[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24267-24273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         IRAQ WATCH, CONTINUED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I am proud to be back on the House floor 
for another hour of what we are calling the Iraq Watch. This is a 
weekly effort that I have been engaged in with three colleagues for 
about 2\1/2\ months to raise questions each week about our policies in 
Iraq.
  Before I get into the meat of this week's discussion, I am happy to 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), who is discussing an Iraq-related matter. I am anxious to 
hear the remainder of his remarks.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel) for his consideration, and I commend him on the special 
order that brings him to the floor of the House of Representatives at 
this hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I will finish the letter that I sent to Karl Rove 
calling for his resignation.
  ``Recent reports indicate that you told the journalist, Chris 
Matthews, and perhaps others, that Mr. Wilson's wife and her undercover 
status were `fair game.' Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, Newsweek 
Magazine, October 13, 2003. Since these initial allegations have 
arisen, neither the White House nor your office have denied your 
involvement in furthering the leak. Repeated press inquiries into this 
matter have been rebuffed with technical jargon and narrow legalisms, 
instead of referring to the broader ethical issues. Indeed, in the same 
article, it appears a White House source acknowledged that you 
contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that `it was 
reasonable to discuss who sent Mr. Wilson to the African country of 
Niger.'
  ``It should be noted that these actions may well have violated 18 
U.S.C. section 793, which prohibits the willful or grossly negligent 
distribution of national defense information that could possibly be 
used against the United States. The law states that even if you 
lawfully knew of Mr. Wilson's wife's status, you were obliged to come 
forward and report the press leak to the proper authorities, not 
inflame the situation by encouraging further dissemination.''
  Another section of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 793(f) is used for the 
basis of that remark.
  ``Larger than whether any one statute can be read to find criminal 
responsibility is the issue of whether officials of your stature will 
be allowed to use their influence to intimidate whistleblowers.
  ``Over three decades ago, our great Nation was scarred by an 
administration that would stop at nothing to smear and intimidate its 
critics. I do not believe the Nation will countenance a repeat of such 
activities. For

[[Page 24268]]

your role in this campaign, I would ask that you resign immediately.''
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his 
statement and for reading the letter to Mr. Rove. I congratulate the 
gentleman on his well-reasoned and well-researched document.
  I would like to advise the gentleman of my deep concern about this 
leak that has been so unfair to the wife of Joseph Wilson and to tell 
the gentleman that Mrs. Plame, Valerie Plame, the wife of Mr. Wilson, 
that her parents are my constituents in suburban Philadelphia. They 
were recently interviewed by a local newspaper, and her father, Mr. 
Plame, expressed his great indignation and outrage that his daughter's 
cover was blown by this leak. He is demanding that the people 
accountable be held responsible and that appropriate penalties be 
levied upon them. He was quite eloquent in his anger and frustration 
that his daughter's career as an undercover operative for the CIA has 
been compromised.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this matter 
to the floor. I must say your approach, which is asking for Karl Rove's 
resignation, is one that I would be delighted to see happen. It 
probably has about as much chance of succeeding as Rush Limbaugh 
getting a Diversity Award from the NAACP, but it would be something 
remarkable if someone in this White House would take responsibility for 
what is not just an illegal act of blowing the cover of a covert agent, 
but a morally reprehensible act.
  I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentleman for further 
comments.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. I had no idea there were members 
of the family that were in your district.
  Let me point out that this may not be as remote as it may seem. There 
were or could be other agents whose covers have also been blown as a 
result of blowing hers. So it is not just one person. We do not know 
how far this damage may go.
  It is my responsibility as a senior member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary to make sure that a fair investigation takes place, not among 
people who have worked together and been friends for many years and 
exchanged the kinds of sums of money and political activity that I have 
already related, but that there be a fair and independent 
investigation.

                              {time}  2145

  And only through a special counsel could that happen. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding again.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the need for an 
independent investigation by a special counsel. I do not think for a 
minute that the Justice Department is able to appropriately investigate 
this leak that allegedly comes from the White House. I do have faith in 
the career prosecutors at the Justice Department, as I know the 
gentleman does. But as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
pointed out a few minutes ago, there is a preexisting political 
relationship between Mr. Ashcroft, the Attorney General, and Mr. Rove, 
and for which Mr. Ashcroft paid Mr. Rove some $700,000, appropriately 
done, in the course of several political campaigns. But clearly, that 
relationship alone should disqualify Mr. Ashcroft from being in charge 
of this investigation of potential leaking.
  I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), we 
have started on Iraq Watch with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) reading this evening a letter to Karl Rove asking him to 
resign his position, and the gentleman from Michigan was here for a 5-
minute speech, and we have dragged him into the Iraq Watch this 
evening. We are glad that he is here, and he has made a major 
contribution. I am happy to yield to my good friend and cofounder of 
the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the senior member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary here tonight speaking on an issue that has 
clearly captured the attention of the American people. I applaud him 
for his efforts.
  I think it is very important, and I did not have an opportunity to 
see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) make a presentation, but 
there have been stories in the media that have indicated that some are 
suggesting that there be a revival of the so-called independent counsel 
statute and, I dare say, that is not the case. I think it is very 
important to make that distinction.
  What we are seeking here is not a revival of that particular statute, 
which I think many of us have concluded, both Republican and Democrat, 
that it led to serious abuses. For example, millions and millions of 
dollars were spent on one particular investigation involving the former 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Cisneros, a leader in 
the Hispanic community in Texas and nationally, which involved the 
issue of whether he lied to an FBI agent about how much money he 
contributed to a female friend of his. I dare say that bill, as I 
remember it, the bill to the American taxpayer, was in excess of $17 
million. But that clearly was abusive. And that is why, under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the then-
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
supported by the current chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the so-called 
independent counsel statute was allowed to lapse. And I do not think 
there is a Member in this House that wants to see it return because of 
its potential for abuse.
  But there is an option that is available, and that is the appointment 
of a special counsel by the Attorney General, in this case John 
Ashcroft, who would retain some supervisory powers, but would not be 
involved in the daily exercise of his prosecutorial authority. Because 
it would then, I dare say, lend credence to the independence of any 
decision and any conclusion that might be made by a prosecutor, the so-
called special counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing now for, I think it is better 
than 3 months, in this whole issue of Iraq, the intelligence, the 
questionable intelligence that was relied on by so many of our 
colleagues to support the resolution to go to war, much of that 
intelligence has been reviewed and has been found to be 
unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, misleading and, in some cases, 
outright false, as well as the cost of our intervention into Iraq, and 
now, the overwhelming bills that the American taxpayers are faced with.
  So we have been talking about having an independent commission. Let 
us depoliticize it. Let us take it out of the realm of politics. Let us 
not make this a Republican versus Democratic issue to determine what 
went wrong with our intelligence and were the American people misled, 
and were Members of Congress misled. Our own colleagues, the highly 
regarded chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), along with the senior Democrat on 
that committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), in a 
letter indicated that there were serious problems, that the 
intelligence was flawed.
  I know what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is doing when 
he puts forth the concept of a special counsel; it is to take the 
politics out of it. We are not in a contest with Republicans or the 
White House. What we are trying to do is determine what the truth is 
and then present it to the American people in a way that they can have 
confidence in the integrity of that effort. We are not suggesting that 
the Department of Justice is unable to do it, but what we are 
suggesting is that there is an issue of perception here, and that the 
American people want to have independence when it comes to an issue 
that is so vital to our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's father himself, upon the enactment of 
the statute, the applicable statute suggested that anyone who revealed 
the names of a CIA operative or an intelligence officer of this country 
was a

[[Page 24269]]

traitor. What we are talking about here is treason. We have got to get 
politics out of it. This cannot be a political issue. It has to be an 
issue of national security. The investigation has to be done by someone 
who is independent of the Department of Justice, although supported by 
the Department of Justice and, where needed, rely on the Department of 
Justice for resources. But it has to be someone whose integrity and 
independence is not in question.
  That is why I applaud my friend and colleague, the senior Democrat on 
the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers).
  I see we have been joined here by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his comments.
  Before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and we are 
delighted that he has joined the Iraq Watch this evening, but first, we 
have actually talked about two different special prosecutors here, or 
one special counsel, I should say, to review these allegations of a 
leak from the White House. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) has brought up again the general opinion of the Iraq Watch 
that we need to have a bipartisan and independent study of our 
intelligence-gathering regarding Iraq and the use to which that 
intelligence was put.
  I agree with both of my colleagues on that, although I just want to 
say once again that while we do not want to be political, we want this 
to be bipartisan as it is important for our national security 
interests; this Member of Congress, I have made up my mind about 
whether or not we were misled by the intelligence presented by the 
administration. I was misled. I was given exaggerated information. I 
was given misleading information.
  The President and all of his top advisors in September and October of 
2002 stated with complete certainty that Saddam Hussein had chemical 
weapons, had biological weapons of mass destruction, was reconstituting 
a nuclear weapons program, was going to give these weapons to al Qaeda. 
It turns out that not only have they not been able to find weapons, as 
all Americans know, but it has come out this past spring, 6 months 
after these statements were made, that the classified intelligence 
being given to the White House last fall at the time of these 
statements was filled with uncertainty.
  The intelligence agencies were telling the President and telling the 
President's people they were not sure what Hussein had. The defense 
intelligence agency report of September 2002 said there is no reliable 
information, and I am quoting, ``No reliable information on whether 
Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has 
or will establish its chemical agent production facilities.'' No 
reliable information, according to the defense intelligence agency.
  Yet at the same time, the President is saying in the Rose Garden, 
September 26, 2002 that ``the Iraqi regime possesses biological and 
chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary 
to make more biological and chemical weapons.'' That is the President's 
statement at the very time that his intelligence agencies were saying 
there is no reliable information. And again, before I turn to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is waiting patiently, I was 
briefed with other Members of Congress on October 2, 2002, in the White 
House, one of many such White House briefings that many of us took 
advantage of. I was with perhaps 20 Members, a bipartisan group. The 
briefers were Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet, and they stated with 
complete certainty on October 2, 2002, that Hussein had these weapons, 
that he had biological weapons, chemical weapons, reconstituting nukes, 
the whole litany. And yet they both had access at that time to 
classified information, some of it coming from Mr. Tenet's own agency, 
the CIA, that was indicating great uncertainty about the status of 
Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program.
  Now, we see Condoleezza Rice appointed this past weekend by the 
President to head up an Iraq stabilization group at the White House, 
because the President is concerned that too much bureaucracy is getting 
in the way of our program. If there is any bureaucracy in the way of 
our program, it is the President's bureaucracy. Congress did not set up 
any bureaucracy to frustrate him. He is working through the Defense 
Department. Most of us think he ought to be working through the State 
Department and not the Defense Department. We can get into that in more 
detail in a few minutes. But the credibility of the administration is 
at stake. A huge credibility gap has grown up between the President's 
statements and what he was being advised, the classified information he 
was getting at the time he was saying with such certainty, which we now 
know was uncertain, and his top officials, including George Tenet and 
Condoleezza Rice, have the same credibility gap surrounding them. It is 
bad for the administration. It is bad for the Nation to have these 
problems.
  I thank the gentleman for getting me off on this rant. You have 
triggered some of my frustrations.
  Let me at this point turn to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). 
I believe he has another aspect to discuss as to the situation in Iraq.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just restate briefly from 
what I have heard from the three gentlemen who have gone before me, 
because I think it is very important for the American people. I mean, 
it would be one issue if there was misjudgment that was costing the 
American people tens of billions of dollars. The President is asking us 
to borrow $87 billion and put into debt future generations of Americans 
to pay it back. We do not have the money. It is going to be borrowed. 
Thirty years, people will work for the next 30 years to pay it back. 
But really not wealthy people, because they do not pay taxes anymore, 
but working people.
  So there is a question, if someone in my administration made a 
mistake that was causing the American people 30, 50, 100, 200 billion 
dollars, maybe there would be a consequence. Then we go to the issue of 
lies. There was an extraordinary article in the press today which said 
the President said our troops have the best equipment possible; they 
have everything they need.

                              {time}  2200

  And we find out the young men and women over there have Vietnam-era 
flak jackets that will not stop bullets from AK-47s. $400 billion 
budget at the Pentagon, $80 billion from Congress last spring, and they 
are just now placing the orders.
  Individual families have been buying these kids state-of-the-art flak 
jackets, available for $500 in the private sector in the United States, 
and mailing them to the kids who are serving the United States of 
America.
  So you get to the next level which is beyond someone simply made a 
mistake to extraordinary incompetence, extraordinary incompetence that 
is costing the American people tens of billions, hundreds of billions 
of dollars over the next 30 years. It is costing young American men and 
women their lives today as we speak. And yet no one has lost their job. 
No one who planned this, no one who made this case, no one has been 
involved. In fact, they are being promoted.
  As you said, Condoleezza Rice has been promoted now to be Pro-Consul 
over Afghanistan and Iraq because she has been doing such a great job. 
What has she been doing a great job on?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I am confused. I thought Mr. Bremer was the Pro-Consul. 
And today you are absolutely correct, we read in the newspaper that it 
would appear that Condoleezza Rice has taken over that particular role. 
I think what I see is a lack of coherent governance in a well-thought-
out plan.
  Now, again, to indicate to those that are watching here tonight, this 
is not a partisan attack, this is not a Democrat criticizing a 
Republican administration. Because my opinion, and the opinion that has 
been articulated by the gentlemen here that have already spoken, is 
reflected by comments that

[[Page 24270]]

come from highly respected Republicans. Senator Lugar, who chairs the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, actually wrote an opinion piece 
for the Washington Post that said exactly what we are saying. The 
postwar reconstruction phase represented an abysmal failure of 
planning.
  Turn on the Sunday news shows, listen to another eminent Republican 
Senator, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, he talks again about the poor 
planning by the administration, and also says it like it is, that this 
Congress was considered to be a nuisance. That is his language about 
the administration when it came to the issue of Iraq.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett of New Jersey). The Chair would 
remind Members that is not in order in debate to refer to or 
characterize a Senator's position on a proposition.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, well, I will defer to the Chair, but in 
another context I might take issue whether I actually characterized it 
in such a manner.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we will bring down in the actual quotes and 
not have to characterize it.
  Following in this vein, you know, arguably the architect of this 
policy man who has been advocating a war with Iraq since the last war 
in Iraq ended, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, when talking 
about mis-
judgments, and this is a direct quote, not a characterization, ``There 
is lots of money to pay for this that does not have to be U.S. taxpayer 
money and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. The oil 
revenues of that country could bring between $50 and a $100 billion 
over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. We are dealing with a country 
that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' 
That is a direct quote.
  Mr. Wolfowitz, held in high regard by this administration, said Iraq 
would rebuild itself, no cost to the American people. So thus far, if 
we just add up the first reconstruction bill and the second 
reconstruction bill, he is wrong by $20 billion, $20 billion that this 
President is asking this Congress to borrow on behalf of the American 
people, indebting future generations of Americans, to build, not 
rebuild. Remember, much of this is not rebuilding war damage. This is 
building Iraq in the vision of Halliburton and all the gold-plated 
defense contractors.
  We might get into that later. There is a wonderful little piece here 
I have from the administration on that.
  But that is what the money is. It is going to be borrowed and spent 
in Iraq, not providing jobs here, infrastructure here, but building 
infrastructure in Iraq in the vision of Paul Wolfowitz who is wrong by 
a magnitude of $20 to $100 billion at least in addition to the lives 
that have been lost. But has he been held to account? No, he has been 
held in high regard.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Did the gentleman see over the weekend the New York 
Times article that set forth in great detail how overstated the 
administration's claims were regarding Iraqi oil revenue? It fits 
exactly into the point the gentleman is making.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, in fact, the intelligence information, which was 
available to Mr. Wolfowitz, to Mr. Cheney, to President Bush, and all 
the others who formulated this policy, Ms. Rice who has been promoted 
to Pro-Consul now, that intelligence information which said that, in 
fact, the Iraqi oil infrastructure was in miserable shape, not capable 
of producing large amounts of oil, not capable of paying for its own 
reconstruction, was either not read by all of these esteemed people in 
this administration, or ignored, or deliberately distorted. Because 
they told us, the American people, do not worry; they are going to pay 
for it themselves.
  But now they are handed a very big bill, not just to this generation. 
I talked to a bunch of high school kids in my district yesterday. I 
said, ``We are giving you the bill.'' There is a joke going around, why 
do politicians smile at babies? It is because they are being given the 
bill to rebuild Iraq. They are the next generation.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I disagree with my friend, the gentleman from 
Oregon for just a minute. I do not know if you saw the nightly news, 
but there was, I think, an NBC piece that indicated that today, not in 
the future, there is a record number of mortgage foreclosures on homes 
here in America.
  I heard the number, 435,000 Americans that are in the process of 
losing their homes. The American dream today is becoming a nightmare. 
You know it better than anybody, possibly, in this entire body. We have 
had record job losses, we have burgeoning deficits. And for the first 
time in our history in the entire span of American history, for 2 
consecutive years the median income, the median income of American 
households has gone down, 2 years in a row.
  Of course, poverty is increasing at the same time the number of 
millionaires is increasing.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If we took the $20.3 billion the President is proposing 
that the American people borrow and spend and invest in Iraq, and we 
spent and invested that money here in the United States of America, in 
the same things, in sewer, water, bridges, roads, airports, stable 
electricity, we would create a million jobs, a million jobs here in the 
United States of America. But instead we are going to create obscene 
profits for a few contractors, maybe do a little bit on the ground for 
the Iraqi people. But the bottom line is, we are borrowing money and 
ignoring the needs here.
  Yes, I know more than anybody. My district, my State has the highest 
unemployment rate in the Union. My State has led the country for more 
than a year having the highest unemployment rate in the Union. We have 
a $4 billion highway bridge problem on the interstate highway system, 
and the President says there is no money to repair it. Well, there is 
$16 billion sitting in the highway trust fund. He would not even have 
to borrow it. He is borrowing money to invest in Iraq, but he will not 
even spend money we have paid in taxes here in the United States of 
America to invest in our highways.
  He says we do not have money to invest in the airports. There is $4 
billion in that fund. He says we do not have money for extended 
unemployment benefits. There is $16 billion in the unemployment trust 
fund paid by taxes of employers and workers, and the President will not 
draw it down.
  We are paying hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no-show jobs or for 
the fact that they used to be part of the military over there, but we 
do not have money to extend unemployment benefits in this country. 
There is something very wrong with the priorities of this picture.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I agree with Mr. DeFazio. And I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon for reminding us that whatever we do in Iraq, whatever we spend 
there is borrowed money. Because our fiscal house is in such disorder, 
we are required to borrow every penny of what we spend.
  There is agreement in a broad way about the need to support our 
troops, to make sure they get the support they need, if, as the 
gentleman said, they need improved protective gear.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Not only do they need flak jackets; they could use 
desert camouflage. They are not in forests. But I talked to one dad at 
the early part of the war. I thought this had been corrected, but I 
find out now it has not; we are still sending National Guard over there 
without even desert camouflage. We cannot afford it. We can afford all 
these other things, gold-plated contracts, but we cannot afford to give 
these young men and women, selflessly putting their lives on the line, 
not only flak jackets but desert camouflage so they can blend in a 
little better.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the anger of the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) because he made a statement about who is profiting from 
what is going on in terms of the so-called ``reconstruction phase'' in 
Iraq today.
  While we know there will not be American workers building the 
bridges, constructing the hospitals, rehabilitating schools, and 
building affordable housing, those will not be American workers. But as 
the gentleman indicated, there is a story in the New York

[[Page 24271]]

Times, dated September 30, that says that a Washington insider's new 
firm consults on contracts in Iraq. A group of businessmen linked by 
their close ties to President Bush, his family, and his administration, 
have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do 
business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed 
reconstruction projects. The firm, New Bridge Strategies, is headed by 
Joe Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000, and the director of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is it not interesting in the context just 
established by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and that which 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) just recounted to us, 
that there is some mention made today about a Marshall Plan for Iraq, 
as if there was some analogy or some parallel to what is happening 
today, from what is happening today to the time of the Marshall Plan 
under Harry Truman.
  Harry Truman made his reputation as a Senator of the United States by 
rooting out corruption and favoritism and cronyism and profiteering out 
of defense spending. That is how Harry Truman made his reputation. And 
when he was President of the United States, the Marshall Plan was free 
of that kind of corruption, free of that kind of cronyism, free of that 
kind of direction.
  I have a suggestion for the gentleman from Oregon: We now have Ms. 
Rice in charge of stabilization. I am not quite sure what she knows 
about construction. She constructs sentences very well. By the time she 
gets finished, a house of cards is still standing. I do not know how 
long that house of cards is going to stand, but she does her best to 
construct it.
  Now, perhaps she can do the same for reconstruction in Iraq. I do not 
know. But if she is in charge of that, presumably she will be in charge 
of the $600 million that is going to be borrowed and spent to find the 
nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  2215

  Perhaps some of the folks in the gentleman's district or State that 
are out of work can apply for a job over there. Not that they could do 
real work in Oregon on roads and bridges and schools, something of 
substance, but they can chase their shadows over in Iraq looking for 
nonexistent weapons of mass destruction for $600 million.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is on top of the $300 billion that is already been 
spent. We are looking at a billion dollars for, as the gentleman says, 
a search for ghosts.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. But we did find in a refrigerator of an Iraqi scientist 
purportedly one vial of botulin toxin, which, of course, you can find 
basically at any ag school or any research lab anywhere in the United 
States, but for only $300 million we did find that and that apparently 
presented, according to this administration, a real and present danger 
to the United States of America, that one vial of toxin, which, of 
course, is readily available. In fact, I think you can still buy them 
and have them shipped in the United States of America.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not want you to be discouraged because help is 
on the way. Where did I hear that phrase before? Help is on the way. I 
think back around 2000 help was on the way. Well, help is on the way. 
My understanding is that the Turkish Parliament has voted to send 
troops to Iraq. Why, that is wonderful. We are going to have assistance 
at long last.
  There is only one little problem and perhaps Condoleezza Rice can 
stabilize this while she is at it. The Iraqi Governing Council, our 
governing council, our appointees, the people we have chosen as the 
foundation of stabilization, political stabilization in Iraq do not 
want them. They told them to stay out. These people, ungrateful 
wretches that they are, apparently have a sense of suspicion that the 
Turks might have more than one agenda in mind. That if they cross over 
into Iraq, that perhaps the Turks might have something to do with what 
benefits Turkey.
  Now, where would they get that idea? Does the phrase Ottoman Empire 
ring a bell with anybody? It is all history that has been lost. The 
Iraqis have had some experience with Turkish soldiers before. I keep 
calling on the ghost of T.E. Lawrence. Where are you when we need you?
  I understand they show movies down at the White House. Maybe they 
ought to get Lawrence of Arabia and get that down there and show it to 
them.
  Wake up. Help is not on the way. Three more dead today, others 
injured. The media is reduced to saying, but nobody has been killed 
since last Friday. This is the kind of marginal gain, apparently, that 
we are making. This is the kind of measurement that is taking place 
now. The news hour in the evening on PBS, at the end of it, broadcasts 
in silence the names, pictures and fundamental data of the latest 
deaths. Is this the kind of ritual that we are going to assume in this 
country? We are going to watch this war on television. This is the kind 
of sacrifice supposedly being made. This is the kind of confrontation 
that needs to take place. And the reason we have Iraq Watch, the reason 
we are down here every week, the reason that we are speaking out now is 
that the American public has to know that not everybody has been 
buffaloed, not everyone is silent, not everyone is going to step back 
from speaking the truth.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the gentleman's comment 
there. I share your outrage and admire your outrage over the continuing 
deaths from guerilla opposition and warfare in Iraq. And I remind my 
colleagues in Iraq Watch and Members of the House and members of the 
American public that are seeing this, that the President, last July, 
was asked after about 25 American soldiers had been attacked and 
assassinated after the May 1 declaration that major hostilities were 
over, he was asked in July, do we have enough force in Iraq to protect 
our own force? Are our own people safe enough? Do we have adequate 
force to protect our own troops? And he said, in what I believe to be 
the most reckless statement any American President has ever made, he 
said, Yes, we have enough force. We can stop the guerillas. Bring them 
on. Bring them on, he said.
  And since that day, I am sad to report, adding the three dead 
Americans that the gentleman referenced, we have lost 65 American 
soldiers due to hostile attacks, assassinations, guerilla activity by 
the opposition in Iraq. And I wonder what the President would say to 
those 65 families who may ask him, Mr. President, do we have enough 
force to protect our own force? What about my family member, Mr. 
President? I do not know what the President would say to those 65 
families.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Yesterday I was in Cottage Grove, Oregon, in a National 
Guard dispatchment from Cottage Grove, Oregon, 600 men and women are 
about to be deployed to Iraq for a year. And yet I hear, and I 
understand, that despite the protestations of this administration and 
the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal, that 
they may not have the proper equipment, that they may not have the flak 
vests that will stop an AK047 bullet. They may not have the armored 
HUM-V's that they may need. They may not even have the desert 
camouflage.
  So I suggest that maybe those members of this administration who are 
waxing so eloquent about how things are going, maybe they should go 
over there and wear forest green camouflage instead of desert 
camouflage, wear a Vietnam-era flak vest and ride in a HUM-V with 
canvas windows and plexiglas around the country, not in their super-
armored Suburbans, air conditioned, state-of-the-art, surrounded by 
helicopters and everything else and then come back and say how great 
things are.
  Go over there and experience what our young men and women are 
experiencing over there, and maybe they will come back a little bit 
humbled, and maybe they will want to do a little bit more to resolve 
this, to safeguard our

[[Page 24272]]

men and women and to resolve this situation, honestly, as opposed to 
spinning and spinning and spinning.
  These people are never wrong, never wrong, no matter what. You can go 
back and find 15 misstatements. They can be off by $100 billion and a 
couple of hundred American lives, but they were not wrong. They are 
never wrong.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I think my colleagues would agree that the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is a passionate and eloquent and excellent 
addition to our efforts here. I thank the gentleman for being here.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. I think 
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) made an observation 
relevant to the Turkish Parliament supporting sending troops now to 
Iraq. But the other half of that story is that the United States 
Government just issued a loan guarantee to Turkey in the amount of $8.5 
billion.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. That is not connected.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. No, that is not connected and pigs fly.
  The point is, when you talk about a coalition of the willing, I 
cannot think of such a misnomer as the coalition of the willing.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. They are willing to take the money.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. They are willing to take the money.
  But let us go back to the Gulf War that was managed by this 
President's father. There were 160,000 nonAmerican troops that were 
involved in that effort. That was a true coalition of the willing in 
the face of naked aggression by Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Briefly, I do not want to sour that because it certainly 
was a much better international effort, but there was an $11 billion 
payoff to Egypt where we forgave their debt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not suggesting that that was bribe free, but in 
the end, the net cost to the American taxpayers was some $7 billion.
  Now, we have already, if this war supplemental is approved, we are in 
this adventure in the amount of $166 billion and well on our way, well 
on our way to hundreds of billions of dollars more, and we still do not 
know how we get out of it.
  Let me just conclude by saying this. I hear about how things are 
going so well. We heard, of course, on the floor during the debate on 
the war resolution how we would be welcomed as liberators. Well, the 
truth is the Iraqi people want us out. They do not want us there. Even 
our own appointed 25-member Iraqi Governing Council have suggested that 
we accelerate this program because they can do it much cheaper. And I 
will allude to that at the end if I have any time left, but let me read 
what I think are some fascinating polling results that were conducted 
by Gallup and Zogby, two well-respected American polling firms.
  This is what was produced by the Gallup poll: Countrywide, only 33 
percent of the Iraqi people thought they were better off then they were 
before the invasion, 33 percent, and 47 percent said they were worse 
off. And 94 percent said that Bagdad was a more dangerous place for 
them to live. The poll also found, and I would ask my colleagues and 
those that are watching to listen carefully to these statistics. The 
poll also found that 29 percent of Bagdad residents had a favorable 
view of the United States while 44 percent had a negative view. By 
comparison, and this pains me to say this, by comparison 55 percent had 
a favorable view of France. Those same Baghdad residents had a negative 
view of President Bush, 50 percent, while 29 percent had a favorable 
view of him. In contrast, the French President, Jacques Cirac, a 42 
percent favorable rating.
  Now, this should be telling us something. This should be telling us 
that the postwar reconstruction phase was poorly planned. We are not 
getting the message across. We have appointed a governing council that 
is suggesting that for every billion dollars of a taxpayer's money that 
we spend, and this, again, are their figures, they can accomplish the 
same exact project for $100 million. In other words, we are paying ten 
times, our taxpayers are paying ten times, while job losses mount and 
our infrastructure crumbles.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If I could document that for a second. Ahmad al-Barak, 
who is a member of the Governing Council named by the United States of 
America, said that ``Savings could be a factor of ten. Where they spend 
$1 billion, we could spend $100 million.''
  He said that on the day that they canceled the $5,000-a-day contract 
to feed the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council entered into by 
Mr. Bremer, the former Chief Pro-Counsel before Ms. Rice. Apparently, 
they were flying the food in from Sardi's from New York on 747s. I do 
not know how they got the price up that high, but ten cents on the 
dollar.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. We have been joined by our colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  2230

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the 
Congressman for his persistence and determination in telling the truth 
to the American people; and to my colleagues that are here, I just want 
to help build on what was said on several points that I think are 
relevant in light of the fact that we are going to be debating this 
question in a week's time.
  First of all, I do not know if many of my colleagues realize, I was 
just with my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), in 
Seattle, Washington, and in that region; and I think as we well know, 
we were discussing the great needs of homeland security and the choices 
that we have to make. The gentleman is located up on the northern 
border; I am located in Texas on the southern border. And one of the 
things that we realized was that we have not put in enough money for 
homeland security.
  So what we will be debating in this next week will be a question of 
choices, and I think it is important for the American people but as 
well for our colleagues, for this Congress, to have the facts.
  Let me just share with my colleagues briefly what my positions or 
concerns are. One, I do not believe we have all the facts. I am 
delighted to see my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), who was a visionary on the debate on the war resolution 
dealing with the Constitution. We did not have all the facts there; but 
clearly, Congress does not have all the facts when we look at a 
document that is 70 pages long and that before the chairman's mark, as 
I understand it, we had jail cells that were being built for $50,000 
per bed. That is not what occurs in the United States. Then we have 
questions about whether or not we are spending enough money in the 
right areas.
  So here is my proposition to this floor. One, this debate should be 
delayed. We should have a debate when all of the facts are on the 
table. What is now the new proposal of Condoleezza Rice, as I 
understand it, over the rebuilding of Iraq? What is the exit strategy? 
What will happen to the Reservists and others that are beyond their 6-
month period? What are we doing for the families who are now suffering 
because their loved ones are away on the front lines? What are we doing 
for returning veterans or those who are wounded?
  Then I was interested in hearing what my good friend from 
Massachusetts was speaking about with respect to Turkey. There is going 
to be a donor conference in 2-weeks in Madrid. Why are we rushing to 
have this debate without knowing who are the willing coalition or the 
coalition of the weak or the coalition of the strong and how much are 
they going to offer? That is what the American people need.
  So my proposition is, one, delay this debate, delay this vote, get 
the facts as to the amount of money needed by the military. I 
understand that they have enough to keep them going, if you will, 
because we do not want to undermine our front liners; but we believe 
that there are enough resources. I have voted for that $79 billion and 
for the defense appropriations. Then let us set out the vote. Let us 
make sure we have the vote for the military personnel and needs there, 
but let us find out about these donor countries and why we are

[[Page 24273]]

not having Iraq fund some of the rebuild. Finally, why are we not using 
the Iraqi people, as my good friend said, in order to bring down the 
cost and so that we can create jobs here in the United States by 
resources and investing in our infrastructure here in the United 
States?
  I believe we should delay this debate. I believe the Congress does 
not have all the facts that it needs to have, as evidenced by this 
document and changes being made; and I believe that we must first go to 
our allies in this conference in Madrid, Spain, bring back to the 
Congress the results there, and then we can have a very intelligent 
debate on this issue.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I know the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has a comment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can just respond because I think that 
the gentlewoman from Texas' (Ms. Jackson-Lee) observation and 
suggestion is a very valid one, but let me submit this.
  What I found particularly unsettling when the discussion of the 
donors' conference in Madrid was being reviewed by various pundits was 
that it was written that the European Union's contribution and the 
figures now are projecting a $100 billion long-term effort, that the 
European Union's contribution this year was going to be $230 million.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. M.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. M, not billion. We are talking billions on the American 
taxpayers. Let us be honest. We are in this alone. We are doing it 
alone. Nobody is helping us.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Absolutely.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Nobody is helping us. American taxpayers, American 
military, American veterans, American education, American health, we 
are making sacrifices and we are doing it alone, without anybody, 
because of poor planning and going into a war under false pretenses.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, and every 
penny of those billions will be borrowed, not only hitting hard at the 
needs today and causing cuts in the budget today and giving the 
President an excuse to say we do not have the money to rebuild our 
bridges and highways and waste water systems or do adequate homeland 
security and port security and we do not have enough money for 
education and we do not even have enough money for flak jackets for the 
young men and women over there, but every penny of those billions will 
be borrowed, indebting future generations of working Americans to pay 
for this misadventure, with no consequences.
  The people who were so wrong. Mr. Wolfowitz, who I quoted earlier, 
who said Iraq would pay for itself, they are still making policy and 
spinning out fantasies at the White House. There are no consequences 
for making mistakes that cost the American people $20 billion in this 
White House.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that 
point, I know we are near the end of our time. I just want to indicate 
and perhaps we can take this up at another time.
  Just so the American people understand, our colleagues understand, 
the suggestion was made to Mr. Bremer by myself when we were in the 
first group to actually be able to leave the airport and get into 
Baghdad and subsequently up to Kirkuk in the north, I think really the 
first conference that was held after Mr. Bremer's appointment in 
Baghdad, we suggested and I for one suggested that the Iraqi Army not 
be disbanded; that it be utilized as a workforce, turned into a kind of 
CCC operation; that it was going to be very dangerous for us to simply 
take these folks who after all were conscripted into the army anyway. 
It is not as if these guys were eager volunteers. Then I said we can 
pay them if there are going to be any payments made. Let us let them do 
the rebuilding of Iraq. Let them set the standard for it. Let Iraqis do 
the rebuilding. Of course we can assist them. That way we can get them 
on our side and not cause a huge fissure in Iraqi society; and, of 
course, that suggestion was ignored.
  I just want it on the record that the administration knew full well 
that there were Members who had reservations about the war but who, of 
course, wanted to have the best possible outcome once the attack was 
over, who made a suggestion that it was very, very important not to 
dismember Iraqi society in order to accommodate profiteering on the 
part of companies in the United States.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  We have about a minute and a half left to go. Any final comments from 
any of my colleagues?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I just want to say one point about what the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) said that the Iraqi people want 
to help rebuild. They want to help rebuild, and I think it is extremely 
important that we engage the Iraqi people in this process, and we have 
not done that.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for another lively 
discussion during the Iraq Watch. I think we all agree that we need the 
President to level with the American people. We need information. We 
need a plan. We need a plan for institutionalizing the situation in 
Iraq, both the security and the reconstruction. I said 
institutionalizing. I meant to say internationalizing. That is, I 
think, a goal that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is 
talking about, including what kind of donor support we will get from 
the international community.
  We need to know how to get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq and how soon 
that will happen, and we need an exit strategy for the United States. 
We do not want to leave and leave a vacuum. None of us want to do that, 
but we need to know what is in store, how much time and how much money 
and the future prospects.
  We are out of time. I thank my colleagues. The Iraq Watch will be 
back next week, and I thank the Speaker for his cooperation.

                          ____________________