[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 24, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H555-H561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel) is recognized for half the remaining time, approximately 
27 minutes, as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be back on the House floor 
with my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and 
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and I think others will 
join us, for another installment of Iraq Watch. We have been coming to 
the floor one evening a week since, I believe, last May to talk about 
our policies in Iraq, to raise questions about the policies when we do 
not understand those policies, to suggest alternatives, to try to get 
information before the Members of the Congress and the members of the 
general public about what is happening in Iraq.
  Before turning to my colleagues for this week's installment of Iraq 
Watch, let me review a little bit what has been happening, and the last 
few weeks have been tough weeks for President Bush regarding his 
policies in Iraq. We know that the chief CIA weapons inspector, Dr. 
David Kay, returned from Iraq and said that stockpiles of weapons of 
mass destruction do not exist. He could not find weapons of mass 
destruction themselves. He doubts that such stockpiles existed before 
we went to war. He doubts they existed in 2002 or 2003. This, of 
course, is completely contrary to the White House assertions in the 
fall of 2002 and in the spring of 2003 that these weapons of mass 
destruction existed.
  The President continued to advocate his case and, in my judgment, 
hype the

[[Page H556]]

situation regarding weapons of mass destruction in the State of the 
Union Address where he talked about weapons of mass destruction-related 
program activities. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is a 
weapons of mass destruction-related program activity, but I can tell my 
colleagues what it is not. It is not a weapon of mass destruction, 
because we have not found those in Iraq, according to our chief CIA 
weapons inspector David Kay.
  Then, in his Face The Nation interview recently, the President talked 
about Dr. Kay's report and said that Dr. Kay came home and, number 1, 
made an interim report and, number 2, suggested that things were worse 
in Iraq than we thought.
  Well, in fact, may I say to my colleagues, Dr. Kay came back from 
Iraq not to make an interim report, but to quit. He said he has had 
enough. He is frustrated. He says he is not getting the support that he 
thinks the Iraq Study Group should get in order to focus on the search 
for weapons of mass destruction. He believes those weapons do not 
exist. And far from saying things were worse over there than he 
thought, he said we could not find the things that we were told we 
would find.
  Then, the President finally appointed a commission to study the 
intelligence regarding Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction. And I 
am glad that he appointed such a commission, but he made two big 
mistakes, in my judgment. One, he limited the time, or maybe I should 
say he expanded the time so that the Commission will not complete its 
work until well after this fall's election. Secondly, he limited the 
scope of the Commission. He asked them to look into the accuracy of the 
intelligence gathering. And I agree that accuracy must be reviewed, but 
he did not ask the Commission to review the use of that intelligence by 
the White House itself.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On 
that exact point, if we were just reciting a litany of errors made in 
the sense of an honest misreading after a genuine inquiry, that would 
be one thing, but the really shocking evidence to the contrary is now 
coming out. In fact, we even see reports about where was the press? Why 
was this taking place? And it turns out the source for much of this 
information, not just for those in the intelligence agencies, but from 
those reporting on it, was coming from the same sources.
  The general public listening to us might say, well, that is all well 
and good for you folks in the Congress to be mentioning these things 
now, to be commenting on it now, but we had no access to that. We were 
not privy to that kind of inquiry on the basis of a position in the 
Congress where we could actually ask in depth in closed briefings and 
hearings as to what the source of this information was. Yet we find now 
in the Washington Post just 2 days ago a report taken from the London 
Telegraph on commentary from Ahmad Chalabi. That name has been on this 
floor previously. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has 
examined Mr. Chalabi's career in detail. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), I believe, has done the same.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the gentleman for a 
moment, I am proud of the fact that last April in one of our very first 
Iraq Watches, I identified Mr. Chalabi in the words that my grandfather 
would have used as a four flusher. I have to explain what a four 
flusher is. A four flusher is a man whose word you cannot accept, and 
if it was good enough for my grandfather, it is good enough for me.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, let me explain what Mr. Chalabi 
admitted to. He is now on the Governing Council. This is the body upon 
which the United States is presently relying. This is the body upon 
which the United States is presently conducting policy in terms of 
their being able to take over on June 30, this arbitrary date that has 
been set by the Bush administration.
  He now lays claim to the following. He was accused of peddling phony 
tips about Iraq's weapons, the very thing that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has been speaking of. Again quoting from the 
Washington Post, he shrugged off charges that he had deliberately 
misled U.S. intelligence, We are heroes in error.
  He told the Telegraph in an interview Wednesday in Baghdad, As far as 
we are concerned, we have been entirely successful. Our objective has 
been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in 
Baghdad. What was said before is not important.
  Quoting it now from the Washington Post, not even to the families of 
all the killed and wounded?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, not even for 
the American taxpayers that are putting out some $167 billion to date. 
That is absolutely outrageous.
  What I learned this evening, and I find it particularly disturbing, 
is that Mr. Chalabi was present in this chamber during the State of the 
Union that was delivered by President Bush back in January and sat with 
other members of the Iraqi Governing Council in the box where the First 
Lady was sitting. This is absolutely unacceptable.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat then for those who may be 
tuning in and trying to get the context here. Let me repeat exactly 
what Mr. Chalabi said, our champion in Baghdad, the person upon whom is 
the principal resource apparently for the intelligence that was 
delivered to the President, delivered to the Congress, and apparently 
delivered to reporters who were all supposed to be checking sources.
  Part of the thing that we need to remind ourselves and remind the 
public of is that we are dependent upon the professional integrity of 
journalists as well. We are dependent upon it. We are certainly the 
object of it often enough. We are dependent on them checking their 
sources to make sure that they are reliable. Let me repeat what he 
said.
  The reason I want to do that is that this is as cynical and sinister 
a pronouncement as I have heard in my political lifetime. I am quoting 
Mr. Chalabi, as reported in the Washington Post, We are heroes in 
error. As far as we are concerned, we have been entirely successful. 
Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the 
Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I would just like to, if I may, pick up on that point 
with Mr. Chalabi.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) described Mr. Chalabi 
in very unflattering terms, but I think a more apt description of Mr. 
Chalabi is that he is a convicted felon. When he fled Iraq he ended up 
in London for a period of time and then went ahead and conducted 
business, banking business, financial services, in the kingdom of 
Jordan. There he was charged with embezzlement and a series of other 
crimes that would constitute in our jurisprudence a felony. He was 
tried and convicted and was sentenced to 22 years by a Jordanian court. 
I am sure he would contest that. I am sure that he would proclaim his 
innocence, but that is a fact, a reality. That is not just simply an 
unflattering description of an individual.
  When the king of Jordan came and visited with Members of the House 
Committee on International Relations, and I forget if the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) was there, but I posed to the king, who 
has been an erstwhile ally of the United States and his father before 
him in the region for decades and has cooperated with the United States 
in terms of the war against terrorism, I asked the king if he had been 
consulted by the United States Government because I was aware that Mr. 
Chalabi had been convicted of a serious crime, an embezzlement of some 
hundreds of millions of dollars. He said, with certain equanimity, No, 
I was not.
  I did not pursue it because I did not want to cause the king any 
embarrassment, but it was clear to me and others at that meeting that 
he clearly was displeased, and to think that we turned our back on an 
ally, who according to newspaper reports, and the truth always outs, 
was encouraging defectors to provide intelligence that he should have 
known was false, was false.
  If I can pursue for just one more moment, this is dated February 19 
and is

[[Page H557]]

from the Daily Telegraph in London, a British newspaper obviously. U.S. 
officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of 
false intelligence, the claim that Saddam Hussein had a mobile 
biological weapons laboratory, had come from a major in the Iraqi 
intelligence service, made available by the INC.
  Those watching us tonight should understand that the INC is an 
anachronism for the Iraqi National Congress which is the creation of 
Ahmed Chalabi.
  U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the 
defector even passed a lie detector test, but in later interviews it 
became apparent he was stretching the truth and had been coached by the 
INC.
  This is a report from a respected British newspaper that segues 
exactly the reporting that was done in the Washington Post. This is 
outrageous and to think that this gentleman was in this institution 
while sitting in the First Lady's box during the State of the Union, 
meanwhile we had voted, and many in this chamber on both sides of the 
aisle had voted a difficult vote, cast an extremely hard vote in terms 
of war and peace based upon false intelligence? Then we are carrying 
the burden, not just of the war but of the reconstruction.
  We are the only Nation, that I am aware of, that when we appropriated 
the moneys for Iraq did not insist that it be paid back at any point in 
time. All of the other donors insisted on some sort of a loan 
arrangement and we did not, and if we really want to pour salt on the 
wound, this is from the Houston Chronicle, and it is dated February 21. 
The headline is the United States still paying the source of the 
tainted intelligence. That is a Knight Ridder outlet. Indulge me for a 
moment while I read this to my colleagues.

                              {time}  2320

  ``The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars 
for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced 
some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used 
to argue his case for war.''
  We are paying now. Today.
  ``The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this 
year for the information collection program of the Iraqi National 
Congress led by Ahmed Chalabi, said two senior U.S. officials and a 
U.S. defense official. They spoke on condition of anonymity because 
intelligence programs are classified.''
  Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman will yield, as bad as the situation is 
that the gentleman from Massachusetts has just described, it could be 
even worse, the impact of this faulty intelligence on this country. 
Think back on the military strategy that our Armed Forces used. We all 
understand that our Armed Forces fought bravely, with great courage. 
But remember that they rushed to Baghdad because they believed that 
weapons of mass destruction were there, in large measure because of the 
representations made by Chalabi and others, and the very false and 
misleading information that the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
identified tonight.
  Our troops did not protect their flanks. They figured the most 
important thing they had to do was get to Baghdad and stop any 
potential use of these weapons of mass destruction against the American 
troops or the British troops or against the Iraqi citizens; that the 
key was to get there as quickly as possible. And in that rush, which 
they successfully did, very bravely and courageously, they left their 
flanks exposed. The insurgency started, and we began to lose soldiers 
right away because they were not taking their time, they were not 
protecting themselves. They thought they had to rush in.
  I think you can put onto the heads of these folks that gave us bad 
information the loss of life, the loss of American life by our brave 
soldiers whose leaders thought they had to adopt one strategy based 
upon incorrect information, when it would have been a little safer for 
our troops to protect the flanks, move more carefully and cautiously, 
which I am sure they would have done if they were not worried about 
these weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, the question now then becomes, unless I missed something, this 
Chalabi is a hired gun. This Chalabi is a creature of the 
administration. He has no executive authority here. He has no voting 
power. He does not make recommendations to the President of the United 
States as an adviser, other than as a hired hand. Where was the 
verification? This man has a vested interest in getting this country 
into war in Iraq.
  What bothers me, what distresses me is that what he was saying fits 
very conveniently into the ideology and the philosophy and the foreign 
policy desires of some of the people who have been most adamant in 
advocating war with Iraq before the weapons of mass destruction 
principle was laid down as the foundation for war with Iraq.
  It is not as if it is a conspiracy. It is not as if it is a hidden 
plot. It is not as if it is some diabolical machination taking place in 
secret. Matter of fact, we have had dialogue. I have had dialogue and 
discussion personally with those who advocated this, like Mr. Perle, 
Mr. Kristol, Mr. Boot, Mr. Woolsey, who himself was head of the CIA. 
They published their articles. They have their books written. They have 
had this position for some time.
  So it is not as if this is something that I have suddenly discovered 
or others have suddenly discovered and now are shocked. I am not. What 
shocks me is that people would take ostensible information or 
intelligence and assume it to be true without checking it out 
thoroughly, precisely because it fit what they would like it to be.
  I know when somebody is telling me something I want to hear, 
something I would like to be true, something I hope is going to take 
place, I know that a little bell goes off, a little tremor takes place 
in me saying, wait a minute, let us make sure that I am not being told 
something because I want to hear it, because I would like to believe 
it, because I want it to be so, particularly when the consequences are 
going to be those of life and death.
  When you are making a recommendation and have the authority, 
particularly as President of the United States, as the Commander in 
Chief, have the capacity and the authority to act on that 
recommendation and to make it in turn to the people of this country, 
then it is incumbent upon you, more than perhaps any other person in 
this Nation, to be absolutely sure you know what you are talking about, 
what your sources are and how reliable they are, not just because 
someone has told you what you want to hear, but because you know it to 
be factual and the implications to be clear in terms of war and peace.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has heard the term 
before, but when we speak of a blind man in a room with deaf mutes, 
this is an apt description of absolutely what has occurred in this 
particular case involving this particular individual by the name of 
Chalabi, Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted felon.
  But let me give another possible motive. And again, this is simply a 
news story that I am reading to my colleagues and to those that are 
watching here this evening, because I think it is very important that 
the American people start to understand the dimensions and the 
magnitude of what occurred here and the absolute need for a thorough 
transparent presentation of all the facts over an extended period of 
time to the American people.
  This is not about politics. No, it is not. This is about the national 
security of the United States and how we are viewed by the rest of the 
world. Our credibility is at risk here. If we perceive another 
situation that is fraught with peril for our people, and we present 
intelligence to the rest of the world, who is going to believe us?
  Let me suggest another motive. This is from Newsday, a New York 
paper, and it is dated February 15. ``U.S. authorities in Iraq have 
awarded more than $400 million in contracts to a start-up company that 
has extensive family and, according to court documents, business ties 
with Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon favorite on the Iraqi Governing 
Council. The chief architect of the umbrella organization of the 
resistance, the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi is viewed by many 
Iraqis as the hand-picked choice to rule Iraq.''

[[Page H558]]

  What a disaster that would be. And while we know there are very 
sensitive negotiations and discussions going on currently between 
elements in Iraq and between the United Nations, clearly Secretary 
General Kofi Annan has sent a special representative. He is in the 
process of reviewing it to make recommendations as to how power is 
transitioned to the Iraqi people. Yet here we are discussing on the 
floor of the House tonight the potential of having this particular 
individual as the hand-picked representative of American interests 
assuming a role in a future Iraqi Government that clearly, clearly most 
in the region, my earlier reference to my conversation with King 
Hussein from Jordan, will find particularly offensive. Clearly there is 
no support from the Iraqi people.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who did the hand picking? Who did the hand picking? He 
did not pick himself. Is there someone in the administration, are there 
a group of people in the administration?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course there are people in the administration.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Perhaps the gentleman can enlighten me by answering 
that question.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me read from the original story that I discussed; 
we are still paying for the tainted intelligence. The American 
taxpayers are going to foot the bill for Ahmed Chalabi to come to the 
United States and sit in the First Lady's box. Let me read this: ``The 
decision not to shut off funding for the information-gathering effort 
could become another liability for Bush as the Presidential campaign 
heats up, and suggests that some within the administration are intent 
on securing a key role for Chalabi in Iraq's political future.'' 
Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice President Cheney's 
office, and among top Pentagon officials, is on the Iraqi Governing 
Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United States, to help 
administer the country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April.
  So here we are. We received false information, as the gentleman 
indicated in response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) 
yielding. He said the Americans are in Baghdad, we got what we want, 
and he is continuing to get paid. And according to reports from British 
newspapers, business associates of his just secured more than $400 
million of American taxpayer resources for contracts awarded by the 
CPA, by Paul Bremer.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a picture or any film 
of Mr. Chalabi when he was not smiling and when he did not have the 
smuggest look on his face and when he did not have the demeanor of 
someone who had pulled off a coup, when he did not have a patronizing 
attitude towards those doing the interview. I can understand why. He 
has played us for saps and suckers, and the result is we have dead and 
wounded, grievously wounded. The result is the sacking of the Treasury 
of the United States, and the result is that we have had people whose 
ideological bent in the administration was such that they wanted to go 
to war using each other, Chalabi using them, them using Chalabi, in the 
most cynical fashion, the result of which we now see before us.
  He said, and I remind Members and those listening to us, what was 
said before is not important. That which became the justification for 
what we did is not important. He got what he wanted. Those who wanted 
to have war with Iraq got what they wanted. They are not paying the 
price. They are not the ones who have to suffer for the rest of their 
lives either by having grievous wounds or by having the irretrievable 
loss of someone that they love as a result of this.
  The question for us and the question that we have to ask not just 
ourselves but the American people are going to have to ask, is, is this 
going to be allowed? Is this going to be something that we are going to 
pass off? The fact that the Newsweek cover that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) referred to in his remarks just previously 
could have a headline, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War,'' the crass 
indifference of a headline like that in terms of its implications, as 
if you sell a war, not that you are driven into it, not that necessity 
forced you to come to that sorry and reluctant conclusion, but rather 
how you sold the war.
  Nothing, I think, could be a commentary more persuasive to me of how 
this has been manipulated, how this has been maneuvered in a way that 
discredits this administration, discredits Mr. Cheney in that role. He 
has yet to come to grips with it, and the White House and the 
administration as a whole has yet to come to grips with it, because if 
my information is correct and the information given to The Washington 
Post is correct, and this is something that one would have the 
opportunity to see whether it is correct unless it has changed since 
its publication on February 22 was that the Web site for the White 
House, the White House official Web site cites the same false 
information today. It has not changed since March. I quote from the Web 
site of the White House as of February 22: ``The United Nations and 
U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein 
has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but has not 
accounted for them: 26,000 liters of anthrax, enough to kill several 
million people; 38,000 liters of botulism toxin; 500 tons of sarin 
mustard and VX nerve agents; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering 
chemical agents.'' And finally: ``He recently sought significant 
quantities of uranium in Africa, according to the British Government.''
  These are the same lies and the same fabrications, the same 
prevarications, the same falsehoods, the same misleading directions 
that took us into this war and continue to be repeated in the face of 
the knowledge that we know them not to be true.
  How could it be that these continue to be repeated? Is it any wonder 
that Mr. Chalabi laughs at us? Is it any wonder that he adopts a smug 
disposition when we continue to support him, we continue to pay him, we 
continue to support the policies that he espoused, and he is able to 
say what was said before is not important because obviously there are 
no penalties attached to it?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we have talked quite a bit tonight about 
Ahmed Chalabi, and rightly so; but he is not apparently the only 
favorite of the American government involved in positioning themselves 
for leadership in Iraq.
  In today's Roll Call, one of the Hill newspapers, a fascinating 
front-page story titled ``Iraqi Money Flows'' detailing how four 
different Iraqis seeking power in Iraq are paying over $100,000 a month 
for lobbying costs and public relations costs here in the U.S. capital. 
It is a million-dollar-plus annual industry.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, where does the money come from?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a clue. Ahmed Chalabi and 
three others listed in the article are paying up to a combined $100,000 
a month.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Chalabi and his cohorts are 
paying this kind of money, what is the principal source of income that 
we have already enunciated for Mr. Chalabi and his friends?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. The principal source I know of is U.S. Government.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In other words, the U.S. taxpayers are paying this 
guy to in turn pay lobbyists in Washington to advocate his position and 
influence Members of Congress.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. To influence Members of Congress and influence the 
administration.

                              {time}  2340

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Before we get too carried away with Chalabi, let me just 
make the point that is in the Roll Call article. There were three 
others doing this. One of them is the favorite of the CIA to be the new 
Iraqi leader and a third the favorite of the State Department to be the 
new Iraqi leader. The gentleman from Massachusetts is right, the 
Defense Department has long wanted Chalabi to be the new leader of the 
Iraqi Government.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The convicted felon.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. The favorite of the State Department is Adnan Pachachi, 
who is another member of the current interim government in Iraq as 
Chalabi is. And, according to Roll Call, the favorite of the CIA is 
Ayad Allawi, also a member of the Iraqi Governing Council.

[[Page H559]]

  We have got a three-headed monster here. The administration itself 
cannot agree on who should be the next leader of the Iraqi Government. 
There are three different agencies pushing three different people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We would hope that that would be the Iraqi people, 
because if we preach democracy, hopefully we will abide by the decision 
that the Iraqi people in an election reach on their own. That is a 
message that I think, and I think we speak for many Members on both 
sides of the aisle here, that yes, the absolute sine qua non, the 
essential ingredient to a democracy is to give voice to all of the 
people, not some selected individuals hand-picked by Dick Cheney, by 
the CIA, or by anybody else to run the country for the Iraqis, because 
if that happens, the American taxpayer is going to end up with a much 
larger bill than we have already assumed.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman from Massachusetts is making a lot of 
sense here, but the situation is made that much worse by the fact we 
are not just trying to hand-pick the next leader from Washington, but 
the Bush administration has three different favorites, one from the 
Defense Department, one from the State Department, one from the CIA.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, not having seen the 
article, does the article go on to elucidate for us who these 
individuals are who are doing the lobbying? Are there firms here? Are 
there American firms who are going to come to Members of Congress and 
advocate on behalf of these individuals our appointees?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes. All the firms are identified, the monthly 
retainers. It is an interesting article. It is a million-dollar 
industry.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman consider submitting that article 
for the Record so that those who want to read the article in the 
Congressional Record subsequent to our discussion tonight will know all 
of the details?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I will be delighted to do it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will ask to have the article that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is referring to entered into the Record as 
part of our deliberation.

                    [From Roll Call, Feb. 24, 2004]

                           Iraqi Money Flows

                           (By Brody Mullins)

       Several well-heeled Iraqis who hope to play central roles 
     in Iraq's emerging government have launched lobbying 
     campaigns in Washington to influence the Bush administration 
     and Congress as they work to shape a permanent government in 
     Iraq.
       The group of Iraqis, which include three members of the 
     U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council, are spending as much as 
     $100,000 per month on lobbying firms and public relations 
     agents to press U.S. officials to create a modern, democratic 
     government that is not dominated by Islamic conservatives.
       ``It's like they are running for president,'' said one U.S. 
     official of the competing public relations efforts in 
     Washington.
       The three Iraqis began their public relations efforts in 
     Washington more than a decade after another Iraqi member of 
     the Iraqi Governing Council--Ahmed Chalabi--began cultivating 
     close ties to now-Vice President Cheney and other key 
     administration officials.
       According to forms filed with the Justice Department, Ayad 
     Allawi, a member and former president of the Iraqi Governing 
     Council, has begun an expensive lobbying and public relations 
     effort to press U.S. officials to build a modern democratic 
     government that builds on Iraq's existing foundations.
       Allawi has already paid more than $300,000 to Washington 
     from Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP to help open 
     doors on Capital Hill and at the White House.
       Allawi also hired a former U.S. ambassador to coordinate 
     his Washington effort and a New York advertising firm that 
     once worked for the Beatles to manage his image in the United 
     States.
       The public relations effort, which could top $1 million 
     this year, is funded by Mashal Nawab, an Iraqi-born physician 
     who is a ``close friend and admirer'' of Allawi, according to 
     the Justice Department forms.
       Adnan Pachachi, another member and former president of 
     Iraq's interim government, has also signed up a Washington 
     public relations firm to help him get his message across to 
     the Bush administration and Congress.
       F. Wallace Hayes, working on a pro bono basis for now, will 
     write press releases for the 70-year-old Pachachi that 
     ``promote democracy in Iraq,'' according to the Justice 
     Department forms.
       Meanwhile, Baqir Jabor, an Iraqi exile appointed by the 
     United States to run Iraq's housing and construction 
     department, has asked former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) and 
     his influential Washington lobbying firm to help arrange a 
     series of meetings with the Bush administration during his 
     upcoming visit to the United States.
       Officials at Livingston Group said Jabor is not a formal 
     client of the firm. Other details of Livingston's work with 
     Jabor are not yet available because Jabor first asked 
     Livingston for help only last month.
       The new public relations campaigns in Washington come as 
     the Bush administration struggles to complete an interim 
     constitution for Iraq by the end of the month in order to 
     turn control of the government over to Iraq this year.
       In the past few days, it has become clear that the United 
     States will fail to meet both deadlines.
       Over the weekend, the Kurds in northern Iraq--which 
     comprise 20 percent of the country--rejected key parts of the 
     constitution. Meanwhile, Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator 
     in Iraq, acknowledged last week that it is unlikely that Iraq 
     will be able to hold an election for at least another year.
       By hiring lobbyists in Washington, the Iraqi leaders hope 
     to one day play a central role in the emerging government.
       The Iraqis who have hired lobbyists are each former exiles 
     who want the United States to create a democratically elected 
     government.
       Iraq's Shiites make up as much as 60 percent of the country 
     and are better organized than their political and ethnic 
     rivals, the Kurds and the Sunnis.
       The leader of Iraq's Shiite conservatives, Grand Ayatollah 
     Ali al-Sistani, hopes to schedule quick elections, knowing 
     that he and his allies would dominate the government if 
     elections are held soon.
       Allawi, Jabor and Pachachi share another rival in Chalabi. 
     But unlike the Iraqi newcomers to Washington, Chalabi has 
     worked for years in Washington cultivating friendships with 
     key players like Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.
       Since 1986, Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his 
     Iraqi National Congress in Washington for about $10,000 a 
     month. One of the partners at Shea & Gardner is James 
     Woolsey, the former CIA director.
       Chalabi also gets help from Francis Brooke, a political 
     consultant, and Riva Levinson of BKSH & Associates, the 
     Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a long-time ally of 
     President Bush.
       Those contacts have paid off: At this year's State of the 
     Union address, Chalabi sat in the VIP box with first lady 
     Laura Bush.
       Chalabi also was one of the few Iraqis permitted to meet 
     face to face with Saddam Hussein in his cell in the hours 
     after his capture in late December.
       Chalabi has long been considered the favorite of Defense 
     Department officials to lead Iraq's new government.
       However, his star appears to be fading as Pentagon 
     officials question some of the military intelligence he 
     provided before the war and as Iraqis increasingly view 
     Chalabi as a pawn for the United States.
       Meanwhile, the State Department is thought to favor 
     Pachachi, while the CIA backs Allawi. His main opponent in 
     Washington is thought to be Chalabi, a distant relative.
       Though Chalabi and Allawi both oppose an Iraqi government 
     run by Islamics, they split over the structure of a new 
     secular government.
       Chalabi would like to rid the country of anything to do 
     with Hussein's Baath Party, while Chalabi--a member of the 
     Baath Party before it was hijacked by Hussein in the 1970s--
     believes the new government should be built upon the existing 
     foundations.
       ``There are options available to make use of the civil 
     structures that are available in Iraq rather than throwing 
     everything out,'' said R. Paul Stimers of Allawi's lobbying 
     firm, Preston Gates.
       Allawi, a neuroscientist by training, survived a vicious 
     assassination attempt in the late 1970s when Hussein allies 
     tried to axe him to death in his sleep. He later became a 
     source of important--and sometimes suspect--intelligence 
     information to the CIA.
       After the war, he was appointed to the interim Iraqi 
     Governing Council and tapped to take charge of security for 
     the country.
       In Washington, Allawia and his British benefactor last fall 
     hired Patrick Theros, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, to 
     build his base of support among key Members of Congress and 
     the Bush administration.
       Theros runs a consulting firm, Theros & Theros, with his 
     wife and son out of their home in a leafy section of 
     Northwest Washington.
       With a total monthly budget that began at $122,000, Allawi 
     brought on New York public relations agency Brown Lloyd James 
     Ltd.--a firm that once represented the Beatles--for $12,500 a 
     month.
       For lobbying work, Allawi tapped Washington lobbying shop 
     Preston Gates for $100,000 a month, though the firm has since 
     lowered its monthly retainer to less than $50,000.
       According to contracts filed with the Justice Department, 
     the firms will help Allawi ``gain U.S. government support for 
     his policy suggestions for Iraq'' by ``explain[ing] his views 
     on the security and political situation in Iraq.''
       Theros, who is making about $10,000 a month from Allawi, 
     plans to attend ``public forums, seminars, events and 
     meetings which represent an opportunity'' to express Allawi's 
     ideas.
       Allawi's lobbying effort was expected to end this spring 
     when the United States was

[[Page H560]]

     expected to hand control over the government to Iraq.
       But with the prospects of meeting that deadline dim, the 
     lobbying and public relations campaign is expected to 
     continue.

  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, I think I can answer his 
question at least in part here. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania just 
indicated, there are rival camps now that presumably the American 
taxpayer is supporting in their lobbying efforts in terms of securing 
more resources and more tax dollars from Congress and the 
administration. But it would appear that Mr. Chalabi has an advantage. 
According to the Roll Call edition of today, it reports that unlike the 
Iraqi newcomers to Washington, Chalabi has worked for years in 
Washington cultivating friendships with key players like Cheney, like 
Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, all 
gentlemen that we have heard from during the course of the debate that 
many in the majority party have described as so-called 
neoconservatives.
  The Roll Call article goes on to indicate that since 1986, Shea & 
Gardner has represented Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress in 
Washington for $10,000 a month. So Mr. Chalabi certainly was an 
individual of some affluence. Clearly that was the impression that the 
Jordanians had when they convicted him of embezzling some 300 million 
American dollars from a significant financial institution in Jordan. 
But that was $10,000 a month. For your edification, for those of the 
viewing audience, they should be aware that one of the partners at Shea 
& Gardner is James Woolsey, the former CIA Director who has been an 
outspoken advocate for military intervention in Iraq.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, I want to make sure I 
understood really, because I have had some conversations with Mr. 
Woolsey. They were affable. I considered them informative and 
straightforward. I just want to make sure. You mean when he was talking 
to me about these issues, he was part of a firm that was being paid 
$10,000 a month by one of the individuals, by Chalabi himself?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. By Chalabi himself.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That was never revealed to me. I must say, and I 
want it on the record, that I resent that. If I knew that at least, 
that is okay. I am an adult. I am perfectly capable of differentiating 
between someone's sincerely held views and business associations they 
might have. If somebody represents to me that, look, I just want to 
tell you that we have a business relationship with this person, but I 
hope you will grant me that I am speaking to you, giving you my best 
and sincerest personal judgment regardless of my connection, I can 
accept that, and I would have, surely, because I like to think that I 
am a person, I hope, of some integrity, and I would do the same. If I 
have strong views about something, I will certainly tell people the 
whys and wherefores of it. But as a Member of Congress and having had 
conversations with Mr. Woolsey concerning some of these issues, not to 
have that kind of information, I think, is a subterfuge.
  I am sorry to say it. It pains me. It pains me to say that. What you 
just said to me is, in fact, shocking. If people want to be cynical 
about it or think that I am just making some rhetorical flourish, they 
can think so, but it is not. I do not conduct my affairs that way. I do 
not deal with other people that way. I feel personally offended, to 
tell you the truth, that such a thing could take place. I had no idea 
that there was that kind of relationship, because I think that might 
have colored what was said to me.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I would hope, and yet it would appear to be a remote 
possibility, given all that we know, that Mr. Woolsey was unaware of 
the representation possibly by another partner.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Woolsey has 
appeared on television numerous times as a commentator. He has been 
introduced as the former head of the CIA. I have seen him often making 
commentary and being asked for his perspective, and never once have I 
heard on any of those television shows, never once, unless I missed it, 
maybe I tuned in in the middle, maybe there is something that I missed, 
but I do not believe ever once on any of those shows that any of those 
hosts ever indicated that he is being paid by a member of the Governing 
Council, or that his firm is being paid by a member of the Governing 
Council, and that therefore, at the very least, on the basis of full 
disclosure that we should know that so that you can take that into 
account if you think that is pertinent with respect to what he is 
saying.
  I wonder if the hosts of some of these television shows and radio 
shows and even those newspaper columnists who are quoting Mr. Woolsey 
are aware or whether they have made the inquiry as to whether or not 
such a situation exists. What bothers me as a Member of Congress, does 
this mean that I have to ask every single person that speaks to me, 
every single person with whom I have a conversation for a list of 
particulars as to what their associations are before I engage in a 
conversation or can expect on my part to receive information that is 
the best judgment of this person rather than the paid retorts and paid-
for positions of someone who is in the hire of somebody else?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I share your disappointment. I really do. I find it so 
incredulous that I will presume that there is some responsible answer 
why that disclosure was never made.

                              {time}  2350

  Maybe this is a question of inaccurate reporting, but this is what 
appeared today in the Roll Call magazine that is distributed throughout 
the Capitol building.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield again to 
me, the newspaper article, again, I am presuming that it is accurate. 
Does it indicate that this is a current relationship?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me read it again, and let me go on because there is 
more information.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I realize I am taking time up here, but 
I am genuinely upset and shocked by this because I feel personally 
used. I mean, some of these conversations took place on official trips 
of the United States Government.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I am reading for the gentleman's benefit and for 
those who are viewing our conversation here this evening: ``Since 1986 
Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress 
in Washington for about $10,000 a month. One of the partners at Shea & 
Gardner is James Woolsey, the former CIA director.
  ``Chalabi also gets help from Francis Brooke, a political consultant, 
and Riva Levinson, the Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a 
long-time ally of President Bush.
  ``These contacts have paid off: at this year's State of the Union 
address, Chalabi sat in the VIP box with the first lady, Laura Bush. 
Chalabi was also one of the few Iraqis permitted to meet face to face 
with Saddam Hussein in his cell in the hours after his capture in late 
December.
  ``Chalabi has long been considered the favorite of the Defense 
Department officials to lead Iraq's new government.''
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, there is something else troubling about 
this. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is correct and he is 
right to be personally offended by the lack of disclosure. And it is 
also clear from this article that a lot of money is being spent to 
influence the gentleman from Hawaii and me and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and every other Member of Congress, and we 
have a right to know who is being paid to influence us and what the 
subject matter is.
  But the fact that this article also demonstrates that the Bush 
administration is pushing three different people to be the next leader 
of the Iraq government leads to the following question: What does come 
next in the larger governance question? We know that Paul Bremer has 
been advocating on behalf of the Bush administration this concept of 
caucuses, that when the Bush administration leaves Iraq on June 30, at 
least the civil authority is pulled out, that Paul Bremer has been 
pushing for caucuses to take the place of direct elections and somehow 
lead to a representative form of self-government for Iraq.
  The problem is none of the Iraqis like that idea. The head of the 
majority

[[Page H561]]

Shiite Muslims do not like that idea. The Kurds do not like that idea. 
That is not going to happen. What is going to take the place of the 
American-appointed 25-member group of what most Iraqis think are 
American puppets, the Iraqi Governing Council, what is going to take 
their place, particularly if the Bush administration has three 
different favorites to lead the next government? What comes next? We 
have got an arbitrary deadline set by the President of June 30 to 
withdraw the civilian authority, a date that seems more based upon the 
upcoming election than any ability of the Iraqi people to actually 
conduct a self-government.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman suggesting that there is 
no exit strategy?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I could not have said it better. There is clearly no 
exit strategy. In fact, there are three different strategies, if the 
Roll Call article is correct, about who is supposed to lead the next 
government, and all of this is supposed to come to fruition by June 30.
  Iraq Watch has to come to fruition in 5 minutes tonight. I want to 
give my two colleagues an opportunity to make any closing comments.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in that regard 
that this is my 30th year in public service. I have made friendships 
and conducted business, legislative business, and evolved personal 
relationships over those 30 years with a great number of individuals. I 
have particularly valued those who are sometimes disparagingly referred 
to as special interests or lobbyists as if that is seen by many people 
as a derogatory term or a term of denigration. And I do not see it that 
way. I want to make it clear in terms of my expressed disappointment 
with regard to this revelation about Mr. Woolsey; and now I guess I am 
going to have to wonder about everybody else too that I have a 
conversation with, I am not trying to keep people from making a living.
  It does not bother me any. As I say, I have friends who lobby on 
behalf of what are called special interests. We all have special 
interests. We are a multiplicity of special interests. One has only to 
read the Federalist Papers to understand that. In fact, it can be seen 
as the bulwark of a democratic republic because we do have factions and 
many interests competing with one another for attention and for 
approbation. There is no question about that. The only question to be 
answered in that is do we know that, do we know who they are and what 
they are and why they are and so on so we can discern what the 
difference is?
  I have no problem with people who are our friends, personal and 
otherwise, making their positions known to me or to anyone else in the 
Congress or anywhere else in public office. What bothers me is when 
positions are represented to us and we do not know that someone, in 
fact, is a paid representative, particularly on issues of war and 
peace, life and death. The folks know and the Speaker knows that I am a 
member of the Committee on Armed Services and those are the kinds of 
things we vote on every day, and I think every member there, regardless 
of party, takes seriously, deadly seriously, I might say without any 
sense of irony attached to it, take seriously their responsibility.
  But we are dependent in the Congress on getting good information. The 
President of the United States is dependent upon getting good 
information and making solid judgments based on that information. 
Anybody who fails to give the best possible information with the 
fullest knowledge behind it and the resources is undermining the 
Constitution of the United States and failing their responsibilities as 
a citizen. In this regard, then, I feel ill used in this process by Mr. 
Woolsey, and I feel very definitely that the press and the Congress 
need to make inquiries of everybody who comes before us presenting that 
information and perspective to us upon which we have to act in matters 
of life and death. Everybody has to have the fullest inquiry made of 
them as to what their sources of income are and what their sources of 
information are, whether they are tainted.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I can add to the gentleman's comments, 
specifically about what appeared to be the distortions of information 
in Iraq. I am not speaking of Mr. Woolsey. I am speaking of the Iraqi 
Governing Council representatives, Mr. Chalabi and others. I do not 
want to see them benefit any more than they already have from their 
relationships if they have misled this country and this government, and 
I hope that Congress can figure out a way to deny those individuals, if 
we can show they intentionally misled us, from any further contract 
with the U.S. Government, benefit from the U.S. Government, promotion 
by the U.S. Government. If we have been intentionally misled, if we had 
gone to war in part under their false comments and under false 
pretenses, and particularly, as I believe happened, there have been 
additional American deaths because of that faulty information, we need 
to cut off those relationships and prohibit any further financial 
relationships with these malfeasors.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
think what he is saying is what we need is something that does not 
exist here in Washington at this moment in our history. And that is 
openness and transparency and accountability, and it is not happening. 
To think that, and I do not know whether it was the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) or the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) that mentioned it, they continued to benefit and with an 
attitude that arrogance is not a suitable adjective. It is far beyond 
arrogance. And it is time to lay everything out on the table or the 
American people will lose confidence, not only in the President but in 
the Congress.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can we conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, at 
least for the three of us I think I can speak, there will be openness 
and transparency and accountability on this floor.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their comments. 
Iraq Watch will be back next week.

                          ____________________