Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.

If I can, because the reality is that long before September 11, this White House, this President, this Vice President, whose picture was on the November 2003 edition of Newsweek, had an obsession with Iraq, and I would submit that the best evidence of that obsession is revealed in a book by a noted journalist by the name of Ron Suskind, who sat down with the former Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill, and did, if you will, an overview of Secretary O'Neill's experience in the Bush-Cheney White House.

As Secretary O'Neill indicated, he was taken aback by the first National Security Council meeting, and he attended those in his capacity as the Secretary of Treasury, that was held one week after the President was inaugurated, and it quickly turned to the issue of Iraq. There were no threats emanating from Iraq. There were no statements emanating from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein relative to an attack on the United States or any of our allies. In fact, if you remember, the Secretary of State himself, Colin Powell, later on some time in February described the Iraqi military in terms that turned out to be absolutely accurate, they were forthright, they had been significantly degraded, but one week after the President was sworn in the dominating subject of the first National Security Council meeting was Iraq.

Then subsequently, on February 27, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill relates at another National Security Council meeting that the Vice President, this gentleman here, Dick Cheney, had a map spread across a conference table where there were discussions about the divvying up of oil fields and concessions among private corporations and Nations, presumably our allies. That was February 27 of 2001. So right from the beginning it was this obsession about Iraq.

Now I do not know and I am not going to suggest what the motivations were, but it was about Iraq from the beginning. I have posed this question to individuals in the administration. No one has ever denied the accuracy of those anecdotes that were related by the former Secretary of Treasury, a person whose integrity is beyond reproach, who stated it clearly and unequivocally. So we had this proclivity, this propensity, this obsession with Iraq.

Then, of course, 9/11 came, and the terrorism czar at that time, Richard Clarke, made the statement that after listening to the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Wolfowitz he was aghast because he interpreted their immediate response as an opportunity to intervene militarily in Iraq, as opposed to really deal with those who not only had visited probably the most horrific act in our lifetime upon the United States, and clearly, what we have seen is a diversion of attention from those who were the proximate cause of a national tragedy that occurred on September 11 of 2001. We diverted all of our attention, most of our resources to Iraq, rather than dealing with the genuine, accurate war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when we can focus on Osama

bin Laden and al Qaeda, but as the President has done, to suggest that the world is safer because of our intervention in Iraq is absolutely, to quote a very prominent Republican conservative pundit, absurd. It is just simply absurd.

Again, and that is a very dangerous scenario, not just the observation by Senator McCain but the fact that as time moves on, it becomes part of the regular order. Yeah, we lost seven Marines just recently in Fallujah. It is on the front page. Over an extended period of time it will end up on page 2 and then page 5 and page 7, and because not many of us are sharing in the sacrifice tragically we become immune to the real costs of this debacle in Iraq.

It is simply not just costing us hundreds of billions of dollars, but it is costing us thousands of American lives and the impact on American families. I know that my colleague and I, as we visit our districts, meet constituents that have lost loved ones in Iraq, and that on a personal level is most painful, but the danger is that we as a people collectively put it in another place in our minds, in our experience.

You know, our policy in Iraq can only be described as a failure. We failed. We went to Iraq based on false claims. We failed to find weapons of mass destruction. We clearly demonstrated that there was no evidence of any operational relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was confirmed by the 9/11 independent commission. The administration failed to create broad international support for the effort.

The truth is we are there alone now. Yes, the British are there, even though a majority of the British people are opposed to the policy and opposed to the war. But other than the British, yes, there are token forces there, but we are carrying the brunt.

Of course.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I find it very interesting that the President and Dick Cheney, who according to this headline in Newsweek sold the war to the President and within the administration, keep referring to the vote on the $87 billion as somehow demonstrating a lack of support by Senator Kerry for our troops.

Does the gentleman remember during the course of that debate that the President of the United States threatened to veto the $87 billion?

No, if we insisted that at some time in the future the Iraqi government paid back to the United States taxpayer a portion, a portion of that $87 billion. The White House insisted on a gift, a giveaway, if you will, of American tax dollars, never to be repaid to the American people.

The President did not want to make a loan; he wanted to make a gift.

And the rest of the world, in terms of their dollars representing their taxpayers, insisted on a loan. It is only the United States of America that provided a gift, not a loan, but a gift, to the interim Iraqi government to begin the process of reconstruction.

Now, again, I think we all share the view that there is a responsibility on the part of the United States to assist. But why a gift? Why a giveaway? And the President said that if we made it a loan, he would veto it. So, clearly, the Republican majority here managed to secure enough votes, both here and in the Senate, to make a gift rather than insist on collateral.

Remember the Under Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, when he promised the American people that the cost of the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for with Iraqi resources based on their huge oil reserves? Does the gentleman remember that?

Yet, when the time came, that was a promise that this Vice President and this President reneged on.

It is the American people that are building roads in Iraq, it is the American people that are building affordable housing in Iraq, it is the American people that are building hospitals in Iraq, it is the American people that are building brand-new ports in Iraq, it is the American people that are providing practically universal health care coverage in Iraq, it is the American people that are funding jobs in Iraq; and they are never going to get paid back.

How about doing that for the American people, President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

It is interesting, and I think it is important that we remind ourselves and others that, yes, we are members of the minority party. We are Democrats. But this is, in many respects, and it is our concerns I am referring to, they are bipartisan in nature.

I read something just recently where, again going back to the cost of the war, that $87 billion that the President keeps referring to that he insisted on

being a giveaway as opposed to a loan, Bob Barr, who served in this House and who was probably one of the most conservative Members in this institution, in this branch during his service here, observed that in the midst of the war on terror and a $500 billion deficit, Bush proposes sending space ships to Mars.

This really underscores also the folly of what we are doing in terms of driving up our own deficits that will burden generations of Americans and that are structural in nature, which means that something catastrophic is waiting for us unless we address them. And, clearly, we have not seen any response from this White House about addressing them.

But in addition to that, a recent September 10, 2004, article by Doug Bandow, who is a senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and served as a special assistant to President Reagan and was a visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, had this to say: ``Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned, and elections have been postponed.

``Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor in social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds, has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al Qaeda, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the operation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirement. Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism.''

Let me repeat that: ``Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism.''

Just recently, by the way, the Institute for Strategic Studies, again a conservative think tank, in a recent study warned that the Iraq operation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world.

Now, we talked earlier about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Well, the reality is that it is like the parable in the New Testament about the fishes and the loaves: they are everywhere. The incidence of terrorism in this world has increased dramatically. We saw what happened recently and again tragically in Russia.

To learn from them.

Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and welcome back to Iraq watch. We noted the gentleman's absence last week. And I see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has also joined us, but I want to get back to what I think is important, and that is the bipartisan nature of the criticism of this administration. It would be misleading to those watching us tonight to think this is a partisan diatribe. It is not that. It is a genuine concern about the direction of this country.

And it is echoed by others. Let me give three quotes. Crossfire host Tucker Carlson said recently, and I think many Americans have observed him on PBS and Crossfire. He said, ``I think it is a total nightmare and disaster. I am ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it.''

William Buckley, an icon within the conservative movement said, ``With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein was not the kind of extraterritorial menace that was assumed by the administration 1 year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.''

I think it is important, too, to quote what I thought was a very courageous statement by a friend of ours, a former colleague who is highly regarded on both sides of the aisle. He was the vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and was a leading member of the House Committee on International Relations, and we know him well, is Doug Bereuter.

He sent a letter to his constituents announcing his retirement from Congress. He began by saying, it was a mistake to launch the invasion of Iraq. He said, ``As a result, our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and in general in the Islamic world.''

I respect that. More and more we know that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are expressing their concern.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman said was summed up just recently by a senior American diplomat in Baghdad. Obviously he insisted on anonymity but this is what he said about actually what is happening in Baghdad and Iraq today. ``This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose.'' This is without doubt a debacle. This is the chaos the gentleman referred to. And the sad part of it is despite opposition to the invasion of Iraq, if there had been a coordinated plan, if there had been a relationship between the Department of State and Pentagon rather than just simply the domination of those within the Department of Defense and excluding those that had experience similarly elsewhere in the world, maybe we would not have this problem. But we had Wolfowitz, we had Doug Feith, we had Secretary Rumsfeld who, according to Richard Clarke and others, pushed out the Department of State, would not allow them in at the table to discuss the post major combat phase.

See, this Vice President has to link the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Even though there is no linkage. That has been confirmed not by partisans here on the floor but by the independent September 11 Commission. Because, if you cannot link the war on terror to the invasion of Iraq, then why did we go into Iraq? For political purposes, you have to create, you have to morph what occurs and what is occurring in Iraq into the overall war on terror, because this is the premise that was used by Dick Cheney when he sold the war.

But he is probably one of the most skillful political minds in the country and just recently he made the statement, if you vote for the other candidate you will die. That is basically what he said. A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists. Nobody accepts that. But that is the need to make the link, because he was wrong, he cannot admit he was wrong. Do you remember David Kay, who they sent out to learn and to find out where the weapons of mass destruction were, came in front of a Senate committee and said, we were all wrong. This individual, this Vice President, must have blanched because it did not suit his world view, his political agenda.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Who is he referring to when he indicated that only those that were running for President would support the creation of an independent commission?

Mr. Speaker, well, again, I am surprised that the Republican leader in this House made that statement, because, according to our information, upon our return, based on the 9/11 Commission's report, the majority leader has now announced that he hopes to have legislation before this House dealing with the concerns that were expressed by the 9/11 Commission. Am I confused?

Well, again, just to be clear in my mind, and I am sure that those who might be viewing our conversation this evening want clarity, what you are suggesting is that when the concept or the proposal of an independent commission looking into the events and the failures that led to our national tragedy on 9/11, it was President Bush and Vice President Cheney that steadfastly refused to accept the creation of that Commission; is that correct?

If the gentleman will continue to yield, now they embrace, and I congratulate them with enthusiasm, the 9/11 independent Commission's report, and hopefully before we adjourn for this year, for this particular session, a review of their recommendations with appropriate legislation can be passed.

If the gentleman would yield once more, I believe it is important that the American people and our colleagues be reminded that this independent Commission that produced a document, again that has been widely praised and embraced, now by President Bush, by the Republican majority, by Democrats and others, and the American people, that this independent Commission was bipartisan in nature.

You and I are aware that the former ranking member on the House Committee on International Relations, Lee Hamilton, was the vice chair. Mr. Hamilton was a Democrat and continues to be a Democrat, and the former Governor of New Jersey, Tom Kean, is a Republican, continues to be a Republican.

And he was the Chairman, and that was a bipartisan Commission.

Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt, and if the gentleman would yield, my memory of the press conference conducted by Chairman Kean, the Republican from New Jersey, and by Lee Hamilton, the Democrat from the Indiana, with the unanimity of the bipartisan Commission, underscored and emphasized the need to move expeditiously to protect the United States from a recurrence of the kind of attack that occurred on 9/11. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. Speaker, now here we are, heading towards an election, with obviously complex legislation to be drafted based upon those recommendations put forth by the Commission so that our homeland, the security of the United States, is enhanced, and yet, and maybe you can inform me and the American people who might be viewing us this evening, when was the concept, the idea of the 9/11 Commission first proposed in the aftermath of the attacks on our homeland on September 11?

Right, Mr. Speaker, better than 2\1/2\ years at this point in time this concept was introduced. We know from newspaper reports, from statements made by the leaders of the Republican Party in this House, as well as statements made by President Bush and others in the administration that there was a reluctance to cooperate with the 9/ 11 Commission.

Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I guess my frustration, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is that in the aftermath of our national tragedy, if this proposal, and I presume it was put forward sometime from September of 2001, several months thereafter, if it had been acted on in good faith, with full cooperation from the White House, with the support of both parties in this House and in the Senate, we very well might have had the exact same report that we now have, that was presented to the American people just recently, months if not years ago so that we could have been in a position in the distant past to have acted in a responsible, thoughtful way to adopt those limitations that passed through the legislative process. Where would we have been?

If the gentleman would yield on that, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all agree, and there is not a single individual in this House that would disagree with the statement that Saddam Hussein represented the kind of a despot and the kind of thug and the kind of dictator that we all find reprehensible. But what I find ironic is that in our effort to undermine and to defeat Saddam Hussein, we have now allied ourselves with similar thugs, with similar despots, with similar reprehensible heads of state.

I find it fascinating that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld visits Uzbekistan and praises the President of Uzbekistan, Ivan Karimov, who to call a thug is a disservice to the term thug. He is absolutely a replica of Saddam Hussein. There are some 6,000 political prisoners today in Uzbekistan. And what do we hear from the White House, what do we hear from the Department of State? Nothing. Nothing. Yet when we read the Department of State's report on human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, it is damning. It is damning.

What do we hear about the thug, the despot by the name of Turkman Bashi, who resides in Turkmenistan, who is also our new friend and ally, who by the way not only is a thug but is clearly a psychopath? Maybe the gentleman is unaware of this, but he changed the month of January, the name January, and named it after himself. But he has displayed a certain filial affection for his mother, because he then went forward and changed the name of the month of April and named it after his mother. And these are our new friends.

If the gentleman will yield just for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's point. I guess what I am underscoring, though, is the repeated claim of a certain morality, a certain moralism, the distinction between good and evil. Yet the truth is we are allying ourselves, for convenience purposes, to individuals that are as evil as Saddam Hussein, who by the way we allied ourselves with back in the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, given what happened on September 11, 2001, it just makes common sense to accelerate the Nunn-Lugar efforts to reduce that 30 years to a significantly shorter period of time, make it months rather than 30 years, to protect not just the homeland, but to protect the world from a nuclear disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder out loud whether that $200 billion that we have already expended of taxpayers' dollars in Iraq, if that had been diverted to deal with the real enemy, and I think the gentleman makes an excellent point, it is absolutely essential that we agree to identify the enemy that poses a threat to the United States. I am not referring again to nation states.

Mr. Speaker, how much on a yearly basis is expended by this White House?

Four hundred million dollars annually over a 30-year period, my math was never too good, but it clearly pales in comparison to the $200 billion that we have already expended in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into politics, but I think the gentleman makes an excellent point with clarity by identifying the issue, and the issue is it is important that we all understand what enemy are we describing and talking about when we talk about a threat to the United States.

The administration continues to suggest that somehow by invading Iraq, we will have deterred terrorism, but the reality is it is just the opposite. Attacks are on the rise throughout the world. An NBC News analysis that was viewed on September 2, just last week, showed that of the roughly 2,930 terrorism-related deaths since 9/11, 58 percent of them have occurred this year. That is in excess of 1,700. We just picked the paper up this past weekend and witnessed a horrific incident.

Yet meanwhile, and these are very valid points that you are making, the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Reports from media outlets just this week, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, now admit that we have lost control of parts of Iraq. The number of cities not under U.S. or central government control is growing. Pause and think of that for a moment. First Fallujah, then Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, now Najaf and Karbala, perhaps soon part of Baghdad City itself, Sadr City. This is reported by the New York Times. The reality is that security is so bad that a U.S. general says it may be necessary to delay or skip over voting in violent areas in order to hold elections in January. But clearly what would that do to the legitimacy of the interim government? What would that do to the future of democracy in Iraq?

The gentleman's point is corroborated by an American military officer. Let me read what a U.S. officer in Sadr City, which is that restive part, a slum area, if you will, in Baghdad, what he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity, but this was reported in Jane's Weekly, a highly respected defense journal published in Britain. I am quoting him now:

``We're supposed to turn our zones over to the Iraqi National Guard by October. They are not ready for that. So unless it is coincidence, it seems politically driven bearing in mind the Presidential election in November. I know how it must have felt in Vietnam. Everything we do is driven by political considerations. We don't have enough forces to stay here. We move into Sadr City and then we leave and each time the Mahdi Army, that is the army of the Mullah Saddah, comes straight back in.''

That is the reality of Iraq at this moment in time, and it is only worsening and it is underscored by what happened this week. Tragically, tragically, the 1,000th U.S. hero was killed in Iraq.

I just want to read into the Record a quote by a former distinguished Member of this body that commanded respect on both sides of the aisle. I refer to a good Republican from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter, who was the vice chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, as you well know, one of the most respected Members of this House. In a farewell letter to his constituents, this is what he had to say:

``It was a mistake to launch the invasion of Iraq.'' And to underscore the point that the gentleman from New York was making, ``Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and in general in the Muslim world.''

I daresay what he is saying is our credibility is at its lowest point probably in modern American history. That does present a threat to our national security as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just want to follow up on the point the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) has made, and I welcome my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), as well.

I found it particularly offensive that the President of the United States stood up once more and misled the American people and did not accept responsibility. As the gentleman indicated, the body armor issue was well-known or should have been well-known to this administration prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was clear. It was something that we all again repeatedly encouraged, and with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) presumed the matter was being attended to, and it was represented to us that it was being attended to. It had nothing to do with the $87 billion supplemental budget.

Of course.

Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the issue of weapons of mass destruction when the Polish Prime Minister at the request of the President of the United States made a commitment of Polish troops, obviously at some political risk to himself, and when it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction said publicly, ``We were misled.'' What does that do to the credibility of the United States when the Prime Minister of Poland, an ally, someone who has made a contribution of men and women of his nation in terms of the effort in Iraq, the military invasion, makes that statement?

Again, we have the example of David Kay, appointed by this President, who took the charge of this White House, who went to Iraq, who led the efforts to determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction, who concluded that there were none, and then later and subsequently when this White House, this President and this Vice President refused to accept unequivocally the conclusion reached by their own appointee that there were no weapons of mass destruction, then finally David Kay, a hawk on the war, by the way, spoke to the Guardian, an English newspaper and said, ``The administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of U.S. intelligence agencies and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.''

Admit the mistake, Mr. Bush, come clean with the American people, accept responsibility rather than shift it because of an election-year gambit. That is what that is about.

I appreciate this conversation tonight. I think what is interesting is that while we speak about Osama bin Laden, we have to be very clear that because of the delay that has occurred and the diversion of effort and resources into securing Afghanistan and nurturing democratic institutions, not only has Osama bin Laden, who is obviously a symbol to those who share his world view but has encouraged new groups, al Qaeda has morphed into a number of groups, some of which have names, some of which do not have names, and that terrorism is spreading throughout the world as we speak today. If the President is suggesting that the invasion of Iraq somehow served as a deterrence to these terrorists, he is absolutely wrong.

It is interesting to read that in terms of the efficacy of Iraq, of the invasion of Iraq, an NBC news analysis that was reported September 2 of this year showed that of the roughly 2,900 terrorist-related deaths since the 9/11 attacks on our homeland, 58 percent of them, in excess of 1,700, have occurred this year.

This year. So terrorism is burgeoning. We identified the wrong enemy, and now we are playing catch-up, and the world is more dangerous.

And I would like to just to conclude with a quote from someone whom we

all respect who has served this country well, a good Member of Congress, the Vice Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of this branch, a conservative Republican from Nebraska who retired recently to assume a new position of some stature in terms of foreign affairs, by the name of Doug Bereuter. He wrote a letter to his constituents because he recognized what we have been talking about, and this is what he said: ``It was a mistake to launch'' the invasion of Iraq. ``Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower.'' In other words, our credibility is suffering. ``And our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.''

That is from Doug Bereuter, a good Member, someone who made substantial contributions to the debate and discourse in this House, who is a Republican with excellent conservative credentials.

This is nonpartisan. It should not be a partisan issue. This is about identifying the right enemy and taking the necessary action to defeat those who would harm the United States.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, our occupation in Iraq is being characterized by ineffectiveness, by incompetence. If one just reads the daily newspaper and sees comments and admissions by the Secretary of Defense Mr. Rumsfeld and the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Myers, the number of cities in Iraq that are no longer under the control of the Interim Iraqi Government and American occupation forces grows on a daily basis. Fallujah, Ramadi, Baquba, Samarra, Najaf, Karbala, and perhaps soon a significant section of Baghdad are no longer under the control of the Interim Iraqi Government. The Baath Party is experiencing a resurgence, President Bush, except Saddam Hussein is no longer the head of it.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, what the Vice President should do, he should reveal those statistics that I reported to you earlier about the increase in the incidents of terrorists' acts all over the world that are directly related to the failed policies of this administration.

To my left there is a photo of the President with an individual by the name of Ahmed Chalabi, who is the source of much of the faulty intelligence that the administration was looking for to base its case on for the American people.

Now we have the FBI investigating the Pentagon, the office of one Douglas Fife, to determine whether Mr. Chalabi received information that was passed on to Iran, to Iran, about our policy initiatives and considerations relative to Iran.

Here we have the President of the United States with an individual which reports indicate, I am not reaching a conclusion, but which reports indicate was a spy or a double agent for Iran. This same gentleman was in this Chamber during the State of the Union address by this President last January and sat up directly behind the First Lady.

Now, I have to tell you, to follow up on the gentleman from Washington's point, I would think that anyone who was involved or connected or listened to Mr. Chalabi, who, by the way, was a convicted felon in Jordan for embezzlement of some $300 million from a bank in Jordan and had to flee Jordan, anyone who listened to that individual should have been fired a long time ago. What an embarrassment to this administration, what an embarrassment to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I think it is important to understand the essence of this bill, because it is truly very simple. What it does is it says that the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by this body in 1996, obviously it is a Federal statute, cannot be reviewed by the Federal courts. That is what it says, and it includes even the United States Supreme Court.

So for the first time in our constitutional history since the decision in Marbury v. Madison, this body would strip from the United States Supreme Court its essential function in our democracy, which is the review, particularly of Federal statutes, for the determination as to its constitutionality. That is what this debate is about today. It is not about the defense of marriage. We did that in 1996; and by the way, if you took a look at the recent data in terms of divorce, it has not been very effective, I would suggest; but as the gentleman from Oregon indicated, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, former Representative Robert Barr, urges a ``no'' vote on this particular bill because of what it does. It establishes a dangerous precedent. It is clearly unconstitutional.

Let me conclude with this statement. This bill does not defend marriage. What it does do, however, it diminishes our democracy; and we ought not to be about that as an institution. We should encourage our democracy and our values.

Maybe it is the wrong enemy, maybe it is the wrong war.

But before I explore that, I thought I would just take a few minutes to amplify a bit on two of the points that the gentleman made. The cost of this war in terms of dollars and cents. I have this memory of the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, testifying before a congressional committee saying that there would be no cost to the American taxpayers because Iraqi oil would obviously be more than sufficient to pay for the costs, not just of our military presence, our security presence, but the cost of reconstruction.

Well, that clearly was a mistake. In fact, I thought it was interesting that the criticism from the other side of the aisle, from Republicans, about the costs and the misestimates was probably even louder than that that came from this side, from Democrats.

I have a memory of reading a particular column that was penned by Senator Dick Lugar, the prestigious Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he described the postwar phase. Of course, I would suggest we are still at war. When one reads the casualty list, on a weekly basis it is clear that American troops are still being killed, and a large number of course are wounded. Many of us have visited them at Walter Reed and Bethesda Hospital here in Washington, DC, but going back to what Senator Lugar said, he said the postwar planning was totally inadequate. And, again, where is that oil money?

And a further observation. If we remember the first Gulf War, the cost to the American taxpayers was approximately $4 billion. We have already expended somewhere between $150 and $200 billion, and as you suggest, many hundreds of billions of dollars more will be added to the bill, the bill that will be passed on to the American taxpayers for generations.

In the first Gulf War, there was a real coalition, a genuine coalition of the willing. There was participation in terms of the military presence. There were more non-American troops in the first Gulf War than there were American troops. Other than those forces from Great Britain, as you indicated, there are only small detachments of security forces from other countries.

And as was noted in a story last Thursday in the Washington Post, four countries have already left, four more are due to leave by September, and others are now making known their intention to lying down a depart before the political transition is complete next year.

Norway pulled out its 455 military engineers this month. New Zealand intends to pull out its 60 engineers by September, while Thailand plans to withdraw its more than 450 troops that same month. The Netherlands is likely to pull out next spring after the first of three Iraqi elections, while Polish military officials told the Pentagon that Poland's large contingent will leave probably in less than a year. And as you indicated, the Filipinos withdrew already. The Spanish have withdrawn. We are going to end up there alone, Mr. Speaker, and the bill will be paid for by the American taxpayers.

Now, much was stated back five or six months ago about a donors' conference in Madrid, Mr. Speaker, where the coalition was brought together in an effort to have nations other than the United States contribute, contribute financially even if they had no military presence there.

Well, quoting the Los Angeles Times of July 12, ``Little of the $13 billion promised for rebuilding has been donated, and countries are hesitant to waive that, frustrating the new Iraqi government.'' Countries have provided only a small fraction of the reconstruction aid they promised at a conference nine months ago, Mr. Speaker. Of the $13 billion in nonAmerican aid pledged, less than $1 billion has been turned over to the United Nations and the World Bank, funds set up to take in most of the donations.

I will yield to the gentleman.

As was indicated, it is only going to get worse, because I would suggest that what we are going to find is as time moves on, there will be fewer and fewer even pledges that will be made, let alone honored. We now know they are not being honored, at least if you accept the report from the Los Angeles Times.

It is easy to go out and say, yeah, America, you come up with $19 billion to build roads in Iraq, to provide universal health care coverage, to rehab schools and to build affordable housing. If you do that, American taxpayer, we will promise that we will pledge or we will pledge at least half of what you do, and now we find out that less than $1 billion has actually been transferred to the appropriate agencies. In fact, half of that $1 billion comes from a single nation, Japan.

But I would like to get on to something else for just a minute. The President is prone to be saying, particularly at campaign rallies, that America is safer than ever. It is safer than it was three years ago. In fact, he extends it to the entire world. He is saying that the world is safer than it was three years ago. And yet, ironically, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I think it was on Fox News, one of the magazine editions, there was an interview with the current, the so-called interim director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John McLaughlin.

And he said that while several al Qaeda plots against the United States, against our homeland have been foiled, the truth remains that the threat is as high as it ever was.

Now, there is an inconsistency here. All we have to do is count 14 to 15 days and there will be a new terror alert. How often do we turn on one of the cable news networks or turn on our TV and we see the Attorney General or we see Secretary Ridge talking about an elevated threat? In fact, Secretary Ridge was in my hometown of Boston, Massachusetts just recently talking about the threat. And here we have the new Director of the CIA contradicting the President of the United States who, and maybe he was simply indulging in campaign rhetoric, saying that we are much safer now and the world is safer. And yet here, ``U.S. Spy Chief: Al Qaeda Threat Strong As Ever.''

Is this what we call winning the war on terror, Mr. Speaker. Is this making the world safer? I do not know that answer. I do not think the President really does either.

Let me give another example in terms of seriousness. The administration's position, vis-a-vis tracking down the terrorists. There was a Committee on Ways and Means hearing where a representative of the IRS was posed a question and in response to the question indicated that the IRS's request for an additional 80 investigators who would be assigned to tracking terrorist financing throughout the world was rejected by the White House through the Office of Management and Budget. Is this how you fight the war against terror?

Is not it ironic that on Sunday there appears a story in the New York Times about that report that will be forthcoming later this week, and the gentleman alluded to it earlier, when he mentioned Iran. And by the way, the acting director of the CIA confirmed the fact yesterday on the Fox News Program, yesterday morning that, yes, there was information that a number of the 9-11 hijackers had safe

passage through Iran, Iran, not Iraq but Iran. I guess we made a mistake as far as what country to invade.

But seriously, let me just read several excerpts from the Sunday editions of the New York Times. ``The final report of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks will offer new evidence of cooperative ties between Iran and al Qaeda including information drawn from intelligence reports suggesting that Iran provided several of the hijackers with safe passage in the year before the attacks, government official said. The evidence raised enough questions about why the Bush administration focused on the possibility of Iraqi ties to be Osama bin Laden's terror network after 9-11 when there may have been far more extensive evidence of the Iranian connection. The panel had recently obtained intelligence showing that Iran had ordered guards at its border stations not to stop the passports of al Qaeda members from Saudi Arabia who were moving through Iran after training at terrorists camps in Afghanistan.''

My memory is this Iran, according to the President, was a member of the axis of evil club, but as you pointed out, there is no collaborative relationship according to the commission between Iraq and Iran. But why did we end up attacking Iraq rather than Iran?

Does it come as a surprise to you that at least according to Bob Woodward in his most recent book, a book that was praised by the White House, in fact, there are excerpts of it I understand on the President's campaign Web site, but in that particular book, it was noted by the author that Prince Bandahar was informed of the attack on Iraq prior to the Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Let me go back just for a moment, because I know we are wrapping up, to another observation by Mr. Woodward, and this I would suggest is where ideology colors reality and affects the truth, the objective truth.

The passion of some in this administration, and I put beside you there a Newsweek cover with a picture of the Vice President Dick Cheney, emblazoned that says how Dick Cheney sold the war. It was clear that this individual was obsessed with Iraq, for whatever reason. I am not questioning his motives.

But in the book by Mr. Woodward, it is noted on page 175, for those who might have it, that the Secretary of State ``detected a kind of fever in Cheney. He was not the steady, unemotional rock that he had witnessed a dozen years earlier during the run-up to the Gulf War. The Vice President was hell-bent for action against Saddam Hussein.'' It is very dangerous when ideology colors the objective truth and reality. In the end, it gets us in a mess, and this is where we are now.

No, I concur with those sentiments.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 20, 2004, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Chairman, when I hear about now is not the time, I guess my response is, when is it? I dare say it is long overdue.

Last November, President Bush said in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, ``As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, if will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.''

Those in this body know that it is rare that I agree with President Bush, but he has it right on this occasion.

We learned on September 11 that this is not just an image problem, and I refer to the anti-American sentiment that is abundant in the Middle East, because we, unfortunately, are perceived to be aligned with regimes in the Middle East that do not serve their people well.

This is what our State Department in its Human Rights Report has to say about Egypt. ``The security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses. The ruling party dominated the legislature.

``The mass media, labor, and large public sector entities control the licensing of new political parties, newspapers, private organizations to such an extent that as a practical matter, citizens do not have the meaningful ability to change their government.''

Yet we find ourselves considering another $1 billion plus and we are doing nothing to advance the cause of democracy and the nurturing of democratic institutions in the Middle East and specifically, in Egypt, and now is the time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, in a recent interview, the chief of staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the U.S. embargo has not worked for 40 years. ``It is crazy,'' he said. And, again, I am quoting the chief of staff to Secretary Powell. He went on to say, ``It is the dumbest policy on the face of the Earth.'' That is his language.

Well, let me suggest now it just got dumber. Several weeks ago, as the others have said, these new regulations were implemented by the administration. Allegedly they are designed to hasten Cuba's transition to a free and open society, which I think we all agree is a worthy goal. But, tragically, the impact of these changes fall heaviest on Cubans on the island and their families here in the United States who want to help them, to assist them.

It is as if 45 years of this tough approach has not already been proven to be an abysmal failure. So today's debate on this moment focuses clearly on one of the most absurd of the new provisions. The regulation of the Department of Commerce that takes the existing restrictions on the contents of gift packages to their relatives from Americans to their relatives in Cuba, and narrows the list even further.

The new rule would make it illegal for U.S. citizens to send Cuban relatives clothing, soap, shampoo, and other personal hygiene items. And furthermore, since June 30 it is now illegal to send parcels to cousins, aunts, nephews, anyone who is not a member of your immediate family. It is also illegal to send more than one nonfood gift parcel each month to a household, for up until now you could send a monthly care package to each individual in a household. But that is over.

So now it is U.S. foreign policy to prohibit American citizens from sending their relatives soap and shampoo and clothes. I would suggest this hardly constitutes weapons of mass destruction. And the U.S. government is breaking new ground, because it is now in the business of defining family for its own citizens.

Under these regulations, grandparents trump uncles and sisters beat out cousins. In past debates in this Chamber about restrictions on the right of Americans to travel to Cuba, I have referred to the travel police. Well, now we have the shampoo police. We have the soap police. We have the deodorant police. We have the clothing police guarding, at taxpayers' expense, against the possibility that these items might make it across the Florida straits.

This is just as much folly as the fact that the Treasury Department now has more people tracking grandmothers bicycling in Cuba than it does looking at the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. What in the world are we doing? What have we come to?

You might want to review some of the other new regulations, two announced at the same time, like limiting family visits to once every 3 years with no humanitarian exceptions such as the occasion of the death of a mother, the death of a father, the death of a daughter or the death of a son.

President Bush got it right 2 years ago when he went to Miami and said, I love being with my family. There is nothing more important than family in my life. But he got it dead wrong when he announced these regulations. They are antifamily, they are mean-spirited, and they are un-American; and I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think Secretary Powell, as it was reported in the book just recently released by the Pulitzer Prize winner Bob Woodward, my memory of the quote is that if you go to Iraq, Mr. President, you own it.

Well, the truth is, we do own it. I was interested in hearing from our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, when he acknowledged that it is really the American soldier that is doing the work today in Iraq. Yes, we have allies there, the British obviously have made a commitment and there are some Australians, but other than that, there are very few substantial commitments to preserving security in Iraq today.

As our colleague the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) just noted, we hear from some quarters that everything is fine, and we know that is not true. I think it is important that the American people understand that we are far past making this a partisan issue. This is not about Republicans and Democrats, this is truly about the direction of where this country is going, and it is absolutely essential that we be clear and honest and forthright with the American people.

Let me just quote one very famous, highly regarded, well-respected traditional conservative, William Buckley. We all know William Buckley. He certainly has contributed through the years to discourse, to the public discourse on major issues in this country. As we all know, he recently resigned, retired, if you will, from the publication that he brought forth many years ago. But even a traditional conservative Republican like William Buckley expresses amazement about what is occurring in terms of the stories and the fantasy that is coming from this administration, particularly the White House.

He recently said that the White House has a dismaying capacity to believe their own PR, and until we finally acknowledge what the reality on the ground is, we cannot have a debate.

I am always brought back to that very famous statement by David Kay. Now, David Kay, as we all know, and as I am sure many who are listening to our conversation tonight are fully aware, was a former United Nations inspector, an American, who earned an excellent reputation for integrity, for knowledge, during the work done by the United Nations in terms of ensuring compliance by the Saddam Hussein regime with a variety of United Nations sanctions relative to the weapons of mass destruction.

Prior to the war, he stated that he was convinced, from what he heard from the administration, that in fact the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was assigned by this administration, by this President, to lead a group to go to Iraq and conduct a survey and do a thorough, exhaustive, extensive search for those weapons of mass destruction.

When he came back, he made that famous statement before a Senate committee, saying we were all wrong, and here it is depicted on the cover of Newsweek Magazine. And as time has gone on, he continues to express his concern that we are losing our credibility in the world and that our role, our prestige, our claim to moral authority is eroding on a daily basis, and he pleads with the administration to come clean.

So let me just suggest that until that occurs, that until there is honesty on the part of this White House and frankness and candor, and not just simply press releases and flyovers of Baghdad, we all know that our troops are doing a job that reflects well, not only on them, their families, but our country, but the truth is too that their morale has eroded. And yet we never hear anything from this White House and this administration about that reality, about the reality that a survey was done by Stars and Stripes, a military magazine, that established that 52 percent of Army personnel describe morale as low.

That is dangerous. Let us respect them for what they do, let us acknowledge their heroism, but let us not paint an unrealistic picture, or we do the American people and the American military a disservice.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence that supports that premise is the reality that within the past week or two there has been a call-up of the so-called ``ready reserve,'' almost 6,000. Now, these are men and women who performed for their country, who obviously did their active duty, did their active reserve, have returned to civilian life, and in some cases for years have been civilians, and now, out of the blue, they are back into the active military on their way to Iraq.

And that by this time, I say to the gentleman, there would be less than 30,000 troops in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the Democratic minority in this House attempted to add an enhancement of the penalties for fraud and abuse and profiteering, and yet the majority in this House and in the Senate denied that proposal.

I would like to conclude, and I will be very brief because I think we have got to go back to the initial question I think that was raised by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), how did we get here?

If we are to believe Richard Clark, who led the anti-terrorism effort under both Presidents Clinton and Bush until his retirement 2 years into the Bush administration, if we are to believe the highly respected, again, Republican conservative, who initiated the term of this administration as Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, it was one week, one week after the inauguration that there was a meeting of the National Security Council and what was discussed there was the need for regime change in Iraq. Nothing about terrorism. And again, 6 weeks later, according to Paul O'Neill, there was a meeting of the National Security Council where it was discussed how the oil fields in Iraq were to be divvied up and divided among nations and corporations. That is according to Paul O'Neill and that is according to Dick Clark.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut for yielding, and I think he is so on the mark, if you will.

People are thirsting for respectful discourse about these issues because they are so profoundly important, and I want to thank the gentleman for the kudos. I know that each of us has benefited from appearing here on a weekly basis, having this conversation; and I think what has also amazed us is the level of interest, the response that we have received so that there is no doubt that there is a deep need out there for, again, the kind of dialogue that goes on here, at least once a week, and that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) mentioned earlier even should be expanded so that there can be a variety of perspectives expressed, because it is important.

My colleague mentioned Ahmed Chalabi earlier. How many people in this Chamber, in this country, know of Ahmed Chalabi; and yet many, many in the world, in the intelligence community, believe that he is as responsible as any single individual for the faulty intelligence that led us into this war, a man, by the way, who is a convicted felon, who was an individual who was convicted of embezzlement in Jordan and reports now indicate is being investigated for the dissemination of sensitive information to a potential adversary in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Arc of Cape Cod. The Arc of Cape Cod was established in 1954, by a small group of dedicated parents with special needs children as a voluntary, non-profit organization to help improve the lives of Cape Cod residents with developmental disabilities and their families. The Arc of Cape Cod was an outgrowth of a wave of parent- sponsored organizations across the United States, banding together at the state and national levels to advance the quality of life of their children with special needs.

From its founding, the Arc has played an important role in advocating for changes to improve and enrich the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities. For the past 50 years, the Arc of Cape Cod has been an invaluable resource to individuals with disabilities and their families through its mission of empowering Cape Cod residents to identify, choose and realize their goals of where and how they learn, live, work and play.

The Arc has an active adult social program that involves approximately 200 individuals every month in a wide range of activities of their choosing. The Arc also provides case management, skills training and other services that assist more than sixty individuals to live independently as active members of their communities across Cape Cod. In addition, the Arc of Cape Cod is a constant source of helpful information, referrals to services, and support for Cape Cod families.

In appreciation of their 50 years of devoted service, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in honoring the Arc of Cape Cod.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this proposal, which I consider dangerous as well as irresponsible. I guess the question that I would pose is, what has happened to States' rights?

The gentleman from Florida indicated that criminals do not respect jurisdictional lines. That is true, they do not. However, the United States Constitution respects State lines and State boundaries, because the Founders believed that Federalism was an important concept in our democracy. It seems that the evolution of the fundamental principle of the Reagan revolution is no longer operative in this Chamber. I would suggest that a true conservative should deplore what this proposal does to that core American concept of Federalism.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his opposition to this bill. I agree with his statement that it is an affront to State sovereignty and the Constitution. In fact, what we are doing is undermining the 10th amendment, which reserves so many rights to the States. We are doing it daily in this Chamber, and we are doing it in a way that should cause every American citizen, and particularly those who call themselves conservative, should cause them profound concern.

I can remember before I ran for office to this branch, in the previous election there was much to-do about a so-called Contract With America. Well, that contract seems to have been discarded. It no longer has value, presumably, at least political value. It is clear that States' rights and local control are no longer in vogue today. Washington knows best. I guess that is the current refrain. The new term is ``preemption.'' Preemption of States' rights. Preemption is a word we have heard a lot about. It does not just apply to our foreign policy, I would suggest. It now applies to American democracy.

This bill represents a quantum leap, if you will, in terms of the erosion of the rights granted to States under the 10th amendment. It would amend title XVIII to exempt current and retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. As the ranking member indicated, I served as the chief law enforcement officer, the elected district attorney in metropolitan Boston, for more than 20 years; and I cannot understand why Congress believes that it is in a better position than State and local law enforcement to make decisions as to what is best in their jurisdictions. It was the former Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who made the statement a while back that the best decisions on fighting crime are made at the local level, not here in Washington.

Congress has never passed a bill that gives anyone a right to carry weapons in violation of State and local laws until now, in our entire constitutional history. Purportedly, involving public safety, this bill will allow people from out of State to come into my home State with a loaded, concealed weapon without the duty to notify public safety officials in Massachusetts or in Boston or in any community in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The reality is that this legislation will preempt, if you will, or supersede, the laws of 31 States that currently restrict carrying a concealed weapon to on-duty officers. That is the law in 31 States. Yet Washington knows best. Let us just discard those 31 State laws that regulate the carrying of concealed weapons by on-duty officers in their jurisdictions. Of course, it also disregards State laws that oppose conditions on how and when retired officers may carry a concealed weapon. And it ignores the reality that there has been constructive and thoughtful deliberative efforts by other State legislatures, as well as the State of New Jersey, that have addressed exactly these issues. These issues have been addressed in a thoughtful and deliberative way at the State and local level.

This bill does not limit the weapons that officers can carry, like some States do. This bill also does not limit the maximum age for an officer carrying a concealed weapon, like some States do. And this bill does not allow local departments to deny permits to retirees no matter where they come from, like some States do. Under this proposal, a retired Customs inspector from Alabama can come into Massachusetts carrying a concealed weapon, and my local sheriff or my local police chief can do nothing about it.

With the passage of this bill, Congress will enable officers who retire or resign, or resign while under investigation for domestic abuse, racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse to be eligible for a concealed weapon permit. It is all too easy to imagine a scenario where there will be a tragedy under these circumstances, and we will be responsible for it. The rationale often in support of this proposal is that law enforcement officers, whether active or retired, are never off duty.

Now, I have profound respect for the hard work of law enforcement officials everywhere. I was part of them. I know them. But when they go off duty and travel to my State and to my hometown, they should respect the rules and policies of the local police departments and the communities where I live and where they are visitors. The Federal Government should not strip sheriffs and police officers of the authority and discretion to determine who can carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. Why should Congress, of all places, why should Congress decide if an off-duty or retired police officer from another State can carry a hidden firearm into my community or into your community?

Mr. Speaker, by no means does this bill reflect Federal support for State and local law enforcement. It will not reduce violence; and I dare say, to the contrary, it very well may undermine public safety.

So, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. Speaker, can I interrupt, because I think that is very important because that has been an assertion that I think is extremely misleading to the American people.

My colleague referenced the no fly zone; yet I imagine that there are many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and a number of Americans that are watching this conversation tonight that we are having and if you hear it without understanding some of the nuances, you hear al Qaeda was in Iraq, but as that famous radio commentator, I think his name was Paul Harvey, said, there is another half of that story.

Yes, there was a group that had some nebulous link to al Qaeda, and they were in Iraq; but they were not in Iraq in the part that Saddam Hussein had sway over. They were not in the part of Iraq where Saddam Hussein had influence. They were not in the part of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had any control. They were in the part of Iraq, as my colleague mentioned, in the so-called Kurdish area up in these mountains.

There was a group of some 200 or 300, and they were not directly linked to al Qaeda; but, yes, they were a terrorist group and one that we should not in any way countenance. They were a threat, if you will, to people of goodwill all over this world; but they were not a part or had any relationship, collaborative or otherwise, with Saddam Hussein.

And yet again and again, this White House continues to talk about al Qaeda and Iraq, but what they do not say is that it was a group that was in Iraq that was outside of the influence of Saddam Hussein. It was in, as indicated, in the so-called no-fly zone. Saddam Hussein did not dare enter that zone.

I would like to submit that the real danger here is because of this diversion which is a military intervention, a war on Iraq that it subverts, detracts from the real war that threatens the American people.

The war by fundamental Islamist terrorists that, because of our intervention in Iraq, are every day spawning new groups and new terrorists. The policy of this administration in terms of the so-called war on terror is creating, I would submit, a situation where if it continues, yes, we have won the war in Iraq, but we will lose the war on terror. It is very important that the American people, those that are watching our conversation here tonight, understand that there is a profound distinction between this adventure in Iraq for reasons that at some point in time we should really get into: Why did we end up going to Iraq? Well, we know this from people within the administration, far in advance of September 11, the day of our national tragedy, plans for war against Iraq were being designed.

Why did we not go into Iran? Why?

Mr. Speaker, Mohammed Atta, by the way, for those who are watching us, was the leader of the 19 hijackers that were responsible for our national day of tragedy.

It is called the big lie theory.

Mr. Speaker, if I can interrupt, and we are joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

We all remember, of course, that it was again this White House that assigned a former United Nations inspector to go and search for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His name is David Kay. He is universally described as someone of great integrity, of great expertise. He does his job, and he comes back and he claims that we were all wrong. That is months ago. This particular cover of Newsweek is dated February of this year. We were all wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no links to al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And yet he is befuddled and disturbed by the fact that this President and this Vice President will not own up to the fact. He was interviewed by a British newspaper, and his recommendation to President Bush and particularly Vice President Cheney, because if there is anyone who has pushed this particular adventure, it is the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney. Let us just put it out here tonight. And I am quoting him, assigned by this White House, presumably a Republican, a hawk on the war, he says, ``It is about confronting and coming clean with the American people, not just slipping a phrase into the State of the Union speech. He should say we were mistaken and I am determined to find out why.'' And they will not let go. They will not let go.

Mr. Speaker, when are they going to go and fight the war on terror and absolutely defeat terrorism?

If the gentleman will yield, can I ask a very brief question? What did he say about the terrorist cells that now exist in Iran, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Sudan, in Indonesia, and I could list a long litany of other terrorist cells that are a threat to the United States? What did he say, if anything; or is he just simply focused on Iraq?

Have the terrorists left Iran and Syria and Sudan? What is he saying?

That goes back to the issue of competence, and that is where, in addition to the issue of credibility, this administration, this White House, has failed miserably.

If the gentleman will yield, can the gentleman tell me and tell those that might be watching our conversation tonight, what has been the cost, not in terms of the lives of our children, but what has been the cost to the American taxpayers for this adventure?

Already to date it has cost the American taxpayers $200 billion to build roads in Iraq, to provide Iraqis with good health care, to clean up their environment and to stimulate their economy.

Mr. Speaker, we know, we know what the commander of the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a highly-esteemed organization serving veterans in this country, had to say about this administration's submission of a veterans budget to the United States Congress. That commander called it a sham and a fraud. So this is not inconsistent.

If I could just leave my colleagues with one question. We have talked about we could not find the weapons of mass destruction. We cannot find the links, if you will, of the collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Has anyone looked for the plans that were crafted by Saddam Hussein that indicated that he was prepared to attack the United States?

Mr. Speaker, it was approximately a year ago, in fact I think it was better than a year ago now, that myself, a number of my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and, of course, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) took to the floor to express our concerns about what was transpiring in the Middle East, with a special focus on Iraq. We have done that on a rather regular basis over the course of the past year, and we have come to call this hour the ``Iraq Watch,'' where we have a discussion among ourselves for the benefit of those that are viewing our conversation through C-SPAN.

At the very beginning, we expressed our concern that American credibility was at stake, as well, of course, as providing an opportunity to observe the competence of this White House in terms of its conduct of the war in Iraq. And, tragically, unfortunately, many of our concerns have materialized.

I think every American remembers rather clearly the multiple statements, not just from the President and the Vice President, but from every single official representing the administration, whether from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, clearly from the White House, wherein they articulated the rationale for the military intervention in Iraq based on two particular concerns. One, of course, was expressed by the President and others when he continued to state that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that a nuclear weapons program was underway and that at any time we could be faced with the vision of a mushroom cloud somewhere in the world, specifically in the United States.

Well, I think there is a consensus among the American people and among Members of this institution, as well as a number of members of the administration that that particular basis for the military intervention in Iraq, the concern about weapons of mass destruction, did not materialize, and that the intelligence was faulty.

It was the former United Nations' inspector, David Kay, who received plaudits and kudos and respect, and deservedly so, from Members on both sides of the aisle, when he was designated by this administration to travel to Iraq and to develop a cadre of experts to assist him in the discovery of where those weapons of mass destruction were located.

I am sure many Americans remember the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, indicating that we knew where those weapons were; that they were around the Tikrit area and outside of Baghdad. Well, of course, again, that intelligence did not produce the location, and the statement of Mr. Kay later was that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, he did not have a nuclear weapons program.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he made a statement that was emblazoned on the front page of Newsweek Magazine, which has been repeated again and again, and that statement was: ``We were all wrong.'' ``We were all wrong.'' There was also a statement from a newspaper published in Great Britain that I think is worth repeating, and it is a statement made by David Kay. ``The former chief inspector warned yesterday that the United States is in grave danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it doesn't own up to the mistakes it's made in Iraq.''

And while there has been some acknowledgment that the weapons of mass destruction that purportedly existed in Iraq are not there, there never has been a definitive statement coming from the White House that would support the conclusion reached by Mr. Kay.

In fact, the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, stated that the weapons of mass destruction might still be found in Iraq; and Mr. Kay's response was, ``What worries me about Cheney's statement is I think people will hold out for a hail Mary pass, delay the inevitable, looking back at what went wrong and believe we have enough evidence now to say that the intelligence process and the policy process,'' I repeat that, ``the policy process that used that information did not work at the level of effectiveness that we require in the age that we live in.''

Well, I think all Americans, or most Americans, know that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Of course the other most prominent rationale for the military intervention in Iraq was a purported relationship between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization that we all know so well, al Qaeda.

In fact, in a letter sent to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate just prior to the invasion of Iraq and signed by the President, the President puts forth in what I would submit is rather clear and unequivocal terms that, ``I determine,'' this is President Bush, ``that reliance on the United States of further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant National Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and acting pursuant to the Constitution and the public law,'' which this Congress passed authorizing that military intervention, ``is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,'' the clear implication being the nation of Iraq, ``organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, the date of our national tragedy.''

Well, recently a report was issued by the so-called 9/11 Commission, which was the subject of much debate and discussion over the course of this past weekend. I think it is important to explore in some detail that report and have a conversation about those allegations that were used by this White House as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

Let me read from the pertinent section of the report. The report reviews the activities of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and now I am quoting from the report: ``A small group of al Qaeda operatives subsequently traveled to Iran and Hezbollah camps in Lebanon for training in explosives, intelligence, and security. Bin Laden reportedly showed particular interest in Hezbollah's truck bombing tactics in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 United States Marines. We have seen strong, by indirect, evidence that his organization did in fact play some,'' as yet unknown, ``role in the Kobar attack.''

Let me repeat that again for emphasis. Osama bin Laden went to Iran, went to Iran and Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in Lebanon.

Now, again reading from the report, ``bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan,'' in Sudan, ``despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime.'' Bin Laden in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Sudanese to protect their own ties with Iraq reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease the support and arrange for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. This is some 3 years after the first gulf war. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps as well as assistance in procuring weapons but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Those two senior Iraqi operatives were captured. One was captured last July. He was a al Anni who reportedly had a meeting with Muhammed Atta in the Czech Republic, in Prague, back in April 2001. Much has been made of that particular encounter. Both the CIA and the FBI concluded that that meeting never occurred. Yet we continue to hear it, particularly from the Vice President. He cannot let go, it would appear.

Of course.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing his response. I would be happy to engage.

We are dear friends.

I look forward to that. If I am not here in the Chamber, that does not mean that I am not

watching it on C-SPAN. But I can assure the gentleman we will be back here tomorrow night to respond to his response and correct any unintentional mistakes that he makes in the course of his response.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

We can make it a 2-hour conversation. I think that would be informative and hopefully educational.

Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is absolutely critical to understand that there is no one that is unhappy with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. But the question that we are posing here tonight is the allegation that there was a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein Iraqi regime. And what we are talking about is the credibility of the White House, the President, and, therefore, the United States.

As I said earlier, we discovered what happened when it came to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and here we are again, even after the report by the 9-11 Commission, even after a statement by David Kay, not only relating to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this continuing conversation this evening. Again, the report refers to contacts that were made back in 1994. If we talk about contacts, it was the Bush administration, the Bush One administration, that had contacts with Saddam Hussein that dated back from 1982 when he was removed from the terrorist list, when there was an embassy installed in Baghdad, when we

provided him with intelligence, when we provided him with the ingredients for weapons of mass destruction, when we transferred to him, when we transferred to him, dual-use technologies.

I have a chart behind me that would establish without any doubt whatsoever, it is a CRS report, that in the 1980s, we had multiple contacts, and we should not be surprised that in 1990, it was discovered that he had a nuclear weapons program because it was the then-Bush administration and its predecessor that provided the components to do exactly that. The contacts that the gentleman from Indiana refers to occurred in 1994, and it was as a result of a request from the government of Sudan, where Osama bin Laden was living. The Iraqi official that visited Saddam Hussein heard what he had to say, returned to Iraq, and there was no further contact.

I continue to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, if I could, because I want to respond to my friend from Indiana, because I know that he holds in high regard David Kay, who was selected by the administration to go to Iraq and review the various assertions and the concerns that they had about weapons of mass destruction as well as a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and this is a statement that appeared today in fact in The Boston Globe and it quotes David Kay: ``'At various times al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there,' said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq survey group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism, 'but we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with al Qaeda or, for that matter, any real links at all.' ''

He was referencing the statement by the Vice President. Again, ``Cheney's speech is evidence-free,'' Kay said. ``It is an assertion, but does not say why we should believe this now.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

If I may reclaim my time, the reality is that this administration, a week after the inauguration, according to a very fine Republican by the name of Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury, had an extensive discussion about Iraq at the first meeting of the National Security Council and why it should be targeted.

I have a long list of quotes from administration officials and others that were there that can provide firsthand evidence. What I found particularly disturbing, however, according to Paul O'Neill, a good, fine, conservative Republican who was the CEO of a fine American corporation called Alcoa, was that on February 27, months before 9/11, at a National Security Council meeting, there was a map laid out; and there was a discussion among the principals about how the oil fields in Iraq would be divvied up between nations and between various corporations. I commend to my friend, and I know he must have a copy of that book, it is called ``The Price of Loyalty.''

On page 96, I will not bore him and those who are watching us here tonight with reading it, but I believe somebody owes the American people and this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, an explanation of why months before 9/11, months before 9/11, months before there was any discussion about weapons of mass destruction or links, if you will, between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, we are talking about war.

I would remind my friend from Indian of the 11th amendment.

That Republicans do not criticize Republicans. I will have to defend Paul O'Neill.

Again, because we have a good discussion going here tonight, I think it is important for all those that are watching, because we will chew right into our friend's time too, I think it is important here tonight that the American people understand that this is good discourse. This is the kind of debate that this institution needs.

Despite the fact that we have disparate views and profound disagreements, the reality is that we do have mutual respect, and in the case of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) we have affection.

I am not going to repeat the praise I gave to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Only once he gets the kudos.

While the gentleman might disagree with Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury who was appointed, obviously, by this President, I wonder if he disagrees with an observation or an anecdote that was related by Bob Woodward just recently in the book that is on, I understand, the President's Web site, where, again, I am quoting from the book. I do not want in any way to infer that this is coming from me or any of my Democratic colleagues.

But in response to this desire for war against Iraq, Bob Woodward writes, ``Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The Vice President and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Hussein and September 11th. It was a separate little government that was out there. Wolfowitz, Libby, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Feith's gestapo office, as Powell privately called it. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to al Qaeda and trying to nail down the connection with Iraq. He would often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that Cheney,'' Powell not, not O'Neill, ``took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a we know. Powell,'' not O'Neill, ``Powell concluded we didn't know and no one knew.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is important to note that. Again, I am not sure about whether it was an aspirin factory, but I think what is really important is the point that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) just made about oversight.

It is clear that there are no weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that the kind of relationship that has been suggested by the administration, particularly the Vice President and the President, does not exist. It is, I dare say, hurting our credibility.

We come to this as Americans. You know that, I know that, and we all know that. And this information comes from a variety of sources, whether it be from Bob Woodward, who describes a conversation that Secretary Powell has, or whether it is Paul O'Neill.

In the case of Richard Clarke, the terrorist chief, in the aftermath of 9/11, he writes in his book he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq. ``Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq,'' Clark said, ``and we all said no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said, there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are a lot of good targets in Iraq.

``Well, there are a lot of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Initially I thought when he said there are not enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking. They wanted to believe there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting at that particular meeting, and the FBI was sitting there, and I was sitting there, and we looked at the issue for years, and we reached a conclusion that there was no connection.''

The point is, let it go. To follow the admonition of David Kay, it is time to acknowledge our mistakes as a Nation and to begin to restore some of our credibility internationally.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if one reviews the 9/ 11 report, they are very clear that there were more connections, more connections between Lebanon, between Iran and al-Qaeda than there ever were between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, in fact, Osama bin Laden, in 1990 right after the invasion of Kuwait, went to Saudi Arabia and met with Prince Sultan, who was the defense minister and said that we have to do something about that secularist. Let us join forces and destroy Saddam Hussein. He considered Saddam Hussein as an apostate, a corrupter of Islam.

The point is, and again, another report that came out today, Chairman Kean, again suggests that the connections between Pakistan, between Iran and Hezbollah, far exceeded the connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There was no collaborative relationship. We continued to hear about al-Qaeda bases in Iraq. They were in northern Iraq under the protection of the no-fly zone.

Mr. Speaker, I know we have very limited time left. But I think before we go we should wish a happy birthday to our friend and colleague from Indiana (Mr. Burton), because it is his 45th birthday today, is that correct?

29th birthday today, I think this has been a very good discussion. We really do welcome this conversation with my colleague. He knows we have respect.

I hope we do, too. I would issue a challenge to my friend because he and I have traveled together and it is an experience, and it is a very positive experience, but there are people that are in the custody of the executive branch, those so-called senior intelligence Iraqi agents, that continually deny any knowledge whatsoever of Iraq or meeting the gentleman that allegedly met with Mohammed Atta in Prague in the Czech Republic, is in our custody.

Let us challenge together the executive branch and my colleague, myself, and anyone else who wishes to join us, go together and exercise the oversight responsibility and function of this Congress and interview Mr. Al-Ani and make that decision ourselves and come back and report to the American people.