[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 103 (Monday, July 14, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6692-H6698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ WATCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Hoeffel) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
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. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for organizing this. It is interesting that
you noted we were militarily successful, and I think everybody takes
pride in what our men and women in uniform did in pursuing the mission
that they were on.
What I think is unfortunate is that they went into that mission
without a plan for the occupation and without a sense of how to seek
and secure that peace once the war was over. And that is something that
the civilian leaders, that is the type of leadership that the civilian
leaders needed to provide and did not.
Let me give you an example of that point. After the war and
hostilities ceased in both Bosnia and Kosovo, not a single American
soldier was killed in action after the hostility ceased. Why? Because
in both cases we had a plan for the occupation, and we had allies, two
things missing in this endeavor.
[[Page H6693]]
{time} 2145
As recently as May, when the Defense Department said we could have
won the war and secured peace with 50,000 troops, we now have 150,000
troops. Today there was an announcement that there would be
postponement of any troops going home. So no family member knows an
exact date as far as the eye can see on the horizon, and there may even
be a further call-up for further troops.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague put it also today, India
has made a decision through its democratic process that it will not
send troops unless there is a United Nations resolution. What I am
very, very concerned about is, are we going to end up in Iraq with a
vast majority of troops assigned there to ensure security and stability
as Americans?
We have heard from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, that there
will be additional foreign troops sent to Iraq, but when we ask the
question where are these troops coming from, what are their numbers, we
are met with silence basically. Again, there are reports coming from
military sources that indicate that if the situation continues to
deteriorate in Iraq we very well might need double, double, the number
of troops to ensure again stability and security for the Iraqi people.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that on the
occupation, not only are our troops there, 150,000 U.S. troops now,
permanently stationed there, and as my colleague noted that there are
other countries who will not, like India, participate without the U.N.
There is nothing that has occurred in the postwar Iraq that was not
predictable or foreseen pre the war. And I think that although there is
a great argument about 16 words that were legitimately said in the well
of this Chamber, the people's House, and it is a legitimate question, I
think one of the greatest travesties, and I would hope that we would
have an inquiry in either the House or the other Chamber, any
investigation, on how we went to war without an exit strategy.
There has been a bipartisan agreement for a long time that we never
will send American troops, at least post-Vietnam, we would never send
American troops into combat without knowing how to exit. We have no
plan for the peace and we have no plan to secure the exit of our
American men and women.
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. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask then, the gentleman sought pre
the war, when there was still the debate in this country going on, if
we are there, we win, how are we coming home. That question was
attempted to seek an answer?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And there were never any answers to those questions.
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. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield
for a second, according to the Associated Press today, I think as well
both killed and died in a humvee accident, there has been 84 deaths in
79 days since the President landed on the Lincoln aircraft carrier.
Eighty-four Americans have died, 30 plus through assassination, others
through humvees turning over, other accidents, but 84 Americans are not
coming home to their loved ones, to see their children. There is no
doubt.
I think that that, to me, one of the great travesties here is that
there is not a plan for the occupation. There is not a plan for the
exit strategy. And last week we learned now finally after, I do not
know why we have to browbeat this answer, but we have spent and are
planning on spending $1 billion a week.
Mr. DELAHUNT. As far as the eye can see.
Mr. EMANUEL. That is right, a minimum of 4 years. That is $50 billion
a year if my math works, and I still I think I am pretty good at it.
That comes to $200 billion on the occupation side of Iraq. We spend $12
billion, $12 billion on just college assistance at the Federal level,
$12 billion versus $200 billion. Two billion dollars would give health
insurance to every uninsured American and guarantee a bare minimum for
the other, not just the 42 million but those who are actually being cut
from the rolls.
There is much that we can do here at home for that same cost, not
that we are not for the reconstruction of Iraq. Now that we have won
the war, I think we all believe that it is pretty essential to invest
in Iraq's future, but, remember, this is the very time that we are
going to invest. This is $50 billion we are going to spend now on Iraq
this year for the occupation.
Our colleagues and a number of them have a rebuild America account
for $50 billion to be roads, bridges, economic development, investment
in infrastructure to move people and goods and services. We will not
find the money for that. Yet we are going to do more deficit financing
and burden our country with debt to build $50 billion worth of
occupation resources for Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that those
estimates, and my colleague just used them of $50 billion, are based on
what we know today. The reality is, back in April, Secretary Rumsfeld
recently acknowledged that the amount of dollars necessary, simply for
the military presence, put aside the cost of reconstruction, that
estimate has doubled from some $2 billion to $4 billion a month. I dare
say that I would not be surprised if 6 months from now we find that
that $4 billion estimate has mushroomed to a significantly higher
amount.
I think we also owe a debt to the recently retired General of the
Army, General Shinseki, who when he mentioned that at least 200,000
troops was necessary to ensure peace and stability in Iraq, that
estimate by the General was dismissed, in fact derided, by Secretary
Rumsfeld, who mentioned a figure of 125,000. This is beginning to
remind me of those CBO estimates, about surplus, of trillions of
dollars of surpluses on an annual basis that have turned into deficits
as far as the eye can see.
So, again, the number of troops and the estimate of just the cost of
sustaining a military presence there is $4 billion.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as
my colleague knows, as I think all my colleagues know, as they
obviously tried to get answers to how we were going to secure the
country, how many allies we are going to have, what was our exit
strategy, and it was like pulling teeth to get that. We tried to get
answers to the questions how much would it cost, how many troops.
Anybody that spoke in the hundreds of thousands were forced out.
Now we are trying to get answers for who put a statement in the
President's State of the Union, and we are now ended up blaming the
Italians it looks like. First, it was the British. The British blamed
the Italians. The Italians say they do not know where the document came
from.
The director of the CIA, all the men and women in Virginia have done
a wonderful job dedicating their lives to trying to assess information
and give our civilian leaders the best intelligence and estimates they
have, and
[[Page H6694]]
every time we try to get information it is pulling teeth.
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. EMANUEL. Single-handedly.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have written a few or
participated in a few of the processes of writing a State of the Union.
In October, this line about gathering uranium from Niger was edited
out of the President's speech. The way it works in the White House is
that speech is sent around to the NSE team. So State looks at it,
Defense looks at it, CIA looks at it, FBI I am sure gets a little
clearance through Justice, probably not the FBI, and they check the
assignment. There is an editing. The national security staff underneath
Condoleeza Rice has to run that process. So the same people that were
working on the October speech that dismissed this assessment of Niger
was the same group working on the State of the Union. How one person is
responsible, that what was a team effort in October but has become a
single person failure in January, only 3 months later, when nothing
changed, as we would say back in Chicago, that dog just will not hunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Do they really say that in Chicago?
Mr. EMANUEL. Periodically, on the northwest side, we have a couple of
dogs that hunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, can I just add to that?
I was interested in the comments that were made by representatives of
the administration during the course of the past 3 or 4 days, including
the statement obviously by the director of Central Intelligence.
Unfortunately, as my colleague points out, the statements themselves
I think create more confusion. There is more ambiguity and less clarity
now as to what happened. So while it might be that George Tenet, the
director of Central Intelligence, ought to have made a comment about
the inclusion of the accusation relative to the West Africa country of
Niger, I guess the question is, who put those words in there to begin
with? Who put it in there?
I will tell my colleagues what I find. I think the only reasonable
conclusion that can be drawn is that we have different agencies or
individuals within the agencies that have access to information, that
we are not communicating with each other. And that should really
profoundly disturb all of us in the aftermath of the tragedy of
September 11 because we should have learned from the attack on the
United States on September 11 that cooperation and coordination are
essential.
For example, the gentleman from Illinois references the President
made a speech on October 7 in Cincinnati. There was a reference to the
purchase of highly enriched uranium from Niger. During the course of
the review of that particular speech, the CIA correctly warned the
President not to use that intelligence in that particular speech. Maybe
he forgot about that particular process. Maybe he was unaware of it.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, what I want to try to do is try to
demystify this process. It was not like the CIA got the speech and
itself edited it out. This is a coordinated process. National security
does it, its team. There is a domestic team. There is an economic team.
So when the CIA probably said, no, you cannot use this, everybody's
eyes in State, Defense, NSE, everybody's eyes saw that it was not
valid. That is the same team that edits and previews and reviews the
President's speech in January. So everybody who was participatory in
the October speech was the same body sitting in the room participating
in the State of the Union speech.
{time} 2200
I think again people this weekend, for whom George Tenet seems to be
wearing the laundry, or they are throwing him under the truck,
remember, this was not good enough 2 weeks later for the Secretary of
State who said, and I am quoting, ``This is crap, I am not going to use
this.'' The Secretary of State threw it out.
We had George Tenet sitting behind them at the U.N. 2 weeks after the
State of the Union. They knew it was not good then. If it was not good
enough for the Secretary of State 2 weeks after the State of the Union,
it was not good enough for the President in October, but somehow it has
become good enough for the President at the State of the Union, a
speech on the doorstep of a war where the world was hanging on every
word.
Mr. DELAHUNT. It is as if the right hand did not know what the left
hand was doing. It is as if nobody is in charge. That is the only
reasonable conclusion that one can infer from this murky explanation,
this passing almost a legalistic argument.
Mr. EMANUEL. Remember, the same people that wrote that speech were
participating in crafting this policy, and they have now set out a
course of $1 billion a week of occupation, $50 billion a year of U.S.
taxpayer money for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Yet when
we talk this week about increasing funding for Head Start, we are told
no money. Last week when we voted and there was a 6-year freeze put on
Pell Grants, college assistance for people trying to open up the doors
for higher education for themselves, we are told there are no
resources. Yet we will be asked later on to commit resources to the
occupation and reconstruction of Iraq to the tune of $50 billion. Yet
here at home, we will be told there are no resources for health care or
infrastructure.
The gentleman may say that the right hand did not know what the left
hand was doing; I wonder if anybody knows what they are planning in
Iraq and what they are planning here at home when it comes to our own
economic development. The American people from World War II forward
have been tremendously generous around the world, and yet they cannot
continue to be asked to be that generous when their own needs and hopes
and dreams for their own children are being denied, whether that is in
the area of health care, investment in our environment, or our own
economic development.
I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) have asked some
questions not just for rhetorical effect, but which throw some light on
some very interesting aspects of this whole dilemma, which the
Secretary of Defense says is over with, which the National Security
Adviser says we have to move on from. I am asking why. Who committed
these forgeries? I keep hearing about it. I keep asking the questions.
We cannot get anybody in front of us to answer the questions. Who
committed these forgeries? The word ``forgery,'' the phrase is used all
the time; but there does not seem to be the slightest inclination to
find out what was at stake. Did they appear by spontaneous combustion?
Was this an immaculate conception of forgery? I do not think so. There
were reasons for it.
Now we see the aspect of the Sunday talk shows. They are very
interesting these days. Turn off the sound and watch the eyes and the
expressions of the people who are speaking. Just watch that. Get the
body language down, and Members will see the tension that is there
because they do not want to answer the question who benefited from
having this kind of an observation in that speech by the President. It
has nothing to do with 16 words or a single sentence. It has everything
to do with the reasons behind that being recommended to the President.
This is not an accusation against the President. We are not going to
determine that down here tonight as to what the President did or did
not do with respect to that speech. The President is having a difficult
enough time as it is other than to say it was somebody else's fault.
That is something that we can take up with the President when it comes
to election time, but that is not the issue here.
The issue here is who and what was behind the insistence that that
sentence and that that observation go into that speech. I think the
answer is out there. I think what is involved in that answer has to do
with who benefited from it.
[[Page H6695]]
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that
the American people receive the answers to that question and to all the
other questions that have been offered. Earlier this evening the
gentleman from the other side of the aisle mentioned the talk shows and
the statements that are being made have a political context to them.
We have been here, as the gentleman well knows, for 5 weeks posing
these questions. This is not motivated by Democratic intent to secure
political advantage. If we did not do this, we would be abrogating our
responsibility within our system to find the truth. It is about a
search for the truth, and I dare say it is now time for the President
of the United States and Congress to come together to create an
independent commission, not one that has partisan overtones, but one,
for example, that served this country well under the leadership of two
former Senators, a Republican from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and a
Democratic from Colorado, Gary Hart, who I think made an extraordinary
contribution by a year's worth of hearings, even more, which ended up
with a product that tragically predicted what occurred on September 11.
We need that because I do not want to hear on this floor accusations
about partisanship. This is about the future of America. That is what
this is about. This ought not be about politics. Let us depoliticize
that now and let the Republican and the Democratic leadership with the
White House create an independent commission to reveal to the American
people the truth.
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. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly concur with the suggestion
by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that we need a
bipartisan, independent investigation of this. The reason that I have
joined this effort tonight, and I have delayed doing so for a few weeks
in the hopes that the administration would be more forthcoming about
this intelligence failure, but what inspired me to come here tonight
are the comments of Condoleezza Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld who said this is
the end of the story; we can forget about these issues.
I am here to say this is not the end of the story; this is maybe the
end of the beginning of the story. The type of questions that Americans
are asking tonight as to how a fraudulent, forged document got into the
address of the leader of the free world to the people of this country
and to the world and to the House of Representatives, how that happened
is just one of the questions. I know many of us have been hearing a lot
of talk and dialogue about how that happened. And it was as predictable
as rain in Seattle that George Tenet was going to get thrown overboard
by this administration at some point. It is amazing it took so long.
The point I want to make tonight is that I do not think we should get
seized on whether this was 16 words or 16,000 words. The fact of the
matter is that there is a whole boatload of other questions that this
independent Republican and Democratic commission needs answered, and I
want to pose just a couple.
The first question this commission needs to answer is why was the
President successful in convincing over 50 percent of the Americans
that Saddam Hussein was behind the attack on September 11 and was in
cahoots with al Qaeda when in fact the intelligence had enormous
amounts of information that that was not true?
Why did the President of the United States in urging America to start
a preemptive war not level with the American people to tell the
American people all of the intelligence, not just the selective
intelligence? And let me just mention one fact. As reported in The New
York Times on June 9, 2003, two of the highest-ranking leaders of al
Qaeda in American custody have told the CIA in separate interrogations
that the terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi
government of Saddam Hussein according to several intelligence
officials. Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his
capture in March 2002, told questioners last year before the war that
the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed
among Qaeda leaders, but had been rejected. The same statement came
from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who insisted that the group did not work
with Mr. Hussein.
Do Members recall President Bush telling the American people that the
two highest operatives in our custody in Guantanamo Bay had told our
intelligence services that they had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein?
I do not remember that information being disclosed to the American
people, nor do I remember the President quoting Greg Fieldman, a former
State Department intelligence official, who said, ``There was no
significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda
terrorist operations.'' Intelligence agencies agreed on a ``lack of
meaningful connection to al Qaeda'' and said so to the White House and
Congress. I do not recall the President sharing that intelligence
information with the United States or the world.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) is familiar with the report that was printed
last week in The New York Times that a senior intelligence agent, Iraqi
intelligence agent by the name of Ahmed Al-Ani was arrested. I imagine
the gentleman does remember, however, that some suggested he had met in
Prague and the Czech Republic with Mohammed Atta, who was the ring
leader in the attack on the United States back on 9/11. That appeared
in the media and administration officials said that that evidence held
up. That alleged meeting occurred in April 2001, 5 months before 9/11.
Since then, most intelligence agencies, both American and allies,
have cast doubt on the credibility of that purported meeting; but it
was used by administration officials to argue there was an alliance of
some sort between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And of course we
all know that the rationale for the attack on Iraq was based on two
premises: Saddam Hussein had in his possession weapons of mass
destruction, particularly nuclear weapons or close to achieving the
development or the possession of nuclear weapons, and that he could
provide and was purportedly inclined to use terrorist organizations
such as al Qaeda for the use of those weapons against the United
States.
So that theory, as the gentleman suggests, was crucial, that fact of
the alleged meeting was crucial to that particular theory. But again,
there is serious doubt as to whether that meeting occurred.
It is interesting to note that both the FBI and the CIA investigated
and could find no evidence whatsoever that at the pertinent times did
Mr. Atta leave the United States to go to the Czech Republic for that
meeting. However, it did serve the purpose of creating a sense of
urgency that quick action had to be taken against Iraq.
Mr. EMANUEL. If the gentleman would yield, I would say there is a
very legitimate need to look into and acquire through the rearview
mirror how did we get to this point, what were the justifications; and
I too want to add my voice, although there has been a lot of
controversy over the weekend about how did the sentence get into the
President's speech. It is very important that we not lose sight, now
that we are there, how was it that we had no plan for this occupation.
Time Magazine reports that NATO allies, important allies who have
been with us in Afghanistan and other missions in Bosnia and Kosovo,
will not join us in Iraq. They do not see a U.N. legitimacy for the
effort or plan for the occupation. There are important countries who
have traditionally been shoulder to shoulder with America, were in Gulf
War I, were in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, every U.S. mission to free
the world of a tyrant of some nature, have decided not to join this
effort and will not postwar join this effort.
{time} 2215
So as we look back, I think it is important to look forward. Again, I
would remind my colleagues that in our plan for the reconstruction of
Iraq we cite 20,000 units of housing for Iraq, yet the President's
budget has 5,000 units of housing for America.
The President's reconstruction of Iraq calls for 13 million Iraqis,
half the
[[Page H6696]]
Iraqi population, to get universal health care. Yet 42 million
Americans work full time with no health care and no plan for health
care by this administration.
There are 4 million Iraqi children who will be provided early
childhood education. This week on the House floor we will debate the
Head Start bill. 58,000 children in America will be cut from Head
Start. 1.2 million will never be given the opportunity who are eligible
for Head Start to go to Head Start.
12,500 schools in Iraq are planned for reconstruction and rebuilding
with all books and supplies. Yet here in the United States, teachers
must take out of their own salary the wages to pay for books and
supplies. We have to give them a tax credit to reimburse them what
should be provided by the school authority.
The Umm Qasr port in Iraq is built from start to finish, from top to
bottom; yet the Corps of Engineers is being cut by 10 percent here in
the United States.
So as we rebuild Iraq, we reconstruct Iraq, America is in the process
of its own deconstruction. If we do not have an economic plan for
America that is beyond what has been provided and we do not have a plan
for Iraq's reconstruction that includes our allies, I would remind my
colleagues that in both Bosnia and Kosovo, we had a plan for the
occupation and we had allies. The two things that are missing today, a
plan and allies.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The gentleman's analysis brings forward again the
question then: Who benefits from this reconstruction in Iraq? While we
cannot have schools built in this country, while we cannot have
hospitals paid for, when we cannot get health care for our people, who
benefits? Who is getting the contracts for this? Who is getting the no-
bid contracts? Where is the money coming from? Supposedly from the oil
revenues. Oil revenues then will be passing right out of Iraq and down
to Texas, to Haliburton Company, to some of the other construction
companies that are benefiting from hundreds of millions of dollars that
are now being allocated into their pockets directly for this
reconstruction, not in the United States but in Iraq.
Mr. EMANUEL. My colleague asks who is benefiting. I do not have the
answer to that, but I do have the answer for who is paying. That is the
United States taxpayer.
Again, I want to remind our colleagues, for 60 years the American
people have showed their unbelievable generosity. Every time they have
been called upon to serve or to contribute, they have done it. Yet this
is the one time in history that while we deny American people the
access to education, health care and improved investment in their
environment and economic development, we are asking them to call forth
in a tremendous effort not seen since World War II to make an
investment in another country's economic future when we have told them
to shorten the horizons for their own children, to shorten their own
homes and dreams for what they can provide their family. Yet we are
calling upon them to once again show their generosity to Iraq that
talks about a health care plan, an economic development plan, an
education plan for Iraq and yet those same agenda items that we talk
about here at home, we do not have.
As we know, a number of my colleagues have signed on, I have my own
bill called the American Parity Act that says whatever we invest in
Iraq, whatever goal we set in Iraq, we have to set here at home
equally. Whether that comes from half the population getting health
care, half the schools being reconstructed and modernized, teachers
being paid, 4 million kids in early childhood education, reconstruction
of a port for economic development purposes, we have got to do that
agenda item here at home. Otherwise, the generosity of the American
people showed over the last 60 years will come short and rightfully so.
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. EMANUEL. I want to say one thing before I have to go, and our
colleague from Massachusetts noted this. That is not a different
question than the Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, had asked, the
head of the Foreign Relations Committee. This again, I think it is
important, we have people with different views on the war, but these
are questions not from Democrats and Republicans, these are questions
as God-loving and people who love their country who want to see America
in front of the world stand tall are expecting. So the question you
asked again is not a Democrat trying to get partisan political gain, it
is a question that the Republican Senator, chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, asked, questions that another Senator, Republican
from Nebraska, equally asked. This is not inquiry for political gain.
We all now, regardless of party, are vested in our success and bringing
as many of our men and women home as we can safely as soon as possible.
So your question I would also like to note so nobody who may tune in
and turn on the television right now and think we are trying to get
partisan or political advantage, note that these are similar questions
that Republicans have asked, people of all stripes, from all
backgrounds and all economic incomes and regardless of their political
affiliations saying we need to get level here. Where is it we are
going? How are we getting there? Whether it is an inquiry to what
happened in the past but also an inquiry into the future. These are not
Democratic questions. These are questions that people who love their
country think need to be answered.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Again in furtherance of what the gentleman from
Illinois has indicated and others here this evening, these are the same
questions that many of us asked of President Clinton. This is not
something that has suddenly sprung into being. And they were asked in a
bipartisan basis, too.
My colleagues will remember that some of us, Republicans and
Democrats alike, had these same questions for President Clinton with
respect to Kosovo, with respect to the activities that took place in
the Balkans. We had these same questions of ourselves as to what was
expected of us. I think that as a result, what the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has indicated is perhaps a start for us in
terms of the questions that need to be asked, I think, needs a bit of
reiteration.
I find it very strange that when President Carter was in office,
people in the media, particularly Nightline, would come on every
evening, day 292 of the hostages and the number of hostages that were
still in Iran, on day 292, three, four, five, 300, whatever it was. Yet
we go now to casualties, deaths, we are not talking about those that
are maimed, and this casual dismissal by some of the, I am sorry to
say, some of the highest officials in the administration now of, well,
this is all over, intelligence changes from day to day. You
[[Page H6697]]
never know what it is from day to day, this almost sarcastic dismissal
of these questions.
There are young people out at Walter Reed right now who may not have
been killed, a casualty in that sense, but they are surely there as
casualties, with loss of limbs and a lifetime in front of them of
having to deal with the pain and suffering of grievous wounds. Perhaps
Nightline might take up this idea. It is day, what number, since the
President said that the war was over.
This is not something that we said. This is not something that other
people said. This is something the President declared, and some of us
have been challenged on our patriotism and challenged on our support
for troops because we are not sufficiently quiet, because we do not
acknowledge that the so-called ending of the war really ended.
It does not end when somebody dies. It does not end when somebody is
grievously wounded. It does not end when a parent or loved one has to
try and understand and we have to explain when we go home why the war
is over but the killing goes on and the maiming goes on.
So I think we are going to need to have some accounting as to how
many days past the end of the war the killing and the maiming goes on
and what those numbers are. Because those numbers are real. They are
not philosophical abstractions. They are not merely the recitation of
numbers from an Office of Management and Budget or a Congressional
Budget Office, some entity, some institution that has no reality to the
mothers and fathers and the loved ones of those who have to bear the
brunt of the policies that we in the government of the United States
are bringing forward to the people of the United States as being in the
strategic interests of this Nation.
So I think that the questions that are being asked are not just
questions about the past and how something happened but to try and
understand what took place in the past so that we do not continue to
make the same mistakes and the same observations that lead to this kind
of grievous result.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman indicated that some, and very few, have
questioned the patriotism of those who ask the questions that are being
posed here tonight. It is my feeling and my position that it would be a
failure, it would be unpatriotic not to pose these questions. And as
others have indicated, this is not about partisanship. None of us here
tonight and in the course of the past 4 or 5 weeks have indulged in
partisan sniping. But I do believe that the President is at a
particular moment in terms of his administration that he should
intervene and stop the sniping that is occurring within the
administration, among individuals and agencies.
I mentioned earlier that a senior Iraqi intelligence agent who was
arrested last week, who purportedly had that information meeting with
Mohammad Atta, in that same report in the New York Times there was an
attack on the CIA by Mr. Richard Perle who currently serves on the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. I know the gentleman from Hawaii is
aware that he resigned as chairman of the board because of potential
conflict of interest concerns that he had since many of his private
business clients stood to profit from contracts dealing with the
reconstruction of Iraq.
It should be noted that Mr. Perle is considered a leader among the
so-called neo-conservative bloc in the administration. He also has
close ties with certain Iraqi exiles, such as Ahmed Chalabi. And it is
true, and this should be stated very clearly, he advocated in an
article that he wrote for the New York Times shortly after September 11
that the U.S. must strike at Saddam Hussein. So he is clearly
predisposed towards the policy that was effected by this
administration. My understanding is he was one of the most significant
proponents of the war in Iraq.
Now, however, with the capture of this individual, Al-Ani, he fears
that if the CIA conducts the interrogation that they will play down
evidence that the alleged meeting with Mohammad Atta ever occurred.
With all due respect to Mr. Perle, that is a very serious charge that
impugns the integrity of men and women in the CIA that risk their life
in behalf of their country every day of the year.
Of course, the CIA properly responded in my opinion that they need to
be presented with something other than the opinions of Mr. Perle and
his suspicions; and they claim, and I have to agree, that he sounds to
be more predisposed to a certain conclusion than anyone they are
familiar with.
{time} 2230
This quote that I read was he is just shopping for an interrogator
who will cook the books to his liking. We cannot have that sniping
going on. It is time for the President to take charge and to intervene,
be forthcoming, reveal all of the information. Presumably the interview
with Mr. Al-Ani has occurred already. Let the American people know.
Maybe he did have a meeting with Mohammed Atta; maybe he did not. But
it is time to let the American people know.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's (Mr. Hoeffel) original question about what we should do
in Iraq now, with two points.
One, I think it is important for the President to clear the decks to
restore our credibility on this issue because our ability to act in
Iraq is negatively affected by this credibility issue, and many of us
believe and I believe that the best thing the President could do in
that regard is to embrace a bipartisan review of the intelligence
failure here. Having a respected Republican like Warren Rudman or
someone else run a commission to have sort of a referee to figure out
what happened here is a lot better than to have the flacks at various
agencies throwing grenades at each other in the newspapers.
If we really want to find out here why forgeries ended up at the
State of the Union address, why we did not get the straight scoop about
the intelligence coming out of Iraq, why the President told us there
was no doubt, and that was his word, no doubt that Iraq had some of the
most lethal weapons ever devised by man and we cannot find a thimbleful
to date of mustard gas, the best way is through an independent
commission; and this is good for the administration, not just good for
the people. And this is not a debate. We may find some of these weapons
to date. That still may occur. This is not a debate even about the
propriety of the war. Even if one thinks the war was justified about
humanity and civil rights in Iraq, they have still got to join us in a
bipartisan belief that truth from the American President is the most
precious commodity we have in international affairs. We have all got to
be joining that in a bipartisan manner; so I say clearing the decks
first.
But the second issue, if I can, it is just imperative that we engage
allies in this effort, in this maybe 2-, maybe 3-, maybe 4-, maybe 5-
year effort to restore order and some sense of civility in Iraq, and I
would encourage the administration to shuck aside its unilateral
approach that unfortunately they have adopted for so long in Iraq and
welcome our allies to get in there to shoulder some of this burden.
Iraq is not a prize. It is not a glorious prize for the American
people. It is a burden. We still have people not coming home from Iraq,
and that burden ought to be shared with every nation in the civilized
world rather than just Americans. And to date, unfortunately, this
administration still has not been willing to embrace allies to get them
in there taking sniper fire instead of our neighbors' kids, and I hope
we will see it that way.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is time to pick up on that to end
grudge diplomacy. Let us get past that. Let us move on. Let us
understand that the only way we can bring stability to Iraq without
breaking the bank and without putting at risk the lives of American
military personnel is to bring in our traditional allies, whether they
be the Germans or the French. Let us put that in the past. Otherwise,
we are going to see these deficits that I referred to earlier balloon
into numbers that will absolutely be a drag of incredible magnitude on
the American economy.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on that point in reference to what the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) said and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) observed to kick off this discussion, as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
[[Page H6698]]
Hoeffel) can see, his question was so pertinent that we have not gotten
much further in it, and for good reason, because it requires some
explication. The problem is here, if we do not do this, is a
credibility gap. What will the President be able to say about North
Korea? What will he be able to say about the Philippines? What will he
be able to say about Colombia? What will he be able to say further
about Afghanistan?
Afghanistan seems to have disappeared; yet I know there were two
attacks yesterday, one on the American base and one on U.N. personnel.
I do not believe anybody was killed, but who knows? Now we are told
there are more attacks in Iraq than necessarily are being reported. I
suppose that gets quotidian now. If they are on the 11 o'clock news at
night, they have got fires to report, they have assaults to report or
basketball players or the latest boxer to embarrass himself or
something of that nature. They hardly have time to fit in anymore how
many people got killed today. It is almost a loss leader in the news.
And so if we do not have some answers here, if the President does not
take control and stop being dismissive of these questions as merely
revising history or some other sarcastic observation, he is not going
to be able nor will the administration be able to convince others who
may find it in their interest to join with us in other circumstances.
He will not be able to find anyone who is going to be willing to take
us at our word. That is why this is so serious. It is way beyond
partisan. Other people will occupy these seats down here. Other people
will come to occupy our place. We are here only as long as the faith
and trust of the people in our constituencies are willing to put us
here. No one owns a seat in this Congress. No one owns a seat at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue either. We are only as good as the credibility with
our own people before we can hope to influence others.
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. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I will just follow the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) by saying that when I first heard the
President in response to attacks on U.S. soldiers in the way that he
does suggest bring them on, I remember wanting to say to the President
that what we should be doing, President Bush, is to bring allies on to
this coalition and make it a genuine coalition of democracies to assist
in terms of the reconstruction so that American taxpayers do not bear
the burden almost exclusively and that American men and women who have
served admirably can come home.
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.
____________________