Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to applaud the gentleman for his leadership over the years in terms of issues surrounding Haiti. Let me just conclude by asking a question. I know the gentleman does not have time to respond.

Presumably elections are going to be held in Haiti. Has Secretary of State Powell or the White House communicated to the gentleman when they anticipate those elections to be held? And if so, is there anything in the gentleman's knowledge that would impede President Aristide from returning from wherever he is and running once more for the President of that devastated, poor country with such a tragic history?

Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt my friend for a moment, the gentleman indicated the total amount that we have already expended in terms of our intervention in

Iraq. Obviously, that includes supporting our troops, and, at the same time, beginning the reconstruction of Iraq.

Does the gentleman remember the debate that occurred months ago when the supplemental came to this floor?

The $87 billion. Does the gentleman remember that many of us on this side actually voted against authorizing the President to launch this intervention because we did not believe the evidence for a variety of different reasons that he presented to us and to the American people, but we did understand an obligation to help Iraq get back on its feet?

Does the gentleman remember the debate about whether it would be loans, or whether we would just simply give the money away, give the taxpayer dollars away?

If I can continue to interrupt the gentleman, I made a point of examining the record in terms of other international donors. There was a conference in the capital of Spain, in Madrid, where other international donors came together. Among them, they were willing to contribute some $15 to $16 billion. By the way, very little of which has been seen yet. I can only find one other Nation that did not insist on the money being paid back. That was Japan, for $1.5 billion.

The gentleman mentioned a word that really made me seek to interrupt, and that was ``debt.'' We are never going to see that money.

That is gone. I dare say there have been about other speakers on the floor here this evening that have talked about the failure in this budget to be forthright and honest, and we all know, and the American people should know that the money we have already spent is a down payment, and it is not much of a down payment as to what it is going to cost the taxpayers far into the future.

Before the gentleman goes any further, he mentioned, I think, an interesting point that those who are watching here this evening and are listening really should take note of. The gentleman mentioned the figure $50 billion. I do not think there is any Member in this House on either side of the aisle that would deny that $50 billion. But it is not part of this budget. When will that $50 billion be revealed to the American people?

When will we get that? When will that come before us?

Can I just put out here, I want to submit, because maybe we can make this a friendly wager. I bet that that $50 billion will come to the floor of this House in November or December, sometime after the election because, clearly, that $50 billion is going to exacerbate the deficit. It is a debt. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe the White House will insist on doing the right thing and being honest and forthcoming with the American people and tell us the true cost of where we are.

Can I just ask a question?

I think the gentleman mentioned two budgets.

Two values and two budgets, a budget for the United States of America and a budget for Iraq. But the truth is, the reality is that it is the American taxpayer.

Is paying for the budget for the United States of America, with all our responsibilities, all of the issues that we are concerned about here domestically and internationally, and then the American taxpayer is also paying the budget for Iraq. I really hope that we do not find ourselves in a situation where we will be coming to the floor with a third budget.

The gentleman from Michigan earlier talked about what transpired these past several weeks in Haiti. I can imagine that we will have to provide humanitarian assistance, but are we also going to be picking up additional budgets as we go?

Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt very briefly, it sounds like an economic stimulus package.

Maybe, just maybe we can find the secret so that we can avoid a jobless recovery for Iraq and learn those lessons so that we can replicate them here in the United States.

In Iraq.

So if you are looking for a job and you want the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who was the last speaker before we took the floor, if you are one of his constituents in Ohio.

We could recommend that somehow they contact the Department of State or the Department of Commerce and maybe there are jobs in Baghdad or Kirkuk or Basra. There are certainly none in Ohio.

I guess maybe one would call it socialized medicine is good for Iraq, but universal health care here in the United States is, if the gentleman would help me with the word; it escapes my mind.

A government-controlled program.

Mr. Speaker, while here in this country, and I am sure this has impacted just about every Member's district throughout the entire United States, while in this country, community hospitals that tend to be the hospital of the first response for that sudden heart attack, for that emergency room treatment, they are being closed; and yet the American taxpayers are building how many hospitals?

That is a pretty good record, for Iraq.

I have none.

But the Government of Iraq is being well financed.

Mr. Speaker, if I can continue for a moment, because the picture that the gentleman is drawing is rather clear to me. I noted in a report from my hometown paper, the Boston Globe, that the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in response to a question in a very forthright manner made this statement: ``The era of big government is back and Republicans seem to like it.'' I presume that he was referring to Iraq or maybe he was referring to that

deficit that is creating a future Armageddon for our children, our grandchildren, and even our friends in North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague repeat those? How many enemy combatants? Presumably those are former Iraqi soldiers.

In other words, they would be Iraqi veterans of war.

Former soldiers. I only wish that the American veteran was treated as well.

What I find particularly unacceptable is the budget that was submitted by this White House and this President, as far as it relates to the American veterans. The various veterans service organizations, the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed American Veterans claim that the White House budget, as submitted to this Congress, one, would only worsen the backlog processing disability claims; secondly, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling, and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system, despite the promise that this Congress made back in 1996, that if you were an American veteran, you were entitled to health care, provided by the Veterans Administration.

This is a report in the Washington Post dated last week. The commander in chief of the VFW called the President's proposed budget for veterans health care, and this is his quote, ``a disgrace and a sham.'' And, yet, we are supporting health care for 130,000 former Iraqi soldiers, who I am sure are benefiting from the largesse of the American taxpayer. It is time we take care of our own, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that we have a jobless recovery. Clearly it is an issue that has grabbed the attention of the American people. But there is another aspect of our economic picture that I think should disturb all of us on both sides of the aisle, and I hear nothing coming from this White House addressing it. We all agree that there has been a net loss of jobs. In other words, jobs have been created, but millions of more jobs have been lost than have been created. But what is untold here, what has not been said, and I think we all owe an obligation to tell this to the American people and we should start here tonight, is that while we have a jobless recovery, we have a wage recession. We have a wage recession. The new jobs that are replacing the old jobs are at wage scales that are 21 percent less than the jobs that they replaced.

Now, that is like if you are unemployed and you find a job after your unemployment runs out, because we do not count those folks anymore, we call them discouraged workers, but if you are lucky enough to find a job you are taking a 21 percent pay cut. What does that do in terms of the hopes and dreams and the living standards that you have for yourself and your families?

I will tell the gentleman presumably there is a stealth OMD somewhere. Maybe it is in the Department of Defense. My colleague knows how they have that office of strategic planning.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the health care, I am convinced that it is some sort of socialized medicine initiative that is surprising, since this administration decries efforts to adopt a universal health care coverage Federal policy here in the United States.

I think it is an excellent idea.

The question is will America of tomorrow be better, given the policies enunciated and the policies we have witnessed over the course of the past 3\1/2\ years? That is the question facing the American people as we look towards November of 2004, when probably December of 2004 we will be provided with a supplemental budget that will come as no surprise to those of us that work here in this institution, but that we know will further add to that debt that is outstanding.

Can I interrupt for a moment? During the 1990s, we saw a profound decline in the rate of violent crime. Many criminologists and others in the criminal justice system attributed the significant portion of that decline in the so-called COPS program, where the Federal Government provided the funding for the training and the hiring of police and other law enforcement agents for State and local and county investigative agencies, highway patrol, local police departments. Clearly it made a difference. It made a difference.

In this budget from this White House, that program has been cut 87 percent. I spent 21 years of my life as the chief prosecutor in a jurisdiction in metropolitan Boston. I fear, and I say this truly, what these cuts are going to do in terms of the next 2 or 3 years as far as the instance of violent crimes all over our country, in our communities. We are losing police officers. Every single community has suffered some reduction in the size of their police forces, their public safety agencies. And yet we hear, coming from the White House, talk of homeland security. There is an inconsistency here. The reality is not matched with facts or, rather, the reality is not matched with the rhetoric.

If the gentleman would allow me for just a moment, I think what I find particularly disturbing is, and we discussed this last week, those of us that have come to this floor on a regular basis to discuss Iraq, the monies that are continuing to be paid to Iraqi, so-called Iraqi opposition groups, we talked about an individual by the name of Ahmed Chalabi, who when asked did he feel at all chagrined by the fact that the information that he provided through his organization, the so-called Iraqi National Council, was false. He said no, he did not. I am in Baghdad. Saddam is gone. Well, Saddam having gone, we can all agree is good. But the information that he provided, the defectors which he purportedly coached, gave information which police led eventually the American people in terms of the rationale for all military intervention.

This same Ahmed Chalabi, who was convicted of embezzling some $300 million from a bank that he founded and established in Jordan. He was convicted in Jordan and sentenced to 22 years in prison. He departed rather quickly from Jordan in the middle of the night and he is now serving on the Iraqi Governing Council and has taken the portfolio, the finance portfolio, a convicted felon, a convicted felon who was charged and convicted in a neighboring nation, Jordan, who has historically been a solid ally of the United States, has attempted to foster peace with Israel, and we never consulted that kingdom of Jordan; and we are continuing to pay his group some $350,000 a month. And meanwhile, as the gentleman has pointed out, we cannot build roads. We cannot do school rehabs or reconstruction. We cannot provide veterans services benefits for our own people; and we are paying $350,000 a month.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think it is important to try to paint the macropicture, if you will, and that is, in the President's budget, he put forth a package of some $257 billion. The Senate, the Republican Senate, his own party, came through with a figure of some $318 billion. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the appropriate committee in this House, has valiantly and assiduously attempted to secure more funding because not only do we need our infrastructure updated, but for the very reason that my colleague articulated, it produces jobs, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs so that our jobless recovery, with its attendant wage recession, will receive a stimulus that will hopefully lift all boats.

No, because I think what my colleague has said is so informative. I think it reveals the flaws in not only the foreign policy but particularly in terms of the economic strategy of this particular White House.

There is another observation I would like to make because the reality is that the median income of the family of four in the United States is declining. If we continue along this path, we are in danger. We are in danger of creating a gap between those that have and those that do not have. While we are attempting to create a middle class in Iraq, because the middle class is absolutely essential for a democracy, we know that, we are seeing our own middle class shrink in the United States. The most recent statistic is that one percent of the American population is now earning 17 percent of our income.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), is present here with me tonight; and we anticipate that we will be joined by several of our colleagues to continue our weekly hour where we discuss events in the Mid East, with a particular focus on Iraq and Afghanistan and, hopefully, reveal to the viewing audience some information that they may be unaware of. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would concur with the gentleman's analysis. He is absolutely correct. We secured a military victory in Afghanistan against those, the Taliban, that allowed, on their territory, in Afghanistan, the training and a safe haven for the real enemy of the United States, the al Qaeda terrorist network. It has been more than 2 years, more than 2 years since we secured that victory. And as the gentleman mentioned, we were distracted, if you will. We were distracted by an ideological conclusion that the defeat of Saddam Hussein would create a new democracy in the Middle East.

Would that it be so. But as my colleague has mentioned, not only has Osama bin Laden not been captured, and I have a sense he will be captured, and the sooner the better, and if he is not captured, may he be killed because he is the enemy of the United States, I think it is important, however, given the distraction, if you will, based on a rationale that was put forth by this President, President Bush, that Saddam Hussein not only was in the possession and had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and it was suggested, if you remember, that the threat of Saddam Hussein's possession of a nuclear weapon was very real, was very real, according to what the administration was saying, in that Saddam Hussein somehow had this murky relationship with these terrorists who had designs directly on the United States, that this information has turned out to be utterly without substance.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment. We have heard much relative to criticism of the intelligence services of the United States. But when one examines the reporting by the CIA, by the Defense Intelligence Agency, by the appropriate agencies within the Department of State and the Department of Defense, their reporting was characterized by conditionality, by caveats, by suggestions that there was more to it than simply a conclusion. It was described in terms of likelihood, probability, maybe, what have you. But it was presented to the American people and to the people of the world in clear stock terms that would only, only provide an inescapable conclusion that Saddam Hussein had possession of weapons of mass destruction.

You read from a report this week about the analysis by Hans Blix. Well, as my colleague is well aware, the President himself asked an individual by the name of David Kay, who many Americans have seen on a variety of news programs, to lead the post-war effort to find the so- called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was the individual who had the courage to come before the Senate and say unequivocally and clearly we were all wrong.

We have not heard that yet from the President of the United States.

Well, it just happens that David Kay has now been interviewed by a highly respected journal, newspaper, called The Guardian from the United Kingdom. He has called on the Bush administration, and I am reading from a story that appeared in the March 3 edition of The Guardian, he called on the Bush administration to come clean. And these are his words here, not mine, not my colleague's, not anybody from the Republican side of the office, but David Kay's. And they have not received the attention, I dare say, they deserve here in the American media. But it was David Kay in this interview that said, ``It is time to come clean with the American people, Mr. President, and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.'' That is David Kay.

Well, let me continue with the same report that I had alluded to earlier in The Guardian. And, again, this is Mr. Kay. I would hope that some of the news organizations in this country would contact Mr. Kay and corroborate this report from this highly regarded newspaper in the United Kingdom, because I think it is extremely telling. This administration will not admit they were wrong. We are going to find out what happened whether they intentionally misled or whether the intelligence itself was faulty. That is a question that will be answered during the course of the next 5 or 6 months. But it is about time for the President of the United States to stand up and say we were wrong to the American people.

Mr. Kay said, ``The administration's reluctance to make that admission was further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.'' President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Powell owe an obligation to the American people in our role in the world and our claim to moral authority to get this matter disposed of.

The Secretary of Defense will not let it go. Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed Mr. Kay's assertion that there were no weapons of mass destruction at the start of the Iraq war as a theory that was possible but not likely. What is wrong, Mr. Rumsfeld? Do you not get it? It is better for the country. Put aside the fear of embarrassment.

This is more about--this is less about personal embarrassment than it is restoring American credibility as we proceed during the course of this year and years here after dealing in a very, very dangerous world.

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

We have been joined by our colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee), regulars on the Tuesday night Iraq Watch.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland); but before I give the time to him, I just want to repeat what David Kay said, the individual that was put in charge of searching for the weapons of mass destruction by this President, and this is from a report from a British newspaper last week. Mr. Kay said that ``continuing evasion,'' these are his words, ``would create public cynicism about the administration's motives.'' He also said, ``If the administration did not confront the Iraqi intelligence fiasco head on, it would undermine its credibility with allies in future crises for a generation.'' For a generation.

This President with his failure to come clean with the American people, to be forthright, is putting our credibility at risk for a generation. It is time for President Bush to stand up and say the truth and to concur with the statement by David Kay that we were all wrong. You were wrong. Your Secretary of Defense was wrong. Your Vice President has been wrong. Your Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, has been wrong. You have been wrong. Then we can proceed again to restore the confidence of the world in the integrity of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, speaking, of course, about the recovery.

In Ohio.

And elsewhere in America.

What you are speaking to is competence. It is just sheer incompetence. What the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and I were discussing earlier in our conversation, it is credibility, credibility, and again, when we think of how we are treating our soldiers. I do not for a moment believe that any Member of Congress or the administration is not prepared and willing to do what is needed to be done or what is necessary to be done to protect our soldiers, but it comes down to incompetence.

I agree but I would suggest that that is a by-product of just sheer incompetence by the civilian leadership, by the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense, not the military personnel because they are being sent into combat, but what is intentional, and again, I dare say goes to the credibility of this President, is the way that these men and women are treated when they come back to the United States and hear that this President has underfunded veterans' medical health care to the point where the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in this country described President Bush's budget as a sham, as a sham.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows, we all know, on both sides of the aisle, that we will receive a so-called supplemental budget. And those that are watching us this evening should understand that that is in addition to the budget that we pass. And it is going to come in absolutely with hundreds of billions of dollars, not just for Iraq and Afghanistan, but for other needs, right after November 2.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just spoke about the deficit. We had some colleagues here earlier in an effort to defend the so-called prescription drug benefit that was passed

on this floor back in December. Does my colleague recall that back in the course of this debate, and I know this is a digression from our focus of the issue of Iraq, but it does go to the credibility of this President, President Bush, does the gentleman remember the discussion and the debate that went on into the wee hours when there was not a single Member of Congress on both sides that did not accept the number $400 billion as the cost of that proposal? And then weeks later, weeks later it was announced by this White House, the Bush White House, that their estimate was some $537 billion? More than 35 percent.

What we discovered subsequently is that this administration, this President, had his Secretary of Health and Human Services over here lobbying, advocating right on the floor of the House, cajoling Members for some 3 hours. And he knew at that point in time that the real number was some $537 billion, and not what we were told. This goes to credibility. This goes to exactly what David Kay told that British newspaper when he called on the Bush administration to come clean with the American people and admit it was wrong about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It is about coming clean and it is about credibility and it is about the truth.

Mr. Speaker, we understand and I continue to hear the word ``recovery.'' We know it is a jobless recovery, but it is not a jobless recovery for those who live in Iraq. It is a lot of no-show jobs going on over in Iraq. And as we discussed in our last session, certain individuals are doing very well by the American taxpayers. There is a budget for Iraq, and there is a budget for the United States; and they are both being paid for by the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's remarks this evening. They were transmitted on CNN. He described those who are concerned about the outsourcing of American jobs, with an implication that somehow those who have a concern about jobs in America are something less than free and fair traders, and that is T-R-A-D-E-R-S, and should be called economic isolationists.

And be honest with us about the cost of the prescription drug benefit proposal put forth by his party and his White House.

Mr. Speaker, it comes down to the question posed here on the cover of Time magazine, Does Bush have a credibility gap? And clearly there is substantial evidence that would lead to the conclusion that there is a profound credibility gap.

That is only half of the story. I think it is very important that those that are watching us tonight in our hour ``hour of conversation'' understand that not only have we lost millions of jobs, but, as the gentleman indicated, we create and we lose, and it is netted out to some 2.5 million jobs we have lost. He will be the next Herbert Hoover. But, do you know what is happening? It is not just a jobless recovery, it is a wage recession. That is really important, that those that are unaware be given that information. The jobs that are replacing the jobs that are lost are coming in at a wage level some 22 percent less than the jobs that they replace.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Marjorie Murphy, who has recently been named Citizen of the Year by the Cohasset Mariner, a respected newspaper on the South Shore of Boston, MA. Marjie, as she is affectionately known, has made a positive impact on the lives of families throughout the area for 30 years. Originally a first grade teacher, she soon realized her true passion was introducing youngsters to the wonder of a good book. For the next quarter-century, Marjie touched countless lives as a librarian at Deer Hill Elementary School in Cohasset.

With her lifetime of public service in mind, Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues this Cohasset Mariner tribute:

Citizen of the Year

(By Mary Ford)

As editor of the Cohasset Mariner, it is my pleasure to

announce that Marjorie Murphy is the Citizen of the Year. The

mother of three and grandmother of two has touched countless

lives through her roughly 25 years as school librarian at

Deer Hill.

With eyes that twinkle and an infectious smile, Mrs.

Murphy--fondly known as Marjie--can make even the oldest

readers among as decide to pick up a children's book, perhaps

for the first time in many years.

Mrs. Murphy did not start out as a librarian. She taught

the first grade and wasn't so sure being in the library was

the right place for her--until she tried it, and then she

didn't look back.

She doesn't forget any of the hundreds of children that

have passed through the doors to her warm, welcoming library

complete with sofas to curl up and read upon.

While nominations were open, a total of 33 different

individuals, families or organizations took the time to

propose a citizen for the annual award--detailing his or her

contributions to help make this town we all love a better

place.

The selection panel consisting of Judy Volungis of Forest

Avenue, Betsy Connolly of Lily Pond Lane and Roger Hill of

Highland Avenue joined myself, editor Mary Ford, on Sunday to

pore over the heartfelt letters of nomination.

Barb Mullin wrote, ``With Marjie, children always come

first. She's never too busy to help a child select that

`perfect' book or listen to a review of their latest read.

It's a pleasure to watch former students drop by--and they

frequently do! She never seems to forget a face or a name.

Ask any one of them about a teacher who positively influenced

them and Marjie's name always pops up.''

Claire Cahill said Mrs. Murphy deserved the award for her

many yeas of dedication to the children of Cohasset.

``Her smile, her sparks of enthusiasm, and her unending

quest to interest every child in her love of reading has made

her a very likely candidate for Citizen of the Year,'' wrote

Karen Murphy.

Dot and Lee Cisneros stated, ``Marjie is a giver. She has

given and continues to give of her time, her knowledge, her

understanding, her devotion to selling the young and the old

on her definition of the value of learning.''

Judith Collins simply said. ``She makes each child feel

special.''

So we extend our warm congratulations to Mrs. Murphy, who

has devoted her life to helping children discover the wonders

of reading and the value of a good book.

With this award, the Cohasset Mariner offers recognition

for making a difference. In our society too many role models

go unrecognized. Too often people today look to the sports,

rock or movie stars with envy, when the real hero is the

local police officer, firefighter, parent, teacher, church

leader, neighbor or government official.

The annual Citizen of the Year Award is our way of taking

our hats off to those among us who go that extra mile without

asking for anything in return but the intrinsic reward of

helping to make Cohasset a better place.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, not even for the American taxpayers that are putting out some $167 billion to date. That is absolutely outrageous.

What I learned this evening, and I find it particularly disturbing, is that Mr. Chalabi was present in this chamber during the State of the Union that was delivered by President Bush back in January and sat with other members of the Iraqi Governing Council in the box where the First Lady was sitting. This is absolutely unacceptable.

I would just like to, if I may, pick up on that point with Mr. Chalabi.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) described Mr. Chalabi in very unflattering terms, but I think a more apt description of Mr. Chalabi is that he is a convicted felon. When he fled Iraq he ended up in London for a period of time and then went ahead and conducted business, banking business, financial services, in the kingdom of Jordan. There he was charged with embezzlement and a series of other crimes that would constitute in our jurisprudence a felony. He was tried and convicted and was sentenced to 22 years by a Jordanian court. I am sure he would contest that. I am sure that he would proclaim his innocence, but that is a fact, a reality. That is not just simply an unflattering description of an individual.

When the king of Jordan came and visited with Members of the House Committee on International Relations, and I forget if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) was there, but I posed to the king, who has been an erstwhile ally of the United States and his father before him in the region for decades and has cooperated with the United States in terms of the war against terrorism, I asked the king if he had been consulted by the United States Government because I was aware that Mr. Chalabi had been convicted of a serious crime, an embezzlement of some hundreds of millions of dollars. He said, with certain equanimity, No, I was not.

I did not pursue it because I did not want to cause the king any embarrassment, but it was clear to me and others at that meeting that he clearly was displeased, and to think that we turned our back on an ally, who according to newspaper reports, and the truth always outs, was encouraging defectors to provide intelligence that he should have known was false, was false.

If I can pursue for just one more moment, this is dated February 19 and is

from the Daily Telegraph in London, a British newspaper obviously. U.S. officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of false intelligence, the claim that Saddam Hussein had a mobile biological weapons laboratory, had come from a major in the Iraqi intelligence service, made available by the INC.

Those watching us tonight should understand that the INC is an anachronism for the Iraqi National Congress which is the creation of Ahmed Chalabi.

U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the defector even passed a lie detector test, but in later interviews it became apparent he was stretching the truth and had been coached by the

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has heard the term before, but when we speak of a blind man in a room with deaf mutes, this is an apt description of absolutely what has occurred in this particular case involving this particular individual by the name of Chalabi, Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted felon.

But let me give another possible motive. And again, this is simply a news story that I am reading to my colleagues and to those that are watching here this evening, because I think it is very important that the American people start to understand the dimensions and the magnitude of what occurred here and the absolute need for a thorough transparent presentation of all the facts over an extended period of time to the American people.

This is not about politics. No, it is not. This is about the national security of the United States and how we are viewed by the rest of the world. Our credibility is at risk here. If we perceive another situation that is fraught with peril for our people, and we present intelligence to the rest of the world, who is going to believe us?

Let me suggest another motive. This is from Newsday, a New York paper, and it is dated February 15. ``U.S. authorities in Iraq have awarded more than $400 million in contracts to a start-up company that has extensive family and, according to court documents, business ties with Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon favorite on the Iraqi Governing Council. The chief architect of the umbrella organization of the resistance, the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi is viewed by many Iraqis as the hand-picked choice to rule Iraq.''

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

Of course there are people in the administration.

Let me read from the original story that I discussed; we are still paying for the tainted intelligence. The American taxpayers are going to foot the bill for Ahmed Chalabi to come to the United States and sit in the First Lady's box. Let me read this: ``The decision not to shut off funding for the information-gathering effort could become another liability for Bush as the Presidential campaign heats up, and suggests that some within the administration are intent on securing a key role for Chalabi in Iraq's political future.'' Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice President Cheney's office, and among top Pentagon officials, is on the Iraqi Governing Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United States, to help administer the country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April.

So here we are. We received false information, as the gentleman indicated in response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) yielding. He said the Americans are in Baghdad, we got what we want, and he is continuing to get paid. And according to reports from British newspapers, business associates of his just secured more than $400 million of American taxpayer resources for contracts awarded by the CPA, by Paul Bremer.

To influence Members of Congress and influence the administration.

The convicted felon.

We would hope that that would be the Iraqi people, because if we preach democracy, hopefully we will abide by the decision that the Iraqi people in an election reach on their own. That is a message that I think, and I think we speak for many Members on both sides of the aisle here, that yes, the absolute sine qua non, the essential ingredient to a democracy is to give voice to all of the people, not some selected individuals hand-picked by Dick Cheney, by the CIA, or by anybody else to run the country for the Iraqis, because if that happens, the American taxpayer is going to end up with a much larger bill than we have already assumed.

If the gentleman will yield, I think I can answer his question at least in part here. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania just indicated, there are rival camps now that presumably the American taxpayer is supporting in their lobbying efforts in terms of securing more resources and more tax dollars from Congress and the administration. But it would appear that Mr. Chalabi has an advantage. According to the Roll Call edition of today, it reports that unlike the Iraqi newcomers to Washington, Chalabi has worked for years in Washington cultivating friendships with key players like Cheney, like Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, all gentlemen that we have heard from during the course of the debate that many in the majority party have described as so-called neoconservatives.

The Roll Call article goes on to indicate that since 1986, Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress in Washington for $10,000 a month. So Mr. Chalabi certainly was an individual of some affluence. Clearly that was the impression that the Jordanians had when they convicted him of embezzling some 300 million American dollars from a significant financial institution in Jordan. But that was $10,000 a month. For your edification, for those of the viewing audience, they should be aware that one of the partners at Shea & Gardner is James Woolsey, the former CIA Director who has been an outspoken advocate for military intervention in Iraq.

By Chalabi himself.

I would hope, and yet it would appear to be a remote possibility, given all that we know, that Mr. Woolsey was unaware of the representation possibly by another partner.

I share your disappointment. I really do. I find it so incredulous that I will presume that there is some responsible answer why that disclosure was never made.

Maybe this is a question of inaccurate reporting, but this is what appeared today in the Roll Call magazine that is distributed throughout the Capitol building.

Let me read it again, and let me go on because there is more information.

Again, I am reading for the gentleman's benefit and for those who are viewing our conversation here this evening: ``Since 1986 Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress in Washington for about $10,000 a month. One of the partners at Shea & Gardner is James Woolsey, the former CIA director.

``Chalabi also gets help from Francis Brooke, a political consultant, and Riva Levinson, the Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a long-time ally of President Bush.

``These contacts have paid off: at this year's State of the Union address, Chalabi sat in the VIP box with the first lady, Laura Bush. Chalabi was also one of the few Iraqis permitted to meet face to face with Saddam Hussein in his cell in the hours after his capture in late December.

``Chalabi has long been considered the favorite of the Defense Department officials to lead Iraq's new government.''

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman suggesting that there is no exit strategy?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think what he is saying is what we need is something that does not exist here in Washington at this moment in our history. And that is openness and transparency and accountability, and it is not happening. To think that, and I do not know whether it was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) or the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) that mentioned it, they continued to benefit and with an attitude that arrogance is not a suitable adjective. It is far beyond arrogance. And it is time to lay everything out on the table or the American people will lose confidence, not only in the President but in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the inexplicable failure of the U.S. Congress to address the inequities of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). For more than 20 years, the GPO and WEP have created enormous burdens for many public service retirees.

More than half of the Members of this House want change; no fewer than 285 of my colleagues have co-sponsored bipartisan legislation for outright repeal of the GPO and WEP. But the House leadership won't even allow debate on the question.

The legislation before this chamber today will help protect many vulnerable beneficiaries from fraud and contains many other important provisions. However, once again, the House missed a perfect opportunity to repeal both the GPO and WEP.

Both the GPO and WEP unfairly reduce Social Security benefits for retirees who otherwise qualify, simply because they at some point worked in jobs covered by another government pension. In particular, the GPO and WEP penalize those who had short or intermittent careers, or who blended private jobs with stints in public service.

Often, these are people already losing out in their overall earnings because they chose to make a meaningful contribution to society in roles that just don't pay well. Think of those in your community who teach your children, fight your fires and keep your streets safe. Chances are, you're thinking of people who are suffering the impact of the GPO or WEP.

Because most paid Social Security taxes somewhere along the way, these people planned for retirement fully anticipating both pension and Social Security benefits. But when these teachers, police officers, and firefighters retired, they discovered all or much of their expected Social Security benefits wiped out by the WEP or GPO. In the case of the WEP, the Social Security benefit is reduced by up to 60 percent. If the GPO is triggered, it reduces a retiree's spousal benefit by two- thirds.

A Barnstable teacher wrote to me about her circumstances:

I am a recently divorced woman, age 56, who has worked in

the school district for five years. Before taking this job I

was an at-home mother. Although I get very minimal alimony

(which I don't always receive) I face the grim reality of

what I will live on when--and if--I can retire. Having paid

the Social Security system for many years before having

children, the GPO and WEP would not permit me to collect on

what I paid into the system. I also understand that if my ex-

husband were to die, the amount I would be able to collect

from his Social Security would also be cut.

Countless heart-wrenching personal stories dramatically illustrate the impact of these unfair benefit reductions. In my home state of Massachusetts, over 18,000 retirees are being penalized by the WEP. When it comes to the GPO, almost 15,000 are affected--and over a third are widows or widowers.

Consider this letter I received from a widow in Hull, MA:

I am being punished because I worked for the Town for the

past 23 years. My husband passed away after only receiving

Social Security disability for six months. He worked 40 years

toward his Social Security. Many people do not know about

this penalty and find out when they go to collect their

Social Security that they cannot receive what they totally

deserve . . .

From a Marshfield, MA teacher:

If my husband should pre-decease me, I am not eligible for

his Social Security and would suffer a serious financial

burden. I stayed at home to raise four children, while my

husband worked six days a week and long hours and contributed

the maximum to Social Security. I reentered the workforce

late in life (to help pay for college tuitions) and made the

mistake of getting employment with our local municipality.

From a 10-year employee of the town of Duxbury, MA:

As I have been a part-time employee, my pension will be

quite small, about $300 a month. I worked many years under

Social Security with full and part-time jobs. As my Social

Security would be reduced from $600 to $400 it does not leave

much to live on, never mind paying for medical insurance.

From a Sagamore Beach widow:

I recently had two more friends die after waiting since

1983 to receive help on the Government Pension Offset issue.

If Congress waits much longer, they won't have many of us

left to help.

It is particularly heartbreaking that retired women comprise over 70 percent of those penalized by the GPO reduction of spousal benefits. Many sacrificed to stay home and raise children in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s--then went to work later in life. In retirement, they are hit especially hard. Not only did they face the challenges of a workplace that paid them far less than their male counterparts; now they face similarly diminished opportunities to enjoy their senior years. Many are widows with meager pensions, who now face drastically reduced financial support with the death of a spouse--and must also contend with reduced spousal Social Security benefits.

During this 108th Congress, we had strong support for bills that would have modified or repealed the WEP and GPO. We had significant bipartisan endorsement and literally hundreds of senior organizations calling for action.

In May of last year, we heard compelling testimony about the impact of these provisions in the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee hearing. Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police described why police officers in particular are penalized by the WEP:

Owing to the physical demands of the job, a law enforcement

officer is likely to retire between the ages of 45 and 60.

After 20 or 25 years on the job, many law enforcement

officers are likely to begin second careers and hold jobs

that do pay into the Social Security system. Even more

officers are likely to ``moonlight,'' that is, hold second or

even third jobs throughout their law enforcement career in

order to augment their income. This creates an unjust

situation that too many of our members find themselves in:

they are entitled to a State or local retirement benefit

because they worked 20 or more years keeping their streets

and neighborhoods safe, and also working at a job or jobs in

which they paid into Social Security, entitling them to that

benefit as well. However, because of the WEP, if their second

career resulted in less than twenty (20) years of substantial

earnings, upon reaching the age they are eligible to collect

Social Security, they will discover that they lose sixty

percent (60%) of the benefit for which they were taxed!

Actuarially speaking, I doubt many officers will live long

enough to ``break even''--that is collect the money they paid

into the system, let alone receive any ``windfall.''

Even if the personal circumstances of today's public sector retirees fail to move you, consider the fact that it gets harder every day to recruit and retain people for public service jobs. Compared with the private sector, public services jobs offer significantly less pay and benefits. Personal satisfaction, while a powerful motivator, begins to fade when you realize you won't be able to put food on the table during retirement. We'll never attract the best possible candidates to public service unless we remove the stark disincentives characterized by the WEP and GPO.

Today this Congress failed to address the needs of almost one million former government employees who have already lost retirement dollars due to the GPO and WEP. Millions more face losses in the future. These are people we need, in every community, doing jobs that often keep us safe and secure in an era of unparalleled uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lee) Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, we are here again this evening. As I am sure many of our colleagues are aware, during the course of the past 8 months, several of us have taken to the floor to discuss issues surrounding Iraq, Afghanistan, and other issues of concern related to the war on terror, particularly as it is focused in the Middle East.

I am joined tonight by two members of that group. We call ourselves the Iraq Watch, my colleague who is sitting to my right, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee); and I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) will soon join us.

Earlier today before the House Committee on International Relations, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared and testified concerning the budget proposal put forth by the Department and by the administration for the coming year. The Secretary had to leave earlier than some of us would have hoped, but I commend him for bearing up, if you will, for some 3 hours before the House Committee on International Relations.

During the course of his testimony, he mentioned the tragedy that occurred in the town of Halabjah, a town he well knows because during the course of President Reagan's last 4 years he served in the capacity as the national security adviser and during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush he served in the capacity of chief of staff of the Joint Chiefs. So he was very familiar, obviously; and many of us remember his service to the country during the Gulf War and prior to that what was occurring in the region.

If I had had an opportunity to question him, I was going to indicate to him that I have a profound concern about what we are currently doing in terms of establishing alliances and relationships with some extremely unsavory regimes that very well might come back to haunt us. Some can only be described as extremely harsh dictatorships with abysmal human rights records. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan come to mind immediately.

Now we have a base in Uzbekistan where last year the Department of State used the following language in describing the abuse of human rights in that particular Nation. Let me quote, ``The security services routinely torture, beat and otherwise mistreat detainees. They allegedly use suffocation, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuse.'' The list goes on and on and on.

Of course, the budget proposal put forth by the Department of State, under the leadership of Colin Powell, directs millions of dollars to Turkmenistan, whose leader has created a Stalinist personality cult that rivals anything we saw with Saddam Hussein. He even went so far as to rename the month of January after himself and the month of April after his mother.

I remember observing the interview between Mr. Russert and President Bush this past Sunday; and the President described, appropriately so, Saddam Hussein as a madman. I might have used a different word. He might be crazy but he is not stupid, I guess is what I would say; but the new President, if you will, of Turkmenistan, who has changed his name to Turkmenibashi certainly seems to fit that particular description, and Karimov in Uzbekistan is nothing more than a thug with ambitions for regional power, again, very similar to Saddam Hussein.

When the Secretary of State alluded to Halabjah, it provoked me to think that, are we repeating the same mistakes that we made in the 1980s when the United States Government supported Saddam Hussein? Let us remember, it was the United States Government that removed Saddam Hussein from the terrorist list. We now hear that he supported terrorist groups. He was doing that in the 1980s, but the Reagan-Bush administrations removed him from the terrorist list, but they did not stop there. They went further. They restored full diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein. In fact, they provided him credits and loan guarantees and, in fact, provided him intelligence during the course of his war with Iran.

What I found particularly disturbing, and later when one of my colleagues speaks, I have a chart that shows just a minuscule number of transfers of dual-use technologies that were approved by the Reagan- Bush administration, the Reagan-Bush White Houses, if you will, that no doubt became the building blocks of the tools for Saddam Hussein to develop that nuclear program that was discovered in the aftermath of the Gulf War. I mean, it was those White Houses, those administrations, that allowed the transfer of those dual-use technologies.

Let me tell my colleagues where I received that information: not from a newspaper report, not from a think tank with a particular bias, but with an institution that everyone in this Chamber would acknowledge is free of bias, is what we all rely on to do our research, the Congressional Research Service.

That particular report was authored and produced in June of 1992. But I guess what is particularly disturbing is when I hear the Secretary of State refer to Halabjah and say that we know he used chemical weapons against his own people. In this case, it was the Iraqi Kurds in the north who had aligned themselves with the Iranian forces with which Iraq was at war at the time.

The only action that I can discover in terms of my research was mild, off-the-record condemnations by the United States Government. And when this Congress back in 1988, 1989 and 1990 passed legislation, both branches independent of each other, that would have imposed sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it was the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush that blocked it. I agree obviously with the Secretary of State, he did use these weapons against his own people.

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

Mr. Speaker, not only were we silent, and it is very important that the historical record be revealed to the American people, and that is why we are tonight. If any viewer has any questions about the accuracy of what we state, I am sure that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and any other member of Iraq Watch, we would be happy to respond and see that the reports, unbiased, that were authored back in 1992, would be provided to anyone who has an interest. They can contact our office.

But it was not just silence. It was absolutely, according to this report, action to block the imposition of sanctions at that point in time. I dare say what would have happened if in 1988 and 1989 and 1990 there were sanctions on Iraq, that would have been a message to Saddam Hussein. We can speculate that maybe we would have avoided the first Gulf War if we had taken on that thug then. But, no, we were not

sending that message. We continued after the conclusion of the war. I have heard the argument while we tilted towards Iraq, that was the language that was used, we tilted towards Iraq because of our concern with Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

As I said earlier, what are we doing now? We are allying ourselves with two more despots, two more thugs who I dare say years from now could very well be the new Saddam Husseins.

Mr. Speaker, to point out two other facts, the initial approach to Saddam Hussein in 1983 at the direction of President Reagan was done by a special envoy.

Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

In 1988, 1989, and 1990 the United States Congress took action.

Both the House and the Senate passed legislation that would have imposed sanctions, and it was the White House of George Herbert Walker Bush that blocked it.

Pausing again, going back in memory, who was the Secretary of Defense?

The Secretary of Defense was Mr. Cheney, the current Vice President. His Under Secretary of Defense was Paul Wolfowitz.

So, again, the dots here have to be connected. It is important, I believe, to present that historical record to the American people to give them the information that they need to conduct their own analysis.

I challenge anyone from the administration or a Member of Congress to come to the floor and debate that particular unfortunate reality. If congressional action had been approved and the President, this President's father, had signed a bill that would have imposed sanctions, we can only speculate what would have happened.

What I would have suggested, if we knew it and we speak again of human rights and how bad and claim a certain moral authority, what should have occurred is the President of the United States should have stepped up and requested an international tribunal and brought that thug, Saddam Hussein, before it for a trial, for a prosecution, and let justice happen.

Has the Attorney General responded? Has he identified those officials that were responsible?

I can tell of a very sad moment when I attended a funeral in my hometown of a young man, 36 years old. His widow was there; his parents were there. His dad, Charlie Caldwell, taught my daughter in the local public school. He was killed. He was killed in a humvee. When we pause and think of it, the pain that this has caused. We have had this discussion before. Not only is it causing pain today; but in very real terms with the cost of this effort, if you will, we have already spent $187 billion. And while it is not in the President's budget, because clearly he has an interest in not increasing the deficit any more than it is and it is absolutely out of control, we know that and I think the American people know that, but we hear, and it has been reported that there is an additional $50 billion that will be in a supplemental. Of course, it will not happen before the election. But if I can just for one minute, because I want to go back, I want to let those who are watching, and maybe it is impossible, they cannot see this list; but this is just a small piece of exports to Iraq by U.S. companies from the year 1985 to 1990.

That is absolutely the correct definition. I think sometimes when we speak among ourselves because we know the terms, we seem to forget that oftentimes viewers and constituents and others, really, I am sure they are wondering, what are we talking about. I really thank the gentleman for making that clear. Yes, dual use means they can be used for peaceful purposes, or they can be used for the development of programs such as the nuclear program that Saddam Hussein began, started. It was well along the way in terms of its development when in 1990 during the Gulf War he was defeated, and under the agreement, the U.N. inspectors went in and found that, yes, he did have a nuclear program at that point in time. Actually, the United Nations inspection team did a superb job. But where did the technologies come from for the development of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapon program? It is right here.

Let me just read several. There are computers for possible use in nuclear weapons development. Computers useful for missile development. Computers that U.N. inspectors believed monitored uranium enrichment for atomic bomb fuel. Computers useful for graphic design of atomic bombs and missiles. Computers for manufacturing tool design and graphics. Computers for possible use in atomic bomb or missile development. This is the moneys that were paid to American firms under a license approved in the first Bush administration.

From 1985 to 1990. Again, I just do not think that we can overstate the historical record because I think it provides the American people, particularly those who are watching us here tonight, with information

for them to reach their own conclusions. The reality is, he did have chemical weapons; and as Secretary Powell indicated today, they knew he had chemical weapons when they launched Desert Storm in the first Gulf War and our soldiers were prepared; but, of course, he did not use them.

He did not use them. He only used them against his own people.

In 1988 in Halabja, and he murdered somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi Kurds, and we were silent then when we should have imposed the sanctions and insisted that he be brought to trial. So that is the full story. That is the full story.

Again, today, Secretary Powell continued to talk about intent. And there was evidence of intent, and I hear Dr. Rice, Condoleezza Rice, we know he used them. Yes. Back in 1988 and 1989, and we did nothing then, and here we are in 2002.

Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the gentleman's point that in terms of the work that the U.N. teams did, respectively it has been established that there were no stockpiles. There were no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, David Kay, appointed by President Bush, came back and told the American people, to use his words, we were all wrong. I think it is so important to analyze and understand all of the dots here and what lies in the future. As I said in my opening remarks, we are now creating alliances and working with people who rival Saddam Hussein in terms of their tyranny, their abuse of human rights, and their willingness to do anything to enhance their power.

I mentioned earlier we have a military base in Uzbekistan. And the President of Uzbekistan, here he is with our Secretary of Defense. The gentleman, if the Members will, to Secretary Rumsfeld's right, his name is Karimov, Islam Karimov. He is a tyrant. He is a thug, and we are in bed with him. The American people should know that. In Turkmenistan, I had mentioned earlier the leader of Turkmenistan, and we are sending him millions of dollars. Talk about a madman. He is a certifiable nut, changing the names of the calendar, April for his mother and January for himself. What are we doing? We are making the same mistake, and that is why it is important that those that are watching Iraq Watch tonight take this information, read on their own, and look to the future and understand that we are now or could be planting the seeds for another Saddam Hussein that will wreak havoc in the region, that obviously these two will continue to abuse human rights and what about our claim to moral authority when we are losing prestige in the world today?

I should interrupt the gentleman to say that Secretary

Powell made that statement again. And not having had the opportunity because he left early, I was stunned by that particular remark. I do not know any Member in this body that had these different reports. With the caveats and the qualifiers, what we got was something different, Mr. Speaker.

You know what I would like to do? I would commend for reading, to those that are watching us have this conversation tonight, this Newsweek article. It is the publication of November 17, 2003, 4 or 5 months ago. Obviously, this is a picture of the Vice President, and it is entitled ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War: The Inside Story.''

Again, I think we and the citizens have an obligation to do as much homework as we can to fully understand the reality. Those points that the gentleman made, I have heard them on the floor today. Earlier the President went to Poland and spoke about those two mobile trailers that allegedly were being used in a bio-weapon program. The CIA refuted that. Again, it is important to be accurate.

It is interesting, everybody in Washington at least knows and the American people should know that there has been tension within the administration between the Vice President on one side and Secretary Powell on the other side. If I had had an opportunity today, I was going to ask the Secretary if this story in The Washington Post was accurate.

There was a lengthy article; and it was, again, published on February 1 of this year. If you remember, when Secretary Powell went before the United Nations, what the article relates is that he was very careful and thorough in terms of what he believed to be accurate intelligence, and he had this CIA analyst come in and discuss it with him.

The CIA originally drafted his speech, which then went to the White House. But when it emerged, it looked entirely different. The Vice President's chief of staff, one individual by the name of Scooter Libby, and his National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, and other national security staffers had produced draft language for Powell, 45 pages on weapons of mass destruction, 38 pages on alleged links to terrorism, and 16 pages on Iraq's human rights abuses. Within 1 day, Powell's task force had largely abandoned the 45-page document on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction produced by Cheney's office and the National Security Council, using instead a classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by the CIA in October.

Again, let me suggest this: a vision and a view and an ideology that had a conclusion and was looking for facts. We all know in the selection of facts, and, again, this can be done without even a conscious intent to deceive, but the attempt to make the case like lawyers do in a courtroom. But this is not a courtroom; this is not advocacy.

But, again, I was going to ask the Secretary, was that report true. When that speech that he had prepared had come out of the White House, out of the Vice President's office, changed so dramatically, did he abandon it and go and rely on the National Intelligence Estimate?

Do you know what? The American people have a right to know that process, the world has a right to know that process, because that was a presentation to the world by the representative of the United States to the world.

If the gentleman will yield, I think it is important to note that in the aftermath of that vote, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in private conversations absolutely deplored what occurred.

I think that as colleagues of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), it is important that we commend him for his courage, and acknowledge the fact that as he leaves this Chamber, his legacy and his contribution to this institution and to the people in his district has no stain, no blemish. He can leave as a man with his dignity, pride and, I think, good wishes from all of us.

What occurred to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) I think underscores the fact that within this House there is a perversion of the democratic process that has made this particular institution so strong and such a viable component in our democracy, and it is incumbent on all of us, Republican and Democrat, to insist on transparency, to insist on fighting for the process, so that the American people understand what is going on here in Washington, so that the truth be revealed.

The gentleman was talking earlier about profiteering, and maybe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) can inform the audience here tonight, maybe he knows, but I have a clear and vivid memory of during the debate on the $87 billion supplemental, which was for the occupation, the additional occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, that there was a clause in the bill which specifically addressed the issue of profiteering. It was in conference, and somehow it became deleted.

It is my memory, and you can amplify on this, that that particular provision would have increased substantially the criminal penalties for profiteering on the blood of American soldiers. I do not know if the gentleman has a comment or a memory, but I found that so shocking.

I would just like to interject for a moment. I do not know if either of you had the opportunity to see a recent broadcast of 60 Minutes, but you are surely aware that U.S. law does ban virtually all commerce with rogue nations. But there is a loophole, and Halliburton has exploited that particular loophole.

The law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary, so long as it is run by nonAmericans. So what has happened? In the case of Halliburton, they have an offshore subsidiary. Guess where? In the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.

The name of that particular subsidiary is Halliburton Products and Services. It is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands. In a building owned by the local Caledonian Bank, Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean island because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate-friendly.

That is correct.

Today, again, if the 60 Minutes piece is accurate, and I presume it is, it certainly has not been challenged, and Halliburton has declined to be interviewed by them; today, today, to this member of the ``axis of evil'' club, it sells about $40 million a year worth of field services to the Iranian Government so that it can obviously support its oil infrastructure to gather the needed revenue to support whatever programs, whether they be weapons of mass destruction programs, whether they be supporting terrorist organizations anywhere in the Middle East or all over the world, whatever programs the Iranian Government funds through its oil revenue.

But that, as that famous radio commentator is wont to say, is only half the story. The subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, and I am reading again from the transcript of this CBS piece, was registered at this address. It was in name only. There is no actual office here or anywhere else in the Cayman Islands, and there are no employees on the site.

It is a sham. And I intend this week, maybe early next week, to consult with my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary and send a letter to the Attorney General, and I think it would be appropriate to request a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation into these allegations by 60 Minutes. I would hope that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) would support that particular letter.

I think that this is something that has to be examined by an independent

prosecutor, not an independent counsel, to again reveal the truth to the American people. Were there violations of the intent of the existing legislation that would prohibit these companies from dealing with so-called rogue nations? I think that this is absolutely essential to do, just simply out of respect for the rule of law. But also, if it is true, to demonstrate the moral deficit on the part of some and the hypocrisy on the part of some when it comes to this particular issue.

I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he has brought to this issue.

I think it is important to remind our audience, and we are again joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who is an original member of this ad hoc group that describe ourselves as the Iraq Watch, that it was 8 months ago that we began this effort. I think we are entitled to congratulate ourselves tonight. Because back then, we asked the congressional leadership and the President to depoliticize the issue of intelligence surrounding weapons of mass destruction and the allegations about links between al Qaeda and 9-11 on one side, and Saddam Hussein on the next. Obviously, our words fell on deaf ears.

But now we are in an election year, and the President thinks it is a good idea that he picks the members of this independent commission and that its proceedings be held in secrecy, so that the American people will not reach any conclusions prior to November's election.

Well, if he had heeded our advice and proceeded with an independent commission back 8 months ago, I dare say, given the work of David Kay and many others, that we would be well along the way; the American people would be informed, the administration would be informed, the House leadership would be informed, and we could be discussing these issues in a way that had no political overtones to it. But, again, it is this constant refusal to heed advice, to come in and have, if you will, a discussion on how we move forward together.

Many of us on this side of the aisle voted against the resolution because there did not appear to be a credible case, and we were right. But now that we are there, let us go back and reexamine history. To have a historical record that is accurate is important for generations of Americans to come when this administration has enunciated a doctrine of preemption, a doctrine of preemption, and has created, in terms of the international order, a new norm that if you believe, you do not have to prove; but if you suspect, if you think, if you guess, you can launch a military strike against someone that you think may be a threat to you. I fear not just for America in terms of where we go from this point on; but situations that exist currently in the world, whether it be in the Middle East, whether it be in south Asia, between Pakistan and India, and all over the world, there are potentially volatile situations where a country can point to this Bush doctrine of preemption and launch a nuclear strike. That will have consequences for all humankind and particularly for America, and we will have set the norm. That is what disturbs me.

Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly ironic is the debate now, whether the original preference of the United States in terms of electing the interim council would be done by caucuses or whether there would be a direct election. And it would appear that this administration is somewhat confused, but it would appear that there they are sticking to this caucus concept and rejecting the direct election proposal put forth by a leading Shia cleric by the name of Seestani for direct elections. The Iraqis, it would appear, believe that they are capable of conducting an election. And we are saying no.

Well, I believe if there is one American principle, one American value that we cherish here in this particular institution and all across this land, it is one American, one vote. How about one Iraqi, one vote, with appropriate qualifications?

Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of that. But maybe he had done his reading in terms of American history and our fight and our struggle to secure one vote for every person regardless of color, religion, ethnicity, whatever; something that we as Americans are to be proud of in exporting.

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague absolutely certain of that? Because I was unaware of that. I find that incredulous.

Mr. Speaker, to corroborate the gentleman's point, and I think it is important for my colleagues and for the people that may be watching this conversation among us tonight, that the gentleman is not speaking alone. That much of what he said was corroborated by the United States Army in a 504-page internal Army history of this war written by the Army's Combined Armed Senate at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Much of what you said is part of that particular study. That study was reported on today in the New York Times.

Let me just quote from part of that report in the New York Times: ``The first official Army history of the Iraq war reveals that American forces were plagued by a morass of supply shortages, logistical problems which senior Army officials played down at the time were much worse than have been previously reported. Tank engines on warehouse shelves in Kuwait with no truck drivers to take them north; broken down trucks were scavenged for usable parts; artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their Howitzers operating; Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals.''

This comes from an Army report, not from a politician, whether that politician be a Republican or a Democrat, speaking at a press conference. This is the United States Army. The study goes on to note that the strategy employed by the political leadership, Secretary Rumsfeld is answerable for this, in his Deputy Under Secretary Wolfowitz, and Assistant Secretary Fife and the entire crowd. The study notes that ``the strategy of starting the war before all support troops were in place taxed the post-war resources of local commanders who in many cases were shifting back and forth between combat operations and the task of civil services. Local commanders were torn between their fights and providing resources, soldiers' time and logistics, to meet civilian needs,'' the report concluded, ``partially due to the scarce resources. As a result of the running start, there was not simply enough to do both missions.''

Talk about a disaster that has resulted in untold sacrifice of American soldiers, has set us back in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq. All for what? Because we do know now, we do know now that despite, despite what the White House did say, the threat from Iraq was not imminent. Remember those words?

The White House spokesman Scott McClellan in July of this year, ``Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time.'' His predecessor in May of 2003 in response to a question whether the threat from Iraq was imminent, his answer, ``Absolutely.'' Again, McClellan, the spokesperson for President Bush in February of last year said, ``This is about imminent threat.'' The Vice President himself on January of last year, ``Iraq poses terrible threats to the civilized world.''

President Bush, himself, in November of 2002, ``The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.''

But now, what does the White House spokesperson say? ``Some in the media have chosen to use the word `imminent.' Those were not words we used.''

Give me a break, Mr. McClellan. You lose credibility by saying that. Be honest, be honest. You were wrong. Admit it and restore confidence in America and in the White House, not just for the benefit of the American people, but for the benefit of American prestige in our role in this world to enhance democracy in every corner of the planet.

Does the gentleman know what the CIA says?

Back about a week ago in the Miami Herald this is what the CIA said in response to a question posed by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

They said in the Miami Herald, in a commentary on the President's State of the Union address, which would lead one to believe that things were fine and that peace and order and democracy were just around the corner, well, the CIA offices in Iraq, in the field, are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war. And they are very, very concerned and very, very disturbed.

Again, it is all about just be honest. The American people can deal with the truth. We can have a debate that is respectful. We can address problems and we can move forward together, but if you do not tell us the truth, that is when we are in trouble.

Everybody laughs about it.

Neither does any other American have a clue. You talk about gibberish.

If I can, we certainly know the gentleman is absolutely correct. If we want to talk about weapons of mass destruction program- related activities, let us go back to that point in time when the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the National Security Adviser and when the current Vice President, Mr. Cheney, was the Secretary of Defense.

What I find particularly fascinating is, as Dr. Condoleezza Rice just said, if I can find the quote, she said just recently, he used weapons of mass destruction, just as the gentleman indicates. The truth was that we were transferring to him the computers and the ingredients necessary to advance his nuclear weapons program. That happened.

We, the United States Government, during the 1980s under Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush, were removing him from the terrorist list, installing an embassy in Baghdad, providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. And when it came to that horrific incident in Chalabi where he used chemical weapons against the Kurds who had aligned themselves with the Iranians, there was a condemnation, let us call it lip service. And yet, when this institution, this House and the United States Senate in 1989 and 1990 attempted to impose sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime, you know what the position of the administration was then, led by the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser? They killed the bill. They killed the bill.

Now, if hypocrisy was a virtue--

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting the gentleman talked about the former Secretary of the Treasury, and I think we all respect his candor and honesty, and I think for many of us it certainly is not surprising. I think probably, and I do not know whether our audience is aware of this, but one starts to see a subtle change in the position of some members of the administration.

For example, Secretary Powell was reported yesterday in the Washington Post, he said he does not know now whether he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq if he had been told it had no stockpiles of banned weapons, even as he offered a broad defense of the Bush administration's decision to go to war.

What we are going to start to see now is a shift in the language. We are going to go from clearly there were weapons of mass destruction, this is where they are, these are the quantities, and that is going to go to the weapons of mass destruction program-related activities. Now we are going to see attempts by senior administration officials to rewrite history. But I think what is most important from this point on is for those that are in denial, because they have I think almost a psychological hold in terms of their belief, we should ask them to accept reality. Let us move on, let us work together in a bipartisan, bicameral basis and to go forward, understand where we failed in terms of this policy, and see that at least the Iraqi people have an opportunity for a democratic future, and as quickly as possible reduce the exposure of American military personnel and the absolutely heavy burden that the American taxpayers are bearing, with no help from anybody else in the world.

And none to come. Remember that conference in Madrid? That was all about loans. Our allies are loaning, expecting the money back; but American taxpayers, we give it away. We give it away in this body. That is what we do. We just shove it out the door. Well, that is indeed unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the consequences of the Medicare legislation signed into law in December of last year. I must express my profound disappointment with the outcome of a process that originally promised so much hope. Throughout 2003, there was bipartisan enthusiasm and genuine momentum for change that would safeguard the Medicare system and ensure affordable prescription drugs for every American. It seemed as if we might finally make some real progress. Sadly, the Congress--under relentless pressure from the White House and the pharmaceutical industry--squandered the opportunity of a generation.

Some have characterized the new law as ``better than nothing.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. This was bad legislation, enacted in an underhanded manner. It is extremely expensive, but does little to actually bring down out-of-pocket consumer costs. The consensus for reform was shredded in favor of a complicated system designed by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry.

Only a handful of congressional Members even saw the final 700-page document, made available barely an hour before floor debate. Although the bill was initially defeated after the normal 15-minute voting period, the Speaker simply refused to gavel the vote to a close. After more than three excruciating hours--the longest vote ever in the history of the U.S. Congress--he finally closed the vote only after enough arms were twisted to change the outcome. Even then, at 6 a.m. that Saturday in November, the bill passed by only five votes. And with the bill now law, the strongest defense from proponents seems to be: ``Don't worry, no one has to sign up, it's all voluntary.'' That's hardly reassuring for millions of seniors in urgent need.

Because this ``reform'' does far more to inflate the Federal budget than to help senior citizens or the Medicare program, I voted against it. There is so much wrong with this package that it's hard to know where to begin.

First, it doesn't offer much real prescription drug coverage. To enroll in the new Part D coverage, you must pay an estimated $35 monthly premium--and still meet an annual $250 deductible. Up to $2,200, you also pay 25 percent of the drug costs. After that, you face a coverage gap (the infamous ``doughnut hole'') where you pay 100 percent until costs reach $5,044. In other words, older and disabled people will have to spend nearly $4,000 for the first $5,000 of annual coverage--paying nearly 80 percent of their prescription drug costs to get any substantial benefit at all. And, these are only first-year estimates; the out-of-pocket cost is expected to rise every year thereafter.

Incredibly, however, if you participate in the new prescription drug benefit, you will not be permitted to buy any kind of supplemental insurance (like Medigap) to cover your share of the costs. Medicare will cover only drugs on a list of preferred ``formulary'' medicines; and drugs purchased outside the list will not be counted toward your deductible.

On top of all that, the new benefit doesn't even take effect until the year 2006, more than 2 years away. This fact was scarcely mentioned by the bill's proponents during the congressional debate. Seniors need help now, not cynical and uncertain promises for later.

In the meantime, the interim discount cards paraded by the administration promise only small savings for the consumer--if you can figure out how they work. It's not clear who

will offer the cards, what the discounts will be, when and for how long the cards will be available. These decisions will be driven by--believe it or not--the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies and other business entities. The potential card issuers are not required to pass along any resulting savings to consumers. Once enrolled, you must stay with the card for at least a year, even if the issuer stops discounting the medication you need.

It gets worse. This bill does not remotely pretend to address the fundamental issue: the crushing cost of prescription medication. Rather than leveraging the enormous buying power of millions of Medicare recipients, the new law actually bars market competition. And, let's be clear, this legislation was authored by partisans who swear by the catechism of the free market. As enacted, the bill explicitly prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for better prices and deeper discounts. We know negotiated discounts can work. When the VA negotiates on behalf of this country's veterans, their drug prices drop significantly. It is mind-boggling that 40 million seniors are being deprived--by law--of the same leverage.

Moreover, the bill blocks reimportation of U.S.-produced drugs from other countries at lower prices. It claims to allow Canadian imports, but only if the Food and Drug Administration formally certifies their safety, which is unlikely to ever happen. The FDA has already stubbornly resisted reimportation, forcing local Councils on Aging and dozens of cities and States to take matters into their own hands-- although there is not a single documented case of injury resulting from U.S.-produced drugs that have been reimported from Canada.

In fairness, the bill postponed a scheduled 4.5-percent cut in physician reimbursement for Medicare services--easing fears of a wholesale abandonment of Medicare patients. The legislation will ensure physicians receive a 3-percent increase in payments over the next 2 years. However, this is not nearly enough to protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to quality health care providers. And, the bill actually complicates problems that oncologists face in getting adequate reimbursement for crucial cancer drugs and obstacles confronting patients who need access to inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Despite the coverage limits and other shortfalls, the cost of the legislation is spectacular--projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to exceed $2 trillion over 10 years. At the same time, homeland security and recent tax cuts have already forced dramatic increases in the Federal deficit, now almost $400 billion. That is a shocking number, especially when you consider that just three years ago, the budget was boasting a healthy surplus.

Moreover, many fear this new law could lead down a dangerous road toward privatization of Medicare and even Social Security. We saw a similar experiment fail dramatically with Medicare+Choice several years ago, when HMOs and other providers dropped out of the system as soon as costs escalated--leaving seniors to fend for themselves. This new law poses similar risks.

It breaks my heart that the Congress could not achieve real Medicare reform that addressed prescription drug costs. As I look back on my four House terms, very few votes stand out as genuinely historic in consequence. Along with Presidential impeachment and the Iraq war resolution, the vote on this bill is such a watershed moment. The White House achieved this ``victory'' by deluding seniors about the impending relief--in the process, jeopardizing hope of genuine reform in the foreseeable future.

As the House reconvenes, I will resume my work with colleagues on both sides of the partisan aisle to address problems with the new law. Older Americans have raised their voices effectively in the legislative arena before. In 1989, a deeply flawed catastrophic benefits bill was repealed. Almost a decade ago, we struggled successfully to restore Medicare cuts that savaged home health care locally and across the Nation. This time, we can expect a steep uphill battle. In his State of the Union address this week, the President vowed to veto any amendments to the new Medicare law. To amend even the most egregious provisions of this bill will require every ounce of outrage we can collectively muster. As cochair of the Older Americans Caucus, a bipartisan group of colleagues focused on issues of particular significance to seniors, please count on my continued and vigorous commitment. I am already working with key House colleagues on specific legislation to repeal the new law's barriers to drug reimportation and negotiated discounts.

Mr. Speaker, In a recent speech, the President described democracy as when ``governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.''

Well, Well.

For the past four years, the House has voted to end the ban on travel by Americans to Cuba. This year, the Senate overwhelmingly supported an identical provision.

But it's not in the bill before us now.

The President wants to keep the embargo intact, and believes that respecting the right of Americans to travel to Cuba would be a concession to Castro. A majority in both the House and Senate disagree. Our fundamental rights as Americans should never be viewed as a bargaining chip.

When the Congress clashes with the White House, the President can do what he threatened to do: veto the bill. Sadly, his agents in Congress took a more cowardly path.

Quietly and secretly, they took the conference report and had the provision erased. No debate. No vote. No democracy. All so the President doesn't have to decide whether to fulfill or break his promises to veto the bill.

Recently, during his visit to Britain, the President said that democratic governments honor the aspirations and dignity of their own people. I submit that the best place to lead by example is in this Capitol building.

This is now bigger than the Cuba debate. This is about the fundamental credibility of the legislative branch of our government.

If the outcome is predetermined by the White House, no matter how many rules get broken in the process, then let's suspend the sermons on democracy. If the fix is in, let's stop pretending.

Senator Hagel has said the White House treats Congress like a nuisance. I ask my colleagues, is that all we are?

If this institution is to be more than a mere nuisance, then allow democracy to work. Here. And now. When the Congress votes to end the Cuba travel ban, send the provision to the President. And let the system work as the founding fathers intended.

That would show what democracy is really all about.