Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution today, awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to a great leader of a great country who is and has been a great ally of ours. But it is true that Prime Minister Blair, as President Bush, both have a credibility problem regarding weapons of mass destruction. And it is interesting to see how England is dealing with this problem. They are dealing with it forthrightly, openly. The Parliament has held hearings. Two members of the British Cabinet who resigned in protest have testified. The Prime Minister has subjected himself to questions and they are dealing with this, I believe from a far, it seems to be a very open process, a very forthright process; and the public in England will get the information they need to make a judgment about whether their intelligence was on the mark, whether the intelligence was given to their leaders based upon what they thought the leaders might want to hear. Was the intelligence misused by the British leadership? Was it inaccurate? And I think they have dealt with it very forthrightly.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening in this country. We are not seeing the administration stepping forward to deal with the growing credibility gap that has arisen because we cannot find the weapons of mass destruction. We know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he used them in the past against his own people in a very murderous way, no question about it; but we cannot find them now. We may find them next week, and I hope we do because our credibility is on the line; but we need a full accounting of how we have dealt with this issue. We need to know where those weapons are. We need to maintain safe custody of them. We need to dismantle them. If they are buried in the desert or given to another country, we need to know what is going on and make sure that they cannot be used by anybody else in the future that has evil intent.

But we also need a full accounting of our intelligence operation. What were our leaders told? I know what I was told, Mr. Speaker. I was told publicly and privately by the leading senior advisors to the President, with great certainty I was told that Saddam Hussein last fall had weapons of mass destruction, at the very time it turns out that the Defense Intelligence Agency was circulating a memo that there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein then had weapons of mass destruction.

That is not the public comments nor the private assurances that Members of Congress or the American public were being given at the time of the President's Rose Garden speech September 26, 2002, and several other statements made. Was the President told what the intelligence agencies thought he wanted to hear? Did the President demand just one side of the story? We need an accounting of what has happened. Our credibility is at stake. If we are ever again to embrace the notion of preemptive use of military force which may be necessary in an age of terror when we are dealing with an adversary who does not have a country to defend or a capital city to defend, if we are ever going to use a preemptive strategy again, we must know our intelligence is accurate; otherwise, the doctrine of preemption is unusable.

If we are going to keep this country safe, we have to know what happened. We have to know how well or how poorly our intelligence operation functioned. We need an accounting. We are not getting it from the international relations committee, which last week refused to call for documents. We are not getting it on the floor with the intelligence bill because amendments to have an investigation have been ruled out of order. We have got a document dump at the intelligence committee. I am going to go over and look at those documents, but I do not think that is enough. We need to have an accounting. We need to know what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Abington Senior High School as the recipient of the 2003 Harris Wofford Award presented by Youth Service America and the State Farm Companies Foundation.

The Harris Wofford Award, named for former US Senator Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania, was established in 2002 for the first annual State Farm Awards Luncheon as part of the 13th Annual National Service- Learning Conference. This award honors Harris Wofford's life long ``mission of making service to others the common expectation and common experience of every young person in America''.

An award like this is long overdue for Abington Senior High School since they have been dedicated to community service for years. The service-learning program, which started in 1995, has encouraged the student body to take an active interest in helping the community. The positive impact this program has had on the community as well as the students is immeasurable. The 60,000 hours that students spent last year helping the community is an outstanding accomplishment. As a proud parent of two Abington Senior High School alumni, I am sincerely honored to be able to recognize the students of Abington for their dedication and commitment to helping others. Programs like these not only help the community but also teach our youth the power of working together and helping others.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things wrong with the Republican prescription drug bill. Perhaps more than just two but two I wanted to talk about this evening.

The first is this bill would privatize the program. It would privatize the prescription drug benefit and it would privatize Medicare itself. The second thing wrong with the Republican prescription drug bill is that it would actually forbid, prohibit, any negotiation

by the government with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of the drugs.

Now, let me address the first question. Privatization of this proposed drug benefit is a very bad thing. It would, instead of establishing a drug benefit in Medicare, a guaranteed benefit set by the government, responsible to the Congress as all of the rest of Medicare has been situated and constituted for the past 40 some years, the Republican plan would set up a prescription drug plan through private insurance companies and HMOs.

Now, those companies have a pretty bad track record in terms of delivering the same product year after year at the same price. In fact, they do not. And in the Medicare+Choice program, at least in the Philadelphia area that I represent, the private HMOs have been increasing the costs of Medicare+Choice, taking away the benefit, making a program that they offered a very elaborate benefit at a relatively low cost and taking away those benefits and increasing the costs.

The same thing would happen if we set up a prescription drug program through a privatized insurance based system.

The second thing wrong with this privatization is after 10 years they will privatize Medicare itself through this voucher concept that would have vouchers made available in a particular area based upon all of the bidding done by private companies and HMOs as well as Medicare. And that balanced figure, that blended figure would be the voucher provided for an individual to purchase Medicare. And what would happen is the companies would undercut Medicare, they would attract younger seniors and healthier seniors, they would be allowed, therefore, to save money because they would not be paying as many bills, and each year in each cycle of bidding those private companies would be able to drop their premiums lower than what Medicare would have to charge. Medicare would be stuck with older seniors and sicker seniors and it would be the end of Medicare as we know it. That is what this is going to be achieved if we allow the privatization of Medicare in this bill.

The second major problem is the prohibition on negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. I do not get it. I do not understand it. What is the point of setting up a Medicare based prescription drug plan if we do not use the Federal Government's bargaining power to negotiate with the large pharmaceutical companies for a lower price? That is the whole point. That is why other countries that have large bargaining units negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies have much lower prices than we do.

The Committee on Government Reform under the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), just did a study in my district. The seniors in the 13th Congressional District of Pennsylvania benefit paid twice as much for their drugs as seniors pay for the very same drugs on average in Canada, England, France, Germany and Italy, twice as much because those countries have a combination of bargaining power that they use to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.

This Republican bill prohibits such negotiation by the Secretary of HHS with the drug companies. That is nonsensical and that alone is a good reason to vote no. Those are two reasons. There are many more. We should defeat this bill. Pass the substitute proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and give seniors a real prescription drug program.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House with a number of my colleagues who will be joining me later, notably the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), to talk about Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great military victory in Iraq. Our young men and women performed with great courage and great effectiveness. We are all very proud of our military and the fact that the threat of the Saddam Hussein regime is no longer present to threaten regional and world peace. But we have two questions that we believe need to be addressed: First, is our military mission complete in Iraq? Secondly, having won the military victory, are we winning the peace?

Regarding the military mission, I would suggest to the House that our mission is not complete without a full accounting of the weapons of mass destruction. There is no question that the primary purpose for invading Iraq put forward by the administration last year and accepted by a majority of the Members of Congress, myself included, was for the purpose of disarming Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. There is no question that Hussein had such weapons in the past. The international United Nations inspectors were finding them in the mid and late 1990s. Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, notably chemical weapons, against his own citizens with devastating and brutal effects. No one has dreamt up or made up the motion that Hussein had in the past weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he did. But we cannot find them now. We do not know where they are. Perhaps they are buried in the desert and we will find them next week. I hope that is the case. Perhaps he gave them to some other group or some other country. Perhaps he destroyed them. We do not know what happened, but many of us in the House believe that we must have a full accounting of what happened to the weapons of mass destruction before our military mission is complete, for two basic reasons. First off, we need to know where they are. If they are not in Iraq and have been given or taken someplace else, we need to secure them, to dismantle them. We need to know who has the custody of them.

If they are in Iraq, we have to find them. We have to make sure that the coalition forces gain custody of those weapons of mass destruction and not another group that might use them for evil purposes. If these weapons have been destroyed, all for the better; but we need to know why our intelligence did not know that fact. We frankly need to know what happened to them so that we could be sure that the world has been rid of that particular group of weapons of mass destruction and that, if they do exist, they are in safe custody.

The second reason that we need a full accounting of the weapons of mass destruction is to determine what has happened regarding our intelligence and the political use of that intelligence by the Bush administration in the arguments to support war in Iraq. There is no question that the Bush administration and the leading senior advisors to the President stated with complete certainty in the fall of 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was developing more weapons of mass destruction, and posed an imminent threat to the region and, in fact, to the world. In private briefings and in public statements, the President of the United States and his senior advisors assured Members of Congress and the American people that the weapons of mass destruction existed, that they were being developed in even greater numbers, and that they posed an imminent threat. And many of us, myself included, based our vote in favor of military action against Iraq for the primary purpose of disarming Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. Now we cannot find them.

More troubling, now stories are appearing in the press and intelligence analysts are stepping forward, only on the record if they have retired, off the record if they still are at work for the United States, saying, in fact, they were not giving such certain advice to the White House in the fall of 2002, that they were saying we cannot be sure what kinds of weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had in the fall of 2002.

On September 26, 2002, the President made a speech in the Rose Garden stating with great certainty that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and was developing additional chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and yet at the same time it now has become public. The Defense Intelligence Agency in September, 2002, was circulating a report through the White House in the highest levels of the administration saying ``there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein currently had weapons of mass destruction or was developing more weapons of mass destruction.'' There was some evidence, but no credible evidence that that was a certainty. And that lack of certainty did not make its way into the public and private arguments made by the administration. So many of us feel that the Bush administration has a growing credibility gap regarding the weapons of mass destruction.

Why does this matter? It matters greatly for the President's new doctrine of preemption, of the preemptive use of military power to stop an enemy. I do believe in an age of terror when we are dealing with adversaries that do not always come from another country who do not always have a capital city to defend or a homeland to defend when we are dealing with terrorists who are not only faceless but stateless that it may be necessary to take preemptive military action if we are faced with an imminent threat to

this country. But that presupposes that we have accurate intelligence. It is one thing to respond to an attack against us. That is the way America has always gone to war once we have been attacked, and it is easy, of course, in the traditional sense of warfare to see an armada massing in the bay or an army building on our borders to know that an attack is imminent.

In an age of terror, we will not always have that warning; so preemptive action may be wise and necessary in the future, but we must have accurate intelligence. We must be able to depend upon that intelligence. We must be able to depend upon the intelligence analysts bringing the information forward in a timely fashion, giving their best advice to the President and the White House, and then we have to depend upon the President and the White House using that information appropriately and wisely, using it to inform Congress and the American people, not to mislead Congress and the American people.

We do not know at this point what exactly happened regarding our intelligence. We do not know whether it was misused by anyone intentionally or unintentionally. We do not know whether the White House heard what it wanted to hear in these intelligence briefings. We do not know whether the intelligence briefings told the White House what the briefers thought the White House wanted to hear, nor do we know whether Congress was told what people only wanted us to know or perhaps what they thought they wanted us to know.

But these questions have to be answered because it goes to the very root of our democratic system, our checks and balances, the proper relationship between the executive and the legislative branches and whether or not we can have faith in the accuracy of our national intelligence agencies and in the proper use of that intelligence.

Before I go any further, we have been joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations and an eloquent spokesman on foreign policy and national security, my good friend; and I yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that according to reports, the CIA informed the White House of the lack of accuracy of these reports in March of 2002, a full 10 months before the President's State of the Union Address this past January?

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman a question along this line of the growing credibility gap. I am sure the gentleman has heard about the two supposedly mobile labs that have been found in Iraq after the conflict. I wonder if the gentleman saw the news today about what appears to have been their actual use.

Mr. Speaker, the latest is that reports are now circulating that instead of being used for biological or chemical laboratories, these two trucks were used to make hydrogen for the purpose of filling up the Iraqi weather balloons needed by Iraqi artillery and used by all artilleries to gauge wind and currents and so forth to make their artillery shooting accurate. It appears that the loose canvas covering on these trucks would not be conducive to their use as chemical or biological laboratories and that the equipment there is probably designed for hydrogen production.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and particularly for his suggestion. I think it is a very good one.

There is no doubt that we need an independent and nonpolitical review of the performance of our intelligence agencies and the use to which that intelligence was put. And I think an independent commission such as the gentleman describes is an excellent idea and one that I would certainly support.

We have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who was a passionate advocate on matters of national security and foreign policy; and I am happy to yield such time to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, his comments about Vietnam, I think, are very telling and warrant some consideration. One of my great concerns before the military involvement in Iraq started was not whether we would win that military confrontation. That was never in doubt. But how we would act afterwards and would we be perceived in perception or reality as a colonial power, an occupying power, or one that was there to liberate and help Iraqis gain control of their own lives.

Now, I have noticed that the United States asked the United Nations to name us and the British occupying powers, using that phrase in the U.N. resolution of a week or two ago, occupying powers, which seems to me to be sending the wrong signal to the rest of the world about what our role in Iraq should be. And the gentleman's comments about Vietnam, what I most recall about our quagmire in Vietnam was how poorly our Presidents explained the Vietnam policy to the American people.

Absolutely right. And the great failing I see now is the inability of the current President to explain the costs, the challenges, and the time lines facing us as occupying powers, if you will, in Iraq.

The gentleman was there. I would be fascinated to hear his response based upon his firsthand observation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here just 5 years. I have often heard of the gentleman's eloquence and passion, and he has proven it tonight with great glory.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has framed the issue very well. There are many things we need to be talking about regarding the post-conflict situation in Iraq: how to secure it properly because security is a huge issue; and how to bring not just democracy to the people of Iraq but the institutions of democracy, free press, free speech, a noncorrupt judicial system.

The gentleman talks about the need for a full disclosure by the President of the costs of the commitment, the challenges and the time line that we face in Iraq.

As we close tonight, I cannot think of a better request we can make of the President, to tell the American people and the Congress what we will be facing in Iraq. If the people do not know, they will not support it. And if times get tough, and they have been, 17 people have died in Iraq since hostilities have supposedly ended.

It is staggering. We need a full description and a full setting-forth of the challenge by the President. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I will be joined by several colleagues this evening in a discussion about Iraq, with two fundamental questions to be addressed: First, are we winning the peace in Iraq after our impressive and important military victory, are we winning the peace in Iraq? And secondly, where in the world are the weapons of mass destruction?

I will be joined shortly by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the minority caucus chair and a senior member of the Committee on International Relations, and by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations, and several others. We would like to have a colloquy this evening amongst ourselves to discuss this issue, to raise these issues for the American people.

Let me make a few points to get us started. We all agree that our Armed Forces performed brilliantly in Iraq. We are very proud of our young men and young women in uniform, and the military victory we won was important in that it removed the threat posed to regional and even world peace by the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. But while the military victory is ours, the military mission is not yet accomplished, because we have not found and disarmed and dismantled the weapons of mass destruction.

There must be an accounting to Congress, to the American people, and to our allies regarding the weapons of mass destruction. They are certainly, in the hands of a terrorist, the greatest security challenge we face, and yet we do not know where the weapons of mass destruction are today. We need to determine what we must do to disarm and dismantle them. We must determine who has the custody of those weapons and what steps we must require of any new custodian to render those weapons harmless. If the weapons have been destroyed, then how did that happen, and how is it possible that our security agencies would not have known? And, fundamentally, did the Bush administration overstate its case for war against Iraq, based upon weapons of mass destruction? Did the administration mislead the Congress and the American people intentionally, or not, about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program? Did the Bush administration misuse the intelligence gathered by our national security agencies? Did they hear only what they wanted to hear? Did they believe only what they wanted to believe? Or did they tell us only what they wanted us to hear about the weapons of mass destruction?

The Bush administration has a growing credibility gap, Mr. Speaker, regarding the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we must have a full accounting.

Let me quickly touch on the second topic before turning to my colleagues, and that would be whether we are winning the peace in Iraq. We are faced with enormous challenges: peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and building a new government. And the truth is that events in post-conflict Iraq are not going as well as they should. Security is a huge problem. Rampant lawlessness is blocking the economic recovery and the establishment of a civil society that we all want to achieve. Humanitarian aid is lacking. Reconstruction has not even started. And the establishment of a pluralistic and representative government seems a very long way off as the demands of religious and ethnic groups are loud and unresolved.

What are we doing in Iraq to deal with this? We have replaced all of the senior administrators that we first sent under Jay Garner and have replaced them with a new crew under Paul Bremmer. We have won the United Nations' approval by the Security Council of U.N. Resolution 1483 which names the U.S. and Great Britain as occupying powers, occupying powers under international law in Iraq. So we are responsible for the recovery, the reconstruction, the administration, and the establishment of a new government in Iraq as the occupying power.

Well, what have we done to get the ball rolling here? First came the Chalabi plan, Ahmed Chalabi, a 30- or 35-year exile from Iraq, head of the Iraqi National Congress. He visited my office on October 3, 2002. I believe he was making the rounds of members of the Committee on International Relations. To tell my colleagues the truth, I found Mr. Chalabi to be a blowhard, to be a blusterer, full of spin, the kind of man my grandfather would have called a four-flusher.

I am not quite sure what that means, but I think Achmed Chalaby meets the definition.

The Pentagon civilian leadership believed Achmed Chalaby, believed him when he said that Saddam Hussein had vast stores of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found. They believed Chalaby when he said there was a close connection between al Qaeda and Hussein. That connection has not been established.

The Pentagon civilian leadership believed Chalaby when he said the Shiite Muslims in the south of Iraq would greet American military forces as liberators, greet them with open arms. Instead, they are treating us as occupiers and colonizers.

We flew Mr. Chalaby in with 700 followers. We armed him. We gave him arms, Mr. Speaker. We have now had to take those arms away because he does not have credibility.

The second plan was the Group of Seven plan to take seven so-called leaders, mostly exiles like Chalaby, and put them in as an interim authority to run Iraq. We have had to give up on that. Jay Garner could not get that to happen.

The third plan now is the Bremer plan. Under the Bremer plan, Paul Bremer, the new viceroy, American Viceroy in Iraq, will appoint a 25- to 30-person advisory council to give us advice on how to rule Iraq. We are not forming an interim authority or government, as we spoke of before. We hope to establish by fiat what really should come from within, from the people of Iraq.

So we have some very real challenges. I have more comments to make, but I have colleagues here who are anxious to join this debate and engage in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he is aware of some of the comments made by the administration last fall in the lead-up to the votes, the very important votes taken in Congress and in the United Nations regarding the war on Iraq. Statements of certainty from the President and other high administration officials have not been supported by recent disclosures from the intelligence agencies, the kinds of problems that I believe are leading to the credibility gap that I see growing here.

Let me give the gentleman a couple of examples, and I would be interested in his comment.

President Bush said in the Rose Garden on 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.''

However, at the very time, the Defense Intelligence Agency was circulating a report in September of 2002 which said there was ``no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities.''

This and other information led Greg Thielmann, who retired from the State Department in September 2002 as director of the Strategic Proliferation and Military Issues Office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, who reviewed this classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies in the run-up to the debate in the Congress and the U.N., to accuse the administration of distorting intelligence and presenting conjecture as fact. And he was quoted this week by the Associated Press as saying, ``What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say.''

Is the gentleman aware of these statements and inconsistencies, and would he care to comment on them?

The certainty that was used by the Bush administration to present this information in the fall of 2002 I think is a critical issue here. It is not completely clear at this point what all of the intelligence agencies were saying. Their information is becoming declassified and is beginning to be made public, but it is very clear what administration leaders were saying. In addition to the President, whom I already quoted also on September 26, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told reporters, ``Iraq has active development programs. Iraq has weaponized chemical and biological weapons.'' Yet a national intelligence estimate of October 2002, which was reputed to have said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when we look at the backup material that is just being declassified, it is much more equivocal.

The question is was the intelligence wrong or were the political leaders who were getting that intelligence misusing it? Were they hearing what they wanted to hear? Were they telling us what they thought we ought to hear? Were these innocent mistakes? Were they unintentionally mishandling the information, or was it more sinister?

I think these are fundamental questions that need to be asked if the gentleman is right; that if we are going to evaluate this new doctrine of preemption, a fundamental part of that has to be faith and credibility that our fear of

imminent attack from another nation is an accurate fear, and if it is not an accurate fear, then the whole notion of preemption cannot possibly work.

I know my colleagues are anxious to respond, but we have been joined by a senior member of the House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who is sitting patiently and I think has quite a bit he would like to add to the discussion. So I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman a question, I am glad he moved us on to the questions of reconstruction and new governance in Iraq. It seems to me the biggest problem facing America in post-conflict Iraq is the perception, if not the reality, that we are an occupying colonial power as opposed to a liberating power, anxious to work internationally with existing organizations to develop a representative government.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts I think has a comment.

The gentleman from New Jersey speaks very eloquently about congressional responsibilities, the things we ought to be asking about. You were talking about how to get a representative government started in Iraq. It seems to me that what Congress ought to be pushing the administration to focus on in our efforts to create liberty is to create the institutions of liberty first. We cannot have a democratic system in Iraq if they do not have the institutions of a free press and a functioning judiciary and the traditions of free speech and a civil society and a noncorrupt bureaucracy. In fact, all that needs to be founded in some written constitution that has public support and public input. What does my colleague think we need to do to achieve that, if he agrees with me that that is the fundamental goal that we have got to establish first before democracy is ever going to come to the people of Iraq?

Would the gentleman agree that using NATO as a peacekeeping force might be the right thing to do in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

I thank the gentleman for his comments, for his leadership in the House and his eloquence on the House Committee on International Relations.

Would my friend from New Jersey like to make some final remarks as our time is short?

I thank my colleagues for joining me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Upper Dublin Lutheran Church, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, on its 250th anniversary of community involvement and dedication.

Since its beginning in 1753, the Upper Dublin Lutheran Church has represented the efforts of an entire community. The building itself has changed several times, but the underlying spirit never wavered.

The Upper Dublin Lutheran Church represents a long history of helping the community. The church's involvement includes helping soldiers as far back as the Revolutionary War. The dedication of its members continued, even when the church itself was destroyed and rebuilt. A tradition was started with Harvest Homes when members of the community would bring fruits and vegetables they could spare from their harvest to give to the less fortunate. The church also started ``Puff's Broadcaster,'' a 12-page monthly newsletter providing poetry, business tips, stories of moral integrity, and important announcements for the community.

Today the Upper Dublin Lutheran Church still stands as a symbol of service and tradition to the Upper Dublin community. The ``Build to Witness'' campaign has provided a magnificent new facility for Sunday school and continues to provide spiritual leadership accompanied by devoted community outreach programs. I am confident that the impact the church has had since its establishment will continue in the future. I wish the members of the church continued success and commend them for 250 years of service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. This amendment contains many important provisions, most notably language regarding the Tacony Warehouse.

In September of 2001, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission released a long-term plan to redevelop and revitalize the North Delaware Riverfront located in Philadelphia. The plan is to transform the area from a corridor of abandoned industry and shipping to one of recreation and leisure, business and residential living.

A key component of this plan is the demolition of the Tacony Warehouse, an abandoned 1988 BRAC site that is under the administrative responsibility of the United States Army. Congress included $5 million in the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill to demolish this building, yet the United States Army has taken no action to destroy the property.

My amendment expresses the Sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Army should take swift action to finally demolish the Tacony Warehouse. It is imperative that the Tacony Warehouse be destroyed in order for the City of Philadelphia and the Tacony Community Development Corporation to move forward with their efforts to revitalize Northeast Philadelphia.

I wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important first step in ensuring that the Army moves forward in demolishing the Tacony Warehouse, as previously required by Congress. I look forward to working with Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha in securing the necessary Federal commitments so that their instructions to the Army in fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill are realized.

Revitalizing our nation's riverfronts will leave our cities economically stronger and more sustainable. I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to require the President to make an annual report to Congress and to the American people on the number of nuclear warheads that are dismantled each year by either the Americans or by the Russians under the terms of the Moscow Treaty.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most pressing issues we face is the question of nuclear nonproliferation. A year ago, Presidents Bush and Putin signed the Moscow Treaty, the Treaty on Strategic Defensive Reductions. It is a good treaty and is good for this country. It is only three pages long, however, quite a change from the 900-page START treaties of prior negotiations.

It does not establish a timetable for implementation. It lacks verification. But the most striking change that I think we need to address is that there

is no requirement that the warheads that are reduced from the 5,000 or 6,000 that each side currently possesses down to 1,700 or 2,000, there is no requirement that those warheads be dismantled. They could be retired, put into a closet someplace and brought back on a moment's notice.

I think it is in the best interests of this country that those warheads be dismantled and that the President make an annual report to the Congress on how many of those warheads are being dismantled, both by this country and by the other side, so that Congress can, through that mechanism, verify the progress and verify that the disarmament is occurring.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a leader in nonproliferation issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his kind comments and simply close by in turn thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) and the majority side and majority staff for their cooperation on this amendment and for their cooperation on this issue. I am glad that there is bipartisan agreement, and I salute the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) and thank him for his cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Salford Hills Elementary School of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary on May 20, 2003.

Since it was created out of five one-room schoolhouses in 1953, Salford Hills Elementary School has been constantly growing. Its teachers and staff have done a remarkable job of molding students into outstanding citizens in the community. In 1993, the school was named as a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence by the United States Department of Education, the highest honor that a school can receive.

Salford Hills Elementary School provides an excellent educational environment in which students are encouraged to achieve and develop responsibility for their own educations through hard work and reflection. Salford Hills Elementary prides itself on ensuring that all students receive the positive support and attention that they need to learn and achieve.

I commend Salford Hills Elementary School on its 50 years of service to its students and to the greater Montgomery County community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Matthew J. Ryan, the former Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Speaker Ryan, who passed away on March 29, 2003, dutifully served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for over 40 years. I am glad to see that his life and work are being honored here today in the United States House of Representatives, and I deeply share the sentiments expressed in H. Res. 178.

Speaker Ryan climbed the ranks in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and I had the distinct pleasure of working with him while he was serving as the Majority Leader and then when he was first elected as Speaker in 1981. His leadership and sense of humor will be greatly missed as will his tireless work for the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Matt Ryan had a very effective way of maintaining order in the Pennsylvania House from the Speaker's chair. When the debate became loud and tempers were flaring, Matt would gently tap the gavel on the desk rather than bang the gavel head, and his gentle persuasion always returned the House to order.

I also want to express my condolences to Speaker Ryan's wife and family on their loss. I thank them for sharing Speaker Ryan with us with the people he represented. Speaker Matthew J. Ryan will be greatly missed, and I am very grateful to him and the work he did throughout his career.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to talk about the situation in Iraq and discuss whether or not we are taking the necessary steps to win the peace in that country. We have just seen a remarkable and important military victory in Iraq. We were successfully able to remove the threat posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein, remove his threat that was a direct confrontation with regional peace, and even world peace, due to his murderous regime and what we believe to be his possession of weapons of mass destruction. Our Armed Forces performed brilliantly. Our young men and women in uniform were brave and courageous, did everything that their military leaders and their political leaders asked them to do, and performed in an outstanding manner. We are proud of what they have done. All of America should be proud of our armed services today.

While the military victory is ours, the military mission is not yet fully accomplished. While we have deposed Saddam Hussein, we have not yet found his weapons of mass destruction, weapons that he had in the early and mid-1990s. The United Nations inspectors were finding them then. We must find those weapons now and destroy them or find out where they have been taken or hidden and hold their new owners accountable for their safe disposal.

But now that we have achieved this wonderful military victory, the question is, can we also win the peace. I think the answer right now is that we are not yet winning the peace in Iraq. Iraq is posing very significant challenges to its own people, to the coalition partners, and to everyone in the world interested in social justice and the creation of democratic countries with economic opportunity and freedom for people.

In Iraq there are some major challenges today. Security remains a huge challenge. There has been looting, lawlessness, car-jackings, break-ins. Humanitarian aid is lagging. There is a great need for medicine, for clean water, electricity. Relief workers are reporting it hard to do their jobs because of the lack of their own personal safety in Iraq. The much-needed reconstruction has not started yet. The demands of religious and ethnic groups are loud and unresolved, and the advent of pluralism and self-government seems to be a very long way off.

Two reports today help to illustrate these problems. The International Committee for the Red Cross, in an Iraq bulletin dated today, May 13, 2003, reports in Baghdad and central Iraq, under the general situation that security is, by far, the most important concern for Iraqis. Numerous security incidents happen daily in the capital: looting, banditry, ambushes, car-jacking, physical attacks and killings. Schools have reopened, which is very good news; but most parents are concerned about their children's safety.

The International Committee for the Red Cross reports on the medical situation in Baghdad hospitals. Hospitals and health centers are open again, functioning at about 50 percent of their capacity; but in most places, the cleaning staff have not yet returned to work. The main needs at the medical facilities are fuel to run the electricity and to simply transport the staff to and from the hospitals. Salaries and specific medical and surgical supplies are in need. Water is being distributed and electricity is available in hospitals, but only for a few hours a day.

In the community, reports the Red Cross, water and sanitation is a huge issue, again because of the lack of security. The looting of essential facilities is severely obstructing normal work. The Red Cross reports that one water plant recently visited had its generator and two main pumps stolen. Electricity production has not improved over the last 10 days, and there are huge problems in economic security as well, according to the Red Cross. They are delivering blankets and distributing food and nonfood items; market prices are much higher than they were before the war. Food stocks in average households could last for up to a month, but the average family has huge problems with a lack of cash income and the shortage of fuel and gas.

Also today, Mr. Speaker, the BBC reported from Basra in a report dated May 13, 2003, of some of the problems they are having in that area. Cholera is endemic. There have been 19 cases identified in Basra in the last 2 days alone. Dirty water is being blamed for that outbreak. They have problems with a variety of gastroenteritis and even hepatitis. The BBC reports that doctors have to function and practice in ill-equipped hospitals where they have just barely enough drugs and intervenous fluids to treat the victims, but the victims are afraid to come to the hospitals because of the lack of security. Finally, in Basra, car-jacking is a crime described by the BBC as taking off. If people go out in a decent car, the chances apparently are good that they will be walking home after being car-jacked.

So, Mr. Speaker, the problems are clear. And in the last several weeks the efforts by the United States on the ground in postconflict Iraq are certainly well-meaning, but they often seem poorly planned, reactive to events rather than anticipating events, and out of touch with the reality of post-Saddam Iraq. In every major area we seem to have problems. The major challenges are peace-keeping, humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and new governance. And in every area we have problems. We are not projecting the confidence or success that we should project with the quick and unanticipated rotation of American officials that we are seeing in and out of Iraq. Apparently, every day, changes are being made. Most of us were just getting used to the notion of Jay Garner running the American operation. Well, he is out and Paul Bremmer is in. And seven or eight of the American officials that came with Jay Garner are apparently on their way out of the country as well.

Finally, there are obvious disturbing and harmful conflicts and jealousies between our own State Department and our own Department of Defense. We are not working from the same page.

Now, what are we going to do about all of this? What has the Bush administration proposed lately to try to resolve and address all of these problems? Well, I believe they have made a startling proposal from the White House: a draft resolution asking the United Nations to recognize the United States of America and Great Britain as occupying powers in Iraq, occupying powers, for at least 1 year's duration and, most likely, far beyond. And the question is tonight, Do we want this country to be an occupying power in Iraq or anyplace else, for that matter?

I think it is worth taking a look at some of the details of the draft proposal submitted by the United States last Friday to the United Nations, a proposal that the United States hopes the U.N. Security Council will approve after reflection and debate. It suggests that the United States of America and the United Kingdom, our great ally, be recognized as occupying powers under applicable international law. The resolution goes on to designate Great Britain and the United States as the authority and calls upon the authority to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective administration of the territory to restore conditions of security and stability so that the Iraqi people may freely determine their own political future.

Now, those are worthy goals, goals that all of us can share. The question is, do we really want the United Nations Security Council to designate the United States and Great Britain as the authority responsible for making this happen, as occupying powers? The draft resolution goes on to suggest that the Secretary General work with this new authority, the United States and Great Britain and the people of Iraq, with respect to the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance.

The resolution further calls upon the Security Council to support the formation by the people of Iraq with the help of the authority of an Iraqi interim authority as a transitional administration. The resolution further says that

the U.N. Security Council should decide that funds in the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall be disbursed at the direction of the authority, that is, the direction of the United States and Great Britain as an occupying power. The Iraqi Assistance Fund would be set up by virtue of cooperation between the International Monetary Fund, the Arab Fund, the World Bank, and other donations. The draft resolution calls upon the Security Council to decide that all export sales of petroleum and petroleum products and all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into the Iraqi Assistance Fund, that fund to be controlled by the United States and Great Britain as occupying powers.

Finally, the draft resolution calls upon the U.N. Security Council to recognize Great Britain and the United States for the exercise of the responsibilities set forth in this resolution for an initial period of 12 months from the date of adoption, to continue thereafter as necessary until the Security Council decides otherwise.

So this resolution would have the United States and Great Britain deemed occupying powers, referred to as the authority, and given full responsibility to implement this resolution for at least 12 months, and to continue in that capacity unless the Security Council acts affirmatively to stop that grant of authority. Certainly this authority is considered by its proponents to be of duration well beyond 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, this House has to decide whether it is in the best interest of the United States to be such an occupying power, for 1 year, for 1 month, for 10 years. Do we want that role for this country, or do we want to internationalize operations in Iraq, seek help from allies, and turn to a multilateral rather than a unilateral approach to the challenges in Iraq?

The morning after our military victory, we awoke to those four challenges I have referred to: peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and governance. How we face those challenges will determine whether we win the peace, whether we win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, whether we enhance our status in the Muslim world and maintain our credibility as the leader of free and democratic nations.

I fear we could fail to meet those challenges if we pursue an aggressive, antagonistic, confrontational diplomacy that makes demands on our allies, but does not listen to them. We could fail if we embrace unilateralism and abandon our traditional reliance on multilateralism. And we could fail if we allow the reality or even the appearance of an American military colonial government in Iraq. And certainly asking the United Nations to designate us as an occupying power comes very close to that military colonial government approach.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest eight steps that we take as a House and as a country to deal with these challenges:

First, the State Department, not the Defense Department, should now be in charge of American policy in Iraq. It is time to turn to the diplomats who have a history of working with other countries to try to foster democracy, to try to nation-build, a term President Bush used to disparage, but now he is jumping in with both feet to embrace. I think the State Department is better suited to our needs in Iraq now that the military victory has been so well won by the Defense Department.

Secondly, we should internationalize the stabilization and reconstruction operations as much as we can and not try to do this all by ourselves or with Great Britain or just with our coalition partners.

Thirdly, American troops in the field will certainly be needed for some period of time to help keep the peace; and, in fact, military operations on a, happily, much smaller scale are still occurring, but we should move quickly to spread the burden of peacekeeping in Iraq, and I suggest we turn to NATO. NATO is a robust military alliance that has the ability and the military punch to take on peacekeeping in Iraq. NATO defeated one tyrant in Kosovo and can surely keep order in post- Saddam Iraq.

Fourth, while emergency relief certainly must begin with the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development, which have decades of experience of relief operations, and which have strong relations with nongovernmental organizations around the world, there is no organization with more experience in humanitarian relief than the United Nations. It has vast resources, great experience and expertise. These attributes are unparalleled, and clearly the United Nations needs to be involved directly as the organization that would lead efforts for humanitarian assistance.

Fifthly, we must engage expert multilateral organizations including the United Nations, certainly the World Bank, certainly the International Monetary Fund, in the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. A debt restructuring meeting is needed to help deal with Iraq's estimated $383 billion of foreign debt, compensation claims, and pending contracts.

Sixth, we should convene a donors conference soon after the military victory. Funds will be needed right away for quick-start reconstruction programs, and we ought to ask the donor nations of the world to come forward quickly for funding. And, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this would be a wonderful opportunity for the Arab world to step forward with its resources and help to rebuild Iraq as part of this international effort.

Seventh, Iraqis must establish corruption-free control over their own oil. We need to help them establish a transparent and reformed industry, transparent in that it accounts for oil revenues and the operations of the oil companies, and an operation that would devote the profits to rebuilding the country itself.

Finally, we should urge the United Nations to sponsor a conference on the formation and direction of a transitional Iraqi-based government. I do not believe it is in our best interest for the United States to be the primary sponsor of an effort under way to set up an interim Iraqi authority. We ought to bring in our allies and our friends and ask the United Nations to do this.

This was done with great skill in Afghanistan, our military victory in Afghanistan. We built on Afghanistan's history of what is called the loya jirga, or the Meeting of Councils, and we, the United Nations, sponsored this loya jirga, and from that operation President Karzai emerged as a leader. And I believe the same thing could be successfully done in Iraq with the sponsorship of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, among many others, have pointed out that we needed to take a hard look at the reality of Iraq as a country. As Carnegie said, ``Iraq is not a political blank slate to be transformed at American will into a democratic, secular, pluralist and Federal state. Instead, Iraq is a difficult country with multiple social groups and power centers with conflicting agendas.''

We need to recognize that difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We need to involve the United Nations in our efforts. We need to build the institutions of democracy. It is absolutely the right long-term goal to be advocating for self-government and the democratic selection of self-government in Iraq, but before we can have successful elections, we need to develop the institutions of democracy. Free press. We need to establish for the first time in Iraq's history the notion of a free press, free to criticize government officials, free to speak freely. We need the notion of free speech in Iraq. Iraq does not have such a history, and no democratic elections will succeed before we establish free speech. That must come first.

We need to create a civil society in Iraq. We need to establish justice, trained lawyers and honest judges, and a justice system that works successfully to redress grievances for average citizens. There is a rule of law vacuum in Iraq, and we must fill that vacuum before we can credibly hold national elections.

We need to create economic opportunity in Iraq to help give people hope and give them a stake in society.

Mr. Speaker, we have got great challenges in Iraq, and I do not mean to minimize those challenges, but we will do best if we call upon our friends, if we institutionalize and internationalize our efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. We should not do this in a unilateral way. We should do

it in a multinational way, and we must surely guard against being perceived as a colonial military power or an occupying power in Iraq.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East and throughout many areas in Europe, there is a great need for economic assistance, and I would suggest this House consider the establishment of a modern-day Marshall Plan, a plan modeled after our great success in Western Europe after World War II in which over 4 years we helped 14 countries with $13 billion of assistance to get those allies and former enemies of ours in World War II back on their feet economically. That $13 billion in the 1940s would be the equivalent of $100 billion today. That is a great deal of money, but that is an amount of money over several budget years, and with the help of our allies around the world, that is certainly achievable.

And what we can achieve with a modern-day Marshall Plan in Iraq and the rest of the world that has those kind of challenges is the establishment of not just economic opportunity where there is now grinding poverty, but the recognition that there is a sense of hopelessness among many in that part of the world, a sense that life cannot possibly be better for them as the future comes forward, a sense that many people have that things can only go downhill, and that their children will be born into more poverty with less opportunity and more hopelessness than they are currently experiencing.

It is that sense of hopelessness that we have got a moral obligation to try to change, and it is in our own national security interest that we would do so, because if we truly want to win the war on terror, which we desperately want to win, and which is certainly the greatest challenge facing us internationally today, we have to make sure we can offer hope and opportunity along with the rest of the civilized world to those countries that have such despair and hopelessness that some people turn in completely irrational ways to the life of suicide bomber or the terrorist rather than turning to a belief in social justice and a pluralistic society.

That is the goal we have for ourselves. That is the challenge we have now. We have an opportunity in Iraq to show that we believe in a multilateral approach to international challenges. We have an opportunity to say we believe in a pluralistic society that gives economic opportunity and creates social justice for people; that we will do so in a thoughtful way that avoids colonialism, avoids occupying power status, but rather turns in collaborative ways with allies in a multinational approach to give hope and opportunity to the people of Iraq and all people in the world that believe as we do in freedom and justice and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Henry Cohen of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, who is celebrating the 50th anniversary of his ordination in the rabbinate.

Henry Cohen was born in 1927 in Houston, Texas into a family of reform rabbis. Rabbi Cohen has been involved with and contributed to Jewish education for his entire career. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Texas as an English major and attending graduate classes in the English Department of the University of Chicago, he entered Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati in 1947. After being ordained in 1953, he served as an Army chaplain at Camp Polk, Louisiana, in Korea and at Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio.

In 1955, he became assistant rabbi at Temple Beth-El in Great Neck, New York. In 1958 Henry became the spiritual leader of Sinai Temple in Illinois. At the university of Illinois he received a Master of Arts Degree in the Philosophy of Education and wrote a study entitled, ``The Idea of God in Jewish Education.'' He also completed a study, ``Jewish Life and Thought in the Academic Community,'' which was included in Marshall Sklare's The Jew in American Society. Continuing in education he taught a course in Judaism at St. Joseph's College during the 1970's. Rabbi Cohen has been teaching introduction to Judaism classes and has completed a research project for the Jewish Outreach Institute designed to discover what actually happens in the families of interfaith married couples who, at the time of their wedding, made a commitment to give their children a Jewish education. He developed a ``Beliefs and Values Survey for Interfaith Couples'' to enable them to clarify the similarities and differences of their religious and moral beliefs.

In 1964, Rabbi Cohen became the rabbi of Beth David Reform Congregation in Philadelphia. There he initiated a bi-cultural Black- Jewish nursery school and was chairman of the Jewish Coalition for Peace. Rabbi Cohen wrote two books: Justice, Justice: A Jewish View of the Black Revolution and Why Judaism?--A Search for Meaning In Jewish Identity.

He has visited the Middle East to gain a new perspective on the Arabs and Israelis. In 1986 Rabbi Cohen, and his wife Edna, visited the Soviet Union where they met the parents of Beth David's Cantor, Lilia Kazansky, and began a successful campaign to fight for their release. The couple gained their freedom in 1987. Rabbi Cohen also encouraged the formation of Chavurah Lahayyim, to support Central American refugees fleeing persecution. Rabbi Cohen helped form the Interfaith Hospitality Network of the Main Line which helps the homeless by providing meals and care in synagogues and churches.

Rabbi Cohen is an honorary board member of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Philadelphia and received the Sylvia K. Cohen award for work in inter-group relations. He has been married to Edna for 45 years with two daughters, Shelley and Lisa.

I am grateful to Rabbi Cohen for his 50 years of service to the Jewish Community and the Philadelphia region as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1298. I want to salute the great work of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and President Bush for coming together to make this $15 billion commitment over 5 years to help curb the spread of AIDS around the world.

One of the best parts of this bill is its balanced approach that treats equally importantly abstinence, marital fidelity, and the use of condoms to fight the spread of AIDS. I salute that balanced approach, and that is why it is so important to defeat the Pitts amendment and the Smith amendment. The Smith amendment would allow faith-based organizations that can be funded under this bill under the terms of the legislation to actively discourage the use of condoms. That makes no sense, and that destroys the balance that is currently in this legislation. The Pitts amendment would allow a particular amount of funding to go specifically and only for programs that only promote abstinence.

Listen, abstinence works perfectly if it is used perfectly, but it is not. Not everybody abstains. We need to pass this bill as is. It is balanced and it is very good.