Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am here, and I anticipate being joined by several Members, to discuss the issues that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) was discussing, the gentleman, who commands great respect in this body and one who clearly possesses a profound knowledge of international relationships, and at the same time provides a perspective and an analysis that should be instructive and informative to all Americans. I think he had 23 points. I do not know whether he has any additional points he wishes to make, but if he does, I would be happy to yield to him.

It would appear that he does not. But again, let me acknowledge his contribution to the debate.

Myself and my colleagues for some weeks now, I think, on more than 20 occasions during the course of the time that is reserved after legislative business is concluded, the so-called ``special orders'' time, have come to the floor and we have labeled this particular initiative, the Iraq Watch. And, hopefully, we have had among us a conversation that has been both informative for the audience, as well as educational for the Members of the House in terms of this issue that, clearly, has a huge impact on the American people, both in terms of lives and the safety of our military personnel in Iraq, but also clearly in terms of our economy.

It is ironic that it was the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) as I said, a very respected member of the Republican Party, who just left the floor, who spoke I believe so eloquently, and I daresay that I share many of the concerns and would agree with much of what he said. But having said that, recently in his home State, Iowa, there was an advertisement on behalf of the Bush Presidential Campaign; and I understand it was paid for by the Republican National Committee. It was titled ``Reality'' and it was a 30-second clip. There were some comments by the President, and I understand there were some snippets of speeches that the President had made regarding Iraq specifically and presumably the war on terrorists.

There was also an announcer, a voice overlay, if you will, not an individual who appeared on the ad, but someone who would comment after the snippet of the President was viewed by the audience. And what the announcer said caused me to be disturbed, because the announcer said, and I am quoting from that snippet, ``Some now are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.''

The announcer then went on to say that, ``Some called for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.'' And then the announcer instructed, ``Call Congress now.''

I am confused, because during the entire debate, not just regarding Iraq, not just regarding Afghanistan, but all of the debate subsequent to September 11, I never heard from a single Member on either side of the aisle that we should retreat and put our national security in the hands of others.

That simply was untrue. That ad was not misleading; it was an untruth.

Now, have many of us questioned the policy regarding Iraq, regarding the war on terror? Well, yes. An unequivocal yes. And as I said, ironically, we heard this earlier this evening from the preceding speaker, a well-regarded, well-respected, thoughtful member of the House Committee on International Relations who happens to be a subcommittee chair and one who voted against the resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. He certainly is not calling for any retreat, and neither am I, and neither is any Democrat.

But, again, I know many of us on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, are concerned about the competence and what we see as a policy that is failing, which will translate not into a retreat but a defeat in terms of the war on terror. I understand that that particular 30-second ad is no longer running. Well, that is good. The questions that are being posed to the President and to his administration are not just coming from Democrats. The displeasure, the disappointment, the criticism, the concern is not coming from Democrats. It is a view that is shared by many.

Now, many Americans, clearly many in this Chamber, remember the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Newt Gingrich. And clearly many Americans are familiar with the junior Senator from New York, the former First Lady, the wife of the former President, Bill Clinton. And all of us know that it would be a rare moment where they would agree on anything. Well, they happen to agree on the policy of this administration when it comes to Iraq, because yesterday it was the former House Speaker on a Sunday TV magazine program who stated that the Bush administration has gone, and I am quoting Newt Gingrich, ``Off the cliff in postwar Iraq, and the White House has to get a grip on this.''

These are not my words; these are the words of the former Speaker of the House, the former leader of the Republican Party in this House, Mr. Newt Gingrich, that often sat, Mr. Speaker, in the same chair that you are now sitting in presiding over this House. Well, on this particular occasion, Senator Clinton said she agreed with Mr. Gingrich. She blamed the administration for miscalculating and inept planning in Iraq.

But those two are not alone.

I yield to my good friend and a member of the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

From either the Republican side or the Democratic side.

And, Mr. Speaker, who happened to be a decorated hero, a military hero; someone who fought for his country with great bravery and valor. That is the kind of individual that my colleague is talking about.

And, Mr. Speaker, the best evidence of that are the recent attacks both in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, one of our erstwhile allies in the region, who has been supportive of the United States in the war on terror, who has been supportive of our natural ally in the State of Israel. And what we are beginning to see is the spread of terrorism far from just Iraq, but everywhere around the world.

However, others, again from both parties, have articulated a criticism. Chuck Hagel, another veteran, someone who has experienced combat in Vietnam, a highly regarded, well-respected Senator, made this statement back in September, again on a national TV program. In response to the question, ``Did the administration miscalculate the difficulty of this war?,'' this is what Senator Hagel said: ``Yes, they did miscalculate it. I think they

did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated most in the Congress like a nuisance when we asked questions.''

Well, I think it is incumbent upon the President of the United States to respond to the questions that the people's representatives in both branches of Congress pose, because it is the people of the United States that are losing their sons and daughters in Iraq. To date we have already appropriated in excess of $165 billion that will be paid for by future generations. And what do we see? We see a deteriorating situation.

I am aware of the gentleman's expertise in terms of issues involving national security. I do not know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to read just recently the fact that we are now, for the next 6 months, under the benchmark in terms of readiness as far as our Army is concerned. And yet we have members of the administration, an Under Secretary of State and others, such as Richard Perle, who is the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, insinuating that if Syria does not get its act together, they might be the next one subject to a military intervention by the United States.

But having said that, I just want to go again back so that those who are listening are aware that that ad attacking Congress, and presumably Democrats, is just simply untrue.

This is the same Richard Perle, my friend, who was the former chair but then resigned because of concerns about conflict of interest.

Who, in many respects, was the single most ardent supporter of a leading member of the Iraqi Governing Council, whose name is Ahmed Chalabi. And I do not know how this happened, but he was appointed by the administration to the Iraqi Governing Council without any consultation with another of our allies in the region, the Government of Jordan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman is aware of this, but I daresay many who might be watching this are unaware of it, but Mr. Chalabi was convicted in Jordan for embezzlement in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars.

He was sentenced in absentia, and received a sentence of 22 years. He is a convicted felon. Again, I do not want to get into issues that I think we both agree do not really go to the heart of our policy but reflect the failures of the management of the so-called war against terror.

The question is, I dare say, who is in charge? For me, it was an interesting Sunday morning when I listened to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, again another highly-respected Republican with considerable experience in terms of foreign relations, along with the senior Democrat on the committee, Senator Joe Biden. When Senator Biden made the statement that the President should take charge, and Tim Russet, who happened to be the moderator, asked whether that was good and necessary advice, Senator Lugar, the Republican Senator from the State of Indiana who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said yes, it is, it is very necessary. I concur with my colleague, the President has to be the President, that means the President over the Vice President and other Secretaries. Lugar had just had enough of the administration's divided voices, especially the Vice President's which he described, when referring to the Vice President, ``very, very tough and strident.''

To put out an ad in Iowa during a Presidential Campaign suggesting it was either the Democrats or Congress that wanted to retreat on the war on terror, no, that is not the case. None of us want to retreat, we want to win, we do not want to lose, and we are looking at defeat right now.

Many that are watching here tonight clearly are familiar with Senator McCain who served this country heroically and courageously in Vietnam as a pilot, who served for many years as a prisoner of war, and he criticized, as reported in USA Today, just about a month ago, McCain criticized the Bush Administration conduct of the Iraq war yesterday, saying the U.S. should send at least 15,000 more troops, or risk the most significant global defeat on the world stage since Vietnam. McCain said Bush must be more involved in Iraqi decisionmaking and not be influenced by the upcoming Presidential campaign. McCain also challenged the Rumsfeld assertion that the 132,000 American troops in Iraq can defeat the insurgency in the country. This is again Senator McCain's words, ``The simple truth is we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, let us remember for a moment this it was practically a unanimous vote with one exception, over 400 Members of this House voted to support, the gentleman

and I included, to support the intervention in Afghanistan because, clearly, there was a haven for the terrorists there. There were al Qaeda camps there. There was al Qaeda training there. But now let us stop for a moment and examine what has happened in Afghanistan. What has happened in Afghanistan, if this administration is really serious about the war on terror, we are facing a crisis in Afghanistan. They have the responsibility.

I do not know if the gentleman is aware, but after the overwhelming victory by the military in Afghanistan, in the 2003 budget the dollars that were appropriated or recommended by the administration for reconstruction and support for Afghanistan amounted to nothing, not a single dollar.

Fortunately, this House and this Senate appropriated some $800 million. But stop for a moment and realize that those that attacked the United States on 9/11, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, those terrorists that were clearly posing an imminent and direct threat to Americans everywhere, and still do, are multiplying like fishes and loaves, were headquartered in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban regime. It has been 2 years, and what is happening in Afghanistan?

And the American people should know that the Taliban and al Qaeda are experiencing a resurgence in the border area of Afghanistan with Pakistan. They are coming back. We are on the verge of losing the war against terror. We are not retreating, but we are finding ourselves on the verge of losing.

And yet months ago the White House was attempting to call Afghanistan a success stories; but they failed to commit the necessary resources, and now we have a chaotic and increasingly dangerous country where violence is the norm, where the Taliban is returning, and one can only see that we are on the verge of repeating the same mistake in Iraq. Can Members just imagine in terms of the prestige and the influence of the United States, not just in that region but all over the Muslim world, as well as the entire globe, what would happen in terms of the erosion of our stature.

There was a very good analytical piece done by a columnist by the name of Jake Kaplan, and I want to quote what he said 4 or 5 months ago. ``As we reconsider reconstruction plans in Iraq and the administration promises to democratize the country, it is worth taking a look at our liberalization of Afghanistan. A year later, many of the atrocities we thought would stop still continue, and even Bush's allies in the Senate on Afghanistan think we have undercommitted to efforts that could truly change that country for the better. 'Afghanistan's experience does not bode very well for the upcoming one,' said Steven Burke of the Center for International Conflict Resolution, who just returned from 16 days in Afghanistan in early March. It is a country that needs attention and commitment, but there is an inclination to withdraw.''

And there is an ad that says that Congress is retreating? Who are these people that are retreating from the war on terror? And yet no dollars in the 2003 budget submitted by the administration were incorporated into that budget for Afghanistan, and that ad runs? That is more than an untruth.

And come to the streets and the communities and the neighborhoods in this country. There is one statistic the gentleman might be interested in. Since our intervention 2 years ago in Afghanistan, opium production has increased 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin. Who is retreating? I want to win, and I know you want to win. That opium production will fuel terrorism. By the way, President Karzai, whom I believe is a man of great courage, it is well known among all the international observers and participants in the efforts to assist Afghanistan that he cannot leave Kabul for fear of being assassinated. His brother, who represents the government in southern Kandahar, which is a province in Afghanistan, was very blunt to a reporter. He said recently, ``It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem. What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. There have been no significant changes for the people.'' Hamid Karzai says he does not know what to say to people anymore. And who is retreating? Who is allowing terrorism to experience a renaissance, if you will, in Afghanistan, after the promises were made by this administration?

Again, I do not want those that might be watching us this evening having this conversation to think that simply because you and I are Democrats that there are not concerns that have been expressed by Members in the majority party. There

was an article that appeared in a magazine that circulates here in Washington particularly among Members and those that work on Capitol Hill. This is back several weeks ago in Roll Call. The article is entitled, ``As Supplemental Heads to Conference, Members Warn of Cautionary Tale in Afghanistan.'' Members are using the war-torn nation as an example of what not to do in Iraq. ``Remember, Afghanistan was the haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda,'' I am quoting now from Representative Jim Kolbe, chair of the Appropriations Committee in this body on foreign relations. He said there has been some neglect of it. He was referring to the 2-year U.S. effort to rebuild Afghanistan after toppling its repressive and terrorist-shielding Taliban government.

Representative Lewis, our colleague from California who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on defense, said, ``One really does need to understand the challenges we face in Iraq. We should not leave vacuums like we did in Afghanistan. A failed state there could be an incubator for terrorism again but the resources have not always followed the policy.'' Again, there is Senator Lugar.

It is called winning the hearts and minds of the people, I presume.

And they made the same, and continue to make the same, mistake in Afghanistan. After more than 18 months now, only about 7,000 troops have completed training under British and French and American officers. That program has been delayed by desertions and political interference from Afghan warlords. At this point in time, it was estimated there would be 50 or 60,000 in the Afghan police and in the Afghan military. And they expect that they are going to have in June a national election. If they have a national election, one can only imagine the magnitude of violence that will occur.

We are losing the war on terror, Mr. President. We are not retreating. What we are imploring you to do is to consult with Congress. Do not consider Congress as a nuisance. Listen to the Jim Leaches, to the Chuck Hagels, to the John McCains, and to others that have valuable insights in terms of what war is truly about and, most importantly, how to make peace and protect the Americans and our national security interests, and tell the RNC to take that ad off, because it is a lie. It is not just an untruth.

What is refreshing is within the past 2 or 3 weeks there has been some candor on the part of representatives of the administration. In a recent story in the Washington Post back on November 19, the new U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan made this acknowledgment: He gave the administration's bleakest assessment yet of security conditions in Afghanistan, saying that a regrouping of the Taliban and al Qaeda, increased drug trafficking, and even common criminals are hampering Karsai in the transition to democracy. Taliban rebels have dramatically stepped up operations in recent months, and Khalilzad, who is our Ambassador, said, ``Common criminals and al Qaeda followers are increasingly active.''

Just be honest with the American people. Do not talk about Congress not supporting the war on terror or Democrats not supporting the war on terror or selected Republicans not supporting the war on terror. Every American has an interest in defeating those that would attack this country. Do not question motives. Do not question people's patriotism. Do not question the effort to create a policy. Many of us including myself and the gentleman from Hawaii opposed American intervention in Iraq, and I stand by that decision proudly. But now that we are there, do not politicize the efforts that are being made to deal with these egregious conditions in Iraq and in Afghanistan when this administration has made promises to those people and to the American people and are not living up to them.

What I found fascinating was a secret memo, a secret memorandum, that was authored by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was widely known or at least widely believed to be an ardent hawk about military intervention; who, along with the Vice President and Under Secretary Wolfowitz, told the American people that our military personnel would be greeted with flowers and bands and welcomed as liberators. But now the reality has set in. And in a secret memorandum, Secretary Rumsfeld is expressing concerns about whether we are winning the war on terrorism, and he posed two interesting questions in this secret memorandum that was leaked so the American people could find out what was going on in terms of the administration's honest assessment. ``Are we winning or losing the global war on terror?'' was one of the questions. And ``Is our current situation such that the harder we work, the behinder we get?''

It is indeed unfortunate that politics would be allowed to play a role in decisions where not just America tax dollars of a magnitude that will clearly at a point in our future become a drag on our economy because we are borrowing those dollars, remember, and the grant we gave them, we are not going to get it back. But even more importantly, our men and women find themselves at risk in terms of their personal safety every day. This is not a place for politics. This is not a place for attack ads. And I dare say that if that is the strategy that is being designed by the President's political advisor, it will backfire, because the American people, they get it. They really get it.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, they still cannot find the weapons of mass destruction. And, by the way, I do not know if the American people are aware of this, but it has cost and will cost the American taxpayer simply to look, to secure the experts, secure the expertise, to look for these weapons of mass destruction, which by now there is an overwhelming consensus that they do not exist and that they never existed. It is costing the American taxpayers $1 billion. Just think of what $1 billion could do for Hawaii or for Massachusetts. I mean, I guess, that is a subject for another night.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and I anticipate that another colleague of ours, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), will also be here. We are here tonight to discuss the situation, the mess, if you will, that unfortunately we find ourselves mired in, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan.

But before we proceed, I think, in response to what I heard from Dr. Phil, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my dear friend, I think we should warn the seniors that if this bill passes tomorrow, they better stay healthy because that prescription drug benefit will not take effect this year, it will not take effect in 2004, nor will it take effect in 2005. So make sure that if you are unhealthy, you go visit your State services; see if there is a program at the State level that can get you through to 2006. Because when you go to your druggist in the next several months or in 2004 and 2005, they are going to tell you, sorry, sorry, you do not have the benefit. And we hope that you do have the benefit in 2006, but, of course, if the Republican leadership and the White House continue to pass large, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, maybe you will not even have it then.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt, I think that is not only damning, but diminishes the prestige of the United States in terms of the world. There was a French man by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville that years ago as he was traveling through our Nation, our country, made the observation that America is great because America is good. And implicit in that observation is the acknowledgment that the United States respects the rule of law. If we do not have the rule of law, we have a jungle. And just imagine in this time where weapons of mass destruction are a threat to every human being, we just abrogate conventions, treaties, and ignore it is a national law. To me that is a profoundly damning statement.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be very clear it was not this Nation, hopefully not even our President. But it was some within the administration that had a plan, a plan that would bring democracy, if you will, to the Middle East. And therefore, in the aftermath of 9/11, they were looking for a rationale that would somehow create a situation where the United States would intervene militarily in Iraq. That is, at least, my opinion. And I know that is shared by others.

Let me just say this, I think all of us voted to intervene militarily in Afghanistan. And I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) did because we did have a right to intervene militarily there. We knew that al Qaeda had found a safe haven provided for bit extremist Taliban government. We had every right. Unfortunately, because of the impetus to intervene in Iraq and the decision to intervene militarily in Iraq, we now find ourselves with a real mess, parts of that $87 billion mess in Iraq. And the comments from both sides of the aisle, from people like Senator Hagel, Senator Lugar, people such as the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and others respected, deplore and have articulated their profound concern about the fact that Afghanistan, where we should be with substantial force, is on the verge of once again becoming a failed state.

When the question is posed, did we ever win the war on terror, I fear that the answer will be we won it and then we lost it in Afghanistan. And I would request or ask my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) if he wishes to comment.

Mr. Speaker, I have some very bad news for the gentleman then. If we accept the idea or the conclusion that he is gone, because Ahmed Chalabi is not gone. There was a report today in the New York Times, and let me vote quote the relevant portion.

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from today's New York Times regarding this new temporary, tentative, possible plan.

Another possibility some in the administration say is that Iraq could evolve towards a political compromise forced by the exile Ahmed Chalabi, Chalabi might manage to stitch together pro-Iranian groups, Kurds and others into a government, a top administration official predicted recently that in that event Mr. Chalabi, who set up an office for his opposition group in Tehran before the American invasion of Iraq, could become the first prime minister.

Well, I guess the question is, who is Ahmed Chalabi? Well, to go back to the comments that the gentleman made earlier regarding Mr. Perle, he and Mr. Perle are very close, are allied together. They have had a long relationship. Mr. Perle some believe is the, if you will, the author or the architect of this policy, described Mr. Chalabi in the most effusive of terms, as if he

were going to be the George Washington of Iraq.

What the American people are unaware of, however, is that Mr. Chalabi fled Iraq, went to Jordan, got into the banking business, and was convicted of the crime of embezzling some $70 million.

Now, I am not particularly conversant with the Jordanian legal system, but I know this, that Mr. Chalabi has a sentence hanging over his head from a Jordanian court of some 22 years.

Now, our relationship with Jordan has been a positive one, and we see some incipient signs of democracy there. When King Abdallah came here, I inquired of him, Were you ever consulted by the Department of State or anyone in the White House about the appointment of this convicted felon according to Jordanian law in terms of his appointment to the Iraqi governing council? And he said, No, Mr. Congressman, I was not.

What a great way to create good will among our allies in the war against terrorism. Who is Ahmed Chalabi? And top administration is suggesting that he might be the next prime minister when he has absolutely no support among the Iraqi people, none at all. He lived in London after he fled Jordan for decades.

I am really concerned about the mess we are in.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and thank him for his input. I think he goes to the issue of credibility.

Recently, there was a report by a conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, that said case closed. They established a memorandum that was leaked. Somehow, in their calculation, it was conclusive as to links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) circulated a memorandum to all of us here in the House with a statement from the Department of Defense. If the gentleman wants to give us a synopsis, I would be fascinated, and I hope those who are listening would pay attention.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the White House for finally being honest with the American people as it relates to Afghanistan. Again, from this week, Wednesday, November 19, the new ambassador to Afghanistan, Ambassador Kahlizad, gave the administration's bleakest assessment yet of security conditions in Afghanistan, saying that a regrouping of the Taliban and al Qaeda, increased drug trafficking and even common criminals are hampering President Karzai and the transition to democracy. Taliban rebels have dramatically stepped up operations in recent months and, the ambassador said, common criminals and al Qaeda followers are increasingly active. This is most disturbing news.

There was an interesting and, again, unfortunate story coming from the United Nations. This week reported in the New York Times, the United Nations refugee agency announced Tuesday that it was temporarily pulling 30 foreign staff members out of large areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan and closing refugee reception centers in four provinces, officials said. The suspension of operations comes after three attacks on the United Nations offices and staff members in the last week by suspected Taliban fighters.

We never finished the job in Afghanistan.

The gentleman is absolutely right.

To think that our military, as it has in Iraq, performed so professionally and admirably in Afghanistan, and now we are on the verge of seeing Afghanistan becoming a failed state.

Nicolas Kristoff, a columnist in the New York Times, says, and again it is this week, in the 2 years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production, and he has given us three choices, virtually been eliminated, declined 30 percent, soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin. That is what is happening in Afghanistan today.

In two provinces that are religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school has quintupled, has risen 40 percent, has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all the schools there. The right answer is the last one.

This is truly potentially a disaster. President Karzai's brother, Ahmed Karzai, who represents the government in one of the southern provinces, was very blunt to an AP reporter this past Monday: it is like I am seeing the same movie twice, and no one is trying to fix the problem. What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. Those are the words of President Bush, but what was delivered, nothing. There had been no significant changes for people. Karzai says he does not know what to say to people anymore.

We better pay attention to Afghanistan because with the focus now on Iraq, the media is taking the glare of the cameras away from a totally, potentially disastrous situation. They are scheduled to have elections in Afghanistan next June. It is estimated that the need would be for 70,000 police security forces. Does my colleague know how many have been trained? Does the gentleman know how many have been trained? Seven thousand, 7,000. This is, again, a potential foreign policy disaster, not just for this President but for this country.

With that, if the gentleman has anything further to say.

Twenty-six people died today in Turkey, the victims of an act of terrorism. Some 400 were wounded. In the northern part of Iraq, not in the so-called Sunni Triangle, 12 died as a result of acts of terrorism in northern Iraq.

We are in a mess. Let us get our act together. Let us support our President, but let us do it in consultation and make sure that America can continue to be proud and claim that it is great because it is good and it has a moral compass.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we note as a matter of record that where the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) indicated there were two Democrats that were present at the conference, and the gentlewoman I understand served on that conference. The gentlewoman is aware that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were appointed by the leadership to serve in that conference and were denied access.

There was no input from the Democratic Party in this House into this particular conference.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New England for his leadership in this very important issue. He certainly has inherited a legacy from his father, and those of us from Massachusetts are proud not only of our senior Senator but his son, his youngest son.

As cochair of the House Older Americans Caucus, along with, of course, the chairman of the committee who has established a reputation for compassion and for concern for the elderly in this country, I too rise in strong support of this motion because I share their belief that Congress must fund senior nutrition programs at the highest levels authorized by the Older Americans Act. The conferees should support the funding levels set forth in the House conference report.

First, the health of our seniors depends on full funding of nutrition programs. It has been clearly established in study after study that poor eating habits can lead to serious medical problems for aging adults, including the early onset of chronic diseases that inevitably escalate the cost of health care here in this country. Frail and homebound adults benefit enormously from the prepared meals supplied by organizations such as Meals on Wheels. Indeed, that one meal can provide half of their total nutritional requirements for the day. That fact is truly significant when one considers that nearly 3 million seniors benefitted from nutritional programs and services last year.

In my home State of Massachusetts, over 50,000 seniors rely on congregate and home-delivered meals each year, as well as the nutritional screenings and counseling authorized by the legislation. Accordingly, the programs that we are talking about deliver, literally, on our goal to meet the nutritional needs of older Americans.

Secondly, our commitment to provide the highest level of funding for these activities makes sense economically and produces substantial savings to the American taxpayer. Through these investments we are saving costs in the long term, as I alluded to earlier, along with the references by those who spoke previously. With home meal delivery, seniors can live independently for longer periods. Furthermore, studies show that these services also prevent costly hospitalizations resulting from nutritional deficiencies and social isolation. That translates into a substantial savings to the American taxpayer.

Third, I believe, as others have suggested, that the intangible aspects of these programs provide an incredible benefit to our communities and enhance a sense of community, not only to those that receive directly these benefits, but to those who provide them. For some individuals, the volunteer knocking at their door may be the only visitor of the day. So in simple human terms, we cannot underestimate the value that this single interaction may have for an elderly person, many of whom are female, many of whom are widowed, many of whom live alone. And it should not go unstated that tragically in this country, many of our seniors, a disproportionate share of our seniors when compared to the rest of the population, suffer from chronic depression. So let me suggest that this is a point where government and compassionate conservatism should intercept.

Finally, I would like to commend all those who volunteer to keep these programs running. In my district, many of these individuals are themselves active seniors. For all these reasons, I strongly support these neighborhood organizations working to strengthen the connection between seniors and their communities. So in recognition of their hard work, as well as the needs of elderly Americans, I urge the conferees to adopt the House language that was crafted by the gentleman from Ohio and fund senior nutrition programs at the highest level. And, again, let me applaud the great work of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), Massachusetts and Rhode Island's native son.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I really want to applaud the gentleman for his work, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), on the reimportation of drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and then restate the question that I was going to ask to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I think it is important that the seniors in this country who happen to be viewing us tonight understand that next year, when they go to their local pharmacist and present their Medicare card, will they get a drug benefit under this particular proposal?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield to me, seniors better live to 2006. They do not want to get sick in 2003 or 2004 or 2005.

Now, I look at my two colleagues from the other side of the aisle, and I think we can all agree that next year, 2004, happens to be an election year. Is that an accurate statement?

If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) are both here, so let me just emphasize this. One of the great bipartisan efforts that this House has witnessed since I have served in this Congress is under the leadership of both of those gentlemen, along with yourself, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), and other Democrats when we got through this Chamber against the forces of the pharmaceutical industry. And it was a shock for everyone, the right of Americans to reimport drugs from Canada. And so they deserve credit along with those who worked very hard to get it accomplished.

But can the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) tell me, is there anything in this bill that will be coming to the floor this week that allows for reimportation? And if it does, is it real and tangible, something, as the gentleman from New Jersey indicates, which will allow for real competition? Because you know and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) knows and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) knows, they purchase their drugs significantly cheaper in Canada than our folks do here.

So there is no reimportation under this bill. That is important.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment, what is happening here is competition is being precluded by this bill and huge amounts of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, are being given to the pharmaceutical industry. That is what this bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the gentleman's expertise. There is no one in this institution that has the depth of knowledge on the subject than the gentleman, and is certainly someone who is highly respected and regarded on this side of the aisle.

During the course of the debate, there has been much attention given to the so-called safety issue. I do not know whether you have this, but can you inform me and my other colleagues and those that might be watching in terms of those in Canada or those Americans who have purchased pharmaceuticals from Canada, what are the numbers, how many fatalities are there, how many reported problems attendant to safety have actually occurred?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is good to be here with my colleague tonight and share a few observations regarding this situation in Iraq. Also, I think at some point in time, I think it is necessary to present some information to the American people and to those who are listening here tonight relative to what is transpiring in Afghanistan.

I think to sum up what the gentleman said, one only has to look at the cover of the November 3 edition of Newsweek magazine, and it is entitled, ``Bush's $87 Billion Mess. Waste, Chaos, and Cronyism. The Real Cost of Rebuilding Iraq.''

It has become a matter of concern, as the gentleman well knows, not only to Members on this side of the aisle, Democrats, but clearly to our colleagues on the Republican side, particularly in the United States Senate, because if there is any term that best characterizes what is occurring, it is chaos.

Mr. Speaker, in our previous efforts in terms of Iraq Watch, we discussed the lack of post-major combat phase planning. And again, that opinion was shared by many, most specifically, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar who, in fact, had written an article that I thought was very incisive and appeared in the Washington Post. But not only do we not have a plan, but the plan seems to change almost on a daily basis.

If my colleagues remember, I think it was, in fact, a colleague of ours here in the House, a senior Republican Member of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), highly-regarded and well-respected by all Members, who implored the President to establish, once and for all, who is in charge of whatever plan may or may not exist out there. Initially, Jay Garner, a former general, was dispatched to Iraq to work with Iraqis that were favorably disposed to the United States to begin the process of rebuilding. And, after a relatively short period of time, there was a change there. And L. Paul Bremer became, if you will, the viceroy of Iraq. Mr. Bremer indicated that his boss to whom he reported directly was the Secretary of Defense Mr. Rumsfeld. Yet, several months thereafter, there was an announcement from the White House that in fact it was the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who was vested with the responsibility of coordinating the plan for Iraq. Of course, recently we learn that Mr.

Bremer, because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, either reached out or was summonsed by the White House for a special meeting directly with the President.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that there be one individual that can be held accountable, other than the President, for the shaping of this policy that means so much to the American people with our sons and daughters tragically dying there on an all-too-frequent basis, and to the American taxpayers who were asked by this White House to appropriate some $87 billion on top of the $79 billion that we have already spent in Iraq to create security in Iraq and to rebuild Iraq, if you will, to reconstruct Iraq. Many of us on this side of the aisle were adamantly opposed, primarily based on the fact that this money was not in the form of a loan, but was a gift to Iraq, a nation with incredible resources, some of the largest reserves in terms of energy anywhere in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. And hopefully, at some time in the not-too-distant future, would clearly be able to repay the American taxpayers for the sacrifices that they are making now while we are dealing with these burgeoning deficits that will at some point in time be a severe drag on our economy.

But not only do we have a confusion in terms of who is in charge, but we have had a series of different plans. It would appear now that the most recent plan is what I would describe as the French plan, the plan that France suggested would be the most fruitful initiative in terms of bringing stability and rebuilding Iraq. I find that rather ironic, given our recent rather divisive relationship with France.

Mr. Speaker, maybe this was a hot french fries plan; I honestly do not know.

I notice we have been joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), our friend, who is also a member of our Iraq Watch group. But I think what is difficult to accept is that what we have now achieved is the expenditure of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money. Of course, the White House made note of the fact that there were other international donors in a conference in Madrid. But what I thought was particularly noticeable in Madrid was that not a single donor there, with the exception of the Japanese, provided gifts, outright grants like this institution did and like this White House did, but no, they decided they would loan the money so that their people would be repaid rather than our people who are carrying the entire burden.

But here we are, we have suffered, and let us be very candid and frank: We have suffered a loss of prestige all over the world. One only has to turn to nightly news shows. Leading the news now are the preparations in Great Britain for the visit of our President, President Bush who, according to the most recent polls is viewed negatively by our ally, the English people, by 60 percent. Sixty percent of the English people disapprove of President Bush. Whether one is a Democrat or whether one is a Republican, that is painful to us. That is painful to us. We do not wish our President to be viewed as negative by our ally. And recently during the course of a hearing on the Subcommittee on Latin America, data was put forward that 87 percent of our neighbors here in this hemisphere disapprove of our President. Again, that pains us all.

That pains us all.

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome our friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

And, Mr. Speaker, for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) yield for just a moment.

I met with families of Reservists and National Guard, military that are serving in Iraq currently. They have been trained as a transportation unit. They are now serving in a different role that exposes them to great danger. They are using their own equipment, trucks that have no armor protection, that are open, that leave these men and women on the back of what I would call a large pickup vehicle as a sitting target. These families were outraged. One actually had to go to a military hardware store, presumably, to purchase for their son a $900 kevlar suit because the parents simply could not sleep at night. And it cost that family $400 to send it via the United States Post Office.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, they would criticize those who ask those questions and instead put forth, if you will, a PR campaign to say what is right in Iraq. But it is time, I believe, to listen to the troops who give us insight. We all know, for example, because we travel abroad and oftentimes we visit our troops, that these trips are very carefully structured so that only those things the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense wants us to hear is provided us.

If I could just indulge my two friends for a moment. Back in mid- October there was a report in The Washington Post and it is entitled, ``Many Troops Dissatisfied, Iraq Poll Finds.'' A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient and said they do not plan to reenlist. Now, this was not a poll conducted by The Washington Post or the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times or the Boston Globe. It was a poll that was conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, a newspaper funded by our Pentagon, our Department of Defense.

The findings, if I can just go on, the findings drawn from 1,900 questionnaires presented to U.S. servicemembers throughout Iraq conflict with statements by military commanders and Bush administration officials that portray the deployed troops as highly spirited and generally well prepared. Though not obtained through scientific methods, the survey results indicate that prolonged tours in Iraq are wearing down a significant portion of the U.S. force and threatening to provoke a sizable exodus from military service. And yet the paper quotes General Sanchez, commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, saying in a September 9 interview for this particular series, ``There is no moral problem.''

Of course, as we know, the Bush administration has launched this campaign. But the Stars and Stripes, the military's paper, raised questions about what visiting dignitaries, such as us and our other colleagues who have visited Iraq, get to see. Let me quote again from the Stars and Stripes: ``Many soldiers, including several officers, allege that VIP visits from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill are only given hand-picked troops to meet with during their tours of Iraq,'' the newspaper said in its interview with General Sanchez.

The phrase ``dog and pony show'' is usually used. Some troops even go so far as to say they have been ordered not to talk to VIPs because leaders are afraid of what they might say.

Let me say it is about time for the unvarnished truth to be presented to the American people. And that is what we attempt to do during the course of this hour, of which we have had many.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I cannot agree more. Ironically, in this week's edition of Newsweek magazine, there is an article that I would commend to all of our colleagues here in the House and to the viewing audience here tonight. This is very important to read. As one can see, there is a picture of the Vice President on the cover. It is entitled, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War. Why He Fell for Bad Intelligence and Pitched It to the President.''

The Central Intelligence Agency, I daresay, made a solid effort from what information now appears to be back in the public domain. I think it is safe to conclude that key players led by the Vice President, supported by Secretary Rumsfeld, and Under Secretary Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary Fife, cherry-picked, if you will, those pieces of information that buttress their case and made unequivocal statement to the American people.

It is very fascinating when the American people and the United States Congress learn that there is a special covert group within the Department of Defense. And this is within the civilian leadership, called the Office for Special Plans that was running a parallel operation in terms of intelligence analysis. It was that group that was doing the cherry-picking. It was that group that got us into this war. They made unequivocal statements, like Secretary Rumsfeld, that those weapons of mass destruction, we know where they are. They are in Tikrit, in the west here and in the east here. And, of course, we have discovered after expending close to a billion dollars to just simply looking for them that they do not exist, much to our embarrassment and again our loss of prestige.

So I think it is important that those who attack the CIA often do it in a way that I think reveals their own political agenda. Again, demeaning the professionalism of the men and women that serve in the CIA is not the way to have a constructive debate about what we ought to occur, what we ought to be doing right now.

Again, this is a situation that is continuing today where a conclusion or an opinion or a predisposed policy is searching for facts.

Talking about the CIA, what prompted Paul Bremer to come to Washington, DC, was a new top secret CIA report from Iraq that growing numbers of Iraqis are concluding that the U.S.-led coalition can be defeated and a supporting the insurgents.

Again, I am quoting from a newspaper report, ``The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation in Iraq and cautions that the U.S.-led drive to rebuild a country as a democracy could collapse.''

The report's bleak tone and Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply with the upbeat public assessments that President Bush, his chief aids, and even Bremer are giving as part of an aggressive publicity campaign aimed at countering rising anxieties over increasing U.S. causalities in Iraq. Let us be honest with the American people. Remember in Vietnam what, I daresay, forced Lyndon Johnson to reassess his plans for reelection, was the fact that there was such a great divergence and disparity between the reality that was being presented to the American people and the reality on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is the culmination of many months of diligent bipartisan and bicameral efforts in the service of a common goal, which is to use all of the tools at our disposal to solve crimes and protect the innocent. As indicated by the chair of the committee, the bill consists of three titles. First, it authorizes $755 million for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in this Nation's crime laboratories which, I would submit, is bordering on disgraceful. I wish, at this point in time, to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their efforts to raise this issue and to see it incorporated in this omnibus bill today. Secondly, it authorizes grant programs to expand and improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses, reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. Finally, the bill includes the Innocence Protection Act, a measure which I introduced several years ago with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), which will help ensure Federal and State inmates access to DNA testing to establish their innocence and will authorize grants to the States to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the public in capital cases.

I would like to thank Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden and all our Senate colleagues for working with us to reach this milestone. I want to express my particular appreciation to Senator Leahy with whom the gentleman from Illinois and I first introduced the Innocence Protection Act some 3\1/2\ years ago and who has worked so hard to advance that legislation.

As with any compromise, the version of the Innocence Protection Act that is included in this bill is not all that I had wished for. But it is an important step forward, and I know that Senator Leahy shares my satisfaction with this achievement. Finally, I want to pay tribute to the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), without whose good faith and commitment this process would not have achieved this breakthrough, which I believe represents a remarkable achievement for the Committee on the Judiciary. Our staffs have worked closely together over the course of these months and both he and they deserve our gratitude. In particular, I want to thank the chief of staff of the committee, Phil Kiko, who has made a major personal commitment to this effort and has devoted countless hours to keeping the negotiations on track. I would be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution of my own legislative director, who sits to my right for the last time as this is his last day as a member of my staff. For me, it will be painful to see him leave. He is a man of considerable talent, incredible integrity, a friend and one whose efforts in this particular initiative have truly been prodigious.

The criminal justice system, Mr. Speaker, is about the search for the truth. Like all human enterprises, it is fallible. Judges, juries, police, eyewitnesses, defense attorneys and prosecutors are all human beings and all make mistakes. As a prosecutor for more than 20 years in the greater Boston area, I know that I made my share of them, but we have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error, especially where lives are at stake. We must use them, and especially where public safety is at stake, we must use them.

Debbie Smith, a courageous advocate who has done so much to help her fellow survivors of sexual assault and for whom title I of this bill is named, has said, ``It gives no comfort to the victims and their families to know that the wrong person is behind bars and the real perpetrator is free to walk the streets.''

Surely no person in America understands this better than Kirk Bloodsworth, for whom we have named another title of the bill. Mr. Bloodsworth was the first death-row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. Not only did DNA establish that he did not commit the terrible crime for which he was convicted, but only a few weeks ago from today, it brought about the identification of the true perpetrator.

Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth are both among the innocent whom we seek to protect. By eliminating the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs, the bill will help ensure that DNA technology is fully deployed to solve past crimes and prevent future ones. And by ensuring that eligible Federal and State inmates have access to postconviction testing that can establish their innocence, the bill will help correct wrongful convictions when they occur and will prompt in those cases renewed efforts to identify the real perpetrator, as it did in the case involving Kirk Bloodsworth.

No one knows whether innocent people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know there have been some very close calls, however. Since 1976, 111 people in 25 States have been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not commit. Some of them came within days or hours of being put to death. It was cases like these that have called respected, conservative judges like Sandra Day O'Connor to express concern that the system, and I quote: May be well allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.

I think the closing remarks of the chair relative to the position and the posture of those that support the death penalty ought to mark well the words of Sandra Day O'Connor when it comes to this particular legislation. Many of these miscarriages of justice can be corrected by giving eligible inmates access to DNA testing. DNA testing was responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from death row and another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. In at least 34 of these cases, the same tests that exonerated an innocent person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator. Yet access to testing often is litigated, sometimes for years, allowing the real perpetrator to continue to prey upon the neighborhoods and communities in this country. Evidence that might have

established innocence has been misplaced or destroyed. If we are to advance justice, we must ensure that biological material is preserved and DNA testing is made available in every appropriate case.

The bill takes a significant step toward achieving this goal by ensuring eligible inmates access to DNA testing and establishing the Kirk Bloodsworth Postconviction DNA Testing Program, which will help States defray those costs. But DNA is not a magic bullet that will eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. Biological evidence, which is utilized in DNA testing, is available in less than 20 percent of violent crimes. And even where such evidence exists, postconviction testing only tells us that the system failed. It does not prevent the failures from occurring in the future. The best way to do that is to make sure that every indigent defendant who is facing the death penalty has access to a competent attorney. I was a prosecutor, as I indicated, for over 20 years and I know the adversarial process can find the truth only when the prosecution and the defense are up to the job. Our system of justice depends on it. We cannot tolerate a system that leaves capital defendants at the mercy of lawyers who are poorly trained and poorly compensated who fail to conduct a proper investigation and examine the evidence, or, worse, who drink or sleep their way through the trial. The reality is that that has occurred in the courts of justice here in America. We cannot tolerate a system that relies on reporters and journalism students to develop new evidence which was never presented in court. We cannot tolerate a system in which chance, or the luck of the draw, plays such a profound role in determining whether a defendant lives or dies and a murderer escapes justice.

The bill addresses this problem by authorizing grants to the States to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the prosecution and the people in capital cases. Lawyers assigned by the court to these unpopular and unprofitable cases are often overworked, inexperienced and sometimes incompetent. It is little wonder that over half of all death sentences are overturned on appeal or after postconviction review because of the errors at trial.

Ultimately, however, this bill is not about the death penalty. It is not about DNA backups. It is about restoring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system as a whole, without which our Constitution and our democracy is put at risk. For the rule of law, due process and everything that we stand for incorporated in our justice system and in our jurisprudence is what sets America apart among the family of nations. That is a goal on which we stand united.

I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to see that this extremely important initiative is signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who along with the gentleman from Wisconsin has done such tremendous work.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and a leader on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), another author and a champion of the Debbie Smith Act and a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, someone whose input into this effort has been well- noted, and who has made a very significant contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; but I yield the balance of the time on this side of the aisle to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and a well-known crime fighter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I do want to associate myself with the remarks, the very eloquent remarks of the gentleman that preceded me, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). I think he caught something when he spoke about our values.

But let me speak just for a minute about an issue that was raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). We are told this must be grants, not loans. But as others have indicated, just a few months ago it was Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul

Wolfowitz who was telling us, telling the American people, that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction. I guess my question is: What happened? What has happened to change that particular dynamic?

I look forward to supporting the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from California, tomorrow. I would again want to congratulate the gentleman from California for indicating that this is not a partisan issue. It is not about Clinton, and it is not about Bush One and President Reagan; but when the gentleman served in the White House, this government supported Saddam Hussein and we provided billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to Saddam Hussein. Now we are talking about grants, about gifts; and we are asked not to question these numbers. But our own appointed Iraqi governing council tells us that they can do it much cheaper.

Just recently, there was a report in The Washington Post that said clearly and unequivocally, by a prominent member of that committee, and that sentiment is shared by those 25 members, that we can do it for 10 times less. For every billion dollars you spend, they say we will spend $100 million. We cannot in good conscience support this request.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I know he did serve in the course of the Reagan Presidency. I do believe, however, that one of the gravest mistakes that was made during the course of the 1980s right up until 1990 was this unholy, if you will, relationship that was formed with Saddam Hussein.

As the gentleman knows, it is the current Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was the special envoy to Saddam Hussein.

In 1982, and I have this discussion because I think it is important that the American people pay attention, because we all have to learn from errors that were made in the past. In 1982, Saddam Hussein was removed from the terrorist list. In 1986, the United States installed an embassy in Baghdad, and, over the course of time, right up until the invasion by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, but particularly during the Iraq- Iran war, we were providing intelligence, we were selling, or we allowed to be sold, dual-use technology, and I have a long list and I would commend my friend to go to a Congressional Research Service publication dated June 22, 1992.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I want to be clear. It was after the Iran-Iraq war had concluded, and it was not President Reagan, but it was President Bush that denied this Congress by threat of veto to impose sanctions on Iraq for the atrocities that were committed in Halabja, the gassing of some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis by Saddam Hussein.

The lesson, I would respectfully submit, that we should learn is that we have got to be careful with whom we lie and forge an alliance.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I think that is an excellent point that the gentleman makes, because we have heard a lot about the donors conference, and the gentleman uses a figure of $10 billion, which I would suggest is optimistic.

If he is unaware, he should know that the European Commission, which is the executive arm of the European Union, has already made its commitment. Now, obviously, individual countries will be asked to come and contribute. But does the gentleman know the figure that the European Union's executive arm, the European Commission, has made?

Madam Speaker, $230 million. So again, I do not think that we are going to realistically expect that a figure of $10 billion, which has been circulated about, is realistic. And I cannot agree with the gentleman more. Not only have we carried the burden of military presence in Iraq, but at this point in time, to just simply give the money away, without having it collateralized with future oil revenue, it just simply is unfair to the American taxpayer and to the American people. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a moment. I seek information. But what has gone unremarked during the course of this debate is that the American taxpayer has already, through our government, negotiated a loan to the government of Turkey for $8.5 billion. That is not part of this supplemental.

Now, we are loaning American dollars, hard earned American dollars, to Turkey for $8.5 billion. We are taking dollars from Americans and loaning them to Turkey and, of course, American taxpayers will be asked to pay the interest on that $8.5 million.

Madam Speaker, before the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) leaves, I want to convey to him my own confidence that there will be many Democrats, his colleagues on this side of the aisle, that will support the common sense amendment, the Rohrabacher amendment, rather than a give-away of American tax dollars.

There has to be an insistence that the funding provided in terms of the reconstruction phase is money that will be paid back with interest to the American people. Because he might be unaware, but this supplemental that is before us now, this $87 billion is not $87 billion. That is the principal. $87 billion. And it has been calculated by respected authorities, it will cost each year the American taxpayer some $4 billion in interest. So add that on, add that on to the $87 billion that we will be voting on tomorrow.

Now, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has done some work. Just that $4 billion, not the $87 billion that represents the principal, that means that, as I said, on a permanent basis we will be spending over $4 billion a year just to cover the interest payments that this supplemental will be required of us and future generations.

Madam Speaker, I think it is so important to understand that it has bipartisan support, and that we are working here tonight in a bipartisan fashion to represent the best interests of the American people.

The American people, as the gentleman has enumerated during the course of his remarks these past 45 minutes, are a generous people. But there comes a point in time, particularly as we look at a $500 billion deficit, that we have to say, enough is enough. Because generations of Americans will find that their economy will suffer because we know that the deficit and the debt becomes a drag on the economy. If there should be a recovery that is sustained, I fear that it will be short term.

I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him tomorrow.

That $4 billion a year, just on the interest payments, to put it in perspective, it is more than we currently spend each year on research for Alzheimer's disease, autism, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, and all forms of kidney diseases combined. Combined.

Where are our priorities? Where are our interests? What about those Americans that suffer from these dreadful, in some cases deadly, diseases?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to concur with my friend from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). I think the most egregious aspect of this war supplemental submission is the fact that American veterans have been left out. The gentleman indicated that not only are deductibles being raised, not only are co-payments being insisted upon for prescription drugs, but that a substantial number of veterans are now so-called priority 8 veterans, which means that they make over $24,000 a year and are denied access to the veterans health care system. That is unconscionable.

If we could just juxtapose these two pictures. As these young men and women get on an American naval vessel and go to war, the bands are playing, there is confetti, there are waves, there is our flag, there is our political leadership applauding them; and yet when they return and assume that honored title ``veteran,'' we disrespect them, dishonor them; and we have broken our promises to them again and again and again.

The most dishonored, disrespected group who deserves our ultimate gratitude in this country is the American veteran. And as the gentleman has so well put it, we are ignoring them. I do not know if anyone who has this information could vote for this supplemental, including this gift to Iraq, and not insist that the American veterans' health needs be met.

My colleague mentioned earlier about deductibles. I know the gentleman knows because of his service on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and because of his work with veterans all over this country, that there is a long waiting list to get an appointment in veterans health care centers, whether it be primary care or even veterans hospitals.

The civilian leadership.

Another member of the Iraq Watch. We are usually led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), but I am sure something has come up so we have a truncated version tonight, but I want to welcome the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Before I yield to him, I want my colleague to know that yesterday I met with families of a detachment of the Massachusetts National Guard who explained to me the concern that they

have for their husbands and their sons and daughters because of exactly what my colleague is saying. One mother went out and bought a Kevlar body armor piece for $900. I would think that anyone hearing us tonight is just simply incredulous that this is the case, and then had to pay, had to pay to have it shipped through the post office some $500, and my colleague is right. Do not ever tell anyone in this House that we do not support the troops.

When they come home, to honor them and to respect them and provide them with adequate health care coverage, and they are not receiving it now.

Let me suggest, those that speak of patriotism and indulge in rhetoric about America, they are not serving America, and they, in my opinion, are unpatriotic until they come before this House with the appropriate resources to fully fund veterans health care in America.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

And, Madam Speaker, he is certainly not asking the lobbyists on K Street to sacrifice. He is certainly not asking a select group of businesses in this country to sacrifice.

I found it particularly interesting that back on September 30, in an article in The Washington Post, it was announced that a group of businessmen, linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration, had set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects.

I am sure my colleagues are aware, but I guess this firm is headed by Joe

Albaugh, who happened to be Mr. Bush's campaign manager back in the year 2000 and served as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until last March. So one can only imagine that the $87 billion is not going to create jobs for Americans.

And I think our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), made a very good point. It is not even going to create jobs for Iraqis. It is going to create jobs that will benefit a very select few in our country.

But we can put it on the American people.

What has happened since March? Maybe one of my colleagues can inform us.

And, Madam Speaker, I think that is very important to understand. And for those that may be listening to us at this late hour, the vote tomorrow, or maybe early on Friday morning, will be on the entire package. Many of us have pressed the administration and the Republican leadership to allow separate votes. But as the gentleman from Ohio indicates, they refuse to do it because they know that, yes, the body would support the needs of American troops; and, therefore, they feel that the other monies, the monies that are going to be going to large multinational corporations to rebuild Iraq would be very much at risk.

That is a ploy, a stratagem that I daresay is again unconscionable. And for anybody to suggest that a vote against the $87 billion is a vote against supporting the troops is misleading the American people. We have had enough of misleading the American people. Let us really tell it as it is.

Let us remind our colleagues tomorrow during the course of the debate and the American people here tonight that there exists in Iraq a so-called governing council that Mr. Bremer himself in consultation with the White House and the leadership in the administration selected. There are 25 of them. They were handpicked by Mr. Bremer. These individuals came to Washington 3 or 4 weeks ago to say, cede us more authority or things are unraveling and, furthermore, you are spending money that you should not be spending. You are wasting American taxpayers' dollars.

Let me just give you one example. There was a cement factory somewhere in Iraq. The American estimates for rebuilding that cement factory and bringing it up to Western standards was $15 million. And somebody in the military, not in the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, but in the military said, I am going to make a decision and let the Iraqis build it. It is now up and running. The cost went from $15 million down to $80,000. $80,000. And they want a blank check. No, no, no, Madam Speaker, no blank checks anymore. No.

Like we did in World War II and in subsequent wars that this country has had to fight. Speaking of wars, much has been talked about the war on terrorism earlier during the course of the debate but I think it is important to remember and remind the American people that after Vice President Cheney made the statement on national TV that there possibly were some links between Saddam Hussein and September 11, the President finally came forward and stated unequivocally that there was no evidence whatsoever in supporting that link. I would also urge Democrats to seriously consider supporting the Rohrabacher amendment, a good, conservative Republican from the State of California, because he is right. It ought to be a loan, not a giveaway. Because America and America's future is riding on this. Because once we establish that as a precedent, and the gentleman from Ohio is right, they will be coming back looking for more and more and more money right out of the pockets of the American taxpayer.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, today we have a choice. Do we allow states to continue to determine the future of our coastal zones or do we allow the Federal government to manhandle local interests?

The issue at stake is the consistency provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) which was debated and passed by a bipartisan majority of Congress in 1990. ``Consistency'' dictates that Federal projects must be consistent with state management plans and is the heart of the CZMA.

Today this provision is under attack from those who want to use the energy bill to circumvent the legislative process and weaken the role of states. As discussed by my colleagues, energy bill conferees now seek to disregard the bipartisan compromise on consistency passed by the House and insert a new provision at the eleventh hour. This new measure would severely limit the ability of states to appeal a project in their coastal zone by curtailing the process and timeline by which states can challenge Federal decisions. Consistency is the tool that localities use to prevent the siting of inappropriate projects by the Federal government. Any attack on consistency is an attack on the power of the states. I'm sure the irony of Democrats being the ones to remind energy conferees on the importance of state input is not lost on my colleagues.

The battle over consistency is particularly relevant to my state of Massachusetts and to the area of Nantucket Sound which I am proud to represent. Some months ago, developers proposed building a 170-tower wind farm spanning 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound. This proposal set off a firestorm. Since then, issues of ocean governance and new policies for renewable energy in the marine environment have dominated our newspapers, our fishing piers and our town halls. I have opposed the Nantucket Sound project, not because I oppose renewable energy, but rather because I believe that we must have sensible policies in place before the Federal government starts issuing permits for such large projects.

There is currently no Federal policy governing the development of off-shore renewable energy facilities. In fact this very issue is another controversial part of the pending energy bill. The Administration would like to give the Mineral Management Service full discretion over all energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf while conservationists and others support my legislation to promote off-shore renewables with strict safeguards for the marine environment and public safety. Although the debate over the process and lead agency has yet to be resolved, the Nantucket Sound project is till moving ahead.

The proposed project is undergoing environmental review by a variety of Federal agencies but without Congressional authorization and without a coherent process to protect marine resources. A private developer is taking advantage of the lack of Federal authority and seeking to use public resources without any guaranteed benefit to the public. Given this lack of Federal policy, consistency becomes all the more critical as it is the only way states can have a voice in decision making.

Under current law, states do have a voice. The Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that states can review projects which impact their coastal waters and appeal a project that is inconsistent with its overall interests. Currently there is no limit on the time the Secretary of Commerce can use to develop the record to make a decision in an appeals case. The oil and gas industry complains that this leads to unnecessary delay and increased projects costs. Industry proponents are using the energy bill conference to insert a provision that closes the record in 120 days and provides no grounds for any extensions.

This measure is a direct attack on consistency. And as the Nantucket project illustrates, consistency may be the only way local interests are protected. For this reason, I hope you join me today in affirming the right of states to determine their future and support the Capps/ Miller motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary here tonight speaking on an issue that has clearly captured the attention of the

American people. I applaud him for his efforts.

I think it is very important, and I did not have an opportunity to see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) make a presentation, but there have been stories in the media that have indicated that some are suggesting that there be a revival of the so-called independent counsel statute and, I dare say, that is not the case. I think it is very important to make that distinction.

What we are seeking here is not a revival of that particular statute, which I think many of us have concluded, both Republican and Democrat, that it led to serious abuses. For example, millions and millions of dollars were spent on one particular investigation involving the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Cisneros, a leader in the Hispanic community in Texas and nationally, which involved the issue of whether he lied to an FBI agent about how much money he contributed to a female friend of his. I dare say that bill, as I remember it, the bill to the American taxpayer, was in excess of $17 million. But that clearly was abusive. And that is why, under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the then- chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), supported by the current chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the so-called independent counsel statute was allowed to lapse. And I do not think there is a Member in this House that wants to see it return because of its potential for abuse.

But there is an option that is available, and that is the appointment of a special counsel by the Attorney General, in this case John Ashcroft, who would retain some supervisory powers, but would not be involved in the daily exercise of his prosecutorial authority. Because it would then, I dare say, lend credence to the independence of any decision and any conclusion that might be made by a prosecutor, the so- called special counsel.

Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing now for, I think it is better than 3 months, in this whole issue of Iraq, the intelligence, the questionable intelligence that was relied on by so many of our colleagues to support the resolution to go to war, much of that intelligence has been reviewed and has been found to be unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, misleading and, in some cases, outright false, as well as the cost of our intervention into Iraq, and now, the overwhelming bills that the American taxpayers are faced with.

So we have been talking about having an independent commission. Let us depoliticize it. Let us take it out of the realm of politics. Let us not make this a Republican versus Democratic issue to determine what went wrong with our intelligence and were the American people misled, and were Members of Congress misled. Our own colleagues, the highly regarded chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), along with the senior Democrat on that committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), in a letter indicated that there were serious problems, that the intelligence was flawed.

I know what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is doing when he puts forth the concept of a special counsel; it is to take the politics out of it. We are not in a contest with Republicans or the White House. What we are trying to do is determine what the truth is and then present it to the American people in a way that they can have confidence in the integrity of that effort. We are not suggesting that the Department of Justice is unable to do it, but what we are suggesting is that there is an issue of perception here, and that the American people want to have independence when it comes to an issue that is so vital to our national security.

Mr. Speaker, the President's father himself, upon the enactment of the statute, the applicable statute suggested that anyone who revealed the names of a CIA operative or an intelligence officer of this country was a traitor. What we are talking about here is treason. We have got to get politics out of it. This cannot be a political issue. It has to be an issue of national security. The investigation has to be done by someone who is independent of the Department of Justice, although supported by the Department of Justice and, where needed, rely on the Department of Justice for resources. But it has to be someone whose integrity and independence is not in question.

That is why I applaud my friend and colleague, the senior Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I see we have been joined here by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I am confused. I thought Mr. Bremer was the Pro-Consul. And today you are absolutely correct, we read in the newspaper that it would appear that Condoleezza Rice has taken over that particular role. I think what I see is a lack of coherent governance in a well-thought- out plan.

Now, again, to indicate to those that are watching here tonight, this is not a partisan attack, this is not a Democrat criticizing a Republican administration. Because my opinion, and the opinion that has been articulated by the gentlemen here that have already spoken, is reflected by comments that come from highly respected Republicans. Senator Lugar, who chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, actually wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post that said exactly what we are saying. The postwar reconstruction phase represented an abysmal failure of planning.

Turn on the Sunday news shows, listen to another eminent Republican Senator, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, he talks again about the poor planning by the administration, and also says it like it is, that this Congress was considered to be a nuisance. That is his language about the administration when it came to the issue of Iraq.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, well, I will defer to the Chair, but in another context I might take issue whether I actually characterized it in such a manner.

Can I disagree with my friend, the gentleman from Oregon for just a minute. I do not know if you saw the nightly news, but there was, I think, an NBC piece that indicated that today, not in the future, there is a record number of mortgage foreclosures on homes here in America.

I heard the number, 435,000 Americans that are in the process of losing their homes. The American dream today is becoming a nightmare. You know it better than anybody, possibly, in this entire body. We have had record job losses, we have burgeoning deficits. And for the first time in our history in the entire span of American history, for 2 consecutive years the median income, the median income of American households has gone down, 2 years in a row.

Of course, poverty is increasing at the same time the number of millionaires is increasing.

I appreciate the anger of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) because he made a statement about who is profiting from what is going on in terms of the so-called ``reconstruction phase'' in Iraq today.

While we know there will not be American workers building the bridges, constructing the hospitals, rehabilitating schools, and building affordable housing, those will not be American workers. But as the gentleman indicated, there is a story in the New York Times, dated September 30, that says that a Washington insider's new firm consults on contracts in Iraq. A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family, and his administration, have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. The firm, New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000, and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March.

That is on top of the $300 billion that is already been spent. We are looking at a billion dollars for, as the gentleman says, a search for ghosts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. I think the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) made an observation relevant to the Turkish Parliament supporting sending troops now to Iraq. But the other half of that story is that the United States Government just issued a loan guarantee to Turkey in the amount of $8.5 billion.

No, that is not connected and pigs fly.

The point is, when you talk about a coalition of the willing, I cannot think of such a misnomer as the coalition of the willing.

They are willing to take the money.

But let us go back to the Gulf War that was managed by this President's father. There were 160,000 nonAmerican troops that were involved in that effort. That was a true coalition of the willing in the face of naked aggression by Saddam Hussein.

I am not suggesting that that was bribe free, but in the end, the net cost to the American taxpayers was some $7 billion.

Now, we have already, if this war supplemental is approved, we are in this adventure in the amount of $166 billion and well on our way, well on our way to hundreds of billions of dollars more, and we still do not know how we get out of it.

Let me just conclude by saying this. I hear about how things are going so well. We heard, of course, on the floor during the debate on the war resolution how we would be welcomed as liberators. Well, the truth is the Iraqi people want us out. They do not want us there. Even our own appointed 25-member Iraqi Governing Council have suggested that we accelerate this program because they can do it much cheaper. And I will allude to that at the end if I have any time left, but let me read what I think are some fascinating polling results that were conducted by Gallup and Zogby, two well-respected American polling firms.

This is what was produced by the Gallup poll: Countrywide, only 33 percent of the Iraqi people thought they were better off then they were before the invasion, 33 percent, and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Bagdad was a more dangerous place for them to live. The poll also found, and I would ask my colleagues and those that are watching to listen carefully to these statistics. The poll also found that 29 percent of Bagdad residents had a favorable view of the United States while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, and this pains me to say this, by comparison 55 percent had a favorable view of France. Those same Baghdad residents had a negative view of President Bush, 50 percent, while 29 percent had a favorable view of him. In contrast, the French President, Jacques Cirac, a 42 percent favorable rating.

Now, this should be telling us something. This should be telling us that the postwar reconstruction phase was poorly planned. We are not getting the message across. We have appointed a governing council that is suggesting that for every billion dollars of a taxpayer's money that we spend, and this, again, are their figures, they can accomplish the same exact project for $100 million. In other words, we are paying ten times, our taxpayers are paying ten times, while job losses mount and our infrastructure crumbles.

Mr. Speaker, if I can just respond because I think that the gentlewoman from Texas' (Ms. Jackson-Lee) observation and suggestion is a very valid one, but let me submit this.

What I found particularly unsettling when the discussion of the donors' conference in Madrid was being reviewed by various pundits was that it was written that the European Union's contribution and the figures now are projecting a $100 billion long-term effort, that the European Union's contribution this year was going to be $230 million.

M, not billion. We are talking billions on the American taxpayers. Let us be honest. We are in this alone. We are doing it alone. Nobody is helping us.

Nobody is helping us. American taxpayers, American military, American veterans, American education, American health, we are making sacrifices and we are doing it alone, without anybody, because of poor planning and going into a war under false pretenses.