opportunities to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time only to say that it is with a level of sadness, not only because of the gentleman's departure from the Congress, but because of the unfinished business of this Congress. The American people expect and deserve for us to have a stimulus package. That remains unfinished business for this Congress, along with unfinished business relating to our children's education with the education bill, the prescription benefit for all seniors, the Patients' Bill of Rights, the threat of privatization of Social Security, and the list goes on and on. Unemployment insurance is expiring for America's unemployed workers, and we have not attended to that business. So I have said on a number of occasions at the end of these colloquies that our work seems irrelevant to the American people because of the challenges that they face economically, healthwise, and otherwise. But now we are less than irrelevant; we are missing in action. I am very sorry. I think that when the Democrats are in the majority that we will be able to account for our responsibilities in a better way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership in presenting this option to the House of Representatives. I also want to commend him for his leadership as a person who speaks for our Armed Services in this Congress, his commitment to provide for the common defense, as provided for in the Preamble of our Constitution. Today, we are all benefiting from his wisdom. The Spratt substitute, Mr. Speaker, captures many of the concerns of the American people who overwhelmingly support a multilateral approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein. The Spratt substitute also honors the Constitution when it says that Congress shall declare war. Some who have opposed the Spratt substitute have done so on the basis that we do not have time to come back to the Congress. This is simply not true. As called for in the Spratt substitute, should the Security Council fail to act in a satisfactory way, we come back to the Congress. I want to speak to the issue of time by quoting what is now declassified but is contained in a letter from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to the chairman of the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this letter, signed by George Tenet. When asked if Saddam did not feel threatened, is it likely he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction, the Director of Central Intelligence responds in this letter and says, ``My judgment would be that the probability of him,'' Saddam, ``initiating an attack, let me put a time frame on it, in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.'' This is the Director of Central Intelligence saying the likelihood of Saddam initiating an attack using weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood, would be low. So it is not about time. It is about the Constitution. It is about this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully aware of what the challenges are to us, and it is about respecting the United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our troops. Force protection. I have been on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 10 years, longer than anyone. My service there is coming to an end. But in the time that I have been there, force protection is one of our top priorities, to protect the men and women in uniform. This letter goes on to say, ``If we initiate an attack,'' if he felt he was threatened, ``if we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical and biological weapons?'' The response, ``Pretty high.'' We are placing our young people in harm's way in a way that can be avoided by taking a multilateral approach first. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership. I will support this with great pride, and I thank him for giving us that opportunity.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his recognition and his kind words. First, I wish to congratulate all of the Members of the House of Representatives for the patriotism that has been demonstrated on this floor in the last 2 days. I think the American people saw something very special. They saw what we show every day, that people here love our country, are committed to its value, and are committed to and respect our men and women in uniform. I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. From that perspective, though, of 10 years on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise in opposition to the resolution on national security grounds. The clear and present danger that our country faces is terrorism. I say flat out that unilateral use of force without first exhausting every diplomatic remedy and other remedies and making a case to the American people will be harmful to our war on terrorism. For the past 13 months, it will be 13 months tomorrow, we have stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush to remove the threat of terrorism posed by the al Qaeda. Our work is not done. Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the other al Qaeda terrorist leaders have not been accounted for. We have unfinished business. We are risking the cooperation that we have from over 60 nations of having their intelligence and their cooperation in fighting this war on terrorism. There are many, many costs involved in this war, and one of them is the cost to the war on terrorism. We cannot let this coalition unravel. Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons. This is a threat not only from him but from other countries of concern in the past. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues a statement about Saddam's use of chemical and biological weapons that was just declassified and sent to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The question is: If we initiate an attack and he thought he was an extremist or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our attack that Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons? This is a letter from George Tenet, the head of the CIA to the committee. The response: Pretty high, if we initiate the attack. Force protection is our top priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We must protect our men and women in uniform. They are courageous. They risk their lives for our freedom, for our country. We cannot put them in harm's way unless we take every measure possible to protect them. So another cost is not only the cost on the war on terrorism but in the cost of human lives of our young people by making Saddam Hussein the person who determines their fates. Another cost is to our economy. The markets do not like war. They do not like the uncertainty of war. Our economy is fragile as it is. The President has spoken. In his speech the other night, he talked about rebuilding Iraq's economy after our invasion. We have problems with our own economy. We must focus on building our own economy before we worry about Iraq's economy after we invade Iraq. So let us do what is proportionate, what is appropriate, which mitigates the risk for our young people. Another cost in addition to human lives, the cost of terrorism, cost to our economy, another cost is to our budget. This cost can be unlimited, unlimited. There is no political solution on the ground in Iraq. Let us not be fooled by that. So when we go in, the occupation, which is now being called liberation, could be interminable and so could the amount of money, unlimited that it will cost, $100-, $200 billion. We will pay any prices to protect the American people, but is this the right way to go, to jeopardize in a serious way our young people when that can be avoided? We respect the judgments of our military leaders. It is a civilian decision to go to war, but the military leaders present us with options which they know are to be a last resort. These costs to the war on terrorism, the loss of life, the cost to our economy, the cost in dollars to our budget, these costs must be answered for. If we go in, certainly we can show our power to Saddam Hussein. If we resolve this issue diplomatically, we can show our strength as a great country, as a great country. Let us show our greatness. Vote no on this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire about the schedule for next week, and I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, there are no votes on Tuesday and no votes on Friday of next week? Suspension votes on Tuesday will be rolled until Wednesday?