Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that I think we are operating on a totally different understanding of the facts. I feel very comfortable with what we have reported here tonight and what others have said.

I think over the course of time the kind of conversations that we are having will elucidate the facts for the American people; but again, every Member in this House is concerned about what is happening to this country. We do not want to make the mistakes of the past, and I am very concerned that we are; but we will leave that for a later time, and I am sure that it will be a feisty and contentious, but friendly, conversation; and I wish my friend a most happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague Howard Berman (D- CA), I am proud to introduce legislation that will amend certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Senators Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D- WI) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

In the aftermath of the terrible events of September 11th, our Nation needed to meet the challenge of finding additional ways to prevent terrorist attacks. Yet even in a time of crisis, the Federal Government must not sacrifice essential liberties in response to claims of national security.

During the original debate on the PATRIOT Act, my House Judiciary Committee colleagues and I insisted that the PATRIOT Act include a provision to ``sunset'' many of the new intelligence and law enforcement powers granted to the Federal Government. Even at that time, we believed that as a country we should review our legislative response when the grief of the tragic events had somewhat subsided.

In hindsight, we are not the only ones to believe this approach was sensible. A recent survey revealed that 95 percent of top criminal justice scholars believe that the Act was passed too quickly--without sufficient deliberation and analysis.

In addition, across the country, cities and towns are increasingly uneasy about some of the PATRIOT Act's measures. Four states and 325 cities and towns--including more than 50 communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--have passed resolutions to protect the civil liberties of over 51 million residents. Hundreds of more resolutions are still in progress and libraries and bookstores have launched a campaign to overturn the Act's ``sneak and peek'' provisions.

The House Judiciary Committee should proceed with a series of public hearings to review the broad powers granted to the Executive Branch under the PATRIOT Act given that certain provisions are scheduled to expire in December 2005. Like any law, support for the PATRIOT Act should not be perpetual or unconditional, especially when courts have held that certain provisions of the original Act are unconstitutional.

At the same time, the Department of Justice continues without pause in its enforcement of the PATRIOT Act--and is now pursuing a nationwide advocacy campaign in support of its expansion. This administration continues to resist cooperation with Congress in its oversight role and further refuses to answer questions from ordinary citizens about whether the PATRIOT Act undermines basic civil liberties.

Some have observed that the Government is intent on prying into every nook and cranny of people's private lives--while, paradoxically, doing all it can to block access to Government information that would inform the American people as to what is being done in their name--by simply invoking the phrase ``national security.'' These actions reflect the unrelenting desire of this White House to conduct business behind closed doors--even if it risks undermining public confidence and trust.

Many have commented that one of the unintended consequences of the PATRIOT Act is the loss of transparency in government. Government secrecy obstructs accountability and oversight. And Congress intended for the ``sunset'' provisions to ensure that a rational process would exist so that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act would not be unlimited and unchecked.

The Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 (CLRA) seeks to balance the restoration of essential protections and basic freedoms without compromising our national security. Our bill would also reverse policies that weaken our constitutional commitment to due process before the law.

Specifically, our bill would restore fundamental fairness to our Nation's immigration laws by ending secret deportation hearings and by ensuring that penalties associated with technical violations of immigration law are reasonable and fair.

In addition, this legislation ensures that people charged with crimes under the PATRIOT Act are treated with the same due process rights as other individuals facing charges in our criminal justice system. Our bill further establishes that defendants should have access to the evidence used against them.

To circumscribe overreaching prosecutorial powers, the CLRA would amend the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to limit the seizure of private databases and individual records to cases where the Government has shown there is a reasonable connection to a suspected terrorist or terrorist group. At the same time, the CLRA would improve the accuracy of information available to state and local law enforcement by establishing new standards for the National Crime Information Center database.

As a former prosecutor, I know that mistakes can happen during criminal investigations. For this reason, the Federal Government must maintain minimum safeguards while investigating the most serious crimes.

The CLRA is an important step to restore public confidence in government while setting forth legislative goals that reflect the need to repair our relations with other nations whose assistance we need in the fight against terrorism. I hope that my colleagues in the House and Senate will join us in this bicameral proposal to achieve the appropriate balance between protecting our national security and preserving fundamental civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I join today with a dozen national environmental organizations in opposing legislation rushed to the House floor to gut the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as three other shopworn legislative assaults on conservation statutes.

In recent months, the Republican congressional leadership has packaged groups of bills--often proposals rejected in the past--for congressional votes to highlight a partisan rhetorical theme. This week's emphasis is on energy policy, bringing a battery of four measures before the House. These measures include provisions to open the Arctic National Refuge for energy exploration and to provide liability protection for groundwater contaminants. None of the bills will reach the Senate; none will become law.

While none of these proposals will become law, they reflect the congressional leadership's obsession with private energy speculators over the public interest. In recent years the Congress has rubber- stamped Bush Administration proposals to defer stewardship of public lands to mining, grazing and timber interests. Today, the Leadership is offering an even bigger prize, the gutting of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The ``Renewable Energy Project Siting Improving Act'' is designed to weaken one of the bedrock federal environmental protection statutes, ostensibly to ``promote'' renewable energy. When enacted 30 years ago at the behest of President Nixon, NEPA was landmark legislation to create a coherent and predictable framework for responsible environmental decisions--among other things, guiding the scope and preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS). Many states, including Massachusetts, have used NEPA as models for their own statutes.

The NEPA-related bill brought before the Congress today would:

Effectively eliminate the EIS by forbidding public agencies from even considering alternatives to a project under review;

Broaden the definition of a ``renewable energy project, potentially to include coal mines, oil shale, or even oil and gas drilling; and,

Cut back the comment period on proposed projects to 20 days, making it virtually impossible for states or the public at large to participate.

Given the sweeping nature of these proposed changes, it is particularly galling that the legislation reached the House floor within days of its original introduction--and without a single hour of committee deliberation. As the Medicare discount cards were a gift to the pharmaceutical industry, the energy siting bill would grant substantial new leverage to the energy industry developers of a wide range of projects, from hydroelectric dams to wood-burning plants to offshore wind farms.

If this Congress has any real desire to promote renewable energy, a perfect place to start is with policies and standards to develop offshore wind power. Our oceans provide significant opportunities to develop renewable energy from the wind. Projects of all sizes are being considered up and down the east coast, as well as in Nantucket Sound-- nominated on several occasions by federal and state officials to be designated a national marine sanctuary, until Congress placed a national moratorium on that process.

Even though the Congress has yet to authorize the use of federal waters for this purpose, developers are floating trial balloon projects in many locations. In the wake of all this interest, the consensus in Congress and among a number of federal, state and local officials is that we need new and better policies--not less scrutiny--to guide the siting and licensing of these projects.

Even President Bush's Ocean Commission agrees. They were charged with developing practical recommendations to improve the management of our coast. They rightly condemn the current regulatory process led by the Army Corps of Engineers, but at the same time outline a number of constructive recommendations which could accelerate the development of responsible offshore wind farms. Yet not one of the commission's recommendations can be found in this proposal; and on occasion has the President's Ocean Commission cited NEPA as an issue of concern.

At the very least, the Congress could consider my own bipartisan proposal, the Offshore Renewable Energy Promotion Act, which authorizes the use of our oceans for renewable energy projects. It creates a siting process that brings together states, fishermen, mariners and other marine interests to first identify the best sites, uses and scale of projects. It embraces the concept of ocean zoning, an approach similar to that used on land where local officials guide development to the best locations, protecting important natural resources and minimizing conflicting uses.

The proposal I introduced with Republican Congressman Jim Saxton, builds on existing coastal zone planning efforts. It proposes a transparent bidding and licensing process that is open to all, even municipal or local utilities, similar to offshore oil and gas. Even the ocean task force established by Republican Governor Mitt Romney strongly criticizes the current first-come first-served approach, which rewards developers to exploit gaps in current law.

It's bad enough that the Leadership insists on taking valuable floor time to rehash bills that the Congress has already debated and voted on. It's inconceivable that, in the name of renewable energy, we're asked to turn one of our most effective environmental statutes into one of the biggest loopholes in the U.S. Code.

That's why this bill has earned the vigorous opposition of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resources Defense Council and countless others with genuine concern about environmental protection. On their behalf, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting in opposition to H.R. 4513.

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight, several of my colleagues will be joining me for our weekly hour that we describe as the Iraq Watch, which reviews issues of interest and concern to Members on both sides of the aisle as well as the American people.

But before we begin talking about events of the past several weeks in Iraq, Afghanistan, in the Middle East, I was conversing earlier with my colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott) regarding some of the statements given earlier on the floor by our colleagues and friends from the Republican side of the aisle. And I want to commend them and congratulate them for taking this issue of waste and fraud and abuse seriously.

I understand that they are describing themselves as waste watchers. I can assure them that we will work together with them. We will cooperate and we will collaborate. Because, as the gentleman who last spoke indicated, it is absolutely essential that we use taxpayers' dollars efficiently, honestly and bring the highest possible return on the investment of those dollars in the American people.

In fact, I am really pleased that this is happening, and I dare say if our Republican colleagues reach out to Democrats that we will join with them and

make this a bipartisan effort. I would simply note that it is late in coming, however, because I think it is important to underscore who has been running the government here for the past 4 years.

I am joined by my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); as I indicated earlier, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my colleague and friend; and, of course, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and an original member of the Iraq Watch; and maybe I could pose a question to him.

Is it the gentleman's understanding that President Bush, who is a Republican, has served in that capacity for some 3\1/2\ years?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

So is it true that the Republicans became a majority in this particular branch back in 1994? I was not here in 1994. I think the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was here in 1994. But who has been setting the agenda and running the House of Representatives since January of 1995?

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

And Paul O'Neill.

Larry Lindsey, and the role of those who disagree, who were independent thinkers, there is a lengthening list.

But I dare say that future generations could very well look back on this particular moment in our history and Ahmad Chalabi would have a very special status. Because, as the gentleman indicated, Mr. Chalabi is very skillful, has a sordid history, if you will; was convicted of embezzlement in the Nation of Jordan; was sentenced in Jordan, an erstwhile ally of the United States when it comes to the war on terror and an ally of the United States in an effort to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian issue; was sentenced in a Jordanian court to some 22 years.

At a meeting that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and myself and others had with King

Abdullah, I posed the question, was the king, our friend, our ally, ever consulted before Mr. Chalabi was named to the now-defunct Iraqi Governing Council? And his response was a terse no. I found that very disturbing because he went on to say that we, meaning the Jordanians, the Lebanese, have serious problems with Mr. Chalabi.

Well, I think what we are discovering is that we have serious problems with Mr. Chalabi. Mr. Chalabi has become an embarrassment to this administration.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) indicated earlier that he sat in the gallery to my left while the President delivered the State of the Union address. He sat directly behind the First Lady.

Mr. Chalabi has a relationship with the President of the United States. One only has to see, Mr. Speaker, this picture. It is my understanding that the President, who is dressed casually here, on his trip during Thanksgiving to visit the American servicemen there, and we applaud him for that, is pictured here with Mr. Chalabi, Mr. Chalabi who provided false intelligence, according to reports emanating from the Department of State and from the CIA, which led this Nation into war. It was defectors whom Mr. Chalabi brought to the administration's attention which talked about weapons of mass destruction, which talked about links with al Qaeda, which talked about links with Osama bin Laden, all of which have been proven to be patently false.

It is very disturbing when we reflect and think that this false information was utilized in the course of the debate on the resolution authorizing war and was never questioned by the White House, by the President, by Vice President Cheney, by Mr. Wolfowitz, by Mr. Douglas Fife and by Mr. Pearl, who at that point in time served on the Defense Policy Board. That information was simply accepted because they were, in my opinion, looking for facts to support their desire to go to war against Iraq.

And here we are. Today, a front page story in the New York Times that, if this is true, this will represent, in my opinion, a scandal that will rock this Nation.

Not only, Mr. Speaker, were we given false information and false intelligence, but now we read in The New York Times that Mr. Chalabi, and let me quote for a moment before I defer to my colleagues: ``The Iraqi leader and former ally of the Bush administration disclosed to an Iranian official that the United States had broken the secret communications code of Iran's intelligence service, betraying one of Washington's most valuable sources of information about Iran, according to United States intelligence officials. They said about 6 weeks ago, Mr. Chalabi told a Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East.''

If that be true, we have been betrayed. It was this President, George W. Bush, standing beside Mr. Chalabi in this very House during the course of a State of the Union address, who used that term ``axis of evil'' when he spoke of Iraq, when he spoke of North Korea, and when he spoke of Iran as being three members of that axis of evil. And here we have, according to The New York Times, and Mr. Chalabi has to be given an opportunity to respond, like the administration has to be given an opportunity to respond, to this absolutely outrageous potential alleged act of treason against the American people. It cannot stand.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will yield to me, does this not just come down to basic incompetence?

I mean, no one is questioning or raising at this point in time malice or inappropriate intentions on the part of those policymakers, but it is almost beyond comprehension to believe that they would have fallen for the likes of Ahmad Chalabi.

I mean, in a recent Newsweek magazine, the May 31 edition, it says it all: ``Bad intel and broken trust. Ahmad Chalabi and the road to war. Our con man in Iraq.'' We were being conned, if you accept the validity of these allegations made by intelligence officers.

Exactly. And that is pointed out in this edition of Newsweek. Again, let me quote: ``Chalabi has not always charmed his patrons. His first run as a CIA asset in the early and mid-1990s was a disaster. His case officer did not trust him. There was a lot of hanky panky with the accounting. Triple billing, things that were not mentioned, things inflated. It was a nightmare, says a former U.S. intelligence official who worked with Chalabi.'' His quote. ``His primary focus was to drag us into a war that President Clinton did not want. But he had more luck with a group of Republican hard-liners who formed a kind of government in exile, the so-called neoconservatives like Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and Doug Feith.''

As I said earlier, when we pause and think that we went to war in part because of information given by this individual standing with the President of the United States, and that we have lost how many men and women? The costs have exceeded already $200 billion, put aside the blood and the pain and the anguish that Americans serving in Iraq and their families have had to experience. This is outrageous.

And now we find on the front page of The New York Times, Mr. Speaker, a story claiming that he provided the most highly sensitive information to Iran, which, according to reports, is developing a nuclear weapons program, is being accused by the President of the United States as being a member of an axis of evil. What is happening? This is incompetence. These people are not running or managing this issue except in the most incompetent way. They are blinded by ideology.

And look where we are now. The rest of the world does not believe us. A recent poll was taken in Latin America among the economic elite, not the poor, the disadvantaged, the down-trodden, if you will. It was done in seven countries. In five countries, the negative opinion of President Bush exceeded 90 percent. The average was 87 percent. This hurts us at many, many different levels.

Now we are faced with a scandal of a magnitude that I dare say we have not seen since Watergate, where we paid somebody who was conning us, that was betraying us to a potential adversary in Iran that the President of the United States described as a member of the Axis of Evil Club. Now we have the President of the United States today, according to CBS, has sought the help of an outside lawyer to represent him in the probe into who leaked the name of a CIA operative to a newspaper columnist. Believing that Bush will be interviewed or asked to testify before a grand jury, White House officials confirm that the President has put a Washington attorney on hot stand-by, CBS reported tonight.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is now joining us, our other stalwart member of Iraq Watch.

What we have here is a growing morass, if you will, of investigations, of embarrassment, of loss of prestige, of the erosion of our moral authority in the world. And, most importantly, in addition to costing the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, we are now putting our men and women who have performed so valiantly and professionally in Iraq, we are putting our military at risk, we are putting our national security at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has provoked a thought. What we have here is the absolute converse of what occurred back in the early 1950s. We have a professional military, a military that every American supports and a military that has conducted itself with valor and a military that all Americans can be proud of, but a civilian leadership that is incompetent. If we are ever going to win the war on terror, if we are going to defeat terrorism in this world, it is absolutely essential, as the gentleman said, for a new team.

I was at a hearing today in the Committee on International Relations which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I serve on. We all remember, it was a unanimous vote in this Chamber to go into Afghanistan and go after the real enemy, al Qaeda, the fundamental Islamists, eliminate them and reduce the threat. We had the support of the entire world. We had a genuine coalition.

Oftentimes, the French are castigated and denigrated on this floor, but if Members remember, it was the French national paper Le Monde that on September 12 said, ``Today we are all Americans,'' and now we have gone in another direction.

Members all know who Robert Novak is, an extremely conservative columnist, certainly not one who in most cases we would share the same viewpoint on a variety of issues, but here are his comments in a column he did recently. ``The handful of valiant American warriors fighting the other war in Afghanistan is not a happy band of bothers. They are undermanned and feel neglected, lack confidence in their generals, and are disgusted by Afghan political leadership. The overlooked war continues with no end in sight. Narcotics trafficking is at an all-time high. If U.S. forces were to leave, the Taliban or something like it would regain power. The U.S. is lost in Afghanistan, bound to this wild country and unable to leave.''

It is Special Services that is given the task of confronting armed narcoterrorists on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, we are losing; not just in Afghanistan, but we are losing everywhere. This is a highly volatile, highly dangerous moment in our national history.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I can just for a moment speak to the issue of America's standing in this world. I am reminded of DeTouqueville when he came to this country, a Frenchman who toured the original 13 States, and he made this observation. He spoke of America's greatness, and he said America is great because America is good.

The world has always looked towards the United States of America, not just because of its military strength or its economic power, but because of our moral authority. Americans through the generations have earned that title, that title of ``American,'' because we are a moral and a good and generous Nation.

But that perception of the United States is changing. We hear a lot about oil and our motives in terms of why we went into Iraq.

I remember reading the book ``The Price of Loyalty'' that was done by an author regarding the experiences of Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury. I would ask my friends on all sides of this particular issue to take the time to go to page 96, because I have been asking this question for months now, and I cannot get an answer. Maybe I am simply frustrated.

But at a meeting of the National Security Council on February 27, some 7 months before our national tragedy on September 11, this is Secretary Paul O'Neill, a highly respected Republican who served in the Reagan administration, who served under this President Bush's father, let me just take an excerpt and read it to you:

``Beneath the surface was a battle O'Neill had seen brewing since the National Security meeting on January 30, which was about a week after the inauguration. There was Powell and the moderates at the State Department versus hardliners like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, who were already planning the next war with Iraq and the shape of a post- Saddam country. Documents were being prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, Rumsfeld's intelligence arm, mapping Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas and listing companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset.

``This was occurring weeks after the inauguration. There was a document entitled `Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts.' It lists companies from 30 countries, including France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, their specialties, bidding histories, and, in some cases, their particular areas of interest. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for super-giant oil fields, other oil fields, and earmarks for production sharing.''

So we wonder, we wonder why the perception of this great and generous Nation is now being attacked, is now being questioned.

Recently there was a survey done by the Pew Foundation, and it was particularly disturbing because many across the world doubt our motives and believe that our real intent is to control Mideastern oil. In Russia, 51 percent of that population believes that that was why we invaded Iraq; in France, 58 percent; in Germany, 63 percent; in Pakistan, 54 percent; in Turkey, 64 percent; in Morocco, 63 percent; and in Jordan, 71 percent. This, I submit to my friends, is most disturbing.

Then we have a report in Time magazine, all Americans by now are aware that Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States, whom in Bob Woodward's most recent book, ``The Plan of Attack,'' is described as having a ``fervor for war.'' That was by Colin Powell. Colin Powell said that, not one of us. It now appears that Time magazine reports that an e-mail from the Army Corps of Engineers says that ``Douglas Feith, an Undersecretary of Defense, approved arrangements for the Halliburton contract, contingent on informing White House tomorrow. We anticipate no issues, since action has been coordinated with the Vice President's office.''

And we wonder why our bona fides and our motives are being questioned? What happens now when the rest of the world reads that information in a journal that is generally regarded with respect, that represents American thinking?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Lance Corporal Jeffrey C. Burgess, USMC, who was killed on March 25 in an enemy attack near Fallujah, Iraq. He served his country with courage and dignity. There is no greater valor than sacrifice in the name of our freedom and national defense. LCPL Burgess and his family will always be in our prayers.

With deepest sympathies, Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues this deeply moving letter written to LCPL Burgess by his mother, Michelle Shea, which was read at his funeral on April 5:

Dear Jeff,

I thought you might want to know what's happened since you

left this world for a better place. As usual, life continues

on, but oh SO DIFFERENTLY now. Just like you, I am wounded

also. The mail still comes each day at the same time, but it

now brings letters and cards full of comfort and love from

many friends and family.

Jordon still comes up each morning and has his breakfast

with me, delivering a big, dimpled smile and a big ``HI''

comes out of his voice, welcoming in another day with his

Nana and Papa.

The other morning before he came upstairs, I was by myself

wondering if I might get some kind of spiritual sign that you

were okay and asking myself why I couldn't remember some

simple things about you. Maybe that's the brain's way of

protecting a grieving parent? I don't know.

The church asked me to think of saying some words at your

service or maybe having a favorite hymn or song played. I

tried, Jeff, but nothing would come to me. I tried ever so

hard to concentrate in my quiet morning time alone, feeling

so frustrated with myself--when I realized that my

concentration was being disrupted by all the birds that were

chirping from the trees in the backyard. I went to the back

door to investigate why they were so worked up, only to find

just ONE BIRD. There was a bright red CARDINAL perched on the

highest limb trying over and over to get his message out loud

and clear--over and over he sang to me.

Returning to my coffee and note pad, I realized that I had

gotten the message. It was in the form of a familiar song,

but I didn't know the title or artist. So, I sent Jen to the

Mall in search of a song containing the words that I could

think of, at the time. She returned with nothing, but on

returning home she retrieved her mail, which contained some

CD's she had previously ordered. Watching her open her

package, I saw a confused look on her face, because she

couldn't understand why TIME LIFE had sent her a 60's CD,

when she'd ordered a 70's CD. All of a sudden there was a

look of amazement on her face as she realized that the CD in

her hand contained the very song we'd been looking for. Your

song for us. We immediately played it, listening to the

lyrics and realized that this was the message that you wanted

to share with everyone. So, I'm carrying out your wishes,

Jeff, and will make sure that it's heard by all.

Several more mornings have come and gone since you left and

you still come to me each morning, in the form of a Cardinal

perched high in the branches of our tree outside and singing

your song. I feel better now, knowing you are still with me

in the beautiful bird. I now know that you are okay.

In closing, I want you to know that you touched so many of

us in so many ways, just in the short time you were here with

us. And, although, I won't ever be the same person I was

before, I'll go on thankful that you were once mine and that

we'll be together again some day in heaven.

I'm gonna sign off now so everyone can hear that beautiful

song that is the message from you. I'm sure they'll get what

you are trying to say, but to be sure, I had it printed in

the program for you.

I love you, Jeff; take care and be forever safe and at

peace knowing your brother Marines will finish the job for

you.

Love and Kisses,

Mom

Mr. Speaker, I will shortly be joined by my colleagues, who, on a weekly basis, have come to the floor of the House to discuss events occurring in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We have called ourselves the Iraq Watch, in an effort to have a conversation to illuminate and educate not just ourselves, but those who are interested, as I think most people are, in these particular matters.

It is clearly no secret, and it is a most disturbing situation, that we have a deteriorating situation in Iraq. One only has to remember the initial estimates of the cost that were put forth by the White House. I think the range that was suggested by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, was from $30 billion to $60 billion.

When the then-Chief Economic Adviser to President Bush, Larry Lindsay, indicated that in his judgment the range could be from $100 billion to $200 billion, he was eased out because there was a sense that that was not a realistic number. Now, of course, we are currently at the figure of $150 billion, and that does not include future estimates, which again according to recent reports just simply is for the military presence of American troops in support for other military personnel there. That is an additional 50 or $75 billion. And of course that does not include the cost of reconstruction, both for Iraq

and for Afghanistan. But, obviously, most importantly is the loss of life, particularly American personnel, both military and civilian. The number now is well in excess of 700. That of course does not account for the men and women in our military who have been wounded.

Many Members of this body have been to Walter Reed Hospital and to Bethesda Naval Hospital and met with the men and women there who have suffered wounds, egregious wounds, that will clearly impact their future and will alter irrevocably the quality of life that they will enjoy for the rest of their lives.

I know that I have attended in my district the funerals of two young men, Sergeant Caldwell and Corporal Jeff Burgess, who gave their lives in Iraq. Furthermore, there was a universal echo of support and sympathy for the United States in the aftermath of our national tragedy on September 11. I think we all remember the headline in the French newspaper, Le Monde, that screamed, very poignantly and eloquently the day after 9-11, that ``Today We Are All Americans.''

It is clear that there was not just sympathy, but a commitment by countries all over the world to assist our efforts to end once and for all the scourge of global terrorism. Unfortunately, much of that international support has eroded. And now the motives of the United States are being called into question, and not just in the Mideast but all over the world.

There was a recent poll that was done by one of the premier polling groups in this country, the Zogby polling group, and it was conducted among the elite in Latin America, the economic elite which traditionally had been supportive of American policy. There was no attempt to interview or survey those that had traditionally been hostile to American interests or who have disagreed with our policies. What I find remarkable was that of the six countries that were surveyed, and they range from Argentina to Brazil to Venezuela to a Central American country, that the negative opinion of the United States Government, the negative opinion of the United States Government exceeded 87 percent. That is particularly disturbing, because I think we can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that we need the international community and its support if we are going to end terrorism. If we are going to protect our homeland, cooperation is absolutely essential. It is absolutely critical. But now American motives are suspect.

There was a recent poll that was done, it was done by the Pew Foundation and the numbers are startling. Majorities in seven nations believe that our intervention in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control Mideast oil. Clearly, there are few Americans that accept that premise. But when one reads the list of nations that believe that our intervention was based simply on the desire to control oil, we must acknowledge that we have a problem that has to be addressed. Let me just recite some of those numbers: 51 percent of the people in Russia believe that that was our primary motive; 58 percent of the people in France; 60 percent of the people in Germany; 54 percent of the people in Pakistan. In Turkey the number is 64 percent. In Jordan it was 71 percent. And yet we speak of a certain moral authority. But it has become clear that the world does not see us in that lens. They believe our motives are much more crass. And when these numbers are combined with comments and observations and revelations by senior administration officials, they are reinforced.

For those of you that have not had the opportunity to read ``The Price of Loyalty,'' which is a book regarding the tenure of the former Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill, let me commend that book to you; and I would specifically direct your attention to page 96 of that book. Because Secretary O'Neill, a traditional Republican widely regarded in business circles, someone who served his country in the Reagan administration and in Bush One, reveals an anecdote that I find disturbing. Let me read for a moment. O'Neill had seen ``brewing a battle since the National Security Council meeting on January 30.''

Let me interrupt the excerpt that I will quote to inform my colleagues and the viewing audience that this was 1 week after the inauguration after George W. Bush. One week. The anecdote itself that he reveals occurs February 27, less than maybe 5 weeks, after the President was inaugurated. O'Neill: ``It was Powell and his moderates at the State Department versus hardliners like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz who were already planning the next war in Iraq in the shape of a post-Saddam country.''

Now, let us remember, this is before our national tragedy on 9-11, and this is not coming from outside. This is not an opinion being offered by a Member of the House. This is being offered by the former Secretary who was present at this particular meeting of the National Security Council on February 27, 2001.

``Documents were being prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency,'' Rumsfeld's intelligence arm, ``mapping Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listing companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset.'' Obviously he means oil. ``One document headed 'Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts' lists companies from 30 countries, their specialties, bidding histories and in some cases their particular areas of interests. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for supergiant oil fields, other oil fields earmarked for production-sharing while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine blocks to be designated for future exploration.''

I guess this is a question that I would have for the President, for the Vice President, and for the Secretary of Defense: Why on February 27, months before the attack on the homeland, why was a map being presented at a National Security Council meeting divvying up the oil reserves of Iraq?

That, I daresay and will submit, is a question, Mr. Speaker, that should be answered by the Secretary, by the National Security Adviser, by the Vice President, and by the President. That is a question that cannot linger, that cannot go unanswered, particularly when a majority of people in countries that are our traditional allies have concluded that our main interest in Iraq is not to bring democracy, is not to save lives, but is to secure oil for our energy needs.

And, again, let me remind my friends who are here, I have been joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), let me remind ourselves that we are losing international support. And I am convinced that many of the questions that the rest of the world has is based on reports such as this and have a potential to undermine not just our credibility and our moral authority, but to undermine our national security if we are going to do something in terms of international terrorism.

Because if the world concludes, and if we do not respond that this is our motivation, they will turn their backs on us. When this is all combined with obviously many other issues that are out there, I dare say we have a serious problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a moment, because I know we are joined by our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and again, I think we are coming back to an issue that has to be discussed here, and that is an issue of competence.

There is nobody in this chamber that is not committed to making every effort, every responsible effort to end the threat of terrorism, not just against the United States but all over the globe. What I think the world has concluded, as most Americans have concluded, is that the information that

was provided to this administration indicating that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were absolutely false, absolutely false.

What we have learned is that much of this information was provided by an exiled group called the Iraqi National Congress, headed by this particular gentleman here with the sunglasses on whose name is Ahmed Chalabi, who for years was working to return to Iraq.

Mr. Chalabi is an interesting and controversial figure, of course, because during his exile he lived for a time in Jordan, and while he was there, he was charged with and accused and convicted of the crime of embezzlement in the amount of some $30 million. He was sentenced to a term of 22 years in prison. Somehow during his exile he became friendly with or developed relationships with Richard Pearl, who formerly served on the Defense Advisory Board, with the Vice President Mr. Cheney, and with others in the so-called neo-conservative movement.

And they believed what he had to say. And it has been proven to be false.

And I thought what was particularly interesting was that this past weekend our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, made a statement, I think it was on ``Meet the Press,'' that he now believes, and I am reading again from the New York Times dated today, that ``he now believes that the Central Intelligence Agency was deliberately misled about evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing unconventional weapons.''

Now, stop for a moment to think of this, that the Secretary of State, who made the presentation before the world at the United Nations, who built the case for this White House and for this President, now indicates that he was or the CIA was misled. The report goes on, ``He hinted at widespread reports,'' this is Secretary Powell, ``of fabrications by an engineer who provided much of the critical information about the so-called bioweapons labs. Intelligence officials have since found that the engineer was linked to the Iraqi National Congress, an exiled group that was pressing President Bush to unseat Mr. Hussein.'' This is a quote by the Secretary of State. ``It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading,'' Mr. Powell said in an interview broadcast from Jordan, ``and for that I am disappointed and I regret it.''

I yield.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have the answers. But, again, let me go back to this issue of

competence, because the President of the United States described the Secretary of Defense as a superb leader. I reject that description. I reject that description out of hand. One only has to see example after example, such as the relationship, and not just a single incident, with Mr. Chalabi. Clearly, the Kingdom of Jordan, which has been a steadfast ally of the United States, was insulted by the appointment of this individual, who is a convicted felon, to the Iraqi Governing Council.

King Abdulla of Jordan was here. I and several other members of the Committee on International Relations, I believe I was joined by my colleague here tonight, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), at a luncheon when I posed the question to the King, and congratulated him, by the way, for moving towards the democratization, if you will, of Jordan, whether he was ever consulted by Secretary Rumsfeld or by the President about the appointment of Mr. Chalabi. And he said, no, he was not even consulted. Yet here is an individual who established a bank, one of the largest banks in Jordan, then embezzled, according to the conviction, millions of dollars, causing the bank to collapse; and he then escaped from Jordan.

When asked just recently about Ahmed Chalabi potentially becoming the prime minister in the interim government, what King Abdulla said was, ``He was not the ideal choice.'' I daresay that was extremely diplomatic.

But at the same time let me go and quote another individual who has earned the respect of Members of this body and the American people, David Kay. Remember David Kay? He was assigned the task by this President, by this Secretary of Defense to go find the weapons of mass destruction; and he came back and said there are no weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President, and testified before the United States Senate that we were all wrong. We were all wrong.

But, of course, this White House, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld cannot acknowledge that they were wrong. They were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about the links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And now we find ourselves in a quagmire.

But this is what Mr. Kay had to say, who, by the way, was one of the most hawkish members of the United Nations monitors that went out and that was part of that inspection team, and who actually supported the war. But here is what he had to say. He now believes the Western countries' intelligence agencies got it wrong for two reasons. He is referring to the weapons of mass destruction. First, they were manipulated by Ahmed Chalabi and other dissidents whose central interest was ousting Saddam.

Just mentioning the name of the Iraqi National Congress leader makes Kay laugh. There is a guy who is so transparent. Chalabi asked me once, and again this is Mr. Kay speaking, why are you so concerned about the weapons of mass destruction? No one cares about weapons of mass destruction. And when asked by Tom Brokaw was he embarrassed, no, his response was, we are heroes in error.

Well that error has cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, the lives of American young men and women, and the loss of American moral authority and prestige in the war. Mr. Chalabi, that is disgraceful. That is disgraceful.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it can be summed up in one word, incompetence, and a lack of leadership and an inability to wage a war against terrorism that will succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that David Kay, highly respected, the man that was charged by this President, it did not take him too long to conclude that Mr. Chalabi was transparent, a manipulator, a con man, if you will.

In addition to all that the gentleman has said, do my colleagues remember when the President of the United States delivered the State of the Union address this year, in January of 2004, who was sitting up right there in the gallery in the Bush family box? Does the gentleman remember?

It boggles the mind, it is such rank incompetence, it is such an inability to see reality, to be fooled. It is not incompetence, it is gross negligence. In some other forum it might almost be funny, but here it is so tragic because it is not just about this President and this Vice President, but it is about war and peace and the American people and how we are viewed in the world, and it is the blood of our children, and it is mortgaging our future.

We should walk away from Mr. Chalabi now and begin to restore the confidence of the world in our ability to match reality and our dreams and aspirations.

Let me reclaim my time for a moment. I think it is important for Americans to understand that during the course of this week, we will be debating a bill that is described as the defense reauthorization bill. It is our purpose collectively as members of this informal group that came to being as a result of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's brainstorm almost a year ago now, this informal group is going to make every single effort to eliminate the funding and the authority for the funding for the Iraqi National Congress that is receiving some $4 million a year, as the gentleman indicates. For what, we do not know. For bad information, for self-aggrandizement, for certainly not the best interests of the United States.

We again, as the gentleman suggests, recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue, that shares our concern and our belief that this is very much a linchpin to beginning to restore our international respect and support, to contact their Senators and their Representatives to assist in this effort, to read about, not just listen to our comments, but to become engaged, educate themselves as to the role of this individual in the course of the past several years and the consequences to the United States simply because there were people in this administration, so-called neoconservatives that were looking for a reason to go to war in Iraq long before our national tragedy of September 11.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for his usual insightful review of the salient points.

I think we should welcome back the original founder of Iraq Watch. He has been unable to attend the last several conversations because of other business, but he is certainly welcome here tonight, and that is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

The events of the past several weeks have obviously been very disturbing in terms of what has occurred in the prison facility, Abu Ghraib. And I think every American feels a sense of profound, profound shame, and there has been much talk and much criticism.

I found a story that was reported today in the Washington Times and the headline reads ``Outrage Erodes Morale of Troops.'' And there were comments by some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. One was made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader, which I will not even address because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has a proclivity to make statements that some describe as over the top. But the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, whom I think we all respect, the report stated that he blamed Democrats who have been harshly critical of the war effort for eroding troop morale. The quote is, ``I'm concerned that a number of Members of Congress have lost their sense of balance. They think their role here is to bash the American military. It is demoralizing for the troops.''

Clearly, it has never been the intention of any individual who serves in this House, be he or she Republican or Democrat, to erode morale or to bash the military. I do not think anyone in any way wishes to denigrate the commitment and the contribution and the manner with which our military overall has conducted itself. But at the same time I think that the chairman has it wrong. It is not Democrats. There are a number of Republicans, and he should be aware of that, that have criticized the so-called post-major combat phase of this adventure for some time now. One only has to watch and observe the Monday morning TV programs.

But the reality is that morale has been low among our military for some time, not because of criticism of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, and including the Vice President of the United States, who is described in a recent book as suffering from war fever in terms of his obsession about invading Iraq. I think it is rather interesting that this poster I have here which is back in November 2003, a Newsweek cover that states ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War.'' It is clearly true, given what we know now, that he had great influence in terms of advancing the military invasion of Iraq by the American military.

But now to go back to the morale issue, there was an interesting story, and maybe the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services is unaware of this, but it was reported last Sunday in the Washington Post, and the title is ``Dissension Grows in Senior Ranks on War Strategy.

``Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualty for years, without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.''

These are not Members of the Democratic Party in Congress. These are not Members of the Republican Party in Congress. This is senior military personnel.

``Army Major General Charles Swannack, Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said that he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning, but when asked whether he believes the United States is losing he said, `I think strategically, we are.'

``Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam.''

These are senior members of the military establishment in this country.

This is not about partisanship. This is criticism coming from the military itself regarding the lack or the incompetence, if you will, of the civilian leadership that currently resides in the Department of Defense.

Colonel Hughes went on to note that he lost a brother in Vietnam. ``I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that sort of strategic loss from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war because we don't understand the war we are in.''

They are worried. This is the senior American military speaking. They are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground with the Iraqi public.

Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year.

Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him. A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. His quote is, ``It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this. The American people may not stand for it, and they should not.'' This is a senior general at the Pentagon.

I hope that the Republican chair of the Committee on Armed Services has an opportunity to read this particular report that was in the Washington Post last Sunday. He should not blame Democrats or any elected official for ever eroding the morale of the troops. We stand by the troops, but we do not stand by a policy that no one can understand.

As to who is to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. ``I do not believe,'' and this is his quote, ``we had a clearly defined war strategy and end-state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion.''

If the gentleman will yield further, the much-heralded efforts to train Iraqis as far as police and a new Iraqi Army, you only have to go back two or three weeks to remember that headline that screamed out the new Iraq battalion would not accompany the U.S. Marines into combat in the City of Fallujah. So while the Secretary of Defense speaks about the training of some 70,000 personnel for security service, the truth is those that are adequately trained amount to only several thousand.

What we have here, what we have here is a failure of leadership, is a demonstration of incompetence unequaled in terms of my public life, and I have held elected office for some 30 years.

If you could bear with me for just one more moment, again, I want to come back to the military's perspective of the civilian leadership and what they are saying.

There was an editorial that appeared in the Army Times, the Marine Times, the Air Force Times and the Navy Times, and it was regarding the situation in the Iraqi prison. It is entitled ``A Failure of Leadership At the Highest Levels.''

I would remind those that are viewing our conversation this evening, this is not a partisan publication. This is a publication that covers the military that in many respects represents the majority view of the military in this country.

``Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the height of the furor over the prison scandal, `the six morons who lost the war.' Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the Nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

``But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons. There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now infamous pictures, and an even more damning reported by Major General Anthony Taguba. Every soldier should be ashamed. But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

``The entire affair is a failure of leadership, from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops, anything goes. In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of these are homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked ``60 Minutes'' to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired a week later, Myers still had not read Taguba's report which was completed in March. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had also failed to read the report until the scandal broke in the media; but by then, of course, it was too late. The Army Times, the Marine Times, the Navy Times, and the Air Force Times are correct: it is a failure of leadership at the highest level.

That is just an unbelievable statement.

And that is leadership.

What the gentleman is basically saying is that loyalty is prized above competence.

Mr. Speaker, it is really time to be honest with the American people. As David Kay said, who was sent and appointed by this administration to conduct a search for the weapons of mass destruction, came back, said there are none, and implored the President, it is time to come clean with the American people. Otherwise, he had grave concerns about our credibility all over the world.

It is like this administration is incapable, incapable of dealing with the truth. I do not think they intend to lie; I just do not think they can grasp reality. It is like again going back to the morale issue. In ``Stars and Stripes,'' a magazine that is funded by the Pentagon, reported better than a year ago on the issue of morale of U.S. troops in Iraq: high-ranking visitors to the country, including Department of Defense and congressional officials, have said it is outstanding, but the ``Stars and Stripes'' itself, the magazine did a survey and concluded that some troops on the ground would beg to differ about what they call low morale on their part and on the part of their units.

So as a result, the Pentagon went and conducted a survey of troops, and it was reported again about a month ago in The Washington Post before the scandal broke out, and it concluded that a slim majority of Army soldiers in Iraq, 52 percent reported that their morale was low, and three-fourths of them said that they felt poorly led by their officers, according to a survey taken at the end of the summer and released yesterday by the Army.

Mr. Speaker, we are back here this evening for another installment of our weekly Iraq Watch. Tonight I am joined initially by the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee); and I expect, as the hour proceeds, other members of Iraq Watch will join us for our weekly discussion.

The revelations of the past several days concerning abuses of detainees or prisoners under the auspices of American military have shocked and appalled the world. And as many have indicated, including the President, Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld, this is unacceptable, unconscionable, and un-American. It is an embarrassment to our country, to our military; and it is my understanding that a variety of congressional committees intend to address this particular issue.

But what concerns me is something that is fundamental to what we have been talking about these past months about our policy in Iraq and the Middle East in the war on terror, and that is credibility, competence, and the willingness of this White House, this administration, to consult with Congress. I think that there is a growing realization that this President, this Vice President, and this administration have failed on all accounts.

There was a report today in the media which quoted President Bush regarding these appalling revelations. And I would like to read to my friend and to the Speaker and to those who might be viewing us this evening as we have our weekly conversation excerpts from those reports in the international as well as the American media:

`` `The first time I saw or heard about pictures was on TV,' the President,'' referring to President Bush, ``said, leaving open the question of when he first learned about the substance of the allegations that prompted an initial investigation in January of this year. But General Peter Pace, Deputy Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that `Everyone was kept appraised orally of the ongoing investigation.' Asked whether Bush and General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his direct supervisor, were well aware of the situation, General Pace responded, `Yes.' Myers, the country's top general, raised eyebrows over the weekend when he said that he had not read a report completed in early March that documented the widespread abuses in Abu Ghraib. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had also not read the report that was completed in March by this Monday,'' by this past Monday, ``5 days after the damning photographs were first shown on the CBS television program 60 minutes, a spokesman said.''

I find that absolutely incredible. The Secretary of Defense had not read the report until this past Monday, and the report was completed in March. What is going on? One can only describe this as ineptitude of the highest order.

Let me continue: ``Congressional leaders have bitterly complained that they were kept out of the loop and were particularly incensed after the Pentagon reported Tuesday the deaths of 25 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan including at least two confirmed homicides. The Congress has not been notified of the murders that took place. `There have been no reports of these abuses,' Republican Senator John McCain, himself a prisoner during the Vietnam War, told ABC television on Wednesday.''

From the Cox News Services, Senator McCain went on: ``The Congress should have been notified of this situation a long time ago. It's a neglect of the responsibilities that Secretary Rumsfeld and the civilian leaders of the Pentagon have to keep the Congress informed of an issue of this magnitude.''

I agree with Senator McCain. Even the majority leader of this House, this body, who certainly has taken the most hawkish position possible when it comes to the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan had this to say: ``We are being briefed all the time. If we are going to be a part and a partner in this war on terror, then we are to be completely briefed, not just briefed on those things they want us to hear.'' Of course, the majority leader of this body is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

I see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and he has a look in his face that he wants to make a comment.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know if my friend was aware, but the second largest army in Iraq today is not the army of the United Kingdom, but it is this army of private contractors. Let us call them what they really are, they are mercenaries.

I dare say, to privatize a war without the command and control of American generals and American officers is a very, very dangerous precedent that is being established.

I think what we are seeing here tonight, what we are talking about tonight, rather, is an example of where it can lead. We all have to acknowledge and remember that the entire world is now viewing, not just simply the photographs, but the realities of the war on the ground and the fact that the United States of America is privatizing its military, privatizing its war, delegating to those who are not necessarily responsible and accountable to American military command absolutely significant duties.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that we speak about the contractors and their roles, this private army, these mercenaries. It is also important again to go back to what I spoke to earlier, the incompetence and the ineptitude that is so rank and so disturbing.

It is as if nobody knows what is happening. The President of the United States is seeing this on TV. The Secretary of Defense has not read the report until this week, and the report was completed in March. If that is the case, if that is the fact, and we do not know that, I cannot understand what is going on in terms of this administration and its efforts.

What the gentleman is saying is that we need at this point in time a bona fide consultation, unlike what we have had to date. And this is not a partisan attack on the administration. This was the opinion of Republicans who supported the war dating back to January of 2003 in a column by Robert Novak of the Sun Times in Chicago. Let me quote again some excerpts that I think are very revealing about the attitude of this White House and this administration towards this institution and towards a shroud of secrecy that has been unparalleled in our history.

``Republican Senators gathering last Wednesday for their first session retreat should have been happy, blessed with a regained majority and a popular President. They were not. Instead, they complained bitterly of arrogance by the Bush administration, especially the Pentagon, in treatment of Congress all along the road to war. It informed the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that there were grievances from President Bush's Senate base; that it is ignored and insulted by the administration, particularly by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in preparing for the war against Iraq. Recitals of complaints began with Senator John Warner, a pillar of the Senate GOP establishment. Warner had his colleagues' attention when he addressed Card. `I will not tolerate,' he boomed, `a continuation of what has been going on over the last 2 years.' He cited cavalier treatment that denies information even to the venerable top Senate Republican on Armed Services.

``Next up was Senator Pat Roberts, a former Marine officer who has spent the last 40 years on Capitol Hill. Roberts, a plain-spoken midwesterner from Kansas, is the new Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. He told Andrew Card to mark him down agreeing with everything Warner just said. Senator Kit Bond of Missouri got up next and repeated similar concerns.''

So this is not a partisan attack on the President. This is a bipartisan concern that this administration act competently and consult with Congress. These issues are too serious.

Just to pick up on the point by my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), it is beyond the incompetence and the ineptitude that seems to characterize the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense. That can only be called callousness, and it is rank and raw. And maybe he ought to join us as we attend the funerals of those who have died in the service of this country. I have already attended two, two funerals. A young man in Quincy and just recently a young man in Plymouth. This Saturday I am attending another funeral. And just maybe if Under Secretary Wolfowitz was at that funeral with me, he might know the number of Americans that have died in this war. But maybe it is just simply ineptitude.

We were talking earlier about these contractors, these mercenaries, these Hessians, if you will. A report exists that has targeted two individuals who worked for contractors. Now, I am not going to reach a conclusion, because everyone deserves due process, everyone deserves the implementation of the rule of law as we know it in our democracy; but they have not even received notice. Just imagine that. They have heard nothing from the Pentagon.

It is in a report and there has been no communication to these private companies. Yesterday in the New York Times the lead contractors implicated in prison abuse remain on the job. They are still there. More than 2 months after a classified Army report found that the two contract workers were implicated in the abuse of Iraqis at a prison outside of Baghdad, the companies that employ them say they have heard nothing from the Pentagon and that they have not removed any employees from Iraq.

For one of the employees, the Army report recommended termination of employment and revocation of a security clearance. For the other, it urged an official reprimand, whatever that means, and review of his security clearance. Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Monday evening they had no information on whether the workers were still on the job or why the report had not been conveyed to the companies. One of the principles in the company noted with apparent irritation that the military still had not provided the company with a copy of the report completed February 22.

What is going on with the civilian leadership under the direction of this Secretary?

It just gets worse.

Mr. Speaker, the chief executive of one of the civilian contractors said in an interview this past Monday, just stop and pause and think of that, this past Monday, said we have not received any information or direction from the client regarding our work in-country. No charge, no communications, no citations, no calls to appear at the Pentagon.

That is exactly the word. I will look through. We have not received any information or direction from the client.

The client is the American taxpayer. That is who the client is, the American people.

As my colleague knows, at least it has been reported in the paper, that the Secretary will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or some other committee of the United States Senate to respond to the concerns that Republicans and Democrats and everybody has articulated over the last several days.

I would hope that one additional question might be asked of this Secretary who stands here next to the President of Uzbekistan, who is a tyrant, a despot and a dictator, who some day will rival Saddam Hussein as a gross violator and threat to regional stability, but is now part of the coalition of the willing, but I digress.

From the book which was offered regarding the experiences of the former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, there is related an anecdote, and I think it needs an answer because I do not want to make an accusation, but this anecdote occurred on February of 2001, months before our national tragedy of September 11, but the preparations were underway to do something about Iraq, to do something about Iraq.

On page 96, let me read, Beneath the surface was a battle, O'Neill, that seemed brewing since the National Security Council meeting on January 30. Remember, the President had been in office for a week. It was Powell and his moderates at the State Department versus hard-liners like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, who were already planning the next war in Iraq in the shape of a post-Saddam country. Documents were being prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, Rumsfeld's intelligence arm, mapping Iraqi oil fields and exploration areas enlisting companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset. This is less than a month after President Bush was inaugurated.

One document entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts lists companies from 30 countries, their specialty, bidding histories and, in some cases, their particular areas of history. He expressed the desire to dissuade countries from engaging in asymmetrical challenges to the United States, as Rumsfeld said in his January articulation, of the demonstrative value of a pre-emptive attack.

I would like to have a response to that particular page. What was the memory of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? Why was he preparing at that point, cutting up the pie, if you will, allocating oil contracts months before 9/11?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, what is happening in terms of the war on terror. We are talking about Iraq, and yet all over the world, murky, small, nebulous cells of fundamental Islamics who hate America are being spawned.

Mr. Speaker, maybe tomorrow if we have some time we will come back and do a wrap-up. Again, I thank my colleagues for this installment of Iraq watch.

If I can interrupt my friend, how many briefings has Dr. Rice volunteered up to this point in time to come in and to consult and to engage in a discourse and a dialogue with Members of Congress?

What you are saying is that the President's National Security Adviser, who is responsible for coordinating American foreign policy, particularly in times of crisis like obviously we find ourselves currently in, has not on a single occasion briefed Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, at least to your knowledge?

I think what is particularly interesting, when we talk about consultation, and those that are listening to us this evening, members of our group that we call the Iraq Watch, ought to be aware that this is a complaint that not only comes from the Democratic side of the aisle, but also from Republicans.

I remember noting a particular quote by Senator Hagel who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in describing his perception of the consultative process during the course of the debate leading up to the war as one which he felt that the White House considered Congress as a nuisance.

Hopefully, hopefully, that attitude will not occur, and conceivably we could have some discourse and dialogue with key members of the administration such as Dr. Rice on a regular basis.

I think in all fairness, however, I should note, and those who are listening to us this evening, that on a regular basis, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, has volunteered to come before Members of Congress and provide briefings. But I have been particularly disappointed with Dr. Rice, who, up until this point in time, has not in any way engaged in a conversation with Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly disturbing, and I think that the American people have reached, by a vast majority, the conclusion that many of us reached during the course of the debate on whether Congress should authorize the executive to attack Iraq militarily, and that is the case was never made, never made in terms of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Neither was the case ever made in terms of a relationship or linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, particularly as focused on September 11. There was no involvement by the Iraqi regime on September 11, and there never had been a significant relationship between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.

But what I find even more disturbing is that reluctance of the administration to let go of this myth. It is as if they so intensely embrace this belief that they are incapable from detaching themselves from that belief and accept reality.

What I thought was particularly striking is that after the so-called major combat phase of the Iraq war, as it was announced by the President, and the inability of the existing forces to discover weapons of mass destruction, he created the so-called Survey Group, the Iraq Survey Group headed by a former U.N. inspector who was described as hawkish in his views in terms of whether there should have been or whether the United States was correct in invading Iraq. His name was David Kay. I am sure many of us remember the name, many of those watching here tonight remember David Kay. He appeared on a number of television programs, wrote opinion pieces in major media outlets, and he was selected by the President to head the effort.

Well, last October he returned to Washington, consulted with Congress, consulted with Secretary Rumsfeld and reported that he was wrong. In fact, he testified before a Senate committee and made that statement which ended up in Newsweek that I believed was refreshing, because it reflected a candor and an honesty that has been lacking. And he stated passionately that we were all wrong. We were all wrong. Yet, as the gentleman from Washington indicated, the President, and particularly the Vice President will not let go, wants to create a reality that is simply inaccurate, that is false.

Recently, David Kay stated that the U.S. is in grave danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if we do not own up to the mistakes that we made. We are a proud people. We are a democracy, and in a democracy, to move forward we have an opportunity to speak the truth, to acknowledge mistakes, and to learn from those mistakes. As I said earlier, the Vice President on more than one occasion has been, I do not want to say overruled, that is not the right word, but after making a statement the President himself has indicated that the statement was not accurate.

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

Well, we do know this: we do know that Halliburton, according to a CBS report, established a subsidiary with an office in the Cayman Islands, and when an investigative team from CBS went to the office in the Cayman Islands, do my colleagues know what they found? They found a small office without a single person in the office. That obviously caused more interest.

Further investigation revealed that this particular subsidiary of Halliburton in fact had an office in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. That particular subsidiary was dealing with another member of the so- called Axis of Evil club: Iran. They were supplying the services and the products necessary for Iran to upgrade its oil industry.

So the conflict, if you will, at least as I see it, and some would suggest that it is illegal, that it is a subterfuge that there are on the books of the United States Criminal Code laws that would prohibit American corporations such as Halliburton from dealing with rogue nations. My memory is that the title of the particular legislative provisions is called Trading With the Enemy Act. We had sanctions, and yet we have Halliburton, a subsidiary of Halliburton trading with Iran; Iran who, clearly, if we examine the reports of our own Department of State, to a far greater magnitude than anything that Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq as far as encouraging terrorists, terrorist organizations, that if there was a nation on the planet that sponsored terrorism and terrorist organizations, it was in Iran and, at the same time, Halliburton was supporting them in terms of the key component of their economy.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment. I do not want the audience or whoever may be watching us have this conversation tonight to perceive this simply to be a one-sided partisan attack on the White House because that would be a distorted view of our purpose and our intent.

I concur with that, but let me read something from The Washington Post of last week.

That is accurate.

I think we have to acknowledge that there are Republican Members of this House and the other body that say it like it is, that speak the truth, that are not hesitant to take on a President of their own party.

Let me just read to you a statement that was attributed to the vice chair of the House Committee on Armed Services on which you serve, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a Republican, from Pennsylvania. He charged that ``the President is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future. Weldon

described the administration's current defense budget request as outrageous and immoral and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next 5 months.'' There needs to be a supplemental whether it is a Presidential election year or not.

Let me note that the Senate chair of the foreign relations committee, who we all know and respect, Senator Lugar, along with the ranking member, Senator Biden, urged the administration to be more forthcoming about its strategy for returning Iraq to the control of its people. And, again, this is from an article last Wednesday from The Washington Post: ``The Bush administration has sometimes failed in the past to communicate its Iraq plans and cost estimates to Congress and the American people, Lugar said, and must recognize that its domestic credibility on Iraq will have a great impact on its efforts to succeed.''

Can I use another word? My colleague said ``wishful thinking.'' Let me be very clear. What we are talking about here is competence or incompetence, and we are not talking about the military who, clearly, have performed professionally, heroically, and deserve our praise and deserve our support. But what we are talking about is the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and this administration and this Presidency.

Let me just for one minute, if I can, here we are now talking about whether there should be a supplemental budget. And recently a colleague of ours, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), visited Iraq and returned in the latter part of March and had private conversations with the generals in charge of the post-combat phase, if you will, according to the President. And they informed him that if there was not a supplemental, there would be serious problems confronting the American military.

Again, in a recent story, a recent report, dated April 21, so that is last Wednesday, this is what is happening. Let us be very clear, we have heard again and again colleagues stand up and talk about the inadequate protection being provided to American troops, whether it be vests, whether it be unarmored Humvees. So to make it up, here is what is happening. According to this report, the military is scrambling to fill its needs. The Pentagon last week diverted 120 armored Humvees purchased by the Israeli defense forces to Iraq. Yesterday, the Army announced a $110 million contract for still more armored Humvees. This is incompetence. That is what this is about. It is not just about credibility; it is about incompetence.

An unreal expectation that the numbers of troops that would be necessary in May of 2003 and 3 months thereafter would be 30,000. And, yet, the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, in a very derisive way when asked about the estimate that was given to the Senate by General Shinseki of 200,000 troops, said it was wildly off the mark. Well, Mr. Wolfowitz, now you are scrambling, and now we have American military personnel at risk.

I am sure the Iraqi people will welcome that.

A secret agreement.

And the incompetence.

Prince Bandar.

We have already had the evidence of that. It has been demonstrated very, very clearly.

I remember the Secretary of Defense speaking to the fact that there was some 70,000 Iraqi security forces. Well, the truth is that there were about 3,000 of them that had actually received some 2 weeks of training. That is not being honest and forthcoming with the Congress of the United States and the American people. And then we learn during their first encounter about one in every 10 of Iraq security forces actually work against U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the first armored division said Wednesday, and that is Major General Martin Dempsey.

Well, speaking about where conservatives are, and again I think it is extremely important for us because we acknowledge that we are Democrats, but there is a growing opinion on the part of all Americans from whatever political perspective that they hold that the credibility that we see is dissipating now, as well as the competence in the planning has been a failure.

Let me read something from a highly regarded national conservative leader by the name of Clyde Prestowitz. This was a column that appeared in my hometown paper, the Boston Globe. And more and more traditional conservative voices in this country are echoing these sentiments. And this White House and this administration should listen very carefully to the traditional Republican conservatives in this country who will voice similar concerns and doubts as we do here on a once-a-week basis.

``For a moment during the spring, neoconservatives associated with the Bush administration thought they had died and gone to heaven. The quicker than expected fall of Saddam Hussein seemed to justify their vision of a new America that would reshape world politics. The United States would use its overwhelming military power to crush tyrannical regimes, they declared, and establish American-style capitalist democracies in their place. Domestically, the neocons only question was whether the tax cuts aimed at reshaping American society would be merely big or gigantic. As time passes, however, it has become increasingly clear that this course is neither neo nor conservative and that it may lead more quickly to hell than to heaven.

``This is not the foreign policy agenda traditional conservatives like myself voted for in 2000. Concerned about growing anti-American feeling around the world, we were pleased when candidate Bush spoke of adopting a humbler attitude in foreign policy and of reducing U.S. overstretch abroad. We also anticipated that a new Bush administration would embrace long-standing conservative values such as smaller government, fiscal responsibility, tax cuts carved with a goal of balancing budgets, strong protection of individual rights, and support of healthy State and local governments.''

I dare say that that is an opinion that is being echoed among conservatives of both parties. Recently, there was a similar piece, I will not take the

time because I know we are getting towards the end, that appeared in the New York Times. But I would commend those that are watching us this evening to go to the April 9 edition of the New York Times and read a piece by David Kirkpatrick entitled ``Lack of Resolutions in Iraq Find Conservatives Divided.''

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that shortly I will be joined by some colleagues for our customary Tuesday night hour where we discuss the situation in the Middle East with a particular focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. We have described this hour as the so-called Iraq Watch. As we did recently, I think it is an opportune time to explain to those watching us this evening and my colleagues who preceded us that the normal legislative business of the House of Representatives has concluded, and we are now in that period called Special Orders.

That is why we have an empty Chamber. Members are elsewhere, doing their homework and getting prepared for tomorrow's legislative business. Again, in terms of equity and fairness, Republicans are allocated 2 hours and Democrats are allocated 2 hours and we alternate back and forth. As I mentioned earlier, I anticipate that I will be joined relatively soon by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) to have our customary conversation.

But I would like to begin this evening's conversation with those that are viewing us and, as they join me, with my colleagues about the issue of credibility, because as I am sure we are all familiar, if our word is not trusted, if we are perceived to be untrustworthy, we encounter serious problems as we go through life. The same is true obviously of a nation, particularly a Nation like ours that claims justifiably a certain moral authority, a Nation that values truth and honesty and a Nation that is hurt when others speak of deception and deceit when it comes to the United States of America.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that our motives are being questioned. There was a recent survey done by the Pew Foundation. This was a survey done in seven nations spread across Europe and the Middle East. Majorities in those seven nations believe that our intervention in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control Mideast oil. Let me read to you those nation-states and the percentages that embrace this particular view of the United States of America. Fifty-one percent of the people in Russia accept as gospel that our intervention in Iraq was predicated on a desire to control Mideast oil. Fifty-eight percent of the population of France shared a similar view. Sixty percent of German society echoed those sentiments. In Pakistan, the number was 54 percent. In Turkey, an erstwhile ally, 64 percent, almost two-thirds of the population, believed that the United States launched the attack on Iraq because of our desire to control Mideast oil. In Morocco, that number was 63 percent. In Jordan, that number was 71 percent.

What is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is unfortunately this cynical view is reinforced by various news accounts that reveal American companies have been doing business with rogue nations. There was a recent CBS ``60 Minutes'' expose. I think most Americans were unaware that despite the fact that nations like Libya, like Iran, like Iraq were considered rogue nations, Iran particularly, being one of those nations designated by the President as part of the Axis of Evil, that in fact American corporations, or let me restate that, subsidiaries of American corporations could actually do business with those whom we considered our enemy, with those whom we had placed on a list described as being those states sponsoring terrorism.

This issue was really brought to light by the New York City comptroller who in his research discovered that the $80 billion in pension funds for all city workers were invested in corporations such as GE, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton that exploited, if you will, this loophole in the law. Obviously, people from all over the world are fully aware of the fact that the Vice President, Richard Cheney, was the former CEO of Halliburton. So I know it comes as a surprise to them and certainly came, I think, as a shock to Mr. William Thompson, who was the New York City comptroller, that pension funds were invested in Halliburton, and Halliburton had created a subsidiary, a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands that purportedly was doing business with Iran.

As we have recently discovered, of course, Iran is suspected of developing a nuclear weapons program. Clearly, any business that would be done with a rogue nation would benefit that rogue nation. In any event, this particular expose by ``60 Minutes'' that established that there was an offshore subsidiary of Halliburton in the Cayman Islands was in fact operating during the tenure of the Vice President.

According again to the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview, the subsidiary sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government. This does not enhance our credibility, Mr. Speaker. I think it undermines our credibility. And when the 60 Minutes crew went to interview officials from Halliburton, they were denied access.

But again they got on a plane. They went to the Cayman Islands, and what they discovered in the Cayman Islands was an office with a phone and no employees. Subsequently, because of a conversation they had with an individual in the building which housed this so-called subsidiary or independent company, they were told that, no, that mailing gets rerouted to Houston. Subsequently, they learned that in Dubai, which is a city in the United Arab Emirates, that there was the operating arm of the particular embassy. But, again, no answer, no response.

So what we have is a parent company, Halliburton, declining a request by 60 Minutes for an interview but through e-mail communicated it has no intention of leaving Iran or addressing the questions that the interviewer had raised about the independence of its subsidiary.

So we wonder sometimes why we are perceived in a particular way, because, again, our credibility is so vital to our claim of moral authority. I do not have an answer, Mr. Speaker. But I think the American people are owed an answer. I along, with several other Members, my colleagues on the Iraq Watch, have requested to the Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, that a special prosecutor be investigating to determine whether there is potential criminal culpability. But it goes to our core value of transparency and honesty and truth.

Much has been stated recently about the testimony of Richard Clarke, and that continues to play out. As we have seen today, the National Security Adviser, Ms. Rice, apparently will testify before the 9/11 Commission. But I think the salient import of Mr. Clarke's position is that Iraq had been the focus of concern since the beginning of the administration, and that seems to be confirmed by the former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill.

So I went back and reread the book authored by Mr. Suskind in collaboration with the former Secretary of the

Treasury and his recount of the first meeting on January 30, 2001, it had to be just several days after the inauguration, and I would like to read to those that are viewing us here this evening just excerpts from that particular book.

I see I am joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). It is good to see him here.

But there is a discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the book reads as follows: ``The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own.'' That was the position of those that were present or at least it would appear to be the consensus that was emerging at the time.

``Powell said such a move might be hasty. `The consequences of that could be dire,' he said, `especially for the Palestinians.'

``Bush shrugged, `Maybe that's the best way to get things back in balance.'

``Powell,'' obviously a reference to Secretary Powell, ``seemed startled. `Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things,' Bush said. He turned to Rice. `So, Condi, what are we going to talk about today? What's on the agenda?'

`` `How Iraq is destabilizing the region, Mr. President,' Rice said. In what several observers understood was a scripted exchange, she noted that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.''

This is an excerpt from the former Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill's, book. That is 5 days after the President was inaugurated.

The next excerpt that I will read from was a meeting of the principals, the Cabinet members on the National Security Council. This was conducted on February 27, 2001. Again, the purpose clearly was the emphasis by the Secretary, the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, that it was all about Iraq. This is in February of 2001. Clearly this would corroborate, I would suggest, the import of Richard Clarke's recent book ``Against All Enemies.''

But what is interesting in this particular excerpt is a reference to oil, a reference again to oil. We are not talking about terrorism. We are talking about oil, and let me quote this passage.

``Beneath the surface was a battle O'Neill had seen brewing since the National Security Council meeting on January 30. It was Powell and his moderates at the State Department versus hard-liners like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, who were already planning the next war in Iraq and the shape of a post-Saddam country.'' Remember, this is February 27, 2001, months before the tragedy that befell us on September 11.

``Documents were prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, Rumsfeld's intelligence arm, mapping Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas and listing companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset. One document head `Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts' lists companies from 30 countries, their specialties, bidding histories, and in some cases their particular areas of interest. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for super giant oil fields, other oil fields, and earmarked for production sharing while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine blocks to designate areas for future exploration.''

So I guess, Mr. Speaker, I should not be surprised that in seven nations, according to the highly respected Pew Foundation, a survey revealed that substantial majorities in those nations believe that it was the intention of the United States to invade Iraq to control Mid East oil. The excerpt I just read from Secretary O'Neill's book relates his impressions, not mine, not the gentleman from Hawaii's (Mr. Abercrombie), and not the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my colleague who has just arrived. So we are talking about oil here and the interest of oil, and this is the impression that the Secretary of Treasury that served in the Bush administration concluded.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Well, again, all of this goes to the credibility of the United States.

When administration officials, and particularly the Vice President, make statements that in one case was contradicted the next day by the President himself regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, when on a Meet the Press program the Vice President of the United States suggested that there were links and then the next day the President of the United States came out and unequivocally said there is no evidence linking 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, and then subsequent to that, subsequent to that, in January of this year the Vice President again repeats the assertion, the allegation, about linkages, there is a cumulative impact here.

There is a cumulative impact, because, after awhile, people are saying, you are conning us; you are misleading us. Like just recently, the Prime Minister of Poland, an ally in the coalition of the willing that is still in Iraq, said, ``We were misled. We were taken for a ride.''

If I can interrupt, I believe that goes to the question of competence; and the issue of post-war planning has been roundly criticized.

Again, let me go back earlier to the excerpt that I recited from the O'Neill book. On February 27, the administration was a month old. Here we have a meeting of the National Security Council of the United States talking about exploration, mega-giant oil fields, contracts.

I would hope that those that might be viewing this conversation this evening, and I am not here shilling for Mr. Suskind and former Secretary O'Neill, but they should go out and read the book, because we know that Mr. O'Neill was castigated, and we also are fully aware that Mr. Clarke is being attacked and maligned.

But what I suggest is, read these two as companions. It is clear that there is no collaboration going on between Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Clarke. But the salient point is from the day they came into office, this was about Iraq. This was about Iraq.

If I can interrupt, I think we are usually in agreement, but here I have to disagree, because it was not immediately after 9/11. Yes, I believe the President did make that statement, and I presume he will acknowledge he made that statement. It has been acknowledged implicitly by the spokesperson for the White House.

But if you go back and examine the record, this administration, and particularly the Vice President of the United States, for whatever reason, presumably this grand vision of a Middle East rearranged in a manner that purportedly would move democracy forward, believed that Iraq was the linchpin to having that happen, and a conclusion had been reached and they were simply looking for the opportunity to invade Iraq. That was before 9/11.

I have to say this about the Vice President, and, again, those who might be listening to us tonight, if you have access to a computer, go on line. On March 10, the headline reads, page 1 of the New York Times, ``CIA chief says he corrected Cheney privately.'' Even today, it is the Vice President, more than anyone in this administration, who will not let it go.

David Kay said, and, remember, David Kay was the chief arms inspector for the United States, embraced by this administration to go and search for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, David Kay said we were all wrong. It is time to give it up.

He indicated in a speech just recently in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I think he used the term ``Waiting for a Hail Mary pass, like Vice President Cheney is doing, presents us with grave threats.''

That is David Kay speaking. That is not some partisan Democrat. That is not the putative nominee for the Democratic nomination for the President. This is beyond politics.

Mr. Speaker, a question that I would like to have answered by the 9/11 Commission. Well, maybe it is not appropriate for the 9/11 Commission; let me retract that. However, I think it is a question that this administration should answer via some mechanism, because we were all here that night when we heard those words regarding the search for highly enriched uranium in the African nation of Niger, which turned out to be totally false, and which had been discredited and discounted by a variety of intelligence agencies throughout the world and particularly, not the CIA, but the DIA and the appropriate agency within the Department of State. They just simply did not accept it.

Yet a week later, on February 5, the Secretary of State made a very powerful presentation at the United Nations; and in that particular presentation, Secretary Powell made no reference, no allusion to that particular situation, to the fact that or at least the assertion that was presented by the President regarding looking for uranium in Africa. I am sure that he did that because, as was reported in a variety of media outlets, he sat down with the CIA, the Director and analysts within the CIA, and discarded that information.

Why was it inserted in the State of the Union, and yet approximately a week later was not part of the Secretary of State's presentation before the United Nations? And did the Secretary of State communicate to the President of the United States, to the Vice President of the United States his basis, his rationale for not including a very serious allegation that was made by the President in the State of the Union address and not included in his presentation at the United Nations before the world? It is incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker, is my friend aware of the fact that the President of Afghanistan recently was compelled to delay the elections that were scheduled in June to September?

Hopefully, September.

And I dare say that that election date is very much at risk, as the gentleman suggests that Afghanistan, as a viable nation- state embracing democracy, is very much at risk, because we have ignored Afghanistan since we achieved a stunning military success, but then diverted our efforts and our resources and our attention to Iraq where there was only one terrorist, and that was Saddam Hussein, who terrorized his own people. But the terrorists in Afghanistan were the terrorists that were training, that were appearing again to attack America. And today, we are still searching for them.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important to the people who are watching this to understand this: that historically, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were bitter enemies. In fact, in the mid-1980s, there was a group akin to al Qaeda in terms of its world view, fundamentalist Islamist, a perverted form of that holy religion, that great religion, that attempted to assassinate Tarik Aziz. Saddam Hussein, the tyrant and the thug that he was, just eradicated him. So historically, we should have known that those that attacked us were the same people that as recently as this month, as recently as this month killed hundreds of people in Madrid, Spain; and we need the help of the entire world. That is why I go back to this issue of credibility: Who is going to believe us?

I know that there are some that will strut and swagger and be tough and say, we can do it alone. Well, I do not want to do it just with American men and women.

This will only be successful, this war on terror, if we do it working with others and we have to have their trust. We have to have their confidence. We will never accept appeasement, but we have got to be honest

Mr. Speaker, in retrospect General Shinseki, who was treated in an extremely dismissive manner, his advice should have been heeded and, maybe just maybe, today we would be looking at a totally different situation in Iraq than what we are currently embracing.

I am sure you are aware that the leader, the dominant leader of the Shiites in Iraq, Ayatollah Al'sistani, is already circulating information, pamphlets, decrying the Constitution. I mean, it has been reported that CIA analysts are concerned about a civil war in Iraq

Madam Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for spending an hour, although I do not quite agree with some of the facts that the gentleman stated.

Madam Speaker, on that I echo the kudo.

I am joined tonight by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). I anticipate that we will be shortly joined by two other colleagues, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), for another session that we have labeled as Iraq Watch to discuss issues concerning the Middle East with a particular focus on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.

There is much to talk about tonight. I do not think an hour will be sufficient. I also should mention over the course of the past 8 months, and we have been doing this for approximately 8 months now, I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the other Members involved have received a number of calls, e-mails, correspondence from not just our own constituents but from all over the country. There is one question that is constantly asked, and that is why is the House empty at this hour of the night.

I think we should explain to those viewing this evening that the legislative business of the House of Representatives has been concluded for the day and we are now into a phase that is called Special Orders. Each side of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, are allocated an hour, actually two hours, to just have a conversation or make a presentation about issues that they have a particular interest in or issues which they feel the American people need more information on. I am sure many who watch C-SPAN note that during the course of the debate on particular proposals, the time is very limited, given the numbers of Members that wish to speak. In fact, the usual course allows for at most a maximum of some 5 minutes for each Member to speak. On those issues that have a particular interest on both sides of the aisle, what occurs is the individual Member who happens to be managing the bill, either Republican or Democrat, is responsible for allocating time and often rather than 5 minutes, the likelihood is that a Member will only have 2 or 3 minutes to explain his or her perspective on a particular issue.

So this phase is called Special Orders. Earlier there were three of our friends and colleagues from the Republican side who discussed the budget. Prior to their coming to the floor, three or four Democratic Members spoke about the budget and the perspective of Democrats as to the proposal put forth by the Republican Party, and also clearly an alternative that will be presented by the Democrats in terms of the debate on where we go as far as a Nation is concerned, because in many respects the budget does reflect our values. And as Members heard earlier from our colleagues on the Republican side, there is a growing and profound concern about the escalating deficit that has been brought about by the actions of this particular administration and this Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

I think it is important that the American people remember that the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives, controls the United States Senate, and obviously the current incumbent in the White House is a Republican. So when we speak of deficits, this is a deficit that was engendered by the majority party in this country. I know the Democrats are extremely concerned about the deficit because the interest that is paid on the national debt detracts from other investments that could be made in a wide variety of initiatives such as infrastructure, education, health care, and a long litany of issues that I believe are a priority to the American people.

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

I think it is important to remember that when the Director of the CIA testified recently before

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he acknowledged that on several occasions he privately spoke to both the President and on multiple occasions spoke to the Vice President about errors that they had made in terms of misstatements, let us use that term for the moment, misstatements, yet we have heard nothing specifically from the Vice President. And the gentleman alluded to the incident earlier, being forthright with the American people that subsequently he received information from George Tenet in private that corrected a public statement that he had made, and yet he does not acknowledge that today publicly.

I think that we should remind the audience that the gentleman from Hawaii has just joined us. In terms of what Mr. Clarke testifies to tomorrow, I think we should suspend our judgment tonight.

One grand jury that we are aware of.

Does this come as a surprise to the gentleman?

Let us be honest among ourselves and with those people that are viewing. If the gentleman remembers, it was the Bush-Cheney campaign that back in 2000 during the primary season, there was an ad that ran in New York. It was a 60-second radio spot in the days before the primary which was March 7 of 2000.

Let me just give the gentleman a condensed version of that ad:

Hello. My name is Geri Barish and I am a breast cancer survivor. It is a woman introducing herself to the listening audience. Like many, I had thought of supporting John McCain in next week's presidential primary. So I looked into his record.

What I discovered was shocking. John McCain opposes many projects dedicated to women's health issues.

It's true. McCain opposes funding for vital breast cancer programs right here in New York. John McCain calls these projects just ``garden variety pork.'' That's shocking.

The truth, of course, was that Senator McCain did not vote against this bill because of the breast cancer projects, but because it was a military spending bill that did not provide adequate increases, in his judgment, for our troops.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I apologize to the Chair.

I will eliminate reference.

I thank the Chair. What I want to explain is that in this particular case, the attack on Senator McCain failed to mention that his sister was a breast cancer survivor.

From the State of Arizona, I would add.

Again, I thank the Chair.

If I can, what I am going to do is what is rather boldly stated here on the cover of Time magazine in February, when the question is posed, and I would suggest that the question is now being posed in very real terms as we witness the string of revelations that are occurring now on an everyday basis: Believe Him Or Not: Does Bush Have a Credibility Gap?

This is about credibility. It is not just about the President, because the President speaks for the United States. The President's credibility becomes our credibility. Not Republican credibility, not Democratic credibility, but the credibility of the United States in a very dangerous moment in world history, when we are all united to defeat terrorism.

There was a fascinating story in my hometown paper, the Boston Globe, this morning. I think it is worthy to present it to the gentleman tonight and to have the viewing audience listen.

The former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq warned yesterday that the United States is in grave danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it does not own up to our mistakes in Iraq.

That is David Kay. That is the individual who universally has received praise and respect from policymakers and people involved in this particular issue. He was appointed by this White House, this administration, to lead a team to go to Iraq and determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction. It is he now that is imploring this White House, this President, this Vice President, to use his words, to ``come clean with the American people'' because, as he points out, the cost of our mistakes with regard to the explanation of why we went to war in Iraq are far greater than Iraq itself. This issue is so profound that it is now the credibility of the United States, the prestige that we have earned through decades, through the centuries, that is at risk.

``We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events. The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing about Washington is the belief you can never admit you are wrong.''

It is like I indicated earlier, there have been newspaper reports that the director of the CIA, Mr. Tenet, privately corrected the Vice President on his statements linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. And yet the Vice President has not had the decency to come forward to the American people and say, I was wrong, when I was wrong.

And in another interview Mr. Kay goes on, and when asked what his opinion was of the statement of Vice President Cheney that weapons of mass destruction might still be found in Iraq, his response was, ``What worries me about Cheney's statements is I think people who hold out for a Hail Mary pass delay the inevitable looking back at what went wrong.'' That is what this 9/11 commission is hearing this week. The message that we send out to the rest of the world is that we are strong and a mature democracy if we tell the truth, and we will not have a credibility gap.

I believe we have enough evidence now to say that the intelligence process and the policy process obviously crafted by the President, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney that used that information did not work at the level of effectiveness that we require in the age we live in. I mean, this is absolutely the most profound issue, in my judgment, that is currently confronting the United States with long- term implications.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Madam Speaker, but these are all actions that are directed at individuals. And I abhor them, and somebody should be held responsible. It is as if there is another enemies list.

The gentleman alluded earlier to the Nixon years. There is something Nixonian about targeting individuals, attacking them, attacking them at a personal level, and clearly trying to undermine their professionalism and hurt their careers. We have seen it again and again.

I began earlier with the radio spot that was used during the course of the Presidential election, the one that was masterminded obviously by Karl Rove, who is the political adviser and I am sure consults with the President on a regular basis. But the gentleman talked about former Secretary O'Neill. Mr. Clarke now. What happened to General Shinseki when he suggested that there was need for 2 to 300,000 troops if the peace was to be won in Iraq? He was castigated in an extremely dismissive way by Under Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Madam Speaker, again as I indicated, I sympathize with these individuals, and I am confident that as time moves on, because America is truly about, at its essence, the search for the truth, that they will be vindicated. What I would submit is that time is vindicating them now, whether it be Mr. Clarke or whether it be David Kay.

Hans Blix. They are all being vindicated. But really what is at stake here is the prestige and the credibility of the United States.

We heard a lot in the debate last week about appeasement. There is no appeasement when it comes to terrorism. We are all united, Republican, Democrat. I cannot imagine one Member of this House not being adamant that we pursue justice and that we win the war on terror. But if we continue to have our credibility undermined by this White House, we risk losing the war on terror.

Let us hope that they listened to David Kay, who is imploring them to come clean with the American people. It is so important, because, well, let us look at the most recent example.

If we are serious about the war on terrorism, we need to have the respect and cooperation and commitment of the entire world. If you remember, in the aftermath of September 11 there was information that came pouring into the United States about al Qaeda cells in some 60 different countries. In fact, we heard there were dozens of al Qaeda cells operating right here in the United States.

What is happening now? The most recent statement by one of those nations that actually participated and has a number of troops in Iraq today, and I refer to the Polish nation, their President said, ``We were misled. They took us for a ride.'' That is his quote.

The Spaniards, we are castigated by our friends for appeasement. I thought that was rather arrogant, considering the fact that the Spanish have dealt for years attempting to rid their nation of the terrorists who claim to be seeking independence, the so-called ETA.

I found very interesting in the aftermath of the election in Spain that the new leader there declared that his most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism. There was a disagreement that Iraq was a distraction, that we went after the wrong enemy. And more and more people are coming to that belief.

The South Koreans just this past week indicated that they did not want their troops transported to a venue that would most likely create a potential where they would be engaged in violence.

The problem is, this is not about appeasement; this is about credibility in winning the war on terror.

Do you find it interesting that in the United Kingdom, and I disagreed with the Prime Minister there, Tony Blair. As you know, I voted against the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. But I respect Tony Blair. He went before the Parliament, and for hour after hour after hour stood his ground in a respectful fashion and answered each question that was posed to him.

There is a commission going on right now. I would hope that the President would reconsider and go before that commission, not behind closed doors, but for the American people to hear, so that the credibility not just of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but the credibility of the United States can be restored and replicate exactly what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did in response to questions about the British role in Iraq.

Well, you know, again if I can take the time for just a moment, what I would propose, because I understand that the 9/11 commission that is currently sitting here today has agreed to, and I think mistakenly, has agreed to a 1-hour interview with President Bush, and only two members of the commission are going to be entitled to inquire of him. That just simply continues to raise questions. It will be interpreted as a lack of being forthcoming.

What is necessary now, more than ever, as David Kay has said, let us open up. We are a democracy. I would go so far as a Democrat to suggest that the former President, President Clinton, and President Bush, go before that commission, one after another, sequentially, and stay there as long as there are questions to be asked regarding terrorism and the threat of terrorism to the United States. I would issue a challenge to both of them. Make it a bipartisan challenge. We have to take this out of the political realm.

Yes, I am not naive; I know there is a Presidential election, and these are issues that should be discussed in a Presidential election. But they have to be vetted in a forum such as a commission, where all of the answers are put out. And if there are mistakes that have been made, both during the Clinton administration and in this administration, the American people will be better off, and, more importantly, America's role in the world will once again be respected.

One only has to look at the polls. There was a recent study done, and I am not going to take the time, but let me just give you a quick example, and then one of you gentleman can close.

This is rating George Bush, but substitute George Bush for America. In Britain, our closest ally, the favorability of George Bush is 39 percent; the unfavorably is 57 percent. In France, the favorability is 15; 85 unfavorable. Fourteen percent favorable in Germany; 85 unfavorable. In Russia, 28 favorable; 60 unfavorable. In Turkey, 21 percent favorable; 67 percent unfavorable. Pakistan, 7 percent favorable; 67 percent unfavorable. In Jordan, 3 percent favorable; and 96 percent unfavorable.

This is true all over the world, not just in the Mideast, but Asia, all over Latin America. It is about the United States. We need allies. We are finding that out. We need cooperation. We have got to win the war on terror. We cannot tolerate appeasement, but we should not be doing it alone.

Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the words of Brent Scowcroft and others in the first Bush administration, those that served under President George Herbert Walker Bush, but particularly what Brent Scowcroft stated in a column that he wrote. He expressed a fear that a unilateral rush into a preemptive war would undercut worldwide support for the war on terror and cast America as an aggressor Nation for the first time in our history. Now, here is a gentleman, a lifelong Republican, presumably, a man well respected internationally, has an excellent reputation here in Washington as a serious person, a man of unimpeachable integrity. And I think we have all been saying in our own different ways what he said so eloquently. And sadly, we find ourselves in that very, very tragic moment where we are losing allies, we are losing the respect of the international community; friends are beginning to turn their backs on us. And, if that occurs, the war that we must win, the war on terror, is very much at risk.

Mr. Speaker, Halabja is alluded to in the resolution before us. Because Halabja is where Saddam slaughtered some 5,000 Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons. The resolution appears to suggest that this despicable act--this crime against humanity--provides some justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But the tragedy of Halabja occurred in March of 1988. And we did nothing then. Because Saddam was our ally. And many of those currently serving in the Bush Administration were key figures in that alliance. They were fully aware of what happened in Halabja.

Our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, was a special envoy to Saddam. The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was Secretary of Defense for the first President Bush. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, served as both National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

The history of our relationship with Saddam is important so that we do not repeat the errors of the 80s and 90s in today's war on terror.

Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Iraq was removed from the terrorist list. Full diplomatic relations were restored. Billions of dollars in loan guarantees were provided to Saddam. The sale of dual-use technology for weapons of mass destruction was approved--no wonder, after the first Gulf War, that we found that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program. We gave them the tools to build it. We let other countries supply U.S. military equipment. We even shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence with Saddam's army. And even though we knew Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran, the U.S. prevented the United Nations from condemning Iraq.

According to a Congressional Research Service report, which I will insert into the Record, not only did we support Saddam, but

when the Congress tried to impose sanctions on Iraq for the use of chemical weapons, the Reagan and Bush Administrations blocked those efforts.

I fear now we are forging similar unholy alliances in our war on terror. In Uzbekistan we are supporting a tyrant who, according to our own State Department, heads an oppressive regime that has more than 5,000 political prisoners. In Turkmenistan, we are allied with another Stalinist thug, by the name of Turkmenbashi, who has created a personality cult that rivals Saddam's. He's renamed January after himself, and the month of April after his mother.

So let us remember the lessons of Halabja. If we are going to speak of democracy and liberty, let us practice it. If we are going to talk about human rights, let us defend them. If we are sincere about the war on terror, let us not ally ourselves with those illegitimate heads of state who terrorize their own people. Let us keep what credibility we have left.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

We are here to review today's proceedings relative to the resolution. As the gentleman is well aware, there is a group of us, and we describe ourselves as the Iraq Watch and we will be joined shortly by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and of course the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) is an integral part of our conversation. And I am sure that tomorrow morning there will be some coverage of what occurred on the floor today because we did consider a resolution that was put forth by the Republican majority without any input of course from Democrats, as we talk about the process that has become the norm here in the House. Unfortunately, it has become exclusionary. And I think we can concur that that is indeed unfortunate if we want to have an open and respectful debate. So during the course of time, during the course of the debate, sometimes passions become very fierce. But I think it is important to review this resolution today for a variety of different reasons.

The resolution was about supporting troops and respecting their professionalism and their courage. We all agree on that. It also commended the Iraqi people for these early steps towards democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleagues, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). We have been here doing this so-called Special Order for the past 8 months, discussing and reviewing developments in the Middle East and, specifically, what has occurred over the course of the past week involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.

As I had indicated earlier, there was a resolution that was considered today by the House. There was a spirited debate, and I was reviewing specific provisions for the benefit of the people that, at least here on the East Coast, are up late and surfing the channels and want to listen to the conversation that we have among ourselves. I had indicated that as part of the resolution, there is a reference, and the only reference, I find this interesting, to the issue of weapons of mass destruction because, as we know, this was the premise that was put forth by the President, the Vice President, and other administration officials for the rationale for going to war. Of course, we have discovered subsequently that the intelligence was faulty, that the premise for the war, meaning stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons simply did not exist, and the implication that was put forth by the President and specifically the Vice President, because he has reiterated it even recently, that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, turned out to be without any substance at all.

But the one allusion to the use of weapons of mass destruction is contained in this resolution, and I will read it. It says, ``Whereas, on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them.''

Well, this is about a city in Iraq. That city is called Halabja. And it is true that Saddam Hussein slaughtered some 5,000 Iraqi Kurds, men, women, and children. The provision in the resolution that we did debate today appears to suggest that this crime against humanity, and it is a crime against humanity, provides some justification for the invasion of Iraq 15 years later. The tragic truth is, and to our own shame, is that we did nothing, nothing in 1988, in 1989, in 1990 about this crime, this despicable act, this act of terrorism. We did not do anything because under that Bush administration, Saddam was our ally, and many of those currently serving in this Bush administration were key figures during that moment in our history.

Our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, was a special envoy to Saddam Hussein. Even before his first visit to Baghdad in 1983, Iraq was removed from the terrorist list, and after his full diplomatic relations were restored and billions of dollars of loan guarantees were provided to Saddam Hussein, the sale of dual-use technology for the development of weapons of mass destruction was approved by the Reagan- Bush administration.

I would suggest that no wonder, in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, we learned that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program because, in reality, we helped to build it. And we let other countries supply Saddam Hussein with American military equipment, and we even shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence with Saddam Hussein. Even though we knew that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran, that Bush administration prevented the United Nations from condemning Iraq.

The Vice President, this gentleman here, Mr. Cheney, was Secretary of Defense for the first President Bush. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, served as both National Security Adviser and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Well, according to a Congressional Research Service report, not only did we support Saddam Hussein during Mr. Cheney's and Mr. Powell's and Mr. Wolfowitz' time in service to that Republican administration, but when the House and the Senate in 1989 and 1990 attempted to impose sanctions for the use of chemical weapons, that Bush administration blocked it. They used their influence in Congress to ensure that there were no sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein.

I fear that we are making the same mistakes now that they made back then, the first President Bush and Richard Cheney and Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz. Because like then, we are also today forging unholy alliances in our war on terror.

For example, in Uzbekistan, we are supporting another dictator who, according to our own State Department reports, heads an oppressive regime that perpetrates gross violations of human rights and has more than 5,000 political prisoners in custody today. The most recent, notorious, was when this individual and this regime, through torture, boiled in water a political prisoner. I am sure that conjures up memories of Saddam Hussein.

And in Turkmenistan, we are allied with another Stalinist thug by the name of Sherman Bashi who is creating a personality cult that rivals that of Saddam Hussein. He has renamed the month of January after himself and the month of June after his mother.

And this is who we are allying ourselves with in the war on terror, just like we allied ourselves with Saddam Hussein back in the late 1980s. And, of course, we know the results.

So I would suggest to my friends and to those that are watching at this late hour that we remember those lessons of history. And I specifically would recommend that the Vice President, who constantly refers to the fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people, remember that he was part of an administration that was aware of that and did nothing back then, much to the chagrin of the rest of the world and the United States House of Representatives and Senate that served in this building and this institution back then.

And what happened? Did we encourage Saddam Hussein? I guess that is a question we will never know. But we should remember the lessons of Halabja, that city in Iraq, where chemical weapons were used against Iraqi citizens by Saddam Hussein. Because I believe if we speak of democracy and liberty, let us practice it.

And every time the President and the Vice President stand up and proclaim that we are fighting this war on terror to promote democracy, what about Uzbekistan? And what about Turkmenistan? What are we doing there, allying ourselves with despots and tyrants and thugs that at some future point could very well be the new Saddam Hussein?

Let us not ally ourselves with illegitimate heads of state if we are sincere about the war on terror, who are truly terrorists who terrorize their own people. That would be my position.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, clearly there is language in the resolution that we considered here today that praises the troops. But the reality is that the rhetoric does not match the action.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome our friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), as part of our conversation tonight.

It is easy to indulge in rhetoric. It is easy to involve in a resolution with laudatory words about the courage and the heroism and the professionalism of the American military. It is just a little bit more difficult to ensure that all of our veterans, from whatever struggle, from whatever war, from wherever in terms of our history, are delivered, for example, the health care that we promised.

And this administration has failed them. This administration, this Vice President and the President of the United States, is failing them. The talk is fine, and the actions are not matching the rhetoric.

As the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars recently stated within the past 2 weeks, the budget submitted by the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is a sham and a disgrace. So, if this resolution is about the veterans, then I dare say that should be there, support from the Vice-President and the President to ensure that the funding source for veterans' health care benefits in this country is mandatory and not discretionary. Stand up and do the right thing by our veterans and just do not simply indulge in rhetoric

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I think you make an excellent point, and I see our colleague and friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) standing up, and I am going to recognize him in a minute.

I heard the word today on the floor ``appeasement.'' I think it is important for those that are watching to understand, and I think I speak for every Democrat, appeasement is not part of our vocabulary when it comes to the war on terrorism, absolutely. I think there was only a single exception out of the entire body, but it was with one exception, one vote, a unanimous authorization by this body and by the U.S. Senate to authorize the attack against the Taliban and the al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we will never surrender to terrorism. We will never indulge in appeasement of terrorism, but Mr. President and Mr. Cheney, we insist on the truth. Never appeasement, but always the truth.

What I find fascinating is in recent testimony in the United States Senate, the CIA chief, Mr. Tenet, told a Senate committee that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice-President Cheney and others and that he would do so again. I would just make a simple request of this administration and the Vice President. Just tell it like it is. As David Kay, the weapons inspector, said recently in an interview in The Guardian, a British publication, ``Come clean.'' Just level with the people.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington for any comment that he would wish to make.

If you know, how many Saudis were implicated in the attack on America on September 11?

Mr. Speaker, by the way, how many Iraqis were on that plane?

One of you noted recently that the individual who was responsible, the Pakistani who is responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology to North Korea and Iran has been identified, and what have we heard from this administration, this President and this Vice-President about that? Nothing.