[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17917-17923]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Hoeffel) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, for 5 or 6 weeks, a number of us have been 
coming to the floor to discuss our Nation's involvement and our role in 
Iraq. We have at least four times come here, four of us, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and have had 
a discussion and a lively give and take about Iraq, about what is going 
right over there, what is going wrong, trying to seek the truth, trying 
to suggest policy changes, trying to have a full discussion and report 
to the people of this country. And we have decided to do this every 
week, every week that the House is in session as long as our country is 
involved in Iraq.
  We are going to call ourselves the Iraq Watch because we think that 
there are important public policy matters that the American people need 
to be aware of, that Congress needs to focus on, we need to ask 
questions about, seek information about, to clarify, to seek policy 
changes, to make some changes and fundamentally to report to the people 
of this country on what we know and what we think we all ought to know 
about what has happened in Iraq.
  Now, of the four I named, two of us voted in favor of the military 
authority sought by the President and two of us voted ``no'' to 
exercise that authority. But we all were sold, as was the entire 
Congress and the American people, with great certainty by the 
administration and by the President that Saddam Hussein had weapons of 
mass destruction last fall when the vote was approaching and that he 
was trying to develop more. The certainty was expressed in public. The 
certainty was expressed in private.
  I have, along with a number of Members of Congress, attended a 
briefing at the White House, one of a series of briefings. In my case, 
we were briefed by Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, and 
George Tenet, the director of the CIA. We were told with certainty that 
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to 
develop more.
  Now, there is no question that in the past Hussein had weapons of 
mass destruction. That has been proven. He used them. He used weapons 
of mass destruction against his own people. He used them against the 
Kurds. And he used them against innocent civilians in Iraq. He used 
them in murderous ways. That is beyond question. But what we were told 
is that he had them in the fall of 2002, that he was developing more, 
and that he was an impediment to the peace in the Middle East and to 
our Nation's security and because of that imminent threat, we needed to 
exercise preemptive military power to disarm Saddam Hussein.
  I voted for it. I would do so again being told the same information 
as we were told then. I imagine that some of my colleagues who voted 
``no'' would vote ``no'' again. But the question is we are discovering 
that things may not have been just what we thought they were. We 
certainly have won a great military victory. Our armed services, our 
young men and women in uniform performed admirably and with great 
courage in Iraq. But we have got two questions, this group has two 
questions: Fundamentally, is our military mission complete and are we 
winning the peace in Iraq? And I would submit before I yield to my 
colleagues that the military mission is not complete and cannot be 
complete as long as there has not been an accounting of the weapons of 
mass destruction, where are they and who controls them, and what went 
wrong regarding our intelligence, how was our intelligence collected, 
and how was it used by the White House and by the political leadership, 
and are we doing the right things from a policy standpoint to win the 
peace.
  And I suggest that this group of four and many of our colleagues have 
a lot of questions about this. I know those questions are shared by the 
American people; I hope we can give voice to these questions in this 
Iraq Watch. I hope we can come up with some answers or seek those 
answers from the administration, and I hope we can report back on a 
regular basis once a week to the American people.
  I yield now to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for organizing this. It is interesting that 
you noted we were militarily successful, and I think everybody takes 
pride in what our men and women in uniform did in pursuing the mission 
that they were on.
  What I think is unfortunate is that they went into that mission 
without a plan for the occupation and without a sense of how to seek 
and secure that peace once the war was over. And that is something that 
the civilian leaders, that is the type of leadership that the civilian 
leaders needed to provide and did not.
  Let me give you an example of that point. After the war and 
hostilities ceased in both Bosnia and Kosovo, not a single American 
soldier was killed in action after the hostility ceased. Why? Because 
in both cases we had a plan for the occupation, and we had allies, two 
things missing in this endeavor.

                              {time}  2145

  As recently as May, when the Defense Department said we could have 
won the war and secured peace with 50,000 troops, we now have 150,000 
troops. Today there was an announcement that there would be 
postponement of any troops going home. So no family member knows an 
exact date as far as the eye can see on the horizon, and there may even 
be a further call-up for further troops.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague put it also today, India 
has made a decision through its democratic process that it will not 
send troops unless there is a United Nations resolution. What I am 
very, very concerned

[[Page 17918]]

about is, are we going to end up in Iraq with a vast majority of troops 
assigned there to ensure security and stability as Americans?
  We have heard from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, that there 
will be additional foreign troops sent to Iraq, but when we ask the 
question where are these troops coming from, what are their numbers, we 
are met with silence basically. Again, there are reports coming from 
military sources that indicate that if the situation continues to 
deteriorate in Iraq we very well might need double, double, the number 
of troops to ensure again stability and security for the Iraqi people.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that on the 
occupation, not only are our troops there, 150,000 U.S. troops now, 
permanently stationed there, and as my colleague noted that there are 
other countries who will not, like India, participate without the U.N. 
There is nothing that has occurred in the postwar Iraq that was not 
predictable or foreseen pre the war. And I think that although there is 
a great argument about 16 words that were legitimately said in the well 
of this Chamber, the people's House, and it is a legitimate question, I 
think one of the greatest travesties, and I would hope that we would 
have an inquiry in either the House or the other Chamber, any 
investigation, on how we went to war without an exit strategy.
  There has been a bipartisan agreement for a long time that we never 
will send American troops, at least post-Vietnam, we would never send 
American troops into combat without knowing how to exit. We have no 
plan for the peace and we have no plan to secure the exit of our 
American men and women.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the gentleman, as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) can, that there was no lack 
of trying to get that exit strategy from the administration last fall. 
I wrote letters to the President. I know the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) participated in similar efforts. He and I 
serve on the Committee on International Relations. There was great 
efforts at hearings as well as individual letters written to the 
administration seeking information.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask then, the gentleman sought pre 
the war, when there was still the debate in this country going on, if 
we are there, we win, how are we coming home. That question was 
attempted to seek an answer?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And there were never any answers to those questions.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman is correct, there were not answers. And 
there were many more questions, certainly in my letter? How much will 
it cost? How many troops will it take? How many allies will go in with 
us? How many allies will stay with us in the post-conflict exercise?
  The military victory was never in doubt. No one doubted that, but the 
question was what kind of risk were we assuming, would we have friends 
to help us, to absorb some of the cost and to take on some of the 
responsibility so that the United States would not alone be the subject 
of frustration and anger after the fact, which is exactly what is 
happening.
  Thirty American soldiers have been assassinated, attacked, ambushed 
and assassinated since the President declared military victory. About 
75 altogether have died, but 30 have been killed directly.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield 
for a second, according to the Associated Press today, I think as well 
both killed and died in a humvee accident, there has been 84 deaths in 
79 days since the President landed on the Lincoln aircraft carrier. 
Eighty-four Americans have died, 30 plus through assassination, others 
through humvees turning over, other accidents, but 84 Americans are not 
coming home to their loved ones, to see their children. There is no 
doubt.
  I think that that, to me, one of the great travesties here is that 
there is not a plan for the occupation. There is not a plan for the 
exit strategy. And last week we learned now finally after, I do not 
know why we have to browbeat this answer, but we have spent and are 
planning on spending $1 billion a week.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. As far as the eye can see.
  Mr. EMANUEL. That is right, a minimum of 4 years. That is $50 billion 
a year if my math works, and I still I think I am pretty good at it. 
That comes to $200 billion on the occupation side of Iraq. We spend $12 
billion, $12 billion on just college assistance at the Federal level, 
$12 billion versus $200 billion. Two billion dollars would give health 
insurance to every uninsured American and guarantee a bare minimum for 
the other, not just the 42 million but those who are actually being cut 
from the rolls.
  There is much that we can do here at home for that same cost, not 
that we are not for the reconstruction of Iraq. Now that we have won 
the war, I think we all believe that it is pretty essential to invest 
in Iraq's future, but, remember, this is the very time that we are 
going to invest. This is $50 billion we are going to spend now on Iraq 
this year for the occupation.
  Our colleagues and a number of them have a rebuild America account 
for $50 billion to be roads, bridges, economic development, investment 
in infrastructure to move people and goods and services. We will not 
find the money for that. Yet we are going to do more deficit financing 
and burden our country with debt to build $50 billion worth of 
occupation resources for Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that those 
estimates, and my colleague just used them of $50 billion, are based on 
what we know today. The reality is, back in April, Secretary Rumsfeld 
recently acknowledged that the amount of dollars necessary, simply for 
the military presence, put aside the cost of reconstruction, that 
estimate has doubled from some $2 billion to $4 billion a month. I dare 
say that I would not be surprised if 6 months from now we find that 
that $4 billion estimate has mushroomed to a significantly higher 
amount.
  I think we also owe a debt to the recently retired General of the 
Army, General Shinseki, who when he mentioned that at least 200,000 
troops was necessary to ensure peace and stability in Iraq, that 
estimate by the General was dismissed, in fact derided, by Secretary 
Rumsfeld, who mentioned a figure of 125,000. This is beginning to 
remind me of those CBO estimates, about surplus, of trillions of 
dollars of surpluses on an annual basis that have turned into deficits 
as far as the eye can see.
  So, again, the number of troops and the estimate of just the cost of 
sustaining a military presence there is $4 billion.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as 
my colleague knows, as I think all my colleagues know, as they 
obviously tried to get answers to how we were going to secure the 
country, how many allies we are going to have, what was our exit 
strategy, and it was like pulling teeth to get that. We tried to get 
answers to the questions how much would it cost, how many troops. 
Anybody that spoke in the hundreds of thousands were forced out.
  Now we are trying to get answers for who put a statement in the 
President's State of the Union, and we are now ended up blaming the 
Italians it looks like. First, it was the British. The British blamed 
the Italians. The Italians say they do not know where the document came 
from.
  The director of the CIA, all the men and women in Virginia have done 
a wonderful job dedicating their lives to trying to assess information 
and give our civilian leaders the best intelligence and estimates they 
have, and every time we try to get information it is pulling teeth.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we know exactly whose 
fault it was. It is George Tenet. That is what Condoleeza Rice is 
saying. That is what the Vice President is saying. Everybody's quite 
willing to blame George Tenet for that information being in the State 
of the Union that should not have been there. Does anybody in this 
House or watching

[[Page 17919]]

throughout America believe that George Tenet alone is responsible?
  Mr. EMANUEL. Single-handedly.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have written a few or 
participated in a few of the processes of writing a State of the Union.
  In October, this line about gathering uranium from Niger was edited 
out of the President's speech. The way it works in the White House is 
that speech is sent around to the NSE team. So State looks at it, 
Defense looks at it, CIA looks at it, FBI I am sure gets a little 
clearance through Justice, probably not the FBI, and they check the 
assignment. There is an editing. The national security staff underneath 
Condoleeza Rice has to run that process. So the same people that were 
working on the October speech that dismissed this assessment of Niger 
was the same group working on the State of the Union. How one person is 
responsible, that what was a team effort in October but has become a 
single person failure in January, only 3 months later, when nothing 
changed, as we would say back in Chicago, that dog just will not hunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Do they really say that in Chicago?
  Mr. EMANUEL. Periodically, on the northwest side, we have a couple of 
dogs that hunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, can I just add to that?
  I was interested in the comments that were made by representatives of 
the administration during the course of the past 3 or 4 days, including 
the statement obviously by the director of Central Intelligence.
  Unfortunately, as my colleague points out, the statements themselves 
I think create more confusion. There is more ambiguity and less clarity 
now as to what happened. So while it might be that George Tenet, the 
director of Central Intelligence, ought to have made a comment about 
the inclusion of the accusation relative to the West Africa country of 
Niger, I guess the question is, who put those words in there to begin 
with? Who put it in there?
  I will tell my colleagues what I find. I think the only reasonable 
conclusion that can be drawn is that we have different agencies or 
individuals within the agencies that have access to information, that 
we are not communicating with each other. And that should really 
profoundly disturb all of us in the aftermath of the tragedy of 
September 11 because we should have learned from the attack on the 
United States on September 11 that cooperation and coordination are 
essential.
  For example, the gentleman from Illinois references the President 
made a speech on October 7 in Cincinnati. There was a reference to the 
purchase of highly enriched uranium from Niger. During the course of 
the review of that particular speech, the CIA correctly warned the 
President not to use that intelligence in that particular speech. Maybe 
he forgot about that particular process. Maybe he was unaware of it.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, what I want to try to do is try to 
demystify this process. It was not like the CIA got the speech and 
itself edited it out. This is a coordinated process. National security 
does it, its team. There is a domestic team. There is an economic team. 
So when the CIA probably said, no, you cannot use this, everybody's 
eyes in State, Defense, NSE, everybody's eyes saw that it was not 
valid. That is the same team that edits and previews and reviews the 
President's speech in January. So everybody who was participatory in 
the October speech was the same body sitting in the room participating 
in the State of the Union speech.

                              {time}  2200

  I think again people this weekend, for whom George Tenet seems to be 
wearing the laundry, or they are throwing him under the truck, 
remember, this was not good enough 2 weeks later for the Secretary of 
State who said, and I am quoting, ``This is crap, I am not going to use 
this.'' The Secretary of State threw it out.
  We had George Tenet sitting behind them at the U.N. 2 weeks after the 
State of the Union. They knew it was not good then. If it was not good 
enough for the Secretary of State 2 weeks after the State of the Union, 
it was not good enough for the President in October, but somehow it has 
become good enough for the President at the State of the Union, a 
speech on the doorstep of a war where the world was hanging on every 
word.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. It is as if the right hand did not know what the left 
hand was doing. It is as if nobody is in charge. That is the only 
reasonable conclusion that one can infer from this murky explanation, 
this passing almost a legalistic argument.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Remember, the same people that wrote that speech were 
participating in crafting this policy, and they have now set out a 
course of $1 billion a week of occupation, $50 billion a year of U.S. 
taxpayer money for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Yet when 
we talk this week about increasing funding for Head Start, we are told 
no money. Last week when we voted and there was a 6-year freeze put on 
Pell Grants, college assistance for people trying to open up the doors 
for higher education for themselves, we are told there are no 
resources. Yet we will be asked later on to commit resources to the 
occupation and reconstruction of Iraq to the tune of $50 billion. Yet 
here at home, we will be told there are no resources for health care or 
infrastructure.
  The gentleman may say that the right hand did not know what the left 
hand was doing; I wonder if anybody knows what they are planning in 
Iraq and what they are planning here at home when it comes to our own 
economic development. The American people from World War II forward 
have been tremendously generous around the world, and yet they cannot 
continue to be asked to be that generous when their own needs and hopes 
and dreams for their own children are being denied, whether that is in 
the area of health care, investment in our environment, or our own 
economic development.
  I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) have asked some 
questions not just for rhetorical effect, but which throw some light on 
some very interesting aspects of this whole dilemma, which the 
Secretary of Defense says is over with, which the National Security 
Adviser says we have to move on from. I am asking why. Who committed 
these forgeries? I keep hearing about it. I keep asking the questions. 
We cannot get anybody in front of us to answer the questions. Who 
committed these forgeries? The word ``forgery,'' the phrase is used all 
the time; but there does not seem to be the slightest inclination to 
find out what was at stake. Did they appear by spontaneous combustion? 
Was this an immaculate conception of forgery? I do not think so. There 
were reasons for it.
  Now we see the aspect of the Sunday talk shows. They are very 
interesting these days. Turn off the sound and watch the eyes and the 
expressions of the people who are speaking. Just watch that. Get the 
body language down, and Members will see the tension that is there 
because they do not want to answer the question who benefited from 
having this kind of an observation in that speech by the President. It 
has nothing to do with 16 words or a single sentence. It has everything 
to do with the reasons behind that being recommended to the President.
  This is not an accusation against the President. We are not going to 
determine that down here tonight as to what the President did or did 
not do with respect to that speech. The President is having a difficult 
enough time as it is other than to say it was somebody else's fault. 
That is something that we can take up with the President when it comes 
to election time, but that is not the issue here.
  The issue here is who and what was behind the insistence that that 
sentence and that that observation go into that speech. I think the 
answer is out there. I think what is involved in that answer has to do 
with who benefited from it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that 
the

[[Page 17920]]

American people receive the answers to that question and to all the 
other questions that have been offered. Earlier this evening the 
gentleman from the other side of the aisle mentioned the talk shows and 
the statements that are being made have a political context to them.
  We have been here, as the gentleman well knows, for 5 weeks posing 
these questions. This is not motivated by Democratic intent to secure 
political advantage. If we did not do this, we would be abrogating our 
responsibility within our system to find the truth. It is about a 
search for the truth, and I dare say it is now time for the President 
of the United States and Congress to come together to create an 
independent commission, not one that has partisan overtones, but one, 
for example, that served this country well under the leadership of two 
former Senators, a Republican from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and a 
Democratic from Colorado, Gary Hart, who I think made an extraordinary 
contribution by a year's worth of hearings, even more, which ended up 
with a product that tragically predicted what occurred on September 11. 
We need that because I do not want to hear on this floor accusations 
about partisanship. This is about the future of America. That is what 
this is about. This ought not be about politics. Let us depoliticize 
that now and let the Republican and the Democratic leadership with the 
White House create an independent commission to reveal to the American 
people the truth.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman; and before we 
go any further, we have been joined by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee), and I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly concur with the suggestion 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that we need a 
bipartisan, independent investigation of this. The reason that I have 
joined this effort tonight, and I have delayed doing so for a few weeks 
in the hopes that the administration would be more forthcoming about 
this intelligence failure, but what inspired me to come here tonight 
are the comments of Condoleezza Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld who said this is 
the end of the story; we can forget about these issues.
  I am here to say this is not the end of the story; this is maybe the 
end of the beginning of the story. The type of questions that Americans 
are asking tonight as to how a fraudulent, forged document got into the 
address of the leader of the free world to the people of this country 
and to the world and to the House of Representatives, how that happened 
is just one of the questions. I know many of us have been hearing a lot 
of talk and dialogue about how that happened. And it was as predictable 
as rain in Seattle that George Tenet was going to get thrown overboard 
by this administration at some point. It is amazing it took so long.
  The point I want to make tonight is that I do not think we should get 
seized on whether this was 16 words or 16,000 words. The fact of the 
matter is that there is a whole boatload of other questions that this 
independent Republican and Democratic commission needs answered, and I 
want to pose just a couple.
  The first question this commission needs to answer is why was the 
President successful in convincing over 50 percent of the Americans 
that Saddam Hussein was behind the attack on September 11 and was in 
cahoots with al Qaeda when in fact the intelligence had enormous 
amounts of information that that was not true?
  Why did the President of the United States in urging America to start 
a preemptive war not level with the American people to tell the 
American people all of the intelligence, not just the selective 
intelligence? And let me just mention one fact. As reported in The New 
York Times on June 9, 2003, two of the highest-ranking leaders of al 
Qaeda in American custody have told the CIA in separate interrogations 
that the terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi 
government of Saddam Hussein according to several intelligence 
officials. Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his 
capture in March 2002, told questioners last year before the war that 
the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed 
among Qaeda leaders, but had been rejected. The same statement came 
from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who insisted that the group did not work 
with Mr. Hussein.
  Do Members recall President Bush telling the American people that the 
two highest operatives in our custody in Guantanamo Bay had told our 
intelligence services that they had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein? 
I do not remember that information being disclosed to the American 
people, nor do I remember the President quoting Greg Fieldman, a former 
State Department intelligence official, who said, ``There was no 
significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda 
terrorist operations.'' Intelligence agencies agreed on a ``lack of 
meaningful connection to al Qaeda'' and said so to the White House and 
Congress. I do not recall the President sharing that intelligence 
information with the United States or the world.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) is familiar with the report that was printed 
last week in The New York Times that a senior intelligence agent, Iraqi 
intelligence agent by the name of Ahmed Al-Ani was arrested. I imagine 
the gentleman does remember, however, that some suggested he had met in 
Prague and the Czech Republic with Mohammed Atta, who was the ring 
leader in the attack on the United States back on 9/11. That appeared 
in the media and administration officials said that that evidence held 
up. That alleged meeting occurred in April 2001, 5 months before 9/11.
  Since then, most intelligence agencies, both American and allies, 
have cast doubt on the credibility of that purported meeting; but it 
was used by administration officials to argue there was an alliance of 
some sort between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And of course we 
all know that the rationale for the attack on Iraq was based on two 
premises: Saddam Hussein had in his possession weapons of mass 
destruction, particularly nuclear weapons or close to achieving the 
development or the possession of nuclear weapons, and that he could 
provide and was purportedly inclined to use terrorist organizations 
such as al Qaeda for the use of those weapons against the United 
States.
  So that theory, as the gentleman suggests, was crucial, that fact of 
the alleged meeting was crucial to that particular theory. But again, 
there is serious doubt as to whether that meeting occurred.
  It is interesting to note that both the FBI and the CIA investigated 
and could find no evidence whatsoever that at the pertinent times did 
Mr. Atta leave the United States to go to the Czech Republic for that 
meeting. However, it did serve the purpose of creating a sense of 
urgency that quick action had to be taken against Iraq.
  Mr. EMANUEL. If the gentleman would yield, I would say there is a 
very legitimate need to look into and acquire through the rearview 
mirror how did we get to this point, what were the justifications; and 
I too want to add my voice, although there has been a lot of 
controversy over the weekend about how did the sentence get into the 
President's speech. It is very important that we not lose sight, now 
that we are there, how was it that we had no plan for this occupation.
  Time Magazine reports that NATO allies, important allies who have 
been with us in Afghanistan and other missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, 
will not join us in Iraq. They do not see a U.N. legitimacy for the 
effort or plan for the occupation. There are important countries who 
have traditionally been shoulder to shoulder with America, were in Gulf 
War I, were in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, every U.S. mission to free 
the world of a tyrant of some nature, have decided not to join this 
effort and will not postwar join this effort.

                              {time}  2215

  So as we look back, I think it is important to look forward. Again, I 
would

[[Page 17921]]

remind my colleagues that in our plan for the reconstruction of Iraq we 
cite 20,000 units of housing for Iraq, yet the President's budget has 
5,000 units of housing for America.
  The President's reconstruction of Iraq calls for 13 million Iraqis, 
half the Iraqi population, to get universal health care. Yet 42 million 
Americans work full time with no health care and no plan for health 
care by this administration.
  There are 4 million Iraqi children who will be provided early 
childhood education. This week on the House floor we will debate the 
Head Start bill. 58,000 children in America will be cut from Head 
Start. 1.2 million will never be given the opportunity who are eligible 
for Head Start to go to Head Start.
  12,500 schools in Iraq are planned for reconstruction and rebuilding 
with all books and supplies. Yet here in the United States, teachers 
must take out of their own salary the wages to pay for books and 
supplies. We have to give them a tax credit to reimburse them what 
should be provided by the school authority.
  The Umm Qasr port in Iraq is built from start to finish, from top to 
bottom; yet the Corps of Engineers is being cut by 10 percent here in 
the United States.
  So as we rebuild Iraq, we reconstruct Iraq, America is in the process 
of its own deconstruction. If we do not have an economic plan for 
America that is beyond what has been provided and we do not have a plan 
for Iraq's reconstruction that includes our allies, I would remind my 
colleagues that in both Bosnia and Kosovo, we had a plan for the 
occupation and we had allies. The two things that are missing today, a 
plan and allies.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The gentleman's analysis brings forward again the 
question then: Who benefits from this reconstruction in Iraq? While we 
cannot have schools built in this country, while we cannot have 
hospitals paid for, when we cannot get health care for our people, who 
benefits? Who is getting the contracts for this? Who is getting the no-
bid contracts? Where is the money coming from? Supposedly from the oil 
revenues. Oil revenues then will be passing right out of Iraq and down 
to Texas, to Haliburton Company, to some of the other construction 
companies that are benefiting from hundreds of millions of dollars that 
are now being allocated into their pockets directly for this 
reconstruction, not in the United States but in Iraq.
  Mr. EMANUEL. My colleague asks who is benefiting. I do not have the 
answer to that, but I do have the answer for who is paying. That is the 
United States taxpayer.
  Again, I want to remind our colleagues, for 60 years the American 
people have showed their unbelievable generosity. Every time they have 
been called upon to serve or to contribute, they have done it. Yet this 
is the one time in history that while we deny American people the 
access to education, health care and improved investment in their 
environment and economic development, we are asking them to call forth 
in a tremendous effort not seen since World War II to make an 
investment in another country's economic future when we have told them 
to shorten the horizons for their own children, to shorten their own 
homes and dreams for what they can provide their family. Yet we are 
calling upon them to once again show their generosity to Iraq that 
talks about a health care plan, an economic development plan, an 
education plan for Iraq and yet those same agenda items that we talk 
about here at home, we do not have.
  As we know, a number of my colleagues have signed on, I have my own 
bill called the American Parity Act that says whatever we invest in 
Iraq, whatever goal we set in Iraq, we have to set here at home 
equally. Whether that comes from half the population getting health 
care, half the schools being reconstructed and modernized, teachers 
being paid, 4 million kids in early childhood education, reconstruction 
of a port for economic development purposes, we have got to do that 
agenda item here at home. Otherwise, the generosity of the American 
people showed over the last 60 years will come short and rightfully so.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for pointing out the 
inconsistency of our admirable generosity to those overseas and our 
moral obligation to help rebuild a nation, a country that we had to use 
military power against but our failure to live up to that same moral 
obligation to our own citizens.
  Let me ask my colleagues to respond to what we would like to see 
happen in Iraq. There are 8 or 10 or 15 things perhaps that we might 
recommend. I would suggest one, and perhaps my colleagues can make 
further comment.
  I think we need to start with a full explanation by the President of 
his vision for what is happening, for the costs that he believes will 
be necessary to complete the reconstruction, the timetable for that, 
the number of U.S. military forces that would be needed.
  The President needs to come clean. He has a growing credibility gap 
in my view because of the use and possible misuse of the intelligence 
leading up to the war, the statements made with such certainty that we 
are now learning the White House was being advised by intelligence 
agencies that things were not so certain at all and by the fact, as we 
have commented earlier tonight, that since the President, as our 
colleague from Illinois says, flew onto that aircraft carrier and 
declared victory, that 30 American soldiers have been assassinated and 
84, as the gentleman points out, have died in some fashion since 
military victory has been declared. We need to know what the President 
thinks. We need to know what he believes will be necessary. He has got 
to tell the American people what is coming. That would be my suggestion 
for just a fundamental need.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I want to say one thing before I have to go, and our 
colleague from Massachusetts noted this. That is not a different 
question than the Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, had asked, the 
head of the Foreign Relations Committee. This again, I think it is 
important, we have people with different views on the war, but these 
are questions not from Democrats and Republicans, these are questions 
as God-loving and people who love their country who want to see America 
in front of the world stand tall are expecting. So the question you 
asked again is not a Democrat trying to get partisan political gain, it 
is a question that the Republican Senator, chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, asked, questions that another Senator, Republican 
from Nebraska, equally asked. This is not inquiry for political gain. 
We all now, regardless of party, are vested in our success and bringing 
as many of our men and women home as we can safely as soon as possible.
  So your question I would also like to note so nobody who may tune in 
and turn on the television right now and think we are trying to get 
partisan or political advantage, note that these are similar questions 
that Republicans have asked, people of all stripes, from all 
backgrounds and all economic incomes and regardless of their political 
affiliations saying we need to get level here. Where is it we are 
going? How are we getting there? Whether it is an inquiry to what 
happened in the past but also an inquiry into the future. These are not 
Democratic questions. These are questions that people who love their 
country think need to be answered.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Again in furtherance of what the gentleman from 
Illinois has indicated and others here this evening, these are the same 
questions that many of us asked of President Clinton. This is not 
something that has suddenly sprung into being. And they were asked in a 
bipartisan basis, too.
  My colleagues will remember that some of us, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, had these same questions for President Clinton with 
respect to Kosovo, with respect to the activities that took place in 
the Balkans. We had these same questions of ourselves as to what was 
expected of us. I think that as a result, what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has indicated is perhaps a start for us in 
terms

[[Page 17922]]

of the questions that need to be asked, I think, needs a bit of 
reiteration.
  I find it very strange that when President Carter was in office, 
people in the media, particularly Nightline, would come on every 
evening, day 292 of the hostages and the number of hostages that were 
still in Iran, on day 292, three, four, five, 300, whatever it was. Yet 
we go now to casualties, deaths, we are not talking about those that 
are maimed, and this casual dismissal by some of the, I am sorry to 
say, some of the highest officials in the administration now of, well, 
this is all over, intelligence changes from day to day. You never know 
what it is from day to day, this almost sarcastic dismissal of these 
questions.
  There are young people out at Walter Reed right now who may not have 
been killed, a casualty in that sense, but they are surely there as 
casualties, with loss of limbs and a lifetime in front of them of 
having to deal with the pain and suffering of grievous wounds. Perhaps 
Nightline might take up this idea. It is day, what number, since the 
President said that the war was over.
  This is not something that we said. This is not something that other 
people said. This is something the President declared, and some of us 
have been challenged on our patriotism and challenged on our support 
for troops because we are not sufficiently quiet, because we do not 
acknowledge that the so-called ending of the war really ended.
  It does not end when somebody dies. It does not end when somebody is 
grievously wounded. It does not end when a parent or loved one has to 
try and understand and we have to explain when we go home why the war 
is over but the killing goes on and the maiming goes on.
  So I think we are going to need to have some accounting as to how 
many days past the end of the war the killing and the maiming goes on 
and what those numbers are. Because those numbers are real. They are 
not philosophical abstractions. They are not merely the recitation of 
numbers from an Office of Management and Budget or a Congressional 
Budget Office, some entity, some institution that has no reality to the 
mothers and fathers and the loved ones of those who have to bear the 
brunt of the policies that we in the government of the United States 
are bringing forward to the people of the United States as being in the 
strategic interests of this Nation.
  So I think that the questions that are being asked are not just 
questions about the past and how something happened but to try and 
understand what took place in the past so that we do not continue to 
make the same mistakes and the same observations that lead to this kind 
of grievous result.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman indicated that some, and very few, have 
questioned the patriotism of those who ask the questions that are being 
posed here tonight. It is my feeling and my position that it would be a 
failure, it would be unpatriotic not to pose these questions. And as 
others have indicated, this is not about partisanship. None of us here 
tonight and in the course of the past 4 or 5 weeks have indulged in 
partisan sniping. But I do believe that the President is at a 
particular moment in terms of his administration that he should 
intervene and stop the sniping that is occurring within the 
administration, among individuals and agencies.
  I mentioned earlier that a senior Iraqi intelligence agent who was 
arrested last week, who purportedly had that information meeting with 
Mohammad Atta, in that same report in the New York Times there was an 
attack on the CIA by Mr. Richard Perle who currently serves on the 
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. I know the gentleman from Hawaii is 
aware that he resigned as chairman of the board because of potential 
conflict of interest concerns that he had since many of his private 
business clients stood to profit from contracts dealing with the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  It should be noted that Mr. Perle is considered a leader among the 
so-called neo-conservative bloc in the administration. He also has 
close ties with certain Iraqi exiles, such as Ahmed Chalabi. And it is 
true, and this should be stated very clearly, he advocated in an 
article that he wrote for the New York Times shortly after September 11 
that the U.S. must strike at Saddam Hussein. So he is clearly 
predisposed towards the policy that was effected by this 
administration. My understanding is he was one of the most significant 
proponents of the war in Iraq.
  Now, however, with the capture of this individual, Al-Ani, he fears 
that if the CIA conducts the interrogation that they will play down 
evidence that the alleged meeting with Mohammad Atta ever occurred. 
With all due respect to Mr. Perle, that is a very serious charge that 
impugns the integrity of men and women in the CIA that risk their life 
in behalf of their country every day of the year.
  Of course, the CIA properly responded in my opinion that they need to 
be presented with something other than the opinions of Mr. Perle and 
his suspicions; and they claim, and I have to agree, that he sounds to 
be more predisposed to a certain conclusion than anyone they are 
familiar with.

                              {time}  2230

  This quote that I read was he is just shopping for an interrogator 
who will cook the books to his liking. We cannot have that sniping 
going on. It is time for the President to take charge and to intervene, 
be forthcoming, reveal all of the information. Presumably the interview 
with Mr. Al-Ani has occurred already. Let the American people know. 
Maybe he did have a meeting with Mohammed Atta; maybe he did not. But 
it is time to let the American people know.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's (Mr. Hoeffel) original question about what we should do 
in Iraq now, with two points.
  One, I think it is important for the President to clear the decks to 
restore our credibility on this issue because our ability to act in 
Iraq is negatively affected by this credibility issue, and many of us 
believe and I believe that the best thing the President could do in 
that regard is to embrace a bipartisan review of the intelligence 
failure here. Having a respected Republican like Warren Rudman or 
someone else run a commission to have sort of a referee to figure out 
what happened here is a lot better than to have the flacks at various 
agencies throwing grenades at each other in the newspapers.
  If we really want to find out here why forgeries ended up at the 
State of the Union address, why we did not get the straight scoop about 
the intelligence coming out of Iraq, why the President told us there 
was no doubt, and that was his word, no doubt that Iraq had some of the 
most lethal weapons ever devised by man and we cannot find a thimbleful 
to date of mustard gas, the best way is through an independent 
commission; and this is good for the administration, not just good for 
the people. And this is not a debate. We may find some of these weapons 
to date. That still may occur. This is not a debate even about the 
propriety of the war. Even if one thinks the war was justified about 
humanity and civil rights in Iraq, they have still got to join us in a 
bipartisan belief that truth from the American President is the most 
precious commodity we have in international affairs. We have all got to 
be joining that in a bipartisan manner; so I say clearing the decks 
first.
  But the second issue, if I can, it is just imperative that we engage 
allies in this effort, in this maybe 2-, maybe 3-, maybe 4-, maybe 5-
year effort to restore order and some sense of civility in Iraq, and I 
would encourage the administration to shuck aside its unilateral 
approach that unfortunately they have adopted for so long in Iraq and 
welcome our allies to get in there to shoulder some of this burden. 
Iraq is not a prize. It is not a glorious prize for the American 
people. It is a burden. We still have people not coming home from Iraq, 
and that burden ought to be shared with every nation in the civilized 
world rather than just Americans. And to date, unfortunately, this 
administration still has not been willing to embrace allies to get them 
in there taking sniper fire instead of our

[[Page 17923]]

neighbors' kids, and I hope we will see it that way.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is time to pick up on that to end 
grudge diplomacy. Let us get past that. Let us move on. Let us 
understand that the only way we can bring stability to Iraq without 
breaking the bank and without putting at risk the lives of American 
military personnel is to bring in our traditional allies, whether they 
be the Germans or the French. Let us put that in the past. Otherwise, 
we are going to see these deficits that I referred to earlier balloon 
into numbers that will absolutely be a drag of incredible magnitude on 
the American economy.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on that point in reference to what the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) said and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) observed to kick off this discussion, as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) can see, his question was so 
pertinent that we have not gotten much further in it, and for good 
reason, because it requires some explication. The problem is here, if 
we do not do this, is a credibility gap. What will the President be 
able to say about North Korea? What will he be able to say about the 
Philippines? What will he be able to say about Colombia? What will he 
be able to say further about Afghanistan?
  Afghanistan seems to have disappeared; yet I know there were two 
attacks yesterday, one on the American base and one on U.N. personnel. 
I do not believe anybody was killed, but who knows? Now we are told 
there are more attacks in Iraq than necessarily are being reported. I 
suppose that gets quotidian now. If they are on the 11 o'clock news at 
night, they have got fires to report, they have assaults to report or 
basketball players or the latest boxer to embarrass himself or 
something of that nature. They hardly have time to fit in anymore how 
many people got killed today. It is almost a loss leader in the news.
  And so if we do not have some answers here, if the President does not 
take control and stop being dismissive of these questions as merely 
revising history or some other sarcastic observation, he is not going 
to be able nor will the administration be able to convince others who 
may find it in their interest to join with us in other circumstances. 
He will not be able to find anyone who is going to be willing to take 
us at our word. That is why this is so serious. It is way beyond 
partisan. Other people will occupy these seats down here. Other people 
will come to occupy our place. We are here only as long as the faith 
and trust of the people in our constituencies are willing to put us 
here. No one owns a seat in this Congress. No one owns a seat at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue either. We are only as good as the credibility with 
our own people before we can hope to influence others.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
think our time is getting short. Any final comments from the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt)?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I will just follow the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) by saying that when I first heard the 
President in response to attacks on U.S. soldiers in the way that he 
does suggest bring them on, I remember wanting to say to the President 
that what we should be doing, President Bush, is to bring allies on to 
this coalition and make it a genuine coalition of democracies to assist 
in terms of the reconstruction so that American taxpayers do not bear 
the burden almost exclusively and that American men and women who have 
served admirably can come home.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). The Iraq Watch is 
going to be hard at work. I thank my colleagues for being part of this. 
We will be back next week to ask more questions, to seek more 
information, and to try to better educate our colleagues in the 
Congress and the American people regarding the challenges of our role 
in Iraq.

                          ____________________