[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 140 (Tuesday, October 7, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9274-H9279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE COSTS OF WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett of New Jersey). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I welcome any of the Members that 
are here from the Iraq Watch group. I think not only are they watching 
Iraq, I think the American people are watching what is happening in 
Iraq and not happening here in the U.S., and I was in my office and I 
heard such an outstanding discussion on some of the things that we know 
here in the Congress, that we need to continue to share with the 
American people, which are truly dollars and cents; and many times when 
we are talking about dollars and cents, we are talking about American 
lives.
  I had some comments here that definitely I wanted to share, but I 
could not help but seeing at the top of the hour the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) here, our ranking member in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and his letter to the White House and asking for Mr. Rove's 
resignation; and I think when we look at the politics of the matter, at 
any time I will be willing to yield for additional comments from my 
colleague as it relates to his letter that he sent today, I think goes 
to the very root of the reason why we are in this Chamber tonight.
  I am a newcomer to the Congress. I see so many Members here that are 
professional experts, not only in the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), but other Members that are 
here, members of the Committee on Armed Services that were on that 
committee when I was in junior high school, but we will leave that for 
another time.
  I just want to say very quickly, just some very open and preliminary 
comments, that we talk about the cost of this war, and I cannot help 
but refer to a letter that our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott), sent out recently to Members of the Congress and 
mentioning that Desert Storm and the first Persian Gulf War only cost 
$6.1 billion. The United States' share of that was $7.4 million. That 
was our share, which was 12 percent; and I believe that that war was 
definitely one that was shared by many, that we actually had a true 
coalition. We had a coalition economically. We had a coalition troop-
wise. This time we went to war with the willing and we footed the whole 
bill, I must add.
  This current supplement, and before we get into that, we gave $79 
billion that was added to this effort from the beginning which we still 
cannot account for. This Thursday when the Committee on Appropriations 
will meet, hopefully some of those things will come to light of what 
happened with the $79 billion.
  Now the Bush administration's asking for $87 billion, which is mind 
boggling in and of itself, which gets us to $166 billion. This 
continues to go up and up and up, 12 percent of the costs of almost the 
cost of $20 billion.
  However, the administration's decision of the go-alone strategy, we 
may say go-with-the-willing strategy, has gotten us where we are now 
and got us to the $166 billion issue now, which is going to be $6.6 
billion in the end of just interest alone, at some $128 million a week 
in interest. That is not even talking about the $4 billion that we are 
spending right now. Let me just say that again for someone that might 
have gone to the refrigerator to get a soda, $128 million in interest. 
That is just interest alone, and I think that is something that the 
American people should really take heed to and understand.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I really applaud the gentleman for taking 
this time and an hour. I would just try to enlarge the context, because 
it is clear that this Nation has an economy that is at risk. As my 
colleague well knows, the number of Americans that are now below the 
poverty line is historic in terms of its numbers. In addition to that, 
we have record job losses ever since 2001. We have lost in a net way 
over 2 million jobs; but most importantly when we talk about these 
exploding deficits, it is important to remember that when this 
President came to office there was a $5.6 trillion surplus projected 
for the year 2011.
  Today, when we project forward to 2011, we are talking about a 
deficit, an accumulated deficit in that space of time in excess of $2 
trillion. We have lost somewhere out there $8 trillion, some $8 
trillion; and now we are continuing to add to that debt that will have 
to be paid, that becomes a drag on our economy because we have to pay 
interest, as my colleague well knows, on that debt. So these points 
that the gentleman is making, I think, are very important.

                              {time}  2245

  And clearly those that are viewing us here tonight and those of us 
that are speaking have to understand that the sacrifice is 
unfortunately not just about young men and women who are giving their 
lives and are being wounded and will suffer themselves personally for 
the rest of their lives; but almost as important, the American economy 
and future generations of Americans are going to suffer economically 
because of what we are doing.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his comments and his commitment to sharing what we 
need to share with the American people as Members of Congress.
  I think it is also important for us to remember that when we combine 
all these budgets together, that we had a deficit before we went into 
Iraq. And I just have to continue to say that to the Members of this 
Congress and to the American people, because some would lead us to 
believe that Iraq got us into the situation where we are now.
  But we will talk about a trillion dollar tax cut for the top 1 
percent of Americans. And I must add that everyone in America has given 
and contributed to this war, whether it be a child or a husband or a 
son or a daughter going to Iraq to fight in this effort. The President 
said there has been an end to major fighting. I think there is major 
fighting going on as we speak. We just lost three soldiers, just today 
in Iraq.
  But I just want to get back to the dollars and cents. I care about it 
because not only am I concerned about what is happening to this country 
domestically, and I am concerned about homeland security, but I am also 
concerned about the money that local governments are spending on behalf 
of homeland security, the front-land security there in their cities 
that is not going into the things that work towards the very fiber of 
our country and work towards the very reason why we are Americans.
  We care about one another. We care about what happens to our elderly. 
We care about what happens to our children. We care about having an 
honest and fair education and good public education for our children.
  But while we are carrying out this effort that we are carrying out 
now, with no questions answered, and you better not ask a question or 
we will test your patriotism, this is dangerous to the country.
  But back once again to the dollars and cents. The Bush administration 
has not explained how we are going to pay for this in the long run, 
outside of borrowing the money and making the deficit even larger and 
deeper. The Department of Education in this year's budget, $59.7 
billion; Transportation, $51.5 billion; Homeland Security, my 
colleagues, homeland security, American people, $35.8 billion.
  The supplemental cost for the war just blows all these numbers off 
the table. We are asking for $87 billion. Or the administration is 
asking for $87 billion.
  Now, we are not asking for $87 billion to help local governments foot 
the bill for homeland security, we are not asking for $87 billion for 
States to be able to protect the ports, our deep-water ports that we 
have now. We are not asking for $87 billion to bring about safe air 
travel here in the United

[[Page H9275]]

States. I believe someone needs to be marching to the Hill to ask for 
$87 billion for Leave No Child Behind, for public education in this 
country.
  Anyone that hits the floor to say that we have to fight the war on 
terror in Iraq so we do not have to fight the war on terror here in the 
United States, I kind of question that thinking because I do not 
believe the terrorists are saying, well, as long as U.S. troops are in 
Iraq, we do not have to try to penetrate the United States; or we do 
not have to try to carry out terrorist attacks here in the United 
States. I must say that you can pick up any newspaper now or watch any 
news show that says that terrorism has increased in Iraq since our 
presence there.
  But the real question is, where is the exit plan? No one has an exit 
plan. No one wants to talk about the exit plan. And I think it is 
important that the American people understand that we are going beyond 
``we break it and we fix it,'' because now with this $87 billion, we 
are going into a new era.
  Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), who I am going to be yielding to in about 4 minutes, 
because I know she has quite a bit to say about what is going on in the 
White House with some of the questions that have been brought about 
agents' lives being at stake because of political terms, or whatever 
the case may be; and so we can get into that discussion.
  But I must say that in the spring of this year we gave this 
administration, with no questions asked, a $79 billion blank check. No 
strings attached. We do not really know what the administration has 
spent that $79 billion on. When you ask a question, it is almost like, 
how can you question me?

  You talk to the Defense Department, and it is, we will get back to 
you. You talk to individuals at the State Department, and you may or 
may not get a return phone call. And if you do get a return phone call, 
they are not answering the questions.
  Now the administration comes again and asks for $87 billion. This 
Congress still has not been told of what we spent the first $79 billion 
on.
  Our Committee on Appropriations will meet on this Thursday. I would 
hope that the Bush administration will come forward to the Congress and 
share with the American people and the people that they elected to 
serve in this Congress, number one, what happened to the $79 billion; 
number two, with the anticipated $87 billion, what is really going to 
happen with that, and will they be back in the future to ask for more.
  Early in the spring, the President and others were running around 
here talking about shock and awe, but in the 6 months since the 
preemptive strike against Iraq, only the American people have been 
shocked and awed. We have been shocked and awed by $79 billion, and I 
have to keep saying it. We were shocked by the fact that over 45,000 
troops did not have body armor when they went on this effort in Iraq, 
that we could not armor our Bradley fighting vehicles, that many of the 
injuries at Walter Reed Hospital and at Bethesda Hospital right now, 
troops that are probably watching us on the floor right now, should 
have had and which could have avoided their injuries.
  The American people have been awed by decreasing jobs that are at 
record rates, at tax cuts for the top 1 percent Americans, or the 
richest Americans in this country, at record rates. The American people 
have been in shock at how easy the administration has underfunded its 
own program, the Leave No Child Behind, that they have left millions 
without health insurance and watched crime increase at a rate that even 
makes the most patriotic American dizzy.
  The American people are in awe at how the Vice President and many 
others in this administration, as it relates to Halliburton, so easily 
gained $3 billion in Iraq contracts in just 4 months.
  The American people are awed by the fact that 180 troops have lost 
their lives and another 1,400 have been seriously injured since the 
President made his inspirational landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln to 
announce the end of major fighting.
  The American people have been shocked that State and local 
governments are strapped to the tune of over $70 billion, but the 
President is willing to spend over $8 billion in a foreign land. The 
American people are also awed by the request of over $80 billion in 
additional spending. Once again, the middle class are left behind.
  We are also shocked that soldiers are ducking bullets in Iraq for 
$26,000 or less a year but they cannot take part in the child tax 
credit to help their families here in the U.S. That is a major shock 
and awe to the American people, that this Congress and this 
administration would leave those families behind.
  The American people are also awed by the cost of just this single 
supplemental that dwarfs the money the President and this 
administration have asked for as it relates to homeland security for 
the entire year.
  We are also shocked by the lack of diplomacy expressed by the Bush 
administration as it jets around the globe telling countries how they 
should be in good grace with us versus other countries. The President 
went to the U.N., and I must add this, where in The New York Times it 
reveals that he went to the U.N. And one would assume that after all 
this major effort against terrorism in Iraq, after going after this 
person that possessed chemical weapons of mass destruction, which at 
the time in this very Chamber we were led to believe in the State of 
the Union address that these chemical weapons were going to be used, 
and we prayed along with the American people that our troops would be 
safe because chemical warfare was a major concern because of what the 
President, as he stood in the well where the Speaker is now and 
expressed this to us; and we also thought that there was some link 
between 9/11 and Iraq, and now all of that has evolved to be misleading 
statements.
  Well, the President went to the U.N. and we were thinking the 
President would go back after we told the U.N. to kind of step aside 
and allow us to take care of things and we went with the willing, which 
was very few willing, he went back and, really, no one reacted to the 
President because of our unwillingness to use diplomacy.
  I said here on the floor the last time I was here that cowboy 
politics is not going to get us where we need to be. It is not just 
politics, it is America's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the 
gentleman this evening to continue our discussion to educate both the 
American people and to share with our colleagues. I indicated my 
respect for my colleague and the leadership he has shown on the 
Committee on Armed Services, and I have noted that my ranking member, 
ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, whose vision 
led us in crafting what I thought was the right response to the 
original war resolution that dealt with the question of information and 
whether Congress had the challenge, the charge, and the responsibility 
to secure the information and then comply with the Constitution and 
have a constitutional vote up or down to determine whether or not we 
would actually declare war on Iraq.
  And the gentleman is right, he is very right that the representations 
that were made, that caused many of my colleagues to vote their 
conscience; and their conscience dictated to them on the information 
that in order to save American lives, they needed to rush to judgment 
and to cast that vote. I do not stand here to indict my colleagues on 
that vote. I voted no, and some of my colleagues voted yes. I do not 
indict them because they were voting on the basis of the representation 
made by this administration.
  So my good friend from Florida is right. He raises many viable 
issues. And might I just take a moment to frame where I think we are?
  Part of the decision that caused us to be in Iraq was based on 
misleading misinformation. In fact, to a certain extent, total 
untruths, tragically. There was representation about an imminent 
attack; representation about weapons of mass destruction. There were 
representations, as my colleague knows all too well, that there was 
this connection about nuclear capacity. We come to find out now that, 
at best, Iraq is a long way away from the actual

[[Page H9276]]

production of weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, and 
certainly nuclear weapons.
  So I think where we are today, on Tuesday, October 7, is again a rush 
to judgment.
  I think all of us standing here are patriots. We want to protect our 
Nation. The gentleman has mentioned so articulately the troops, and he 
has chronicled the choices we have to make, where we have no monies for 
No Child Left Behind. And I think that is the real issue. I believe 
there is no need to vote next week. Why? Because this Congress does not 
have the information, plain and simple.
  I do not want to be caught up in the trap of misinformation so that I 
am, on behalf of my constituents, making a totally wrong decision 
because the administration has not been straight. Number one, the 
administration has provided us no information, no information on how 
they spent the $79 billion.
  And I would say as an opponent of the war, I voted, I will stand here 
today and say it, I voted for the funding for the troops and the 
defense appropriation bill. So I stand here without taking a back seat 
to anyone. I cast my vote to put my trust in those who represented that 
we are in this now and we need monies for our troops. But no more.

                              {time}  2300

  So we do not even have a report on that. Let me show the document 
that the gentleman was kind enough to share; it is 70 pages of fine 
print. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) said last week, they 
were willing to spend $50,000 per bed in prison, and now they have 
immediately corrected that. That is the point I am making. How much 
more can we refine, delete, and take out?
  I am looking at a chapter that says chapter 6, ``Other Activities.'' 
If you have little ones and they get to be teenagers, and they say, 
Dad, I am going out. You ask, Where are you going? You have a curfew. 
And they say, I am going to the movies, and then I am going to do other 
activities. I have an 18-year-old. When they leave you with ``I am 
going to do other activities,'' you are not going to allow them to 
leave the house on the agenda of other activities.
  Listed as other activities is almost $2 billion. What it means is 
money in the pots of some surrounding nations, and I am not condemning 
them, but this is giving money like $1.4 billion. It says something 
about operation and maintenance defense-wide, and that is surrounding 
areas that have contributed to the placement of our troops. I know 
there is reason for that, but that is a miscellaneous sort of 
sweetening the pot of others so they will help us, just like the 
gentleman mentioned the $8 billion loan to Turkey. I do not believe 
that we have all of the details that will allow us in a short week's 
time to be able to understand what we are voting on by this document.
  The other thing I would say, and I think the American people need to 
know, this supplemental is the largest in history, the largest of seven 
emergency supplementals that we have had. The administration says we 
are doing this for Iraq and Afghanistan. Might I share the pitiful 
amount of money going to Afghanistan which is falling back into sin. 
Taliban is on the rise. The country is devastated. It is a flattened 
area. When we talk about rebuilding infrastructure, I would think that 
we would not give shortchange to Afghanistan, which is percolating as 
the center of focus for Taliban.
  The justice system, we are giving $919 million in Iraq; we are giving 
$10 million in Afghanistan. National security, $2.1 billion for Iraq, 
and $22 million for Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet with a very distinguished 
woman just about an hour ago. She knows about the Marshall Plan. She 
wrote at 22 the constitution for Japan after World War II. She shared 
with us how they took specifically the language out in terms of an 
offensive army or offensive defense. Japan can defend itself, and 
rightly so; but Japan does not have the capacity because of the 
Marshall Plan, and the treaty and the constitution was actually drafted 
post-World War II to govern Japan without this opponent. We have seen 
Japan put many of its resources back into technology, and it has been 
at the pinnacle of our technological advances.
  Yet here we are talking about what Iraq did with its military, and we 
are now talking about rebuilding it. I think the Japan model is an 
excellent one, a peace model, certainly allowing them to defend 
themselves; but now we are giving them $2.1 billion for national 
security. That is all about building up their military again. We should 
look at the Japan model that has worked.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that just last week 
we were on the floor, and I think this is kind of working, we talked 
about why the Department of Defense is in charge. In this after-
fighting or during the time we are trying to build a democracy, why is 
the Department of Defense in charge? The President announced yesterday 
or today that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be placed 
over this working group. The State Department is supposed to be over 
it. I am just getting here, but I kind of understand that.

  I think it is important that the American people understand if major 
fighting is over and our troops are continuing to die, and I just want 
to add to this point, from what I understand from speaking with the 
appropriators, and we were in a meeting earlier, the administration 
hopes to have our troop number down because there was some question why 
Mr. Rumsfeld was not clear on the number of American troops there. 
There are men and women that have left their families that signed up 
for the Reserves that are now 12 months-plus still in Iraq. They expect 
to get them down by 110 troops by next September. That means we have 
somewhere between 130,000 troops and 135,000 troops that are in Iraq 
now.
  I want to let the American people know that the way things are going 
here in the Capitol and in the White House, that American troops will 
be there for some time. We are talking about dollars and cents. The 
Turkish parliament voted yesterday that they would send coalition 
troops to Iraq. I want to add to that that I voted to send 
appropriations to Turkey, for $8 billion in loan forgiveness, all of 
these things; and some Members were split on that vote. If we have to 
vote for money for countries to go into Iraq, what is the difference? 
It reminds me on the other side of the aisle when they talk about 
making government smaller, and government has actually gotten bigger. 
But making government smaller, that means privatizing government jobs, 
having individuals in the private sector, so I guess that strategy has 
been implemented in this Iraq situation.
  I want to add one other thing, because the gentlewoman hit on so many 
different things. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) came to the 
floor tonight and dropped a bomb on us with this letter that has been 
written as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  And one of the shock points I have reports that the whistle was 
actually blown, the American people ought to know that some in the 
administration would blow the whistle on a CIA operative; and we are 
talking about someone that is willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice on 
behalf this country, on behalf of seeking out weapons of mass 
destruction, going under an assumed name, that name was made public. It 
was a coordinated campaign from the White House to put this lady's life 
in danger, and those that are working with her, on behalf of making 
sure that we, us Americans, are safe and our children are safe. Because 
they are upset, and when I say they, I am talking about the Bush White 
House, they are upset about the fact that the ambassador, or he used to 
be ambassador, has a different opinion than the administration on Iraq 
and the weapons of mass destruction issue. Reports have said they would 
put this man's wife at danger, and other CIA agents.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has to say 
something further about the letter because I think seeing the White 
House not willing to advocate on behalf of a special counsel is mind 
boggling to me, and I am just not a man with conspiracy theory. Other 
reporters, not just one individual reporter, has said they received 
calls about the very same information, but they did not print it. Even 
after the CIA said it would put

[[Page H9277]]

this operative report in danger, the report was still pushed on certain 
members of the media to report it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, 
let me just try to add some points to what the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek) has just said and emphasize why I think we are here today. 
Again, let me restate the fact that this Congress does not need to take 
this vote this week or next week on this $87 billion supplemental.

                              {time}  2310

  Frankly, we do not have the information that would entrust to us the 
right responsibility and the right decision on behalf of our 
constituents, because we do not have the facts.
  And let me just simply say, I mentioned to the gentleman that 
Afghanistan was thrown in the pot, I think, simply to make people think 
that we have not forgotten about the war on terrorism. We have 
forgotten about the war on terrorism. We forgot about it in 
Afghanistan. We forgot about it in the United States because our 
funding and our actions as they relate to homeland security are paltry.
  If my colleagues go home to their districts, they will find out that 
their first responders are asking, show me the money. The ports are 
asking, show me the money. The intelligence community still needs the 
kind of reform where we can get the right intelligence because that is 
the first line of preventing terrorist acts.
  But let me just simply say again for the record, national security 
for Iraq, $2.1 billion; and again for Afghanistan, $222 million; 
justice system, $919 million; and $10 million in Afghanistan. An 
electrical system, $5.7 billion and $45 million in Afghanistan.
  So here is what I believe we should do before we engage in a vote. I 
believe, and I will be filing this sense of Congress resolution 
tomorrow, that we should have a separate vote on the military cost 
versus the rebuild cost, that we should not do the rebuild until the 
conference in Madrid, Spain, where the donors meet and we have them 
ante up on the table and this administration puts together a coalition 
that is more than the willing, but it is the strong and it gives us the 
amount of troops that we need.
  We should not vote on this until we have full evidence of what 
happened with the weapons of mass destruction, as the gentleman said. 
Where did that information come from? And we certainly should not vote 
until we have a report on the personnel who determined that we are 
under imminent attack and that we were going forward with this war and 
that there were weapons of mass destruction. There should be no vote 
until we have all the resources we need for the returning vets, the 
soldiers, because some will continue to be enlisted, and their 
families; that we have complete trauma and mental health services for 
all the bases where these troops are coming back to; and that we refine 
this giveaway money program and make sure that small women- and 
minority-owned businesses, and the gentleman had a very fine session 
during the Congressional Black Caucus, have the opportunity to be part 
of this rebuild.
  And then lastly let me say that I believe it should be the sense of 
Congress. And likewise I would like to work with my colleagues on this 
resolution that I have, that a special prosecutor be appointed because 
the gentleman is absolutely right. Ambassador Wilson was trying to 
getting the Congress and the American people the truth, and he was 
asked to go over by the CIA to Niger to determine the uranium purchase, 
and he came back and said, absolutely there is no such connection, 
which then should have caused this administration to pull back. They 
did not. So in essence they wanted to cover up.
  How do you cover up? You undermine the person who spoke. How do you 
do that? You get him at his Achilles' heel. All of our Achilles' heels 
are family members, but in doing so, might I say that I think research 
should be done; and I respect my colleague who is going to speak on the 
question of whether or not we have an issue of treason.
  So the facts need to be told. I do understand that, and I am willing 
to hear the facts. But we should not move forward without getting the 
facts on the weapons of mass destruction or on this response regarding 
covert officers of the CIA, the most serious organization as it relates 
to national security short of our military, who require the utmost 
respect but also protection, that we have now uncovered a covert agent.
  And as we see this unfold, we see that the person's work was more 
far-reaching than we thought. We understand that they are working for a 
CIA undercover, and this is public knowledge; so I am not giving 
classified information, printed in the public newspapers, business. So 
that has now been exposed, as well as anybody who was associated with 
that individual and that company has now been exposed.
  I would venture to say also that what has been exposed is the way we 
do things. So it is beyond my understanding as to how we can move 
forward.
  The gentleman said something that I think is very telling, to give 
another blank check with no restrictions and no strings attached. This 
is based upon the discussions that we have had that are part of the 
public debate.
  Let me add this, as I believe the chairman is coming. This has been 
modeled after the Marshall Plan, this whole Iraq package. The Marshall 
Plan was $11.8 billion from 1948 to 1952. That would equal, in 2003, 
$89.2 billion. But the amount of nations impacted was 16 nations and 
257 million people. Iraq is only one nation and 23.5 million people.
  So I would say that I would hope my colleagues would join me in this 
analysis to the extent that we need not proceed this quickly to a vote 
without giving this Congress all of the information needed; and I would 
look forward to having my colleagues join me in the filing of this 
resolution tomorrow to delay this vote and also to have any vote that 
we take separated between military support and the rebuild of Iraq 
until these conditions are met. I believe it is extremely important.
  And I thank the gentleman for allowing me to share in this 
discussion, and I would be happy to yield to him as he yields to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee). And I appreciate the fact that she studies and that 
she pays very close attention to what people say and also what they do 
and what they do not do. And I think that her constituents and the 
American people will be very forever grateful.
  I yield the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), one of my leaders 
and an inspiration here in the Congress for many years, ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to be with the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek) in this discussion. He and his predecessor in the 
Congress from Florida worked very closely with me and I am proud that 
he is on the Committee on Armed Services because that gives him a 
vantage point that perhaps we do not have; and he continues the 
tradition of a former colleague of ours, Ron Dellums of California, who 
rose to be chairman of that committee and distinguished himself with 
great regularity about relating military activities and costs and 
projections to what is the real national defense of this country.
  I am happy to be with, also, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), with whom I work on a very wide variety of issues. And it seems 
to me that our discussion tonight with our colleagues that preceded us 
revolve around the importance of delaying the vote that is hanging over 
our heads until more information is secured of whether we should have a 
special counsel to independently investigate where the leak endangering 
not only a CIA operative, but all the others that were working with her 
together.
  It is appropriate, especially upon the revelation of over $700,000 in 
consulting business having been engaged in between Karl Rove and John 
Ashcroft in earlier years. This is incredible. So between the delayed 
vote, the request for a special counsel, the several hundred thousand 
dollars, plus a request for a resignation makes this a very important 
evening. And I am glad that I am here to join my colleagues with it.
  In February of this year, former Ambassador Wilson traveled to Africa 
to investigate the claims that Iraq purchased uranium there.

                              {time}  2320

  In the next month, he returned and tells the CIA and State Department

[[Page H9278]]

that the claims were unsubstantiated. This was in February 2002 and 
March 2002.
  In January 2003, the President claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium 
in Africa in a State of the Union Address delivered on this very floor.
  In July, former Ambassador Wilson wrote an op-ed aptly titled ``What 
I Didn't Find in Africa.''
  On July 14, the well-known veteran columnist Robert Novak mentions, 
among other things, that ``Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his 
wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass 
destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife 
suggested sending him to Niger to investigate.''
  On July 22, Mr. Novak said in an interview, ``I didn't dig it out, it 
was given to me. They gave me the name,'' he was talking to Newsday 
then, ``and I used it.''
  Then later on in July, the Central Intelligence Agency files a crime 
report with the Department of Justice suggesting that the leak of 
former Ambassador Wilson's wife's name and covert status might entail 
criminal acts. We checked the statutes in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and that was true. Not only leaking, but assisting or 
promoting leaks are also, in another section of title 18, criminal 
violations that carry a penalty of up to 10 years Federal imprisonment.
  Then the CIA submitted a questionnaire to determine whether an 
investigation is warranted. They did a crime report, and now an 
investigation, and they decided rather quickly to pursue a criminal 
investigation.
  Now, a source in the administration confirms that two senior 
administration officials contacted not just Mr. Novak, but six 
reporters about the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, claiming 
that, clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge; that he was 
sharing the information because the disclosure was wrong and a huge 
miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to 
diminish Wilson's credibility. This was the Washington Post, September 
28.
  On the Crossfire program of CNN, Mr. Novak explained, ``Nobody in the 
Bush administration called me to leak this. I was in an interview with 
a senior administration official on the Wilson report when he told me 
the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of 
mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. They 
asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her 
or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. 
Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, not in charge 
of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about? Pure Bush-
bashing?''
  Well, Mr. Wilson responds: ``Bob Novak called me before he went to 
print with the report, and he said a CIA source told him that my wife 
was an operative. He was trying to get a second source after the 
article appeared. I called him and said, `You told me it was a CIA 
source. You wrote senior administration officials. What was it, CIA or 
senior administration?' He said to me, `I misspoke the first time I 
spoke to you. That makes it senior administration sources.' '' Ms. 
Paula Zahn, now CNN.
  About his partisanship, Wilson responds, ``Novak also said that I was 
a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointment was 
as Ambassador, and I was appointed by George H.W. Bush. So I am really 
apolitical in all of this.''
  Now, questions about Rove's involvement are raised by numerous news 
sources. Sources close to the former President say Rove was fired from 
the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story 
with columnist Robert Novak. Countdown, MSNBC, September 29, 2003.
  Tory Clark, former spokesperson for the Pentagon, said ``People are 
constantly aware of classified information, and Secretary Rumsfeld 
makes it a point to regularly and frequently speak about the problems 
of leaking classified information.''
  What we have here exposed is a case study of what a writer of 
information this sensitive ought not to be doing. It is very clear to 
Ambassador Wilson, and everyone else around him, that everyone around 
him knew that Rove had either leaked or had condoned the leak. So it is 
my hope that Mr. Rove will approach this from the point of view that it 
is more likely to get much deeper than it is right now. It might save 
us from ending up with an independent prosecutor for the CIA leak. It 
would certainly be a way of trying to make amends for what is going to 
happen.
  Mr. Chris Matthews is a person of impeccable integrity and is the 
host of MSNBC's Hardball, which most of us have been on at one time or 
the other. A source close to Wilson said that Matthews said, ``I just 
got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game,'' 
talking to the former Ambassador. So I think the time has come.

                              {time}  2330

  This political director has probably I think come to the end of at 
least one of his careers. The relationship between the Attorney General 
of the United States and him in his political consultant capacity is 
pretty obvious. It meets the criteria set forth in the statute for the 
appointment of an independent prosecutor. So it seems to me that 
between one of these 2 ways, we have to get to the bottom of this as 
this research goes on. It fits into this whole business of 
misrepresentation that has characterized and has begun to create 
problems of morale, not just in the military, but in the intelligence 
agencies themselves. We are not talking about something happening over 
in some obscure office in the Pentagon. This is coming out of the White 
House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And because of the role that the 
Committee on the Judiciary has played in forming this new independent 
counsel since we have dispensed with special prosecutors, our role is 
quite clear in how we must proceed and how we ought to investigate 
this.
  It is my hope to meet with the chairman of the committee this week to 
determine what we can all collectively do in a matter that is very 
disturbing to many people in many parts of our citizenry and our 
government alike. I commend all of the Members who have been here 
tonight to engage in what I think is a long overdue discussion.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the thoughtful presentation that 
he has just made, the laying out, if you will, of the chronological 
history of where we are today, I hope it is clear to many of our 
colleagues that we may be on the brink of a constitutional crisis. And 
that is, of course, because the gentleman has suggested, or that the 
facts seem to suggest that we had 2 dueling deficiencies occurring. We 
had deficiency of all of the facts necessary or all of the truth 
necessary to actually have a basis of declaring a preemptive war 
against Iraq, and then we had the unraveling of our intelligence 
structure, which is the very heartbeat of a nation's national security 
and now, it is the heartbeat of homeland security. And if we undermine 
the intelligence system or structure, then what do we have? And how can 
any reporter, and I believe in the first amendment, and my colleagues 
know that the Committee on the Judiciary has its jurisdiction to 
protect under the Constitution the Bill of Rights; make light of the 
fact of which source it was or whose source it was or, I think it was 
analysts; it might have been that the person who was speaking to them 
used the term ``analyst'' to protect her cover or the person's cover.
  So I do not believe we can move on this unrestricted, no-strings-
attached $87 billion without a full airing of the very facts that the 
gentleman has just asked for, or the very response or airing or truth 
of what occurred. Whether or not the involvement of Mr. Rove and the 
resignation thereto, the opportunity for all of the congressional 
committees of jurisdiction, which would include the Committee on the 
Judiciary, would have an opportunity for full hearings on every aspect 
of this. A deep investigation.
  My colleagues know that we have yet to be able to secure the 
independent commission; they will not even bring that to the floor on 
the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I do not believe that we can 
move forward on the supplemental without those facts being brought to 
the table, and who the actual personnel or the parties that were

[[Page H9279]]

engaged in this process. So the gentleman has made a very good point.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that I 
have seen this Congress, when I was in the State legislature, go to 
great extents for far less in questioning what is happening right now. 
This is not speculation; these are the lives of CIA operatives, the 
very lives that are in countries where Americans and those who help 
Americans are not applauded. On behalf of not only the safety, but the 
sovereignty of this country, I think the gentleman's letter is well 
within order. I brought about questions in my own heart and mind when I 
did not hear the President and others who were in the White House 
saying listen, independent counsel? That is fine. Because we want the 
individual who leaked the information to be found, prosecuted, what 
have you. Fired is not good enough for me personally. I think the 
individuals who have leaked this information knowingly and willingly, 
revenge, political revenge, need to be punished and prosecuted. And the 
only way we are going to get to that, I believe, is through an 
independent counsel. So I think the gentleman's letter is well within 
order. And Mr. Rove, as far as I am concerned, politics has nothing to 
do, or should not have anything to do with it. Thus, as red-blooded 
Americans voicing our opinion and informing the American people.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if I could say 
to the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Florida, the truth 
ultimately always comes out. I do not know why so many people hide, run 
for cover, obfuscate, manipulate, spin, but in the end, it may take a 
little longer and they may be able to put it off, they may be able to 
do it long enough to get out of town, but in the end, there are too 
many people of conscience and talent that are looking at these same 
situations that we have to deal with in our working lives. And you are 
not going to get very far, not in today's global technologically 
advanced society. It is going to come out. It always does. It never 
fails. There will be books upon books upon investigation upon articles, 
and they just will not come forward and make a complete candid 
discussion. The American people are not going to be fooled.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for all of his contributions here tonight and to 
be here this time of night sharing with the American people, and the 
gentleman is to be commended.
  I just wanted to say that the gentlewoman did hit on the donors 
conference that is happening on October 23. I think this Congress 
should hold back on the $87 billion. If we give $87 billion, then why 
are we having a donors conference? We went from $12 billion, saying 
that the donors from other places are down to $6 billion. Now there is 
some question about $3 billion.
  I am here tonight definitely on behalf of the American people of 
being able to share with them what they need to know. But $87 billion 
as it relates to Florida means $4.5 billion that we will not receive, 
which could equate to $672.7 billion in school construction. The 
governor down there is hollering about we need more money for schools. 
Mr. Speaker, 6,062 in new affordable housing units that could create 
4,839 jobs and also 769.7 million in local and State roads and bridges 
that could create 27,099 jobs; 8,8,970 new firefighters and health care 
coverage for 434,452 people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that both of my colleagues are here tonight.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just as the gentleman closes 
and the time is ending, let us put a face on this. We are standing here 
because we are trying to save lives of the young men and women on the 
front lines in Iraq.

                          ____________________